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 personally don't see much difference in the media hyping this headline and what's going on on this thread, what with all the "All Muslims are evil" rants.
Very broad brushes being used all around.
While, I don't agree with that sentiment, I do think that's what many Arab/Muslim countries were deathly afraid of right after 9-11. The fear was palpable on their part. We should have at least threatened it.
Islam was a very aggressive and expansionistic religion, particularly in the century and a half immediately following the death of Mohammed. On the other hand, it is equally true that moslem leaders such as Saladin were far more tolerant of people of other faiths than were Christians. Jews and Christians were generally treated very well and tolerated within those moslem empires. Do you dispute that?
Christians, on the other hand, were busy engaging in pograms against each other, and were horribly intolerant of other religions. Try reading up on the sack of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, or the Albigensian crusade, or the Inquisition. Heck, Christians were burning each other at the stake. The history of Christendom is a pretty bloody one. But does that mean that Christianity as a religion was fundamentally violent and evil, or just that there were some violent and evil people who claimed to be acting in the name of Christianity?
The fact is that there are more than a billion moslems in the world. The overwhelming majority are peaceful people who live their own lives, worship their god, and are no more violent than the average Christian. That's self-evidently true. Because if they weren't, the amount of bloodshead and terror there would have been not only now but through the last few centuries would be mindboggling. I lived overseas for a bit in a culture in which islam dominated, and was never treated other than in a friendly and courteous manner. So there's no way in hell you're going to ever convince me that all moslems are evil.
I'd agree that there is a malignant subculture within islam that needs to be eradicated. But the blanket condemnation you issue can only be due to either ignorance or irrational bigotry. You pick which.
"The vast majority of rapists are men. Therefore, the vast majority of men are rapists." That's the type of logic some seem to be using on this thread.
I've got no problem with profiling as a police technique. It's foolish not to pay additional attention to young moslem males in places like airports. But that's just a common sense precaution. If only .1% of young moslem males are terrorists, but only .0001% of the general population are terrorists, it makes sense to focus on those young male moslems. But that's a lot different from condemning all moslems for the actions of a few.
I apologize. I thought the discussion was focused on American Muslims since that was who the President was defending. I didn't realize that you were taking the discussion in another direction.
In these countries, I do not see them rising up for either side. I see them rising up where they are the majority, which happens to be the countries that have political agendas against the west.
And in those countries where they are the majority? How are the minorities treated? How about in those countries where they form a substantial minority, e.g., Israel and India? How do they act there?
The unmistakable conclusion, is that those in the western countries that you want to rise up, are doing nothing.
I'm glad we agree on this much.
For whatever reason. Not that they do or do not want to denounce.
Interesting. They seem to have no trouble denouncing what they want to. Yet you do not see the need to address the issue that they denounce only when their ox is gored... You know, when Baruch Goldstein killed some Arabs almost a decade ago, Jews all over the world rose up to denounce the act...even before they knew the facts of the case. In fact, the facts were irrelevant. The Arabs also denounced it. Yet, it is evidently part of their culture NOT to denounce violence committed by Muslims against others. You can choose to morally equate all cultures, but consider it bigoted for others to question that perspective. Is that correct?
Why do you feel it is necessary for others of different cultures/beliefs to act the way you want them to?
I don't feel it is "necessary", however I do feel that if your culture is murderous then it is a deliberate falsehood for anyone to declare otherwise. I don't accept the blanket statement that they are "peace-loving" when their co-religionists both in this country and others are committing violence, and they say and do nothing to counteract the image that their "brothers" are creating for them.
Perhaps it's not in the make-up of the majority of Muslims to act the way you think they should.
And perhaps it is the make-up of the majority of Muslims to be murderers....both of others and of themselves. There are sufficient historical examples of both. Now, I try very hard not to think that Muslims should act that way simply because I think they shouldn't. I really wish Muslims weren't murdering people all over the world because it's wrong. I stand up publicly and say it is wrong because that is what I believe. And if an American murders a Muslim, then I stand up and denounce that as well. Muslims can act however they want. But if they only denounce violence when it is committed against them but fail to denounce other Muslims committing violence , then I don't think it's bigoted or narrow minded to question when other non-Muslims vouch for their "morality".
I don't think it is valid to infer anything out of silence, other than it is silence, or to form assumptions out of the absence of something.
Agreed. So why make the assumption or inference that they are peace-loving?
The proof I see of some Muslims being 'peace loving', are the ones that are not committing terrorist acts.
Ah, so only the ones who commit terrorist acts are not "peace-loving". How about those who provide them logistical, material, financial or emotional support? Are they "peace-loving"? Do you know who these people are? How do you know? You are giving the majority the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, not all Germans were Nazis. But the Holocaust still occurred. It began in Germany and Austria and spread throughout Europe. There were many who cooperated with the Nazis. But not everyone. Some even fought the Nazis. The Muslims, of course, are not Germans or Nazis. At least some Germans fought/protested against the Nazis. We do not see a similar pattern with the Muslims.
You are correct in that I prefer to think the best of people, and you are the first person who has ever thought I was politically correct.
I did not say I thought you were politically correct. Your statement, however, was. If we are going to discuss this politely, I would appreciate it if you would be accurate. You are free to think the best of people without my classifying you as a Pollyanna. No doubt, you have some rationl or factual basis on which to base this perspective. Although you may find this impossible to believe, I do NOT think the best of people. My perspective is colored by historical and current facts, e.g., the number of people who are slaughtered in various places around the world. Recognizing the perpetrators of these heinous crimes as being members of a certain faith, and questioning the "peace-loving" nature of their co-religionists who are silent in the face of these crimes may make me a "narrow-minded bigot" in your opinion, but it will adversely impact the wonderful rapport we seem to have.
I have always voted repub, and I consider myself conservative in most things. What I try not to be is narrow-mindedly bigoted, like I see so much of throughout the world, regardless of race or creed.
Congratulations. If you are referring to me, please have the honesty to say so. I don't believe asking questions based on the conduct of "some" members of a particular faith, a faith whose major religious book demands its followers exterminate "Infidels", is being "narrow-minded" or bigoted. However, perhaps you do.
Here is my reality!!
islam is a cult founded by a Jewish and Christian hating, child molesting pedophile, who was also a murdering thief. The followers of the cult bow several times a day to worship a meteorite in the sand and follow teachings from a hate filled screed written by a maniac. The sword and death are used to induct new cult members.
Numbers 31:13-20
The Holy Bible, New International Version
13 15 19
them outside the camp. 14Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the
commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the
battle.
the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the
Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck
the LORD’S people. 17Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
with a man, 18but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (take this out of context and things could get ugly)
stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify
yourselves and your captives. 20Purify every garment as well as everything made
of leather, goat hair or wood."
See, it's their amoral, screwed up belief system, religion and culture that allows the Taliban and al-Qaeda to flourish.
Serious question here: Since its "secession" from Great Britain, the United States has had a free press, free elections, peaceful transitions of power, and applies a fundamental respect for human life and dignity. Why are none of these present in Muslim countries?
And your Klan red herring in another post is completely disengenuous. The Klan has not been any type of force in the United States in more than a generation. Furthermore, its acts of terror -- smaller in scale, i think you'd agree, than 9/11 -- are prosecuted by the American government.
Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, are encouraged and financed by Muslim governments.
Seriously, though, I'd like an answer. Muslims seem completely incapable, or supremely dis-inclined toward, self-government and the rule of law. How do you explain this?
Again, I said nothing about Muslim-Americans.
Why are muslim governments not respectful of the rule of law, self-government, and sanctity of life. My question, which you refused to answer, was Serious question here: Since its "secession" from Great Britain, the United States has had a free press, free elections, peaceful transitions of power, and applies a fundamental respect for human life and dignity. Why are none of these present in Muslim countries?
I also said that the Klan had not been any kind of terror force in more than a generation. You tacitly admitted this, with your 1960s reference.
That means you consider Muslim-American culture identical to Muslim culture in Islamic countries.
If so, that supports my original theory, that Muslims anywhere -- this country included -- should be considered the enemy.
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.