Posted on 05/17/2003 8:08:53 PM PDT by knak
WASHINGTON (IslamOnline.net) – A host of leading Muslim organizations in the U.S. are orchestrating a campaign to replace the "Judeo-Christian" phrase in describing the values and character that define the U.S. with a one that would not exclude its more than 8 million Muslim population, reported the Newhouse News Service.
The change campaigners, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, American Muslim Alliance, the Muslim American Society and the American Muslim Council, stress it is high time for Americans to stop using the outdated phrase and replace it with "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" or "Abrahamic," in reference to Abraham (Ibrahim), the patriarch held in common by the three monotheistic religions.
Dr. Agha K. Saeed, founder and chairman of the American Muslim Alliance, a Fremont-based political group, underlined that "the new language should be used in all venues where we normally talk about Judeo-Christian values, starting with the media, academia, statements by politicians and comments made in churches, synagogues and other places."
U.S. President George W. Bush is always quick to add "mosques," when he mentions "churches and synagogues."
"These are not just let's-make-you-feel-good words," he said, asserting that "these are words that define how we're related to each other."
Dr. Zahid Bukhari, vice president of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), says that an inclusive change of language could alter the perception that the U.S. as a Christian country is hell-bent on dominating Muslims in a modern-day crusade.
Sharifa Alkhateeb, president of the Washington-based Muslim Education Council, is quick to assert, "What we call Western culture is in fact based on Muslim Middle East culture, but the average American doesn't know that."
"We believe in heaven and hell, in doing good deeds, in following the Ten Commandments," asserts Hannah Hawk, a spokesperson for the Houston Muslim Public Affairs Council.
"Islamic values are not only compatible with American values, they're almost identical. I personally believe the most Islamic country in the world is America, where we believe in freedom of religion, freedom of the press and equality of all."
Pros & Cons
The call for new terms, which shows that words carry huge symbolic importance for Muslims trying to find their role in America after Sept. 11 and the Iraq war, has its proponents and opponents.
The campaign is significantly backed by non-Muslim organizations, including the head of the National Council of Churches.
Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the council, which represents 36 Christian denominations, said he prefers "Abrahamic" to "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" because it "rolls off the tongue a little easier."
"The more inclusive we can be, the more committed we are to the founding fathers and mothers who struggled with the issue of respect for each other's religious faiths," he asserted.
The Right wing Christians are, however, opposed to this change and claim that to alter the phrase "Judeo-Christian" is political correctness and revisionist history at its worst.
"A lot of the ideas that underpin civil liberties come from Judeo-Christian theology," said Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.
"What the Islamic community needs to make are positive contributions to culture and society so we can include them," he argued, turning a blind eye to the increasingly important role that Muslims are playing in the American society.
Another opinion based on ill-informed view of Islam comes from Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, who alleges that a "Judeo-Christian understanding of things like freedom of conscience and liberty" are embodied in the American Constitution.
He claimed that "Muslims weren’t part of that, even though they’re part pf the discussion now, " forgetting they have been in the U.S. for over 200 years.
Their propoganda seems very similar and as unbelievable as the old Soviets was.
They were quite cheefully giving the Reno roast to each other, all in the name of the same loving and merciful God.
I call them "Christians" because they weren't living in imitation of Christ. They're the sort who will loudly say "Lord! Lord!" at the Final Judgement, and Jesus will be saying "I never knew you, depart from me."
One more time:
If President Hillary Clinton announced that there was an "emergency" that required all "right-wing Christian extremist" citzens to be deported against their will, would you simply obey the expulsion order?
Yes or no. It's not a difficult question to answer.
One more time: If President George W. Bush announced that there was an "emergency" that required all "terrorist supporting extremist" citzens to have their citizenship revoked be deported against their will, would you assist in the muslim insurrection against your own nation?
You say no man provokes you with impunity, but you rank yourself in a group who proudly bear the label: appeaseable.
I not big on appeasement myself, foreign or domestic.
Oh yeah, that's right "internment" of citizens is okay and justifies war on America, but not deportation.
You're really a piece of work. Muslims wouldn't fight us if we deported them, they'd laugh their asses off as they walked right back over our open border. You and your Jihadist buddies would even issue them visas, so they can stick it to those you don't count as worthy of life and salvation.
Funny how you never speak up to defend the rights of Christians.
Whatever made you think that being appeaseable was something to be proud of?
This was my post to Pooh, NOT directed to you.
This has become the new mantra of the malcontents/unappeasables/Muslim haters.
I notice you recognized yourself in 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.