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the Muslim American Society and the American Muslim Council, stress it is high time for Americans to stop using the outdated phrase and replace it with "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" or "Abrahamic," in reference to Abraham (Ibrahim), the patriarch held in common by the three monotheistic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.
Let me ask the question of you: do you favor American citizens of their citizenship and deporting them, solely because of their religious affilation, absent any specific criminal conduct?
"Yes" or "no," I'm not tolerating any filibusters.
Actually, you do. You need to answer the question you've been dodging.
I didn't propose or defend deportation for muslims.
The former is true; the latter is false.
I pointed out that some of the Muslims that people want deported are US citizens, and may not be deported without probable cause--unless you are willing to concede that citizenship is revocable at whim, whereupon you have managed to hold ALL of our freedoms at risk.
I only attacked your characterization of deportation as "extermination."
Deporting American citizens (not aliens residing in the US, but actual citizens) requires either American citizens to meekly submit to what would be a massive injustice--to be thrown out of THEIR country--or it requires that the government ultimately enforce that edict with lethal force.
The latter counts as "extermination."
This was a dishonest attack and an attempt to demonize. (precisely your forte')
Not at all. Your attempt to dodge the central question I raised was a dishonest attack.
I pointed out that some of the people you wish to deport are citizens, and you started trying to change the subject, and false impute all manner of evil motives to me.
I am not the one who advocated waging war against the U.S. government, you are.
One more time: if the government announced an "emergency" and ordered all "right-wing Christian extremist" U.S. citizens deported, would you meekly comply with that order?
You want me to say I would wage war against America if Billary attacked Christians.
I want you to give an honest yes or no answer to my question. I don't care WHAT the answer is; I merely want the answer on record.
And you, for some odd reason, have been moving heaven and earth to avoid giving an honest yes or no answer.
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.
Kindly explain why American citizens, absent any specific criminal conduct on their part, should be forcibly stripped of their citizenship and deported.
Or is that concept too subtle for you to grasp?
That is the position I have been arguing with from the beginning. It is the position you have been supporting.
When I asked if your position would change in the slightest if YOU were on the receiving end, you tried to change the subject.
Surely a brave patriot such as yourself can give a simple answer to a simple question?
That ain't what the people I'm arguing with are saying, though. And when they're called on it, they suddenly don't want to discuss whether or not "equal protection under the law" applies to all US citizens, or just themselves.
Indeed, originally to personally oversee the delivery and sale of countless consignments of African slaves, the descendants of whom have unknowingly "bought into" the ancient Arabic tradition.....
MM
You are the one making the case for Muslim Jihad against Bush and Christian Crusade against Billary, not me.
I don't support or defend deportation of all muslims, I only pointed out your hypocrisy defending the justice of Muslim Jihad when you loathe Christians and defended every injustice billary visited upon them. You never do anything but attack conservatives and defend commies and villians. You are the ultimate liberal disruptor.
ROFLMAO!!!
So THAT explains the lions in your basement...
Some brave patriot you are.
You are the one making the case for Muslim Jihad against Bush and Christian Crusade against Billary, not me.
Nope. I asked a specific question, and you have continuously changed the subject to avoid answering it.
I don't support or defend deportation of all muslims
Son, when you jumped into the argument, you came down foursquare on the side of doing just that.
Maybe your problem is that your fingers were typing a response before your brain had engaged the question.
I only pointed out your hypocrisy defending the justice of Muslim Jihad when you loathe Christians and defended every injustice billary visited upon them.
I merely ask if it would be equally just if the identical circumstance were inflicted on another religious community for the misdeeds of a few adherents thereof. You desperately avoid answering the question, because there is no answer that makes you look intelligent or sane.
You never do anything but attack conservatives and defend commies and villians.
You never do anything but make false allegations and avoid answering simple questions.
You are the ultimate liberal disruptor.
And another false allegation.
Now, once again, I ask you this:
Given that you jumped into an argument where I was arguing against the mass deportation of U.S. citizens, and that you saw fit to oppose my position:
If President Hillary Clinton were to announce that an "emergency" was in effect, requiring the forcible expulsion of all "right-wing Christian extremist citizens" from the United States, would you meekly obey that expulsion order?
All that's needed is a "yes" or a "no" answer.
You are the ultimate liberal disruptor.
This has become the new mantra of the malcontents/unappeasables/Muslim haters.
You don't see any difference between their extermination or deportation precisely because you defend the justice of muslim jihad against the U.S. if Bush implemented this hypothetical extermination. Needless to say, I do not share your view on this. I would not support such a Muslim Jihad as you would. Nor do I support the extermination of Christians with U.S. troops on U.S. soil, as you do.
You know who else hates "malcontents/unappeasables/Muslim haters"? Liberals. They call us conservatives.
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.