[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6831-H6837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHenry). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate once again the 
opportunity to come before the House of Representatives tonight and 
bring the latest version of the Official Truth Squad.
  You have heard a lot of information over the last hour, much of 
which, in terms of its tenor and its tone, was the genesis for the 
Official Truth Squad, because what we as Republican freshmen Members of 
Congress determined about a year or a little over a year ago was that 
there was an awful lot of disinformation and misinformation and 
distortion and demagoguery and division, attempting to divide the 
Nation in such a way that it did a disservice to everybody. And, Mr. 
Speaker, you have heard an awful lot of that over the last hour.
  We have got some very serious things to talk about tonight, but I 
wanted to spend a few moments and just try to lower the temperature a 
little bit, try to decrease the calamity that you have just heard. You 
have heard a lot of discussion about all sorts of issues, mostly 
national security issues. You have heard some claims about the 9/11 
Commission and how none of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
have been proposed or adopted by Congress.
  But what the Official Truth Squad is all about is about truth. It is 
about fact. It is about real things. And one of our favorite quotes 
comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had just a great quote. 
He said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is 
entitled to their own facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, 
but not their own facts. And that is important, Mr. Speaker, because 
when you hear all these things, these accusations and incredible 
distortions that are leveled, very rarely are they ever rooted in fact.
  And I am here to give you a few instances of fact, and I just want to 
spend a few moments to talk about national security and the 9/11 
Commission recommendations because the distortions have been 
phenomenal.
  We have on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the 
aisle, a leader who has said within the last 2 weeks that she didn't 
believe that the capture of Osama bin Laden would make America any 
safer. That is a stunning statement from the individual who wants to be 
third in line to the Presidency, a stunning statement. She has also, as 
well as so many individuals on the other side have, called for the 
implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Well, in 
fact, what they ought to do is look in the mirror or talk to their 
colleagues, because Capitol Hill Democrats have repeatedly, repeatedly 
opposed legislation implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
that were meant to strengthen America's national security and prevent 
further terrorist attacks. And I have just got a couple of them here 
for you, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to share with you.
  The 9/11 Commission stated: ``The government has made significant 
strides in using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool.''

                              {time}  2200

  Yet the Democrats voted, 174 of them voted ``no.'' Voted ``no'' for 
the bill that would allow us to continue to use that kind of 
intelligence in making certain that we can capture terrorists, find 
terrorists. ``No.''
  The 9/11 Commission recommendation, they call for its adoption and 
its implementation. We propose it on the floor of the House in a 
responsible way, in a positive way to try to make America safer, and 
what do the vast majority of the Democrats on the other side of the 
aisle do? Vote ``no,'' 174 of them.
  The 9/11 Commission says, ``The REAL ID Act has established statute 
standards for State-issued IDs acceptable for Federal purposes, though 
State compliance needs to be closely monitored.''
  So the REAL ID Act that this House passed that was signed into law 
with the good work of a Republican House and a Republican Senate and 
signed by the President, how many folks on the other side of the aisle, 
our good friends who have just been clamoring for adoption of the 9/11 
recommendations, how many supported it? Well, I will tell you that 152, 
the vast majority of them, voted ``no,'' voted ``no'' on the REAL ID 
Act.
  Again, the 9/11 Commission says, the House and the Senate have taken 
positive steps, but Secretary Chertoff and his team still report to too 
many bosses. The House and the Senate Homeland Security Committees 
should have exclusive jurisdiction over all counterterrorism functions 
of the Department of Homeland Security.
  And when that recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is proposed on 
the floor of the House, where are our friends on the other side of the 
aisle who clamor over and over for adoption of these recommendations? 
The majority of them, 120, vote ``no,'' vote ``no,'' Mr. Speaker.
  So as a member of the Official Truth Squad, as an individual who has 
been frustrated, when I go home and talk to folks, they want us to work 
together. And I encourage individuals to work together. These are not 
Republican problems that we have or Democrat problems, they are 
American problems, they are American challenges.
  So I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to throw 
fewer stones, throw fewer barbs, be less political. I know it is an 
election season, and that is fine, but there are real problems and real 
challenges to solve.
  We have real solutions, and we encourage and invite our colleagues on

[[Page H6832]]

the other side of the aisle to indeed join us in solving these issues, 
especially, especially in the area of national security.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be joined tonight by a number of 
individuals who want to talk about a very, very serious issue as it 
relates to not just our Nation, but indeed the world. And that is, 
again, an attempt to try to lower the temperature, try to lower the 
pressure points and talk objectively and within reason about the issue 
of nations, about the issue of religion, about the issue that has grown 
into a firestorm with the Pope's comments that I believe have been 
taken out of proportion.
  And to open that, I would like to just share a comment from the Pope. 
And we all know the comments that have been made and how they have been 
taken most recently. And the quote that I find most instructive from 
the Pope is this. It says, ``For the careful reader of my text, it is 
clear that I in no way wanted to make mine the negative words 
pronounced by the medieval emperor, and their polemical content does 
not reflect my personal conviction.''
  I think that is a powerful statement, Mr. Speaker. Powerful 
statement. And what the Pope has attempted to do, I believe, is to try 
to talk within reason about the issue of religion and about the issue 
of politics, because it is extremely important for us as a world at 
this stage right now.
  The response that has been received, however, has not been as 
reasoned. And this is a quote from a branch of al Qaeda, and it is 
troubling, Mr. Speaker, it is troubling, these words. ``We tell the 
worshiper of the cross, the Pope, that you and that the West will be 
defeated, as is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan and Chechnya. We shall 
break the cross and spill the wine. God will help Muslims to conquer 
Rome. God, enable us to slit their throats and make their money and 
descendants the bounty of the Mujahadin.''
  That is a quote, Mr. Speaker. So I would call on all individuals of 
goodwill, all Christians, all Jews, all Muslims, all members of any 
religion around the world to take a deep breath, to take a step back. 
This kind of verbal assault does nothing to assist us in the world 
community to solve any of the challenges that we have.
  I would point to a comment that was in the L.A. Times where they 
noted that the Pope paused twice during his speech to remind the 
audience that he was quoting another individual and departing from his 
prepared text. The Pope twice reminded the audience that he was quoting 
someone else, an indication that he was clearly aware of the 
sensitivity of his comments.
  Finally, there was a press communication that was put out by the 
Vatican that said that the Pope's option in favor of interreligious and 
intercultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. In his meeting with 
representatives of the Muslim communities in Cologne, Germany, on 
August 20, 2005, he said that such dialogue between Christians and 
Muslim ``cannot be reduced to an optional extra. The lessons of the 
past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek 
paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's 
identity.''
  So it is in that context, Mr. Speaker, that we open the discussion 
tonight with some good colleagues and good friends who are reasoned in 
their discussion and their perspective on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by many of them this evening. 
I wish to introduce and yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Hart), who I, as just a freshman member of the Republican Conference, 
have found to be a stalwart individual, individual who truly speaks the 
truth, and an individual whom I know her heart is good. I yield to my 
good friend, Congresswoman Hart from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
comments. You know, I am pleased that we have joined the Official Truth 
Squad, because the main reason why several of us wanted to be on the 
floor tonight was to further discuss and hopefully enlighten each other 
and anybody who may be listening about what Pope Benedict was really 
talking about in Regensburg.
  Unfortunately, there was a significant amount of negative response 
and I believe inaccurate characterizations of the speech, or actually 
the class he was teaching as Regensburg, a university where he taught.
  And the discussion was regarding many things, but I think his focus 
was a hopefulness that faith and reason should always be joined 
together. Many of us have been speaking of this to each other, kind of 
challenging each other in our thought processes about why the reaction 
to his speech was so negative, and, in fact, why he was accused of 
being critical of Islam in the comments that he cited that were made in 
the Middle Ages during a conversation, an intellectual conversation, 
between a Christian and a Muslim about their faith, when at the time 
they could speak, I guess, honestly and peacefully to each other.
  Pope Benedict discussed it, and I think it is important that his 
actual words be cited. I know that Congressman Murphy wants to say a 
few things about that, but I want to open with the passage that so many 
people have been decrying. He said, ``Show me just what Mohammed 
brought that was new.''
  Now, this is a quote. This is not the Pope's words. He is quoting 
from a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Palaeologus, and his discussion 
with a man they called an educated Persian on the subject of 
Christianity and Islam.
  And the quote from the Byzantine Emperor was, ``Show me just what 
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil 
and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he 
preached.''
  The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading 
the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is 
incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
  It does not end there, however. The statement is, ``God is not 
pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's 
nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead 
someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and reason properly 
without violence and threats. To convince a reasonable soul, one does 
not need a strong arm or weapons of any kind or any other means of 
threatening a person with death.''
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important 
that we appreciate that those were not the Pope's words, correct?
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, he was quoting as an example of a discussion 
between two educated people of different faiths.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I think that is incredibly 
important. I do not think we can repeat that often enough, given the 
response that has been seen. These were not the Pope's words. He was 
using this quote from 600 years ago as an instructive tool.
  I yield.
  Ms. HART. I thank the gentleman.
  Yes. I mean, his goal was to challenge those faiths today, not just 
Christians, not just Jews, not just those of the Islamic faith, not 
just anyone in particular, but everyone to be challenged, to always 
include together in their thoughts and their discussion and discourse 
with others, sure their faith as a basis, but reason as well.
  And I believe today, unfortunately, much of the discourse, and 
certainly the response, was completely inappropriate to what the Pope 
was teaching that day in Regensburg; was exactly, unfortunately, an 
illustration of a radical, really, faith without reason.
  In fact, it was illustrated as without reason in the reaction that we 
saw, that was reported in the news, much of which was reported as being 
a response to what the Pope said; you know, threats on lives, threats 
on the Pope's life, unfortunately a murder of an Italian nun, and 
basically a demand that the Pope apologize.
  Now, clearly he did apologize for the reaction to his words, but I 
believe that he had hoped and expected that his words would stand as 
stated. That it is a call to all people of all faiths to enter a 
discourse; do not abandon your faith, but bring along with it the 
reason and the goal of being peaceful-minded and having the goal of 
getting along with those of other faiths as the two gentlemen did who 
he cited in his quote.
  I would be interested in yielding to Mr. Murphy, if that is all right 
with you, Mr. Price?

[[Page H6833]]

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Absolutely. I appreciate so much the importance 
of connecting faith and reason, because I think that is what the Pope 
has challenged all of us to do is to reflect upon our own faith.
  Clearly we are in a point in this world now where there are 
individuals who are not desirous of joining faith and reason together. 
And so I think we ought to be commending the Pope for bringing forward 
this incredibly important issue that will allow us, should we be able 
to navigate these waters well, that will allow us to continue to 
survive in a world at peace.
  Ms. HART. Hopefully, if I may move us in the direction of a discourse 
without threats of violence, without acts of violence, and toward the 
goal that all of these leaders profess to have, at least most of them, 
which is peace.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Which is, in fact, the end point in the goal of 
all of the great religions.
  Ms. HART. That is right.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I welcome my good friend from Pennsylvania, as 
well, Dr. Murphy, joining us this evening. I look forward to his 
comments.
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding and the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania, also, to spend some time on some of the important points 
in our world today. We are so very deeply concerned that throughout our 
world and really throughout the history of humankind, so many people 
have lost their lives and blood has been shed and cities have been 
burned and armies have been massed, unfortunately, in the name of 
religion. It has sometimes and very frequently distorted its goals.
  I wanted to start off by going back to some of the speech that Pope 
Benedict gave. In a sentence that followed his quote under question 
again, where he is continuing his quote about the emperor and saying, 
The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to 
explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence 
is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of 
God and the nature of the soul. ``God,'' he says, ``is not pleased by 
blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is 
born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith 
needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly without violence 
and threats. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong 
arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person 
with death.''
  As I read this, I am also struck by some of the similarity with an 
article about religious tolerance in Islam. There are several quotes 
which I need to read into the record, too, to talk about some things we 
need to understand as Americans and the world needs to understand. Our 
nation, predominantly a Christian nation and one that is founded on 
many of those principles and very much a part of our history, our 
Constitution and our laws, there is so much we need to learn. I say 
these things not in any kind of way of being conciliatory but a way of 
saying we need to approach things with understanding and not the 
violence which is occurring around the world. It is so disturbing to 
see churches burned, to see a nun shot, to see calls and crying out for 
assassinations. This is not the way to seek peace.
  Let me read here from this article on religious intolerance in Islam 
about piety, where the author, Dr. Abdullah M. Khouj, writes:
  Piety eliminates any type of racial, social or national 
discrimination. Religious discrimination is completely incompatible 
with Islam. Islam was revealed in a part of the world and at a time 
when the majority of people were polytheists. Islam came and showed 
people the need to believe in one God as the only way to understand 
themselves and to improve their lives. Allah confirmed to the prophet 
that we must believe all previous messengers and that we must reach a 
level of understanding with other religions. He says:
  ``Say ye: `We believe in God and the revelation given to us, and to 
Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes, and that given to Moses 
and Jesus, and that given to all prophets from their Lord: We make no 
difference between one and another of them: And we bow to God in 
Islam.'''
  The author goes on to say:
  And when a Muslim discusses religion with a non-Muslim, Allah enjoins 
us to speak with reason and good manners.
  Again he continues:
  ``And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means 
better than mere disputation, unless it be with those of them who 
inflict wrong and injury: But say, `We believe in the revelation which 
has come down to us and that which came down to you. Our God and your 
God is one; and it is to him we bow in Islam.'''
  Again the author continues:
  Indeed, Allah requires us to ensure that religious discussion never 
be allowed to become violent.
  Finally he quotes:
  ``Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from 
error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most 
trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth 
all things.''
  As I read those words that have come from the Islamic Center, I am 
struck that really throughout history, so many faiths and governments 
have dealt with religious conflict. Early this evening, in fact, I was 
meeting with folks from Northern Ireland, from Ireland and the United 
Kingdom who have themselves been dealing with a conflict which has gone 
on more predominantly for the last few decades but really for centuries 
of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants/Christians in Northern 
Ireland. Much blood has been shed. There have been revolutions. There 
has been a peace agreement which has been in place since 1998 but a 
government is not yet set. It is true these things we have to remember, 
that when people have religious intolerance and wars and bloodshed 
ensues, it is of terrible consequence.
  One of the reasons we are here today is to say that we are are not 
here to support any kind of intolerance. We are here to call the world 
to do what it should do in terms of those principles of religious 
freedom which are so important for bringing peace to the world.
  Here let me call upon something that George Washington said. He said, 
back in 1792, ``Of all animosities which have existed among mankind, 
those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear 
to be most inveterate and distressing and ought most to be deprecated. 
I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy which has marked 
the present age would at least have reconciled Christians of every 
denomination so far that we should never again see the religious 
disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.''
  He goes to say, in 1775:
  ``As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of 
its ceremonies or affronting its ministers or votaries has ever been 
deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every 
officer from such imprudence and folly and to punish any and every 
instance of it,'' he was saying to Benedict Arnold.

  ``On the other hand,'' Washington continues, ``as far as lies in your 
power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of 
the country and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience 
in religious matters with your utmost influence and authority.''
  It would seem to me at that time, as Washington has said, as so many 
countries have dealt with these issues, that what we need to have is 
not more violence, not more accusations, not more calls for 
assassinations and murders and burnings, not more continuation of war, 
hiding behind these with some extremists who have themselves captured 
or are hiding behind some aspects of faith, but understand that we are 
in a world that can little tolerate these burnings, these 
assassinations, these murders but on one which really must call for an 
interfaith dialogue, of patience, of understanding; truly seeing what 
the words are and not using them as some sort of vehicle for more 
incendiary language.
  There is so much that we need to use and perhaps, in the Pope's 
words, those should really be a stepping-off point to continue this 
dialogue, not to continue on with this violence which we are seeing. 
The world can little afford more war. As I watched also the comments of 
the United Nations today from leaders to continue these comments, this 
is

[[Page H6834]]

not the way the world should be operating. This is not the way the U.N. 
should be operating. My hope is that every American of every faith, 
that every man or woman of the cloth of every faith, not only here in 
the United States but throughout the world, sees this as an opportunity 
to be called upon by their Maker to speak out and say that if there is 
any hope for us in this world, if there is any hope for the faiths of 
which we adhere, that this is the time above all times when truth and 
dialogue are needed to discuss things rather than swords.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. What a wonderful picture you paint. I thank you 
so much for those remarkable words. It is not often that we get the 
opportunity here in Congress to talk about these overarching issues and 
matters that come before us. And what a beautiful quote you read from 
the father of our country, George Washington, to talk about conscience 
and to talk about religious liberty and religious freedom. If ever 
there was a nation that was founded upon the principle of religious 
tolerance, I would suspect that it is indeed the United States of 
America. And maybe it is this discussion tonight that begins that call 
to individuals truly across America and around the world to enter into 
that dialogue that you talk about, because it is so extremely important 
that we turn away from the sword, that we move toward a path of 
discussion and dialogue and of joining together faith and reason so 
that we can walk together in peace as opposed to challenge each other 
to arms which was so distressing, as you mentioned, to see at the 
United Nations today. I was so distressed to see so many of the 
comments that were made there.
  We are joined as well by my dear friend and colleague in the freshman 
class, Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska, who is a man of deep faith, I 
know, and a dear friend. I look forward to your comments on our 
discussion this evening.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for coordinating 
tonight's discussion, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania as 
well for his beautiful insights that he read that, as you so well said, 
have helped us create an opportunity not just tonight but through the 
events of the day, the difficult tensions, nonetheless, maybe there is 
a moment here which will allow us to explore, to unpack the 
inextricable link between faith and reason.
  I would like to tell a story, though, that might augment some of 
these reflections. As a much younger man, I spent a considerable amount 
of time in the Middle East and I was in a country that was 
predominantly Moslem and was being hosted by a Moslem family who were 
extraordinarily generous to me in welcoming me into their home. They 
lived in an oasis area that was just rich in agricultural production. 
Their neighbor was a Christian man. My host made a point to introduce 
me to him, knowing of my own faith tradition. He very humbly showed me, 
because I did not understand the language, the nature of their 
community, the nature of the way they lived. If I recall correctly, he 
took his Christian neighbor's hand, bowed down and gave it a kiss to 
show again the unity, in spite of the distinctions that are their faith 
tradition, the ability to live next to one another out of respect and 
humility, out of respect perhaps for a higher good, a higher calling to 
be a member of the human family. And perhaps again what has already 
been discussed tonight in terms of the Pope's comments, it gives us an 
opportunity to explore that beautiful wedding of faith and reason as it 
flows out of the very nature of the divine.
  If you recall, though, the Pope's very first writing, his first 
encyclical, was Deus Caritas Est, God is Love. If I could read some 
reflections on that, they are these:
  ``The Holy Father has already made clear in Deus Caritas Est that 
love of our neighbor is not primarily a government project, that 
justice is not enough, and often is not even a beginning. We simply 
cannot just talk of faith and justice without beginning and ending in 
charity and the reasons for it.'' In other words, the reasonableness of 
acting in faith or acting out faith in love and the unreasonableness or 
the irrationality of imposing the faith, particularly, or enforcing a 
faith particularly through violence. I think again the opportunity to 
unpack that discussion tonight is extraordinary.
  I appreciate the gentleman's allowing me a little bits of time to 
speak.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman so much from Nebraska for 
those comments and for that experience.
  I think that we can all hearken back to those times in our lives when 
we shared those experiences with individuals of a different faith and 
recognize when you get right down to it, the core of each of the great 
religions in this world is the ability or the call to live together in 
peace. I think that is what the Pope was attempting to move us as a 
world in the direction of discussing that.
  I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. HART. I thank the gentleman from Georgia and also want to reflect 
for a moment on the statement of the gentleman from Nebraska regarding 
the Pope's statement and also what the goal was, a reflection by a 
Father James Schall.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. If the gentlewoman will yield, thank you for quoting 
the source. I didn't say that earlier.
  Ms. HART. Which both he and I have read, was an outstanding analysis 
of the speech that the Pope made. After he cited what the Holy Father 
had said in the Deus Caritas Est, in the statement of Love Thy 
Neighbor, the analysis goes on to say that this speech, after that, was 
his second shot of trying to get us all to realize what is wrong with 
our current world, with the state of our current world and the state of 
mind of our current world. According to Father Schall, these shots are 
designed to do what all good intellectual battle does, namely, to make 
it possible for us to see again what is true and to live it.

                              {time}  2230

  My colleague from Nebraska's real-life experience that shows that 
many people do live it and that those are the examples that we need to 
see more of. Unfortunately, our news carries with it from day-to-day 
stories of violence that those carrying it out carry out in the name of 
God, Allah, or the name of their faith.
  Congressman Murphy reflected on the problems in Northern Ireland, 
again, violence carried out often in the name of faith. It is such a 
misuse of the teachings in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and 
what most people would accept as a, I would say, progressive 
interpretation of the Koran, that that is not encouraged. What is 
encouraged is this peaceful dialogue. What is encouraged is this goal 
of us finding a way towards peace.
  The analysis by many in the days since the Pope's speech at 
Regensburg I think are fortunately giving a second look, after the 
unfortunate analysis in the New York Times which criticized him for his 
words. Phillip Blond from the International Herald Tribune made a 
statement that I think is extremely poignant and to the point. He said, 
``Secular reason as value free and religiously neutral is meant to 
police interactions.'' Unfortunately, it really doesn't always work for 
us.
  He states, ``Little wonder then that religious people are so unable 
to interact about what is most crucial to them. Pope Benedict wants to 
change this. He wishes to restore the last time the great faiths talked 
to each other when he cited the High Middle Ages, when faith and reason 
were not separated and Christians could criticize Islamic conceptions 
of God and Muslims could do likewise. His address was intended to 
inaugurate an authentic theological engagement between the faiths. That 
this has been so misunderstood only stresses the urgency of this 
application.''
  I think those are the telling words we must take to heart here in the 
United States, in the Middle East, in Europe, throughout the world, as 
we seek to solve the serious problems we face: Nuclear arms in the 
hands of Iran, the wars that we face on extremists in Afghanistan, in 
Iraq, the challenges we face in our own country where people are not 
willing to engage and discuss the truth on a level of honesty. It is a 
challenge to all of us.
  I am very pleased that we are taking the opportunity tonight to 
really analyze it a little bit more, to understand it a little bit 
more.

[[Page H6835]]

  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. MURPHY. If I may ask the gentleman to yield to me for a moment, I 
appreciate that. I want to follow up with some things that my colleague 
from Pennsylvania was saying as part of this.
  Again it is important as our words are heard, my colleagues and Mr. 
Speaker, that we are not standing here in a conciliatory posture. This 
is not a matter of asking people to surrender their beliefs or their 
strength or undercut that which is the basis of our Constitution. It is 
in fact something that strengthens it.
  An article that was written in Time Magazine that just appeared 
commented here about an analysis of things that Pope Benedict said. It 
is important to note that this article, by Jeff Israely, said that 
``Pope Benedict spoke about the need for the West.'' He was saying 
``His questions are not reserved for the Islamic world, as he has done 
before. Benedict spoke about the need for the West, especially Europe, 
to reverse its tendency towards godless secularism. He believes that 
the gift of reason that he cherishes in Christianity has been warped by 
the West into an absolutist doctrine and that, he believes, prevents 
the opening of a productive channel for dialogue with a more faithful 
Islamic society. Reason and faith, he insists, must come together in a 
new way.''
  This is so important for where we are in this crossroads of the 
world. When I listened today to the President of Iran and the President 
of Venezuela, or listening to these incendiary words, calling out more 
criticism and calls for more violence among so many, and when these are 
underscored and peppered by comments that are meant to provoke violence 
on the basis of faith, this is the very thing that I believe that the 
Pope was trying to prevent. Unfortunately, his words were distorted, 
misquoted, and, in some cases, not quoted fully at all. That is in part 
why we are here tonight to talk about it in more detail.
  Our role here as Members of Congress is punctuated and exentuated by 
that of which when we took our oath of office to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States, I remind us all that here in the 
very Preamble of the Constitution, where we are here to form a more 
perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide 
for the common defense and promote the general welfare, here is where 
it is important to say that we are calling for reason and dialogue as 
it comes to questions of faith, and that should be something we should 
all agree to.
  But we must also recognize that we cannot give in to those who 
continue to threaten violence, who would attack, would kill and do 
anything in that manner. We will continue to defend those principles of 
our Nation.
  But it is something that we are so keenly aware of, because we have 
struggled with this as a nation. One of the reasons in our own Bill of 
Rights we have freedom of speech, which was included, and that itself 
could not have been part of the initial Constitution in 1787, we 
recall. They couldn't even agree how to put that in. That required 
another Constitutional amendment that they agreed to and didn't get in 
for a couple years when the States had to ratify those amendments.
  This was the time when George Washington was also trying to keep our 
Nation together as its first President. But he had here, and this is 
another quote from 1783, at that time he said, ``I now make it my 
earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you 
preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of 
the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to 
Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one 
another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and 
particularly for their brethren who have served in the field, and 
finally, he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do 
Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, 
humility and pacific temper of mind which were the Characteristics of 
the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without a humble 
imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a 
happy Nation.''
  Indeed it is our own Nation which has struggled with issues of 
religious freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of the person, habeas 
corpus, all of those things which are part of it. We have not done 
those struggles without bloodshed. We have faced our own wars here, our 
own problems, our own riots, our own violence. And as we reflect upon 
those, that is perhaps why tonight we are particularly motivated to say 
these aspects of continuing to take things out of context, to 
misrepresent them and to call upon more violence, simply have to stop 
and the strength of our Nation and people must stand behind them.
  Let me also add this, as I have talked to citizens in my district 
since these comments were made and watched the reactions. It is in many 
ways to serve as a wake-up call for all of us, that there are those 
factions, and I do not believe for one second these are the beliefs of 
all Muslims, but there are those factions who use this as an excuse to 
an attack the West, use it as an excuse to attack those who are 
Christians or Jews or even other Muslims.
  Those things cannot be tolerated by anybody in the world. It is 
unfortunate, and yet I hope it is only a temporary thing and it is 
fixed soon. The U.N. has been silent on those principle. And I would 
hope in the midst of all this other vituperative rhetoric that has 
taken place in the U.N. today and continues around the world, that 
leaders of nations, leaders of faith, will speak out and say this is 
not the way we should operate as democracies and as a people who want 
to live together in peace.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much. The silence truly has been 
deafening, and it is disappointing and it is disconcerting. But as a 
Christian, but a non-Catholic, I have struggled and attempted to find 
folks who have a perspective on what has occurred over the past number 
of days, and there are a couple individuals that I find that have given 
some hope. Some people have called back through history and brought my 
attention back to the fact that religions can grow, that spirituality 
can grow.
  There is a quote that I would like to share before I yield again from 
Michael Potemra, who said, ``The Koran is one of the loveliest books 
ever written, a distillation of monotheism that is full of spiritual 
wisdom, and I never fail to profit from the reading of it. But the 
global mainstream of Koran interpretation stresses passages that are 
harmful and slights those that are irenic. The Pope's words approached 
without quite touching this unpleasant truth. As a result of the 
current riots, there will be even more Western voices calling for `a 
clash of civilizations against Islam itself.' Before we decide that 
Islam cannot be saved from its darker side, we should call to mind 
Christian history. Less than 150 years ago, Pope Pius IX was still 
formally condemning freedom of religion as a heretical notion, and John 
Calvin, the spiritual progenitor of the theology of America's Founding 
Fathers, ran a cruel theocracy in Geneva that, among other things, 
executed the theologian Servetus for his heresy.''
  I might not agree with all of that. However, I think it is important 
to appreciate his conclusion, and that is that ``religions acted on by 
the spirit can change and our Muslim brothers and sisters needs our 
prayers and they need us to support the forces among them that are 
resisting the lure of religious hatred.''
  That ends the quote. I would be happy to yield to my good friend from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia. I 
would like to return to some of the commentary that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania made, because in our founding documents, in another of our 
founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, here are the 
words. ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain 
inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness.''
  In other words, the founding document in a certain sense separated 
the institution of church and state, yet at the same time affirmed the 
transcended values, the transcended ideals that make democratic 
politics possible.
  Frankly we are at a crossroads, because I think for the world to 
progress in the name of civil reform, in the name of civilization, we 
have to recognize this fundamental principle, that

[[Page H6836]]

every person has inherent dignity and rights. That is the foundation of 
an order that can then be built upon justice and in charity.
  That is what we are facing worldwide. It is so essential that those 
of us who have been given the gift of stabilized societies, who have 
lived with the blessings of that philosophical context, help others who 
are reaching out as well for civil society and to build up the 
institutions that can promote that very principle, that every person 
has inherent dignity and rights.
  This is the crossroads that we face I think in the world today, 
because all of civilization hinges upon that key principle. We have had 
to work that out in our country. It has been imperfect. We have fought. 
It is not perfect today. And yet at the same time, this has spread 
beyond our shores, this idea, because of the transnationalism that has 
now occurred, because of the advances in communications, in technology 
and transportation have caused the world to shrink very, very rapidly. 
So we have an opportunity to rethink some of the foundations on which 
the very order is built.
  So, again, this is an opportunity to explore it a little more deeply, 
some of our own history, some of the goodness embedded in our own 
history and perhaps what other people are longing and reaching out for.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate those comments. We have been 
joined by some others.
  I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania for their introduction.
  Ms. HART. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased we have 
been joined by two more of our colleagues. I wanted to wrap up my 
points if I may.
  Is this the most important thing that we need to learn, and not just 
us standing here when I say we, I mean everyone who is hopefully going 
to be part of a dialogue among the faiths toward hopefully a more 
peaceful world, is something better than what we see at the typical 
interfaith meeting or the typical interfaith discussion, something 
beyond we will be nice to each other for an hour and then we will go 
home. We need to build real understanding and real respect for each 
other and for each other's rights to be here.
  For example, the discourse that we have been hearing that denies 
Israel's right to exist cannot exist in a discussion that is aimed 
toward peace. I would like to quote an editorial from the Wall Street 
Journal from a couple of days ago. ``Everyone at the table must reject 
the irrationality of religiously motivated violence.'' It goes on to 
say, ``The Pope wasn't condemning Islam. He is inviting it to join, 
rather than reject, the modern world.''

                              {time}  2245

  I would like to turn it over if I may to my colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. We welcome the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
McCotter) to this discussion, an individual who has great wisdom, and 
we look forward to your comments.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
confusing me with someone else, but in all seriousness, as someone with 
a very pluralistic district, who myself have many friends in the Muslim 
community, I wish to join the number of voices that are echoing the 
call for dialogue between all of the great religions.
  But I think we would be remiss if we missed a simple intelligible 
fact, as if one of the fundamental dialogues that must occur is within 
the Muslim community itself, both here and home.
  While conversation amongst the religions is always very healthy, we 
face a dire situation in the Muslim community where there are those who 
are bent on the death and destruction not only of non-Muslims but upon 
Muslims themselves.
  So I would ask my Muslim friends to engage in that dialogue amongst 
their co-religionists because, in the final analysis, I, as an 
outsider, in my own mind, in my own heart, can think of no truer 
definition of an infidel than someone who claims to be a Muslim, 
killing their fellow Muslims in the name of Allah.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for his comments and 
appropriate perspective and call once again for dialogue which I think 
is the underlying message that we would deliver this evening, and that 
is, that faith must be connected to reason and that dialogue between 
peoples is what will bring us to a peaceful solution.
  I welcome my good friend, the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English), once again great friends from Pennsylvania joining us 
tonight.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for an 
opportunity to share, the opportunity to comment on I think on what has 
been a very important moment.
  It is a sobering sign of the times, in my view, that a papal speech 
that was meant to address the harmony between faith and reason and 
deplore the idea of religious violence is contradictory to the nature 
of God would inspire demonstrations and violence in a large cross-
section of the Islamic world.
  The angry reaction of some Muslim leaders and politicians to the 
September 12 academic lecture by Pope Benedict XVI in Germany has 
disturbed Catholics and non-Catholics alike and raised many questions 
about the possibilities of honest dialogue between Islam and the non-
Islamic world, particularly in a world of 15 second sound bites.
  The Holy Father's lecture was not intended obviously to be a 
critique, let alone a criticism, of Islam. It was instead a very 
esoteric discussion of three different views on the nature of 
knowledge, particularly the knowledge of God. The pope used a quote by 
the late Byzantine emperor, not a Catholic, Manuel II Paleologus, 
regarding Islamic teachings on holy war and the command to spread the 
faith by the sword, as a starting point of his discussion.
  The basic thrust of the Pontiff's remarks were that Christian 
theology derives from Hellenic roots that view God as the embodiment of 
reason and is, therefore, bound by reason because to be otherwise would 
be contrary to his own nature. He contrasts Christian theology with a 
strain of Islamic thought which, in the Holy Father's description, 
posits that God transcends reason and, therefore, is not bound by any 
restrictions whatsoever. He also contrasts Christian theology with the 
evolving viewpoint that reason needs no embodiment, that it stands 
outside of any form of divine authorship and views Christ as merely an 
inspired moral philosopher rather than as the Logos, the embodiment and 
author of reason and the creator of the physical world.
  A careful reading of the pope's remarks quickly reveals that he 
spends more time describing the dehellenisation of Christian theology 
than discussing Islamic theology and never at any point disparaged or 
insulted Islam. In fact, he specifically describes the emperor's 
remarks as brusque and is astounded by the quality. At no point does 
the pontiff endorse the emperor's remarks or make them his own.
  Mr. Speaker, there are three points that need to be made about the 
extreme reaction of the pope's quotation of the Byzantine emperor.
  First, the current turmoil is in large part the fault of those in 
both the West and the East who have misrepresented the pope's words and 
the pope's intent. In the West, the news media has done a spectacularly 
poor job of reporting on the talk and putting it in context. When the 
pope apologized for the upset that his words caused, Jim Lehrer of PBS' 
Lehrer News Hour said the apology ``stopped short of retracting his 
statement,'' as if the pope had made the emperor's words his own.
  The persistent misreporting of the controversial quote as the words 
of the pope himself was evident also in the demands by Muslim leaders 
for a papal apology. From Turkey to Iraq to Iran to the West Bank, many 
leaders and politicians have exploited the controversy to suit their 
own ends. This kind of debased manipulation of religious sensibilities 
for demagogic gain should be condemned by moderate Muslim leaders in 
the West.
  Second, both Christianity and Islam needs to come to terms with their 
historic mistakes and excesses. Christianity has much to answer for in 
its history, including inquisitions, pogroms, forced conversions and 
holy wars which have left scars that have yet to fully heal. 
Nevertheless, Islam is not without its own transgressions. From its 7th 
century destruction of Christian churches in north Africa to its 
repeated invasions of Christian Europe,

[[Page H6837]]

Islam has a long history of conquest. Indeed, Christendom's Crusades 
need to be understood within the context of Islam's assaults on the 
Byzantine Empire and the continued threats to Europe.
  Mr. Speaker, if only Muslims are allowed to express historical 
outrage and only Christians are required to apologize for past wrongs, 
there will be no chance of a deep historical and cultural dialogue. 
More importantly, experience demonstrates that while we may learn from 
history, we must put past offenses behind us if we are ever to hope to 
live in peace. Conflicting sects and ethnic groups from Northern 
Ireland to South Africa recognize that demanding Draconian justice for 
intergenerational grievances leads only to prolonged conflict and have 
chosen instead to concentrate on building a better future for their 
children. The Christian and Islamic worlds can and must do the same.
  Third and finally, this particular controversy underscores the 
importance of the pope's call for a dialogue based on faith and reason. 
Even religions as different in their conceptions of God as Christianity 
and Islam must find ways to engage politically, culturally and, over 
time, theologically. My home State, Mr. Speaker, was founded by William 
Penn, a refugee of an oppressed political minority who created an 
environment where sects could live together and exchange views and have 
mutual respect and even admiration. Voltaire wrote at the time that 
Pennsylvania had the freest air on earth. Pope Benedict's commitment to 
this kind of genuine dialogue is clear.
  Despite the fact that Pope Benedict never intended any offense, the 
pontiff has repeatedly expressed regret at the misinterpretation and 
misunderstanding of his remarks on Islam. He has expressed deep respect 
for the faith of Muslims.
  Speaking at the September 21 general audience in St. Peter's Square 
in front of more than 40,000 people, the pope noted from his recent 
trip to Bavaria and told his audience, ``This quotation, unfortunately, 
has lent itself to misunderstanding.''
  I think we can take him at his word. I think in my view we can let 
this matter die, and we should use it as a starting point for a genuine 
dialogue between the Christian West and those of us in the West who 
want to see a liberal society and also Islam.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to comment on this recent 
turn of events.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
Pennsylvania for joining us this evening and for those wonderful, 
wonderful words of wisdom.
  We have just a very few short moments left. In closing, let me just 
thank my good friend also from Pennsylvania Congresswoman Hart who 
truly organized this activity this evening. I think this has been a 
remarkable discussion. It has been a lofty discussion. It truly has 
been a privilege to come to the floor, and the privilege of service is 
indeed the privilege of leadership.
  I guess if I were to summarize I would say that what we call our 
colleagues to this evening is, in fact, not just our colleagues, but 
all Members of the civilized world, is to an appreciation that faith 
and reason go hand-in-hand and that dialogue is what is absolutely 
necessary if we are to solve the remarkable challenges that we have as 
a diverse world.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in a glorious and a wonderful Nation. It is a 
Nation of religious liberty. It is a Nation that continues to be a 
beacon of hope and a vessel of liberty truly to the world. The 
opportunity that we have here is remarkable in order to initiate that 
new dialogue, and it is a privilege to come to the floor Mr. Speaker.
  If I may, I want to call on you and I ask all of our colleagues and 
all of the individuals watching in this time, in this very, very 
challenging time of an election season here in the United States, that 
the comments that you have heard before we began our discussion 59 
minutes ago and the comments you are about to hear are most likely one 
of division, of disinformation and of misinformation. I challenge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to raise the level of 
rhetoric, raise the level of discussion and debate in this body so that 
we may indeed join together and solve the remarkable challenges that we 
have as a Nation.

                          ____________________