Obama appeals for tolerance on 9/11

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.

 

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):

 

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

I see these as examples of tolerance as ...

Nothing about forcing non-muslims to celebrate islamic views.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Good response.

Right.

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.

 

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?

 

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!)

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.