Letters to the editor

CAIR responds to Cal Thomas

Only in Cal Thomas’ bizarro world (“Slaughterers … and responders,” Commentary, Wednesday) can a Council on American-Islamic Relations television public service announcement denouncing terrorism be “reminiscent of Nazi, Soviet and Japanese propaganda,” while his own message echoes those of anti-Muslim polemicists.

Here’s the full script of the announcement that Mr. Thomas finds so troubling: “We often hear claims Muslims don’t condemn terrorism and that Islam condones violence. As Muslims, we want to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam are betraying the teachings of the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad. We reject anyone — of any faith — who commits such brutal acts and will not allow our faith to be hijacked by criminals. Islam is not about hatred and violence. It’s about peace and justice.” (Arabic- and Urdu-subtitled versions of the announcement will also be distributed to television stations in the Muslim world.)

At the press conference on the release of the announcement, CAIR board Chairman Parvez Ahmed said, “Any effort by terrorists to hide their criminal activities under the mask of religious piety is being categorically and unequivocally rejected by mainstream Muslims.”

CAIR’s public service announcement is an outgrowth of our “Not in the Name of Islam” online petition drive designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims. The petition, signed by some 700,000 Muslims, states in part: “We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad.” (To read the petition or view theannouncement,goto www.cair.com.)

To Mr. Thomas, these clear and unambiguous condemnations of terror constitute “Tokyo Rose propaganda.” This from a man who suggests the bulldozing of mosques and Islamic schools in the same commentary.

His vision for the future is that of perpetual religious and civilizational conflict. It is a vision that must be rejected by reasonable people of all faiths who seek a more peaceful future.

IBRAHIM HOOPER

National communications director

Council on American-Islamic Relations

Washington

Not crashing the cathedral

The July 15 movie review of the “Wedding Crashers” by Scott Galupo incorrectly stated in the eight paragraph, “The action lurches from Washington National Cathedral … ”

The cathedral was not used as a shooting location for the film, nor did the movie imply that the Cleary weddings took place at the cathedral.

Correcting this error would be appreciated.

ELIZABETH MULLEN

Media Relations Specialist

Washington National Cathedral

Washington

Good decision making in Sino-U.S. policy

Don Feder’s assessment of a potential Sino-U.S. conflict over Taiwan (“China’s Zhu-doo diplomacy,” Commentary, Thursday) contains important factual and analytical errors. Mr. Feder quickly concludes that “China is preparing for a war with us,” arguing that a Chinese general’s recent threat to destroy “hundreds” of American cities in the case of a Taiwan crisis is both credible and a reflection of the real policy of the Chinese government.

The U.S. Department of Defense disagrees on both counts. First, China simply does not have the capability to hit “hundreds” of American cities with nuclear weapons. Although Mr. Feder contends that “China has no fewer than 60 nuclear-armed ICBMs,” the Pentagon, in its latest report on Chinese military power, states that Beijing maintains a maximum of 44 intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Moreover, only 20 of these (the CSS-4/DF-5A system) can reach the continental United States. The United States, by contrast, maintains well more than 800 ballistic missiles of intercontinental range. Second, even the relatively hawkish experts at the Pentagon do not conclude that war with China is “seemingly inevitable,” as Mr. Feder does, but rather tell us that China is at a “strategic crossroads” where it must decide whether its rise will remain peaceful or become more hostile.

As policy-makers consider future U.S. strategy toward Beijing, they deserve to be presentedwithcoolheaded, objective assessments of Chinese capabilities and intentions. Only such accurate and balanced appraisals can produce sound policy.

JOSHUA WILLIAMS

Junior fellow for nonproliferation

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Washington

Theaters and churches

Holding church services in active movie theaters isn’t the only positive contribution being made by religion concerning theaters (“Churches get thumbs-up at theaters, Page 1, Monday). Years ago the Warner Bros. chain dominated Washington’s movie theaters. Today their former Sheridan, Kennedy, Colony and York survive the wrecking ball by serving as churches — cinema treasures that might have been lost otherwise.

New York City was where Loew’s built its oft-called “wonder theaters” — five of the most beautiful in the world. These were like D.C.’s long-gone Loew’s Capitol, or imagine the Warner but twice the size and twice as beautiful.

All five wonder theaters — built in the 1920s with about 3,800 seats each —closed down during the crime-ridden 1970s; but all five miraculously still exist, three with renovations in progress. The other two, the Valencia and the 175th Street remain active, by the grace of God, and survive today as churches.

Last year, Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” added $400 million to America’s box office; but Hollywood learned nothing from it and has since generated exactly zero new movies aimed at the Christian audience.

If Hollywood were more inclusive and catered to a wider audience — including religious people —its box office slump might vanish. After all, in the heyday of grand movie palaces, religion was the solid “mainstream” — as comic book heroes are in 2005. God and popcorn — still a good draw.

RALPH VITALE JR.

Arlington

Keep paying our U.N. dues

Regarding “Globotaxes” (Commentary, Tuesday): In 2001, a PEW survey revealed that 92 percent of Americans thought strengthening the United Nations should be a foreign policy objective. Yet somehow Frank J. Gaffney Jr. insidiously writes that “Most Americans have [concluded] that the United Nations has been a failure.”

Of course, Mr. Gaffney is wrong.

Both former Secretary of State Madeline K. Albright and President Bush’s Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes have underscored the United Nations’ importance by saying that if the U.S. didn’t have the United Nations, we would need to invent it.

Likewise, most Americans greatly value the role the United Nations plays in overseeing elections in Iraq, ensuring Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon, and administering peacekeeping missions internationally. Consequently, they want the United Nations reformed so it can be more effective in these tasks.

Withholding our dues to the United Nations is not a means to this reform. Rather, it will further America’s isolation and make it harder for the United Nations to operate. The Bush administration, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns have all warned against it. If anything, Mr. Gaffney should be withheld payment until he gets his facts right.

DON KRAUS

Executive vice president

Citizens for Global Solutions

Washington