"Apologize to Muslims" rally at Franklin Graham Me

[Judah]

No ttoews, frustrated more like. Nowhere was I referring to any comment on Iraq and yet it semed you thought so - twice.
If you want me to clarify what I mean, please just say "Judah, would you mind clarifying what you mean?"

I saw K's comment for the first time just now and wondered why I had not seen it before. But looking at the time it was posted, it was the same time as Bart and I saw only Bart's one as I was writing my own.

It may well be that the CBC report is taking things out of context, being - as you say, ttoews - "a left leaning gov't funded public corp that thrills at pointing out any criticism of an evangelical." One really needs to read the entire unedited speech to know exactly what Franklin Graham was saying.

I wonder how much longer it will be before an evangelist has pressure brought to bear on him not to preach the Gospel message at all - as in the only salvation is through Jesus - because it will not be politically correct, and it will be seen as offensive to those of other religions? (especially Islam)

[Kurieuo]

Hey K, how's life?

Life is life It is good to still see you around this board.

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)

I have read the linked transcript, and nowhere did I find Graham saying anything about these weapons being used on any particular nation such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So I see your original response to Judah's comments, which support Graham, as unfounded. Specifically your loaded question, "so then, we as Christians should support the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq?" which only seems founded on the misleading words of a pamphlet.

In fact, not only are Iraq and Afghanistan not at all mentioned, but Graham clarifies who he sees "the enemy" is not:

We shouldn't do that. I have many Arab friends, many Muslim friend, they're wonderful people who, of course, are just as brokenhearted and disgusted over the incidents of this past week as we are. And we should not just turn our hatred toward people of another race or of another religion.

We need to focus on those who are actually responsible for this. And it wasn't a race of people who did this, it was a small group of people who are bent on the destruction of this country, those Islamic fundamentalist that need to be stopped. So I plead with people not to paint in a broad brush, so to speak, the people of people of the Middle East. They're wonderful people.

Interesting that the pamphlet you referred to presents a contradictory picture of Graham's words. But, if it was developed based upon articles from organisations such as "the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) a left leaning gov't funded public corp that thrills at pointing out any criticism of an evangelical," then I guess such distortions are to be expected. So coming back to your extended original questions:

Has anyone actually read the pamphlet that the group intends to pass out at the Graham event?

Now I have.

If so, what part of it represents a distortion of the Christian message?

If the Christian message is the Gospel, then I see no Gospel really being presented. Yet, I find the purposeful distortions of truth in the pamphlet as unChristian, and the Pacifist idealogy which appears to be supported as being immoral and Biblically unfounded since Pacifism would allow the poor and innocent to be victimised.

Kurieuo

[ttoews]

Life is life It is good to still see you around this board.

thanks

I have read the linked transcript, and nowhere did I find Graham saying anything about these weapons being used on any particular nation such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So I see your original response to Judah's comments, which support Graham, as unfounded. Specifically your loaded question, "so then, we as Christians should support the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq?" which only seems founded on the misleading words of a pamphlet.

well given that
a) Franklin suggested the use of WMDs against the enimies of the USA
b) currently the USA is engaging its enemies in Iraq
c) nuclear weapons are one type of WMDs
d) the group called for an apology from Franklin specifically referencing his suggestion set out at a) above, and
e) Judah thought Franklin had nothing to apologize for

....I still think it was a fair question (loaded or not)....but your objection has been duly noted.

In fact, not only are Iraq and Afghanistan not at all mentioned, but Graham clarifies who he sees "the enemy" is not....

You are right that Graham didn't specifically mention Afghanistan and given the mood and finger-pointing at the time, I suspect that he had the Taliban in mind (and I believe that they were running that country at that time) The group's reference to Afghan. was inaccurate, but maybe not all that far off. Graham, of course, could easily clarify his comments....if he chose to do so.

If the Christian message is the Gospel, then I see no Gospel really being presented. Yet, I find the purposeful distortions of truth in the pamphlet as unChristian, and the Pacifist idealogy which appears to be supported as being immoral and Biblically unfounded since Pacifism would allow the poor and innocent to be victimised.....

personally I am not a Pacifist, but it is a voice that I appreciate w/i the Christian community. Had that voice been louder throughout history perhaps the crusades, the religious wars of Europe, the executions by Christians of other Christians, and lately the unquestioned support of the war in Vietnam by US evangelicals may not have occurred or would have been diminished....but again your objection has been duly noted.

]

[ttoews]

Nowhere was I referring to any comment on Iraq and yet it semed you thought so - twice.

my reasoning is set out in the five points in the post to K

If you want me to clarify what I mean, please just say "Judah, would you mind clarifying what you mean?"

didn't want a blanket clarification....just one relating to the questions that I asked.

One really needs to read the entire unedited speech to know exactly what Franklin Graham was saying.

agreed...and perhaps what the protestors have to say to know where they are coming from

I wonder how much longer it will be before an evangelist has pressure brought to bear on him not to preach the Gospel message at all - as in the only salvation is through Jesus - because it will not be politically correct, and it will be seen as offensive to those of other religions? (especially Islam)

I think the pressure is already started in Canada...though these protestors in Canada aren't the ones to worry about.

[Judah]

I have read the linked transcript, and nowhere did I find Graham saying anything about these weapons being used on any particular nation such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So I see your original response to Judah's comments, which support Graham, as unfounded. Specifically your loaded question, "so then, we as Christians should support the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq?" which only seems founded on the misleading words of a pamphlet.

well given that
a) Franklin suggested the use of WMDs against the enimies of the USA
b) currently the USA is engaging its enemies in Iraq
c) nuclear weapons are one type of WMDs
d) the group called for an apology from Franklin specifically referencing his suggestion set out at a) above, and
e) Judah thought Franklin had nothing to apologize for

....I still think it was a fair question (loaded or not)....but your objection has been duly noted.

I was very specific in my original post regarding what I said that Franklin Graham had nothing to apologize for, namely his views on Islam. I quoted exactly what I was referring to:

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."

The CBC News article stated that "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."
Regarding FG having nothing to apologize for, my post was referring only to his views about Islam and that was all.
I hope that is now clear.

Moving on...

The most recent report by CBC News on the weekend event continues...

"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.

Given the attention that Pope Benedict recently recieved by Muslim clerics regarding his lecture to a large gathering of theological students, I am wondering just how long before Franklin Graham is also "taken to task" for his views on Islam and if there will be persuasion applied for him to recant of them. He is quite a name on his own accord, but even more especially so as the son of Billy Graham. I think this will be worth watching.

[Kurieuo]

Now you have taken a few steps towards acknowledging what I took issue with, I will take a few steps myself.

I agree Christians ought to be careful with their words so they can't be misconstrued or manipulated so easily, and more importantly, always willing to forgive and make peace rather than jump into war. Perhaps Graham could have been more careful to get across his beliefs in this respect, but I have tended to note that many Evangelicals do not make particularly good politicians. In Graham's case, my first suspicions that his words were blown out of proportion appeared to be correct after looking into it a little.

I will say I really do not see how anyone who really follows after Jesus would appeal to war as anything but a last option. In fact, I think on matters of war that religion should never be invoked. On matters of war, religion should be kept entirely separate from politics. History has shown religion to be a powerful weapon in the hands of sinister leaders who understand religious beliefs run deep in the heart of many people.

....I still think it was a fair question (loaded or not)....but your objection has been duly noted.

Just to be clear, by saying it was a "loaded question" I meant the logical fallacy of it being complex (smuggling two questions within one). For example, either Judah "supports Graham and thereby supports the use of nuclear weapons on Iraq" or does not. Yet, it can be (as Judah defended) that she supports Graham, yet does not support the use of nuclear weapons on Iraq.

If the Christian message is the Gospel, then I see no Gospel really being presented. Yet, I find the purposeful distortions of truth in the pamphlet as unChristian, and the Pacifist idealogy which appears to be supported as being immoral and Biblically unfounded since Pacifism would allow the poor and innocent to be victimised.....

personally I am not a Pacifist, but it is a voice that I appreciate w/i the Christian community. Had that voice been louder throughout history perhaps the crusades, the religious wars of Europe, the executions by Christians of other Christians, and lately the unquestioned support of the war in Vietnam by US evangelicals may not have occurred or would have been diminished....but again your objection has been duly noted.

I can also appreciate that, although I believe more was going on with the crusades and so forth than it simply being a matter of religion. As for the Vietnam support, I am not so familiar with the going ons in the US. I know there has been a new found recognition for Australian Vietnam vets over here. Perhaps the first time ever. Yet, I see nothing wrong with honouring those who fought for one's country, showing patriotism and initially trusting one's leaders on issues we may not have total knowledge on (which I think many Evangelicals in the US do perhaps too readily).

Kurieuo

[Canuckster1127]

If I read it right the comments were made on 9/14/2001, which was before Iraq was even an issue in this context.

[ttoews]

Just to be clear, by saying it was a "loaded question" I meant the logical fallacy of it being complex (smuggling two questions within one). For example, either Judah "supports Graham and thereby supports the use of nuclear weapons on Iraq" or does not.

oh, in that case your objection is no longer noted and is now dismissed entirely. Twas not a fallacy...the support was specifically a declaration that no apology was necessary...so the question logically flows from the 5 points....now if only Judah had been clear enough to say in the first case that Graham owed no apology for his views on Islam then we could have saved ourself some time. Instead she said:

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 as you can see the article mentioned the possible use of nukes as part of his position

what bothered me in all this is what appeared to be a knee-jerk reaction to defend Graham and a corresponding knee-jerk reaction to condemn the group asking for the apology....and by my approach of asking questions and not making accusations, I hoped some would actually check out the facts before drawing conclusions.

I see I failed miserably.

Yet, it can be (as Judah defended) that she supports Graham, yet does not support the use of nuclear weapons on Iraq.

Actually, in all the bluster I don't believe Judah ever answered my question and stated that she did not support the use of nukes in Iraq...(though I infer she does not)...and I am still not clear as to whether the jury still thinks this is a case of postmodernists run amok

[ttoews]

If I read it right the comments were made on 9/14/2001, which was before Iraq was even an issue in this context.

you are right....Iraq enters the picture through the 5 points I listed.

BTW, what's with the handle "Canuckster"? Are you one?

[ttoews]

Given the attention that Pope Benedict recently recieved by Muslim clerics regarding his lecture to a large gathering of theological students, I am wondering just how long before Franklin Graham is also "taken to task" for his views on Islam and if there will be persuasion applied for him to recant of them. He is quite a name on his own accord, but even more especially so as the son of Billy Graham. I think this will be worth watching.

no doubt it will happen soon in Canada...but as I have hinted, the source might be the CBC...it has a reputation to maintain:
http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/1735

[Judah]

My comments are really not so important as to deserve all this attention.
No, it was not a knee-jerk reaction on my part. And just for the record, as much as I have a real abhorrence of war and believe that every effort must be made to find a satisfactory diplomatic solution if one is possible, I am not a pacifist either.

Thanks for the link to CBC Watch. That is a good response written by "user2" to Tony Burman's comments in a previous weekly column. I have not checked to see if TB has addressed that response in any subsequent column, but so often it is the case that the one who makes the most fuss gets the most attention - and Christians don't make the same kind of fuss as do Muslims regarding matters they find offensive. Perhaps we are more used to accepting offence in the name of retaining our prized freedoms? Or maybe it has something to do with the idea of leaving vengeance to God as He has said that it is His to repay?

Yes, perhaps it will be the CBC to pursue FG's comments on Islam. Or will they whisper something in the ear of the local imman? It will surely be somewhat remiss of a leftist paper to just let it fade away. Maybe next time they are a bit short of copy for the next edition...

And I also think some kind of injunction on Christians regarding the John 14:6 words of Jesus will be coming as well - all in the name of fair play in multiculturalism, of course.

[ttoews]

K, now that we seem to have finally resolved what Judah did or didn't mean ....maybe you would be so good as to satisfy my curiosity and explain what you did or didn't mean wrt the following:

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.

it could be said that God "stands by while innocents are killed or abused"...so there must be more to your position than what you have stated. I am curious as to what you meant b/c I have never viewed pacifists as being morally wrong...just not my cup of tea for all occasions.

[Canuckster1127]

If I read it right the comments were made on 9/14/2001, which was before Iraq was even an issue in this context.

you are right....Iraq enters the picture through the 5 points I listed.

BTW, what's with the handle "Canuckster"? Are you one?

ttoews,

I'm sorry I missed this.

I was born and raised in Canada and was moved by my family to the US when I was 15.

I actually naturalized this year, after 28 years in the US as a permanent resident. I guess I wanted to be sure it would take.

I still identify as a Canadian in many ways however. You can take the boy out of the country, but not the country out of the boy, afterall.

Bart

[Kurieuo]

K, now that we seem to have finally resolved what Judah did or didn't mean ....maybe you would be so good as to satisfy my curiosity and explain what you did or didn't mean wrt the following:

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.

it could be said that God "stands by while innocents are killed or abused"...so there must be more to your position than what you have stated. I am curious as to what you meant b/c I have never viewed pacifists as being morally wrong...just not my cup of tea for all occasions.

The moment one believes God wants us to be responsible in His creation, then complacency goes out the door. If the UN actually did the job they we created to do, they would have helped and defended the Tutsi in Rwanda who were slaughtered by the Hutus. Yes, God stood by the Tutsi as they were slaughtered, and God will stand by the poor if taken advantage of. These things may be true, but so what? Jesus still wanted the poor to be helped, and I am damn sure God would have still preferred the Tutsi to be defended.

There is theological thought that mankind was created in God's image as representatives of God in His creation. With this comes a God-given responsibility for us to look after God's creation the best we can. There is also thought that if God is Trinitarian, being social in nature, then our being created in His likeness means we are created to be in relationship with one another. With relationship comes a responsibility to each other. Thus, God may be God, and God may stand by people whether victimized or not, but all this says nothing of our God-given responsibility and therefore obligation to look after creation and each other.

Pacifists wash their hands of responsibility to others, and refuse to take necessary action when required, then protest against those who do, because they are black and white and do not wish to muddy their hands. Only under Christ's kingdom will peace reign and therefore pacifism be right, but in our current world where moral atrocities are allowed to be committed, the complacency of pacifism neglects moral responsibility and our God-given obligations to look after His creation and others.

K

[FFC]

If the UN actually did the job they we created to do, they would have helped and defended the Tutsi in Rwanda who were slaughtered by the Hutus

Maybe more pressure should be put on the UN to do their job.