Anti-Islam Sign at Church in Idaho

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/daily/20011122/LocalNews/189152.shtml ^ | By Eryn Curfman

[TopQuark]

official position on a private person's statements...

Noone takes an official position on someones statements: an official merely reiterates in the then current context the position of the office. The private person's statements may have prompted such annunciation, but they are not the cause.

[xzins]

EVERY group has its extremists, even mine

What is your group? I notice that you said prophets were sent to each part of the world and taught truths the people there were ready to receive.

Let's imagine a point of fact: Sep 11 is the date of the terrorist attack at the WTC site. That fact is TRUTH.

One hundred years from now imagine a group arising that taught that the attack actually occurred on Sep 12. Let's imagine that they really, really believed it.

Should I be tolerant of that view? Or should I point out that the advocates of that position are teaching untruths as truth?

In that case, wouldn't it be better to be intolerant rather than inclusive?

[stands2reason]

Actually, no. I meant you seem intolerant of Evangelcal Christians that post here. I don't understand how this sign is religious persecution, though. I guess you mean to say Christians shouldn't decide what is "antiChrist," (it IS their religion) or if they do, they should keep it to themselves.

[moneyrunner]

”Prior to that conclusion, you have eloquently argued that: (i) this was an expansive act in that it increased the field of discourse, and (ii) such expansion was at best needless and probably harmful. No need, you say, to bring back the notions that, once debated, have already been found faulty.”

Thank you for your courteous reply. I was a high school and college age student during those days, and here is my interpretation of these events:

Prior to the “free speech” movement, universities professed to maintain certain standards. These standards did not allow crowds of students to gather on campus for the purpose of saying “dirty” (isn’t that a quaint word today?) words, to commit lewd acts, to cohabit in student housing (unless married), or do many other things that today are considered “normal” for college students. Administrators did that not because they were prudes but because they believed that the university should elevate the individual, not degrade the student. They were acting “in loco parentis” and believed that reasonable parents would not allow their children to act that way.

However, when students began their rebellion against these standards, they did not do so under the banner of destroying standards, but in the name of increasing freedom. It just so happened that the faculty at Berkeley caved. And, after a while, virtually all other universities followed suit. Why? Because the cry of “free speech” trumped all other considerations. After all, what enlightened member of academia could be opposed to free speech?

And if we believe in unlimited free speech, free speech as the ultimate good, free speech that trumps all else, we can have no defense of good vs. evil, collectivism vs. individual freedom. If free speech trumps everything how can we oppose courses in lesbian studies, or Wicca?

The “free speech” idea is so powerful that even those who have been cowed into silence and conformity by the original proponents of free speech, can only bleat for “free speech” as their right too.

How then did the Leftist who rose to power under the banner of “free speech” manage to stifle their opposition? How did they eliminate free speech and impose Politically Correct speech? The answer is not that they abandoned the banner of free speech, but they unfurled a new banner: Justice. And under the banner of justice, we cannot allow racist, sexist, homophobic straight white guys utter anything that will offend the tender sensibilities of the historically oppressed.

” Please allow me to offer some observations that are at odds with these conclusions. Firstly, the “free speech” movement at Berkeley does not appear in retrospect to be an expansion. Rather, it was the act of replacement of one ideology with another, with the sum total, so to speak, remaining intact.”

I have attempted to show you how this transition happened. I hope that I have also demonstrated that free speech as an ultimate good can, and often will be, ultimately destructive. I believe that free speech in the political arena is a great good. However even in politics, free speech is constrained. Not often by the police power of the state, but by intermediary organizations. Someone may be able to legally advocate the re-creation of a Nazi government, but he will quickly be shunned. The same for the person who seriously suggest we imitate the political and economic reforms of Stalin.

In a university, where the primary goal is the education of the next generation, I suggest that the appropriate curriculum should be the study (in social sciences) of the great ideas of the West, along with the reasons why the great catastrophes of the 20th century occurred, with no apologies for the triumph of freedom versus the ideologies of Communism, Fascism and National Socialism.

”Consider, for instance, a conflict between the communism and capitalism, which is a tension between equity (distribution of wealth) and incentives (creation of wealth) in society.”

Actually the issue is primarily one of political power, with, in the case of communism, the promise that if total political power is allowed to reside with the State, everyone will have equal shares in communal wealth. The practical questions that are usually skipped in Communism 101, are the issues of: (1) if we begin with a functioning society, how can those who have more be persuaded to give over control of their possessions, (2) if we begin with a clean slate, how do we create incentives for people to excel when the results of their efforts will be so diffused throughout the commune that they will not see a tangible reward?

The answer to both questions always ends up with the knout and the gun.

”It may seem surprising that, just as the Eastern Europeans were running from and ultimately discarding communism, the Peoples Republic of Northern California embraced it more than ever.”

In the People’s Republic of California we have wealthy individuals playing at Communism, just as Marie Antoinette played at being a milkmaid. If real Communism were to arrive, Barbra Streisand’s mansions would be subdivided and families of four would arrive to live in each room. Knob Hill would be razed for low income housing. Braceros would each be given 1-acre plots taken from the vineyards in the Napa Valley. And there would be block committees to determine if anyone is hoarding food.

Regarding your concern with name-calling on both Right and Left, you are dismayed with a fact of human nature. People have always been thus. There is no long lost golden age in which pure civil discourse flowed. There have been both better and worse times. This is one of those times that are good materially, but not so good in terms of rational thought and civil discourse. Part of it is due to the loss of faith – both spiritual and intellectual. Part of it is due to the unfortunate Balkanization of American culture that has occurred over the last 30 years.

However, despair is a sin, and I am an optimist. Be of good cheer.

Thanks for your thoughts. I have enjoyed our conversation.

[Old Student]

Try comparing apple and apples. Show me definitive scriptural definitions of the form (or lack thereof) of God. Something that is unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. That is what I was talking about. Until you can do so, you have no business telling anyone that they can't belive He has a physical form. Or a strictly non-physical form. Which ever your orthodoxy accepts. That is where my extremists come in. They decide that there is such a definition, and try to enforce their vision. Using your example, If you tried to show them that it really happened on the 11th, and they killed you for it, even though you presented them with a copy of the NY Times with the story in it, they would be acting as extremists. If you killed them for beliving the Canberra Times dated the 12th, you would be the extremist. It could get really complicated if you just told them you were there, and expected them to accept your word.

BTW, for some folks, it did take place on the 12th. They're across the international dateline. (or maybe it was the 10th.) It could also be taught that it occurred on another date, as in whatever date system a particular culture uses. Islam uses a different calendar system, dating from the Hegira, Mohammed's flight to Medina, and the Eastern Orthodox still use the Julian Calendar, and some cultures use no calendar system at all. That is comparing apples and oranges, I'm afraid.

Or ABSTRACT versus CONCRETE. If you can measure it, it is concrete. If not, it is abstract.

[Old Student]

BTW, if, in your example, neither of you kills each other over the differences, but you sit down together to discuss them, you have the Diet of Worms. When you agree that the event actually happened on the stroke of midnite between the 11th and 12th, and then hunt down and kill all who oppose that decision, you have the Inquisition.

[xzins]

Sep 11 is the date of the terrorist attack at the WTC site. That fact is TRUTH.

If you reread the above, you'll see that I precluded any differences caused by international date line or by varying cultures. I said that Sep 11 was the date "at the WTC site." If, for example, I were someplace across the dateline, the incident might have occurred on Sep12/10 for ME, but despite where I might have been, the attack AT THE WTC SITE was on Sep 11. Likewise, the cultural calendar in use at the site would control.

Basically, though, you agreed that if we could pin our facts down, then we could insist on something being true or false. You were correct in pointing out that we couldn't pin our facts down in such a clear manner when we were dealing with scripture.

[Old Student]

Sorta, sorta. Your 'at the wtc site' doesn't actually pin down the date for anyone else, unless you are just lucky. That sort of thing trips up people on FR quite a bit, even those who are aware that there is an international dateline, and even those who are merely in different time zones.

Would that it was that easy.

[watchin]

What a snapshot of America. Only one of the people in the article has a clue what he's talking about, having actually read the koran and the Bible.

The other's are just spouting the politically correct line, and they really seem to think that lack of discernment is the American way.

Anyone who wants to rant about what a bigot this pastor is should try educating oneself to his level. In other words, read the koran and the Bible before you decide he's a bigot and an idiot.

Think about it. You can accept the media portrayal of Islam, or you can check it out for yourself. Which is the FR way?

[EverOnward]

Curious to know who you WOULD consider to be the antiChrist and why?

[IncredibleHulk]

And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

Since the Holy Spirit has no body, this cannot be the Trinity. The Paraclete, Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is described as a being in the form of a Dove as when it alit upon Jesus as He came out of the water following his baptism by John. Following that event, we hear the voice of Elohim, God the Father, speak from the Heavens. In this instance, we have all three members of the Godhead in one location together but it servers to show their individuality rather than some indistinct "different aspects of a single Being or Trinity"

[A. Pole]

Since the Holy Spirit has no body, this cannot be the Trinity.

Well, it was not Trinity it was a type or sign of Trinity. Either way God appeared to Jacob as man and wrestled with Jacob. He appeared to Moses in the burning bush and He appeared to all people when He took upon Himself a human nature( including body ) as Jesus Christ.

[TopQuark]

Just a short note to thank you for your interesting posts: they gave me a singular pleasure to read. Your cheer at the end was a shot in the arm: it's not easy to maintain optimism while being well informed. But you are right, not doing so is still a sin.

(Reminds me of the following "definitions" I heard long ago.
A pessimist is a well-informed optimist.
An optimist is a well-instructed pessimist.)

Best regards, TQ.

[AmishDude]

"The filth of capitalism dominates the world and should be eradicated." -- Mohammed Whatever

I found this very very fascinating. If there is one thing that Islam does not oppose, it is capitalism. The bazaars were common in Arabian culture and Mohammed himself was a trader. It is true to say that Islam is anti-democratic, but I don't know where anti-capitalist comes from.

Unless, of course, Islamism has more to do with anti-Americanism than with Islam.

[TopQuark]

I very much appreciate your posts on this thread, Old Student.

Perhaps, you have reached RnMomof7. I, most certainly failed. Initially, I debated the issue, as always, under the premise that the validity of the argument is independent of the person who makes it. RnMomof7 switched it to me, a person, rather than my words. By looking up a few of my latest posts, she "uncovered" me to be an Arab Muslim. I am also writing from New Jersey --- a giveaway that it was I who mailed those anthrax letters. Hoping to conduct the discussion and thinking it would simplify the matters, I just told her that I was not who she thought I was. Did not help.

Then I became curious as to how far she would go: this is just what I was trying to point out in my posts. I actually revealed --- reluctantly because I did not want to appear that I was looking for sympathy --- that my wife did not die in the Sep 11 by a mere coincidence. Not only I am not an Arab terrorist --- I was affected by them quite directly. Well, to no avail: in reply she pointed out that I should not thank for this miracle my "moon god."

How thick is your skin, Ms. RnMomof7? You not only cannot have feelings to your fellow human --- you cannot recognize them when you see them. All this while you celebrate yourself as a good Christian. No, Ms. RnMomof7: it is people like you who celebrated the Inquisition. It is people like you who were at the from rows at autodafé --- probably arranging faggots around the "witch" to be burned at the stake. Given an opportunity, you would do so today. The danger of people like you was precisely my point.

P.S. RnMomof7: I wrote this as a conclusion rather than continuation of our discussion. Thank you for replies.

[TopQuark]

One hundred years from now imagine a group arising that taught that the attack actually occurred on Sep 12. Let's imagine that they really, really believed it.

Should I be tolerant of that view? Or should I point out that the advocates of that position are teaching untruths as truth?

In that case, wouldn't it be better to be intolerant rather than inclusive?

I am afraid that you miss the difference between non-accepting and intolerant. To me, the former applies to what you think. In particular, you may refuse to accept that there is no gravity; that our calendar day ends at any moment other than midnight; and all religions other than yours.

My hope is that you will not become intolerant on any of these points: that is, will not take action against those views unless forced to do so. The first two are easy: if I believe in these "non-truths," you will just smile and ignore me. Note that the last is not trivial: a Christian, for instance, is taught to proselytize upon encountering a follower of another religion; it is like saving a drowning person. As you can see from this and other threads, some would go father and actually kill all nonbelievers. The Western world has been doing this for centuries --- even acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior has not help; Christians killed other Christians for not expressing it "right." We have generally outgrown and reversed this trend. Nevertheless, as some posts on this thread show, we should be on our guard not to fall back into the abyss of religious hatred.

Back to the original issue: anti-Islam sign at a church in Idaho. Two simple points about posting anti-religious slogans: it is (i) a step towards the religious hatred; and, (ii) an irresponsible act on the part of the pastor. The flock goes father than the pastor; his act may be entice violence although he himself has never advocated it. Anyone who does not understand this is not a leader. This pastor certainly is not.

[xzins]

You miss my point. Based on what Islam says about Jesus Christ, that he was not the Son of God, the pastor, therefore, posted BIBLICAL TRUTH. Read the book of 1 John to see on what the pastor based his conclusion.