Jesus in Baghdad Why we should keep Franklin Graham out of Iraq.

With the exception of his unfortunate post-Sept. 11 call for a "crusade" against terrorism, President George Bush has fashioned his rhetoric about Islam carefully. The administration has scrupulously crafted numerous speeches that make clear that the United States is not making war on Islam, even as it hunts down Osama Bin Laden and invades Iraq.

I believe him: Ever since he was the governor of Texas in the mid-1990s, Bush has been friendly to Muslims and to Islam and has pointedly referred to "churches, synagogues, and mosques" in speeches. But I wouldn't believe Bush if I were a Muslim in the Middle East and saw his attitude toward Franklin Graham.

Franklin Graham is the son of Billy Graham and a far more influential figure in the evangelical Christian community than Jerry Falwell or even Pat Robertson. Graham is viewed as the torch-carrier for his father, who is still among the most beloved figures in American Christianity. Moreover, the Graham family is close to Bush. Billy Graham led Bush to Christianity in the 1980s; Franklin Graham delivered the invocation at his presidential inauguration.

In addition to being publicly allied with the Bush administration, Graham also happens to be stridently anti-Islam. His list of anti-Islam comments is long; his most succinct was that Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion."

Graham is also, he says, "poised and ready" to send representatives of the charity he runs to Iraq as soon as possible. His primary purpose is humanitarian aid—providing food and shelter—but he also admits, "I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son. … We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian, I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."

There are reasons to have great respect for Graham: He has used his considerable fund-raising prowess to build up a humanitarian organization, Samaritan's Purse, rather than a crystal cathedral or a Bible theme park. Samaritan's Purse has done extraordinary work in many of the most difficult and impoverished places in the world. It spends a more than $100 million a year on aiding the needy. (It should be noted that Muslim radicals have attacked hospitals and projects run by Samaritan's Purse, which may, in some small way, have incited Graham's anti-Islam rhetoric.)

But I'm not sure any of this means that America's foreign-policy objectives are served by having a Bush-loving, Islam-bashing, Muslim-converting Christian icon on the ground in Iraq tending to the bodies and souls of the grateful but deeply suspicious Muslim population. Or, to put it more simply, the idea is absolutely loopy.

The Bush administration has taken a highly principled position of removing itself from discussion of the matter: Ari Fleischer insists that the administration can't block a private group from doing its thing. Ellen Yount, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is coordinating the humanitarian efforts, elaborated: "What private charitable organizations choose to do without U.S. government funding is ultimately their decision. How could the U.S. government control that? We can't just say to an organization, 'You can or cannot do something,' if we don't fund them. Imagine what the United States Congress would say to us."

The idea that the U.S. government is powerless to do anything about Samaritan's Purse seems odd. We can obliterate another nation's army in a few weeks, but when it comes to reining in a disruptive charity, well, our hands our tied? Besides, given the Bush-Graham connection, reining in Franklin Graham need not even be an official government action. I'm pretty sure that if George Bush or Colin Powell called up Graham and asked him to stand down, he probably would, without a single regulatory shot fired.

In fact, religious liberty does not trump all concerns. Among the concerns it does not trump is the safety of our soldiers and the desire not to have the entire Muslim world wanting to wage war against America. And make no mistake: Franklin Graham's mission to Iraq will help convince the Arab world that America is out to convert Muslims to Christianity. What Graham is doing probably isn't illegal; it's merely immoral.

The administration's sudden fastidiousness about civil liberties has everything to do with who Franklin Graham is: not only a friend of Bush's, but, along with his supporters and the Southern Baptist Convention, arguably the largest and most loyal voting bloc in Bush's re-election strategy. And so Bush refuses to do unto Franklin Graham as was done unto Sister Souljah. This is cowardly. To be fair—or maybe to be generous—Bush may be leaving Graham alone because he thinks that Samaritan's Purse does good humanitarian work and that's what the Iraqis need most desperately. And I do believe that half of Graham's motivation is genuinely to help feed people—the other half being the desire to save the souls of some Muslims by helping them find Jesus before they die of thirst.

Sounds like a plan to me:

"Graham is also, he says, "poised and ready" to send representatives of the charity he runs to Iraq as soon as possible. His primary purpose is humanitarian aid—providing food and shelter—but he also admits, "I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son. … We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian, I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."

More sloop from another relative Christian hater.

I say, go for it! Even their muslim bretheran didn' tcare enough to help them and liberate them from saddam. No, it was a Judeo Christian nation that liberated them from this evil man. Yeah the "infidele" did this evil deed - liberated Iraq from pure evil.

Sounds like a plan to me:

"What Graham is doing probably isn't illegal; it's merely immoral.

To some the info. about eternal life is considered immoral. Especially amnogst the godless.

I was just reading an article from Slate.com. I was surprised that he quoted the trifecta of liberal screed using New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081459/

I won't disagree with you on what the Muslims will do, but I can hope that they'll at least try to be more even-handed in their government. We'll see. Personally, I have no problem with the Kurds having their own country.

And not all of them are savages, as evinced by those who helped the POWs. It won't be easy, that's for certain.

I must've done a terrible job explaining my position. I've read and re-read what I wrote and I can only come up with the omission of a word or three making you think I was agreeing with the author. I emphatically don't. I'll try again:

Funny how (Franklin Graham's) telling the truth becomes (Islam-)bashing. Let the Iraqis determine whether or not they'll accept the aid and the message. We, including the author, all know that the aid won't be withheld if the message is rejected. (Franklin Graham loves people and wants to help them. He knows that Christian testimony is alive in actions and has plenty of experience in various countries doing what God has called him to do. May God guide the organization's steps.)

I hope that clarifies my previous reply.

..."they are going to vote for sharia law"....

We have many laws that are similar to sharia, only we have more mercy. They are against thievery, murder, and such, they just follow thru with the "law". The Bible says an adulterer should be stoned. So many of our judges are guilty of the same crime, who would cast the first stone? We also have laws against the cruel and unusual, so cutting off hands and feet, or eye gouging are out.

One of the facinating things about this war is all the liars and thieves that are so fanatical about their religion, an infidel is not allowed in their mosque. After prayers on Friday, they steal a couch, rape a woman on it, and then lie when they got caught. This is definatly a "piece" of a religion.( Or was that a religion of peace?) They probably lie about that too.

But not now.

If not now, then when? Islam is a fragile desert flower, that can only survive behind a firewall. In a society that embraces freedom of religion and open discussion, Islam loses credibility. I like Ann Coulter's succinct recipe for peace: "Invade their countries. Kill their leaders. Convert their people to Christianity."

Religious freedom, hopefully, will come in time in the region ...

Not by itself and not on its own. Think of post-war Japan and the disestablishment of the formal emperor cult.

zarf - "Bible-thumpers"? I can't believe that I'm finding such anti-Christian sentiment on a conservative board. Do you think that this is a fair way to characterize Christians?

willyboyishere - "Christian evangelists to try to "convert" a population that is basically secular..."

Why do you put convert in qoutation marks? Do you think that genuine conversion is impossible?
Furthermore, if the population is basically secular, wouldn't that merely increase the need for conversion to a non-secular way of thinking?
Finally, I'm confused by what you mean by "secular" - are you actually saying that the Iraqi's are "basically atheists"? The stats don't seem to bare that out...

I really don't believe the Iraqis will object much to Graham's help even coupled with his evangelism. If there is an outcry, it will come from the Islamic fundamentalist states.

Anyway, I don't think a Christian could stand in front of Christ and say, "I didn't do anything in Iraq because I was afraid it would make Islamic fundamentalists mad".

I know to anyone who isn't a Christian, this argument doesn't mean much, but a true Christian MUST consider whether his decision could be defended to Jesus Christ and behave accordingly.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.