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. |
While I respect your conclusion, I do not necessarily agree with the path you took to reach it.
You have to allow religious freedom. To honor Americanism, you have tolerate other religions and viewpoints.
So if their religion condones or encourages violence against other religions we have to tolerate it? I believe Islam, in particular Suha 9 of the Koran, encourages violence against "infidels". What, then, are we going to tolerate? Rather than call it a "religion of peace", perhaps it is better to remain silent. When Christian leaders rise up and criticize it, perhaps it is better to remain silent. Alternately, we could ask the Christian religious leaders to justify their statements.
When members of a particular faith protest violent words or actions against them, but are silent or actually approve when other members of their faith practive violence or speak violently about others, my tolerance level drops to zero.
Let me tell you a little story. Recently, a pro-Israel group ran an ad in the college newspaper showing an Israeli sports figure with the caption "Israeli hero". It also showed an Arab terrorist with the caption "Palestinian hero". The ad was denounced by some Arabs at the school. I found it interesting that the Arabs merely denounced the ad as "racist" instead of providing a list of "Palestinian heroes" who were not terrorists. The Muslims seem to complain when their ox is gored. But when they are goring someone else....
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.
We all know that 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. Those murderers came to this country and had logistical, material, financial, and emotional support from someone. I suspect it was their fellow Muslims. Moreover, we had the anthrax attacks and we have heard stories about "sleeper agents" which seem credible. I am not saying every single Muslim is evil or that steps need to be taken against them as a group. However, I do question our President when he makes what could very well be politically correct statements about members of a faith which professes "peace" from one side of their face and applauds and supports terrorism against Jews from the other.
Yemen just gave us intelligence that enabled us to kill some of those terrorists, and Pakistan has tried helping as well, just to name two recent examples to refute your claim that they've done "nothing".
And let's see -- how successful were we at stopping McVeigh? How many years did it take us to catch the Unabomber? It's not as easy to stop terrorism as you may think.
Oh, and how about all those Catholics in Ireland who don't turn in members of the IRA who commit terrorist acts. Should we wipe out all Catholics while we're at it?
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.
Then you'd know that not all moslems follow wahabism.Your point was that islam is an inherently evil and violent religion. Only a person ignorant of history could make such a ridiculous claim.
How many more Americans need to be butchered before you realize how inherently evil those filthy people are.
And exactly who are these inherently evil "filthy people?" All moslems? Sure, why not just break out the knives and slaughter all 1 billion or so of them, women and children included? Might as well stuff the remains in some ovens to finish the job.
Yup, we've heard this stuff before.
I think Bush has it just right. You have to allow religious freedom. To honor Americanism, you have tolerate other religions and viewpoints.Yep...guilt is based on individual actions, not the alleged beliefs of an entire religion. Collective guilt isn't a concept that America (or any other nation with any respect for liberty) has ever accepted.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.
-Eric
Yes, we are all aware of Eric Rudolph being on the "Most Wanted" list. But my question was, "Has Eric Rudolph been convicted of a crime?" The answer is no. How do we know he did anything, other than a claim by a corrupt Justice Department? He is still innocent until proven guilty.Take another look at that list of the Ten Most Wanted. I can see someone else there that your claim could be applied to, that's also mentioned around here. As long as both are fugitives, there's some reason to believe that guilt exists.
In Rudolph's case he's been indicted by federal grand juries in both Birmingham and Atlanta. If he is guilty of the Centennial Park bombing, the death toll could have been tremendous had it not been for Richard Jewell (himself wrongly accused).
Rudolph isn't the only terrorist tied to extreme Christianity, just the most famous. Do these nuts reflect on Christianity as a whole? Nope. The same holds for the Islamic terrorists and their faith.
-Eric
I see Muslims all over the world murdering people of other faiths. But no, I do not see other Muslims in the countries you have named rise up to denounce them. However, I'm sure you will agree that the USA is not one of these countries and Muslims who live here have no fear of being "wiped out by their government". And, as I have mentioned, they seem to have no fear of rising up and denouncing what they want to denounce. So, the unmistakable conclusion is that they simply DO NOT WANT to denounce acts of violence (or violent speech) by other Muslims. Now, we can form certain assumptions about the reasons why they don't want to but one of those assumptions has to be that they either passively agree with or actively support Muslim violence. While we can make no positive conclusions about this assumption, it would be just as foolhardy to assume these people are all "peace loving" without proof.
As I said before, these are political agendas, using religion as a rallying point, not all that follow Islam are murdering jihadists.
I never claimed that "all who follow Islam are murdering jihadists". I just question the wisdom of assuming that they are all peace-lovers given their enthusiasm for protesting what they see as "offenses" against Islam or Muslims and their near-total silence in the face of offences committed by other Muslims, whether in the name of Islam or not.
Obviously, you are quite comfortable making that leap of faith. Good for you. I just don't share your views. You are obviously politically correct, but that doesn't mean you are either morally correct or realistic. The President, a man I respect, shares your perspective (at least publicly). And from his POV, I can understand that position. He has to worry about the media and his political enemies, as well as keeping the peace at home. I do not have those burdens and so am free to ask some honest questions. You don't have those burdens either, but have adopted the politically correct position, no doubt out of conviction. If you are a Democrat or other liberal, I can understand why you have made this choice. If, however, you are a Republican or other conservative, then I can't understand it since there is (at least to me) room to doubt.
Driving Mohammedans out of a land is a tricky business. Ask the Spanish. It took hundreds of years to drive the Moors out of Spain. You may have heard about it.
BTW, since the Church has been attacked for hundreds of years regarding the Crusades, perhaps it's time the Church was given some credit for it.
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.Mohammed and Mohammedanism
1911 Catholic Encyclopedia
Was it the Protestants who drove the Mohammedans out of Europe?
You're a funny guy. The Mohammedans spent the Middle Ages invading Europe, bless their hearts.
After Mohammed's death Mohammedanism aspired to become a world power and a universal religion. The weakness of the Byzantine Empire, the unfortunate rivalry between the Greek and Latin Churches, the schisms of Nestorius and Eutyches, the failing power of the Sassanian dynasty of Persia, the lax moral code of the new religion, the power of the sword and of fanaticism, the hope of plunder and the love of conquest — all these factors combined with the genius of the caliphs, the successors of Mohammed, to effect the conquest, in considerably less than a century, of Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, and the South of Spain. The Moslems even crossed the Pyrenees, threatening to stable their horses in St. Peter's at Rome, but were at last defeated by Charles Martel at Tours, in 732, just one hundred years from the death of Mohammed. This defeat arrested their western conquests and saved Europe. In the eighth and ninth centuries they conquered Persia, Afghanistan, and a large part of India, and in the twelfth century they had already become the absolute masters of all Western Asia, Spain and North Africa, Sicily, etc. They were finally conquered by the Mongols and Turks, in the thirteenth century, but the new conquerors adopted Mohammed's religion and, in the fifteenth century, overthrew the tottering Byzantine Empire (1453). From that stronghold (Constantinople) they even threatened the German Empire, but were successfully defeated at the gates of Vienna, and driven back across the Danube, in 1683.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
That's an extreme viewpoint. I don't think you're gonna gain much support for that position.
How about we deal with realities?
Let's add Afghanistan, Algeria, the Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Nigeria and Ethiopia to the list, shall we?
Lets see. Are these societies the same? I don't think so, yet as societies go they all suck and are governed by people who profess adherence to the moslem religion. Just a coincidence I'm sure.
That's an extreme viewpoint. I don't think you're gonna gain much support for that position.
How about we deal with realities?
Agreed. Mohammedanism is a religion, a false and evil religion bent on global conquest by the sword.
How would you do it? How would you round up the Muslims who were also American citizens? And from what authority would it come? Congress? President? Constitutional Ammendment? Vigilantism? The soldier in me wants to know these things. It's easy to pop off about "Round 'em up! Kill 'em all!" But I want to know the details. Which freedoms are you willing to give up? How much power are you willing to cede to the gov't in order to make this happen? Religion Gestapo? Is that what you want?
I'm just asking a simple question. If you answer, you will be the first person on several threads to have done so.
BTW, I have nothing against Catholics or the Crusades. Why are you telling me about it? I'm simply playing the Devil's Advocate here and asking people to get a little deeper into what they want than the actual sentiment (ie- asking them to not act like liberals but instead to actually explain how what they want will work)
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.