- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostApproach, My Soul, the Mercy Seat
- Next Post »Risk and Opportunity
A La Carte (8/16)
- 08/16/10
- 34
Supportive, But Unimpressed - That’s how Brian Croft suggests a pastor’s wife should relate to her husband. “Dear brothers and fellow pastors, pray your wife finds this balance. Open yourself up to her in such a way that allows her the freedom to play this role. It is for our good and growth that we cherish the gift of a clear, consistent, supportive, yet unimpressed evaluation of our ministry.”
Sacrilege at Ground Zero - It has been interesting to read about the “mosque at Ground Zero” controversy. I thought this article was interesting and especially agree with the final line: “The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.”
Thank You Dad, and Goodbye - Jon Bloom pens a moving farewell to his father.
Meltdown - This article on “the stunning decline of Barack Obama” caught my interest as much for its slightly outside perspective as anything (since it’s written for a British newspaper). I think the whole world is watching with fascination as the US begins to turn on its President. That tends to happen, of course, but rarely this quickly!
Me - A neighbor recently spent some time hanging out with me and asking me questions. He put together a video of it all, and here’s the result. (For those who are wondering, I tend to use the word “pastor” to discuss my role in the church when talking before a general audience since it is a word that translates better. When talking before an all-Christian audience I find myself using “elder.” My church makes no distinction between the two)
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (34)
Especially appreciated the video interview. After years of reading your blog, I know you much better now from viewing the video. Thanks. Also, the link to the article on President Obama was very informative.
I’m only hearing music in the video interview. Apparently, someone else was able to hear the interview (previous commenter). What could be the issue?
AMAZING VIDEO…love to know more from you…haha…ipad in the meeting…great…;-) Read your Blog every Day
Greets from Germany
Re: mosque, supposedly there are other mosques blocks away that are crowded, hence the desire to build this one. Locating it somewhere else doesn’t address that aim.
What I think they could (and should) have done, though, that would have defused much of the controversy, would be to have made a strong public statement condemning the 9/11 attackers, explicitly owning up to the fact they were Muslims, then emphatically reject the 9/11 guys “brand” of Islam. I think that would have robbed the opposition of much of its gusto.
Re: Obama: He started around 65% and is at 45% after 18 months. Bush’s approval rating was around 88% right after 9/11, then dropped to around 58% approximately 18 months later. Clinton’s actually tanked 20 points in a shorter period after he was elected then spiked, fell again, then started a long, slow climb. Reagan started at 50% and was at 35% about 24 months into his presidency. Ford started at 70% and was at around 38% within 6 months.
Things may or may not pan out for Obama. Reagan and Clinton fared pretty well (with respect to approval ratings) for the rest of their presidencies. Bush obviously did not. If the economy improves, I think people will largely forgive Obama. Though, I’m not hugely optimistic that will happen. Or, at least, not by the end of his first term.
The problem with the article on the Mosque is that it sets some horrible precedents. 1) Public opinion should trump religious motivation. What happens when a community believes that it should not have a church in its downtown because of traffic congestion or property tax loss. That has happened and the law has allowed churches to move forward. 2) The message is unpopular so we do not want to hear it. In the end, the gospel is offensive. If we support those that want to ban a religious message because it is offensive, then how do that affect our own Christian gospel. 3) The “it is not dangerous now, but it might be later” argument. There is no way to counter this argument unless you give government veto power over the hiring of clergy. If we cannot allow a local religious community autonomy to make the right decisions, then we are moving toward a state control of church. 4) It would be better to move to another area. Many people that do not live in urban areas do not understand density. When I lived in Chicago, I moved two blocks. I changed the grocery store I shopped at, the pizza place I used, the bus line I used to get to work, etc. Moving a mosque 5, 10, 40 blocks completely removes it from the community that is trying to build it. As to poster above said, it is being built because there is a need for more mosques in the area.
I know many will disagree with me, but I believe this is primarily about religious liberty and xenophobia. I think that if this same fight was not happening all over the country in areas much different than New York, I might think it was really about Ground Zero. But when it is happening all around the country, then it is about religious liberty and xenophobia.
FWIW, Adam, I agree with you. I was mainly addressing what I understood to be Bloomberg’s argument, i.e. that the mosque supporters have the *right* to build there, but that its one they shouldn’t exercise out of deference to the 9/11 families.
So who makes the iPad case we saw @ 1:44?
Adam, legally they have a right to build there if the law says they can. But just because they can do it does not make it right. Morally it is wrong for them to do this, as it obviously insults the victim’s families. Is it too much to ask for them to have compassion? Also, it’s obvious this is Islamic triumphalism at it’s worst, not xenophobia. They named it Cordoba initiative for a reason. To say that New Yorkers are xenophobic is quite ironic considering all the different races, and even mosques, in that city.
It’s insensitive, heartless, and morally wrong. As a Christian, to support such things is wrong too. If a group could legally build a Satanist temple in your neighborhood, as a Christian, would you support it? To think if we say no we cannot build churches is ridiculous. Christianity is true regardless of whether the government sanctions it or not. It will survive in homes if necessary. But we must never support the spread of a false religion because it is false and misleading.
“Is it too much to ask for them to have compassion?”
Is it too much to ask the 9/11 families to not hold a grudge against all Muslims for all time? Notably, not all the survivors of those who died in the attack are in opposition to the mosque.
People are frail, and I realize I can’t expect the 9/11 families to behave rationally. So, if I were an imam with lots of money at my disposal and an imperative to build a mosque, I would probably not choose the area near where the attacks occurred. This purely out of self-interest, since I would expect exactly the type of reaction that’s occurred. That wouldn’t mean I’d consider the reaction “right” or “reasonable”, but I’d expect it nevertheless.
That said, given someone did decide to build a mosque there, as a third-party observer I have no problem criticizing those on the opposition side when they range into xenophobia and/or suggest things that blatantly violate the U.S. constitution.
The mosque’s opponents aren’t just saying, “We really wish you wouldn’t build here,” they’re saying, “We really wish you wouldn’t build here, and because a lot of us feel that way you should really do what we want.” It’s a subtle difference, but an important one.
“If a group could legally build a Satanist temple in your neighborhood, as a Christian, would you support it?”
I wouldn’t be happy about it, but I wouldn’t try to stop them.
I’ll look into the audio issue with the video. I’m not sure what would be causing that.
The iPad case is made by Hard Candy. Highly recommended.
Anonymous,
if I were an imam with lots of money at my disposal
You mean an imam with lots of terrorists organizations ready to give you money.
This purely out of self-interest, since I would expect exactly the type of reaction that’s occurred.
And they had to know the same thing, yet they proceed anyway. Why? To think there is nothing evil behind their decision is to ignore man’s sinful heart.
Since when does stating that something is right or wrong range into xenophobia? Do you want to continue with straw man arguments or address the morality of the issue?
Why are they calling this the Cordoba initiative? Anyone who has studied medieval history knows why.
“We really wish you wouldn’t build here, and because a lot of us feel that way you should really do what we want.”
No, they are saying “You shouldn’t build here because it’s wrong.” You are translating that into “what we want”, but if what they want is what is right, then what is the problem?
“Why are they calling this the Cordoba initiative?”
That’s a question that needs an answer. It’s because Muslims build mosques on the sites of conquests. The symbolism is not at all subtle. Had the Japanese been allowed to erect a statue of the Emperor a Pearl Harbor, the symbolism would not have been more obvious.
“Cordoba is an important name to Islamist supremacists because it refers to the caliphate established more than 1,200 years ago in Spain. The Muslims triumphed there over the ‘infidel’ Christians and built a great mosque on the foundation of a Christian cathedral. They were all about symbolism even back then. The proximity of the proposed mosque to Ground Zero has nothing to do with co-existence or bridge building. Cordoba is code for conquest.” (More …)
Michael, I do not understand how you are using the word “right.” You have said that it is legal. So you are not using the word right to mean legal. You have said it is not a matter of public opinion, so you are not using the word right to mean by public vote or opinion.
You also are using the word moral a couple times, but I am not clear if you mean moral, when you use “right”. If that is what you are meaning,
At the same time you are asserting that it is “right” to not build a mosque you are asserting, without any evidence that the Islamic mosque is being built with terrorist funds. If you have some support of that, please show the evidence. In my mind, that type of assertion is exactly what I mean when I said the response to the mosque is xenophobic.
Up until recently Cordoba would have been more likely to be understood as a signal for religious toleration, than conquest. Cordoba has often been pointed to as the point where Jewish, Christan and Muslims all were free to worship in the same geographic area. It was under Muslim rule, but there was at least some level of religious toleration. It would not be to the extent that we have today, but for the Middle Ages, it was fairly civilized. When real historians like Newt Ginrich ignore history and the common usage of Cordoba like he did, it is concerning.
You mean an imam with lots of terrorists organizations ready to give you money.
Has the guy wanting to build the mosque done anything illegal? If so, then I agree he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If not, then he has the right to build.
Do you agree? Is there evidence that this particular imam has received money from terrorist organizations in order to build this particular mosque? Is that (accepting money) even illegal? (I honestly don’t know.)
And they had to know the same thing, yet they proceed anyway. Why?
Why did black people move into white neighborhoods 50 years ago when they knew they’d be poorly received? Because they had the right to, and they weren’t going to roll over just because some people disapproved.
Since when does stating that something is right or wrong range into xenophobia?
It doesn’t. If you read closely, you’ll note that I never said “stating something is right or wrong” ranges into xenophobia. I said that I have no problem criticizing the mosque’s opponents when they range into xenophobia.
Do you want to continue with straw man arguments or address the morality of the issue?
I don’t believe I’ve erected any straw men, but I’m happy to respond to any questions you have.
Why are they calling this the Cordoba initiative? Anyone who has studied medieval history knows why.
Probably. Is it relevant? Not really. They could call it the Osama Bin Laden Memorial Mosque and I’d still support their right to build it.
You are translating that into “what we want”, but if what they want is what is right, then what is the problem?
Because the underlying assumption is that if something is “wrong” and we don’t want it to happen, then we should feel free to prevent it by any legal means possible, regardless of what the “something” is. That strikes me as particularly un-American.
Really, if all people were saying was, “You know, it’s kinda wrong of you guys to be so insensitive,” then I wouldn’t have a big problem with that. But that’s not what’s happened. It’s more like, “It’s wrong of you guys to be so insensitive, so we’re going to do X and Y to prevent you doing it.”
To interrupt the discussion about the mosque briefly to touch on the bigger news item, I would like to point out that the newspapers in Britain generally are exceedingly biased. I am not sure what the situation is like in America, but I ought to warn international readers that the low-quality papers like the Guardian, Mail, Sun, Telegraph and Times are increasingly sensationalist (if you will excuse the ironic list). The FT is really all you should trust to find out what is going on over here.
To be specific, while the Telegraph has one of the largest circulations, that is only because it has most of the right-leaning readership while other blocks split over choice of newspaper. So, the comments on the healthcare bill for example I would suggest are rather misleading of how Europe sees it. While there are plenty of people in America I understand who are at least as Conservative as this article, much of this attitude would not resonate very much over here, where the ‘Republican’ demographic in America would instead be voting for Obama if even that, and the left is genuinely left.
Adamn,
You also are using the word moral a couple times, but I am not clear if you mean moral, when you use “right”. If that is what you are meaning,”
I was clear in stating this is a moral issue mainly, not a legal one. Morals direct what laws we enact, laws don’t give us morality.
At the same time you are asserting that it is “right” to not build a mosque you are asserting, without any evidence that the Islamic mosque is being built with terrorist funds. If you have some support of that, please show the evidence. In my mind, that type of assertion is exactly what I mean when I said the response to the mosque is xenophobic.
You misunderstand what makes it wrong. Of course if the imam is getting money from terrorists, that makes it wrong. But that is not the main point of my argument. It’s wrong because it’s insensitive and malicious. You know, that whole thing about ‘love your neighbor as yourself’.
Up until recently Cordoba would have been more likely to be understood as a signal for religious toleration, than conquest.
What kind of revisionist history is this? The moors took Spain, destoryed a Christian church (basilica) and built the ‘great’ mosque of Cordoba as a symbol.
Muslims all were free to worship in the same geographic area. It was under Muslim rule, but there was at least some level of religious toleration.
Some level? You mean when the “48 Christians of Crdoba were decapitated for religious offences against Islam”?
J.P.H.,
Has the guy wanting to build the mosque done anything illegal? If so, then I agree he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If not, then he has the right to build.
So everything that is legal is right? I’ve been clear from my first comment that this is a moral issue
Is there evidence that this particular imam has received money from terrorist organizations in order to build this particular mosque?
Evidence of money received, no. This imam supports terrorism and is likely getting money from those groups. “The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization.” He’s probably just a nice guy at heart though, right?
Why did black people move into white neighborhoods 50 years ago when they knew they’d be poorly received? Because they had the right to, and they weren’t going to roll over just because some people disapproved.
You’re kidding me with this analogy right? Always got to pull out the race card on stuff that it doesn’t even apply to. Keeping blacks out of neighborhoods was wrong because it was due to the color of their skin. Keeping mosques from being built at ground zero, where muslim extremists killed 3000 people is just being compassionate. Has nothing to do with race. A closer anology would be if a statue of a white man was built on top of a lynching site where hundreds of blacks were hanged. It’s legal right? So is there anything wrong with it?
It’s a straw man argument to make this issue about race. It’s not about race or xenophobia, and it’s dishonest to make it that.
I’d still support their right to build it.
If you’re a Christian, I have to wonder why you would “support” the building of false religion’s temple? It’s one thing to keep say nothing, quite another to “support” the building of it.
Because the underlying assumption is that if something is “wrong” and we don’t want it to happen, then we should feel free to prevent it by any legal means possible, regardless of what the “something” is. That strikes me as particularly un-American.
Actually, we’re called first to be Christians (if that is what you profess to be.) Whether it’s un-American or not is up to one’s one opinion.
Really, if all people were saying was, “You know, it’s kinda wrong of you guys to be so insensitive,” then I wouldn’t have a big problem with that. But that’s not what’s happened. It’s more like, “It’s wrong of you guys to be so insensitive, so we’re going to do X and Y to prevent you doing it.
Something is either wrong or right, not “kinda” wrong. Actually it sounds like you have a problem that residents of NY are acting upon their consciences, which tells them it’s wrong. Most Christians realize there is evil intent behind this plan to build a mosque, and Isaiah 5:20 says we should not call evil good and good evil.
Michael, it sounds like your basic argument is that it is a mosque. It is not Christian, so it should not be built. Here is some history of Cordoba.
Cordoba was conquered by a Muslim army in 711. It became the Muslim providential capital in 716 and a separate Caliphate in 766. It had a population of roughly 400,000 people during the high point around 1000. The Great Cordoba mosque was started in 784 and was not completed until 987. (It was built on a Christian Church, which was built on a Roman Temple. Some say that the church was actually purchased from the Christian community. But that may be myth.)
Yes some Christians were killed in Cordoba. They were killed for blaspheming Muhammad. The Catholic Bishop in Cordoba at the time (there was one) supported the executions because it was a violation of the law of Cordoba.
Cordoba was also the site of one of the greatest libraries and centers of learning of the time. Pope Sylvester II was primarily educated there. It was here that many of the Greek works that lead to the renaissance were translated into European languages. Christians were allowed to have their own courts and limited local rule. This was very tolerant for the time. There was not limited local rule Jews and Muslims (or even Christians of different denominations) for much of Christian Europe.
At the high point there were as many as 100,000 Jews living in Cordoba, as much as 1/4 of the population. Maimonides one of the great Jewish theologians lived and was educated at Cordoba.
Michael, it sounds like your basic argument is that it is a mosque. It is not Christian, so it should not be built.
I’ll say it again, for the 3rd or 4th time here in this meta. The problem isn’t that it’s a mosque, but that it’s morally wrong to build it there because of what happened at the site. No xenophobia. No racism.
Thanks for your Muslim (apologetic) history of Cordoba. It appears from your short historical account that all was well in Muslim Cordoba and it was a virtual Utopia for Christians. What does this have to do with the mosque in NY again? Oh, you’re trying to prove that their name for this project was chosen for “peaceful” loving reasons. Religion of peace right?
Yes some Christians were killed in Cordoba. They were killed for blaspheming Muhammad. The Catholic Bishop in Cordoba at the time (there was one) supported the executions because it was a violation of the law of Cordoba.
Your intent to lesson the evil and present the good of a pagan people is starting to show through. What did these Christians do to “break the law”? They simply stated their faith in Christ publicly. And under shariah law this means “off with your heads”. That is what a martyr means (in Christianity), one who dies for their faith! The fact a Catholic Bishop called them “fanatics” and sided with the local authorities is not surprising. Wonder what this bishop would think of all the early Christians who were ripped to shreds by the lions under Nero’s persecution.
Check out the accurate history of the martyrs here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba
So everything that is legal is right? I’ve been clear from my first comment that this is a moral issue.
1. Not everything that is legal is right. Examples are pretty easy to come by.
2. I don’t think its right of them to build there, because it unnecessarily antagonizes the survivors of 9/11 victims.
3. That said, I don’t think the 9/11 survivors should feel antagonized. Some do, some don’t.
4. The correct response to someone who wants to do something that’s legal but wrong is to point out its wrongness, then step aside and let it happen. Not try to stop it with bogus legal arguments.
5. Things that are “legal but really, really insensitive to the point of being wrong” happen every day, and rarely do Christians complain loudly about them. Ex. folks in the south displaying the confederate flag. The standard seems to be, “We only complain about insensitive things when we view ourselves as members of the injured party.”
This imam supports terrorism and is likely getting money from those groups.
If he’s not doing anything illegal then this is irrelevant to the legality of his building a mosque near ground-zero. If you’re purely talking about right and wrong, then anybody building any mosque anywhere is wrong, since mosques are expressly dedicated to worshiping someone other than the one true God. Like lots of other wrong things, though, I’m not compelled as a believer to apply political pressure in an attempt to prevent the wrongdoers from doing whatever wrong thing they’re trying to do.
He’s probably just a nice guy at heart though, right?
Probably not, actually. But that’s irrelevant.
You’re kidding me with this analogy right?
Not at all.
Always got to pull out the race card on stuff that it doesn’t even apply to. Keeping blacks out of neighborhoods was wrong because it was due to the color of their skin.
I didn’t make the analogy in order to compare the motivations of the keeper-outers, but to compare the motivations of the want-to-move-in-ers. You asked, “And they had to know the same thing, yet they proceed anyway. Why?” I was answering that question.
Keeping mosques from being built at ground zero, where muslim extremists killed 3000 people is just being compassionate.
Sometimes “being constitutional” prevents “being compassionate”. Sorry.
If you’re a Christian, I have to wonder why you would “support” the building of false religion’s temple? It’s one thing to keep say nothing, quite another to “support” the building of it.
I didn’t say I’d support their building it, I said I’d support their right to build it. Its a subtle difference, but a fundamental one. There are plenty of activities I don’t “support” (because they’re sin) that I nevertheless support the continued legality thereof.
Actually, we’re called first to be Christians
Agreed. I’d go further and suggest that, as a Christian, I am enjoined against preventing certain sinful activities by means of political force. It is precisely because I’m a Chrisitan that I support these guys’ right to build their mosque.
Actually it sounds like you have a problem that residents of NY are acting upon their consciences
I have a problem with the citizens of NY sinning in their anger, yes.
…and Isaiah 5:20 says we should not call evil good and good evil.
Which I have not done.
I should qualify #4 in my list; there are some wrong things for which the correct response is very much not to simply step aside.
Charles Krauthammer is a genius. Just thought I’d point out the obvious.
Nicely made video too. Neat story. God bless on your current/future book projects.
What did these Christians do to “break the law”? They simply stated their faith in Christ publicly. And under shariah law this means “off with your heads”.
Guess they could have burned them instead, like in Geneva.
Elder Tim,Is Sept 1 the fall in Canada? Is that your way of getting a jump on the yanks, or some other lunar calendar?
:) -but seriously, I really liked the video. Good and helpful job all the way around.
J.P.H.,
I was going to write a lengthy reply to your illogical comments above, but your last one about Geneva shows that it’s no use. You’re being very dishonest in comparing an apostate burned in Geneva to the martyrs who lost their life for Christ in Cordoba. You may “legally” say what you like, but you’re out of line with that comment IMO. To die for the name of Christ is the ultimate sacrifice.
I have to make a quick reply to #4, even your qualified version. This is where you’re wrong. You can’t have it both ways. Christians can’t both stay out of the way and work to enforce laws that punish evil. If someone is doing something wrong, the Christian response is to work with the government (if able, which we still are in the U.S.) to enact laws against doing that evil. If you disagree with this, then there are still Amish communities for you to live in.
You’re persuaded we should let evil run amok, as long as it is legal. God help this world when Christians can no longer discern what is morally right and wrong, and are no longer willing to enact laws to enforce that which is right. This isn’t even just a Biblical issue, but one of moral law (written upon the heart.) Our government is supposed to be one for the people, by the people and “it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”
You’re being very dishonest in comparing an apostate burned in Geneva to the martyrs who lost their life for Christ in Cordoba.
I wasn’t comparing the people who were killed, but their killers. Or, are you arguing it was less a sin for the Genevans to burn Servetus than it was for the Cordoban Muslims to execute Christians?
Christians can’t both stay out of the way and work to enforce laws that punish evil.
Actually, they can and do. Every day. I fully support laws that punish murder. Murder is evil. I would absolutely oppose a law that criminalized homosexual sex. Homosexual sex is also evil.
This is because my support for the criminalization of murder is not based on my faith-informed view that murder is sin (which it is, unequivocally), but on the fact that murder directly infringes on the rights of another.
If someone is doing something wrong, the Christian response is to work with the government (if able, which we still are in the U.S.) to enact laws against doing that evil.
I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I’d go so far as to say this attitude is one of the main hindrances to the gospel in America today. It reduces Jesus to an authoritarian rulemaster who’s primarily concerned with regulating outward behavior.
This is less important, but I’d also suggest this attitude is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution insofar as that document guarantees certain rights re: speech and religion.
If you disagree with this, then there are still Amish communities for you to live in.
I have a lot of respect for the Amish, actually, but no thanks. I’ll just vote libertarian if there’s a viable candidate and do what I can to advocate a less authoritarian vision of Christian involvement in the world.
You’re persuaded we should let evil run amok, as long as it is legal.
I’m persuaded we should protect life, limb and property, but otherwise keep the govt. out of peoples’ business.
God help this world when Christians can no longer discern what is morally right and wrong…
Agreed. Though, I’d volunteer your willingness to wield the state as an instrument to punish unbelievers’ sin as a prime example of a Christian failing to discern right from wrong.
J.P.H.,
Or, are you arguing it was less a sin for the Genevans to burn Servetus than it was for the Cordoban Muslims to execute Christians?
The discussion we were having was dealing with why the martyrs were killed. Adam said it in his revisionist historical account that it was was simply because they broke the law, leaving out what law they broke.
I said: What did these Christians do to “break the law”? They simply stated their faith in Christ publicly. And under shariah law this means “off with your heads”.
You, J.P.H. said: Guess they could have burned them instead, like in Geneva.
You obviously were trying to take a cheap shot. This isn’t about the killers. The Cordoba martyrs died for the name of Christ. What did Servetus die for again? It wasn’t for the name of Christ, so please don’t compare the two because by doing so you belittle their ultimate sacrifice.
I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I’d go so far as to say this attitude is one of the main hindrances to the gospel in America today. It reduces Jesus to an authoritarian rulemaster who’s primarily concerned with regulating outward behavior.
You are putting your libertarian values above what the Scriptures teach; the constitution over the Bible. No one said anything about forcing Jesus or Christianity on anyone. You know well this discussion was about passing laws to protect citizens from evil, not about passing “Christian” laws. But in your view it appears any Christian who is active in passing laws is a crazy fundamentalist. Basically you’re saying that no Christian should ever seek office or even attempt to change our country for the better. (Unless they claim to be libertarian first and foremost? Is that a libertarian Christian or a Christian libertarian?)
Let me lay it out for you one last time:1. It is not right (immoral) to build the mosque near Ground Zero because it is hurtful to the families (and the city) who lost loved ones (in addition the fact it’s name has Muslim conquest implications.)2. The government of the people, by the people (which includes us Christians) has a duty before God to pass laws to protect the people, which includes punishing evil (Rom. 13).3. Therefore if the leaders of the mosque do not do what is right, it is the city, state or even federal government’s duty to enforce or pass laws to protect the people.
As you have provided no Scriptural support for your argument, (political and philosophical ones only), nor have you addressed the natural law issue regarding the morality of building a mosque, I’ll let you have the last word as I can see we do not have the same Christian presuppositions and continuing our discussion is pointless.
And, the guy with the APPLE product sits at the head of the table! :)
This isn’t about the killers.
It very much is, since the killers are why you find the name Cordoba distasteful.
You are putting your libertarian values above what the Scriptures teach; the constitution over the Bible.
I disagree about whether I’m doing that, but okay. I must admit I’m a little surprised that you’re so candid about the fact that what you consider the imperative of every believer is fundamentally opposed to the founding principles of this country. That’s refreshing, I guess.
No one said anything about forcing Jesus or Christianity on anyone. You know well this discussion was about passing laws to protect citizens from evil…
You made the following statements:
1. “If someone is doing something wrong, the Christian response is to … enact laws against doing that evil.”
2. “God help this world when Christians … are no longer willing to enact laws to enforce that which is right.”
Praying to false gods is evil. Per the above, then, the Christian response is to enact laws that prohibit professing any faith other than Christianity. Or any proselytizing whatsoever.
It is right to teach our children about God. Per the above, then, it is lamentable when Christians refuse to enact laws enforcing that parents teach their children about God.
But in your view it appears any Christian who is active in passing laws is a crazy fundamentalist.
I think you misunderstand my view. Maybe that’s my fault. I don’t have a problem with Christians passing laws, depending on what the laws are and why they’re passing them. I have a problem with Christians attempting to criminalize things purely on the basis of their being sinful.
Basically you’re saying that no Christian should ever seek office or even attempt to change our country for the better.
No, I’m not saying that at all. For instance, I think a Christian could change the country for the better by protecting the rights of the unborn. Note the wording there: “protect the rights of the unborn”. Not “stop abortion because its evil”. This view, by the way, tends to really irritate secular libertarians. To the point where most of them would dispute my right to even describe myself as one. (They may be right; I’m actually fairly moderate when it comes to libertarianism.)
Let me lay it out for you one last time…
Translation: It is a Christian’s duty to advocate that the United States abandon one of its founding principles (freedom of religion) in order to prevent some folks from getting their feelings hurt. Got it.
As you have provided no Scriptural support for your argument…
Mostly its based on the absence of any requirement to regulate the behavior of non-believers, or even the slightest hint that doing so would be a good idea. In light of that, I base my politics on Luke 6:31.
I think this link tells us a lot about how sacred the Ground Zero area is.http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_a_sea_of_filth…
In a three block area there are: a strip club, a peep, show/adult toy store, 17 pizza shops, 18 banks, 11 bars, 10 shoe stores, 17 hair salons, 10 churches, 3 synagogues, 1 Buddhist community center, 1 Hare Krishna facility
Can’t find the case on Hard Candy’s website.Could you provide a link?
Wow Adam! Thanks for that article! Those 18 banks, who do they think they are anyway! I wonder if there are any “ecumenical” Christians who support Islam in the area too?
Well Michael, maybe you should start working with the city counsel to ban strip clubs, peep shows and adult toy stores. They are immoral.
Adam, at least president Obama is on your side!
Here’s a video some will enjoy on the subject. (I’m sure it’s all false though!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkMolLriAkQ