Is Religious Freedom At Risk?
May 6th 2010 20:13
In an unprecedented move, Franklin Graham was uninvited by the Pentagon for making statements that are potentially offensive to those who practice Islam with little or no regard for its own offensiveness to those who are Christians. What if someone from the nation of Islam spoke of his religion in an exclusive manner that could be offensive to Christians - would that person be unsinvited as well? It is doubtful as such a move would not be politically correct.
If the American people do not speak up, it may not be long until anything Christian is going to be denied in the name of religious tolerance; which in effect becomes religious intolerance – intolerance of Christianity.
Graham had been invited and scheduled to speak at the official National Day of Prayer event held at the Pentagon, but was then uninvited after complaints were made about his statements concerning Islam. In the words of the official Pentagon spokesperson, Graham’s statements about Islam were “not appropriate.” Since when did officials at the Pentagon start determining what is appropriate or not appropriate in religious beliefs?
This was not the first time Graham has faced controversy at the Pentagon. A similar incident happened prior to a Good Friday service in 2003, but the official Pentagon spokesman at the time said, “While I, personally, would not agree with some of Rev. Graham’s comments and observations, I would defend his right to have his religious views as part of the freedom we have as Americans.”
It is clear that something has changed since 2003 and it would seem that change has been from tolerance to intolerance. When the Pentagon can make determinations between what is tolerable or intolerable in religious practice and beliefs, can it be said that the “separation between church and state” still exists? After all, the original purpose for separation of church and state was to protect religious liberty from the state – and not the state from religious liberty. Clearly, the religious liberty of Graham has been violated in this decision.
In a recent interview with Jon Meacham and Lisa Miller of Newsweek, Graham said, “I am who I am. I don’t believe that you can get to heaven through being a Buddhist or Hindu. I think Muhammad only leads to the grave. Now, that’s what I believe, and I don’t apologize for my faith. And if it’s divisive, I’m sorry.”
Due to increasing criticism from secularist and Islamic organizations, the Department of the Army and the Pentagon was feeling the pressure, but rather than stand up to that pressure and protect the religious freedom of Graham – they caved in to the pressure and revoked Graham’s religious freedom by withdrawing the invitation.
Sometime ago, a religious leader from a belief system in contradiction to Christianity gave a devotion at the beginning of a Senate meeting. Though the majority of those in the Senate are of the Christian faith, this person was allowed to give the devotion though some were offended by it. And that is the way that it should have been……just like it should have been with Graham.
The spokesman for the Pentagon said Graham’s statements about Islam “not appropriate.” What was clearly “not appropriate” was for a Pentagon spokesperson to render a theological judgment about the statements of Franklin Graham…..or any other religious leader.
If the American people do not speak up, it may not be long until anything Christian is going to be denied in the name of religious tolerance; which in effect becomes religious intolerance – intolerance of Christianity.
Graham had been invited and scheduled to speak at the official National Day of Prayer event held at the Pentagon, but was then uninvited after complaints were made about his statements concerning Islam. In the words of the official Pentagon spokesperson, Graham’s statements about Islam were “not appropriate.” Since when did officials at the Pentagon start determining what is appropriate or not appropriate in religious beliefs?
This was not the first time Graham has faced controversy at the Pentagon. A similar incident happened prior to a Good Friday service in 2003, but the official Pentagon spokesman at the time said, “While I, personally, would not agree with some of Rev. Graham’s comments and observations, I would defend his right to have his religious views as part of the freedom we have as Americans.”
It is clear that something has changed since 2003 and it would seem that change has been from tolerance to intolerance. When the Pentagon can make determinations between what is tolerable or intolerable in religious practice and beliefs, can it be said that the “separation between church and state” still exists? After all, the original purpose for separation of church and state was to protect religious liberty from the state – and not the state from religious liberty. Clearly, the religious liberty of Graham has been violated in this decision.
In a recent interview with Jon Meacham and Lisa Miller of Newsweek, Graham said, “I am who I am. I don’t believe that you can get to heaven through being a Buddhist or Hindu. I think Muhammad only leads to the grave. Now, that’s what I believe, and I don’t apologize for my faith. And if it’s divisive, I’m sorry.”
Due to increasing criticism from secularist and Islamic organizations, the Department of the Army and the Pentagon was feeling the pressure, but rather than stand up to that pressure and protect the religious freedom of Graham – they caved in to the pressure and revoked Graham’s religious freedom by withdrawing the invitation.
Sometime ago, a religious leader from a belief system in contradiction to Christianity gave a devotion at the beginning of a Senate meeting. Though the majority of those in the Senate are of the Christian faith, this person was allowed to give the devotion though some were offended by it. And that is the way that it should have been……just like it should have been with Graham.
The spokesman for the Pentagon said Graham’s statements about Islam “not appropriate.” What was clearly “not appropriate” was for a Pentagon spokesperson to render a theological judgment about the statements of Franklin Graham…..or any other religious leader.
| 89 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Andrew Heaton
Andy's Angle
It's a sad day when people who stand up for their religion are not allowed to speak at these types of events in the name of 'tolerance.'
It's the same down here in Australia - as I understand it, teachers in state schools are not even allowed to explain the meaning of Christmas to their students.
Personally, I am all for tolerance, and I respect those who follow other religions. But Christians should be bold about speaking the gospel, and should be encouraged to do so by anyone who seriously values religious freedom.