Rev. Franklin Graham

Dear Mikey L. Weinstein,
Your recent position that the Rev. Franklin Graham not be permitted to speak at a function and your criticism of his statements regarding Islam are very troublesome. His critique of Islam is absolutely correct and the sooner the word is spread the better off the USA will be.

Since reading the Qur’an four times beginning in 1997 and studying the history of Islam and the life of Muhammad, I have an in-depth knowledge. Would be glad to discuss with you. My phone: (withheld)
Respectfully– (name withheld)

Hi (name withheld),

Mikey is up to his liver spots with all the mail we have generated over the Graham speech. My name is Rick Baker and I’m a regional coordinator for MRFF.  I wanted to make sure your note was answered promptly.

The problem with Mr. Graham’s statements regarding Islam is not the truthfulness of the statements  but rather the propriety of them.

Once having made the critical remarks in a widely viewed public forum, if Mr. Graham is allowed to speak at the NDP ceremony it would indicate a religious preference on the part of a government entity. The Pentagon would be in the position of condoning  Mr. Grahams remarks which would place them at odds with the constitution.

Also, blanket condemnation of Islam leaves Christianity equally vulnerable to condemnation especially since the depth and breadth of  child rape, sexual assault, other molestations and the resultant cover-up  has been exposed  in the Christian church.

I appreciate your feelings about certain Islamic  practices and doctrines. It must be remembered however, that many American citizens are of the Islamic faith and for those of one religion to criticize those of another is not the American way.

Your expertise in Islamic law, lore and practice notwithstanding, I’m sure that some Muslim scholar of  Christianity could well make the same points.

It is futile to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of religion as it is such a subjective pastime. Rather, one should simply follow his own faith and allow others to follow theirs.

Now, if the actions of those of a certain faith fall outside America civil law or even good taste, then let us concentrate on the actors and not their affiliation. In this case, Mr. Grahams actions come into question and his suitability  to lead this event has been compromised.

The government may not favor, prefer, elevate, recommend or  advance one religion over another. It may not become excessively involved with a particular  religion and its involvement  must have a secular purpose as well.

Despite its majority Christianity has no more power or position under law than any other.  I believe that many of our Christian friends do not subscribe to that fact and have been reading their own press clippings.

Thank you again for your message. Your points have validity and certainly warrant discussion but do not apply well to this situation.

Respectfully,
Rick Baker
MRFF