Bush: ‘If it’s About Christianity vs. Islam, We’ll Lose’

Outside the Beltway ^ | 9/18/06 | James Joyner

[LibWhacker]

President Bush told a group of radio talk show hosts that the war on terror must be framed in terms of values, not religion.

Coulter found herself in the uncharacteristic position of being upstaged by her introducer, Mike Gallagher. He told the audience he was fresh back from an hour-and-45-minute session which President Bush held in the Oval Office Friday afternoon with him and four other conservative talk show hosts: Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t make it, he said.

Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bush’s observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”

“Remind me never to invite you to an off-the-record session,” Coulter said after his introduction.

Indeed.

Still, if Bush said what Gallagher said he did, he’s right. Islam is, of course, a big piece of the puzzle. But the battle over ideas has to be fought by finding common moral ground, not bashing Islam in general.

It’s no small irony that this was revealed while introducing, Ann “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” Coulter.

[girlangler]

Well said, piasa, and makes a lot of sense.

[VOA]

‘If it’s About Christianity vs. Islam, We’ll Lose’

I suspect there were some people inside the walls of Vienna onSept. 11, 1683
that were saying the same thing.
Just like today.

I'm not knocking Dubya.
Just commenting on the verbiage in isolation.

(And shame on Mike Gallagher for blabbing this. I wonder if Dubya said it,
knowing someone would blab. With a reverse-psychology tactic to
get The West to quit committing cultural suicide in regards to Islam.)

[D-fendr]

While Muslims can be political allies, were the Shiites allies against the Iran government (aren't they Shiite)?

I believe they are both Shiite. There is, of course, a constant battle between the Sunni majority and Shiites throughout Islam, but I am referring to Iranians who oppose their theocracy.

We can ally with Muslims of all stripes who share our values that the deliberate killing of innocents is wrong and that conversion by force is wrong. We cannon ally with Muslims against Islam.

thanks for your reply.

[Dazedcat]

"the war on terror must be framed in terms of values, not religion."

And "values" are based on what???


Thank you, we have a winner. It IS about religion, and it has been for quite some time.

I'd give a year off of my lifespan to get one president in my lifetime with stones. Wait, there was Reagan......ok, make that two presidents.

[montag813]

Bush is plain wrong, but I can't really blame him, having grown up at play with Wahabbi princes. He just can't see it. It will be left to future Presidents to mobilize what is left of the West to deal with Islam once and for all.

[montag813]

And "values" are based on what???

Yep. With every new pronouncement Bush sounds more and more liberal and secular. Very disappointing. What is even more depressing is the dearth of good men we have to replace him. Allen has been mortally wounded for '08 it seems. Giuliani is great on Islam but one wonders about his religious core. Romney perhaps?

[girlangler]

wrote: journqalist

And apparently not a very good one, sheeesh. This is what needing a nap will do to you.

[spatso]

The point that I was making in post#213 that apparently has caused your irritation is:

"Your questions are thoughtful. One of the spooky feelings I get in reading this thread is how strident the position of the religious right has become on the issue of holy war. As I was reading your post it struck me that Christian and Islamic fundamentalism may share a common understanding of the coming rapture of end time. My fear is these guys are planning to take the rest of us with them. Perhaps the problems of modernity are not limited to the Islamic world."

I acknowledge that I may have been too cavalier and trivialized the beliefs of others. That was disrespectful and if you were offended I apologize.

Perhaps Benedict XVI said more graciously the point I was trying to make, "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God." In this definition, it is my understanding that Benedict believes logos means scripture interpreted through the window of reason. Further, he states, "the positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly." And, in terms of science and faith, Benedict suggests (writing as Cardinal Ratzinger), "In the world of science, biological evolution is the key interpretive tool used in understanding the history of life on earth."

The point I made was inconsiderate and I used poor judgment in dealing with this matter in a flippant way.

[PetroniusMaximus]

I'm sorry for exacerbating the conversation also.

Hot topic + frayed nerves = misplaced hostility.

You have a good one!

[CobaltBlue]

The Caliphate, which united Shia and Sunni under one leader, only ended 80 years ago. You probably weren't alive then, I certainly wasn't, but I know people who were.

The victors in World War I, the British and the French, carved up the Caliphate into the nations we know today, which are all artificial constructs that bear only a vague resemblence to the provinces which formerly existed under that Caliphate.

Is nationalism stronger than the drive to unity among Muslims? I don't see much national identity, they seem unified along religious lines, not national boundaries.

They've thrown aside their differences in the past, what holds them back from doing so again?

[CobaltBlue]

At the same time, he is calling on Islam to temper the passion of faith with reason.

And what makes you think they will listen?

Surely the history of the past 1400 years should disabuse you of that hope.

[durasell]

Maybe its because Rush has already framed this as a religious war.



Rush isn't a politician. When all is said and done, he's just a guy on the radio.


If the President of the United States invited me to visit, I'd be there.

[ichabod1]

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small.

I thin I'll use that as my tagline for a while. It is a really good line. Maybe I'll put that paragraph on my home page.

[spatso]

"And what makes you think they will listen?

Surely the history of the past 1400 years should disabuse you of that hope."

Well, at the same time, Benedict XVI is saying the West may have gone too far if we cannot "overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable." And, in terms of listening, Benedict goes on to say that "the worlds profoundly religious cultures see the exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions." Perhaps an explanation why they (Islam) see us as a Godless society.

I believe Benedict is opening the door to the idea that because of the West's commitment to secularism and reason, we may be deaf and unable to hear or comprehend the deep religious commitment of deeply religious cultures (Islam). I think President Bush is driving towards the same point. When he says we will lose if it becomes a war between Christianity and Islam, I don't think he means we will lose the war of military force. I believe he means we will lose the war of faith informed by reason. If it becomes a war of Christianity vs Islam than faith and reason lose and evil triumphs.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Rush isn't a politician. When all is said and done, he's just a guy on the radio. If the President of the United States invited me to visit, I'd be there.

My first reaction was definitely: how could you turn down a direct invitation to sit down with the President of the United States? Rush is going to answer for that. However, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[RockinRight]

OK, OK...fine. You twisted my arm. I'll run.

;-)

[Moby Grape]

I've read the BOOK...Christians win in the end.

[Alia]

Well Put Post!! Kudos. I applaud and support your analysis.

[Irish Rose]

We are not at war with Islam. Islam is at war with us.

Islam was invented by Mohammed - a murderer, conqueror, and robber. Also, by the way, a pedophile. Next time you consider calling Islam peaceful, or noble, remember that its founder was a pedophile and murderer, and ask yourself what sort of religion a person like that would come up with.

Islam preaches the killing and subjugation of all "infidels". It's written in the Koran and borne out by history. Let's suppose that this help we're receiving from other Muslims isn't the kind that Osama bin Laden gave us against the Soviet Union. The actions of individual Muslims don't change the nature of Islam itself. Osama bin Laden and his ilk are true Muslims on yet another jihad against infidels. They are Mohammed's heirs.

We should understand all this. We should know our enemy. Denying that Islam is a religion that foments violence against non-believers does us no good. It's not honest and it's not wise. We're praising a religion that commands our own destruction. The whole of the war on terror springs from Islam, and we're calling it good and sanctioning it with our praise. This is political correctness at its most insane.

And no, I don't think we should conquer the Middle East or kill all Muslims. I think, though, that we should know the truth.

[ClancyJ]

Wrong or not - now is not the time to take on the muslim religion along with the war on the muslim terrorists. That would incite all muslims for their religion and create untold reaction.

We believe in religious freedom. Just maybe we don't know ALL about the beliefs of all of the muslims.

We have enough to do with just fighting muslim terrorists. Why give them a reason to recruit millions more against us?