"Apologize to Muslims" rally at Franklin Graham Me

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:05 am

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story ... ml?ref=rss

Apologize to Muslims, Winnipeg groups urge U.S. evangelist

Last Updated: Friday, October 20, 2006 | 10:37 AM CT

CBC News

As Franklin Graham prepares to host thousands of Christians at his Central Canada Festival in Winnipeg this weekend, some local Christian groups are planning an opening-night rally calling on the popular U.S. minister to apologize for comments he has made about Islam.

"This is a highly appropriate time for Rev. Graham to retract comments of what amount to hatred of people because of their religion," Aiden Enns, organizer of Operation Bless Our Enemies, said Thursday.

"He would be seen as a bright light of forgiveness and also humility, and it's very strategic for him to make an apology at this time."

Operation Bless Our Enemies is a twist on Operation Bless Our Troops, the name of a website the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association runs to send prayers and inspirational material to soldiers "faithfully defending freedom" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Graham website.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington, Franklin Graham, son of televangelist Billy Graham, has denounced Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion."

Enns said Graham has also made comments "which amount to essentially the use of nuclear weapons on countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's highly incompatible with the Christian gospel."

The Winnipeg event, which starts Friday evening and runs until Sunday, will be the only Canadian festival this year for Graham.

No plans to retract

With no admission charge, Graham's evangelistic festival aims to bring music and entertainment to "share the simple but profound truth that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life," organizer Dan Klug said.

Klug said he was not surprised by the rally and Graham has no plans to retract his comments this weekend.

"Franklin has expressed his concern in regard to the framework of Islamic faith," Klug said. "Their doctrine, the truths that they proclaim to be true and communicate. Franklin does not have any ill will towards the Muslim people."

The festival starts Friday evening with performances by musicians Paul Brandt and Rebecca St. James.

Enns said his multifaith event, dubbed a "graceful opposition," will include Mennonite, United and Anglican church members, as well as representatives from the Muslim and Jewish communities.

They plan to assemble near the MTS Centre, then walk to the festival site to give out handbills to people going to the festival, encouraging them to sign the handbills and leave them on collection plates.

Klug said he hopes the protesters will join the festival to see what the event is all about.

A spokesperson for federal Immigration Minister Monte Solberg declined to comment Friday on Graham's past remarks.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations asked Solberg to clarify what it called "an apparent double standard" when it came to barring controversial foreign religious leaders from the country.

Solberg had barred a British Muslim cleric from coming to Canada to address a youth conference in Toronto earlier this year.

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:03 am

How sad

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:30 pm

FFC wrote:How sad

Yes, I agree. How sad.

The article defines the comments that Franklin Graham made as being a denunciation of Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion" and, in the words of his associate...

"Franklin has expressed his concern in regard to the framework of Islamic faith," Klug said. "Their doctrine, the truths that they proclaim to be true and communicate. Franklin does not have any ill will towards the Muslim people."

However, the group of people (?Christians) who are protesting are refusing to make an essential separation of ideology and people, as in sin and sinner. They are refusing to see that Christianity is an exclusive religion - as in John 14:6 - and whatever else is not Christianity, is an idolatrous false doctrine. I cannot see how Franklin Graham's comments can be criticized from a true Biblical position.

On the other hand, there is a cultural component present among liberals where ad hominems seem to prevail and words such as "Islamophobe" are rife. There is no distinction made between the person (who is to be loved) and their beliefs (which can be regarded as false doctrine and inherently evil) so someone like Franklin Graham gets flak for pointing out what he can claim to be objective truth.

I believe it was Pope John Paul who, not too long ago, apologized to Muslims for sins committed by the Crusaders of the Middle Ages. One would need to keep in mind what is sin compared to what is not, and therefore what exactly was being apologized for and what was not.
It is always appropriate to apologize where sin has been committed, but I fail to see that Franklin Graham (if the news paper report is a true account of his position) has anything for which to apologize.

And Pope Benedict has added a strong voice in his insistence to Muslim clerics that reciprocity is required. Christians make all the allowances, but Muslims do not. Now where are the apologies from Muslims for the way they regard Christians - and we have the evidence of world events as to just how they regard Christians and others non-believers?

But back to Franklin Graham and this protest against him... I believe this group of people have a rather one-eyed view of what is in their Bibles and this distortion affects their belief and behaviour. They have contaminated their Christianity with the doctrine of postmodernism.

Turgonian · Post by **Turgonian** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:10 am

In this context, I am proud of a statement which suddenly popped up at a time against the 'God = Sentiment' attitude:

God is holy, not hippie.

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:29 pm

Latest update available on this story from CBC News, Manitoba, Canada:

"I know Franklin has said statements critical of Islam — the teachings of Islam — but he has an affinity and deep heart for the Muslim people," Klug said.

In an interview with CBC News, Graham said he "hasn't seen anything" to change his mind about Islam, but he doesn't harbour the same negative assessment of the people who follow that religion.

"There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world. I certainly respect and admire their sincerity, but I feel sorry for them," he said.

-------------------------------------------

Latest news in New Zealand papers this morning is that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring 500 Muslim students (accompanied by their familes) to attend universities in this country.

And the universities are seeing this as a "market" that can be expanded in the future.

Islam marches on...

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:04 pm

Judah wrote:....But back to Franklin Graham and this protest against him... I believe this group of people have a rather one-eyed view of what is in their Bibles and this distortion affects their belief and behaviour. They have contaminated their Christianity with the doctrine of postmodernism.

so then, we as Christians should support the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq?
Has anyone actually read the pamphlet that the group intends to pass out at the Graham event? If so, what part of it represents a distortion of the Christian message?

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:24 pm

ttoews wrote:
Judah wrote:....But back to Franklin Graham and this protest against him... I believe this group of people have a rather one-eyed view of what is in their Bibles and this distortion affects their belief and behaviour. They have contaminated their Christianity with the doctrine of postmodernism.
so then, we as Christians should support the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq?
Has anyone actually read the pamphlet that the group intends to pass out at the Graham event? If so, what part of it represents a distortion of the Christian message?

You are misrepresenting me, ttoews. Please take more care. To clarify for you...
I am referring to Franklin Graham's comments about the nature of Islam, not to war in Iraq and how it should or shouldn't be resolved - in other words, to the part that I quoted concerning his view of Islam, namely:

Judah wrote:The article defines the comments that Franklin Graham made as being a denunciation of Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion" and, in the words of his associate...
"Franklin has expressed his concern in regard to the framework of Islamic faith," Klug said. "Their doctrine, the truths that they proclaim to be true and communicate. Franklin does not have any ill will towards the Muslim people."

Franklin Graham has no reason to apologize to Muslims for his views expressed on how he views Islam. In that respect, the protestors are contaminating their Christianity with the doctrine of postmodernism.

This is what I am talking about and NOT about nuclear weapons and the war in Iraq.

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:09 pm

Judah wrote:Franklin Graham has no reason to apologize to Muslims for his views expressed on how he views Islam. In that respect, the protestors are contaminating their Christianity with the doctrine of postmodernism.

This is what I am talking about and NOT about nuclear weapons and the war in Iraq.

I referred you to the pamphlet that the protestors intend to hand out. You can see it here:
http://www.geezmagazine.org/blessourenemies
please look at it, note what they want Franklin to apologize for, and advise me what in the pamphlet is postmodern in nature

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:35 pm

ttoews wrote:
Judah wrote:Franklin Graham has no reason to apologize to Muslims for his views expressed on how he views Islam. In that respect, the protestors are contaminating their Christianity with the doctrine of postmodernism.

This is what I am talking about and NOT about nuclear weapons and the war in Iraq.
I referred you to the pamphlet that the protestors intend to hand out. You can see it here:
http://www.geezmagazine.org/blessourenemies
please look at it, note what they want Franklin to apologize for, and advise me what in the pamphlet is postmodern in nature

He did go a bit beyond the scope of his calling, didn't he? Religious leaders do need to be a little more diplomatic with their opinions, regardless of how sincere they are in their beliefs.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:55 pm

ttoews wrote:
Judah wrote:....But back to Franklin Graham and this protest against him... I believe this group of people have a rather one-eyed view of what is in their Bibles and this distortion affects their belief and behaviour. They have contaminated their Christianity with the doctrine of postmodernism.
so then, we as Christians should support the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq?
Has anyone actually read the pamphlet that the group intends to pass out at the Graham event? If so, what part of it represents a distortion of the Christian message?

I know nothing really of Graham, but I am always suspect in such cases that one (especially an Evangelical Christian) is being taken out of context. A person's message should never be split from the whole message which more often than not adds balance and perspective. I have realised many misunderstandings of historical writers have happened because some scholars focus on one part of a writing to put forward their gripe, while ignoring words which balance out the writing.

Now given my skepticism, I see this pamphlet is likely very misleading itself. For it says, "Reverend Franklin Graham responded by calling for the US to use nuclear weapons on Afghanistan" quoting: "I think we're going to have to use every...hellish weapon in our inventory .... the weapons of mass destruction if need be and destroy the enemy." Notice all the dots. Further notice nowhere is Afghanistan (or Iraq) mentioned in Graham's words? No doubt the Afghanistan people would have been quoted by this pamphlet if Graham mentioned them. Yet, it seems that Graham was simply saying that those responsible for the 9/11 should be stopped using any method possible, and would you not also agree to that? I am not a strict pacifist, and in fact believe such a position is morally wrong for I believe it results in an immoral complacency where one simply stands by while innocents are killed or abused.

Now whether I am wrong or right here, one should remain skeptical if they do not have first-hand experience of Graham's words. I have known in the past that a Christian ex-Muslim had legal action taken against him in Australia for speaking "hate" against Islam. Yet, I was at one of his meetings being complained about, and I saw no hatred at all. He disagreed with much of Islam, and spoke of his experiences in the Middle East as a Muslim turned Christian, and how Christians should reach out to Muslims with greater understanding. So when he was villified, I knew it was false. Perhaps this is why I am more sensative to similar things in Graham's case, and I see nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.

Kurieuo

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:55 pm

ttoews wrote:
Judah wrote:Franklin Graham has no reason to apologize to Muslims for his views expressed on how he views Islam. In that respect, the protestors are contaminating their Christianity with the doctrine of postmodernism.

This is what I am talking about and NOT about nuclear weapons and the war in Iraq.
I referred you to the pamphlet that the protestors intend to hand out. You can see it here:
http://www.geezmagazine.org/blessourenemies
please look at it, note what they want Franklin to apologize for, and advise me what in the pamphlet is postmodern in nature

Many believed the use of nuclear weapons might need to be an option 72 hours after 9/11 (the date of the comment was 9/14).

Franklin's opinion in that regard is not particularly unusual not did it carry any weight.

The idea that Islam cannot be classified as "evil" while still recognizing that Muslims can be nice people is postmodern in the sense that Christianity is criticized for its claims of exclusivity, tolerance is elevated to the exclusion of any judgement

Do you believe that Muslims are saved apart from Jesus Christ? What would you describe a religion that enslaves it's followers, incites violence and elements of which are bent on killing all Jews and Christians? Benevolent?

I'll agree as a public figure and evangelist it might not have been the most diplomatic thing to say but as a Christian I agree with him. The people in this group, which is interfaith, are using Franklin as a symbol and at its root is against the exclusive claims of evangelical Christianity that Franklin represents in my opinion.

You can't accept or support the exclusive claims of Christianity and Christ as the only way to God without by default judging all other religions, conterfeits and evil. It's a logical impossibility.

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:13 pm

My comments were in relation to the CBC article which reports:

As Franklin Graham prepares to host thousands of Christians at his Central Canada Festival in Winnipeg this weekend, some local Christian groups are planning an opening-night rally calling on the popular U.S. minister to apologize for comments he has made about Islam.

I then quoted Franklin Graham's comments about Islam.

Those are the comments - his views on Islam - which I do not believe he has any need to apologize for, and those are what I am referring to. I made no mention at all about his views on nuclear weapons or their use in Iraq. The article says he is being called to apologize for comments he has made about Islam - and THAT is what I am referring to. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I then went on to say that Christianity is an exclusive religion. It defines any other doctrine to be idolatrous and false religion. Franklin Graham is telling the truth about Islam according to Christian belief. To call Islam anything else is applying a form of relativism as in postmodernism.

Crikey, ttoews! I am not talking about his comments about Iraq - I am talking about the first paragraph of that CBC article and I then went on to quote what were his comments about Islam and then to say he had nothing to apologize for with regards to those views.

And Bart has said the rest for me in his post above.

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:33 pm

Hey K, how's life?

Kurieuo wrote:Now given my skepticism, I see this pamphlet is likely very misleading itself. For it says, "Reverend Franklin Graham responded by calling for the US to use nuclear weapons on Afghanistan" quoting: "I think we're going to have to use every...hellish weapon in our inventory .... the weapons of mass destruction if need be and destroy the enemy." Notice all the dots.

at the link I provided they give a link that provides a more detailed quote...one can only put so much on a pamphlet (that isn't about ice hockey)

Perhaps this is why I am more sensative to similar things in Graham's case, and I see nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.

Kurieuo

skepticism is good...and in this case one should note that the source was the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) a left leaning gov't funded public corp that thrills at pointing out any criticism of an evangelical.

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:45 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote:Many believed the use of nuclear weapons might need to be an option 72 hours after 9/11 (the date of the comment was 9/14).

Franklin's opinion in that regard is not particularly unusual not did it carry any weight.

so then years later Franklin should have no problem saying that he was caught up in the heat of the moment and may have been a little quick to suggest the use of WMDs.

The idea that Islam cannot be classified as "evil" while still recognizing that Muslims can be nice people is postmodern in the sense that Christianity is criticized for its claims of exclusivity, tolerance is elevated to the exclusion of any judgement

that might be, but how do you know that this is what the protestors are saying? Enns is a mennonite name....so this may be about pacificism and not postmodernism

The people in this group, which is interfaith, are using Franklin as a symbol and at its root is against the exclusive claims of evangelical Christianity that Franklin represents in my opinion.

again, do you know this or is this an assumption....I didn't see anything from Enns addressing exclusivity...in fact the link I provided speaks quite favorably wrt the Grahams.

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:48 pm

Judah wrote:.... Please don't put words into my mouth.

...Crikey, ttoews! I am not talking about his comments about Iraq.

relax Judah....you seem a bit defensive....all I have done is to ask for you to clarify what you meant (b/c I think you may have been jumping to conclusions)