Posted on 11/15/2002 3:10:50 AM PST by kattracks
CNSNews.com) - One of Americas most prominent religious leaders Thursday refused to back away from his criticism of Islam, despite efforts by the Bush administration to separate Islam from the hostility Americans feel toward Muslim terrorists
Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, challenged the media and Jews in the U.S. to read the Koran and "see who your real enemies are." Robertson once again rejected the view that Islam is a religion of peace.
"To say the religion of Islam is peaceful, I do not think that is accurate," Robertson said on his television program, The 700 Club Thursday morning, a day after Bush chastised conservative Christian leaders for their comments on Islam.
Robertson did handle Bush's criticism gently.
"One minor disagreement among friends does not end a friendship ... I appreciate the president, appreciate what he's doing; and I want everybody to know that something like this does not sever the support that I have given him over the years," Robertson said.
However, Robertson left little doubt he was not backing down from his critique of Islam.
"The Koran teaches that the end of the world will not come until every Jew is killed by Muslims. Now that is what it says in the Koran, written by Muhammad," Robertson said.
"Jews in Germany did not want to read [Hitler's autobiography] Mein Kampf and did not want to believe it," he added.
"There is no doubt that the religion of Muhammad and those who adhere to it firmly, such as the [Saudi Arabian] Wahabis, and the Taliban and the Iranian Mullahs and other mullahs operating in other parts of the world, is extreme and violent," Robertson said.
'See Who Your Real Enemies Are'
Robertson, acknowledging the criticism he has received for his critiques of Islam, issued a challenge to the media and the American Jewish community.
"Please read the Koran and see what it says ... Please see what the mullahs are teaching the little children in Palestine and in other parts of the world about you. And when you get through, do us a favor, don't criticize your friends, but see who your real enemies are," Robertson said.
"In today's world, people say it is not possible for us to believe that a religious system could teach what the Koran clearly teaches. It's the religion that's the problem, not necessarily the adherents to it," Robertson explained.
"Yet, if I tell the truth about this, I am criticized," he complained.
Robertson made it clear he does not believe U.S. Muslims are violent.
"We must distinguish between the origin of the religion and those who adhere to it in the United States, who are indeed peaceful," Robertson said. "To say that most of the adherents in America to the Islamic religion are peaceful, is absolutely correct."
On Wednesday, President Bush declared in an Oval Office meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, that, "Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans."
White House officials said it was a deliberate effort on Bush's part to repudiate several comments made recently by conservative Christian leaders including Robertson, Rev. Jerry Falwell and Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham.
Falwell, in a recent television interview, called the prophet Muhammad a "terrorist." Falwell later apologized for the comment, but not before Muslims, angered by Falwell's comments, rioted in Bombay, India and an Iranian cleric threatened Falwell with death.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin Powell joined Bush in condemning the Christian leaders' comments about Islam.
"We will reject the kind of comments you have seen recently, where people in this country say that Muslims are responsible for the killing of all Jews, and who put out hatred. This kind of hatred must be rejected. This kind of language must be spoken out against," Powell said at a meeting of business executives.
\sb100\sa100"We cannot allow this image to go forth of America, because it is an inaccurate image of America. We are a welcoming nation," Powell added.
E-mail a news tip to Marc Morano.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Yes, there is much difference - but you state our freedoms allows us to think for ourselves and that is the very reason President Bush and Powell should have stayed silent on the issue. It has nothing to do with politics. If, in fact, they were afraid their, and I say their, friends the Muslims would have their feelings hurt, they should have explained to them that they were political and governmental leaders and not religious leaders. That what a religious leader speaks, they have the freedom to do so and political leaders should not get involved. It would have been truth. It would have been the correct thing to do. It also would have given a great civics lessons to all those people they now want to bring into this country so we can 'love' them, 'educate' them, etc.
After Powell's speech explaining how they were bringing more of these people into this country, I think I understand why President Bush was so quick to denouce the religious leaders. He has to keep them quiet if he is going to sell the American people on the most dangerous (in my opinion) idea of allowing more and more of those 'peaceful' people into this country.
Soon those of you who are in denial will realize that President Bush's agenda is not exactly putting America and Americans first. Why do you think this little announcement of importing Muslims wasn't made before the elections?
That does explain a lot doesn't it? He no longer needs Americans.
Now I am not as rabid against all Muslims as some people. I truly distrust them and I do not think they should have the President's ear as they do. However, I do get a little amused when I read posts of people who tell how many peaceful muslims friends they have and therefore, we should not be fearful of them. I have known two child molestors in my life. One was a very favorite uncle - I adored him, played with his children all my life, spent much time at their home. The other was an old grandfather figure to my children. I did not find out about the uncle until I was middle aged and did not find about the older man for many years, after he had died. My point, people have a way of showing you what they want you to see and we can all be deceived. So I always take it as a grain of salt when they tell me how peaceful their neighbors, friends and co-workers are.
I also am not impressed by the Muslims who showed up at the FR gathering - it smells.
Thank you for making this point. I hear this all the time. I saw a poitical cartoon once: A caucasian glancing at an Arab, remarking to himself how "he looks like the guy that blew up the WTC." The Arab glances back, thinking to himself:"That looks like the guy that blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building."
Huh?
Muslims have a tendancy to blow up things; it seems to be a pattern. When you hear of a plane being hijacked, what do you automatically assume? Blacks, whites, Latinos, Jews, Christians, Atheists and Hindus do not tend to this sort of behavior.
FReegards;
MrJingles
Then there is the issue of moral equivalency of Christianity or Judaism with Islam. You take issue with the Jewish conquest of the Holy Land and the extermination of the Canaanites. Yet this is a unique situation in Scripture; the Jews were not commanded to spread Judaism throughout the world, killing Egyptians, Babylonians, and whatever other infidels were in the way of Jewish world dominion. As for the Canaanites, they were an especially wicked people and the Jews were the instruments of God's justice. If the Bible is the infallible Word of God, then the extermination of the Canaanites was the act of a just God. Justice, in order to be just, is not always gentle.
If you reject the infallibility of Scripture, consider that the Soviets and the Allies imposed great cruelties on the Germans (the Red Army's orgy of murder, rape, and looting in eastern Germany) and the Japanese (U.S. atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima). Yet the Germans and the Japanese started World War II and were guilty of horrible atrocities. It is certainly possible that God may have even used the atheistic Soviets as the instruments of His wrath on Germany.
In any case, as I pointed out, the law code of Biblical Israel called for the fair treatment of foreigners within their nation. The Christian faith regards all those who know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as brothers. "But ye (Christians) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." (I Peter 2:9) But it is not an exclusive "nation," but one chosen of all peoples of this earth, to whom Christians are to witness by word and example.
Consider this: you will find mosques in New York, London, and Paris. You will not find churches in Tehran, Baghdad, and Riyadh. Members of all faiths are welcome at Vatican City; Muslims alone are allowed into Mecca and Medina.
Christianity and Islam are not morally equivalent, and to claim otherwise is to deny the theological and historical facts.
One could argue that white Americans conquering the territory of the present United States and exterminating the Indian tribes was reasonable because the American nation, consisting mainly of European immigrants, could not co-exist with the Indian nations because of different governments, concepts of land ownership, religious beliefs, etc. In order to ensure the survival and growth of the American nation, the original nations had to be expelled, through murder, forcible expulsion, or mutual agreement. Yet the acts of the American nation and of white Americans constituted theft and murder, even if the Indian tribes did not have a concept of individual ownership of land and natural resources and even if a tribe that white men encountered, for instance the Comanches in Texas, had conquered the previous inhabitants of the area and killed or dispossessed them prior to the arrival of the Spaniards and the Anglo-Americans. Most of the whites considered themselves Christians; American common law derived from its English ancestor, which in turn was partially rooted in Biblical precepts. Theft and murder are violations of the Fifth and Sixth Commandments, respectively. The actions of the white Americans and the colonial, Federal, and State governments were reasonable, as they ensured the nations survival, but they were also immoral.
By what standard would the actions of the Jews with respect to their conquest of Canaan have been reasonable? As with the white American vs. Indian conflict, the Jewish nation could not co-exist on the same territory with the Canaanites. The Ten Commandments had already been given to Moses at the time the Jews arrived in what is now modern Israel. Yet the same Lawgiver who gave them the Decalogue and the Law also commissioned them to do these acts. Is this a contradiction? A Christian assumes that God is perfect, and He must therefore be free of contradiction.
The Christian also assumes that Gods power is infinite. The Westminster Confession of Faith discusses the sovereignty of God in Chapter III, Article 1. "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes [i.e., mans responsibility] taken away, but rather established." Not only is God perfectly just, He is entirely sovereign, in a sense no earthly king or state is, with perfect foreknowledge and the power to foreordain events. In other words, if the conquest of Canaan occurred, it was because God wanted it to happen.
Lets deal with the issue of Gods provision for justice. If God is perfect, then His justice must be perfect. The enforcement of justice is not pleasant upon the criminal, or at least should not be. The death penalty or long prison terms are harsh, yet are means of justice. Of what crimes were the Canaanites guilty? Genesis 18:16-19:29 tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities in Canaan where gangs and swarms attacked people for fun. (Please note that God destroyed those cities for their wickedness.) Canaanite religion involved child sacrifice. It was a practice that increased the more their cities expanded. Unlike other ancient civilizations where such practices died out, the Canaanites perpetuated it, as evidenced by archeology. If the atheistic Communists were used as Gods instruments of justice on the neo-pagan Nazis in 1945, there is no reason to think that God would not have done so with the Jews and the Canaanites circa 1300 B.C. Imperfect, sinful men, Communists and Jews, are used to punish wicked men, Nazis and Canaanites, deserving of Gods wrath.
Beyond the issue of the motives of the Jews, we must ask what Gods motives were. If God is perfect, He must then have infinite power and moral perfection. If He had less than perfect attributes, then there could be another being that is greater than God, even if we do not know that being, just as the baseball accomplishments of Babe Ruth were surpassed by Hank Aaron, Roger Maris, Mark McGwire, etc., even if Aaron, Maris, and McGwire did not exist when Ruth was at the height of his career. If God is imperfect in either His character or His power, He cannot be God as the Christian conceives Him. Thus, we must view the actions and commands of God as being consistent with His perfect nature. The Bible attests to the perfection and infinite power of God in numerous passages. God therefore could not have been and were unreasonable in His command to the Israelites to take possession of Canaan and kill and dispossess the Canaanites.
One could argue that this position regarding the nature and character of God is dogmatic. Yet any philosophical system is based on some sort of axiom, including empiricism. As Gordon Clark, a 20th Century Calvinist philosopher put it: To say that statements are nonsense unless verifiable by sensation, is itself a statement that cannot be verified by sensation. Observation can never prove the reliability of observation. Since, therefore, every philosophy must have its first indemonstrable axiom, the secularists cannot deny the right of Christianity to choose its own axiom. (How Does Man Know God, by Gordon Clark, available on The Trinity Foundations Web site, www.trinityfoundation.org). Christians rely on first principles, but so do all others.
Granted, many of the attributes Christians see in God resemble those Muslims see in Allah. Evangelical Christians and traditional Muslims have a similar epistemology: reliance on a holy book inspired or written by God as foundational in understanding the nature of man and the universe. However, this similarity in epistemology does not mean similarity in worldview. The Marxists and the Objectivists also share a common epistemology of naturalism. Yet Marxists and Objectivists have worldviews that are quite opposite to one another. A similar argument could be made for Nazis and New Age adherents, both of which are rooted in polytheism and monism. Reliance on a holy book does not make the worldview of the evangelical Christian similar to that of the traditional Muslim, even if the mainstream media and culture lump both together as fundamentalism.
I agree that one should not judge either the Christian or the Muslim faith by the excesses of those who call themselves adherents. Yet we cannot isolate a nations culture from the worldview of the leadership and citizens of that nation. If the Islamic faith in former Yugoslavia was more tolerant than elsewhere, it is because they were influenced not only by Islam, but by the Christian faith of the region and their ancestors. (Bosnians and Albanians were members of one Christian sect or other prior to the Turkish conquest of southeastern Europe in the 15th Century. The Slavic and Albanian Muslims still celebrate some church-related feasts and drank wine, brandy, etc.) On the other hand, the Arabian Peninsula received little Christian influence, and the Muslim conquerors in the 7th and 8th Centuries ruthlessly wiped out the churches and Christian believers throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Thus, the sole significant influence in the Arab world is Islam. What are its results? As you stated, Arab culture is violent, oppressive, and exclusionary. My argument is that you cannot isolate a civilization from its philosophical moorings. There are individual deviants, like a John Muhammad, the man accused of the sniper deaths in the D.C. area or like a Paul Hill, the defrocked Presbyterian minister convicted of killing an abortionist. These deviants are not the measure by which you measure the effect of a religion on a society. Rather, it is that society itself.
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.