Posted on 01/04/2003 1:25:16 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Just as the bodies of the three American missionaries slain by an Islamic terrorist in Yemen are laid to rest so, apparently, is the news coverage of the atrocity, complains Southern Baptist minister and WND columnist Rev. Jerry Falwell.
The three were killed Dec. 30 when a lone gunman burst into the Baptist hospital in Jibla cradling a rifle hidden inside his coat as if it were a baby. He opened fire, shooting 60-year-old William Koehn of Texas, 53-year-old Kathleen Gariety of Wisconsin and 57-year-old Dr. Martha Myers of Alabama, each in the head. A fourth missionary, 49-year-old Donald Caswell of Texas, was seriously wounded.
On Thursday, Yemen authorities arrested Islamic militants Abed Abdul Razak Kamel in connection with the missionaries' murder and Ali al-Jarallah in connection with last week's slaying of Jarallah Omar, deputy leader of Yemen's Socialist Party.
Security officials said the duo had plans to attack other foreigners, journalists and Yemeni political leaders and gave police a list of eight targets during their interrogation.
The missionaries are the latest Christians to be slain by Islamic militants around the world.
Falwell questions why the national media are ignoring these attacks.
"If a massacre were being conducted against people of color, God forbid, or groups like gays and lesbians, there would be an understandable outcry that would demand change," Falwell told Baptist Press. "It is a tragedy that Christian lives do not seem to have the same value to the national media."
As an example, he pointed to the more than 2 million Christians in Sudan who have been killed by the nation's militant Islamic regime in recent years, and yet there has been little coverage of the killings.
Falwell said America in general, and Jews and Christians in particular, have more to fear from radical Islam than from Nazism or communism in the past.
This isn't the first time Falwell has thumbed his nose at the politically correct.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Falwell came under fire late last year for asserting that "Muhammad is a terrorist."
On a "60 Minutes" broadcast Oct. 6, Falwell told CBS interviewer Bob Simon: "I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough, by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war."
Falwell told WND just before the interview was aired that his intent was not to attack Muhammad.
"I have avoided that. But [Simon] was pressing me on the issue of Muhammad's behavior, his involvement in war, and I simply said what I do believe, that Muhammad is not a good example for most Muslim people."
Following the "60 Minutes" interview, a leading Islamic group in Canada announced its intention to take legal action against Falwell and the Canadian channels that broadcast the interview.
Canadian Islamic Congress President Mohamed Elmasry told WorldNetDaily he believes criminal charges could be brought against "the person who made the statement and any accessories he used" under the country's hate-crimes laws.
In a June 15 column, Falwell also defended fellow Southern Baptist pastor Dr. Jerry Vines for his controversial declaration that Muhammad was a "demon-possessed pedophile."
Falwell pointed out that Vines was referencing the new book, "Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs" written by scholars Ergun and Emir Caner, who are Christian brothers raised as Muslims, as well as the Hadith, considered a respected source for Islamic teaching among Muslim clerics and followers worldwide.
"If you want to raise the ire of the mainstream press and the swarm of politically correct organizations in this nation, just criticize Islam," Falwell mused. "If those in the media were doing their jobs, Dr. Vines would never have felt it necessary to point out these disquieting elements of an enigmatic religion."
Ha! You're going to force me to crack open my history books (I know Charles Martel, and I liked Charleton Heston's rendition of el Cid - years ago; but can't say I know those other fellows).
Thanks, and have a blessed Sabbath.
In fact I recently posted to two articles right here on FR about mainstream muslim groups who took a stand against radical islam.
And just yesterday I posted 27 articles right here on FR proving that your articles were fabricated and pulled from known terrorist sites.
Blind hate is a ridiculous and close minded answer to this large and complex problem.
First of all it is not blind. It is justified by the endless stream of atrocities perpetrated by muslim savages worldwide, daily.
It is a rational and necessary response to primitive mindless Muslim Mass Murder savagery.
It may be complex in the tiny minds of the sand maggots but for civilized people it is simple: when life threatening vermin abound, exterminate them without a second thought.
No. You should be ashamed for sweeping generalities with no facts or cogent arguments, and asinine comparisons of Muslim Mass Murderers of today with Christians of the 11th century.
Try to get a clue, OK?
Okay, you bunch of arguers - just tell me this:
Name one "Muslim" country that is not a miserable, nighmarish place.
'nuff said.
He's still one of the few Christian voices given air time on TV to say anything of substance.
...I wonder how long it will take him to apologize for these statements.
Jorge 2
I didn't say what he should or shouldn't apologize for...even though you are desperately trying to pry an opinion out of me on this...I'll decide what questions I answer and when. In any case you really should learn to read posts before you respond to them.
Jorge, you're a dishonest fellow who embraces weasel words.
And you can save the sanctimony for somebody that cares. I'm a sinner no doubt. I use bad language and do not not suffer fools well at time's but hey, nobody's perfect.
You on the other hand lie whenever it suits your needs. And you have a terminal case of self importance.
All in all, I prefer my shortcomings.
There isn't even one that I can think of.
I don't think WE did. :-)
I have repeatedly stated that my position is that I DO NOT see any "moral equivalence" between the Bible and the Koran, between Christianity and Islam.
Perhaps you missed those posts.
Well said.
And many Muslim leaders and adherants say that the references from the Koran you cite are also quite specific and cover a very limited historical period.
I don't think its a waste of time to try and understand the open-ended Mohammedan command to 'kill and lie to the infidel'. Particularly since I'm an 'infidel'.
I never said it's a waste of time trying to understand this, but rather that arguing over the interpretation and context of passages from the Bible and Koran that some say advocate violence is for the most part simply a waste of time.
Most lay people of either religion are simply not going to delve into it that deep, let alone be convinced of your interpretations.
Especially when so many of their leaders already are not.
If there is some rationale that limits these verses to a particular time and place in Medina -- or there is a deeper spiritual meaning, I'd sure like to hear them. And therein lies the point on which we seem to be talking past each other.
Actually this is not the point I am arguing and I hope what I wrote above clarifies my position a little better.
You may or may not be theologically correct in your comparison of the Bible and the Koran.
But do you really think you are going to convince Muslims you know more about what the Koran teaches than they do?
And even if you could, will you convince them that the Koran teaches it is their duty to as Muslims to persecute and kill all non-Muslims in order to be true to their profession of faith?
Would you consider that a worthwhile objective?
Jorge 1
...I wonder how long it will take him to apologize for these statements.
Jorge 2
I didn't say what he should or shouldn't apologize for...even though you are desperately trying to pry an opinion out of me on this...I'll decide what questions I answer and when. In any case you really should learn to read posts before you respond to them.
Jorge, you're a dishonest fellow who embraces weasel words.
__________________________
Actually you're the REAL dishonest weasel for posting my original statement out of context in order to avoid admitting you started a stupid argument over something I never said.
I'm not going to repost my entire statement again because it is obvious you are not interested in the truth.
Nor responding to what I've actually posted....nearly as much as you are interested in assigning me a position you feel comfortable ranting against.
You on the other hand lie whenever it suits your needs.
Right. Your definition of a lie is anything you disagree with.
I could care less what you think about my views on Jerry Falwell or anything else.
The idea that I "need" to lie to you about anything is absurd.
I don't even care about proving any particular point to you. I respond to your posts for my personal amusement.
Chicago?
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.