Mark Tooley reviews an "Interfaith Summit" created by the Islamic Society of North America which denounced religious intolerance, disrespect and hatred -- not in general, of course, just as it is aimed at Muslims.In fact, the meeting produced a manifesto that aggressively, self-righteously denounced America's "anti-Muslim frenzy" though the document contained no specific examples beyond the proposed burning of the Koran by a strange Florida preacher and opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.
Opposition to the GZM? That qualifies as "anti-Muslim frenzy?"
Sadly, but not surprisingly, the matter of Muslim leaders calling for jihad and the extinction of the West was not mentioned by the participants. Also completely absent from the manifesto was any mention of the mobs of Bible-burning, flag-burning, hate-spewing Muslim youth that regularly gather throughout the world. Or the violent attacks made on Christians in those countries governed by Muslim majorities? Or the acts of arson, destruction, terrorism, and murder.
So much for a comprehensive vision of religious tolerance.
Noted leftist Richard Cizik, the former National Association of Evangelicals lobbyist who now works for the Soros-funded New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, used the phrase "Shame on you!" to castigate conservative Christians who are "casually trampling on religious liberty" and undermining the Constitution's First Amendment.
But the shame is on Cizik and the others involved in this despicable sideshow. For as they wail over non-existent crimes performed against Islam, they divert attention away from the most important issue; namely, the deadly atrocities being committed daily around the world in the name of Islam.
Did I mention that the National Association of Evangelicals signed on to this manifesto? And the Catholic Archbishop Emeritus of Washington?
What were those guys thinking when they signed a document that not only excoriated Americans for their religious bigotry, that omitted the priority issues of Muslim violence against Christians, and that included a reference to the Koran as "a sacred text that for centuries has shaped many of the great cultures of our world, and that continues to give spiritual comfort to more than a billion Muslims today?"
Tooley has more in his American Spectator article, including these excerpts:
Somewhat creditably, chief of the National Council of Churches Michael Kinnamon actually mentioned "minority Christian communities around the world who live in Muslim countries who feel threatened because extremists use what is happening in this country (anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions) as a pretext to violence." He did not mention that persecution and marginalization of Christians and other religious minorities in many and perhaps most majority Muslim countries will persist with or without "anti-Muslim rhetoric" in the U.S. and is in fact commanded by Islamic law, practiced to some degree even by "moderate" Muslim regimes. But Kinnamon was unique at the interfaith summit's press conference for not focusing exclusively on the purported persecution of Muslims in the U.S. Somewhat more dubiously, he lamented that Western Christians have historically often been guilty of "intolerant rhetoric." And he insisted that Christians should "speak out on behalf of Islam as a peace-loving, peace-teaching faith."...
The potential Koran burning, though unsavory and undoubtedly a poor witness by a Christian congregation, is presumably protected by the First Amendment, no less than blasphemies against Christianity, or desecrations of the American flag. Would this same interfaith summit have urgently convened to excoriate destruction of Christian symbols? Or would some of these same largely liberal religious officials have instead solemnly warned of the need for tolerance in that situation? And do all skeptics of the Ground Zero mosque really deserve to be morally ranked with the aspiring Koran-burning pastor and categorized as innately hateful and bigoted?
To what extent can criticism of religion be tolerated without qualifying as hate speech? Majority Muslim countries typically ban perceived blasphemies against Islam and many would like to see international law follow their example. Increasingly liberal Western democracies, fueled by high octane political correctness, are criminalizing criticism of Islam as "hate" speech. Where do the church officials from this interfaith summit stand on the constitutional protection of such speech? And if universal Islam is innately "peace-loving" and "peace-teaching," then why does even the possibility of a Koran's destruction by an obscure pastor arouse the frightful possibility of murderous mobs around the world?...
