It's 'Gang Up on Franklin Graham' Time Again: Pentagon Sticking to Its Guns....

AgapePress ^ | April 16, 2003 | Fred Jackson and Jody Brown

[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."

[mikeIII]

Therefore..... Graham is justified in calling Islam evil!

[RAT Patrol]

Your last comment is so far off mark, it is not even a good guess. Deal with the issues and stop trying to analysis the source of the comment. Fair enough. I apologize. It just appeared to me that you were defending the religious freedom of Muslims but not Christians and that's why I said what I said.

Graham had a right to do what he did and the employees have a right to ask their employer to not have this insulting person speak at their work site. Seems simple to me. No one has been banished. You overstate the action of not having him there. They have a right to ask but not to receive. And you are wrong about my overstating the action of not having him there.

[breakem]

The point you are missing is that the actions of extremists do not describe all of a religion. I suppose the christians in the US who have killed their children because God told them too makes all Christianity evil, if I apply your logic.

[k2blader]

But in gov't, we can only judge both on their actions, not their thoughts. That is what religious freedom is all about.

Agreed.

What I have found interesting on these threads is that the anti-Graham folks have stated what Rev. Graham *said* is reason for him to be censored. But I think the true source of their ire is what Rev. Graham *thinks*.

[RAT Patrol]

Unless you believe the gov't should get to play thought police in our lives it certainly does matter the locale of the comment. If Graham's expression of his religious beliefs disqualifies him to speak at a gov't event, we do not believe in religious freedom in this country at all.

[Remedy]

I know what they believe and I defend their right to believe it if they can do so without criminal activity.

QUESTION: Remedy, tell me how many religions in the world you do agree with?

ANSWER: You and I share the same basic religious beliefs, but the salvation we know is a free gift that we could take or leave. If it is not freely chosen it is meaningless. Christianity is perfectly compatable with religious freedom.

The concept of religious freedom does not allow us to pick and choose a persons beliefs no matter how crazy they seem to us.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." I have yet to read where anyone is advocating Congress to legislate against ISLAM. Again, it's the ISLAMIC countries that play thought and religion police against Christians.

[RAT Patrol]

What I have found interesting on these threads is that the anti-Graham folks have stated what Rev. Graham *said* is reason for him to be censored. But I think the true source of their ire is what Rev. Graham *thinks*. Exactly.

[breakem]

Not having Graham there does not "banish: him. He has no right to preach at the Pentagon.

Of course they don't have a right to receive, but if the government honors the beliefs of there employees people like Graham who insult them will not speak at the work site.

[breakem]

Since Graham obviously said what he thinks what's the point of making the distinction.

Graham has not been censored. He can spout his ignorance elsewhere.

[RAT Patrol]

I have yet to read where anyone is advocating Congress to legislate against ISLAM. I've seen people come pretty close to that here on FR. That's why I started this conversation to begin with. I think we, Christians in particular, need to be careful to defend religious freedom for all. If we harm religious freedom even with good intentions, we will harm ourselves in the end.

Again, this is not a comment about Graham; it is a comment about some free republic threads I've been reading.

[xm177e2]

If you're going to classify an entire religion as evil, you don't belong at government-sponsored events. If Clinton had brought Farrakhan in to speak at something, we would (rightly) be raising hell. Now we're supposed to cheer for a bigot like Franklin Graham... because he's our bigot. That's not good enough.

[RAT Patrol]

We are not so far off overall, so maybe we should just agree to disagree on Graham. I see banning Graham as a violation of his religious freedom, so I am not flexible on that.

[breakem]

He can say whatever he wants. He doesn't have a right to speak at government events. No one does. There are agendas and invited speakers. No one has a right to be invited.

Your point about where he said it is insignificant. The point is these employees heard about it and asked their employer not to have the guy speak. If christians had done this you'd be leading the charge.

[Remedy]

I've seen people come pretty close to that here on FR. That's why I started this conversation to begin with.

Well, that's good enough for me. I don't need any links/quotes unless you happen to have them at hand. I understand and agree with your concern.

[breakem]

re 72. Please cite to me where or how religious freedom gives him the right to preach at a givernmental employee event. No one has a right to be heard.

[xm177e2]

What I have found interesting on these threads is that the anti-Graham folks have stated what Rev. Graham *said* is reason for him to be censored. But I think the true source of their ire is what Rev. Graham *thinks*.

What exactly do you mean by that? That's crazy talk.

Graham thinks a lot like President Bush--he's a conservative Christian. What he thinks about Islam is probably different than what Bush thinks, and what he says about it is unacceptable for a public figure representing our government in any capacity. He isn't being brought to the Pentagon to share his tactical genius or give a presentation about a new weapons system, he's there to share his opinion, and it's an odious opinion.

My question is, how can Bush and Rumsfeld be so STUPID as to allow this to happen? This is INCREDIBLY STUPID. Muslims the world over are going to see Franklin Graham, avowed and unapologetic Islam-hater, invited to the PENTAGON to talk with our top guys. Muslims around the world are going to say this is proof there is a crusade against Islam. This is STUPID, SHAME on whoever planned this and SHAME on whoever isn't taking action to stop it.

[RAT Patrol]

If all it takes to define a person as a "bigot" is that he expresses the conviction that his own beliefs are right and contrary beliefs are wrong, then every human that ever lived with a functioning brain is a bigot.

[xm177e2]

I see banning Graham as a violation of his religious freedom

That's ridiculous. If the Pentagon won't have Louis Farrakhan come in to talk to them, are they violating him? How about that guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart? Is his religious freedom being violated because he can't speak at the Pentagon? The government shouldn't have ANY religious services, PERIOD.

[xm177e2]

No, I'm calling him a bigot because he lumps all kinds of Islam into a single group, without making distinctions between them. That's crap.

[k2blader]

If all it takes to define a person as a "bigot" is that he expresses the conviction that his own beliefs are right and contrary beliefs are wrong, then every human that ever lived with a functioning brain is a bigot.

Exactly!

This throwing around of the word "bigot" reminds me of tactics of the left.