Phil Robertson bout ISIS : "Convert them or kill them"

The Terrible Theology Phil Robertson Would Use To Combat ISIS


Phil Robertson, the controversial star of the reality TV show Duck Dynasty, appeared on Sean Hannity’s show last night, where he used predictably terrible theology to argue that radical Muslim militants in Iraq should only be given two choices: convert to Christianity, or die.

Robertson was invited onto the show to promote his new book “unPHILtered: The Way I See It,” but Hannity immediately asked the duck call mogul how the United States should respond to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the radical Muslim group currently terrorizing Syria and Iraq and beheading western journalists. Robertson responded by opening his Bible, pulling out his Declaration of Independence bookmark, and citing verses such as 1 John 5, which he said divides the world into “two groups of people,” — the “children of God,” or Christians, and those under the power of the “evil one,” who he implied was both ISIS and possibly all Muslims. He also cited Proverbs 8:36, or “all who hate me, love death,” before boiling down his understanding of the ISIS situation into a single grim choice.

“I think you either have to convert them … or kill them. One or the other,” Robertson said.

Watch the FOX News video of the interview below:

Although many Christians — including Pope Francis — struggle with how to respond to ISIS, there is an especially dark irony to Robertson’s comments: he claims it as a Christian position, but the dualistic “convert or kill” ideology is also known to be the horrific calling card of ISIS. Multiple reports indicate that ISIS soldiers issue hard-lined ultimatums to the denizens of cities they conquer, demanding that they either convert to their radical interpretation of Islam, pay a tax, leave, or die. They are especially ruthless to religious minorities they encounter, such as the thousands of the Yazidis recently trapped on Mount Sinjar and Christians who are regularly abused at the hands of their soldiers.

And while Robertson went on to say that he would “rather have a Bible study” than kill ISIS troops, his warmongering theology is an example of what many refer to as “proof-texting,” or the rapid-fire listing of holy scriptures — out of context — to make a specific point, even if the original scriptures don’t actually support one’s position. Robertson’s citation of 1 John: 5, for instance, which he used to draw a distinction between the children of God and “evil one,” is odd choice to justify the killing of others. Most scholars agree that 1 John was written to address the possibility of schism between different kinds of Christians, not to delineate a difference between Christians and other religions, such as Islam (which didn’t exist at the time). Robertson apparently sees this verse as an excuse for violence, but theologians such as John Calvin have interpreted this and similar passages to mean that the world as an irreparably broken place that can only be overcome through God and an adherence to a love-based “new commandment” mentioned in 1 John 2: 9-10: “Whoever says, ‘I am the light,’ while hating a brother or sister, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves a brother or sister lives in the light, and in such a person there is no cause for stumbling.”

Also, proof-texting works both ways. Robertson’s violent theology requires that he ignore dozens of explicitly peace-focused verses, such as Luke 6:27, where Jesus declares, “But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,” during his sermon on the mount/plain. There is also Matthew 26:52, where Jesus demanded that one of his disciples sheathe his sword and refrain from violence, saying, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.” That verse, of course, echoes one of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, which reads, “You shall not kill.”

And despite Robertson’s claim to self-righteous violence as a member of the “children of God,” Christ had a slightly different definition in Matthew 5:9, where he declares to an assembled crowd, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

Later in the interview, Robertson claimed that he is “personally…prepared” for “a gun fight” with ISIS. Indeed, the United States is already engaged in an increasingly intense conflict with the Muslim group, and it remains to be seen whether the global community will endorse an increased military response. But if Robertson is looking for a fight, he’ll have a hard time finding it in Jesus’ biblical teachings.
http://thinkprogress.org/home/2014/09/03/3478282/duck-dynasty-bible-isis/

And the fact that S. Hannity do not argue with Robertson shows that he agrees with that

ISIS to Iraqi christians : "Covert [to Islam] or die !"
Fox News to ISIS : "Convert [to christianism] or die !"

Now, tell me how christianism is better than Islam ?
The other day, L. Ingraham told that Obama's true enemies were the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News", not ISIS. Maybe she wasn't that far from reality. Maybe P. Robertson and these people should be the true enemies. 'cause their ideology is not that far from ISIS's ideology (anti-science, anti-other religion, anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc...) but ISIS is far away while Limbaugh, Robertson, Fox and Ingraham actualy are in the US...
 
He did say "Convert them or kill them". That some goofy shit. I guess if we convert them we're allowed to negotiate with them. Like when they're terrorists in Iraq but cross the borders in Syria as Freedom Fighters. All that red line nonsense with Obama leading the way too.

Red-Line.jpg
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Fuck converting those savages, they should just flood that region with Raid for about a week straight.
 
There's no converting them. It's pretty much death and that's it. When you're all hopped up on goofballs like those guys are there's no reasoning with them. You extend them a hand in peace and they'll chop it off.
 
He did say "Convert them or kill them". That some goofy shit. I guess if we convert them we're allowed to negotiate with them. Like when they're terrorists in Iraq but cross the borders in Syria as Freedom Fighters. All that red line nonsense with Obama leading the way too.

Red-Line.jpg
that drawing isnt relevant anymore :
1) Ahmadinejab is the leader of Iran anymore
2) Since he fights ISIS in Syria, Bachar isn't considered by the US as an enemy. Some even say he is an ally...
 

Rattrap

Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
I think this is a great opportunity. Let's arm Phil Robertson and his followers and ship 'em over to fulfill his strategy.
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
That's why Hannity had him on his show. Because the star of Duck Dynasty can potentially shape the political views of America. Get your head out of your ass.
 
I wish leaders of the world would get their heads straight. Take the gloves off and use NBC weapons on them barbarians. Cut their money supply, kill their financiers.
 
that drawing isnt relevant anymore :
1) Ahmadinejab is the leader of Iran anymore
2) Since he fights ISIS in Syria, Bachar isn't considered by the US as an enemy. Some even say he is an ally...

I wasn't the one who drew the red line. I knew Assad was fighting terrorists too. It was Obama who drew the line. Your issue is with him. He is President. I would rather us help Assad against the terrorists than help the terrorists take out Assad. I've been consistent. Obama has not. Are you able and willing to hold him to account? Again, he is the President.
 
I wasn't the one who drew the red line. I knew Assad was fighting terrorists too. It was Obama who drew the line. Your issue is with him. He is President. I would rather us help Assad against the terrorists than help the terrorists take out Assad. I've been consistent. Obama has not. Are you able and willing to hold him to account? Again, he is the President.
Most of the Republicans pundits were pushing in favor of a US involvment in Syria to help the rebels. Now they are pushing in favor of the bombing of these same rebels. Some even push in favor of an alliance betwen the US and Syria's government. Obama may not have been consistent but the GOP and the conservatives pundits have ben even less consistent.
 
Most of the Republicans pundits were pushing in favor of a US involvment in Syria to help the rebels. Now they are pushing in favor of the bombing of these same rebels. Some even push in favor of an alliance betwen the US and Syria's government. Obama may not have been consistent but the GOP and the conservatives pundits have ben even less consistent.

Is your intent just to lie in wait and go after Conservatives or deal with real issues? Screw the talking heads. Deal with the Commander In Chief you're trying to avoid holding responsible. I wanted to strangle Obama when he ran his mouth about the red line.
 
Responsible of what ?
Considering how things are now in the countries in whih the US intervene (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia), one can understand Obama being reluctant about another intervention particulary in a region in which the US have lost nearly 8.000 boys since 2001 (2.300 in Afghanistan, 4.500 in Iraq) for almost nothing since the region is far from being stabilised and the terrorists are stronger than ever.

Maybe the best way to deal with these countries is to not intervene, let things happen, let (ISIS doesn't have weapons that could reach the US) and focus on intelligence in order to destroy terrorist threat before they can strike.
Just remember that if the Bush administration had taken the CIA warnings seriously, 9/11 may not have happened.
 
Responsible of what ?

Responsible for accurately identifying terrorists and not try to make them into Freedom Fighters that we should support. I knew there was a rat's nest full of Al-Qaeda and other jihadis there while Obama was giving sympathy speeches about good rebels. He wasn't reluctant in drawing that red line. He was trying to look tough in front of us.

George W Bush is not the President. I agree going into Iraq destabilized the region. Now what? It's 2014. Obama is President and the head of any snake you oppose.

If anything is done about IS a good coalition needs to be formed to share responsibility.
 
Can ISIS reach the US or France ? No. So I say "let's not mess with that, let's put our own houses in order. We have enough national situations to deal with not to deal with situations that aren't ours".
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Well technically, he's half right.
 
Can ISIS reach the US or France ? No. So I say "let's not mess with that, let's put our own houses in order. We have enough national situations to deal with not to deal with situations that aren't ours".

We consider that option too. I'm no more eager about the engagement than you are. I did mention if something is done responsibility will need to be shared. It takes time and I don't want America to rush in. IS is more a threat to the Israelis than either of our countries also.

If we can get away from the politics and politicians you and me have much room for agreement. We both see IS as a problem but not sure what to do. I imagine force isn't off the table as long as there is a diplomatic process to form a coalition with priorities and goals.
 
Most of the Republicans pundits were pushing in favor of a US involvment in Syria to help the rebels. Now they are pushing in favor of the bombing of these same rebels. Some even push in favor of an alliance betwen the US and Syria's government. Obama may not have been consistent but the GOP and the conservatives pundits have ben even less consistent.

That is not true. The Syrian rebels are multl-factional. Republicans and Democrats, particularly John McCain were advocating helping the Free Syrian Army rebels, a favorable rebel group that was generally a moderate force of dissenters and military deserters. Unfortunately the force was so broad and the leadership was so distant, based in Turkey, it was ineffective in securing an effective political opposition that it succumb to internal squabbles and became eclipse by the more fundamentalist rebel groups like Al-Nursa and ISIS. Those that sympathize with Assad add to ambiguity of the conflict by making no distinction between the ISIS rebels and Free Syrian Army rebels. It a information war tactic. A means of discrediting America ability of supporting opposition forces.
 
I think we can collaborate with Iran on dispelling this ISIS threat but I have no illusions, as long as Iran has an Ayatollah, its government will continue to rely on its Anti-Americanism and Anti-Israel as means of self-preservation of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. However, for now they will put that on the back burner for the more immediate threat we face. We can maintain short-term relationship with an rational enemy(Iran), but in the long term we might as well purchase their hegemony like we did when we decided to invade Iraq and toppled Saddam. As for Assad, We should distance ourselves with that regime and keep reaching out to remaining Free Syrian Rebels . Our collaboration with His benefactor, Iran should be the only contribution we make for the Assad Regime. We should just let Assad regime bleed more blood and treasure and let Russia throw more of money at him until that regime is spent.
 
I think we can collaborate with Iran on dispelling this ISIS threat but I have no illusions, as long as Iran has an Ayatollah, its government will continue to rely on its Anti-Americanism and Anti-Israel as means of self-preservation of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. However, for now they will put that on the back burner for the more immediate threat we face. We can maintain short-term relationship with an rational enemy(Iran), but in the long term we might as well purchase their hegemony like we did when we decided to invade Iraq and toppled Saddam. As for Assad, We should distance ourselves with that regime and keep reaching out to remaining Free Syrian Rebels . Our collaboration with His benefactor, Iran should be the only contribution we make for the Assad Regime. We should just let Assad regime bleed more blood and treasure and let Russia throw more of money at him until that regime is spent.

Seems like the Supreme Leader doesn't think that way
Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei Says Talks with the U.S. Are Futile
The Supreme Leader suggests the only thing worth talking to the Americans about is ending sanctions, and even then he doesn’t hold out much hope.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...menei-says-talks-with-the-u-s-are-futile.html
 
Top