The Burning of the Koran Debate

[faithfulfatherof9]

I can just see some zealous KJV only congregation somewhere deciding to burn all non-KJV Bibles.

 

[Anonymous]

So because a Muslim despot did not support the nation of Israel ALL Muslims are hateful?? Riiiiiiiight....

Perhaps I should have elaborated.
I just saw the picture I mentioned two days ago, so it was fresh in my mind. It really struck me as being particularly hateful but the inscription on that chair is only a small part of a much larger picture. I have never known Islam itself to be peaceful. Sadam wasn't the only despot, several Islamic countries seem to be rife with them. I don't believe all Muslims are hateful but I certainly haven't seen anything too positive come out of the Islamic belief system. I am particularly appalled at their treatment of women.
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[ylop]

a sinful act of someone

Misguided, maybe, reckless, perhaps, but sinful?
Would burning pornographic works be sinful? What about blasphemous music? Or melting down a golden calf and forcing people to drink the ground up powder?
ylop

 

[Scarecrow]

"The First Amendment is one of the greatest ideas ever known to the Civilization of mankind and to any established government."

Yes it is, and when Sharia Law is finally recognized here in the United States, as it already is in the UK and other areas, it is only a matter of time before it becomes the "Law of the Land" and the 1st Amendment is only a vague memory of a Constitution of a once great country...

Don't believe me? Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

The sin would not be in the simple act of burning a false religious book.

If this man bought the book and went and threw it in his fireplace to burn there would not per se be a sin in that.

The issue I see/saw in this was that he was eager to stir up trouble and to attempt to make others angry. That does not seem to be an attempt at fulfilling the command to "try and live at peace with all people if possible."

It really has nothing to do with the book, but more everything to do with the heart or purpose. If our goal is make someone angry then that seems to me to be outside the bounds of what we are taught to do by the Word.

 

[Scarecrow]

"The issue I see/saw in this was that he was eager to stir up trouble and to attempt to make others angry."

...and that is actually where our rights end under the 1st Amendment...we can not incite others...but then again if you look sideways at some people you incite them...so where do you draw the line?

That is actually the point of debate here.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

It is a little more complex than simple inciting others for there to be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

But the point I am stressing is that even though he was within the acceptable range of liberties under the 1st Amendment his heart seems to have been of for desiring to make others angry by his actions. His heart motive in this seems to have been the real issue.

 

[Scarecrow]

It seems to me that his motives are to incite, that his heart motives are less than honorable or Christian, and that this whole thing has primarily been a publicity stunt...

But I have to admit...if I had a Koran handy I would have quietly burned it in a metal can in my back yard today.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

lol I understand.

It seems like you noticed the same intent in his heart that I noticed as well.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok some questions here:

do not give recognition or tolerance to Islam anymore than we would embrace sin and Satan with tolerance and recognition

.

John, are you saying that as citizens here in America we should not tolerate this religion? Or are you saying that we as Christians here in America should be in personal opposition to it because it conflicts with Christ's gospel? I certainly agree with the idea as Christians that we must evangelize people of other faiths but if by that you mean we should not tolerate them as citizens with the God-given natural inalienable right to worship as their conscience guides then I would find that hard to accept. I imagine you mean the Christian faith cannot accept it but that we can tolerate it as a religion (so long as it is practiced in peace), correct?

Yes, basically, that is what I am saying. However, we must recognize certain restrictions upon any religion and it's practices where those practices endanger the fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution. The principles ensconced in our founding documents are compatible with, if not originating from The Bible. It is necessary for our nation to survive, from a purely secular perspective, that we enforce those principles. It is difficult for us at times, to distinguish between our personal "religious" convictions and our civil principles that are based on similar or same precepts. Let us be very careful that we do not attempt crossover enforcement,i.e. civilly enforce religious values or religiously enforce civil statutes.

 

[Isabella]

"The First Amendment is one of the greatest ideas ever known to the Civilization of mankind and to any established government."

Yes it is, and when Sharia Law is finally recognized here in the United States, as it already is in the UK

No, it isn't.

 

[Isabella]

The sin would not be in the simple act of burning a false religious book.

If this man bought the book and went and threw it in his fireplace to burn there would not per se be a sin in that.

The issue I see/saw in this was that he was eager to stir up trouble and to attempt to make others angry. That does not seem to be an attempt at fulfilling the command to "try and live at peace with all people if possible."

It really has nothing to do with the book, but more everything to do with the heart or purpose. If our goal is make someone angry then that seems to me to be outside the bounds of what we are taught to do by the Word.

Too true, there is a difference in incitement and freedom of expression/speech.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

"The First Amendment is one of the greatest ideas ever known to the Civilization of mankind and to any established government."

Yes it is, and when Sharia Law is finally recognized here in the United States, as it already is in the UK

No, it isn't.

What are you saying no in regard to? Are you saying you do not like or respect the first amendment? Or am I misreading that?

 

[cnystrom]

It is necessary for our nation to survive, from a purely secular perspective, that we enforce those principles.

As Christians should it be a goal of ours to help our nation survive?

It is difficult for us at times, to distinguish between our personal "religious" convictions and our civil principles that are based on similar or same precepts. Let us be very careful that we do not attempt crossover enforcement,i.e. civilly enforce religious values or religiously enforce civil statutes.

Agreed.

 

[Isabella]

"The First Amendment is one of the greatest ideas ever known to the Civilization of mankind and to any established government."

Yes it is, and when Sharia Law is finally recognized here in the United States, as it already is in the UK

No, it isn't.

What are you saying no in regard to? Are you saying you do not like or respect the first amendment? Or am I misreading that?

I was saying 'No' in response to the idea that Sharia law is recognised in the UK. It isn't, any more than any other religious court. Jewish courts work the same way.

 

[Anonymous]

It is necessary for our nation to survive, from a purely secular perspective, that we enforce those principles.

As Christians should it be a goal of ours to help our nation survive?

In my opinion, Yes, we should. As Christians, we have a double duty. 1. To be salt and light per Matthew 5, our most effective means of improving our society and nation. 2. As citizens of a republic, we as believers have a duty to patriotism, to ethical, responsible execution of our civil duties not just our rights. The low voter turnout as compared to just the registered voters, indicates that as Christians we are shirking our duty as citizens. The same lack of participation at town hall meetings or even teacher/parent meetings reveals the apathy of our citizens. We sit back and complain, rather than get involved for the better (I wanted to say change ). Most churches are in the condition they are in because it is easier for most folks to complain rather than pray and participate.

 

[Scarecrow]

"I was saying 'No' in response to the idea that Sharia law is recognised in the UK. It isn't, any more than any other religious court. Jewish courts work the same way."

Give them time...that is all they need...when there are enough of them changes will happen you can bet on it. And yes...it is recognized in the UK and elsewhere.

 

[Isabella]

"I was saying 'No' in response to the idea that Sharia law is recognised in the UK. It isn't, any more than any other religious court. Jewish courts work the same way."

Give them time...that is all they need...when there are enough of them changes will happen you can bet on it. And yes...it is recognized in the UK and elsewhere.

As I said before, Sharia law is recognised in the same way as any other religious courts (as long as it doesn't go against the law of the land). The courts of the land would respect decisions made in civil matters in th same way as they do if you had a pre-existing agreement (an example of this would be a pre-nup).

 

[cnystrom]

In my opinion, Yes, we should. As Christians, we have a double duty. 1. To be salt and light per Matthew 5, our most effective means of improving our society and nation. 2. As citizens of a republic, we as believers have a duty to patriotism, to ethical, responsible execution of our civil duties not just our rights. The low voter turnout as compared to just the registered voters, indicates that as Christians we are shirking our duty as citizens. The same lack of participation at town hall meetings or even teacher/parent meetings reveals the apathy of our citizens. We sit back and complain, rather than get involved for the better (I wanted to say change ). Most churches are in the condition they are in because it is easier for most folks to complain rather than pray and participate.

I do not disagree. I am just kicking it around in my head.

I have a concern that we are watering down our spiritual message by our secular efforts. I think there is a perception that we as Christians are just in it for ourselves. That Christians are involved in politics to make the country more comfortable for themselves and so we are generating negative goodwill which turns people off to Christians and limits our influence in spreading the Gospel.

I suspect that spiritual warfare is a better weapon than political warfare anyway even in the secular arena. By this I mean that spiritual revival would go a lot further in making society truly better than would be political victory in elections.

I also suspect that there are serious design flaws in the government that we have now. Not when it was created, but more in what it has evolved to become. It is too powerful. I think the great political tragedy of this country is that the issue of states rights got tangled up with the issue of slavery. Slavery was a great evil that needed to be banished, but we threw out the baby with the bath water when we created an all powerful federal government. Now it is too powerful and it does not seem to matter who is running it. It is an oppressor. We may be able to reform it, but if not, it may be our duty to tear it down, not preserve it. I do not mean by violence, but rather by intentional legal action. Decentralization might be a good idea. The world might be a better place with 50 little countries rather that one United States of America. But it is hard to say for sure.

It may just be because I am from Texas and a lot of us around here miss being our own country.

 

[Anonymous]

Sure Chris, go ahead and brag about being a Texan! If the country goes to pot all of a suddden, how do you folks feel about foreigners from Arizona immigrating to your country?

I have a concern that we are watering down our spiritual message by our secular efforts.

I agree. All the discussion about the "wall of separation between church and state" being detrimental to our country, may be in error. I believe it would be more effective for us to bombard heaven on our knees than to march on the White House carrying signs. If the believers in America would get serious about our message and our walk with God, voting our conscience, we would have a major impact without having to make it a religious issue.