Obama appeals for tolerance on 9/11

[Gold Dragon]

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."

Your interpretation of what Obama means by tolerance is not evident in his speech.

White House - Remarks by the President at the Pentagon Memorial
....
They may seek to spark conflict between different faiths, but as Americans we are not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. It was not a religion that attacked us that September day -- it was al Qaeda, a sorry band of men which perverts religion. And just as we condemn intolerance and extremism abroad, so will we stay true to our traditions here at home as a diverse and tolerant nation. We champion the rights of every American, including the right to worship as one chooses -- as service members and civilians from many faiths do just steps from here, at the very spot where the terrorists struck this building.

 

[rbell]

Your interpretation of what Obama means by tolerance is not evident in his speech.

The speech may not reflect it...but the body of his work, and his policies (as well as the radicals he surrounds himself with) do exactly that.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The speech may not reflect it...but the body of his work, and his policies (as well as the radicals he surrounds himself with) do exactly that.

Would you care to provide evidence of your claim?

 

[rbell]

Would you care to provide evidence of your claim?

pretty much all of his actions and statements regarding Arizona.

Radicals that have been in Obama's administration--particularly Van Jones.

Obama's bowing and apology to pretty much any world leader that would listen to him.

Obama's lecturing of the country on the Mosque issue about "freedom of religion"--even though that wasn't the point for the vast majority of Americans (they weren't arguing about the right to build a mosque--simply that building the mosque there wasnt' right).

Obama's willingness to have the crackpot "pastor" Jones contacted and encouraged to change his views--but the same response was never offered to corresponding crackpot "imam" Rauf.

Obama's bizarre and offensive statements in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting...(remember the "shout out?")...constantly lecturing us about the virtues of Islam.

To quote David Limbaugh (SOURCE):

If he truly wants to make a point about tolerance, especially religious tolerance, don't you think he owes us a better handle on reality? Is it not the United States that permits virtually unfettered religious liberty for Muslims, as well as all other religious people — except for the persistent discrimination against Christians? Is America not the home of some 2,000 mosques? Has Obama even considered pointing his finger at the Muslim world, asking them why they are so uniformly intolerant in their countries? Why they don't permit churches? Why they don't permit Muslims to convert to Christianity? Why they commit so much violence against Christians and Jews? America is the most tolerant society in the history of the world, so Obama's constant apologies to the contrary while ignoring the truly intolerant societies are increasingly offensive.

 

[Gold Dragon]

pretty much all of his actions and statements regarding Arizona

....

Where in all this is Obama displaying that tolerance is...

but you must also celebrate my view as having equal standing and validity as yours

I see these as examples of tolerance as ...

we allow folks to conduct their affairs without having to deal with the threat of abuse, violence,

Nothing about forcing non-muslims to celebrate islamic views.

 

[Matt Black]

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

Try Northern Ireland from 1969-1998. Granted, they tended to blow other people up rather than themselves ( the latter occasionally but only by accident).

 

[Matt Black]

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

Why so intolerant?

You know better than that. There are always limits to tolerance to do with the basic law of the land eg: I couldn't start a religion which advocated the murder of everyone with blue eyes. The Muslims are allowed freedom of worship in the UK, complete with Azan; however, an example of the limitation of this is that many local councils only give planning permission for a mosque to be built on condition that the early morning Azan is unamplified, where local by-laws prohibit undue noise between 11pm and 7am.

 

[Alcott]

I couldn't start a religion which advocated the murder of everyone with blue eyes.

Sure you could. At least in the USA you could. You would just get arrested, tried, and likely convicted if you actually did murder anyone with blue eyes.

 

[Matt Black]

I would be stopped before that in the UK, simply by opening my mouth. That's another example of a limitation, this time of free speech: I don't have the freedom to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

 

[targus]

I would be stopped before that in the UK, simply by opening my mouth. That's another example of a limitation, this time of free speech: I don't have the freedom to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

And yet teaching to kill the infidel goes on in some mosques both in the UK and the US.

But they are not stopped.

 

[Gold Dragon]

And yet teaching to kill the infidel goes on in some mosques both in the UK and the US.

But they are not stopped.

I'm not denying this is true. Maybe it is. But I'm curious as to whether you have a news report or some sort of evidence that this has happened.

 

[Matt Black]

And yet teaching to kill the infidel goes on in some mosques both in the UK and the US.

But they are not stopped.

Um...yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Izzadeen]they [/url] are

 

[rbell]

"First they came for the Muslims...."

Who is coming for the Muslims?

What "intolerance" other than the idiotic actions of a few are we talking about here?

I can find you isolated examples of the same sort of intolerance against any group that you would care to identify.

I think that the "intolerance" card will soon be replacing the "racist" card.

Good response.

That's the point isn't it. Nobody is coming for the Muslims, and people (mostly living overseas, or in the White House) cant tell the difference between citizens expressing strong opinion and threats. It's not happening.

Right.

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?

GD totally lost me on this.

My position on the mosque has been from the get-go: They have the right to build it...but it isn't right for them to be so insensitive about the timing, location, and hurt to the victims' families.

How on earth does that violate any Constitutional tenets or Baptist Distinctives? Didn't I just affirm their First Amenement rights in my first sentence?

This gets confusing. We can't just tolerate any more--now, we have to celebrate their viewpoints and hold their views as equal in truth to our own, I guess...

 

[Gold Dragon]

GD totally lost me on this.

My position on the mosque has been from the get-go: They have the right to build it...but it isn't right for them to be so insensitive about the timing, location, and hurt to the victims' families.

How on earth does that violate any Constitutional tenets or Baptist Distinctives? Didn't I just affirm their First Amenement rights in my first sentence?

This gets confusing. We can't just tolerate any more--now, we have to celebrate their viewpoints and hold their views as equal in truth to our own, I guess...

Refer to post #83. I don't have a problem with complaints about the location of the Ground Zero mosque.

I have a problem with folks on this thread promoting intolerance to muslims and denying them their right to build mosques which is a violation of constitutional tenets and baptist distinctives.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have a problem with folks on this thread promoting intolerance to muslims and denying them their right to build mosques which is a violation of constitutional tenets and baptist distinctives.

I agree - this thread is dedicating to criticism of President Obama for his call for tolerance.

If the president is wrong, what is the alternative?

 

[rbell]

Refer to post #83. I don't have a problem with complaints about the location of the Ground Zero mosque.

I have a problem with folks on this thread promoting intolerance to muslims and denying them their right to build mosques which is a violation of constitutional tenets and baptist distinctives.

OK, so we're not too far apart, then.

I don't want the government preventing it.

BUt I want these guys to do the right thing and not build it there.

(Actually, I'd love to see this imam come to the Lord. THat's the best solution of all!)

 

[Dragoon68]

Refer to post #83. I don't have a problem with complaints about the location of the Ground Zero mosque.

I have a problem with folks on this thread promoting intolerance to muslims and denying them their right to build mosques which is a violation of constitutional tenets and baptist distinctives.

We should not be "tolerant" of Islam because it stands against God. We've got to understand that "tolerance" means different things to different people. Some people think we can actually have interfaith worship and that Islam is "not all that bad" but that's not at all what the Bible teaches us. We'd better line up on the right side of this issue. This "intolerance" doesn't imply hatred and violence towards Muslims - that's what Muslims feel and act towards Christians - but it does mean we cannot support, encourage, condone, etc. the spread of Islam including the construction of mosques anywhere anytime. It means we should do the opposite. We should also stand against hatred and violence towards individual Muslims and recognize that, as with all sinners, we cannot force them to accept the Lord Jesus Christ even by force of law if such were the case. Building a mosque is certainly legal in the broad sense of religious liberty but recognizing this basis and source of this liberty which we enjoy is paramount to sustaining the liberty itself. Our liberty comes from God - the one true God and not all the gods of man - and we need to keep this in mind when we talk about religious liberty, tolerance, diversity, etc. He is the reason we are a free people and if we start going down the path of making all gods okay in America we will be judged accordingly. Further, in the case of Islam, we are dealing with a religion that is bent on the destruction of Christianity by the force of violence and even the perversion of our law using the very freedoms we've established. The underlying strength of our system is not in the law itself but in the people's application of it and that, in turn, in their following Jesus Christ as their Lord otherwise the law - including all are foundational documents - are meaningless.

 

[carpro]

And yet teaching to kill the infidel goes on in some mosques both in the UK and the US.

Yes. And according to some sources, about 80% of them. At least in the U.S.

 

[Gold Dragon]

We should not be "tolerant" of Islam because it stands against God. We've got to understand that "tolerance" means different things to different people. Some people think we can actually have interfaith worship and that Islam is "not all that bad" but that's not at all what the Bible teaches us. We'd better line up on the right side of this issue. This "intolerance" doesn't imply hatred and violence towards Muslims - that's what Muslims feel and act towards Christians - but it does mean we cannot support, encourage, condone, etc. the spread of Islam including the construction of mosques anywhere anytime. It means we should do the opposite. We should also stand against hatred and violence towards individual Muslims and recognize that, as with all sinners, we cannot force them to accept the Lord Jesus Christ even by force of law if such were the case. Building a mosque is certainly legal in the broad sense of religious liberty but recognizing this basis and source of this liberty which we enjoy is paramount to sustaining the liberty itself. Our liberty comes from God - the one true God and not all the gods of man - and we need to keep this in mind when we talk about religious liberty, tolerance, diversity, etc. He is the reason we are a free people and if we start going down the path of making all gods okay in America we will be judged accordingly.

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.

Further, in the case of Islam, we are dealing with a religion that is bent on the destruction of Christianity by the force of violence and even the perversion of our law using the very freedoms we've established.

For those in islam who use violence to further their cause, the law deals with them. For those who do not, the law protects them.

 

[NiteShift]

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

And yet you implied earlier that people who express strong opinions but don't take action are "chicken".

Of course we realize that your comment was only a jab at your opponents. A cheap shot one might say, so it can be disregarded.

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.

And many of us would say that we don't need any more lectures from Obama about tolerance for Muslims. They practice their religion without interference, they build mosques across the country without a peep of protest, and they now have a president who praises them for their history and accomplishments, and who has instructed NASA of all things to build bridges with them. It is condescending of him to talk this way to us.