The chief of an organization that is monitoring the advance of jihad across America says it's contradictory for an evangelical Christian to be part of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations.
The object of the criticism from Bo Perrin of Islamic Jihad Watch is Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Perrin recently discussed Land's involvement with the CFR in connection with his participation in the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project panel with Ground Zero mosque imam Abdul Feisal Rauf.
Perrin, a former Air Force security officer, said he's tried to figure out the benefits of taking a position in a globalist organization.
"I've tried to figure out through not just Dr. Land, but others who have similar leanings, that there seems to be this idea that if we sit with so-called moderate Muslims, moderate jihadists, that somehow we'll be able to moderate their views toward us and moderate American's views towards them and kind of bring people together," Perrin said.
Land has been a member of the CFR since 2006. One of his projects for the CFR was to lead a conference-call discussion on foreign policy concerns for evangelicals.
In a recent statement issued by Land, he said his participation with the CFR is in line with biblical values.
"Having accepted this unique opportunity, my participation in the work of the CFR is entirely in line with the biblical mandate to believers to be 'salt' and 'light' in society (Matthew 5:13-16). My involvement with the council offers another opportunity for me to be a positive influence and bring my scripturally derived values, beliefs and convictions to this diverse arena," Land wrote.
Land believes the CFR is an opportunity to address the "cultural elite."
"It is my view that as God gives the occasion, we must be faithful to honor Him by carrying His truths and wisdom into the marketplace of ideas and thought. As the Apostle Paul was given the opportunity to speak to the cultural elite of his day on Mars Hill, my individual membership in CFR allows a biblical worldview to be delivered without compromise in this venue,” Land explained in the statement.
But Perrin says dialogue with the cultural elite isn't the issue. The problem comes from the requirements of belonging to an organization like the CFR.
"It goes back to being a little disingenuous. If you're part of a group like the CFR,
then they're going to expect that you're going to uphold their tenets and the principles that they've laid out. That's true of any organization," Perrin stated.
"It's disingenuous if he says he wants to uphold what the Scriptures teach and yet at the same time try to hold to the tenets of a group that wants globalization," Perrin continued.
Listen to an interview with Perrin: |
Perrin said there's the appearance of inconsistency.
"From a political perspective, it's kind of disingenuous too. At the same time that Islam claims that it must be superior to all religions, it claims that democracy is a religion because it claims that Allah is not given sovereignty," Perrin explained.
"So sitting there on a group of people, like Rauf from the Project 51, and working with and trying to moderate views with someone who is clearly a jihadist from the statements he has made, it doesn't seem to be doing anything except working against everything we're trying to do," Perrin continued.
"Instead of exposing them and exposing their teachings as a Bible teacher, it seems instead that we're actually trying to moderate the American view toward the extreme views these individuals have," Perrin said.
The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project issued its report in 2008 and reissued the document in 2009. The report urged the president to engage Iran and to encourage Islamic nations to soften their positions.
Terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel says that the panel's conclusions are wishful thinking.
"Most of the panel's conclusions are rooted in a hoped-for diplomacy and outreach that, as we have seen in the past two years, hasn't been very effective," she said. "What about diplomacy with Iran to get them to halt their nuclear weapons program? That's been ineffective. What about President Obama's outreach to the Muslim world? That's been ineffective. We have had far more homegrown terror plots since Obama became president than in the 18 months before his inauguration."
Gabriel said attempts to influence Islamic countries' internal policies are also naïve and without result.
"Proposals to help improve education in the Muslim world are well-meaning, but how do you get countries where the predominant view of education is confined to memorizing the Quran to change their policies? How do you get such countries who treat women as second-class citizens to provide for meaningful education for their girls?” Gabriel stated.
The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project's latest program was an attempt to start a dialogue between the United States and Pakistan in an effort to persuade Pakistan to be a more moderate Islamic player on the world stage.
The emphasis on Pakistan presents policy considerations in light of Fox News reporting that the Pakistani intelligence service is urging the Taliban to "fight" the United States.
Perrin cites Muslim activity at the U.N. to illustrate his point.
"The U.N. right now is being controlled by the more radical Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood has a number of people who are working at the U.N. Right now the U.N. is attempting to pass a law that forbids any criticism of Islam. We can criticize everything else but we can't criticize Islam," Perrin explained.
"If people like us are hampered by certain globalist laws, like what the U.N.'s trying to pass, then they'll be able to move and do whatever they want," Perrin added.
"You have a credibility problem. If you hold to the tenets of the teachings of Jesus, it's hard to see how you can also belong to a group that upholds the tenets of Islam," Perrin said.
Perrin said there is a reason why the dialogue effort will prove unsuccessful.
"I think the danger of doing such a thing is that it's kind of disingenuous. Islam just taking it from a foundational perspective, and looking at their books, the Quran, the hadiths, the Sunna, from a foundational aspect, Islam must conquer all religions. It must be superior, made superior to all religions," Perrin observed.
"It's kind of disingenuous to me to have someone who claims to be a Christian actually sitting and working with individuals who've always claimed that Islam must be superior," Perrin added.
Gabriel says the reason behind the panel's creation and for choosing its members is a concern.
"Perhaps Richard Land’s views regarding Rauf and Khan have changed," she said.
She pointed out other panel members include Ingrid Mattson, head of the Muslim Brotherhood front organization Islamic Society of North America, and Dalia Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, who stated in a TV interview that Islamic law provides justice for women.
Among the others serving on the group are former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Rauf's wife Daisy Khan, Strategic Philanthropy Consultant Sayyeda Mirza-Jafri, American Task Force on Palestine President Ziad Asali, author and business consultant Stephen Covey and American University in Cairo Journalism professor S. Abdallah Schlieffer.
Land's office told WND he would not be available for an interview.