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.
Imagine how many civil rights they will permit if they ever get to be more than 50% of the population.
As always, I don't see anything sinister in Bush's words. I disagree with him, but that's what I think is going on here. He has a different opinion than do I. I agree with Pat Robertsom for the greater majority of islamics.
I am. He made us, and He created us in His own image. Lots to be proud of there.
That he loves us in spite of the fact that we do nothing he can really be proud of, is the greatest story of all.
Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Acts3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."
My guess is... well, according to the Bible... that it is not his individual acts or individual transgressions which please or displease God, but his faith.
Hebrews 11:6 " And without faith it is impossible to please God"
Your assertion that God is "not proud of someone" because of something one said, is completely unBiblical and inaccurate. God may or may not be PLEASED with something someone says, but God is never proud of us one way or another, at least, I can't find anything to support that idea.
It's kind of like trying to say God is vain because he says in his word he is the only one worthy of praise. Surely if a human said something similar we might consider it vain. But God? Likewise with pride. You may feel this is a semantic argument. But when you consider pride is one of the 'seven deadly sins' I would say you ought to use caution ascribing pride to God.
While I have no malice toward Catholics and I respect them highly (well at least the really faithful ones) I do think that Catholics are just as prone to and have just as much right to doctrinally pick apart others' religions as the rest of us. In fact, don't Catholics believe that they are the only ones who are saved? Isn't that as offensive an attitude as what Christians are saying against Islam? I happen to disagree with that teaching (of course, I'm not Catholic!), but I'm not going to argue unless someone really wants to have a *discussion* about it. The saved Catholics will find out in the end, and I'm sure they won't be upset over it then.
Mr. President, with all due respect, you're either with us or against us.
Then why is Bush throwing his hat in?
From post #125 Our public policy should not denounce a religion
And where does Pat Robertson et al decide public policy? Bush should have just shut up and kept talking about the COUNTRIES that support terrorism and let the religious leaders talk. He can leave the comments about "Islam" unsaid. Because it IS in fact a dangerous religion, totally contrary to what this country stands for in its doctrine. Bush can let people figure that out for themselves, granted, but my guess is he's not familiar enough with it to have done so. For example, it is sacrilegious and insulting to them for him, as a non-Muslim, to have taken part in their religious festivities, in his display of "understanding" he made to them. To display such ignorance about their religion and then try to tell us "islam is OK" only reinforces the non-credibility of the assertion.
Yeah I get it, and I agree there, but at the same time, why introduce the client to the personal trainer and psychologist when you are saying to his face that he is for the most part OK and doesn't need them...?
IF the client REALLY needs the PTrainer and Psychologist, you would keep quiet about it even while others are making comments about it... and gradually as you earned the client's trust you would steer them in the direction of reform and maybe even mention that you think they need it, but ONLY once you had established enough rapport.
However, if your business relationship is an uneasy one, the 'rapport' may be just an illusion and you will never get the chance to introduce reform until the client's disgusting habits become too much for the relationship to continue to function. That is how I see it happening now.
I think that is completely wishful thinking. Islamists (as opposed to plain old Muslims who may or may not want to act on the Jihad teaching) don't care what we say about them, their position against us is fixed, as long as we are not willing to convert to Islam.
Islamists (as opposed to plain old Muslims who may or may not want to act on the Jihad teaching) don't care what we say about them, their position against us is fixed, as long as we are not willing to convert to Islam.
We still have to deal with Islamic nations with religious leaders in political power and as long as we do, we need to make the distinction from our political discourse and the religious discourse or they won't even engage us in the political one. There are many nations where Islam is the dominant religion, which are secular (non-religious) in their political leadership. For those that aren't, the president must tread very lightly and be careful to make the distinction between political and religious statements, thus his action to distance himself as our political leader from what the religious leaders on the Christian right are saying was warranted. Any activity he engages in from a religious perspective is purely public relations which is one of his roles as our political leader. He never comments on the merits of the Islam religion; only his observations of the people. He is a devout Christian and knows that Islam is false. He's just performing his PR role.
I'm sure there are many who do.
Catholics are normal people like everybody else,
But in my personal experience, it is not something that is entwined in the practice of our faith,
Perhaps it is an attitude of "confidence" as the world's largest and "original" Christian denomination.
We simply feel no need to define our beliefs in terms of comparison to some other religion.
Many other Cristian denominations seem to always teach their particular brand of Christianity with the preface: we're different than Catholics THIS way, or we're differenct than Catholics THAT way.
Sometimes I just want to shreik: quit telling me how you're different from Catholics and just plain focus on saying what it is that YOU believe.
In fact, don't Catholics believe that they are the only ones who are saved?
No, as with everything in the Catholic faith, it gets a bit more complex than that.
Trying to keep it simple, you do need to understand that the Catholic Church considers itself to be the one TRUE Church, and that the very term "Catholic" means "universal". The Church also recognizes only one Baptism for the forgiveness of Sin. With that as a starting point, the Church generally recognizes Protestants more like "prodigal children" of various degrees, who have not yet returned, rather than non-baptized "pagans". In a weird way, Protestants are viewed as Catholics who don't realize they are Catholics. Baptism is necessary for salvation, and most Protestant baptisms are recognized as valid - "rebaptism" isn't necessary for "conversion" and "conversion" isn't necessary for salvation.
That's the nutshell version with which I'm sure many would quibble with. I really don't want to get involved in a more detailed discussion of it. But if your truly interested, it's explained thoroughly in the Catholic Catechism -- available online and as a paperback in any of the well known national chain bookstores.
Well from all the time I've spent watching EWTN (And I have, just to learn) I have seen the same behavior from Catholics as from other denominations. What matters is what is correct. And when something incorrect comes up in front of you, the only way to discuss it is to make comparisons.
Protestants are viewed as Catholics who don't realize they are Catholics.
LOL Ok I can buy that. I surely hope that is the majority opinion, but the kids I grew up with didn't seem to think that way!
However this begs to be asked...when you admit we protestants are like 'prodigal children' there has to be a reason.
It's pretty easy if the people in question are in the wrong.
Hmm... maybe it's just you that made progress. I still feel in the same position as I originally did.
we need to make the distinction from our political discourse and the religious discourse or they won't even engage us in the political one.
But that is not what Bush was doing. Bush was PLACATING - which means in essence, saying whatever, true or not, to avoid a confrontation.
If nothing else, he was highlighting for these Islamic leaders that their sheep over here are being brainwashed and they had better get them back on track.
While I know he is a devout Christian that doesn't mean he needs to comment, in his position, on Pat Robertson's rantings or anyone else's for that matter. I think him doing so makes it look as though Pat and his ilk have more sway than they do.
IMO he should just keep himself out of it as nanny and others have suggested. There is no way to bring up this issue in his position without being insulting to one side or the other so why not just keep quiet? Why then choose the side he has?
(Why?? because he's not afraid Christians will rise up and declare Jihad on America in response!)
LOL! I'm going to admit that sometimes I have a rather unique style of trying to explain things. How's that? I'm not sure that other Catholics would choose to explain it that way, but from an "insider's perspective", if you sort through the "rules" and "regulations" that's basicly what it boils down to.
when you admit we protestants are like 'prodigal children' there has to be a reason.
Well, "Mother Church" is catholic (universal), and all Christians are her children. It's just that some "children" have erred along the way, some worse than others. I don't know that there is an exact "pecking" order as far as who has erred worse than others. Let's just say that it is generally recognized (even by Protestants) that Lutherans, Anglicans and Episcopalians are among the Protestant denominations closest to Catholicism. I'll take a wild guess that some of the tiny, independent fundamentalist denominations (such as those who polka with rattlesnakes) are considered quite a bit more errant in their beliefs.
I know it may sound arrogant and condescending to many,
but it's more an attitude of absolute confidence in authority.
From a purely historical perspective, the Catholic Church was the original, everybody else branched out in one direction or another at some point in time. Despite that, the Church still considers itself the one and only. Mend your ways, and welcome back into the fold!
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.