Posted on 08/22/2002 7:40:34 AM PDT by Pokey78
After listening to the response President Bush is getting out in California... he isn't loosing anything. It was exciting to listen to the crowds respond to the war on terror, the democratic Congress.
Yes, I realize that it was a Republican crowd... but I haven't heard enthusiasm like that for a long time.
I hope you are right ...
You are correct in that belief, but by his repeated references to Islam as "a religion of peace," that is exactly what Bush has done: promote Islam.
As Daniel Pipes points out in his new book, "Militant Islam Comes to America," "during the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-81, the US government limited itself to "policy pronouncements on Iran. Islam was mentioned hardly if ever, in keeping with the time-honored and correct practice of US officials saying little about matters of faith....But the reticence ran deeper: as spokespersons for the U.S. government, a constitutionally secular institution, they knew not to articulate on the truth or falsehood of specific religions."
"When the "Real IRA" killed twenty-eight at a fair in Omagh, Ireland, the U.S. president did not seize the opportunity to ruminate on the true nature of Catholicism. Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage in Hebron spurred no commentary on Judaism by the secretary of state. The Bharatiya Janata Party, with its Hindu nationalist outlook, prompted no high-level analyses of Hinduism on its coming to power in India."
"The same used to be the case with Islam."
"But this is simply not true any more. Islam, the most political of religions, now enjoys a privileged place in Washington, just as it does in every capital around the world...And since September 11, the president and his team have devoted intensive efforts to explaining what role Islam did and did not play in the recent tragedy."
Immediately after 9/11, you could make a case for these pronouncements, as an effort to prevent a backlash against Muslims in this country (although I believe that fear was planted in the administration by American Muslim groups, and not by any violent outbursts in the public at large). In the intervening months, the president's failure to drive home the truth that militant Islam is indeed an ideology bent on destroying the West, this administration's prolonged failure to acknowledge the complicity of Saudi Arabia in sponsoring terrorism, the government deferential attitude to radical American Muslim groups, and the president's continued apologies for Islam as a religion, have blurred the line that must be drawn in the sand if we are to halt the scourge that threatens to engulf the world in violence for decades to come.
Have a nice day!
I am not a theologian, and neither is Daniel Pipes. My point, in response to your (correct) assertion that "government promoting a religion is prohibited by the Constitution, is that this is exactly what the President is doing in labeling Islam "a religion of peace."
I have no direct knowledge of Muslims, but experts (including Pipes) tell us that there is a large proportion of the Muslim population to whom the religion is a personal matter, and who do not engage in politics, or violence. I sincerely hope this is so, but if it is, it has no bearing on the threat of militant Islam, in much the same way that the beliefs and practices of the general population of Catholics are not germaine to the violence perpetrated by the IRA.
Praise Bush to the hilt. If you begin losing the argument, complain that it's unfair because "the other person is too smart" and let everyone know that you're going out to pick daisies in your garden.She's sorta the Ash of the Bush-bot set, if you know what I mean.
Steyn hits a home run with the essay as a whole, but the above line is a clinker.
While there wasn't a huge "backlash against Arab Americans during the Gulf war", it's silly to go too far the other direction and say that it was "entirely mythical".
For example, here in Houston there was a long-established, well-known, successful business named "Bagdad Carpets", which specialized in persian-style rugs and other related home furnishings. I doubt they had much, if anything, to do with Iraq at all -- the name was clearly chosen years before in reference to old-time Bagdad as a capital of trade and "Ali Baba" style art.
Nonetheless, during the Gulf war the company finally had to tape large cardboard sheets over the name "Bagdad" on their delivery vans after at least two incidents in which drivers were beaten up by people with more zeal than brains.
I was aware of this mostly because the company was based right across the street from where I worked at the time, and I couldn't help but notice their cardboard-obscured vans. But surely if two independent attacks were directed at a target so close to "home", there must have been quite a few more scattered around the city and country.
That's not to say it was a veritable epidemic, but such acts clearly weren't "entirey mythical", either, as Steyn asserts.
Then why did they elect these leaders? You're much more charitable to teachers than I...
Hope the interview went well!
aggie mama's from Texas. I don't think patriotism has been officially outlawed there yet...
Thank God for Texans (even if they do talk funny..)
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.