Replies

Michael Moore and "Hatriotism"
Ergun Mehmet Caner
Baptist Press

LYNCHBURG, Va. < He was lauded with a 20-minute standing ovation at the
Cannes Film Festival. A.O. Scott of The New York Times called his movie a
"passionate expression of outraged patriotism." At the June showing of
"Fahrenheit 911" before the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science in
Los Angeles, he received a standing ovation for over a minute.

But in his recent work, Michael Moore spits in the face of true patriots.

I know that Moore is first and foremost a provocateur and thrives on
controversy; he is only too happy that his critics give him free advertising
for his film. But, his contempt for democracy demands rebuke.

Despite the evidence proving otherwise, Moore claims that he has a "dogged
commitment to uncovering the facts." In reality, he is a purveyor of
"hatriotism" to anti-American critics here and abroad. Even as Islamic
extremists in Iraq severed yet another innocent person's head, Moore ignored
that the fledgling freedom there is under attack.

Hatriotism is the new chic in American media. But criticizing democracy and
America has long been in vogue in continental Europe, with detractors
alternately caricaturing Americans as "naive" and "brutish."

After an initial fair and balanced look at our efforts to free the peoples
of Afghanistan and Iraq, the American media's coverage now has deteriorated
to negative portrayals of our soldiers and their sacrifices. The trend is to
showcase professional protesters mocking America and President Bush, while
dismissing the monumental changes that have been won.

Hatriotism ignores that America has freed my kinsmen.

I am a Persian Turkish immigrant raised as a Sunni Muslim, and in the
interest of full disclosure, I must state that I left Islam in 1982, the
same year I became an American citizen. Moore states that his film is a call
to true patriotism. But as one who has lived in both worlds, I don't see his
devotion to the welfare of this country or to those countries America seeks
to liberate in this war against terrorism.

The present conflict is not a war against Islam, and neither is it a "war
for oil." American troops have died protecting Muslims, and there are easier
ways to obtain oil. This is a war of ideologies, and Moore showcases his in
"Fahrenheit 911."

His film features Lila Lipscombe, a mother in Flint, Mich., who sent her
sons to the military and "lives to regret it." Roger Friedman of FOXNews.com
described Lipscombe's story as "unexpectedly poignant."

I wonder ? was Moore equally moved about the honor killings which daily
threatened the lives of Muslim women in Afghanistan? Was he equally outraged
about female circumcision that mutilated generations of Afghan women?

In fact, I wonder ? where were all the "hatriots" when our soldiers freed
the women of Afghanistan from the oppressive rule of the Taliban? Where were
the feminists when our soldiers liberated Afghanistan's women to go to
school and to work and to vote?

The irony is hatriots like Moore enjoy the right to free speech because
American men and women have shed their blood to protect our Constitution and
the freedoms it guarantees ? the same freedoms America seeks for the peoples
of Iraq and Afghanistan. I welcome Moore to visit my homeland to make a
movie criticizing Turkish oppression and see what happens.

Islamic theocracies do not allow the religious freedom or freedom of
expression that democracy affords. The best the Islamic republics can offer
is "religious toleration." Based on the "Pact of Umar," religious toleration
allows non-Muslims to enter Islamic republics, but they must pay a tax
(jizyat). They can practice their faiths, but they cannot convert anyone
from Islam ? to do so means deportation or worse.

Further, Islamic prophecy foretells of worldwide conversion to Sharia law
under Islam, and the Taliban and al Qaida terrorists have appointed
themselves as the "holy warriors" who would make this prophecy true. So,
President Bush is half-right. We are not at war with Islam. But, Islam is
largely at war with us.

And Michael Moore is blind to it all.

I would fight and die for a Muslim's right to build a mosque in every city
in America. Our soldiers are fighting to gain such freedom of religion and
expression for Iraqis and Afghans. These are not freedoms that Islam offers.

Our soldiers also are fighting to preserve Michael Moore's freedom to
produce works that mock democracy, denigrate our leaders and even ridicule
the military ? without him having to fear death by stoning or beheading
while executioners chant "Allah hu Akbar."

It has become fashionable for Moore and his fellow hatriots to say, "I
support the troops, but not the war." This is akin to saying, "I support
doctors but not surgery."

Let me state emphatically: I support the troops and their mission.

There is a final irony. In his film, "Roger and Me," Moore chased an
automobile executive for an interview. Now, a young film producer, Michael
Wilson, is making a documentary titled, "Michael Moore Hates America." He
continues to pursue Moore for an interview, but Moore has dodged him at
every turn. The worm has turned.

Patriotism should not be confused with cynicism, skepticism and criticism.

Nor should hatriotism be confused with the bravery, honor and sacrifice that
makes men free.

Ergun Mehmet Caner is coauthor of "Christian Jihad" (Kregel, June 2004) and
professor of theology and church history at Liberty University in Lynchburg,
Va.

© 2004 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press. All rights reserved.
Used with permission.

Manipulating the military Moore crosses the line of decency by using ambush tabloid-style methods on young military men, reducing their lives to cleverly manipulated sound bites to serve his political attack.

That line Moore crossed- it's not the line of decency. He crossed that one some time back.

This is the line of seditious conspiracy - a crime. Not only should Moore be charged, but so should everyone involved in its making, advertising, distribution, and presentation. Not everyone need be convicted, but essential testimony against the ringleaders needs to be encouraged.

I know that prosecuting anyone for sedition in today's America will be presented as an assault on free speech. But the real assault on free speech is the misuse of free speech. All over the world people who ought to know better are assuming that the presentation of this film is true - because it is obvious to them that if it had even one shred of falsity, our government would act. The fact that the film is shown with complete impugnity can mean only one thing in their minds - that it must be true.

Our FAILURE to act against this seditious attack on our military and executive institutions is creating real and permanent harm to our nation.

One has to ask: If Farenheit 9/11 is not seditious, then what is?

Moore throws up hundreds of falsehoods, hoping some will stick. Unfortunately, even in this basically anti-Moore article, we see a reader who, though not fooled by most of Moore's Manure, is nonetheless fooled by some of it. "He even makes some excellent points about our naive American relationship with the Saudis,....

Our relationship with the Saudis is unfortunately borne out of necessity. Energy imports make it unavoidable. The relationship was not initiated nor nourished by Bush and the Republicans, any more than it was by Clinton, Carter , and the rest of the Democrats .

....and about our staggering lack of adequate response when we sent only 10,000 men to Afghanistan and missed our shot at bin Laden......

The writer accepts Moore's numbers uncritically. The US sent over 20,000 into Afghanistan, a nation extremely remote, which required a large suite of very delicate negotiaions just to get access. Whatever "shot at bin Laden" we missed was nothing compared to thenumerous passed opportunities of Bush'e predecessor.

He also comes close to telling the truth about the hysterical paranoia that leads to grandmothers being frisked in airports while nothing much is done about our real enemies.........

I'm not sure if the writer is suggesting we should shoot muslims in airports instead of frisking old Swedish ladies, but it is Moore's own allies that demand that that we should not profile by ethnicity, age or sex. If he's demanding profiling, maybe he should start at home among the Harping Hyenas of Hollywood. To single Bush out for criticism on this score is ludicrous.

I am so proud of your son for his service to his country.
When I watched the interview with Moore and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, I became livid at O'Reilly for his weak response when asked how he could send his son or daughter to die in Iraq. Bill seemed too preoccupied in finding his own 'gotcha' question and missed his opportunity. And even you stated in your article that you hoped that the military service in Iraq would not be 'in vain.'

I have been mad about this for almost 40 years.... No US soldier who fights an enemy of justice EVER dies in vain. These soldiers today in Iraq and all the soldiers in Vietnam and every conflict in between are not less heroic in their service than a soldier who fought in WW2. The vision and focus that troubled everything in Vietnam (and some events in Iraq) does not mean that we aren't fighting a bigger cause. These events that we seem to be arguing about so much (no WMD, misleading information, etc.) still don't represent the bigger picture. the US stands for the cause of freedom and justice. There is no nobler service than that of the soldier. Keep the faith and your son is in my prayers.

Moore crosses the line of decency by using ambush tabloid-style methods on young military men, reducing their lives to cleverly manipulated sound bites to serve his political attack. He uses the swaggering statements of a few immature soldiers out of context, a context where they were trying to pump themselves up to face battle with brave and foolish words.

I've worked on documentary film projects. This is all too true. It's incredibly easy to get someone to say some buffoonish things in front of a camera. If you have an angle in mind - and what documentary doesn't - it's easy to envision how you're going to edit the sound bites into the film even as the person is speaking. It's also very easy to get excitable young men, with a flare for macho bravado, to say some foolish things on camera that don't reflect who they really are.

Michael Moore is a very good filmmaker.

This I have to disagree with. Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcese, and Bernardo Bertolucci are very good filmmakers. Michael Moore is a pitiful filmmaker. His films are a ramshackle collection of disjointed video bits culled from many hundreds of hours of taped footage. It's the film-everything-and-see-what-comes-out approach. It's the kind of lazy, mediocre, and intellectually negligent pap that would get a person flunked out of film school.

He is, however, a first rate progagandist, good with a video editing machine, and a shameless, utterly contemptible liar.