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.
In the sense that the term implies zealous preaching and crusading for the conversion of others, No, I'm not "evangelical" at all.
If you're using the term interchangeably with "fundamentalist", yes, I do have a strong "fundamenalist" adherence to Church Doctrine.
A few years ago, I used to participate quite frequently on the "religion threads".
Not as part of any discussion or debate, simply to present factual information and links to Catholic doctrine in response to misinformation that was posted by others.
I haven't done that for some time now.
I find religion bashing to be extremely distasteful.
I have absolutely no understanding of those who seemingly define their faith in terms of what's "wrong" with somebody else's.
Nor do I wish to associate with such people.
They are Muslims first, American citizens second. Most of them will never assimilate and most of them probably don't really like us. I want to like them, just as they are, but deep down, I don't trust them if they gain any sort of power over me and mine. They are killing Christians all over the world! Wake up!
Even the pope won't tell us the truth about Muslims. I have never castigated their religion publicly, but I know without a shadow of a doubt that if they ever gain the upper hand, we are TOAST. Most Americans understand that in spite of what Bush or anyone else says to the contrary.
Bush is being politically expedient to try to get the moderate Muslims on his side and to keep a lid on Americans doing bad things to Muslims. In the end, he and others like him will FAIL MISERABLY UNLESS Muslims undergo a change of heart of some sort into tolerance for those who are not like them.
I don't.
The pope preaches Roman Catholicism.
He is no more an expert on Islam, Mormonism or Tibetan Budhism than is Pat Robertson.
That is reality and what is really going on and no one wants to acknowledge it publicly for fear of really ticking them off into more murderous acts.
The pope preaches what he preaches and is right about a lot of things but keeps his flock in the dark about their peril in the face of Islam.
I don't think you know what the pope preaches.
The Catholic position with respect to Islam has been very consistant for centuries.
"In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (scroll to last paragraph)
Just because the Pope doesn't go on TV every chance he gets to flap his mouth like Pat Robertson, that's no reason to assume that he "keeps his flock in the dark".
Here's how it works: The right of a people to pick their own leaders is good. Countries with this system are generally good.
Leaders who rule without the consent of the ruled, kill and torture people who disagree with them are thought of as bad.
The incentives that support leaders in these systems are opposite. One encourages peace. A leader who is always at war will be voted out. In an evil system, the opposite is true. Thugs must keep the populace fearful and destabilized. Fighting constantly does that.
There are good people who are Muslim, there are bad people who are Muslim. There are good Christians, and bad. What we're dealing with here are systems. At this point in history, bad people are sucessfully using religion to creat evil systems. That's where our fight is.... We fight the part that is bad, prop up the part that's good. Pray for the people. All of them.
I know what he doesn't say.
Catholics have been slaughtered in Northern Africa for a long time now and I wouldn't know about it at all if I didn't get my news from "alternate" sources. Catholics are taking the brunt of slaughter by Islam adherents in Southeast Asia as well.
Sorry if you don't like what I say. At least Falwell and Robertson are willing to speak out, at some personal risk I might add, and tell the brutal truth about Islam. That takes courage. I don't believe in inciting hatred against Muslims, but Christians deserve to know what they will face in the future and prepare spiritually and physically for it.
I try very hard not to hate individuals, but I know hatred for us when I see it and I will prepare myself accordingly.
I don't want this thread to degenerate into catholic bashing, but what the Catholic encyclopedia says and what we see with the hierarchy cozying up to Islam is sending a very mixed message imo.
And their evangelistic efforts are non-existent under threat of death. That's not really freedom of religion now is it?
I never claimed that they had freedom of religion... only that non-Muslim religions do exist (however precariously) in some Islamic areas.
But I clicked a little too quickly! The conclusion of the thought... Think what could happen if these folks were liberated, finally, after all these centuries.
Well, I'm not sure what you're calling "alternate" sources.
I certainly agree that information often gets overlooked by the secular media,
But that surely doesn't mean that Catholics are "in the dark" about current situations where the faithful are persecuted,
There's an extremely large news network delivering such information that's of interest to Catholics worldwide...
Two that are available on the Web are CWNews and EWTNews
For some reason I never cared for Mother Angelica much (guess my sterotypes of Carmelites hiding away and praying all the time does her a disservice) so I steer clear of EWTN.
I know they are pretty faithful to Catholic teaching and I would check on them more but they hosted one of the seers from Medjugorje and I think that was a bad move and destroyed some of their credibility in my eyes.
Other than that and a badly answered question about charismatic business, they seem pretty square with what I understand the church teaches.
I don't have any news source I can trust 100%. And the Vatican let me down badly when it didn't step in and stick up for the two bishops of Medjugorje. I just don't understand why they obfuscate so much. I don't want to think bad things about the vatican, but my perception is that as long as the people keep coming, the vatican doesn't really care what they believe and practice around the world. Sometimes I think they prefer ignorant sheep because they are easier to manage.
Too many things have upset me. I have been praying for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth for years. If truth means I have to read tome after tome, religion has become too complicated for me. I like things simple and straightforward. That's how Christianity was in the beginning and I wish it were that way now. It could be, but it isn't.
Well I certainly don't blame you for being squeamish.
Catholics don't exactly march in lockstep blind obedience as was once feared.
It can be difficult, sometimes, to figure out which faction is squabbling about what.
Since the Church bases its authority on both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, I'd be inclined to stick with the traditionalists myself, as a safe bet. But then, there are some "extremists" in that corner as well. It is helpful to have a comfortable grasp on the distinction between Canon Law and Liturgy.
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.