Posted on 01/17/2003 6:11:48 AM PST by chance33_98
Church's sign has Muslims outraged
Florida pastor says criticism of Islam is legal and fair
Associated Press Friday, January 17, 2003
Jacksonville --- The Council on American-Islamic Relations-Florida is calling on state religious leaders to repudiate a Jacksonville Baptist church's roadside sign the group claims is anti-Muslim.
The sign outside the First Conservative Baptist Church in Jacksonville's Mandarin area reads: ''Jesus Forbade Murder. Matthew 26:52. Muhammad Approved Murder. Surah 8:65.''
Altaf Ali, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Florida, said his organization attempted to talk with the Baptist church's officials about the sign, but were rebuffed with belligerent language.
''All Americans must band together to condemn hate speech designed to divide our nation along religious and ethnic lines,'' Ali said. ''Any attempt to marginalize or vilify one religious community is an attack on all people of faith.''
The church's pastor, the Rev. Gene Youngblood, who also leads the Conservative Theological Society and Conservative Christian Academy, said he has been using the marquee-type sign to express the church's opinion for 15 years and has no plans to remove the message.
''First and foremost, are we not entitled to freedom of speech?'' Youngblood said.
Youngblood, who said he is an expert on world religions, said he had been threatened and his property vandalized. He said he has filed 13 police reports since July.
Youngblood said his church would issue a formal statement later.
Iman Zaid Malik, spiritual leader of the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida, said some Christian friends brought the offensive sign to his attention.
''Misinformation must be rejected by all people of conscience,'' Malik said. ''This shows that the vast majority of Americans reject hate and seek a society where good overcomes the evil.''
Malik said the Quran verse indicates that those who believe and are steadfast in battle will overcome much larger armies. It is not an endorsement of murder, he said.
The verse reads: ''O Prophet [Muhammad]! Inspire the believers to conquer all fear of death when fighting, [so that] if there be twenty of you who are patient in adversity, they might overcome two hundred; and if there be one hundred of you, they might overcome one-thousand of those bent on denying the truth, because they are people who cannot grasp it.''
The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the Quran also states, ''whoever murders a person . . . it will be as if he killed all mankind, and whoever saves a life, shall be regarded as if he saved all mankind.''
ON THE WEB: Council on American-Islamic Relations-Florida: www.cair-florida.org
First Conservative Baptist Church: www.conservative.edu/main.htm
(Not so much direct at you Hodar, just using your quite for reference)
Well, I have not really weighed in on my own thread (was working and got busy) I thought this a good place to start.
Your right of course, taking any one sentence someone says from anywhere can be totally misleading. Though on the flip side we also often describe or sum up someone using a sentence (eg clinton blows worse then monica).
Religion is no different in many ways then any other idea or philosophy - they are all based in something a little less then tangible. Take God out of all equations and you will still have people who want communism, facism, democracy, etc, and all will argue their points. Not to mention the constitution which has probably been interpreted as many different ways as the bible.
I do know muslims myself who would be considered 'liberal' in their faith, but I also know their view on Jesus, Mary, et. al. is not always what I consider flattering. Not to mention their views on christians. It is a war of ideas, much like those held by people who have no religion yet have different philosophies (again, we have many godless societies in the world that would fight based on principals of government).
Logic can be a slippery thing, even in math there are competing views and as has religion, science has grown and changed as a better understanding of things has unfolded. As we examine, in these modern times, the scriptures of the world we do so with a new light. To some they are simply a philosophy like any other, giving insights into the minds of men during a time. To others they speak a truth which, while timeless, can be better understood with time and the wisdom once misunderstood becomes more clear (admonitions against incest for example are better understood now with science. The gene pool can have problems with it, although no one in Kentucky seems have noticed ;)
In the works I read from the 1700-1800's science was a revelation of God, not an enemy to him. Newton understood this as did many scientists of his time and those later. Much like an AI program learning how it was made. It could come to the conclusion that it was just a logical progression of electronics and not see all the planning that went into it, or it could learn to appreciate the maker and better understand the error trapping routines he made.
Mankind has perverted the words given him, mankind has used what he wanted and discarded the rest - much like Adam did. Mankind still does this with everything, including science. Which brings to mind the question, what does anyone base their morals, ideals, etc on? The concept of right and wrong will forever be something gray. If science determined that abortion was bad for the human race, it would still go on as those who claim personal freedom is more important then science. Philosophy will always battle science - but they can work together for a better end (to borrow from Nash, the best result comes from doing what is best for yourself and for others).
How does all this lead up to the sign? The fundamental message Jesus gave to his followers was to spread the word that God had heard all those people in the world, of all faiths, and had come down to conquer death. He redeemed the world from it's sin and fall (and one could go into a whole dissertation on the peculiar nature of this and what it means on a deeper level, even so much as to get into a 'science' if you will of why a salvation was even necessary in the first place and what it means. Not to mention some interesting throw ins regarding the nature of light, God's power being limited, etc. It is a fascinating topic the deeper one goes).
Now, Jesus did not tell his followers to go out and overthrow Rome. He did not say to go off and dispose of anyone. His message was that he would do that himself when the time came. His followers, instead of trying to take down Rome, used the very roads (and other great things of the Roman empire, such as writing, etc) to spread the message (which explains more why Jesus came at the time he did, the world was open enough to hear the message and it was, for many other reasons, an excellent time overall given historical and philosophical items of the day. But that is another story).
Islam does not have the flow in this regards, this evolution from one period to another. Their faith believes the world must come under their rule before the time of the end - that it is an important part of the scheme. Whether by force or otherwise the khalifah (et al) must come about. The christian is to be in the world, but not of it. Without Christ ruling the world can never acheive the peace it desires (mankind is inherently evil, no matter what philosophy is running about, the sheer number of people gurantees things will never be settled). SOME muslims want this to be a peaceful conversion - but many do not, and those are the ones for whom the message tolls. (more later, gotta run, bedtime for the baby and such!)
The one fella claimed to be a pastor...And yet he doesn't know this...He wanted "chapter and verse"...One would assume that a pastor in charge of a flock of sheep would have read the Bible thru at least once...Lot's of folks get the milk of the scripture but not so many get the "meat"...And there's a lot of meat there...In fact, it seems to have taken 231 posts for someone to pick up on what I was saying and what the pastor who planted the sign may have been thinking when he posted it...
We in the U.S. are just now learning about Islam...If your 4 year old neighbor's parents are good muslims (and that to me is an oxymoron), they will send their kid to a temple and a muslim school where he will be taught to hate ALL who are not muslims...And the koran will teach him that it's not only okay, but very good to kill ALL non-believers (men, women and children)...
They hate the Jews as much or more than the Nazis did...And we as a country, are friends to the Jews...All muslims want the Jews off that land regardless of the cost...That boy's family may or may not be actuall terrorists but I would bet that they directly or indirectly knowingly support terrorists...Just because they smile and say hi, don't be fooled...Their bible tells them to do that...
Boy you are truly living up to your moniker, blondie. The state IS putting a figurative gun to his head. The state, i.e., local government, run by the local version of the Taliban forbids sales of alcohol, sale of Playboy, etc. How is he supposed to do these things? When I lived in Chicago thirty years ago, you couldnt buy food on Sundays because of the blue laws.
No, they considered it blasphemy, and rightly so. That said, those Christians did not riot and kill and issue a fatwa calling for the filmmakers' death.
See my post #265 for more info. I think I see more people on FR, et al, wanting a war (if you will) against muslim countries because they see them as a threat to our freedoms and liberties - it does not have to have anything at all to do with religion. Faith does not have to have anything at all to do with our government in those regards (or any). Christians are to lead by example, the example of Jesus, and live our lives for God. It is not to say our faith cannot play a role in goverment, through the use of morals and precepts in how we do things and the laws we make.
A christian nation is not so because the government is christian, it is one because most the people follow the beliefs and worship God in their personal life (the amish might be considered a good example of this).
It is worth noting though that non-religious moralists have no problem using their ideas in the formation of policy, anyone making laws and such uses some form of belief. If we say abortion is morally wrong we either (or both) do so based upon our faith (which is a shortcut method to our personal pihilosophy, much like those who say they follow Kant, etc) or we can say that as a society we believe it is beneficial to the common good and ideas on which we have based our society.
I can oppose abortion under the heading of my faith or I can do so under the auspices of my politics/philosophy. Taking an innocent life so you can have more fun, less responsibility, etc is (according to my views from many angles) 'wrong'. I think Hodar, and others, simply need to hear that we use other metrics because it may make them (and others) uncomfortable to think that our values come from one source and are not based on debate but on submission to what we see as a higher power. But it has been my experience that these things do come from debate and are multi-faceted even though it may not be evident.
Where we, as christians, get worried (and rightly so) is when our ability to practice our faith gets restricted by those who do not believe (thus, they are doing that to us which they fear we would do to them). Examples are when people want to force children into a public education system and teach them things we disagree with. Homeschooling alleviates that (and community standards should to, if they were allowed) but as more attacks are made on that front (and others) our ability to practice our faith without indoctrination from outside influences gets harder and harder. Thus we strive to get the government to repent of it's slippage of freedoms and not force a belief on us (or more to the point, our impressionable children).
We have, whether christian or not, a deep belief that freedom is important. Even when practice in some forms gets restricted (example, communion wine cannot be given to young children, or indian kids cannot use peyote - there is a lawsuit about that I posted an article on a few days back) we still want the most important thing - the ability to put forth the ideas we hold to each other and our children. When the state undermines that they are encroaching on the freedoms we all cherish. Schools, in this example, would do well to either leave out religion (or any philosophy) and leave that to the parents. But one could also say in a more free society the community in which the school is made and paid for should have the freedom to reflect the standards of the people of that community (whether christian, atheist, muslim, et al).
That the government makes sweeping changes which undermine the faith of a group to all areas is for it to adopt, on matters of philosophical matters, a stand (or a respect of an idea, faith, belief, etc). If they shall make no law respecting religion then why do they make laws in such regards to things which do the same thing without a God label (ie adopt a method of thought they think you need to have).
This would not be an issue if the government would stay out of the schools and not compel. Not to mention that it says 'congress' shall make no law, local school boards are not congress.
America has a rich religious tradition and a political one - there were quite a few communites which existed which were communistic based in the early chapter of American history (and communal, etc). People could experiment because they were free to do so. The job of government was not as broad and sweeping as it is now. You can still buy land, start your own community, etc - but even if everyone agrees to pay a tithe/tax and build a school it would still, at that point, come under strict guidelines.
That some think the government knows best is a statement of faith based upon someone's ideas or philosophy. The government should stick to doing what it should be doing as drawn up in the founding papers (again, open to interpretation). If community X wants to allow something that community Y does not - fine in most cases (we have, as a society and members of it agreed that we hold some truths to be both self evident and important to the well being of our society, without which the freedoms we want to use would not exist. Murder, rape, child molestation, etc are founding ideas and provide a framework to live in - as the framework grows larger and larger we have less and less room to have unique beliefs and ideas to practice).
Ok, guess I am ranting. My daughter is still not in bed - I wish I had her energy! It looks like an f-5 tornado just hit the house. I apologize for the endless babbling!
Using MSWord, I made certain that my profile was at a 7th grade level of understanding, I guess I overestimated your comprehension skills.
You see, you are the type of individual that 'espouses' a religon to the point that you are incapable of thought outside the narrow confines of your interpretation of that same religon. Yet, you would call yourself charitable, kind and sensitive person. Any challenge to your way of thinking is met with an offensive rebuke, instead of a mature and rational thought. You have a closed mind, which is a pity; the world is a pretty big place.
My point is, and continuously has been, that you cannot judge a book by a single sentence. You have then made the jump to insult me, my 'Christianity', where I currently live, and then have childishly attacked my profile. I would say that you are a pretty insecure and uneducated person. Your actions speak louder than anything else. You have raised absolutely no counter-points, but have made what ... a dozen insults? It's like arguing with a kindergartner. Please grow up.
To illustrate my point one last time, so that even you can grasp it, that any single verse can be taken out of context, and can be misleading; I offer Matthew 5:37 (KJV)
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
From this verse alone, Christians would have had their vocabulary stripped to the words "yes" and "no". Now, think *really* hard. Does a single verse convey the concept of Christianity? (hint: no, it does not). That has been my point. I have not changed positions, and until now, have not attacked you personally. Yet, somehow I think you will disregard a bible verse from the NT, and say something about my mother.
Where did you come up with that??? If you would bother to read, my statement has been (from post ~#3) is that to compare a single verse from the bible, to a single verse from the Quoran; then to make a qualitive judgement from those is a bad way to do things. And yet, you have managed to invent attributes and attack. Any verse, taken out of context can be used in ways that were unintended. How is that illogical? How about Luke 18:21 (KJV) And he said, All these I kept from my youth up.
No context is given, does this mean we should never get a haircut? Maybe keep our toys and underwear? Babyteeth? Is it that hard to follow a simple statement, that a single verse from any book may be used out of context? I'm just thumbing through my bible ... I'm not trying very hard. Post #62 had quite a few good ones.
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
Contrast that with Matthew 5:39: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.