Give it up for Bush (for once)!

[boywonder]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h_muslims_dc_4

Now I'm just going to brace myself for the INEVITABLE response.

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

What response are you expecting then? I, for once, fully support his remarks and totally agree with your subject line here. (Religious) Extremism is bad, be it from the Islamic, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic or whatever faith.

C ya!

Marty

[Dreadsox]

Wow.....

Ya know........Bush is starting to really impress me. I started a thread basically criticizing the lack of response over some of the comments made by the religious right.

Bush, hats off to you.


Peace to all.

[ghetofabu]

I think it was a good statement.

[Screaming Flower]

i'm watching tv right now and as i was scanning the channels pat robertson was on talking about bush's statement. he makes me ill. he said he still supports the president and then went off on one of his wacky tangents about islam. he is obviously such an expert on the subject. *gags*

the thing that annoys me the most is that if a muslim cleric were to get up and give "his" explanation of christianity, people would freak out. robertson et. al. should stick to what they know. of course, i have no idea what this really is.

it also annoys me when the press gives these people a larger audience for their hate-spewing.

i'm glad bush finally made public comments about it. it was long overdue. he did the right thing.

[nbcrusader]

IMO, what sets Bush apart from other Christian political leaders (and I use that term loosely), is that starts by looking to God for wisdom (by prayer and study) rather that trying to use God to justify a human agenda.

Its too bad that “right wing” theologians (again, the term is used loosely) fail to comment solely on matters of Truth, but resort to inflammatory mudslinging at other religions.

[deep]

Bush Takes on Christian Right Over Anti-Islam Words
Wed Nov 13, 6:26 PM ET
By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites).


"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 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 (news - web sites), 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.

[diamond]

Originally posted by deep

[deep]

I have no problem praising the Bush administration when I deem it is warranted.

These remarks are good. They are overdue.

I would have more respect for W. is he had said this when it might have cost him. Why did he not make these remarks when Falwell made his ignorant remarks, why did he not speak up before the election.

The Christian Coalition is a powerful voting block. He was silent because he could not risk them being offended and staying home on Election Day.

This is typical of politicians.

When Bush campaigned he said he would not put his finger to the wind.
That is a big lie, they are polling like crazy.
Most politicians do. He is just going back on his word.

"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.

What the hell does this imply?

What if he said "there are millions of peace loving 1. chinese americans, 2. black americans 3. american jews, etc."



Timing is everything.
After the election, it cost him nothing.

Also in today’s paper:

Almighty to Remain in Pledge and Motto
Bush signs bill in wake of a court ruling that references to God violate Constitution.
From Associated Press

November 14 2002

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Wednesday signed into law a bill reaffirming -- with a slap at the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto.

Bush signed the bill without comment. It reinforces support for the words "under God" in the pledge, and for "In God we trust" as the national motto.

The bill was approved unanimously in the Senate and drew just five no votes in the House. Congress rushed to act after the federal appeals court in California ruled in June that the phrase "under God," inserted into the pledge by Congress in 1954, amounted to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. The legislation faulted the court for its "erroneous rationale" and "absurd result."

The new law also modifies the manner in which the Pledge of Allegiance is to be delivered by stating that, when not in uniform, men should remove any nonreligious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Previously, the standard dictated that "any headdress" be removed.

Keeping the Christians happy.

Americans that occurred after Sept. 11.
By Arianne Aryanpur
Times Staff Writer

November 14 2002

WASHINGTON -- A human rights group commended the swift state and federal response to increased hate crimes against Muslims after the Sept. 11 attacks but said government should have anticipated the wave of violence and taken steps to head it off.

In a 41-page report, New York-based Human Rights Watch asserted that as long as conflict in the Middle East continues and further terrorism in the United States remains likely, government officials must expect more hate crimes against the Muslim community and focus on preventing it.

The report, to be released today and drawing on FBI data, documented a 17-fold increase in hate crimes against Muslims in six cities with large Arab populations or large numbers of hate crimes -- Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, Phoenix, New York and Dearborn, Mich. These figures compare all of 2001 with all of the previous year, with the bulk of the incidents in 2001 occurring after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The FBI said Los Angeles County reported that anti-Arab hate crimes shot up from 12 in 2000 to 188 in 2001, slightly below the six-city average.

"In many cases, government officials responded quickly and vigorously to the backlash violence," the Human Rights Watch report said. "President Bush and numerous state and city officials publicly condemned anti-Arab hate crimes."

But the report also found fault. "Government officials didn't sit on their hands while Muslims and Arabs were attacked after Sept. 11, but law enforcement and other government agencies should have been better prepared for this kind of onslaught," said Amardeep Singh, U.S. programs researcher at Human Rights Watch.

Singh said "backlash" hate crimes against American Muslims were predictable given the increased violence against Muslims after the Persian Gulf War and the Oklahoma City bombing.

While officials ultimately linked the Oklahoma bombing to an American terrorist, many Americans first assumed that Arab terrorists were behind the attack. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights organization, recorded more than 200 incidents of Muslim harassment or assault in the days after the attack.

"Since Sept. 11, a pall of suspicion has been cast over Arabs and Muslims in the United States," Singh said. "Public officials can reduce bias violence against them by ensuring that the 'war against terrorism' is focused on criminal behavior rather than whole communities."

The report recommended enhancing programs already in effect in at least some of the six cities. It praised the local and state governments that held news conferences, established community outreach programs and deployed police at Muslim gathering places to prevent crimes. The Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission notified police of potential "hot spots" such as mosques and Arab-owned convenience stores, according to the report.

"I think these are very legitimate areas of concern," said Council on American-Islamic Relations spokeswoman Hodan Hassan. She underscored the need for establishing better relations between law enforcement and American Muslims.

"We can start by sensitizing law enforcement officials to the needs of the Muslim community through diversity training that will teach them what is Islam, what do these people believe in, what are their customs," she said.

Timing is everything. Bushes statement is a reaction to the release of this critical report, and gives him some cover.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by deep
I have no problem praising the Bush administration when I deem it is warranted.

These remarks are good. They are overdue.

I would have more respect for W. is he had said this when it might have cost him. Why did he not make these remarks when Falwell made his ignorant remarks, why did he not speak up before the election.

I believe Bush made similar remarks immediately after 9/11.

[deep]

Yes he did.

But, there have been a lot of inflammatory remarks made by promenade Americans, in recent weeks.
What was overdue was a response to those remarks.

[U2Bama]

Well, to be more spedifici on what nbcrusader pointed out, I think I recall Bush specifically addressing Falwell's inappropriate comments shortly after Falwell made his inappropriate comments.

~U2Alabama

[melon]

I find that most of the people making these anti-Islamic remarks are in no position to comment; their own "Christian" beliefs are quite extremist and repugnant to start with.

But I can't say I'm an Islam lover myself. I have a few choice comments I just keep to myself.

Melon

[deep]

The best thing I can say about Islam is that it began 600 years after Christianity, and what, 1000+ years after Judaism.

What was the Christian church like 600 years ago, before reformations, probably more barbaric than most of Islam today.

I am hoping for reformations in Islam, as there have been reforms in other older religions.

[diamond]

I think the radicals are trying to reform Islam the wrong way, and were trying to impede that, while saving future lives..

Melon-
I think Ralph Reed likes you.
DB9

[Scarletwine]

1. This may be the only time I can say I agreed with W. but I disagree with "under God" as a Christain I refuse to speak those words while resighting the Pledge at my Township meetings.

[us3]

Originally posted by melon
I find that most of the people making these anti-Islamic remarks are in no position to comment; their own "Christian" beliefs are quite extremist and repugnant to start with.

But I can't say I'm an Islam lover myself. I have a few choice comments I just keep to myself.

Melon

why, keep them to yourself?

[boywonder]

Originally posted by Popmartijn
Hello,

What response are you expecting then? I, for once, fully support his remarks and totally agree with your subject line here. (Religious) Extremism is bad, be it from the Islamic, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic or whatever faith.

C ya!

Marty

See Deep's comments. THanks.

Boywonder

[Zoomerang96]

hey, now theres something i can agree with.

falwell is not a christian in my eyes. in fact, i find it so hard to be a christian in my own way, it kinda hurts sometimes. theres people that arent christians that hack you down for your faith, and theres people who are "christians" who tear you to bits too.

:S

i think maybe i shouldnt pay attention to the outside world as much, and be more secluded. it would be easier on me.

[Ft. Worth Frog]

I have to say that though I do not quite agree with the style and tone used by Falwell and Robertson, much of what they say is based on historical fact. Yes, the majority of Muslims living in the U.S. are peaceful, but what about the ones in other countries. Let me say that there are also peaceful ones in other countries, but often, others do perpetrate crimes against humanity. For example, the years long war in Sudan is waged by the Muslim led governement in an attempt to quash Christianity and animism in the south of the country. Indonesia has had constant problems with Muslim mobs rioting and burning hundreds of churches. Few if any Muslim countries have any religious freedom. There is a far cry between Robertson saying that many Muslims are not peaceful and the Muslim clerics who cry out for Jewish and Christian blood. I have yet to see a Christian pastor call for a fatwa against somebody (correct me if I am wrong here) The recent attempted stoning in Nigeria is not a product of some Falwell led mob, but of an implementation of sharia'a law. I know I will probably get castigated over these observations, but I know that what I am saying is fact, not an opinion. I am only giving a background from which Robertson and Falwell are speaking. I did not see what they actually said, but I am sure they probably said something before those words that set them in context. Of course this does not excuse the actual words they used, but I believe it is helpful to everyone if people actually listen and watch what is going on in the owrld instead of reacting without having the slightest clue. Andi in response to deep, It is not helpful to go back and fling stones and compare religions. But, on a side note, Islam was born a religion of conquest unlike the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The Crusades can hardly be called Christian. However, Mohammed himself conqured to spread his new religion. To say it was born peacefully is a direct contradiction to what history tells us.