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.
She must have been referring directly to you 6th graders.
I would agree.
My religious upbringing always emphasized adherence to the moral principles of my own Faith.
Those tenets were NEVER dependent on scrutiny of other faiths to emphasize what is "bad" about them.
I find religion bashing to be extremely distasteful, and question the validity of those who apparently define their beliefs in terms of what's wrong with somebody else.
How did Sept 11th happen? And to remind you, Federal agents have stopped several other devistating attacks in this country since Sept 11th. Sept 11th was to be only the first in a string of terrorists attacks on us. Don't close your eyes just yet, remember the first attack on the late Trade Center was suppose to kill 20,000 people but failed.
Why the pacifist mindset? I'm not for the abridgement of our Constitutional rights, but that is not what we are talking about here. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Why continue to bend over backwards being politically correct, when that political correctness is what put us under attack and drug us into this 30 years war in the first place. Maybe a little more suspicion of fundamentalist Islam is in order, considering our lives are at stake here and considering this is the religion whose adherents are administrating the attacks.
At least slipt the religion into factions and call each faction 'peaceful' or 'dangerous' based on the logic of the worldviews involved. Why put all of Islam into one huge melting pot, call it 'peaceful' somehow and expect those whose lives are threatened by that type of ignorance to be all happy to accept that type of rational?
All the examples you mentioned are threats of the past. The crusades were to rid the Holy Land of Muslims. I'm not justifying them, but they are not the same as the present attack on our nation. The crusades where not largely carried out by fundamentalist Christians. Christianity, the religion of Jesus that is, is not a religion of the sword, is not a violent religion. I understand your point that many violent acts have been accomplished in the name of Christianity and under false teachings of the Bible. But the basic teachings of Christianity, that is, the basic teachings of Jesus Christ are in sharp contrast to the basic teachings of Mohammad and where rejected by Mohammad.
Jesus Christ never pulled a sword against any. His angry side was reserved for those who pretended to be of the same faith as He, but were actually misleading people out of His way. Only once did the Bible record him lifting a hand, and that was against the money changers in the Temple, the House of the Lord, which is same as someone defending his/her own home. In contrast to Mohammad, Jesus did not violently resist other religions, and He never broke a law in His life. In fact, Jesus laid down His life. He could have called the hosts of Heaven to save Him, but he chose not to.
The basic teachings of fundamentalist Islam are those of hatred, cruelty, and murder. Read the Koran and the Hadith, the two holy books of Islam to see what the Holy Prophet Muhammad said to do to those who do not convert.
Hmmmm. Wow, you really didn't get it. I'll try to spell it out. President Bush's role as president of our country requires performing the role of public relations with other nations on our planet. Thankfully in our country, religion and political operation of our government are separate. In case you hadn't noticed and this a critically important point, that is not the case in the Islam world. In Islamic countries, their leaders are also their religious leaders. Our public policy should not denounce a religion, no matter how ludicrous. Politically, we must respect their rights to their beliefs even if we privately think them false. Any comments by the religious leaders in our country should not be construed as public policy, hence the repudiation of those comments by our president. Am I connecting here, yet?
Let me add that I don't think Bush and Powell need to continue to repudiate the religious right. As long as they've made their point that the religious right view doesn't reflect US policy, they can step away and allow the discourse to continue between the religious elements of both faiths. In fact, I believe that discourse could be very constructive, as it will prayerfully cause some introspection by Muslims about their faith. I'm not sure the religious right has taken the correct tact, however. I would prefer that Christians would speak the truth in love and know the fallacies of Islam before they begin the discourse. I'm not sure this is the case with the exception of Dr. Robert Morey, who is a Christian pastor, apologist, and author with a doctorate in Islamic studies. See http://www.faithdefenders.com/
Bush is trying to make a clear distinction between 1) the religion of Islam and 2) Islamic states who sponsor terrorism and Islamic terrorist orgainizations
The distinction is more correctly 1) lukewarm Moslems, and 2) serious Moslems.
Bush's diplomacy is an attempt to convince the lukewarm, to STAY lukewarm, by trying to prevent the perception that we are at war with Islam... even though, that is exactly the truth.
As it turns out, the serious Muslims tend to be in leadership positions in Islamic nations as well as in terrorist organizations. That leaves a lot of people who don't know what they believe who are captive in the Islamic nations with no choice in what they believe. They either believe Mohammed or die. What do you think freedom of religion would do in those nations? That could happen in Iraq.
The difference between an extreme Muslim, and a "moderate":
1) If you were armed, and you saw a Muslim jihadist about to kill a Christian child, would you kill your fellow Muslim to prevent it?
2) If you had reason to believe a fellow Muslim was planning a terrorist act, would you report him to the FBI?
If the answer to either is "no", then he needs to leave
Show me one.
Actually I know several personally.
Now I think that Islam is a degenerate faith but there are many good Muslim people.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Love the Muslim, hate the Islam.
Actually, Iraq has an ancient and substantial Christian population...something like 10-15%. The pre-Arabic people, known as Chaldeans, have been Christians (mostly Catholic) for a long time.
The situation is somewhat better than North Africa... past Egypt (where a few Christians survived) Christianity was totally exterminated, all the way to the Atlantic. Everyone forgets, nowadays, that North Africa had a thriving Christian culture for centuries, and that the great Saint Augustine himself was a Libyan.
I quote Jesus;
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:I came not to send peace, but a sword"
Matthew 10:34
Now you and I know that taken in context with the rest of Jesus' teachings, this is not a command for His followers to use the sword or to kill unbelievers in His name.
However, just as some people point to verses in the Koran to claim that Islam teaches violence, by the same token others can point to verses in the Bible to claim it teaches violence.
So again, my original point is that attempting to prove to others that Islam is evil and Christianity is good, this is a futile approach which is more likely to polarize people than to win converts.
And their evangelistic efforts are non-existent under threat of death. That's not really freedom of religion now is it?
I agree.
Islam is definitely a bigger threat to the world than Nazism ever was.
I disagree with this. Hitler lead and extremely advanced and powerful nation and came very close to taking over the world.
Islamic societies are basically backward, ignorant masses who lag behind the rest of the world in affluence and power. This is because fundamentalist Muslim goverments oppress their own people and make their societies weak and inferior.
That is why they resort to such desperate tactics as suicide bombings against defenseless and unsuspecting civilians, and empty threats and bizarre displays on TV of toothless primitive mobs burning flags and effigies.
Did not take long to see Dubya flub it, yet again.
"Based on tolerance"?
No.America was based on fleeing European intolerance. The Founders were certainly not intending to "tolerate."
Sheesh. I try hard to support this President. It is a challenge.
Coming from Reuters ? They have no reason to not call a terrorist by the proper name yet they still refuse to do so . They are not alone by the way .
I thought that you were an evangelical Christian? You claim to me, anyway.
Or are you a disruptor?
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.