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the Muslim American Society and the American Muslim Council, stress it is high time for Americans to stop using the outdated phrase and replace it with "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" or "Abrahamic," in reference to Abraham (Ibrahim), the patriarch held in common by the three monotheistic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.
Thought it worth repeating.
So, yes, deportation of American citizens based solely on their religion will probably turn very quickly into extermination.
Ya know... your defeatist attitude is just what the ACLU loves.
I'm not the defeatist here; I think we can win this fight without destroying our freedoms as Americans.
You, on the other hand, conclude that freedom must be abolished.
Yeah just like the internment of Japanese citizens during WW2.
When will racist fascist America learn its lesson? {/commie}
"Internment" is one thing.
Forcibly exiling people to foreign lands is someone else.
You didn't touch my challenge: would you fight to the death to avoid forcible expatriation from YOUR country?
Or would you meekly get on the train?
I see. So if, in the future, President Hillary Clinton announces that there is an "emergency" requiring that all "right-wing extremists" (translation: anyone who disagrees with her) have their citizenship revoked and be forcibly deported, you'd just meekly get on the bus and voluntarily go to whatever s**thole the US government decided to expel you to.
Is that an accurate statement of your likely actions?
You even think that it is their very propensity for violence that requires we deal with them with kid gloves.
We already had Billary in office and he already declared war on Christians, massacring them with U.S. troops on U.S. soil, and you were right in the front lines egging them on and defending what they did.
You are transparent. You are just fine with religious zealots running wild in this country, as long as they're not Christian.
You defend tyrrany against Christians, but not Muslims. You are anti-Christian.
I asked you first; you need to give an honest answer. You seem to think that rights are inviolable for thee, but revocable at whim otherwise.
You defend tyrrany against Christians, but not Muslims. You are anti-Christian.
I do not defend tyranny against Christians, which is an especially charge because I am a Christian, and you are a liar if you say I do.
Now, please give a "yes" or a "no" answer to my question.
I didn't propose or defend deportation for muslims. I only attacked your characterization of deportation as "extermination." This was a dishonest attack and an attempt to demonize. (precisely your forte')
I am not the one who advocated waging war against the U.S. government, you are.
You want me to say I would wage war against America if Billary attacked Christians. I won't say that, but I'm glad to know that you support Jihad against the Bush administration if they wage war on Muslims.
The ACLU beat you to it, Mohommed. They even one-upped you, they are trying to remove it from the lexicon.
As opposed to Saudi Arabia, cradle of Islam, where they don't.
What goobledegook.
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.