"I'm totally shocked. How could he do something like this? He was always so polite..."
Posted on 11/14/2002 5:36:24 AM PST by Damocles
|
Bush Takes on Christian Right Over Anti-Islam Words — By Randall Mikkelsen 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 we'll say he did in our title) 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. |
"I'm totally shocked. How could he do something like this? He was always so polite..."
Has Eric Rudolph been convicted of a crime? So far, I have only seen accusations from a corrupt FBI and Justice Department, under Janet "Burn 'em" Reno.Janut hasn't been in charge for nearly two years, yet if you go to the FBI website this is what you see (right along with Usama itself):
FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive: Eric Robert Rudolph.
ERIC ROBERT RUDOLPH IS CHARGED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOMBING OF A HEALTH CLINIC IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, IN WHICH A POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED AND A NURSE CRITICALLY WOUNDED. HE IS ALSO CHARGED IN CONNECTION WITH THE FATAL BOMBINGS AT CENTENNIAL OLYMPIC PARK IN DOWNTOWN ATLANTA, GEORGIA, THE DOUBLE BOMBINGS AT THE SANDY SPRINGS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING NORTH OF ATLANTA, AND THE DOUBLE BOMBINGS AT THE OTHERSIDE LOUNGE IN MIDTOWN ATLANTA. THESE BOMB BLASTS INJURED MORE THAN 150 PEOPLE. RUDOLPH IS KNOWN TO OWN FIREARMS AND TO HAVE TARGETED LAW ENFORCEMENT.CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
-Eric
Now I will agree - and this was a religious matter. He had no business commenting on it. This was comments by religious leaders and President Bush is not a religious leader. By doing so, however, he sided with the Islamic religion against a Christian religion.
All I have heard from President Bush since he took office is how wonderful and hardworking the illegal Mexicans are and since 9/11 how wonderful and peace-loving Moslims (I don't know the correct spelling.) are - and how we Americans had better be so tolerant to these people - ditto from the Attorney General.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but this was just the straw that broke the camel's back. We as Americans have been berated, threatened and dismissed so much since he took office - now he is getting involved in religious disputes. He needs to stick to the war and leave religion to others. He wasn't elected to save the Islamic people or to dictate religious policy in America. This was a religious matter - pure and simple.
Now it looks as if Fox has gotten Bush to protect illegal Mexicans over the good of America and Americans and now Islamic leaders have gotten him to chastize religious leaders - compassion is one thing - forgetting that you are the President of the US is another.
That's probably the sanest comment on this entire thread. He shoulda just kept his mouth shut.
I'm as pro-West as the next guy, but you really ought to study the middle ages a bit more before assuming that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity. The truth is that Christians and Jews were far more welcome in moslem states than the converse.
The current wave of fundamentalism really is a creation of one kook from the early 20th century. Much of the kookiness comes from looking at things other than the Koran for their religious beliefs. And before you assume that every moslem necessarily follows every sentence in the Koran verbatic, you may want to ask yourself if every Christian takes every sentence of the Bible literally as well.
Lets see. Is Saudi society the same as Kuwaiti, Egyptian, or Turkish society? I don't think so, yet all are governed by people who profess adherence to the moslem religion.
On the flip side, do all Christians who claim to follow the Bible interpret it the same, and live identical lives? Aren't there some differences between the Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholics, Mormons, Greek Orthodox, and Methodists?
Why are you so willing to paint all moslems with the same brush simply because they profess to get their teachings from the same book, when it is self-evident that Christians have such widely varying interpretations of the Bible?
Islamists do not have absolute freedom. Many are imprisoned for plotting or providing material support to Al Queda.
Persons should be punished for their ACTIONS not their THOUGHTS. They are free to think what they wish.
Once they cross the line and take an illegal action, they are subject to the law, and the War Powers.
I think Bush has it just right. You have to allow religious freedom. To honor Americanism, you have tolerate other religions and viewpoints.
However, once an Islamist crosses the line into "providing material support" or "training" with Al Queda or others, they are now enemies of the United States...whether their religion tells them to do it or not.
If you watch the actions of so-called 'civil libertatians', you'll know that their goal is, yes, absolute freedom (for certain activities that they happen to favour, to be sure.)
Then where is the outcry? Where is the protest in the supposedly peaceful, moderate Arab countries? Where? Where are their voices?
I know all about Wahabism, pal. And I'll tell you something else: America wasn't a country in the Middle Ages, so don't try the Crusades crap on me. Catholics and Jews and crusaders and medieval people didn't fly those planes into buildings.
How many more Americans need to be butchered before you realize how inherently evil those filthy people are.
And your comparitive morality, and comparing the middle ages to now is a bunch of B.S. Shove it.
I'll answer that. Because every major act of terrorism (save the McVeigh thing) against America in the last 20 years has been committed by those barbarians, and our supposed "allies" in rag-head countries do nothing to stop it.
I'll say it again: I want them wiped out. They are a plague on the planet.
It not about using passages for political purposes, it's the whole concept in total. Islam is about slaughtering any that do not convert.
Can you think of any other religion that condones that besides Islam?
Assuming this is the "hard question" to which you refer, I'll answer it.
Heaven.
Any other straw men?
Let me clarify. I would wipe out the muslims in other countries, or at least their ability to make war on America, because I think we are at war with Islam. I would deport the Muslims in this country.
Now, you answer these questions:
If the vast majority of muslims are peaceful people, why do they (the ones in other countries) not do something to stop the attacks on Christians and Jews?
Where is the outcry, or crackdown, from Muslim governments supposedly allied with this country? Why has Saudi Arabia not put a stop to the financing of the killing of Christians and Jews?
Why have the peaceful muslims of Sudan not put a stop to the genocide and enslavement of Christians?
America threw of the yolk of tyranny by Great Britain, and to this day, we hold peaceful elections every two years, every year if you count state and local elections. Why, after hundreds and hundreds of years, are Muslim countries unable to have elections, a free press, peaceful transitions of power and fundamental respect for human life and dignity?
These aren't too hard for a smart, tolerant person like you, are they?
You know, sooner or later, you have to scrape the filth from the shoe of civilized humanity.
Please excuse me for saying this, but I never claimed that GWB should publicly state anything about Islam. The question is, are his statements honest and justified, or were they motivated by political correctness?
As for his deeper and theological beliefs about Islam, it matters no more than what Saddam has to say about America in his recent screed to the U.N. The plan is still the same.
Maybe it's me, but I don't see how this fits in with my comments to you. Again, I apologize for my ignorance.
On the contrary, I understand only too well. The Democrats rise up and denounce anything they deem is inappropriate. Many so-called "Jewish" defense organizations (see the one mentioned in this article) rise up and denounce anti-Semitism on the right (whether it actually exists or not) as it suits their political agenda. And Muslims in this country seem to have no problem rising up and denouncing any perceived slight to their faith as well as any action taken by Israel in its defense. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, then we can agree that the problem is not rising up and denouncing in general, but rising up and criticising other Muslims. Then we must ask the question, if American Muslims lack the courage to criticize their own who have acted violently, do they possess the moral authority to criticize anyone else who acts or speaks against them?
The majority of Muslims do not live in these countries. You should not assume that everyone in the world should be like you want them to be.
I make no assumptions. However, I can spot evil and hypocrisy when I see it. And the Muslims in this country (as well as around the world) seem to have a double standard when it comes to violence against them or by them. Ditto for "violent" language.
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.