Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Ground Zero Mosque Should Not Be Built


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Excuse me but I was here before this thread started... Do not believe the story in Dearborn?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=169577

Would you like proof of my past as a muslim.. I could provide you with many of pics. Why would I lie about it? So because you can't debate the points I make you turn it into a personal attack?

As to our constitution... It does provide freedom of religion as long as your religion doesn't cause harm to others... Hmmm a whole religion that teaches to hate and kill us I guess isn't harmful.

BTW, prayer in school... oddly though.. muslims are allowed to leave in the middle of class to go to office and pray...but christians can't... hmmmm...

And there is something that can be done about it... God can put roadblocks in their way and I pray God does.

I will not continue to debate with someone who resorts to personal attacks which is how you opened your post. I have been nothing but honest.


If you are indeed a former muslim I'll apologize for questioning your conversion. I will not, however, apologize for having my suspicions raised. They are more than justified considering the facts.

Were you taught to hate and kill when you were a Muslim. And if so, please pm the name and location of the Mosque and Iman that taught you to do so. I can forward the information to people who can address these issues. Never the less, the fact of the matter is that Islam can be practiced without its adherents killing or otherwise harming anyone, the OBviousness of which is manifested in the reallity that not every Muslim kills or harms anyone. We don't ban (or whatever it is your suggesting we do) an entire religion just because certain fragments of its members fail to abide by our laws. If we are prepared to do away with entire religions because their members' beliefs may escalate to violence, then I think it is best if we do away with all religions.

With regards to prayer in public schools, it is an entirely different situation to allow Muslim children to leave class for their prayer time (which is required, as I understand it, by Islam) than to allow a Christian child to use the classroom as a platform to spread the gospel. If Christianity required its adherents to pray five times a day by devoutly kneeling, then our schools would be required to make adequate provisions. However, it doesn't require that and, in fact, requires the opposite. You are trying to compare apples to oranges and, of course, its just not going to add up.

And you'll have to forgive me, but these little "articles" you guys keep posting about the Dearborn, MI issue are frankly just not credible. It is OBvious that they are put out by organizations with an OBvious bias with the intent of conveying a message with little regard to the facts and the law. The case that resulted from the Dearborn, MI issue is styled George Saigh v. City of Dearborn, 2010 WL 2382447 (E.D. Mich. 2010). If you bother to read the court's decision (it's only 28 pages and offers a good explanation of our law with regards to free speech), you will notice a few things these little articles leave out. First and foremost, the Christian "victims" were in fact breaking the law. They did not have the permits to be distributing information or selling merchandise which were required of anyone desiring to participate in the festival. Second, they were arrested for disturbing the peace, not for what they were saying. Telling enough, the video imbeded in your link only shows the events after the arrests were made. Did you not wonder why it didn't show their actions which led to the arrest? That didn't even make you question their credibility? Saying they were arrested for sharing the gospel with muslims is akin to me wearing a blue shirt to a gay pride rally, causing a disturbance and then after being arrested, claiming that I was arrested for wearing a blue shirt. The Court correctly points out that our right to free speech doesn't equate to "a right communicate one's view at all times and places in any manner desired." Just as with the children who bring these "school prayer" cases, it is OBvious that these peoples' intent was to cause a controversy, and when they succeeded in doing so, the local authorities rightly enforced the law. Edited by ptwild
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Administrators

For some reason I find many of your assertions hard to believe. Maybe it's because you only have 25 post and you just so happened to magically appear here with your "conversion" story at the same time that this issue became a topic. Additionally, it is absolutely not true that a Christian cannot hand out a "tract" in Dearborn, MI, or anywhere else for that matter, yet a Muslim can.


Please find out information from posters before you start making accusations about them. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

OBviously nothing put forth here will turn some professing Christians away from defending and supporting a false religion which sends millions to hell and prevents millions from hearing the Gospel. The same false religion which is persecuting Christians around the world up to and including murder and mass murder.

Scripture says Christians are to stand against ungodliness, to expose the evil of false religions, to oppose such, to promote the Kingdom of God.

By what some professing Christians have contended here, Elijah should have accepted the religion of Baal. After all, the government sanctioned them and many of their followers were "good people". Of course if we read the Word of God we learn that's not how God sees it and that's not how true men (and women) of God respond to such.

We can't stand for Christ and wickedness at the same time. Will we choose to serve God or the ungodly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

OBviously nothing put forth here will turn some professing Christians away from defending and supporting a false religion which sends millions to hell and prevents millions from hearing the Gospel. The same false religion which is persecuting Christians around the world up to and including murder and mass murder.

Scripture says Christians are to stand against ungodliness, to expose the evil of false religions, to oppose such, to promote the Kingdom of God.

By what some professing Christians have contended here, Elijah should have accepted the religion of Baal. After all, the government sanctioned them and many of their followers were "good people". Of course if we read the Word of God we learn that's not how God sees it and that's not how true men (and women) of God respond to such.

We can't stand for Christ and wickedness at the same time. Will we choose to serve God or the ungodly?



John, with all due respect, you are totally missing the point. I am not supporting Islam. It is a "false religion" and its adherents need to be exposed to the gospel should they have any hope for salvation. But that's not what we are talking about. It has been suggested here that we use our civil government to control those who believe differently than we do. That we take away their rights and treat them differently than we ourselves expect to be treated. These are two totally different things.

I don't think it is clear what some of the folks around here are suggesting we do with Muslims, but it appears they want to either ban the practice of their religion, or expell them from the country altogether. That is what I am against. I don't believe you or me or anyone else has the right to do that. This is a free country where I am glad I can worship who I want when and how I want. If I don't want that right taken from me, I shouldn't expect to be able to take it from someone else.

And if we are willing to go down that road here in the U.S., that is, to remove all "false religions" then we better be ready for the creation of a Chruch State, where there is one body that defines exactly what is and is not a "false religion" and we better be ready for the consequences of such.

The comparison with Elijah and Baal is totally inapplicable. Elijah did not have to circuMVent a free republic which he enjoyed the privileges of in order to oppose Baal in the manner in which he did.

What you are talking about is launching your own "jihad" (possibly nonviolent, but I don't see these ideas going over without a fight) against any and all non Christian faiths, as defined by your own personal beliefs and opinions. I'm sorry, but I just don't want that. In fact, that is exactly what I am scared of and I think it is what our founding fathers were scared of when they drafted the first amendment.

We as Chrsitans can "stand up against" Islam without having to manipulate the basic freedoms afforded to us by our government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John, with all due respect, you are totally missing the point. I am not supporting Islam. It is a "false religion" and its adherents need to be exposed to the gospel should they have any hope for salvation. But that's not what we are talking about. It has been suggested here that we use our civil government to control those who believe differently than we do. That we take away their rights and treat them differently than we ourselves expect to be treated. These are two totally different things.

I don't think it is clear what some of the folks around here are suggesting we do with Muslims, but it appears they want to either ban the practice of their religion, or expell them from the country altogether. That is what I am against. I don't believe you or me or anyone else has the right to do that. This is a free country where I am glad I can worship who I want when and how I want. If I don't want that right taken from me, I shouldn't expect to be able to take it from someone else.

And if we are willing to go down that road here in the U.S., that is, to remove all "false religions" then we better be ready for the creation of a Chruch State, where there is one body that defines exactly what is and is not a "false religion" and we better be ready for the consequences of such.

The comparison with Elijah and Baal is totally inapplicable. Elijah did not have to circuMVent a free republic which he enjoyed the privileges of in order to oppose Baal in the manner in which he did.

What you are talking about is launching your own "jihad" (possibly nonviolent, but I don't see these ideas going over without a fight) against any and all non Christian faiths, as defined by your own personal beliefs and opinions. I'm sorry, but I just don't want that. In fact, that is exactly what I am scared of and I think it is what our founding fathers were scared of when they drafted the first amendment.

We as Chrsitans can "stand up against" Islam without having to manipulate the basic freedoms afforded to us by our government.


What is the supreme law for Christians, the Constitution or the Bible?

Elijah did goe against the government in order to confront the false religion of Baal. Baal worship was the preferred religion, protected by the king and queen. Elijah stood against them and he continually denounced the king and queen for their support of Baal.

Christians are to be the salt and light, Christians are to occupy until Christ returns. If Christians can shine the light upon government so that it does right, if Christians can season others to do right, then that's a good thing. In fact, this country was founded with such in mind.

Beyond any of that, it's a sin for Christians to support the false religion of Islam which literally leads millions to hell (has already led millions there previously), actively works against the proclaiming of the Gospel, and is persecuting even to the point of killing Christians around the world. The Bible is clear on this and attempting to wrap oneself in the Constitution, rationalism, or anything else doesn't change this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is the supreme law for Christians, the Constitution or the Bible?

Elijah did goe against the government in order to confront the false religion of Baal. Baal worship was the preferred religion, protected by the king and queen. Elijah stood against them and he continually denounced the king and queen for their support of Baal.

Christians are to be the salt and light, Christians are to occupy until Christ returns. If Christians can shine the light upon government so that it does right, if Christians can season others to do right, then that's a good thing. In fact, this country was founded with such in mind.

Beyond any of that, it's a sin for Christians to support the false religion of Islam which literally leads millions to hell (has already led millions there previously), actively works against the proclaiming of the Gospel, and is persecuting even to the point of killing Christians around the world. The Bible is clear on this and attempting to wrap oneself in the Constitution, rationalism, or anything else doesn't change this.


Fair enough. Then please state definitively what it is you are suggesting we do with/to the Muslims in our country.

As to the comparison to Elijah and his opposition to Baal, no one is suggesting you can't oppose Islam and that you can't criticize your government. However, Elijah did not use the government against Baal. Edited by ptwild
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Fair enough. Then please state definitively what it is you are suggesting we do with/to the Muslims in our country.

As to the comparison to Elijah and his opposition to Baal, no one is suggesting you can't oppose Islam and that you can't criticize your government. However, Elijah did not use the government against Baal.


Elijah, as well as other prophets, did attempt to get the government to do right with regards to Baal and other false religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Elijah, as well as other prophets, did attempt to get the government to do right with regards to Baal and other false religions.


What did they try to get the government to do?

What are you suggesting that we do the Muslims in this country?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

pt - that apology was not an apology at all. "If you indeed are...then I'll..." is a very political style apology. For shame.

And, although you intended it as sarcasm, I will take your "very cute" toward my usage of politico-religious as a compliment. :icon_mrgreen: It is an apt description of the islamic system.

You claim to fear those who would take away your rights, and yet you support the idea of an oligarchy, which is absolutely not Constitutional - but that's okay, you only use the Constitution when you want to. All other times it's a weak document, right? (that is what you've said in the past...)

And do not assume that I am advocating removing all muslims from the US. I am not. I do, however, believe that during this time of war, all non-citizen muslims should be sent home - visas revoked and everything. I don't apologize for that either, and I don't care it it insults anyone, either.

I also believe that, since islam is not just a religion, mosques, imams and acolytes are fair game for investigation (and don't pull the "what if a terrorist put $5 in your church's offering plate..." Churches are monitored closer than you might think - and that's all I can say about that). This system is using the rights granted to US citizens to undermine and destroy our country. I know you don't get it - even if you realize islam is a false religion, you OBviously don't understand the depths to which they've gone, and the lengths they've reached in this country. Pity. But BECAUSE it is also political in nature, islam does not qualify for first amendment protection. There have been American citizens who have become muslim, been influenced by imams in mosques in America and have gone overseas to train to join the jihad against America. Recruiting terrorists right on our own soil...NOT protected under any part of the Constitution.

As to the "articles" posted - you OBviously didn't view that video. Yep, they were the ones it happened to, but it's kinda OBvious what happened. It's not the first time, either. And they aren't the first group. You can go on believing that islam is a peaceful religion (even as supposedly practiced here in the US) all you want. You're fooling yourself. But that's your choice.

I'm done here. I don't want to continue arguing. I've set forth my thoughts on the matter, and am perfectly assured that they are neither unBiblical nor unConstitutional. America is in trouble, and part of it is coming from people who do not recognize islam for what it is and for what its goals are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

pt - that apology was not an apology at all. "If you indeed are...then I'll..." is a very political style apology. For shame.

And, although you intended it as sarcasm, I will take your "very cute" toward my usage of politico-religious as a compliment. :icon_mrgreen: It is an apt description of the islamic system.

You claim to fear those who would take away your rights, and yet you support the idea of an oligarchy, which is absolutely not Constitutional - but that's okay, you only use the Constitution when you want to. All other times it's a weak document, right? (that is what you've said in the past...)

And do not assume that I am advocating removing all muslims from the US. I am not. I do, however, believe that during this time of war, all non-citizen muslims should be sent home - visas revoked and everything. I don't apologize for that either, and I don't care it it insults anyone, either.

I also believe that, since islam is not just a religion, mosques, imams and acolytes are fair game for investigation (and don't pull the "what if a terrorist put $5 in your church's offering plate..." Churches are monitored closer than you might think - and that's all I can say about that). This system is using the rights granted to US citizens to undermine and destroy our country. I know you don't get it - even if you realize islam is a false religion, you OBviously don't understand the depths to which they've gone, and the lengths they've reached in this country. Pity. But BECAUSE it is also political in nature, islam does not qualify for first amendment protection. There have been American citizens who have become muslim, been influenced by imams in mosques in America and have gone overseas to train to join the jihad against America. Recruiting terrorists right on our own soil...NOT protected under any part of the Constitution.

As to the "articles" posted - you OBviously didn't view that video. Yep, they were the ones it happened to, but it's kinda OBvious what happened. It's not the first time, either. And they aren't the first group. You can go on believing that islam is a peaceful religion (even as supposedly practiced here in the US) all you want. You're fooling yourself. But that's your choice.

I'm done here. I don't want to continue arguing. I've set forth my thoughts on the matter, and am perfectly assured that they are neither unBiblical nor unConstitutional. America is in trouble, and part of it is coming from people who do not recognize islam for what it is and for what its goals are.


You've been done here. And I did watch the video, that's how I know it doesn't bother to show what they were arrested for. Luckily for the rest of us, i.e. U.S. citizens, your interpretation of our constitution and understanding of our rights is irrelevant. You are right about one thing, I do believe that the oligarchy we have been operating under since day one in this country is the proper way of doing things. People must be kept in check less their own devices take control. Most humans are very dangerous creatures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

You've been done here. And I did watch the video, that's how I know it doesn't bother to show what they were arrested for. Luckily for the rest of us, i.e. U.S. citizens, your interpretation of our constitution and understanding of our rights is irrelevant. You are right about one thing, I do believe that the oligarchy we have been operating under since day one in this country is the proper way of doing things. People must be kept in check less their own devices take control. Most humans are very dangerous creatures.

Okay - I read this just out of curiosity, without intent to comment, because I don't want to continue. But, pt, you've gone too far. I've "been done here?" I cannot imagine but that your comment was intended as an insult, as you can be uber insulting at times, since you believe that you are so far above others intellectually.

Lucky for me your opinions are irrelevant as well.

A Republic is not an oligarchy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Okay - I read this just out of curiosity, without intent to comment, because I don't want to continue. But, pt, you've gone too far. I've "been done here?" I cannot imagine but that your comment was intended as an insult, as you can be uber insulting at times, since you believe that you are so far above others intellectually.

Lucky for me your opinions are irrelevant as well.

A Republic is not an oligarchy.


Your opinion on this topic insults itself. And pointing out the rule of law is nothing more than bringing attention to facts, which has nothing to do with an assertion of intelligence. Me knowing something that you don't does not mean I am more intelligent than you nor does it mean I claim or believe I am more intelligent. That is merely how you perceive it.

A republic doesn't have to be an oligarchy, but I believe the Ivy League educated sons and daughters of wealth and privilege that rule this country would agree that in America's case, it most certainly is. And rightfully so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Your opinion on this topic insults itself. And pointing out the rule of law is nothing more than bringing attention to facts, which has nothing to do with an assertion of intelligence. Me knowing something that you don't does not mean I am more intelligent than you nor does it mean I claim or believe I am more intelligent. That is merely how you perceive it.

A republic doesn't have to be an oligarchy, but I believe the Ivy League educated sons and daughters of wealth and privilege that rule this country would agree that in America's case, it most certainly is. And rightfully so.

People are entitled to opinions, whether you like them or not. And you can assume whatever you want that insults whatever: that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, right or wrong.

You HAVE claimed to be more intelligent and more learned in the past, pt. It isn't just how I perceive it - it is how you've described it.

THIS Republic was not founded as an oligarchy; it was founded on a government of, by and for those peons you seem to despise. WE the PEOPLE, not we the Ivy League educated. WE the PEOPLE are to rule, not a select few snOBs. Regardless of the opinions of those "sons and daughters."

I am locking this topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...