Powell attacks Christian right

Guardian ^ | Friday November 15, 2002 | Oliver Burkeman

[nickcarraway]

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, condemned America's Christian right yesterday for propagating hatred against Muslims, in what appeared to be a coordinated White House campaign to confront anti-Islamic rhetoric from a constituency that includes some of the Bush administration's staunchest supporters. Days after the televangelist Pat Robertson said on his Christian Broadcasting Network that "what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse" than the Holocaust, Mr Powell told a gathering in Washington: "This kind of hatred must be rejected."

The escalation in anti-Muslim comments from conservative Christians includes a recent claim by Jerry Falwell, the country's leading rightwing Baptist, that the prophet Mohammed was "a terrorist".

Veteran evangelist Jimmy Swaggart followed that this week by calling Mohammed a "sex deviant" and a pervert and demanding that Muslim students in the US be expelled. "We ought to tell every other Muslim living in this nation that if you say one word, you're gone," he said.

As the likelihood grows of a war in Iraq there are strategic benefits for the White House in convincing Muslims that it would not be a war against their religion.

The administration's increased willingness to confront the Christian right reflects the Republicans' sweeping victories in last week's mid-term elections, reducing Mr Bush's reliance on the extreme fringes of his supporter base.

[Iowegian]

I needed that because I thought I was totally out of touch!

Maybe, which is more important to you, multiculturalism and phoney "tolerance" or the truth?

[Jorge]

Jorge"Unless of course you think this was an expression of their love for homos, pagans and feminists."

I admire your logic. If you don't love someone, you hate them.

That of course is not what I said.

I said that blaming "homos, pagans and feminists" as being ultimately responsible for the terrorist attacks and thus the deaths of 3,000 of Americans is a hateful thing to say.

There were also enviro-nuts who claimed the attacks were God's punishment for Americans being SUV drivers and such big polluters of the earth.
You don't think this was a hateful thing to say?
What exactly do you call this kind of rhetoric?

[Iowegian]

I said that blaming "homos, pagans and feminists" as being ultimately responsible for the terrorist attacks and thus the deaths of 3,000 of Americans is a hateful thing to say.

That is not what Falwell said or meant, but how many took it - hearing what they wanted to hear.

[Jorge]

I guess it's all purely subjective. Some see Robertson & Falwell as being "hateful" & some do not.

I don't see this so much as judging them personally... as it is taking their statements at face value.

Whether or not they accurately reflect what is in their hearts is between them and God. But there is nothing unusual or irrational about people seeing these sorts of statements as hateful toward others.

How about if somebody in your family was murdered and I came to the funeral and told you that God allowed them to be killed due to some sin you committed?
That's not a hateful thing to say?
I think it is.

[clintonh8r]

In the current circumstances, tolerance is for losers. I expect some posters here will be singing Kumbayah through the gurgling of their slashed throats....

[Jorge]

Jorge"I said that blaming "homos, pagans and feminists" as being ultimately responsible for the terrorist attacks and thus the deaths of 3,000 of Americans is a hateful thing to say."

That is not what Falwell said or meant, but how many took it - hearing what they wanted to hear.

Nonsense. Here is the quote;

Falwell;

"The pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America," Falwell continued, "I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

"Well, I totally concur," responded Robertson.

[Sunday September 16 03:13 PM EDT
Falwell Suggests Gays to Blame for Attacks By Marc Ambinder ABCNEWS.com ]

________________ Falwell later apologized for these remarks.

[mdmathis6]

but were they Moslem...these Lebanese? Or were they Marionite Christian in their back-ground? You also have to distinguish between Lebanese people as opposed to other people groups who were Moslem...Lebanese have had a high degree of adaptability and hospitality is a trait they are well known for. I have found that many Lebanese that I have met in this country were Marionite Christians, quite brilliant and productive ones who've emigrated because of persecution and repression...especially Lebanese women....perpetrated on them by radical Moslems in their home countries. Lebanese people are descended from the ancient Phoenicians, they don't necessarily consider themselves Arabs...and not all are Moslem!

[mdmathis6]

Thank-you for your reply...let the tolerant ones gurgle bloodily...I plan to keep the enemy within firing range...heaven forbid should that time ever come!

[Dataman]

There were also enviro-nuts who claimed the attacks were God's punishment for Americans being SUV drivers and such big polluters of the earth. You don't think this was a hateful thing to say? What exactly do you call this kind of rhetoric?

There is absolutely no way you can project hate into such statements. You cannot accurately make such a judgement based only a paraphrase. Hate is a charged word freely used by the left to villify their opponents. It appears that you are doing the same thing because you disagree with Robertson and Falwell.

[Cvengr]

It's difficult for me to draw a reasoned conclusion from the article. The quotes attributed to Powell were so far removed from context that the issue might be more contrived by the Guardian than the Administration.

Any system of government seeking to counterfeit God's will by placing man before God is doomed to failure. If policy makers and the press had more insight regarding good and evil, as well as faith, then any comment implying Islam as simply a comparative religion would be squelched.

Conversely, any comment making Islam a comparative religion, tips the hand of the speaker that they aren't on a righteous track regardless of who they support. Accordingly, there may be multiple liabilities involved.

The real extreme right are those who pretend that Islam is simply a comparative religion. They acquiesce to false gods in order to achieve their ends just as the extreme left appeals to selfish agendas at the expense of others.

[Cvengr]

Throughout history and Scripture, God frequently allows evil to conquer evil. Repeatedly, God will provide grace to the repentant and shine the opportunity for a relationship with Him on all, but historically, man, both individually and in groups has fallen to reject Him. Not all men, but many have fallen.

Consider Sodom and Gomorah, wherein Lot bartered for the sake of 50 men, then 5 men concerning the condemnation of the city. Beware, for He not only judges individually, but also consequence may befall groups who fail to follow Him.

I agree with the comments made and/or implied that perhaps the WTC attack may have been allowed in part because of past and current heinous activity in America. Evil is frequently allowed to conquer evil. This doesn't mean one evil is implicitly less evil.

God created the institution of nationality witht the tower of Babel. There is nothing wrong in defending ourselves as a nation. Accordingly when the US is attacked as in the WTC, of course we are to defend ourselves. This doesn't mean we only defend ourselves independent of God. If we did so, we would simply be as evil as those who attacked us.

[ejdrapes]

Well I guess that's it then...if ALL Muslins hate Americans and support terrorism against us, then we have no choice but to exterminate them all if we are to survive. Why is Bush wasting his time with silly things like homeland defense when he should be focusing his attention on ridding the world of all Muslims.

[ejdrapes]

So you're saying that the conservative base will not vote for Bush (or not vote at all) if Powell is not gone before '04? Somehow I doubt it. We certainly didn't see that during the mid-terms.

[Cvengr]

I agree with your assessment.

Here's my take on the situation.

The Administration is falling onto a trap by considering Muslim nations as a particular power group which they don't want to be drug into a conflict. Accordingly, they take measures to then discern the Islamic faith as not being the enemy.

This tactic tips our hand in a form of evil.

In many ways today's laid-back Westerner, has lived in a secure culture based considerably upon the blessings of a matured societal compliance and worship of God over many generations. Likewise, many Muslims aren't as rigorous in faith, but have been raised in an Islamic culture (just as many Westerners from Judeo-Christian culture who claim luke-warm Christianity as a religion rather than as a faith). From their cultural perspective, especially where they have not been the world leader or superpower, an antagonism for this same type of laid-back perspective naturally arises. It's akin to jealousy and envy with respect to power.

For those who have power in the West, risk to their secure society seems to emanate more from extremists than from moderates.

For those who have power from Islamic nations, but are constrained compared to the superpowers, the risk seems to be artificially imposed by laise-faire Westerners. Specific examples abound regarding blatent sins and vice in the West.

Now consider the fundamental difference in the cultures with respect to righteousness. Judeo-Christianity respects God as the source of righteousness and understands a relationship with God is only possible on His terms. Islam acknowledges God and studies righteousness, but doesn't focus on that righteousness only emanating from God on His terms.

When confronted with unrighteousness and evil, Islam will tend to be be very accusatorial, vindictive, judgmental and will be naturally tempted to take action into the hands of man. The same is not true of Christianity. On lessor issues, those of criminality, Christianity recognizes a role for man to take action, and this is frequently confused with vengeance. Likewise, there are those in the west, sympathetic to Judeo-Christian culture who will fall to temptation to be just as vindictive, judgmental and accusatorial as other religions (false worship) who will then appear to simply be comparative religions. But the real issue is to remain obedient to God's will.

The conflict will tend to arise where an evil Islam comes into conflict with an evil 'do-gooder' Western lukewarm Judeo-Christian culture. I suspect that comments such as those by Powell probably do just as much to inflame anti-American sentiment amongst potential enemies as active measures against them.

For too long, American leadership has failed to follow God and inherantly promoted evil. Those who are evil, when opposed by such policy, don't naturally accept opposing evil, but are prone to focus on the evil of others as their target of opposition.

There's only one proper way out of this mess. That's simply by following God. The best way to do that is on His terms, not on ours.

[Iowegian]

Now show me in that quote where he states (as you asserted) that the Islamic terrorists who flew the planes - were not ultimately responsible. You can't do it, because that isn't what he meant. One more thing, what was your opinion of Falwell before his 9/11 statements? Good, bad or ugly?

[RJCogburn]

You can't do it, because that isn't what he meant

Oh. okay. Emily Litella....'never mind'. Flip Wilson.....'the devil made me do it.' Falwell.....'ooops'

[Jorge]

Now show me in that quote where he states (as you asserted) that the Islamic terrorists who flew the planes - were not ultimately responsible. You can't do it, because that isn't what he meant.

Please. Everybody knows that the terrorists, not homos, pagans and feminists actually flew the planes into the buildings.
And Falwell did clarify that the terrorists were the ones he held ultimately responsible, AFTER he apologized for blaming homos, pagans and and feminists.

One more thing, what was your opinion of Falwell before his 9/11 statements? Good, bad or ugly?

Personally I find him a likable person in general and also agree with much of what he says.
But I also am aware that he tends to make outrageous and offensive statements that he later apologizes and even tries to make up for.

[Jorge]

I agree with the comments made and/or implied that perhaps the WTC attack may have been allowed in part because of past and current heinous activity in America.

Saying it "may have been allowed in part" because of these things is a lot different than claiming a horrible crime is actually Gop judging America for what are your personal pet-peeves. Like homosexuality, feminism, polluting the earth, etc.
That is what these people did. They claimed to not only know this was God's judgement, they claimed to have devine knowledge of the sin God was avenging. Which just happened to be those committed by the people they didn't like.

In any case, if terrorism is indeed God's judgement upon America, then we should not fight against it, because we would be fighting against God and His judgement.

[Iowegian]

It would seem that you are just another critic of the religious right, who try to have it both ways. First you (plural) assail them for not blaming the Islamists for 9/11, then you criticize them for negative statements about Islam. Anything to bash these so called "religious leaders". There is no pleasing the critics.

[Iowegian]

Ok smart-a**, you show us a quote where Falwell says the terrorists were not ultimately responsible. I dare you.