Obama Endorses Mosque Project Near Ground Zero Site

Remember also that one day Islam will be openly used against Christianity in America and by the force of civil law if it can get its evil hand upon it.

 

You are free to believe in child sacrifice, but you can't practice it.

 

But what about freedom of religion?

What about the 1st and 14th amendments?

 

This is what I'm concerned about as well.

But on the other hand; I could imagine the Muslims who want to build there not wanting to be essentially blamed for what others under the banner of their religion. "Respect our feelings because we associate you with those terrorists" is essentially what we're saying to them.

But then again, on the other hand, who really knows what exactly their sentiments or affiliations are? For all we know, they or at least some involved could be somewhat connected to terrorists, or at least sympathizers.
Of course, if they were, they are not going to admit it. It's hard to know which Muslims are aligned with which factions or not. Anybody can say anything.
And the fact that on the terrorist side of it, the differences will be ignored, and they could see it as a sort of symbolic victory, even by those whom they might otherwise condemn as watering down the religion.

So this is indeed a very difficult situation, and it looks like our principles (freedom/liberty, private rights, vs the need to protect ourselves; including the feelings of the victims) are really being put to the test here.

 

Muslims are free to individually believe in Islam but cannot practice it when it would violate civil law.

If they use Islam as a front for terrorism then it is not a religion at all. If they preach the murder of Christians then it is not a religion at all. Because it is founded in evil then we should know it for what it is. We might tolerate it to some extent for the sake of preserving our own religious liberty but we in no way need to endorse, embrace, or encourage it as a valid religion in our land.

We ought to make it known we don't want it here in America - not the opposite approach of increasing diversity or some other ill-founded logic.

We need to understand that our founders wisely used the Constitution to document certain freedoms we thought most important but that they also understood none of it was any better than the wisdom of the people who would preserve it. The weakness is being exploited. We should always view the Constitution as a contract between the people, the state governments, and the federal government and like all contracts we can easily get lost in legalism and forget the principles upon which the words were written.

A corrupted society - ignorance, weakness, selfishness, etc. - can misuse the words of our Constitution to destroy us all just as quickly, if not more so, than the original tyranny that lead to its establishment. We should be able to see signs of this process even today. Project forward and it is easy to see where it might head save God's intervention.

So, we'd better get busy figuring out how to use all our resources to stop Islam in America while still preserving our religious liberty in the context than preserves our overall freedom. In my opinion, it all focuses back on our relationship with God both individually and collectively. We will do better when we have citizens and leaders that are not afraid to stand up and be counted as followers of Jesus Christ while still recognizing the merits of insulating the church from the civil government and respecting the individual denominations to worship Him as they see fit. We will do better when they stop clamoring for religious diversity and taking the meaning of our law far beyond its original intents.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKYd74nulk

another voice to be heard.

 

Some folks seem to think that our very existence as a church is dependent on the state.

Interesting concept.

 

How so?

Care to elaborate?

 

I think that God meant what He said when He instituted civil government as a means to implement His justice among men in this temporal life. We happen to have been blessed with the best concept for civil government ever designed. We, as Christians, have a responsibility to exercise God's wisdom in all of life's activities including civil government. The more we do so the more the actions of such government will reflex His intentions for it. Endorsing Islam is not such an action because Islam is an enemy of Christ and of His followers. We need to understand the difference between tolerance in the interest of preserving our liberties and outright endorsement. The snake will bite us regardless what we think!

 

It's probably that they know better than most of us who are not really familiar with the neighborhood:

"Hallowed Ground"

 

I don't know any sane person who would equate the fire department responding to a fire at a church building with a violation of the constitutional (and historic Baptist) principle of the separation of church and state.

Wow.

The word "absolute" in front of "separation of church and state" is a poor choice of words. For what it's worth, I don't know what candidate you are referring to.

 

But it is, in fact, if it is municipal fire department [state] responding to a fire at a church building [church]. What this shows is that virtually no one really advocates absolute separation of church and state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAvHHTt2czU&feature=related

(takes only 14 seconds)

 

I've never heard anyone advocate "absolute" (in a technical sense) separation of church and state. To do so would be to literally separate religious institutions/individuals from any connection with institutions/individuals influenced or controlled by political realities.

I am not aware of any historical definition of separation of church and state that advocates such a position. Therefore, the argument is essentially a straw man.

This actually undermines your argument since Kennedy clearly explains what he means by "absolute."

He's talking about a "hedge of separation" (Roger Williams term) or a "wall of separation" (Jefferson's term) between the roles of the church and state.

This has nothing to do with the fire department responding to a fire at a church building or the appropriate requirement for minimum building codes.

 

You can argue all you want, but a municipal fire department responding to a call at a church does combine state and church, as does building codes and inspectors coming into the buildings and sanitation crew taking a church's refuse. The fact that virtually no one perceives it to mean that nullifies any technical meaning to the term and puts it in the wishes of the judicial branch of government, which then can define the meaning and scope as it will, often very differently than precedant directs, and it obviously has done so in differing eras. So it doesn't "mean" today that a fire department can't put out a church fire, but in future generation it may. While that's an extreme example, it's more likely that in a generation or 2 the tax status of a church may be determined by whether it supports "equal rights" to homosexuals or not.

 

Not at all.
You are arguing that separation of church and state does not have a historical or philosophical context, and that none of the concepts advocates have explained their position.
Your argument reminds me of an argument an atheist made to me claiming there is no such thing as human freedom (because we have no choice regarding when and where we are born, and are bound by the laws of the physical universe), which he attempted to use as justification to demonstrate that if God exists, He is immoral, since we have no control over whether or not we would properly assimilate the appropriate beliefs from the context in which we exist.
It’s a foolish argument because it pretends that the meaning of words can ONLY be defined in their most extreme terms, disconnected from the meanings and concepts of the advocates of the position. It also completely ignores the context of our shared human experience.

In essence, you’re saying that the advocates of institutional separation of church and state are wrong because JFK used the word “absolute” (even though he defined exactly what he meant) and you want to use the most extreme definition of the word.

When the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the First Amendment regarding religion, it has been remarkably consistent. Until about 1890, the Supreme Court did not directly rule on the scope of the First Amendment.

In a future generation, the hypothetical court may rule that we are all lizards, but that is also equally unlikely.

It could be if we keep perpetuating false understandings of religious liberty and the concept of separation of church and state. That’s why Christians should be the strongest advocates of religious freedom for EVERYONE.

 

But is right? Is it right for a believer to endorse or encourage the construction of an Islamic mosque anywhere much less in our own land and then as glaring testimony to the very religion that instigated the hatred against our land and at the very spot where the worst act yet occurred. Instead of quibbling over the meaning of this or that ruling of a corrupt Court of unaccountable men and women of questionable character why can we not loudly condemn the construction of the mosque and Islam in general? Do we fear it and Israel feared Baal until Elisha came along to proclaim and demonstrate God's truth to them.

 

Seems to me a lot of people who say they want the Constitution followed are forgetting totally the Bill of Rights in this case.

 

Another liberal that doesn't believe in free speech.

What a surprise !!

 

Not sure where you get your comment from. I am very much for free speech and very conservative when it comes to following the Constitution .... and following it for everyone. They are within their legal rights to build a mosque whether I like it or not. Do you not know the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution?

Do you not believe in equality for all? If you do not you are the liberal.

 

We are guaranteed the right to free speech.

We are guaranteed the right to speak out against this mosque being built at that particular location.

We are within our legal rights to protest this mosque whether you or they like it or not.

Do you not know that we are guaranteed freedom of speech?

Why are you so anti-free speech?