Faith and country: Pentagon to Franklin Graham: Thanks but no thanks

The bottom line is this.  Franklin Graham has a particular point of view and he is Constitutionally entitled to that point of view.  However, he is not Constitutionally entitled to speak on behalf of a Government founded on the principles of pluralism.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Staff | Articles
Source & Credit: Chicagho Islam Examiner | April 22, 2010
By Qasim Rasheed | Chicago, IL


April 22: The Pentagon officially dis-invited evangelist Franklin Graham from the Pentagon Prayer Service next month.  Their reason?  Graham's views of Islam are too extreme, and do not represent the pluralistic message the United States government wishes to portray.

Let the outcry of allegations of First Amendment violations ensue.  However, let us pause for just a moment and consider what exactly Franklin Graham said.


1) In 2001, shortly after 9/11 Franklin Graham said, "We're not attacking Islam, but Islam attacked us."  He want on to say that Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion" and referred to the war on terrorism as a "crusade."

2) In 2009 CNN interview Graham commented about why he thinks Islam cannot work in America.  He said, "You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they've committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in these other countries."  He went on to add, "I don't agree with the teachings of Islam and I find it to be a very violent religion."

Does the United States Constitution give Franklin Graham the right to say these things?  Without getting into a lengthy debate I will concede that it does.

However, here is the point. If American Muslims make such declarations against Christianity, do we tolerate those statements?  Absolutely and rightfully not.  If Muslims with such extreme points of view were forbidden to speak at an event designed to celebrate pluralism and inclusiveness, what fair minded person would object?  I certainly would not.

Such statements made in a private (i.e. non Government) environment are one thing.  However, the Government has every right to determine what message it wishes to send forward in a public setting.  Thus, the practical importance of separation of church and state in our great Nation.

The bottom line is this.  Franklin Graham has a particular point of view and he is Constitutionally entitled to that point of view.  However, he is not Constitutionally entitled to speak on behalf of a Government founded on the principles of pluralism.  When Graham calls Islam an "evil and wicked religion," he is simply at the opposite spectrum of a Muslim cleric calling Christianity an "evil and wicked religion."  Both points of view only stand to polarize humanity, something neither Jesus nor Muhammad would approve of.

Indeed, even our Founding Fathers wished for an age free from religiously motivated discord.

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.

President George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Read the original article here: Pentagon to Franklin Graham: Thanks but no thanks 


Qasim Rashid is a contributing member of Majlis Sultanul Qalm, USA (MSQ USA) and regularly writes for Examiner.com and various other publications on topics ranging from Islam to human rights. Leave your thoughts and comments, or email Qasim at 1muslim.examiner@gmail.com