Reply
Tue 15 Apr, 2003 11:15 am
Pentagon Muslims Angered by Rev. Graham Invitation
April 15 ?- By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Muslims at the Pentagon are incensed by what they say is an insensitive invitation to evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham, who has called Islam an "evil religion," to preach on Good Friday at the Defense Department.
In letters to the Pentagon chaplain's office this week, Muslim office workers complained strongly about Graham's plans to lead prayers on Friday, one of the most religious days in the Christian calendar.
The letters urged officials to find a "more inclusive and honorable" religious leader to take his place.
A spokesman for Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham and head of a Minneapolis-based evangelist association in his father's name, confirmed on Tuesday he would attend Friday's service, where prayers were likely to focus on U.S. military action in Iraq -- a largely Muslim country.
"As far as Friday is concerned, the Reverend Graham will be attending prayers at the Pentagon," said spokesman Jeremy Blume, adding Graham was in board meetings on Tuesday and was unlikely to comment personally on the issue.
The Pentagon was not immediately available to comment on the complaints, but a spokeswoman told The Washington Post that Christian employees had requested Graham as a guest preacher and the chaplain's office would not rescind the invitation.
"If a Jewish group wants to invite a particular speaker, they'll do that. Muslims hold services here too. The Army chaplains are absolutely nonjudgmental of any faith that soldiers want to follow," said Army spokeswoman Martha Rudd in Tuesday's Post.
IRAQ RELIEF PLANS ALSO CRITICIZED
Graham angered Muslims after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when he called Islam a "very evil and wicked religion."
He has also ignited controversy over plans for his relief organization, Samaritan's Purse, to go into Iraq to deliver aid, a move the Arab community says is aimed at trying to convert followers of Islam rather than helping Iraqis in need.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said inviting Graham to the Pentagon prayer service "sends entirely the wrong message to the Muslim and Arab world that the Pentagon will host someone who has such Islamophobic views."
He added: "This kind of incident can undo any kind of bridges built by a hundred public affairs officers at the Pentagon. They need to think how their actions are perceived not only in this country but worldwide."
Hooper said the plan by Samaritan's Purse to go into Iraq in the wake of an invading American army was wrong and would strengthen the belief the U.S. attack on Iraq was an attack on Islam.
"I believe his group is one of a number of evangelical missionary groups that use the cover of humanitarian relief to prosper in coercive ways," said Hooper.
Graham's spokesman declined to answer questions about the Iraqi relief mission, citing instead an opinion column Graham wrote recently for the Los Angeles Times.
"In Iraq, as is the case wherever we work, Samaritan's Purse will offer physical assistance to those who need it, with no strings attached," wrote Graham.
"We don't have to preach in order to be a Christian relief organization. Sometimes the best preaching we can do is simply being there with a cup of cold water, exhibiting Christ's spirit of serving others."
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
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).