Bashing Islam: a dangerous sign of the times
The school year started off with an unpleasant bang in Gainesville, Fla., when a fifth-grader showed up on the first day wearing a T-shirt with “Islam is of the Devil” inscribed on the back.
Administrators sent the 10-year-old home to change clothes. But the next day, several other students at two high schools and a middle school arrived wearing the same message. All were told to cover it up or go home.
The local church responsible for the T-shirt, Dove World Outreach Center, is unapologetic about the school campaign. Church members had already erected a sign on church property proclaiming “Islam is of the Devil” to passersby. According to the pastor, the church has a Christian duty to expose Islam as a “violent and oppressive religion.”
Missing no opportunity to drive the message home, Dove World will mark the 8th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks with a rally to whip up outrage—not at what some extremists did in the name of Islam, but at Islam itself.
Under the First Amendment, Dove World has the right to proclaim its beliefs about Islam, no matter how much it offends others. But the kids in the congregation may have to wait until after school to put on the T-shirts.
Students do have some free-speech rights in schools. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the authority of school officials to draw the line at student speech that they can reasonably forecast will cause a substantial disruption. It’s very likely that the Dove World T-shirt crosses that line, especially since Muslim students attend Gainesville schools.
Beyond the constitutional issues, however, the controversy points to the larger, more difficult question of how we engage one another in a public square that is increasingly poisoned by hatred and division. Dove World’s anti-Islam initiative is not unique. Post-9/11, a growing number of churches inspired by some evangelical leaders such as Ron Paisley and Pat Robertson have condemned Islam in harsh terms. As Robertson puts it, terrorists don’t distort Islam—they are “carrying out Islam.”
Apart from the fact that these ugly generalizations are distortions of Islamic teachings and wildly misrepresent the views of the vast majority of the world’s 1 billion Muslims, Islam-bashing on this scale threatens American Muslims and undermines the common good.
It’s impossible to measure the effect of anti-Islam rhetoric on those who take it to the next level and commit acts of violence. But we do know that attacks targeting Muslim Americans are a significant problem across the country. Last month, for example, a Philadelphia business owned by Muslim Palestinian-Americans was ransacked and covered with angry graffiti telling the owners to “go home.” And in Smithtown, N.Y., a man was arrested for threatening to kill a Muslim mother and her daughter and trying to run them down with his car. Both incidents are being investigated as hate crimes.
Most Americans recognize the problem. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, nearly six in 10 adults say U.S. Muslims are subject to more discrimination than any other major religious group.
Back in Gainesville, some local residents living near Dove World are countering the anti-Islam message by speaking up for their Muslim neighbors and fellow citizens. Soon after the first sign went up in July, an interfaith group of Christians, Jews and others gathered in front of the church to protest intolerance and call for mutual respect.
On a national level, many Christian and Jewish leaders—including some leading evangelical ministers—have reached out to Muslims by calling for peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding. In fact, Southern Baptist Pastor Rick Warren delivered a message of reconciliation between Christians and Muslims to the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America in July, around the time Dove World was erecting its sign.
“You know as an evangelical pastor, my deepest faith is in Jesus Christ,” Warren told a crowd of some 8,000 Muslim Americans. “But you also need to know that I am committed not just to what I call the good news, but I am committed to the common good.”
Warren then defined what Americans share across our differences: “America is a country not built on race, not built on a creed, but built on an idea—liberty and justice for all.”
Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Web: firstamendmentcenter.org. E-mail: chaynes@fre edomforum.org.
Sep 18, 2009 at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
I believe that if you actually read the Constitution that you would find that "treaties" become part of the laws of this country. It is why Native Americans can hunt and fish outside of the states laws.
Conservatives arguing for moral relativism: sounds about right.
Sep 18, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
but digriz, if we invade Canada where will all the Vietnam era CO's move to?
Sep 17, 2009 at 11:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry pharm...you got in there first..I was referring to Griz.
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
My opinion is based on reading 1441. They, obviously, are not going to be making a "ruling", or they would have done so before this.
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Since you reference the UN in this case, are you also willing to do so when their "ruling" is contrary to your opinion?
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
I believe I stated it was my opinion. I am not advocating taking to the US to trial, and obviously the UN is not, after 6 years, in a hurry to do so either. The question I raised was because someone mentioned Resolution 1441 as a reason we could legally invade Iraq, and I`m saying that was wrong. Under 1441 we could not invade unless the Security Council voted on it, but we did anyway.
Sep 17, 2009 at 9:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
So we expect the rest of the world to be law abiding, but we don`t have to. That is the mark of a bully, not a great country. As someone once said to me, "What part of illegal don`t you understand?" If we did something illegal, it doesn`t count because we are too big to argue with, right?
Sep 17, 2009 at 7:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
If it is proven we broke the law. Don`t you believe in "The Rule Of Law?"
Sep 17, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
The World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, if they choose to do so.
Sep 16, 2009 at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you want to act as a sovereign nation, don`t join the UN. We signed Resolution 1441 that said we couldn`t invade without a Security Council vote, and then we illegally(according to the UN) invaded. The IAEA obviously did a great job, everything they said was true.
Sep 16, 2009 at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
> [Japan] didn't think they could win, either. They were banking on us suing for peace.
Now, that is a very interesting premise that I have not heard before.
Japan by the end of 1941 had already taken all of Korea, NE China, the entire SE Asian peninsula, and many archipelagos in the western Pacific. Further, they were in the process of attacking the Philippines, Burma, Outer Mongolia, and parts of the eastern Soviet Union (with a number of echoes to the both the Russo-Japanese War and the First Sino-Japanese War). The Empire of Japan had secured many industrial sites in China, enslaved much of the captured population, and had secured significant sources of oil and other raw materials.
The huge exception to this was the oil embargo that the United States had levied against Japan. This in fact was the one of the main points of negotiation between Japanese Ambassador Kichisaburō Nomura and Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
It has been my reading that one of the reasons the Imperial Command decided to attack was that it was believed that we were inferior racially and that we would be unable to act with united resolve. The other reason is that without the Pacific Fleet we would be unable to project power into the Pacific and that we might therefore lift the oil embargo.
I note that an invasion of Australia was unlikely and an invasion of the United States west coast had been completely ruled out.
The destruction of the U.S. Pacific Fleet should have taken away the last remaining major obstacle to Japanese dominance in the Pacific. Japan grossly miscalculated how quickly the United States would rebuild, rearm, and increase troop strength.
The other miscalculation (on both Germany and Japan's parts) was how much more technologically advanced we had become during the 1930s. Radio, radar, advances in aviation, etc. allowed us to conjure up both offensive and defensive weapons systems that were superior to either enemies' and prevented the kind of stalemate seen in WWI.
Sep 16, 2009 at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
The problem is that too often Islam is confused with tribalism. Much of what is called Islam is really a more modern version of tribalism.
Personally, I don't agree that it is their first amendment right. You have no right to lie and deceive people which is what they are doing by first proclaiming themselves as Christians and then by saying that Islam is of the devil. Do they have the devil as a witness to testify to their claim? If they don't, then it is a lie and they should be arrested for fraud or sued for deceptive practices.
Sep 16, 2009 at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Right Andre - we should be able to invade other countries at will. How 'bout Canada - I heard they have WMD's there.
Sep 16, 2009 at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
I will state my personal opinion, backed by facts, that the invasion in 2003 was "illegal." It has been mentioned here that UN Resolution 1441 gave the US permission to invade, it absolutely did not! The Resolution specifically states that if Iraq did not comply, the UN Security Council would have to act before any war was commenced. The IAEA was in Iraq, doing their job because Saddam let them in, overruling the rest of the government. Twelve days before we invaded, the IAEA gave a presentation to the UN rebuking all the charges put forward by the US, no WMD`s, no aluminum tubes for reactors, no yellow cake from Niger, no mobile chemical labs, etc. Even after torturing captured Al Queda members, no link between 9-11 and Iraq could be proven, because there was none. The US knew they couldn`t get nine votes in the Security Council, so they didn`t even ask, they invaded anyway.
Sep 16, 2009 at 7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
joeflint; you are correct in saying that I chose the wrong word when I used trumped - it would have actually just been a secondary document justifying our actions.
Sep 15, 2009 at 7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Also agree with the two centuries of jurisprudence and legal thought that DiGriz laid out: that the Executive, under certain conditions such as imminent threat, has the power to act -- that is after all why the President is the C-in-C and not, say, the Speaker of the House.
Sep 15, 2009 at 7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
I was merely expostulating on why some believe that the Iraq War is "illegal" and that I was not stating my personal opinion. I thought that was clear but apparently not.
For the most part I agree with DiGriz's assessment that the latest Iraq War was the long sought (in some circles) mop up of the Gulf War.
I have to say that I am more than a little surprised to see an argument stating that a UN resolution 'trumps' a US legal instrument. I was of the notion that most people placed American sovereignty and freedom of action above that of UN approval.
Sep 15, 2009 at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
joeflint; Grant it the arguement could be made to the applicability of the AUMF based upon "facts" at the time. However, it would be trumped by the UN resolutions anyway thereby legalizing the actions taken by this & other countries.
Was the Korean War, Vietnam, Panama, Somalia, Gulf War all "illegal" then too? (just to name a few). So for any military action - in your mind - we are to convene Congress & Declare War before we attack anyone, liberate a country or people or defend ourselves?
Sep 15, 2009 at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
> The Bible says the greatest holocaust ever will be brought forth through be-headings...
No, it does not.
However, even if it were true, it would most certainly be referring to the beheading of John the Baptist before the figurative holocaust (*) offering of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
(*) holocaust: a Jewish sacrificial offering that is burned completely on an altar
Sep 15, 2009 at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
I suspect by "illegal" he is referring to the fact that there has not been a _formal_ Declaration of War since WWII.
Some argue that Congress has to some degree abdicated to the Executive branch its role and responsibility to make war; however, that body wrote and passed the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) which states, in part, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States...." referring of course to 9/11.
Now, there is the heart of the matter.
Some argue that since Iraq has been shown conclusively to have played no role in the 9/11 attack (yes, this is a fact), the AUMF is invalid as a legal instrument permitting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is debatable but likely would not hold in court as (true or false, misled or otherwise), the military acted in good faith under the orders and guidance of the civilian leadership to engage. The civilian leadership of the time would certainly argue that the intelligence available to them (true or false) illustrated a conclusive link. In fact, the defense would rely on Colin Powell's open presentation to the United Nations. One would have a very difficult time indeed to first prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the intelligence to even establish a claim to a court that the AUMF does not apply to Iraq.
In short: the legality of the Iraq War will remain unassailable until history books are written several generations from now.
To my knowledge, there is no argument about the applicability of the AUMF in regards to Afghanistan; sadly, I would not be surprised to be shown otherwise.
Sep 15, 2009 at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
proartist;Ironically, no one can prove a negative (as in "keeping us safe" from something which hasn't happened).
***
Actually we Can prove a negative - What is the date on the last classified CIA or FBI file your looking at? Thats right, YOU dont have one so you really dont know the threats.
We can however work this backwards - you & Sally continually bash US policy & inform us of all the wrong's that the Bush policies have done in the world - "In our supposed self-defense, the US has become it's own worst enemy - the global terrorist." ---- If this is true, do you really think out of every country, terrorist group etc. there is not 1 that planned another attack of some kind on this country in 8 years. If so, you really are in la-la land.
Also - if you dont like that answer, how about this one. Obama campained on the ending of the Iraq war & Afganistan yet we are still in both with one now surging - Did you ever think HE now reads these reports & gets briefings on things way above your paygrade and comes to the conclusion that the threat is real or is he "lying" too?
***
"I do not now, nor ever, endorse xenocentric invasions and illegal wars no matter who begins or continues them." - Define illegal would you please? We had EVERY right (weather you or I agreed with it) to go into Iraq - ever heard of UN resolutions - read up on resolution 1441 in particular - it was passed by a vote of 15-0 by the Security Council which is represented by countries like France, China & ARAB countries like Syria!
OR
If your referring to Afganistan - maybe you missed this but WE WERE ATTACKED - and we are completely within our LEGAL rights to do what we are doing now & then - even if YOU dont agree with it, so get over it!
Sep 14, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Bible says the greatest holocaust ever will be brought forth through be-headings...
Sep 14, 2009 at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
The 10% (hatred) wouldn't even have to contain threats. It would subsume the 90% of nice. It would be a horrible situation.
Islam has bypassed 1400 years of civilization.
Sep 14, 2009 at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
If 90% of what your neighbor says to you is nice, but the other 10% is pure hatred, which of his statements is going to rule your opinion of him?
Sep 14, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well said, partarican1
tiredofhearingit - "So which is it "the man" or the tactics in which we fight global terror?"..... Ironically, no one can prove a negative (as in "keeping us safe" from something which hasn't happened). I merely pointed out that those who would condemn Obama now are being a bit sanctimonious and have incredibly short memories of the past Administration. In our supposed self-defense, the US has become it's own worst enemy - the global terrorist. I do not now, nor ever, endorse xenocentric invasions and illegal wars no matter who begins or continues them.
Sep 14, 2009 at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
This just proves that religion is a business. Businesses compete with one another. Granted Pepsi would never get away with saying "Coke is of the Devil". Seems like there should be an anti-defamation lawsuit opportunity in there somewhere.
Sep 14, 2009 at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
proartist;spin at its finest - and HOW exactly is he keeping us "safe" - by continuing the very same programs the the Bush Admin has used for years & which by the way, you condone almost everyday on these posts. So which is it "the man" or the tactics in which we fight global terror?
Sep 14, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
This article isn't about which religion is right or wrong. It is about breeding hatred for people different from themselves-xenophobia. Not all Islamic people are terrorists, and not all Catholic priests are child molesters. It is unfortuante that anyone has to die in the "name of the lord", and that some cannot see beyond their fear of others. Plenty of people who claim to be Christians are killing people right here in America because they are not caucasian or heterosexual. How is this any different from the terrorists who attacked the towers? There are gangs ruling the streets in many major US cities. How are they any different from other terrorists? As for the t-shirts: very poor judgement, in my opinion.
Sep 14, 2009 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
It begins thus:
Further, the violence seen in the modern Middle East and Central Asia has numerous -- by no means all -- root causes outside of Islam...
Sep 14, 2009 at 9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
> Now, not so much because Obama and the lefties would rather free all the terorists
Really?
Name one tried and convicted 9/11 terrorist that has been freed.
Name one tried and convicted Gitmo detainee that has been freed.
Is Richard "shoe bomber" Reid free?
Is Zacarias Moussaoui (9/11 plotter) free?
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (various charges) free?
Is Timothy McVeigh (OKC Murrah Building bomber) free?
Your ideological feelings blind you from the facts.
Sep 14, 2009 at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
vatoloco....REMEMBER The Obama Admin has kept the United States "safe" from attack the SAME amount of time as the Bush Admin kept our country safe. For EVERY day now forward, the Obama Admin will have kept our country "safe" THAT MUCH LONGER. What is more important to remember than the time we've been "safe", is to remember our nation's mainland was FIRST ATTACKED DURING Bush's term in spite of being forewarned by the previous Clinton administration of an impending situation.
Sep 14, 2009 at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
> Remember, these Islamic Facsists attacked us first.
Wrong.
I direct you to one of my several previous posts for this VERY article.
Sep 14, 2009 at 9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
> joeflint, that was a typo. 1400 years is correct.
No problem.
My real point was that modern violence in the name of Islam has no connection to the violence during the creation of the Caliphate.
That violent birth, filling the power vacuum left by the collapse of both the Western Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, ended just as suddenly as it began during the reign of Hisham [1] in 723-743, only 100 years after the expansion of Islam. There were of course periods of strictly intra-religious violence during the Medieval era in both the Christian West (e.g. Cathars) and Islamic Asia (e.g. Sunni on Shia) as well as inter-religious violence culminating in the many Crusades.
History and religion might be radically different if Rome and Persia had sought a saner policy along their mutual frontier. Nevertheless, the Islamization of Persia saved some of the knowledge of antiquity and helped spur the Renaissance [2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_ibn_...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamizatio...
Sep 14, 2009 at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Religion, christianity or Islam teaches that there is an eternal reward for the faithful, based on books that ask the follower not to questions and filled with passages easily and reasonably interpreted to mean killing the non-believer will get you favor with the one that decides if you get an eternal reward or eternal suffering. Then we wonder why there are fanatics, its because religion encourages fanaticism.
Sep 14, 2009 at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
your view IS too narrow
(Ok, I think I got all the typos.)
Sep 14, 2009 at 7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
your view IS to narrow
Sep 14, 2009 at 7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
joeflint, that was a typo. 1400 years is correct.
pete, your view if too narrow. This is a democracy. No one ever said democracy is pretty or perfect. Take the effort to understand how our leaders reflect what we really are. The disappointment that will follow is the disappointment in what we are.
Sep 14, 2009 at 2:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Further, the violence seen in the modern Middle East and Central Asia has numerous -- by no means all -- root causes outside of Islam... just for starters...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_G...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_o...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Man...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilad_al-Sh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjed_Sole...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irania...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947–1948...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_an...
Blah blah law of unintended consequences and all... history is far more complex, interwoven, fascinating than can possibly be painted and there is obviously a direct effect on our present state of affairs.
Sep 14, 2009 at 2:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
> Much of the Islamic world is still festering in the violent worldwide theology of about 1600 years ago.
Huh?????? In case your post was not tongue-in-cheek......
Islam has existed for less than 1400 years. [1]
1600 years ago, ca. 400 AD, Rome was sacked for the first time in 800 years [2], the last Christian purge had occurred only a few generations ago [3], far-flung parts of the Empire such as Britain were outright abandoned [4]. By 250 AD it was evident the Empire was collapsing from within and without and much of Europe had decisively fallen into the Medieval period. [5,6]
"This slow decline ... culminated on September 4, 476 when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed by Odoacer, the Visigoth king. ... the Ostrogoths who succeeded considered themselves as upholders of the direct line of Roman traditions ... [and] the Eastern Roman Empire was going from strength to strength and continued until the Fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453." [7]
Modern scholarship also supports the idea that the rapid spread of Islam occurred due to the power vacuum that developed after many centuries of skirmishes and outright wars that occurred between the Romans and Persians [8].
Meanwhile... on the other end of the Silk Road... [9,10]
Islam, after its conquest of much of northern Africa and southern Asia, continued many traditions of antiquity until the Fall of Baghdad in 1258: "Anywhere from 100,000 to one million inhabitants were massacred and the city was sacked and burned. ... The Grand Library of Baghdad, containing countless precious historical documents and books on subjects ranging from medicine to astronomy, was destroyed. Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river." [11]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Histo...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rom...)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletiani...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_depar...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_t...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_antiqu...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman-Persi...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B...)
(While I have used Wikipedia for citations, I encourage the reading of the source material therein cited. I think that many will find that references 6 and particularly 8 and 11 will challenge some widely held notions about the fall of Rome and the rise of Islam.)
Sep 13, 2009 at 11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Christianity is still dangerous but it's danger has been diluted by democracy.
Much of the Islamic world is still festering in the violent worldwide theology of about 1600 years ago. Democracy will again be the answer.
Sep 13, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
+1 proartist--I did not click on your link, but I agree w/ you--I have no idea why the Islamic radicals have to hate absolutely everything associated with the west.......
Sep 13, 2009 at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think this is why Gandhi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "
If he would have known Christians like those in the latter half of the article maybe he would have thought differently.
Sep 13, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
"This is the world we live in post-9/11, and post Iraq War; a world where for many people, 'the other side' has become so repugnant that nothing seems beneath it. We are no longer interested in understanding the people we disagree with; we just want to defeat them, for the good of the nation."http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/911-truth-trutherism-and-truthiness
Sep 13, 2009 at 2:16 p.m.
Sep 12, 2009 at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
.....Such as Andre! DiGriz...aw come on. But God was on the side of the Crusaders!
Sep 12, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lots of ignorant people running the streets these days!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.