Posted on 11/13/2002 4:24:18 PM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday took on the Christian right core of his political base, denouncing anti-Islamic remarks made by religious leaders including evangelist Pat Robertson.
Bush said such anti-Islamic comments were at odds with the views of most Americans.
"Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans," Bush told reporters as he began a meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
"By far, the vast majority of American citizens respect the Islamic people and the Muslim faith. After all, there are millions of peaceful-loving Muslim Americans," Bush said.
"Ours is a country based upon tolerance ... And we're not going to let the war on terror or terrorists cause us to change our values."
Bush did not identify conservative Christian leaders as his target, but White House officials said he was prompted by the anti-Islamic remarks of some of them, particularly religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, who reportedly said this week Muslims were "worse than the Nazis."
"He (Bush) wanted a clear statement," a senior White House official said.
Spokeswoman Angell Watts of Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network said she had no immediate comment.
A representative of a Muslim-American civil rights group, which had stepped up calls for Bush to repudiate such remarks, welcomed Bush's words.
"Obviously, we'd like to hear him repudiate these people by name, but we appreciate that he's moving in that direction," said Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
"It's encouraging to see that the president is finally addressing the issue of Islamophobia in America by addressing a specific attacks on Islam. This is a new stance, and it's one that we would encourage and support," Hooper said.
BID TO DISCOURAGE BACKLASH
Bush's efforts to discourage a backlash over the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, which were blamed on Islamic militant Osama bin Laden, have come increasingly into conflict with antipathy to Islam shown by some conservative Christians, a core of his support.
Robertson, a popular conservative commentator who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, was criticized by CAIR and the American Jewish Committee for reportedly saying on his network Monday, "Adolf Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse."
Jerry Falwell, a Baptist minister and leading voice of the Christian right, in an October television interview described the prophet Mohammad as a "terrorist."
Evangelist Franklin Graham, who gave the sermon at Bush's inaugural service in 2001, has also been criticized for comments on Islam. Asked about Bush's comments on Wednesday, Graham spokesman Mark DeMoss said Graham was traveling abroad.
"He has not added to any comment he's made on the subject in months, because he's getting tired of getting asked about it, and any time he answers about it he gives the impression he's crusading on this issue and he's not," DeMoss said.
He has made that very clear. I have no problem with that. But a religious person has the right to voice any opinion he likes. It is not President Bush's place to chastize them for it - thereby siding with the Arab-American league or whatever Islamic organization that seems to have his ear more than Americans.
[ This immediately limits the number of our enemies from the start]
Well you see, there are those who do not believe or accept that. I am trying to be open minded, but will admit I have a distrust of the religion.
[ and in the process avails most Muslims to our point of view, permits joint focus on common goals, and, in general, maintains a tenuous, yet workable, sense of decorum.]
So far, we have seen no evidence of that, especially here in the US. All we have heard from them is how theya re being mistreated and people look at them funny and they are being discriminated against,e tc., etc., Have they clearly and loudly denounced the terrorists? I haven't heard it. Have they clearly and loudly denounced the so-called charities that have funded them? I haven't heard it. So far, I have only seen them rail at the government for investigating them. YOu see, to have a mutual relationship - both sides have to give and both sides have to profit. WE are a little on the minus side so far. Now our religion teaches it is better to give than receive - but even that can be taken a little too far.
[ If you are a religious person and someone insults your faith how eager are you to engage that person in any discourse?
This was a religious matter. President Bush should have said nothing. He should have stayed out of it. He did not make the statement, religious people made the statements. It had nothing to do with his actions. He has constantly berated and threatened the American people for their views.
[ It would be foolhearty to immediately make nearly a billion enemies by espousing the kinds of things that the religious right is saying right now, even if they are true.]
[ President Bush is a pragmatist (he believes that the end justifies the means). Pragmatism is not a sign of weakness, it's absolute brilliance! It's unfortunate that so few see this. Get a clue, people! ]
You know I have some distrust of the Islamic religion, but I would never believe they were not smart. They have come to this country and became so strong, the media, the President and the Justice Department are walking on eggshells for them. That speaks volumes to me. Do you not think if President Bush's agenda is so clear to you and his 'pragmatism' so transparent - they don't see it? Do you not think the Islamic leaders here in this country are not playing him like a fiddle? Just a thought. No pragmatism is not a sign of weakness - but it can be a sign of blindness. When you compomise truth and integrity - the ends rarely justify the means. So truth doesn't matter? Deception and deceit is the way to do it? Yes, that he believes the end justifies the means is evident - I just don't like his means and I am not at all sure about his end. No the brilliance comes in when you consider he has gotten a supposedly free nation to stand still for it. That is brilliant!!
Speaking for myself, I have plenty of clues and this was a really big clue. Believe it or not, I was very hopeful when he was elected President. He would not have been my first choice, but under the circumstances, he was the only choice. NOnetheless, I was hopeful. He and Mrs. Bush look nice, and have class. Of course, you do realize anyone would look good and have class after what we had for the last 8 years. With the exception of a very few things, he has done nothing that, in my opinion, is for the betterment of this country. I can't say he was a dissappointment, as I really had little expectations - but I did have an impression he would be a conservative and would want America to get better - so far---. He had time before 9/11 to do things - such as address illegal immigration (yes that is my issue). Instead we heard how he won the day by passing all the Democrat legislation - well I ask you what did we win? That makes no sense. Has he handled 9/11 well? I can't second guess on most of it - but I do know you don't fight a war with terrorists and not guard you borders and change your visa program. I just don't know what anyone is thinking by believing that is the way to insure the safety of this country. We don't want to make Fox mad, we don't want to make the Saudis mad, we don't want to make the Muslims mad. When does the wellbeing of the American people come into play?
[Some advice- don't go into politics, business, or diplomacy. You'll be eaten]
I have been in business and was never eaten. I conducted and still conduct my business and my personal life based on truth and honesty. Never have I deceived anyone, have been deceived, but made out fine. As for diplomacy (political kind) or politics, I was born at night - but it wasn't last night!
"...Who don't read their Koran very thoroughly..."
The Immunity "[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
The Women [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority."
Aren't you assuming that God should be proud of any of us?
Willie Green says:
"Pat Robertson knows more about Roman Catholicism than the pope."
"Pat Robertson knows more about Mormonism than Joseph Smith."
"Pat Robertson knows more about Tibetan Buddhism than the Dalai Lama!"
Our President established Policy immediately after 9/11 that our actions are NOT a war against Islam.
Pat Robertson needs to stuff a sock in it and get with the program.
That was the thing that sank Dukakis presidential ambition? Bush must show how angry he is about "MOSLEM" fanatic, "ISLAMIC" jihad, "MOSLEM" terrorists. If he and the media shy away from naming the enemy, ISLAM, at least the way it is taught of late, we will be simply chasing our tails for years to come. These SOBs are so capable of playing cat, and mouse. We need to confront their perverted theology head-on!
So this limited sampling on your part is suppose to mean that all are not in favor of jihad? A split in the Islamic community exists over what jihad is.
If you go back and learn what their Holy Prophet believed about jihad, you would have no doubt understand what jihad originally meant, and still means to many.
Of those who are practicing Muslims in this country who are not fresh converts from the prisons and who are not aiding terrorists, how many of those do you think would give their life for a Christian's freedom in America? And how many do you think would rather see the Christians dead? How many of those seemingly peacful Muslims are terrorist sympathizers who are not as vocal at this time as they would be if they felt they had the upper hand?
I'm not claiming that every Muslim wants to kill every Christian, but that the basic tenants of pure Islam require it, and in an extreme Islamic state as opposed to an extreme Christian state, peace is not the norm, but oppression and fear is the norm.
Khomeini is just an example of how many Muslims are. Like it or not, many view America as the Great Satan and are prepared to kill you just because you are an American.
Try to ask some of your Muslim acquaintances who their muslim influences are? This will tell you what they secretly believe. I know of at least one occassion where a Muslim would act so sweet to everyone's face, but later was found out he was stealing from everyone who he worked with and later was found out he had a horrible temper and was a huge Jew and American hater. Ask your Muslim acquaintances what they think of the Jews.
"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world...Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, quoted in Amir Taheri's Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism, 1987
Why not?
My opinions are very consistant on this issue,
no matter which thread they may appear on.
I just noticed another thread where I'll have to cut and paste the exact same thing.
Makes it a whole lot easier...
Especially when I'm in the unusual position of strongly supporting one of Dubya's policies.
But I certainly give Dubya credit where credit is due.
Pat Robertson needs to keep his fat yap shut and be more supportive of the President's war against terrorism.
NOT Islam, terrorism.
Peace loving so long as they remain a very very very small minority.... I am reminded of what my 6rd grade teacher used to say "Individually you are all wonderful individuals, collectively you are like flies on feces."
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.