Pentagon Muslims Angered by Rev. Graham Invitation

I think that the Pentagon used very poor judgment. I don't think that this action will sit well with the Pentagon Muslim community, and is an egregious insult. Shame on them!

This is the very short version of the article on Franklin Graham in this week's New Republic. You have to subscribe to get the full text (I get the New Republic, and would cut and paste, except it's long). I've been reading about him and others for a while now, and it just gets scarier.


https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030421&s=cottle042103

bookmarked

With his father no longer taking a very active roll because of illness and age, Franklin Graham is emerging as one of our country's foremost spiritual leaders.

This is not to mean that I practice the younger Graham's theology. He is too conservative for my spiritual nourishment, but the fact remains that he will inherit his father's money-making ministry.

If Jewish and Muslim groups can invite a speaker of their choice, why can't Christian groups do the same?

I don't agree with everything Graham says or does, but I agree that the Muslim religion is wicked and evil. I thought we could still express our opinions freely in this country.

I try in cases like this to put the other shoe on.

At first blush, I would say the Pentagon Muslims have no business having a say about what Christian leader is invited to preside over a Christian prayer group.... but, his words were very divisive and polarizing.

If the Pentagon Muslims invited a leader, who made similar comments about Christianity, I would pitch a fit.

Franklin Graham, like Sean Penn and Martin Sheen, has a right to say what he thinks. And like them, he may have to pay the consequences.

After a little study of the history of Islam, and recordings and tapes of many Muslim meetings, I happen to believe Graham is more right than wrong about Islam.

If the Muslims at the Pentagon know anything at all about the government of the United States, then they would definitely know about the First Amendment and its free-speech clause.

If the Rev. Graham is going to be too controversial, that's too bad. He should still be allowed to speak.

A more interesting program would have the Rev. Graham and a Muslim cleric make a brief speech separately on a given topic. After the speeches, allow time for questions and answers.

None of us are too old to learn something new -- even if its Muslim commentary or, for that matter, Christian commentary as well.

The downside of free speech is that it is used to validate the most simple thinking and the most hateful expression.

Oddly enough, many confuse the constitutional right for free speech to mean that it should be applied to any medium.

BTW, I think all religions are evil since they inspire some astonishing exhibits of ignorance.

Well, Craven, that's an interesting observation. Most religions seem to have been built built on fear and ignorance of the unknown.

But there's far more to this. Graham's group - Samaritans Purse - was the group that sponsored that program where the school children of America would send dolls and toys overseas. It was quietly discontinued after it was discovered that every package sent contained literature that was considered proselytizing. All of it contained a message to accept Christ. The problem was that this was not promoted to the schools and the public as a religious project at all. Instead, it was promoted as a sort of school kids' good will gesture. (And requested donations of toys and money, without disclosing that pertinent fact.)

I think there is a very fine line here. Separation of church and state did not mean the absence of religion, but rather the absence of any one specified religion for the country. And the growing presence of Franklin Graham is beginning to disturb many. I don't remember his father being like this. I mean, he was a preacher in the good old preacher sense, but you knew what he was. A lot about Franklin seems to be deliberately hidden.

I'm not too bothered by him, I'm more perturbed by the twisting of the right to free speech and the twisting of the separation of church and state.

Neither are applicable in a strict sense in this case, Graham is free to say what he wants, it does not mean anyone should be forced to consider inviting him to speak. A tendency toward more religious, in particular Christian, sensitive government is seen of late but I do not see a legal threat to the separation of church and state.

Both free speech and separation of church and state are fine laws, but as ideals thay have never been absolutes and never will be (for good reason).