The old saw that there are no athiests in foxholes has gone the way of the dodo. Partly this is because our society has changed from the simple days before the rise of the baby boomers. But now the P/C, multicultural offense seeking crowd are doing all they can to make sure no one will accidentally get exposed to any kindness, if it is generated by Christian values. This is not only wrong-headed, it is cruel because it robs people of the comfort that a belief in Jesus gives. He may not be the only path to God (I believe He is), but Mikey and his ilk are doing Wormwood’s work for him.

The last thing we frikkin’ need is a nice video to be played around the world that shows the Pentagon full of Christian generals and admirals giving the impression that they are only living to do the Lord’s Work in taking back the Holy Land from the Saracens. Let’s just fulfill every little stereotype that Osama and every other terrorist scumbag has been peddling since Day 1. It’s actually a pity that they don’t mention the Holy Land (well, maybe they do later on but I could only watch the first half before it annoyed me so much that I shut it off) so that a Protocols of the Elders of Zion reference couldn’t be worked in somehow; hell, that would have been the perfect Christmas gift for Osamalamadingdong; barring that the general saying “I serve God first, then my family and then my country” should now become the Poster Boy for the moonbats to fulfill all their prejudices about the US military.

And just for the record I am a Presbyterian, and a fairly active one; the last religious post here inspired this.

You haven’t seen him try to dance…

Can’t resist doing the superior dance, can ya, Church Lady Crusader?

Heh, you pick and choose what you wish to believe, by your own admission. So in effect, you view religion as your personal buffet. Am I somehow wrong, or missing something? Nice adult response, by the way.

No, what I said was that preaching doesn’t have to be part of that. This is where your Christian religion and my Christian religion differ. I don’t think your religion is wrong any more than I think it is right…people are different, and different people need different things in a religion. I’m content to just believe what I believe without telling other people what to believe.

Yikes….hope you enjoy your buffet religion.

And before you claim that Phelps is not representative of the majority of Christians (with which, incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree) note that just like we complain about ‘moderate Muslims’ no major Christian religious leader has officially denounced him.

No?

That would come as a surprise to the president and chaplains of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Or the Presbyterian Layman, for that matter.

These 15 Des Moines area pastors would disagree too.

Not to mention that, should you harbor an understandable and righteous wish to insert Phred Phelps and his Inbred Phucktards’ placards in anatomically incorrect places, you’d have to be patient and stand in line behind quite a few of us “wahhabi” Christians.

History has proven that religeous texts are rewritten to suit their times. Martin Luthors Schism, the King James version of the Bible, All the different subsets of Christianity all prove that.

You are exceptionally mistaken on the above statement. I take it you’ve never heard that the Dead Sea Scrolls vindicated the translation of the Old Testament portion of the King James Bible. Had you referenced any of the recent, popular “feel-good” versions of the Bible, I’d agree with you. Those things are NOT translations, but paraphrasings utilizing contemporary philology.

Wyrd on December 12, 2006 at 2:30 PM

And kudos to you, after listening to Robert Spencer interview with Michelle, it is even more obvious that they have a better chance of changing the direction than I could imagine. It appears that many of their doctrine is detemined, not by scripture, but by analysis and commentary.

The texts of the bible are pretty well established now after a couple of thousand of years, what does change is commentary. Luther did not change any bible text, he brought it to the masses, from latin to german, than made his 95 thesis about the Catholic Church. His “schism”, Hu’s and Bonhoffers commentaries, etc. are exactly that, commentaries, not their to replace the word of God. Luther made that quite clear. That he was subject to wrongful divining of God’s word. That the bible is the “sole rule of faith”.

But you are one who made the sweeping statement that I believe that a person’s religion is a matter that should remain between that person, his family, and God, and it’s nobody else’s business. Now you are saying that preaching is part of that?

No, what I said was that preaching doesn’t have to be part of that. This is where your Christian religion and my Christian religion differ. I don’t think your religion is wrong any more than I think it is right…people are different, and different people need different things in a religion. I’m content to just believe what I believe without telling other people what to believe.

The insinuation from another poster about ‘being uncomfortable with their faith’ is just holier-than-thou BS. If someone pokes your arm enough times, you get annoyed. This doesn’t mean you’re uncomfortable with your skin…it means some jerk is making your skin uncomfortable.

Right2bright,
I am afraid you are probaly correct about that.
The scenerio I see as being most likely is that their will be a world encompassing confligaration between Western values and Islam. When the dust settles and the West wins (I am biased, I root for USA all the way) then the survivors of Islam will moderate their viewpoints.
History has proven that religeous texts are rewritten to suit their times. Martin Luthors Schism, the King James version of the Bible, All the different subsets of Christianity all prove that.
This is a war of ideas though. It is not about land or treasure. It is about a rigid, demanding and unrelenting theology crushing out the theologies of all free men.

back on Topic though,
Freelancer, you did the right thing. You gave a troubled man some information and good advice. What he found in that book (and cell) enabled him to turn his life around and become a good man who seems to be proud of himself.

Spreading the word is not more important than living by the word. Jesus taught about a lot of things, not just about preaching. Otherwise there’d be nothing to preach about.

Did I ever said it was? But you are one who made the sweeping statement that I believe that a person’s religion is a matter that should remain between that person, his family, and God, and it’s nobody else’s business. Now you are saying that preaching is part of that? How? Look, St. Francis of Assisi said:

Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.

which i think is what you are getting at, and I agree, to a point. But if that point is that you just keep it to yourself and never say a word , and just think that people will see it in your life, that is a where we diverge.
Look, both sides need to take a chill pill on the spread of their beliefs, as both have become abrasive. I meet just as many annoying evangilical athiests as I do Christians, so there is plenty of blame to go around. But if both sides would be a bit less hyper-sensative, the world would be a better place. But I’m not holding my breath.

Freelancer on December 12, 2006 at 2:03 PM

That is why there can be no seperation between man and his religion.
How fortunate for him, and maybe more fortunate for you.

morganfrost,

On the supposition that your portrayal of the event involving your cousin is accurate, he was harassed and had cause to report it. If a superior officer tells a person of one faith that their religious choice is a “problem”, they have crossed the line.

It’s a very delicate matter to be in uniform and speak to subordinates about matters of faith, but it can be done. First, you don’t call someone into an office and directly challenge their faith/lack of faith. Absolute no-no. When a “door” is opened between two people, the subject can be raised. Very often that requires waiting for the other person to speak first.

One exception I can think of was a young man who got drunk and arrested in a foreign port. He’s already been in trouble with the command, so was facing fairly severe treatment. He had been married for two years and had an infant son. The command was loathe to take food away from his family by fining his pay, so he was awarded four three-day periods of confinement on bread and water (not consecutive days).

I visited him, and found that the only book allowed him in the brig was a Bible. We spoke about his welfare and state of mind briefly, then I told him that what was happening was the best possible thing for him. He needed to grow up, had already shown that human authority had no hold on him, was likely to end up leaving on a dishonorable discharge, so it was time that he looked to God to understand what he needed to do. I told him to drink all the water they’d let him have, if only to fake his stomach into thinking it was less empty (but also to flush his system of the alcohol), and read as much of the New Testament as he could manage in his three days.

When I retired nine years later, he took leave and worked out military flights to come cross country and attend. He had turned himself into a career serviceman, a good husband and father, and a Christian. I take no credit for his change, he and God did it. But what if I had taken the PC route and refused to speak?

Wyrd on December 12, 2006 at 12:09 PM

Islam cannot outgrow their religion. They, by decree, must prevail. War is an option, bloodshed is an option, death to infidels is an option, death to apostates is mandatory. Chritianity, with all of its historical faults, have none of these tenents writtin into their texts. The past 400 years in America have proven that, with effort, many religions can survive, and thrive, under a Judeo-Christian dominated society. No such state exists, nor can it exist, under Islamic law. Unless they rewrite their religious books, and denounce Mohammad’s teaching, they must prevail.

But all the bickering is starting to sound like grade school (my god can beat up your god).

Wyrd, great post, and many great points. The above was my favorite. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that your post was read; still the bickering continues.

James, if you say you are a Christian, but don’t follow his teachings

Spreading the word is not more important than living by the word. Jesus taught about a lot of things, not just about preaching. Otherwise there’d be nothing to preach about.

In case you missed it in nearly every post of mine in this thread, I am a Christian. But I believe that a person’s religion is a matter that should remain between that person, his family, and God, and it’s nobody else’s business. I don’t think it’s appropriate to proselytize at all, and it’s doubly offensive when it’s done in an official capacity.

James, if you say you are a Christian, but don’t follow his teachings:

Now Phelps is a loon, no doubt, but to place him in the same magnitude as the islamo-loons is a bit hyperbolic, no? I see your point, but try to keep things in perspctive, please.

I think our founding fathers would be ashamed of the persecution of our military for this. It may not be appropriate in some people’s eyes but persecution for one’s religious beliefs was anathema to those who came here for religious freedom.

That’s all well and good, Rose, until one person’s religion, or what they see as their religious duty to convert the masses, comes into conflict with another person’s right to have their own religion without it being trampled upon. In this particular case, the right to attempt to entice others to a religion is less important than the right of the other to hold their own religious beliefs without having to fear negative career consequences. Nobody’s persecuting evangelists…they just don’t want to be persecuted by them.

Evangelists tend to be a lot like liberals when this topic comes up. It’s always my rights this, my rights that…there’s never any consideration of anyone else’s rights or the responsibilities that go along with the use of those rights.

To those who say I should get a thicker skin…well, is it your aim to be taken seriously or is it your aim to be blown off? Aren’t you happy that I’m taking you at your word that you’re really honestly trying to convert people? This pushback is just what comes with the territory…you stirred the poop, now you have to lick the spoon.

As for the ‘grassy knoll’ comment, do you not perhaps think because the allegation is about high-ranking officers who tend to be in charge of a lot of stuff, that the approval to film the spot might be just a little bit suspect? OK, I’m willing to entertain the notion that the legal/PA offices weren’t co-conspirators per se. However, maybe they felt pressured by the evangelist Generals to sign off on it or else their careers would be in jeopardy. I know I’ve had to knuckle under to that kind of pressure before.