Obama appeals for tolerance on 9/11

[targus]

No, it's against the law of the land and Muslims are bound by that law as much as everyone else. Same with forced marriages.

That does not seem to be tolerant of their religious beliefs.

Why so intolerant?

 

[NiteShift]

Are you saying it is ok for Americans to express strong opinion that opposes the 1st amendment and Baptists to express strong opinions that opposes a core baptist distinctive because people are too chicken to actually carry through on their strong opinion with action?

Why is ok for Americans and Baptists to express these opinions that oppose the U.S. constitution and baptist distinctives?

Would you feel more at ease if people seriously threatened to burn the place down? Maybe peaceful protest just isn't your thang, oh courageous one.
Zoning boards and private citizens are entitled to oppose any new construction for any number of reasons.

 

[Gold Dragon]

What opinions are those exactly?

1. Promoting intolerance to Islam

All Americans are to be tolerant of a false religion who has MANY FOLLOWERS who would kill in the name of Allah if offended! Tolerate that?

Islam is not our friend and we ought to all stand firmly against it.

2. Opposition to building places of worship for Islam

But yes, I would be all for depriving them of building their mosques.

Are you expressing an opinion against freedom of speech?

You seem to opposing the U.S. Constitution yourself.

I'm not suggesting the U.S. government or anyone else should restrict the opinions of others.

I'm suggesting that Americans and Baptists should have the ability to discern when their own opinions are in opposition to their own spiritual and nationalistic principles.

Would you feel more at ease if people seriously threatened to burn the place down? Maybe peaceful protest just isn't your thang, oh courageous one.

Zoning boards and private citizens are entitled to oppose any new construction for any number of reasons.

I encourage peaceful protest and have no beef in particular with opposition to the placement of the Ground Zero mosque.

My issues are with the opinions of general intolerance and restriction of religious freedoms to muslims. You were saying that there is nothing wrong with these opinions because they are just peaceful protest and not violent protest. I do not understand why Americans and Baptists are not all like C4K who is standing up against these ideas that are in direct opposition to their core national and spiritual convictions.

 

[Gold Dragon]

A relevant and important question for the president concerning tolerance on the part of all Americans (and also the question "should moslems be allowed to worship their deity in America?") is "to what extent Mr. president?"

Tolerance should extend at a basic level to:
1. People being allowed live and worship in their chosen religion
2. People being allowed build their places of worship

Tolerance does not extend to breaking the law:
1. Incorporating religious tenets into the law (biblical or sharia law)
2. Breaking civil marriage laws (Christian or Islamic polygamy)
3. Breaking municipal ordinances for noise regulation (church bells or Azan)

With regard to Christian merchants playing Christmas carols, the law does not prohibit this. Institutions may have policies in place so as to not appear to favor a specific religion. But it is not a requirement of Christian religious practice to play Christian music wherever we want and is not protected under the 1st ammendment.

 

[Nonsequitur]

He is the leader of ALL Americans, Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, and whatever else. He clearly condemned the murderers of 9/11 while seeking mutual tolerance of each other's beliefs.

How can he be condemned for that?

He is NOT the 'leader' of all Christians.
Or do YOU think he is speaking for God?
Leader of all the above? Don't think so.
But what does one expect from someone in ireland , trying to say what we should do in the U.S.?
When you come and live here, then tell us how you really feel.
[personal attack]

 

[HankD]

Tolerance should extend at a basic level to:
1. People being allowed live and worship in their chosen religion
2. People being allowed build their places of worship

Tolerance does not extend to breaking the law:
1. Incorporating religious tenets into the law (biblical or sharia law)
2. Breaking civil marriage laws (Christian or Islamic polygamy)
3. Breaking municipal ordinances for noise regulation (church bells or Azan)

With regard to Christian merchants playing Christmas carols, the law does not prohibit this. Institutions may have policies in place so as to not appear to favor a specific religion. But it is not a requirement of Christian religious practice to play Christian music wherever we want and is not protected under the 1st ammendment.

You are taking a chance of receiving bodily harm from "the Religion of Peace" by implying that the Azan is "noise".

The problem has already manifested itself in Michigan.
Muslims are requiring the sounding of the Azan (goes under different spellings - Athan, etc), do a Google.

That will be their defense, that it is an integral part of muslim worship and therefore must be tolerated per "freedom of religion" and in particular from the mineret atop the mosque at Ground Zero once it is erected.

Not many people are aware of imam Ruaf's plan to have the Azan sounded out five times a day from the mineret on the proposed mosque at Ground Zero.

Here is a quote

Imam Faisal 'Abd Al-Rauf's book What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West was published in Indonesian in 2007 with a different title--Seruan Azan Dari Puing WTC: Dakwah Islam di Jantung Amerika Pasca 9/11 ("The Call of Azan from the Rubble of the World Trade Center: Islamic Da'wa in the Heart of America Post-9/11").

From the public Domain at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449572447289834.html

So, would you side with muslims if they move into your neighborhood and required an exemption status for the Azan?

Also Sharia law requires the "jizya" (an infidel tax) for all who hear the Azan and do not comply.

The "Azan" coming soon to your neighborhood.
Get your prayer rug now before the rush.

HankD

 

[Gold Dragon]

You are taking a chance of receiving bodily harm from "the Religion of Peace" by implying that the Azan is "noise".

The problem has already manifested itself in Michigan.
Muslims are requiring the sounding of the Azan (goes under different spellings - Athan, etc), do a Google.

That will be their defense, that it is an integral part of muslim worship and therefore must be tolerated per "freedom of religion" and in particular from the mineret atop the mosque at Ground Zero once it is erected.

I found a very interesting article about the Azan/Athan/call to prayer controversy in Hamtramck, Michigan back in 2004.

The Christian Science Monitor - A call to prayer - by loudspeaker

...
When the Al-Islah Islamic Center submitted its request to the council last year, it didn't anticipate a firestorm. Instead, its leaders thought they were simply being courteous - offering the city government a chance to approve and regulate the calls to prayer, which were already permitted under local laws.
...
The issue before the city council was simple, Mr. Ahmed explains. The previous local noise ordinance exempted religious institutions from noise restrictions. This was simply an opportunity for the council to have some say in regulating the calls to prayer - restricting the hours and decibel level, for instance. "Then it turned into a huge religious issue that I never dreamed of."

For now, some here are suggesting lawsuits or a referendum. Karen Majewski, the council's president, hopes it doesn't come to that, widening the debate into "a civil rights issue rather than a noise issue."

It seems they understood that the call to prayer is noisy and wanted to abide by local ordinances and even give council an opportunity to alter ordinances to limit what they could do with the call to prayer.

 

[HankD]

I found a very interesting article about the Azan/Athan/call to prayer controversy in Hamtramck, Michigan back in 2004.



It seems they understood that the call to prayer is noisy and wanted to abide by local ordinances and even give council an opportunity to alter ordinances to limit what they could do with the call to prayer.

It's coming to America if we are asleep at the wheel. The Azan is being sounded in parts of Michigan.

Forget this so-called tolerance, disallow the mosque at Ground Zero and ban the Azan. "Peacefully" if possible from the "Religion of Peace".

I don't think the founding fathers formulated the First Amendment with Islam (the ancient enemy of Christianity) in mind.

The Constitution also contains the clause to "insure domestic tranquility" as an obligation of the government for its citizenry.

Everywhere "the Religion of Peace" intrudes upon a culture or people anything but tranquility or peace ensue but bloodshed almost inevitably follows.
In many cases it is pre-emptive i.e. 9/11.

Now they want a mosque and the Azan to be sounded in the rubble of the World Trade Center Towers.

Nip it in the bud and disallow it for the sake of the "domestic tranquility".

Otherwise it doesn't take the proverbial brain surgeon, rocket scientist or prophet to predict TROUBLE, BIG TIME.


HankD

 

[Gold Dragon]

I don't think the founding fathers formulated the First Amendment with Islam (the ancient enemy of Christianity) in mind.

Roger William's quote from The Bloody Tenent, Of Persecution for Cause of Conscience includes anti-Christian consciences. His document was cited as a philosophical source for the development of the 1st amendment.

The Founder's Constitution - Roger Williams, The Bloody Tenent, Of Persecution for Cause of Conscience

It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of His Son, the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish or anti-Christian consciences and worship be granted to all men, in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only, in Soul matters able to conquer, to wit; the sword of the Spirit--the Word of God. . . . God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing consciences, persecution of Christ Jesus in His servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. . . . An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

 

[HankD]

...
When the Al-Islah Islamic Center submitted its request to the council last year, it didn't anticipate a firestorm. Instead, its leaders thought they were simply being courteous - offering the city government a chance to approve and regulate the calls to prayer, which were already permitted under local laws.
...
The issue before the city council was simple, Mr. Ahmed explains. The previous local noise ordinance exempted religious institutions from noise restrictions. This was simply an opportunity for the council to have some say in regulating the calls to prayer - restricting the hours and decibel level, for instance. "Then it turned into a huge religious issue that I never dreamed of."

For now, some here are suggesting lawsuits or a referendum. Karen Majewski, the council's president, hopes it doesn't come to that, widening the debate into "a civil rights issue rather than a noise issue."

Do you really believe this?

IMO it was fakery, they not only expected a firestorm but planned for it to happen.


HankD

 

[Gold Dragon]

Do you really believe this?

Yes I do. Other mosques in other towns in the region had already initiated Azan without incident.

 

[HankD]

Roger William's quote from The Bloody Tenent, Of Persecution for Cause of Conscience includes anti-Christian consciences. His document was cited as a philosophical source for the development of the 1st amendment.

Not sure what you are saying Gold Dragon but trouble is coming from radical islam and the government has the obligation to protect us from all enemies foreign or domestic no matter what mask they wear.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Yes I do. Other mosques in other towns in the region had already initiated Azan without incident.

Thanks for proving my point.

OK, then, offer them an invite to your neighborhood.

HankD

 

[Gold Dragon]

Not sure what you are saying Gold Dragon but trouble is coming from radical islam and the government has the obligation to protect us from all enemies foreign or domestic no matter what mask they wear.

Agreed. We should combat radical islamic terrorists with the full force of our international and domestic strength.

But the founding fathers of the united states did intend for religious freedom of those who are enemies of Christianity. That does not permit them to commit crimes against Christianity.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Agreed. We should combat radical islamic terrorists with the full force of our international and domestic strength.

That's what the Obama admin has been doing. The United States must use the full force of our military, intelligence, and judicial resources to defeat terrorists. The underwear bomber probably isn't even going to have a trial. It looks like he will plead guilty and be punished for his crimes. The power of our government is too strong for terrorists.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Thanks for proving my point.

OK, then, offer them an invite to your neighborhood.

HankD

There were already many muslims in the neighborhood I grew up in. There were also many hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jews, catholics, orthodox, etc. My high school was a mini United Nations in both ethnicity and religion and I loved that about it. Sure there were little ethnic gangs that sometimes clashed but for the most part, people were very respectful of differences.

I think living in a town where everyone was Christian would be just as foreign to me as living in a town where everyone was muslim.

 

[HankD]

There were already many muslims in the neighborhood I grew up in. There were also many hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jews, catholics, orthodox, etc. My high school was a mini United Nations in both ethnicity and religion and I loved that about it. Sure there were little ethnic gangs that sometimes clashed but for the most part, people were very respectful of differences.

I think living in a town where everyone was Christian would be just as foreign to me as living in a town where everyone was muslim.

G. Dragon, are you Australian or American?

If Australian, what are the laws there concerning "religious tolerance"?
i.e. Is the Azan allowed and if so has it caused any trouble?
How would you feel about having to hear it five times a day?
Does Australia have a counterpart policy to our First Amendment?

Thanks
HankD

 

[rbell]

Tolerance should extend at a basic level to:
1. People being allowed live and worship in their chosen religion
2. People being allowed build their places of worship

Tolerance does not extend to breaking the law:
1. Incorporating religious tenets into the law (biblical or sharia law)
2. Breaking civil marriage laws (Christian or Islamic polygamy)
3. Breaking municipal ordinances for noise regulation (church bells or Azan)

OK, this leads us to an issue that we've not dealt with in this thread, but is of crucial importance:

When Obama (or anyone, for that matter) calls for "tolerance," exactly how do they define "tolerance?"

If by "tolerance" we mean we allow folks to conduct their affairs without having to deal with the threat of abuse, violence, etc.--of course. And folks that are "intolerant" in that sense should pay the criminal penalties that are appropriate to the crimes.

But I'm not sure that's what Obama means.

I think he's embracing the "new" definition of tolerance (we see this definition most often used in debates over "gay" issues)--that definition being, "not only must you 'tolerate' my views in the strictly defined sense--but you must also celebrate my view as having equal standing and validity as yours."

I'm sorry, but fundamentalist Islamic culture is inferior to our Judeo-Christian one. Under the new definitions of "tolerant," it fails..but under the old one, there is no inconsistency.

So, when I hear "tolerance," I have to know which definition is being utilized. One of them, I'll agree with and abide by. The other--not so much.

 

[rbell]

There are 2 million Muslims in the country. 2% of the population is crazy. That means there are 40,000 crazy Muslims in the country. Muslims are no more scarier than Catholics.

I'm sorry--perhaps you can show us the numerous examples of "crazy Catholics" that are blowing themselves up in gatherings of innocents.

Paul, these kind of statements you make cause other arguments you have to lose credibility.

 

[Gold Dragon]

G. Dragon, are you Australian or American?

If Australian, what are the laws there concerning "religious tolerance"?
i.e. Is the Azan allowed and if so has it caused any trouble?
How would you feel about having to hear it five times a day?
Does Australia have a counterpart policy to our First Amendment?

Thanks
HankD

I'm Canadian but both Canada and Australia have similar freedom of religion clauses as the 1st amendment.

There is nothing in the federal laws of all three countries (CAN, US, AU) that would outlaw something like Azan, but city noise ordinances may restrict their practice.

I personally would not like to hear Azan five times a day. I live right beside a massive hospital construction zone at the moment and have been disturbed by the noise several times. They have specific hours and that they can work and maximum decibel levels. I'm sure they have had their fair share of complaints, being near several high rise towers. Any mosque nearby wishing to broadcast Azan at obscene hours in the morning or night or at very loud levels would also receive lots of complaints. The same would probably be true of church bells that ring too loud at unreasonable hours.