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the Muslim American Society and the American Muslim Council, stress it is high time for Americans to stop using the outdated phrase and replace it with "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" or "Abrahamic," in reference to Abraham (Ibrahim), the patriarch held in common by the three monotheistic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.
I haven't attacked Muslims. I just don't endorse their Muslim Jihad like Poobah does.
I pointed out that forcibly expelling citizenry from their country TURNS INTO extermination. Did you just ignore all those cheery reports out of YugoNam in the 1990s?
You don't see any difference between their extermination or deportation precisely because you defend the justice of muslim jihad against the U.S.
No, I do not. I merely oppose the forcible expulsion of U.S. CITIZENS (which is what the person I was arguing with advocated) from their country for the misdeeds of a relative few co-religionists, most of whom are non-citizens.
Me too! America is about policy and always has been. If Mansoor Ijaz wants to preach Islam in conformity to the American concept of liberty, I say more power to him.
So many forget that where we came from was very much like what we're fighting today. Our Founding Fathers very consciously subordinated a person's private paradigm to a set of principles that allow everyone to practice their faith without combating religious enemies.
If you stand before your God answering only for yourself...America is the place for you.
Once again, you are a lying sack of fecal material.
Sure, now you defend Albanian Muslim Jihad against Christian Serbians. Clinton never waged a war you didn't agree with huh?
It's not enough for you to make sure the U.S. border is unprotected, you have to make sure Christian nations all over the world are invaded by hostile foreigners.
The koran tells them to kill infidels - if they are muslim, they follow the koran and, therefore, support the killing of all not muslim! What part of "kill all infidels" do you non-muslims not understand?
Question: How does one stop an individual whose total life focus is the death of all non-muslims? All-to-obvious answer: Eliminate that individual.
Question: How does a free society deal with a group which wants everyone outside that group dead? All-to-obvious answer: Give them everything they want in an attempt to appease them so they'll go away and leave us alone. OOPS - for a moment there I was taken over by a liberal - I'm OK now, though!
Stay vigilent, stay armed, and never trust a muslim or a liberal, both being terrorists differing only in weaponry and technique.
That's a smear, not an answer.
Actually, I was thinking of the "Christian" Serbians' Jihad against their fellow "Christians" in Croatia, and the payback which followed.
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.
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.