Security and political correctness

[SillyAmerican]

The bombings in Brussels have brought the following responses:

Laura Ingraham, Editor-In-Chief of Lifezette -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Van Hipp, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any chance that Clinton and Sanders will state that the attack in Brussels was caused by radical Islamic terrorists? If not, are they simply perpetuating the problem?

And why can't we put entry/exit fingerprinting in place? Do we enjoy the process of gathering recommendations after a national tragedy, only to then go about ignoring them? These are common sense items. Remember that the biggest improvement to the safety of the flying public was realized by putting locks on the cabin doors of the airplanes!

[SillyAmerican]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have thorough vetting of people we let into this country while remaining respectful to immigrants for who they are?

Yes, that would be ideal. And there are several straight-forward things that can be done if we're willing, the fingerprinting being a good one.

But I really wonder why the reluctance on the part of Democrats to call out radical Islamic terrorists. Do they think they might hurt the feelings of non-radical, mainstream Muslims? The act of not identifying it as what it is seems to only be leading to further problems.

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

Sorry, but I disagree. "Political correctness" is rampant in the U.S.

Here's a list of 20 pretty clear examples of what we're referring to:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/20-outrageous-examples-that-show-how-political-correctness-is-taking-over-america

[SillyAmerican]

What's the difference between Democrats condemning terrorism while not emphasizing the attackers religion, versus Republicans condemning terrorism while emphasizing it? Is one response more correct than the other? No, not really. It's terrorism, everybody is working hard to deal with it. There's no responsibility or necessity on our part to put religion on a pedestal in the debate.

The motives of the terrorists are of  course up for discussion, and while the terrorists say publicly that their motivations are religious, I think it would actually be the wiser thing to do to take a step back and understand that the religious motivations they espouse are in fact proxies and façades for their real motives, which are of political nature. Arab Muslims didn't wake up one day, read a couple words in the Quran and decide to kill infidels. The religious texts didn't make them #triggered or set their metaphorical fuses off. Religion is used by them as an outlet for their terrorist activity; it's not the source of the terrorism.

The difference is simple. If you believe that the terrorists are justifying their activities by way of their religion, then we have to take a serious look at Islamic doctrine and begin the discussion there, at the root of the problem. If that is your view, it's very frustrating to have your government leaders and the political correctness police telling you that these activities have nothing to do with Islam, that the PC folks know better than to believe the terrorists when they say that their motivations are religious, that the source of these activities is something other than the religion which happens to be the common denominator at the center of all these events. Condemning terrorism is all well and good, but addressing the underlying problem will take a bit more honest discussion than Democrats are willing to have.

[SillyAmerican]

Not and be accurate:

"1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do. "

There are several passages in the Bible about stoning people.  

Yes, the most important of which is John 8:7, the New International translation of which reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are human; all sin and fall short of the glory of God. That's the Christian view; the Jihadists seem to believe otherwise.

I'd be interested to know if Adam can provide a passage in the Gospels which condones such things.

[SillyAmerican]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

Sorry, but I disagree. "Political correctness" is rampant in the U.S.

Here's a list of 20 pretty clear examples of what we're referring to:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/20-outrageous-examples-that-show-how-political-correctness-is-taking-over-america

Looking at your link confirms my belief how I feel about political correctness and it's a case-by-case basis for me.

Sometimes PC is needed. Other times it's too ridiculous. I look at this link and I see examples of both.

True enough.

I didn't mean to imply that I agree with all of the items in the PC list, only that anyone who says "there's no such thing as political correctness" needs to check with reality. The worst kind of political correctness is that imposed by those who deny that PC is being imposed.

[SillyAmerican]

1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do. 

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-10.htm
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deut%2017.2%E2%80%935
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-stoning.html
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/why-so-much-war-in-the-old-testament/

Do you know how violent this is? And before you say something stupid like "Old Testament doesn't count", please, save your breath.

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ Jesus, who is the Jewish Messiah who the prophets of the Old Testament speak of. The teachings of Christianity are documented in the New Testament, which forms the basis for the New Covenant. Before you say something stupid like "Old Testament supersedes New Testament", please save your breath.

[SillyAmerican]

Furthermore, and this is important, if there are some outdated and simply bad parts of your religious documents that you choose to ignore, or feel no longer fit the real world, then why can't the same be applied to the Islam? Why can you rule out stoning people, but somehow all Muslims are locked into believing in Jihad simply because the Qur'an says it? Why do you get a pass and they don't?

An Islamic reformation is exactly what's needed. The protestations of Luther against the wayward teachings of the Catholic church were justified. A Muslim needs to take a stand against wayward teachings within their faith.

A couple of good articles about this topic:
http://www.newsweek.com/we-need-muslim-reformation-316906
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reformation-for-islam-1426859626

I am glad to see we are in agreement here.

[SillyAmerican]

Not and be accurate:

"1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do. "

There are several passages in the Bible about stoning people.  

Yes, the most important of which is John 8:7, the New International translation of which reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are human; all sin and fall short of the glory of God. That's the Christian view; the Jihadists seem to believe otherwise.

I'd be interested to know if Adam can provide a passage in the Gospels which condones such things.

Not one, and not by myself, but from this site, there are several passages cited.

<several passages cited about when a person should be stoned according to the Old Testament>

Note: There is an interesting story in John 8 about a woman caught in adultery. It is often used to show that Jesus was opposed to stoning. Unfortunately, Jesus doesn't clearly say that he is, and the story may not belong in the Bible anyway, since it is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html

I don't know you, but I'm mostly into religion into the way that I'm into most things: in an academic sense, and I knew of several of these passages.  So, my guess is is that you are like a lot of Christians and that your knowledge of the Bible is limited to a handful or slightly more passages of The Bible and that you've never actually read the entire Bible.

As a Jew myself, I've never read the New Testament, but I have read roughly the first half of the Old Testament several times.

So, I don't know what the Quran says, but I think it would have to be an awful lot worse than this to be all the different from the Bible in terms of telling its followers to kill other people.

Like you, I am a student of the Word, and don't profess any expertise in this regard, but enjoy reading the commentary of those who do.

In the Hebrew Bible, as you note, under the law are given many cases in which stoning is prescribed. However, it is important to understand the supersession of the Old Covenant (including traditional Jewish law, or halakha) by the New Covenant and Christian theology. (See the Law and Gospel entry of wikipedia for more on this).

Matthew Flannagan of the Christian Research Institute writes an interesting article on this subject in which he offers two important points:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do know that the New Testament deals much more with God's grace than with the law, per se. Hopefully, this is helpful.

[SillyAmerican]

That is one interpretation of the Bible's old and new Testaments that many Christians follow.  However, other Christians do not agree with that and believe that all of the teachings in the Old Testament are meant to apply to Christians.  

That is the exact same with Islam and the Quran. There are  some Muslims who believe that the preachings in the Quran calling for Jihad mean that they are supposed to fight a war against 'the Infidels' and there are many Muslims who do not agree with that.

Yet, you seem to want your interpretation of the Bible to be taken as the version that all Christians believe at the same time as you deny the vast majority of Muslims who say that the cult of ISIL does not reflect their understanding of the Quran.

You asked for Biblical passages that condoned stoning, and I not only showed you passages that condoned that practice but called for it.  Now your defense seems to be "we Christians don't believe those passages!"  

If you plan to keep moving the goalposts please let me know so that I can ignore you.

Of course I realize that while there are a small number of extremists who believe they are Muslims who are carrying out acts of terror on innocent populations there are no people who claim to be Christians who are doing the same thing (at least not that I'm aware of.  The lunatics in Oregon did claim to be Christians but they never actually ended up killing anybody.)

However, I don't think this necessarily proves anything other than the nature of asymmetrical warfare.  Christians in Western Nations in Europe and North America are basically on top and in control of much of the world, so there is no need for any demented group that claims to be inspired by Christian teachings to engage in terrorism.  That the lunatic Ted Cruz gets a fair amount of support for his call for 'targeted carpet bombings' (editorial note: uh what?)  to destroy ISIL shows to me that his followers supporters are little to no better than ISIL.

Sorry that you feel I'm "moving the goalposts". I asked for indications of calls to violence from within the Christian scriptures, which is to say, the New Testament. You are correct in pointing out that a few Christians believe that the teachings of the law within the Old Testament are meant to apply to Christians as well, but I think you'll find the vast majority of Christians believing that the main commandment of Jesus is that we remain in the love of God, and that only by doing so will we be able to love God and our neighbors properly.

And yes, I agree with you, true Christianity is quite difficult when faced with those who are willing to kill and destroy in the name of their understanding of what God desires. How should a Christian respond to this? Mathew 5:43-45 says:

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous..."

As I say, not the easiest of approaches to take, but it's right there for folks to consider.

And to Christians everywhere, Good Friday brings the promise of an excellent Sunday...

[SillyAmerican]

I should probably let this goal on Good Friday, but given the number of Christians who speak out against homosexuality using Old Testament Scripture (especially from Leviticus) I'm not sure that the vast majority of Christians could tell whether a passage in the Bible came from the Old Testament or the New Testament, and, more importantly, I'm far from convinced that the 'vast majority' of Christians only follow the teachings of the New Testament.

If you want to me to believe that, then please show me that the vast majority of Christians actually have no problem with homosexuality.  As I wrote above, I haven't read the New Testament but my understanding is that the only passages in the New Testament that are anti homosexual are quotes from Paul.  Now, Paul, while he was an Apostle, was just a man, and I don't believe Christians are supposed to regard as divinely inspired the words of any human, even an Apostle.

There may be one or two other passages in the New Testament that can possibly be interpreted as speaking out against homosexual acts, but there is also the quote from Jesus to "love thy neighbor as thyself."  

So, again, if Christians aren't supposed to follow the Old Testament, then where does all this hatred from Christians against homosexuals come from, and why do all these Christians quote the Old Testament book Leviticus as justification for their hatred?

You can use the word 'dislike' if you don't like my term 'hate/hatred.'

My understanding of the issue of Christianity and homosexual acts is as described in this paper. Basically, "the Biblical and Christian view of homosexuality is that it is wrong, but God’s grace -- just like it did for us -- offers freedom from sin to all people." Christians don't "hate" sinners; all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

That said, you are absolutely right, there are an awful lot of "Christians" who are willing to pick up a stone and throw it, thinking themselves better than their neighbor. Is this in keeping with the teachings of Christ? I don't think so.

Matthew 7:2-4:
"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?"

This Easter weekend, hear the echo of these words:  Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!