Celebrated evangelical preacher Franklin Graham has urged politicians and other world leaders to stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, when the exact opposite is true.

In the wake of this week’s deadly attacks by jihadists in Barcelona, Rev. Graham—the son of Billy Graham—tweeted that politicians should stop saying “Islam is a religion of peace”:

Politicians should stop saying “Islam is a religion of peace.” #Barcelona https://t.co/UW4UbygSEm

— Franklin Graham (@Franklin_Graham) August 20, 2017

In other words, the religious ideology behind Islam itself, rather that the extremism of a given group such as the Islamic State, is often what leads to the violence and terrorism carried out against infidels by Muslims.

In his politically incorrect text, Graham wrote that “we are making a mistake by allowing the operation and spread of the dark and dangerous teachings of Islam.”

“From Bangladesh to Los Angeles, Salafis spread their violent beliefs shielded by the constitutional guarantees of free speech and religious liberty,” Graham writes, citing an article written by former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright.

The radical beliefs described “aren’t limited to only the Salafis sect,” Graham adds. “While there are millions of Muslims who don’t agree with or participate in the violence of Islam, they can’t leave the religion because their families would be obligated to kill them.”

“Islam reigns in lives through fear and intimidation. I pray that Muslims everywhere will come to know Jesus Christ, the Son of God who loves them and can truly set them free. The Word of God tells us, ‘So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed,’” he wrote.

In 2007, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, then the prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asserted that Muslims and Christians “do not believe in the same God,” underscoring the differences in doctrine concerning who God is.

Last year, a Jesuit priest urged the western world to open its eyes to the reality of Muslim violence as intrinsic to the nature of Islam itself, rather than its abuse.

Known as an “old-school Jesuit,” Father James V. Schall taught Political Philosophy in the Department of Government at Georgetown University. In his 2016 essay, “Realism and Islam,” Schall insisted that the Muslim religion must be evaluated on its own terms rather than through the lens of the Judeo-Christian West.

Islam’s consistent advocacy of violence, which has been practiced “from its seventh century beginning,” has a purpose, Schall proposes. “This purpose is, ultimately, religious and pious.”

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter Follow @tdwilliamsrome

Advertisement – story continues below

In 1997, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington was dedicated. Located on the banks of the lower Potomac River in the vicinity of the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument, the FDR Memorial was hardly controversial — especially not to the left, who regard FDR as a paragon of the virtues they hold dear.

At the dedication, then-President Clinton lionized Roosevelt and his legacy: “This memorial will be the embodiment of FDR’s faith, for it will ensure that all future generations will know,” Clinton said. “It will ensure that they will all see the happy warrior, keeping America’s rendezvous with destiny. As we stand at the dawn of a bright new century, this memorial will encourage us, reminding us that whenever America acts with certainty of purpose and FDR’s famous flexibility of mind, we have always been more than equal to whatever challenges we face.”

Since the heinous events of Charlottesville, Virginia, the American left has been seized with a paroxysm of statue-leveling and memorial-closing. The focus has moved from traditional liberal targets like Robert E. Lee and Confederate soldier memorials to other figures from American history — like Washington and Jefferson.

Advertisement – story continues below

Nobody has, as of yet, called for FDR’s memorial to be shut down. On one hand, this is hardly surprising; he is, after all, the left’s favorite president. However, it becomes remarkably inconsistent when you examine why protesters say they want to do away with sundry other vestiges of American history they’ve been busy objecting to. In every case, the reason given is that the views and/or actions on race and minorities represented by the person or persons being represented are incompatible with our modern republic.

So, what did Franklin Delano Roosevelt do for minorities in America? Let’s take a look:

Advertisement – story continues below

Oh, yes, that.

During the course of World War II, almost 120,000 Japanese-Americans were kept in internment camps on orders of the Roosevelt administration. As U.S. News and World Report notes, no person of Japanese descent was ever charged with sabotage during the war — but never mind that. Not only did his administration execute the internment plans, Roosevelt signed the executive order that made it happen.

Few, if any, would question the fact that the internment is a stain on Roosevelt’s legacy. Yet, was he alone in believing that the internment was uncalled for? Hardly. In fact, many Americans at the time felt it was a military necessity.

“I am for immediate removal of every Japanese on the West Coast to a point deep in the interior,” popular newspaper columnist Henry McLemore wrote in 1942. “I don’t mean a nice part of the interior either. Herd ’em up, pack ’em off, and give ’em the inside room in the badlands.”

Advertisement – story continues below

Roosevelt’s decision, in hindsight, was an exceedingly poor one. However, it was hardly his view alone. It also doesn’t erase the fact that he looms large over our country’s history — a complex history which has its peaks and nadirs. Japanese internment certainly falls into the latter category, but that doesn’t erase Roosevelt’s other accomplishments.

For their part, the left knows this; few if any of them are ignorant of Roosevelt’s Japanese internment policies, and most of them continue to sing his praises. Yet, when it comes to Robert E. Lee or Thomas Jefferson, that sense of nuance conveniently disappears.

If the left wants to be truly consistent, let’s see them bring their bungee cords and cardstock placards to the banks of the lower Potomac and start demanding that the FDR monument be shut down. If they refuse to, then let’s call their campaign of history-erasure what it is: Scapegoating.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree.