Fundamentalists should learn to be more accepting

The actions of one fundamental religious group ““
Christians ““ are an appalling testament to the direction
America is headed.

Merely two days after the horrific terrorist attacks of Sept.
11, 2001, television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
began a string of irrational hate-based comments that seemed
intended to alienate and isolate large groups of people. On
Robertson’s show “700 Club,” aired on the
Christian Broadcasting Network, both Falwell and Robertson
concurred “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the
feminists, and the gays and the lesbians “¦ the ACLU (and the)
People for the American Way” were to blame for the terrorist
attacks that killed thousands.

In a time when unity is needed more than ever among people of
differing faiths and ideas, comments such as these provoke
rightfully strong-worded responses from those under attack. This
sort of negative dialogue between sides is not helpful in securing
a cohesive America, especially when initiated by a man whose
purpose as a reverend should be to promote a harmonious existence
of differing viewpoints.

In an interview with CBS just days ago, Falwell made the
following statement about Islam’s founder: “I think
Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough “¦ by both Muslims and
non-Muslims (to decide) that he was a violent man, a man of war …
Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. I think Muhammad set
an opposite example.”

Falwell was given the opportunity to apologize or retract his
comments in a subsequent phone interview and declined to do so. His
most recent comments have provoked outrage by Muslim activist
groups. They prompted deadly protests in the disputed region of
Kashmir, almost half a world away. The comments also prompted
accusatory and hurtful reaction from Muslim groups, insinuating
that all Christians are terrorists and are waging a “war
against humanity.”

These comments generalized Falwell as someone who represents all
Christian views (which he thankfully does not). But it also
demonstrates the degree to which comments such as these quickly
denigrate the discourse, causing a step backward in an already
slow-moving process. UCLA law professor Khaled Abou El Fadl, a
preeminent source for Islamic interpretation, feels strongly that
“if humanity thinks of Islam’s symbols in terms of
violence and hate, then Muslims in the world have failed.”
Falwell has greatly contributed to this perception, which only
aggravates an already warped Western concept of Islam.

The religious right has always considered itself superior,
possessing knowledge and wisdom that somehow has managed to escape
the rest of the country. It acts as though it has all the right
answers and that any person or group that disagrees with it in any
facet, whether religious, political or otherwise, is not only
immoral but also unworthy of respect.

Respect, however, is the main issue here. People are entitled to
believe whatever they want. Granted, if Robertson, Falwell and the
rest of their fundamentalist followers want to believe some of the
things they have said, that is up to them. The problem arises when
they attempt to force those viewpoints on other people, especially
when the comments spiral down to the current level. The evangelists
need to recognize (unfortunately) their prominent position in
society and think before they speak, because their statements
affect events and can negatively alter the fragile ties between
groups that allow this country to function as well as it does.

These eroding ties among disparate religious and political
entities are partially their fault; they should work to promote
unity and positivism in our society.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *