Posted on 04/16/2003 11:19:30 AM PDT by Remedy
U.S. military officials are refusing to give in to demands from some Muslims who say Franklin Graham shouldn't be allowed to speak at a Pentagon Good Friday service.
The Washington Times reports three Muslim employees at the Pentagon registered complaints when they learned that Graham was scheduled to speak there this Friday. Apparently they felt the well-known evangelist disqualified himself because he has stated publicly that Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion."
But Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Ryan Yantis says he is not aware of any plans to un-invite anyone. As he puts it: "One religion, regardless of the religion, does not have the veto right over another religion."
Yantis also notes that separate Muslim services are scheduled at the Pentagon the same day because Friday is the Islamic sabbath.
Graham's characterization of Islam being an "evil and wicked" religion came shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At the time, he noted that no Muslim clerics had gone to the World Trade Center to offer prayers or to apologize to the nation in the name of Islam. Anti-Graham Bandwagon
The Council on American Islamic Relations has also demanded that Graham's international relief organization, Samaritan's Purse, not be allowed to do charitable relief work in Iraq. That criticism comes despite the fact, as World magazine's Mindy Belz points out, that Graham's group has been reaching out to Muslims for years in countries such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Uzbekistan.
And Belz notes that some religion news outlets were among the first to suggest that Graham, because of his post-9/11 comments, is unfit to serve in Iraq. She says both Religion News Service and Beliefnet have questioned the evangelist's motives, the latter stating in a piece by its editor-in-chief and co-founder that President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell should step in and prevent Graham from doing charity work in that nation.
But a spokesman for the U.S. Agency for International Development, in response to questions from the press, stated: "What private charitable organizations choose to do without U.S. government funding is ultimately their decision." As Belz notes in her World column, that amounted to a quick lesson for reporters on First Amendment rights.
A spokesman for Samaritan's Purse tells World there is irony in the controversy. Ken Isaacs says the relief agency has "excellent solid relationships on the ground because we love people without condition, and they respect us for that. The platform of our witness is built on the quality of our work."
Any thoughtful person who knows history and religion would be anti-Islam. Along with Communism, Naziism, and the Black Death, Islam has been responsible for more death and destruction on the face of the planet than just about anything else since the last asteroid impact. Islam was started by predators. It has spread by predation. It has lived off the decaying corpses of the civilizations it has destroyed. It is a vast, ancient sea of corruption, oppression, fanaticism, and ignorance lapping up against the shores of the present, kept alive by the fortuitous accident of living above huge reserves of petroleum.
If you're truly interested in understanding that portion of Matthew, the following excerpt from Bible Gateway's commentary (with related references in parentheses) sums it up well:
Jesus Matters More Than Anything (10:34-39)The demands of the kingdom are so offensive to a world already convinced of its rightness that they provoke that world's hostility.
Opposition from Unconverted Family Members (10:34-37)
Although Jesus values families (5:27-32; 15:4-6; 19:4-9), the division his mission brings is particularly evident in families (compare 10:21; 1 Cor 7:16; of course more people prefer to quote Acts 16:31). Jesus' example demonstrates how this division is accomplished: although we are "harmless" (Mt 10:16; 12:19-20), God's agents proclaim the kingdom uncompromisingly and thus face hostility from others (13:57). Jesus' mission separates us from the values of our society, and society responds with persecution. Jesus selects these specific examples of in-laws (mother-in-law and daughter-in-law) because young couples generally lived with the man's family.
Jesus matters more than the approval or even the civility of our family (10:37). Many viewed honoring one's parents as the highest social obligation (Ep. Arist. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps-Phocyl. 8); for many, God alone was worthy of greater honor (Deut 13:6; 33:9; 2 Macc 7:22-23).
What did I say that wasn't correct?
I didn't say it was unconstitutional, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. It's stupid; it's incredibly bad policy. If Bush wants to declare war on Islam, then we should have a debate and we should declare war on Islam if the country agrees. But until we have that debate, it would be terribly wrong to bring in Franklin Graham to share his religious opinions--especially with our military!
But there is. Falwell Robertson Franklin Graham is saying that all of Islam is evil. Sunni Islam, Wahhabist Sunni Islam, Shi'ite Islam, Sufi Shi'ite Islam, etc. He is lumping all forms of Islam together and that is as stupid as it is offensive to non-ignorant people. All of Islam is not the same, any more than all Arabs are the same, or all black people. It's bigotry (mental laziness/prejudice that looks down on another group) to lump them all together. It's stupid; we're going to need Muslim allies to rebuild Iraq.
What do you think of the way Muslim women are treated? If you were asked in an interview what you think about the head coverings and all the rest, what would you say? If you thought it was wrong, how would that make Muslim women feel?
What do you think of Scientology? What do you think of the pro-life movement? What do you think of enviromentalism? What do you think of the peace movement? Etc...
Believing Islam is an evil religion is not calling Muslims evil. It is calling them deceived, misguided, or misled. By definition of being a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or anything OTHER than Muslim, you have to think Muslims are wrong.
Part of the definition of being a conservative is believing liberalism is bad and vice versa. It is a statement about a cause, not a group.
All the various forms or Islam you mentioned teach that Christians are wrong -- and probably evil. I couldn't care less. They couldn't be Muslim without thinking that. It is their right to both think it and say it. As a religious person myself, I think many religions are not only wrong, but evil. At the same time, I defend the right of any person to choose an evil (but not criminal) religion, and there are some pretty creepy religions out there. But fundamental to human existence is the right to seek and know God. Our founding fathers thought it pretty important anyway.
You are trying to have it both ways. One, everyone has freedom of religion. Two, no one can think or speak ill of other religions. With one comes the other. Graham was not trying to take the freedom of Muslims away. He was just sharing his own beliefs. You are condemning him for his beliefs.
Depending on how it's practiced, it can range from amoral to downright evil (most Christians have very little clue as to what Satanists actually believe). But we've had this debate in our country (well, before this country was founded) and we mostly agree that Satanism is evil. That is not a controversial thing to say. I am not questioning the morality of Franklin Graham's statement, I'm questioning it on the grounds of controversy, and the damage it will do to our foreign relations.
What do you think of the way Muslim women are treated?
I don't particularly like it, but a lot of Muslim women choose to wear headscarves. I see it all the time where I live.
What do you think of Scientology?
The philosophy taught in Scientology is stupid, but it's not evil. It's the way the Church is structured that is evil. If the Church sold E-meters and Books on scientology for $20 each and didn't try to make much of a profit off the religion, it would not be evil, just pretty damn stupid.
But it is not controversial to oppose Scientology. There are not 1 billion scientologists out there (the claims of the CoS notwithstanding) who could take offense at what someone says. It is a matter of foreign policy and diplomacy. It was good that Reagan said the Soviet Union was an "Evil Empire," but it is bad that Franklin Graham is attacking Islam.
All the various forms or Islam you mentioned teach that Christians are wrong -- and probably evil.
Moderate Muslims consider Christians to be "people of the book," to be respected and befriended.
You are trying to have it both ways. One, everyone has freedom of religion. Two, no one can think or speak ill of other religions. With one comes the other.
It's not a question of Graham's religious freedom, whether the government should choose him to share a controversial opinion at a government function. The government should not be choosing anyone to give a religious speech at the Pentagon, but it should especially not choose anyone who will make us look bad politically.
Graham was not trying to take the freedom of Muslims away. He was just sharing his own beliefs. You are condemning him for his beliefs.
I'm condemning him for what he said, not what he believes. I don't and can't know what he believes. He should not be saying those things, or anything else, at the Pentagon (because "Islam is an evil Religion" is now stuck to him until he apologizes, no matter what he says). It makes us look bad.
The event is a Christian holiday. Is he too Christian to speak at a Christian holiday event? If I remember correctly, Bush had a Ramadan celebration too. If anything, this is a positive statement about our government.
I'm condemning him for what he said, not what he believes. I don't and can't know what he believes. He should not be saying those things, or anything else, at the Pentagon (because "Islam is an evil Religion" is now stuck to him until he apologizes, no matter what he says). It makes us look bad.
I am not clear how you separate what he said from what he believes. He said what he believes. We do not regulate speech in this country, especially religious speech. He owes no apology for his beliefs any more than Muslims owe an apology for theirs.
Regarding moderate Muslims believing Christians are "people of the book," ask them what they think will happen to us in the afterlife.
Personally, I like Muslims. I like their stand on certain conservative social issues. If you ask me what I think of their religion, I will say something similar to what Graham said. If you ask me what I think of Mohammad, I would say something similar to what Vine (the Southern Baptist guy) said. Those are my beliefs, both religiously and historically. I am not impressed by Mohammad in the least. Sorry. But I 100% believe in the right of others to love the guy.
You are confusing his right to hold beliefs and his right not to be discriminated against. If you are looking for someone with an opinion, you are allowed to discriminate on the basis of their opinion. It is not a question of whether he should be allowed by law to speak at this event at the Pentagon, it is a question of whether it is wise to have him speak there.
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.