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."
If you have anything to say, write it yourself in your own words.
Unless you're a 'bot incapable of writing a simple 3-paragragh essay.
Please cite to me where or how religious freedom gives him the right to preach at a givernmental employee event.
He has no "right" to be invited. But once invited, it would be a violation of his religious rights to be uninvited on the sole basis of his religious expressions (unless they were criminal).
I'm going to have to catch up with you later. Take care.
So you would advocate not having any type of Easter observance at all, since that might 'offend' someone. I would presume you'd also advocate doing away with the President's prayer breakfast, having a Congressional chaplain and all of that kind of thing. After all, it might offend someone.
So is that really what you are advocating?
If someone is offended by the normal celebration of Easter then I say pound sand. However, if it is by a government entity then I say why is the government supporting these particular religious beliefs.
And yes, I'm opposed to paying for Chaplains for the Congress. And I suppose you support it?
Calling Islam an evil religion isn't calling Muslims themselves evil so there is no lumping everyone together. The one thing common to most religions is the belief that others are wrong. Remove religion for a second and lets sub-out politics. I believe liberal politics are appalling and wrong. Liberals think I'm wrong. It's part of the definition of our different views. I can't be a conservative AND a liberal at the same time. I still recognize their right to exist, but I'm going to discredit their beliefs every chance I get. That doesn't make me a bigot. It just makes me a person with strong beliefs. And vice versa.
Crummy example but I'm in a hurry. Sorry.
I would agree that one cannot, on behalf of the government, make such comments. But since when does having a certain opinion disqualify someone from participating in a government-sponsored event? And where is that in the constitution?
I'm for keeping the tradition that has be in place for a very long time, yes.
No one is forcing them to attend a Good Friday Service.
If the Congress members who go home at night and on weekends can't find a place to worship, I don't want them spending my money so they can do it at work.
writing a simple 3-paragragh essay
I understand that you need simplicity and probably sympathy. You need small paragraphs for your A.D.D.
I meant exactly what I typed.
And "crazy talk"? I like how C. S. Lewis put it (my thanks to aruanan for the quote--it seems fitting here):
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either he was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."While we obviously disagree, I support your right to call whomever you wish "stupid" or "bigot." Thank God we still have the freedom to think and speak as we wish.
Unless we want to eliminate the right of gov't employees to freely express their religion (and Graham is not an employee, just an invited guest) and/or put restrictions on what they can say on their own time regarding religion, or outlaw religious criticism altogether, I don't see how it is fair to single out Graham for his beliefs and expressions by deeming him "unqualified" to lead a service for a Christian holiday just because he thinks Islam is wrong and Muslims are mad about it.
Religion, by its very nature, is not an "all of the above" practice (nor is any deeply held conviction on any issue). You can't claim freedom of religion exists while not allowing people to disbelieve other religions (and freely say so).
Let me point out that Bush also held a Ramadan service (I think it was) and Christians didn't get to pick the attendees.
Matt.10
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
O ye of little faith:
Matt.21
[21] Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
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.