Florida Pastor May Reconsider Cancellation of Quran Burning

[blind2d]

Faith has no meaning if it isn't called into question now and again. It's never bad to become shaky in your faith, that is just a test. My semi-Christian upbringing is surfacing here, but you know... the problem isn't what you believe, it's how you interact with people who believe something different from you. Me, I'm accepting of any faith out there, as long as it doesn't involve killing people to get a better spiritual connection. That just doesn't seem right to me.

[SymphonicX]

Faith has no meaning if it isn't called into question now and again. It's never bad to become shaky in your faith, that is just a test. My semi-Christian upbringing is surfacing here, but you know... the problem isn't what you believe, it's how you interact with people who believe something different from you. Me, I'm accepting of any faith out there, as long as it doesn't involve killing people to get a better spiritual connection. That just doesn't seem right to me. very true, peaceful practise of religion is a human right. It gets hairy when you look at bizarre tribal customs such as cannibalism etc...but there you go maybe that's another debate. I agree wholeheartedly though.

[darth los]

very true, peaceful practise of religion is a human right. That's good in theory but in practice, throughout recorded history, exactly the opposite is true. Although most civilized nations don't behead you for not practicing the ssanctioned religion of that state, they still want to force you to live the way they do. For example, The insistence of christians and the candidates they back to actually force others not to have abortions and for gays not to be able to legally marry, all based on their religious morality. If your not homosexual you have every right in the world not to marry someone of the same gender. If you're against abortions you also have every right not to have one. But why is it that they insist on infringing on the constitutional rights of others simply because they don't agree with it? Many religious folk don't seem to know where the line is drwn between their business and yours. Between pesonal decisions and things they should be getting involved in.

[SymphonicX]

But why is it that they insist on infringing on the constitutional rights of others simply because they don't agree with it? That's not peaceful practise in my opinion - live and let live falls under peaceful practise - but to actually outwardly try to impose your views on others is just one step below violence, it's certainly not peaceful just because violence may not be involved at that stage.... that kind of behaviour is deliberately rocking other peoples boats - I believe in peaceful debate and peaceful discussion but it ends there, the moment people start protesting abortionists by blocking their entrance to a clinic is the moment it becomes non-peaceful. Debate is healthy though and when it has a religious context that's OK - as long as it starts and ends with debate and ultimately decisions aren't won out based purely on superstition. When a majority agree, a motion can be carried, but ultimately debating peacefully is fine but IMPOSING views on others with your hands over your eyes and ears isn't peaceful, it's passive aggressive nastyness, ignorance etc..

[JDFP]

But why is it that they insist on infringing on the constitutional rights of others simply because they don't agree with it? You're forgetting a fundamental difference here, Los. All indivudals have the inalienable right to life. Murder is wrong and is recognized by the law. Abortions are murder because they are killing unborn children (From my perspective and the perspective of millions of Americans throughout the country) -- thus, it is a constituional infringement on the life of unborn children by murdering them. Any law that attempts to protect murder is thus unconstitutional and should be attempted to be fought against on every level. It's not a "white/black" discussion, Los, because the playing field is not level. It comes down to a fundamental value of either seeing abortion or murder or not murder. Those who see it as murder consider it as being "pro-life" as protecting the life from being destroyed as opposed to "pro-choice" people who see an attack on women to have reproductive rights over their bodies to do as with as they wish with their fetus. There is no common ground in this discussion -- as you're not starting with the same foundation with the argument at all. Pro-'choice' indivudals never seem to understand that the issue with those of us who are pro-life isn't an attack on anyone -- rather it is an attempt to save human lives from being murdered. Your definition and my definition of what constitues life may vary -- but to us it is a life in our defininition of it and, thus, is murder we are attempting to stop. No, I don't agree with murdering unborn children -- so I don't really give a damn if it is a "legal right" for abortion or not as it's a null and void law by the nature of something greater than the State (the sanctity of life) -- I'm going to be vocal in my anger towards it because of my definition of what constitutes life. I don't think the State has the right to condemn any human to death (whether unborn or not). My biggest beef with some pro-life individuals is the issue with capital punishment. It seems many of the people who claim to be pro-life are pro-life until the person is born and then are perfectly fine with capital punishment. Whereas, I see this as sheer hypocracy. Being pro-life shouldn't stop at birth but should be a commitment to protect life in all facets from the will-power of the State (whether through abortion or capital punishment -- of course, these are only my personal ruminations and I don't attempt to speak for others). j.p.

[darth los]

Pro-'choice' indivudals never seem to understand that the issue with those of us who are pro-life isn't an attack on anyone. j.p. Tell that to Dr. George Tiller But again you are trying to impose what you believe on everyone else. Trying to impose one's indvidual beliefs on whats immoral and what's not on others is not what this country is about yet that's what the pro life movement is about. I don't believe it's murder and as you so eloquently stated there are millions of other like minded individuals like me. So we both have miilions of people fervently on each side of the issue so where do we go from there? The Supreme court has already decided this issue and despite the political talking points from the right that's never going to be overturned. Sort of like Social Security. So we are left with that it's a fundemental right for a woman to decide that for herself. During the civil rights movement, again, there were milions upon millions of Americans who were fervently against giving blacks and minorities equal rights. However, it is the law of the land and they had to comply even if it was under national gaurd supervsion. Now if one doesn't like the law, change it, don't blow clinics up. But this is a seperate issue from gay marriage. There no one is being hurt or killed and it affects only the 2 individuals forming the union yet oppossision to that is through the roof as well. Any insight into what's the excuse there? I'm sorry i couldn't write more in answering you're well thought out post. I'm at work and there's just no time. Just summed up my thoughts.

[Publius]

Do I lack proof of this, or am I basing this on wild assumptions? Of course I have proof! I am myself part of humanity, and I know many others that are. If there are more like me out there, who simply want to live in peace and harmony with other people and just have a kick-ass time at it, then that's proof enough for me to base my faith on. Does that make it true? No. But at least I have proof to back up my faith. Proof? How do you know that you and the many others that you know are more representative of humanity as a whole than thousands of years of history of wars, murder, oppression, etc.? It may be true (and hopefully is), but still sounds like a leap of faith to me. Personally, I'm more inclined to the position of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in Federalist #34): "To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." I've felt for a long time that any being that could remotely qualify as "God" is so vast and alien that any attempt to quantify that "God wants this, God hates that" is only vanity on the part of Man. You're right, it would not be possible for man to reach up and decide to know God. It's certainly possible to imagine an unknowable God who has no interest in a relationship with mankind. There's little a priori reason to believe that just because there is a God, he wants a relationship with mankind or has certain expectations of mankind, except perhaps you could infer a little bit of that from the fact that man has the capacity to reason. But for the most part, God would have to choose to reach down and make himself known to us. It's not possible for humans to figure out the nature of God on their own, God would have to reveal himself to us. So there's little point in believing specific claims about the nature of God or what he wants us to do unless you also accept that those claims are contained in a message that comes from God (e.g., via some kind of scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah, whatever). But again you are trying to impose what you believe on everyone else. Right, just like we impose on the beliefs of others by outlawing slavery (despite the fact that millions believed that slavery was right and was justified by the supposed inherent inferiority of blacks) and setting an age of consent for sexual activity (despite the fact that some, like NAMBLA, believe that pederasty is a noble and time-honored relationship and that it is their right to enter into such a relationship). Or take capital punishment, as JDFP mentioned. You can either have it, and violate the beliefs of millions who hold it to be wrong to execute a murderer, or you can not have it, and violate the beliefs of millions who hold it to be wrong to never execute a murderer. My point: It's not possible to make a broad categorical distinction between law and morality. The two merge all the time. You have to take each issue on its own merits, and there will always be some whose view of morality wins out, and others whose view of morality loses.

[darth los]

Right, just like we impose on the beliefs of others by outlawing slavery (despite the fact that millions believed that slavery was right and was justified by the supposed inherent inferiority of blacks) and setting an age of consent for sexual activity (despite the fact that some, like NAMBLA, believe that pederasty is a noble and time-honored relationship and that it is their right to enter into such a relationship). Or take capital punishment, as JDFP mentioned. You can either have it, and violate the beliefs of millions who hold it to be wrong to execute a murderer, or you can not have it, and violate the beliefs of millions who hold it to be wrong to never execute a murderer. My point: It's not possible to make a broad categorical distinction between law and morality. The two merge all the time. You have to take each issue on its own merits, and there will always be some whose view of morality wins out, and others whose view of morality loses. You really want to play the slavery card? That's akin to playing the hitler card. It's a lazy argument. Not to mention a bad example. Are you saying that Forcing millions to stop the slavery and genocide of blacks was a bad thing? In that instance we were stopping one group of people who enjoy all the rights and priviledges of the constitution from not only denying them to another group of people in the U.S. but treat them worse than animals. "Pro lifers" want to tell a woman what to do with her body which is none of their business. In the more extreme viewpoints you have 5 Tea party candidates running for the U.S. Senate who are not only against abortion but they also would not allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest. You heard that right, they want the federal gov't to force women and girls to carry their rapists and reltive babies to term. Now which is the more extreme viewpoint again? Notice the difference? Personal decision that's no ones business vs. actions that are brutally oppressing an entire race. And pedophelia? Again, you have a group of people forcing (if you are underage you cannot legally give consent to sex, thus statutory rape) themselves on another group of people. You have some doing things that psysically and tangibly affects the live of others. Conversely, as in the gay marriage and abortion debates those choices aren't affecting anyone but the individuals making those choices. It's an apples and oranges argument you guys are making. It's funny how the party of little gov't who don't want the feds interfering in there lives have no problem with the feds intervening in personal family decisions when it adheres to their beliefs.

[Publius]

You really want to play the slavery card? That's akin to playing the hitler card. It's a lazy argument. Not so fast, grasshopper. You must learn to refute the argument before you can ridicule it! Not to mention a bad example. Are you saying that Forcing millions to stop the slavery and genocide of blacks was a bad thing? Certainly not! Lest we forget, I am on the pro-legislating-morality side of this analogy. In that instance we were stopping one group of people who enjoy all the rights and priviledges of the constitution from not only denying them to another group of people in the U.S. but treat them worse than animals. Worse than animals? Treating them as though they were, say, nothing more than a clump of cells or lump of tissue? "Pro lifers" want to tell a woman what to do with her body which is none of their business. Whether it is any of their business is precisely the question to be answered. You are assuming your conclusion. In the more extreme viewpoints you have 5 Tea party candidates running for the U.S. Senate who are not only against abortion but they also would not allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest. You heard that right, they want the federal gov't to force women and girls to carry their rapists and reltive babies to term. Now which is the more extreme viewpoint again? It depends on your perspective. One might argue that if a horrible crime results in two victims, it is unjust to allow one victim to punish the other rather than punishing the perpetrator of the offense. Notice the difference? Personal decision that's no ones business vs. actions that are brutally oppressing an entire race. Notice the difference? Practical infanticide and a perversion that defiles the most fundamental of human relationships (that between mother and child) vs. private property matters that are no one's business. Again, you have a group of people forcing (if you are underage you cannot legally give consent to sex, thus statutory rape) themselves on another group of people. Who's more underage (and incapable of giving consent to a waiver of their rights) than an unborn child? You have some doing things that psysically and tangibly affects the live of others. What more physically and tangibly affects the life of another than killing them? Conversely, as in the gay marriage and abortion debates those choices aren't affecting anyone but the individuals making those choices. If you ignore the effect on the one being aborted. Again, you are assuming your conclusions rather than reasoning to them. It's funny how the party of little gov't who don't want the feds interfering in there lives have no problem with the feds intervening in personal family decisions when it adheres to their beliefs. It's not so funny how the party that defended slavery now defends the claimed right to treat another class of persons as property. Again, my point is that you can't draw a bright line between law and morality without undermining the arguments that led to the end of slavery, and similarly undermining the basis of many other well-established laws. The abolitionist movement was a moral crusade, no two ways about it.

[EvilNed]

Proof? How do you know that you and the many others that you know are more representative of humanity as a whole than thousands of years of history of wars, murder, oppression, etc.? It may be true (and hopefully is), but still sounds like a leap of faith to me. Personally, I'm more inclined to the position of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in Federalist #34): Yeeaaah... That was exactly what it was. A leap of faith. Which I make quite clear (at least I thought I did)...

[JDFP]

"Pro lifers" want to tell a woman what to do with her body which is none of their business.l I'm going to have to argue with you on this (c'mon face it, Los, we feed like tribbles off of arguing with each other -- even if we equally respect each other because I certainly respect your well presented opinions as I hope you feel the same towards mine). This goes back to the foundation of the argument. People who see abortion as Pro-'choice' would come back to a Pro-life individual with this argument. But, it's invalid, to a pro-life person. Because those of us who believe that life begins before birth see it as a life don't fall into this attempt of pro-'choice' rationalization at all. And I'll attempt to explain my drunk ass rambling as to why. A woman's right to choose is to choose whether she wants to work or not. A woman's right to choose is whether or not she wants to be subjected to traditional interpretations of marriage or not. A woman's right to choose is to decide how she lives her life in so much that it doesn't impact the lives and inalienable rights of others. None of these choices impact another human's life except for the individual woman's life. That's fine. I agree with that. Every individual should choose how to live their life so far as it doesn't trample on the inalienable rights of another person. The difference is when how someone lives their life impacts another person's life. Taking a human life and destroying that life by murder and classifying it as "choice" is not a choice at all. It's impacting another life. I agree that we should live our lives as we choose to live our lives -- but when it infringes on the life of another individual (namely a baby who has no say so in the matter) then it's not a "choice" to the individual who is impacted by the decision. Stating that abortion is a "woman's right to choose" (to a pro-life individual like me) is like arguing that a sniper should not be stopped in his/her activity because they are constitutionally expressing their freedom of expression by only shooting at certain people. Stating that a woman has a right to murder her unborn child is like stating that it's okay to kill certain people in society because they are "undesirables". Taking the life of another person, for whatever motive or purpose, is not a "choice" -- it's killing. Murder is never right. No matter how you attempt to rationalize it -- it's still taking the life of another person. It's not about telling a woman what to do with her body. It's about protecting the body of the individual in her who has no "choice" in the matter at all. How does that baby feel about being killed before experiencing life outside of his/her mother's womb? What 'choice' in the matter did that person have at all? This is where we go back to the fundamental argument about what defines "life" -- those who define life as only being (a la Heidegger) after born see it as a "choice" to destroy a fetus or not. Those of us who consider life as something more sacred than leaving a mother's womb see it as something else. Like I've argued before, it's a fundamental difference of opinion and perspective -- and this is why the issue of "abortion" is so intense -- one side sees it as "infringing on a woman's right to choose" while the other side sees it as "murdering a human being who has no choice in the matter at all". My main point is -- pro-'choice' individuals arguments cannot work against pro-life individuals anymore than the arguments of pro-life people can impact on pro-'choice' individuals because of the fundamental distinction of how we define life. j.p.

[slickwilly13]

Men arrested over Quan burning. http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...rning/19645884

[AcesandEights]

Against the law, eh?

[MoonSylver]

***WE INTERRUPT THIS THREAD FOR AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT...Since no one has used the Marquee tags or the following smiley yet, allow me...***...WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED DEBATE, ALREADY IN PROGRESS***