|
CounterPunch
December
28, 2002
Pat
Robertson's Evangelical Propaganda
Hardening the American Heart
by SALIM RASHID
The weeks immediately following the tragedy of
9/11 showed some of the best features of the American spirit.
Led by the White House, the media took pains to distinguish between
the actions of a few and the beliefs of the many. Assuring the
Muslim majority that they were friends abroad and good citizens
at home were matters of principle. By December it had all changed.
Unable to comprehend and discriminate, there was a visible and
palpable hardening of American intellectual arteries, and the
policy of the White House fell under those who felt no embarrassment
at villification when faced by a religion they could not control
or understand. The intellectual vacuum was readily felt and the
Press began to engage in a thoughtless drum beat; the idea "let's
Nuke Mecca" was floated.
Into this vacuum others have rushed in---a
list of mediocre sensationalist works can be found in most bookstores,
but these can be ignored. Recently however, tele-evangelists
have rushed in to provide spirit to the fumbling intellectuals.
An initial round of viciousness was followed by partial retractions.
The elections were followed by a distancing of the White House
from such attacks, and this has led to new and improved attacks
on Islam. It is only to be expected that ministers of Christianity
will attempt to spread their faith---but there are many ways
of explaining the virtues of Christianity and none requires the
demonstrably uncomprehending viciousness we see today.
The instant reaction to such smear propaganda
is to respond in kind; this is not at all desirable, but it serves
to curtail the one-sided babble that some news media are now
prone to. Such a path is not open to Muslims, who believe that
Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all prophets of Allah, and entitled
to the greatest respect. So we have to rely on logic and hope
that words carry meaning to those who wish to hear.
Let me begin by noting that much confusion
and ill-will are generated by the inexcusable (and in my opinion,
incomprehensible) failure of Muslims to distinguish between the
followers of Judaism---a religious faith; the people who share
the ethnicity of being a Jew--- a social/cultural fact; and
the practice of Zionism--- a political platform, some or many
of whose positions have been opposed by many Jews. (Personally,
I have felt that the case for the Palestinians can be made without
ever using the word "Jew")
To respond to the tirade is not to criticize
Christians or Christianity. Many ministers and churches have
exhibited a degree of compassion and fairness that does credit
to the higher spirituality of Christianity. In particular, Muslims
have to appreciate the fact that so much fairness emanates from
the Catholics, with the Pope himself serving as a beacon. This
is a welcome sign for the future; the Catholics not only have
a very sophisticated understanding of theology, but they are
also responsible for erecting and sustaining much of that which
we call Western Civilisation.
The latest to re-enter this fray, in
a Sunday morning interview broadcast by ABC, is the Rev. Pat
Robertson. His earlier views are now restated, the same content
is moderately phrased and given a scholarly veneer. Rev Robertson
is confident of his history and proclaims repeatedly his concern
for the truth alone. It was more of an audience granted by Rev
Robertson than an interview conducted by a critical journalist.
That some individuals will have extreme views is but a feature
of intellectual openness. But when the main news media grant
adoring exposure to extremist views, it is a subtle way of shifting
the common presumptions that must guide all discourse. Muslims
are now to be presumed guilty unless they can prove themselves
innocent.
Rev Robertson believes that the President is of the same mind
as himself but that the President says otherwise because of
political expediency. On a fundamental issue such as this, the
remark is tantamount to accusing the President of keeping quiet
about, and even denying, his real beliefs, in order to manipulate
both World opinion and Muslim allies. I leave it to the President
and the Reverend to sort out whether this is not just an accusation
of hypocrisy.
The general failing of Rev Robertson's
argument can be stated as follows. The pursuit of Truth, the
formation of any intellectual argument, requires any of us, and
the Rev Robertson as well, to select facts. By using care he
has assembled a collection of half-truths to engage in propaganda.
It is only proper that, as an evangelical minister, he should
wish to convert everyone, including Muslims, but the method now
being used is unlikely to persuade any thinking mind
The issues are deep, so I will not pretend
to illuminate them in a few paras but request those who consider
such questions important to go back and read for themselves in
depth. It is the method of approach that decides many issues
and which characterises an argument as rational or otherwise.
It will suffice to illuminate how the Rev Robertson thinks by
a few issues
a Rev Robertson states that Islam is
a violent religion and the proof lies in that it's Prophet was
a warrior. This is an interpretive logic which says that if someone
is found in one role, it is legitimate to characterise his entire
life as being defined by that role. If accepted, this interpretive
scheme would allow some ridiculous conclusions. It would permit
us to claim that Christianity is about woodwork because Jesus
was a carpenter
b. When verses upholding violence are
quoted from the Bible---a psalm which praises the killing of
babies was referred to--- these were not discussed for their
bearing on the capacity of Judaism or Christianity for violence.
Apparently, interpretive criteria are valid only for the religion
of choice. The interviewer was told by Rev Robertson that such
quotes were not relevant to the issue and he meekly silenced
himself.
c. Muslims are supposed to consider Jews
as being apes and swine, on the basis of some Koranic verses.
This language expresses the anger of Allah at the disobedience
of the Jews. It has no relevance to how Jews are considered as
human beings, as other verses and the historical practice of
Muslims show. Apparently, Rev Robertson believes in a theory
of literary interpretation which insists that words can only
carry a literal meaning while Muslims are guilty of believing
that words may be used to convey imagery and that all references
on a given topic need to be considered before one can arrive
at a final assessment.
d. Reference is made to the fact that
the adult males of the Bani Qurayzah were executed after a battle,
in order to illustrate the bloodthirstiness of the Muslims for
Jews. Simply reciting this fact as the basis for an opinion is
like saying that Americans consider Japanese to be sub-human
and the proof lies in the fact that America dropped the atomic
bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No background, no context and
no perspective seems to be the Rev Robertson's preferred mode
of history when it comes to Islam.
With such models of reasoning, it is
no surprise that Rev Robertson is able to persuade himself that
the Nazis were bad, but did not compare with the Muslims in terms
of their treatment of the Jews. (I am happy to note that the
ADL condemned the attacks of people like Rev Robertson).The
student of history would know about the many Jews who not only
lived safely and comfortably, but even flourished, during the
many ages of Muslim rule. However an investigation into this
issue might spoil the case for making Muslims more hateful than
the Nazis.
Perhaps the most serious problem presaged
by this interview is not the expected virulence of a particular
interpretation of Christianity, but rather the subservient and
adoring manner in which the interview was conducted. It is entirely
possible to be respectful about Christianity and yet be questioning
and critical when someone moves outside their theological specialty.
Otherwise, the media are serving to create a climate of opinion
which serves to rationalize contempt and hatred as natural and
just.
When ministers of Christianity take such
positions it is no surprise that interested political 'intellectuals'
will emerge from the woodworks and reveal themselves. Dana Millibank
tells us in the International Herald Tribune (Dec 2,2002) that
Kennth Adelman repeats the view that the founder of Islam was
a "warrior" to suffice as his justification for smearing
Islam and Eliot Cohen feels that Islam is inherently violent
and that Islam's real views can be found by "an hour spent
surfing the Web". One could as easily conclude that Internet
was set up in order to facilitate pornography---which is how
the extremist clerics do portray the West. There is a persistent
thirst for turning a part into a whole. The extremes agree in
their intellectual methods.
It is a pity for us all that the most
prominent tele-evangelists are unwilling to recognise that the
primary function of such systematic half-truths is to make Americans
suspicious of Muslims when they encounter them at home and to
be indifferent to their fate when they read about them abroad.
Salim Rashid
is Professor of Economics, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign.
His most recent book, Economic Policy for Growth: Economic
Development Is Human Development, was published by Kluwer
(2000). He can be reached at: salim@counterpunch.org
Yesterday's
Features
Kathy Kelly
Crossing
Borders
Christmas in Iraq
Kurt Nimmo
North Korea: Calling Bush's Bluff
Elaine Cassel
How the Grinch Stole the Pardons
Cairo Declaration
Against
War on Iraq and in Solidarity with Palestine
Norman Madarasz
Secular Steps in Preparing a War:
an address at Cairo
Gary Leupp
Notes on the Cairo Conference
Neve Gordon
Christmas
Eve in Bethlehem
Kenneth Roth
An Open
Letter to President Bush on the Torture of Al-Qaeda Suspects
Pierre Tristam
War Toys and the National Character
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|