Obama appeals for tolerance on 9/11

[Dragoon68]

What is your understanding of the distinction between the terms religious tolerance, religious liberty, religious pluralism and religious relativism? You seem to be confusing some terminology here. ...

I'm not at all confused! The confusion is when we think tolerance requires acceptance and even encouragement. We're very blessed to be able to practice our Christian faiths in America without having a national church run by the government to tell us when, where, and how we should do that. That wisdom is what was incorporated into the Constitution. We're confused when we start thinking the intent is anything more than that. We have to tolerate a bit more than would be ideal in order to assure the fundamental intent is preserved intact and remains free of the natural corruption of man. Hence the "rights" are extended to all beliefs from the perspective of the national government. We're confused when we, as Christians, start thinking the intent was to have acceptance and even active encouragement of non-Christian religions in America in addition to their protection under the law. We're confused when we let non-Christians twist and turn our own law against us. God is not pleased with the conduct of believers who accept and encourage the worship of the false gods whether it be under the authority of or government or not. We're confused when we extend the intent of our Constitution to be the absolute exclusion of God from the institution of civil government. We're negligent when we allow non-believing leaders into office and permit them to re-define our intentions by their own warped standards. We need to remember that God owns everything in the universe including America and its people and its government. It is only by His grace that we enjoy what we have been blessed to enjoy. We need to acknowledge the foundation upon which our government and liberty rests. We need to understand the difference between prohibited establishment of a national church and the desirable practice of Christianity in all our conduct including the actions of civil government and the leaders we select to serve us in our government. If we keep making America a haven for Islam to bloom and grow we will find that He is very displeased with it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

And many of us would say that we don't need any more lectures from Obama about tolerance for Muslims.

From the intolerance to muslims expressed on this board, I'd say Obamas lectures are needed now more than ever.

They practice their religion without interference, they build mosques across the country without a peep of protest

Which is exactly how it should be in a country that has the 1st amendment that reads as it does. You should be celebrating that as a baptist whose heritage was influential in the creation of that amendment.

and they now have a president who praises them for their history and accomplishments

George W Bush
William Clinton

who has instructed NASA of all things to build bridges with them

Ronald Reagan's NASA did just that when it put the grandson of the Saudi King Sultan bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud into space as the first Arab and muslim in space.

 

[NiteShift]

From the intolerance to muslims expressed on this board, I'd say Obamas lectures are needed now more than ever.

Muslims could have used some of his lectures when recruiters were killed in Arkansas by Muslim extremists, or when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 12 soldiers at Ft Hood. Didn't happen. Instead, US citizens receive them.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Muslims could have used some of his lectures when recruiters were killed in Arkansas by Muslim extremists, or when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 12 soldiers at Ft Hood. Didn't happen. Instead, US citizens receive them.

Carlos Bledsoe (Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad) and Nidal Malik were both US citizens and Obama's comments on tolerance also apply to them and folks like them. Just like Obama's lecture on religious tolerance in his Fort Hood speech.

Huffington Post - Obama Ft. Hood Speech
...
It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.
...
We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.
...

 

[Fred's Wife]

I'm not at all confused! The confusion is when we think tolerance requires acceptance and even encouragement. We're very blessed to be able to practice our Christian faiths in America without having a national church run by the government to tell us when, where, and how we should do that. That wisdom is what was incorporated into the Constitution. We're confused when we start thinking the intent is anything more than that. We have to tolerate a bit more than would be ideal in order to assure the fundamental intent is preserved intact and remains free of the natural corruption of man. Hence the "rights" are extended to all beliefs from the perspective of the national government. We're confused when we, as Christians, start thinking the intent was to have acceptance and even active encouragement of non-Christian religions in America in addition to their protection under the law. We're confused when we let non-Christians twist and turn our own law against us. God is not pleased with the conduct of believers who accept and encourage the worship of the false gods whether it be under the authority of or government or not. We're confused when we extend the intent of our Constitution to be the absolute exclusion of God from the institution of civil government. We're negligent when we allow non-believing leaders into office and permit them to re-define our intentions by their own warped standards. We need to remember that God owns everything in the universe including America and its people and its government. It is only by His grace that we enjoy what we have been blessed to enjoy. We need to acknowledge the foundation upon which our government and liberty rests. We need to understand the difference between prohibited establishment of a national church and the desirable practice of Christianity in all our conduct including the actions of civil government and the leaders we select to serve us in our government. If we keep making America a haven for Islam to bloom and grow we will find that He is very displeased with it.

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'm not at all confused! The confusion is when we think tolerance requires acceptance and even encouragement.

Acceptance and encouragement is religious pluralism and religious relativism. That goes beyond tolerance.

We're very blessed to be able to practice our Christian faiths in America without having a national church run by the government to tell us when, where, and how we should do that. That wisdom is what was incorporated into the Constitution. We're confused when we start thinking the intent is anything more than that. We have to tolerate a bit more than would be ideal in order to assure the fundamental intent is preserved intact and remains free of the natural corruption of man. Hence the "rights" are extended to all beliefs from the perspective of the national government. We're confused when we, as Christians, start thinking the intent was to have acceptance and even active encouragement of non-Christian religions in America in addition to their protection under the law. We're confused when we let non-Christians twist and turn our own law against us. God is not pleased with the conduct of believers who accept and encourage the worship of the false gods whether it be under the authority of or government or not. We're confused when we extend the intent of our Constitution to be the absolute exclusion of God from the institution of civil government. We're negligent when we allow non-believing leaders into office and permit them to re-define our intentions by their own warped standards. We need to remember that God owns everything in the universe including America and its people and its government. It is only by His grace that we enjoy what we have been blessed to enjoy. We need to acknowledge the foundation upon which our government and liberty rests. We need to understand the difference between prohibited establishment of a national church and the desirable practice of Christianity in all our conduct including the actions of civil government and the leaders we select to serve us in our government. If we keep making America a haven for Islam to bloom and grow we will find that He is very displeased with it.

What are your thoughts in allowing America to be a haven for Jews, Buddhists, atheists ..... Catholics, mormons ...?

I'm assuming that you feel that the U.S. Supreme court consisting of 3 Jews and 6 Catholics and Mitt Romney's position in the Republican party are also negligent things.

What are your thought on Dominionism?

 

[Dragoon68]

...What are your thoughts in allowing America to be a haven for Jews, Buddhists, atheists ..... Catholics, mormons ...?

I'm assuming that you feel that the U.S. Supreme court consisting of 3 Jews and 6 Catholics and Mitt Romney's position in the Republican party are also negligent things.

What are your thought on Dominionism?

I knew these questions would come sooner or later!

Jews and Buddhists aren't believers either but they do not present the same threat of violence to Christians in America as Muslims do. They are, of course, just as much non-believers as the Muslims. I have yet to see much "trouble" from these groups. I do, however, have the same thinking regarding "tolerance" of these religions as I do any other non-Christian group.

Mormons claim to be believers but have corrupted doctrine and they do not present the same threat to Christianity in America as Muslims do although, as I understand it, Latter Day Saints are enjoying a large increase in followers because of their aggressive evangelism. I run in to them often.

I absolutely believe it is important that we elect and appoint as many qualified Christians as possible to Congress, the Executive, and the Court because I believe that only men lead by God can properly make, enforce, and judge law for other men. All Christians are still sinners but if they "abide in His word" and are "lead by the Spirit" they will be less corruptible than otherwise. The framework of our government is important but the filling of the positions is just as, if not more, important.

I'm not sure the given definition of dominionism is solid enough to be applied or not applied to my particular beliefs. Reading the Wiki definition I would say no it does not describe my belief in this matter.

I'm not in favor of a civil government that is also the national church nor elected or appointed officials that decide matters of the church. I see and understand the wisdom in our Constitution to exclude this function from the federal government. I am in favor of a civil government populated by Christian men who by virtue of their faith will execute the business of governance according to the fundamentals of God's laws and Christian ethics. And, no, this does not imply a government administered religious test of office which is forbidden - it requires a voter test of the soundness of a man's character against the Biblical standards of a Christian man.

I think the big push to define government as secular is the same as the efforts to define everything outside the walls of a church as secular - it is an effort to remove God from society and confine Him to inside the Church. By so doing man can then exercise his own law in all these other areas by claiming it is aside from God. The problem with this is that God owns the entire creation and all that is it. There is nothing that was created or that is sustained except by Him for the purposes He desires. He even designed the concept of civil government around which we've patterned the one we started with in America.

I think the founders understood these principles well enough to design in some wise protection but still openly and frequently by and large acknowledge God as the ultimate source of all law, all freedoms, and all blessings. They incorporated those ideals into several founding documents and much other documentation of the time. They were not afraid to make their beliefs known in the execution of their offices. When taken out of context, as has been done since, it seems the protection against corrupt men have be made into an absolute exclusion of God - even the mention of God - in all matters of civil governance. Further, this exclusion thinking has been extended to agencies now considered civil government that in earlier times were at best local community organizations - quasi-government the most - such as our educational institutions.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I knew these questions would come sooner or later!

Jews and Buddhists aren't believers either but they do not present the same threat of violence to Christians in America as Muslims do.

Pretty cut and dry! :thumbsup:

 

[Gold Dragon]

Jews and Buddhists aren't believers either but they do not present the same threat of violence to Christians in America as Muslims do.

So your battle is not really with non-Christians but violent anti-American non-Christians. I would agree with you and also include that moderate muslims carry the same threat of violence to Christians in America as most Jews and Buddhists and deserve the same tolerance and religious freedoms. Our battle is with violent radical islam which I agree is a larger component of islam than the proportion of violent radicals found in other religions.



My guess is that you would say there is no such thing as a moderate muslim or that they represent a minority. Would you like me to give you examples?


I think the whole secularization of government thing is an interesting topic but probably deserves its own thread.

 

[Dragoon68]

So your battle is not really with non-Christians but violent anti-American non-Christians. I would agree with you and also include that moderate muslims carry the same threat of violence to Christians in America as most Jews and Buddhists and deserve the same tolerance and religious freedoms. Our battle is with violent radical islam which I agree is a larger component of islam than the proportion of violent radicals found in other religions.

My guess is that you would say there is no such thing as a moderate muslim or that they represent a minority. Would you like me to give you examples?

I think the whole secularization of government thing is an interesting topic but probably deserves its own thread.

My point is that when many people talk about tolerance they really mean acceptance, endorsement, encouragement, etc. and that's what I'm totally against for any non-Christian religion.

Tolerance means to me that we tolerate something we don't accept, endorse, encourage, or even want around us. We do this, in the case of religion, because we understand that if we were to restrict religious beliefs amongst us the corrupt nature of man would ultimately use that against us. We don't do this because we want diversity or interfaith cooperation or common worship or anything like that. We also do this because we understand that if we were to mandate a particular religion or denomination of a particular religion we could not force the individual to believe it. We know only the Spirit can convict a non-believer to believe. We should, however, do all that we can to condemn all false beliefs for what they are and attempt to show those who believe in them the truth in God's word.

Beyond the matter of religion alone is the security of our nation. I do not believe there's such a thing as moderate Islam. I believe there is only radical Islam in full bloom and radical Islam still hidden in the bulb of moderate Islam whilst it grows in our garden.

Frankly I think the people have become trapped by their misunderstanding of the laws that were designed to limit the powers of the national government and their own rights as the people to regulate their own States and communities and to express their opinions individually or corporately about things they find objectionable to their society even if they are not illegal and need not be made illegal. We have let a few use our law to seal our own lips, then our minds, and ultimately our hearts. We are under no obligation to endorse diversity in religion, to take up for Islam, to encourage or foster harmony and cooperation between religions, or any of the other foolishness that has become the objective of much of our government, business, and even church policy. We are under an obligation to serve the one and only true God, to proclaim His name without shame, and to resist any an all corruptions that could influence or endanger ourselves, our children, or subsequent descendants.

Is that clear enough?