For most of us religious liberty in America is an abstract matter that allows us to declaim profusely and vigorously in matters that never touch us personally. We can talk and blog about it without leaving our comfortable pastorates. We can preach about it from our secure pulpits without risking anything save boring our congregation to death.
Not so for our Southern Baptist pastor colleague and SBC Voices contributor, Bart Barber.
Seems that some controversy has unfolded in his fair town of Farmersville, Texas about a proposal to build a mosque, Muslim cemetery, and Islamic training center. The proper approvals have been given by planning authorities but final municipal approval is still pending. In the period following planning approval residents have been stirred up to oppose it.
Muslim cemetery: Residents want it dead is the cleverly titled article in the local newspaper.
Bart, pastor of the First Baptist church in the town, blogs plainly if not succinctly that residents who oppose it, including presumably some in his own congregation, are dead wrong:
Why I will not…Under ANY Circumstances…Lobby against the Construction of Mosques in Farmersville
Barber is right, of course, and the others are wrong. Here are a couple of paragraphs from his blog article:
Tell me, please, how do you expect us to argue at the national level with a straight face that we believe in religious liberty for all people while at the local level we’re running the Moslems out of town on a rail? I’m spending all week this week studying and collaborating with the top lawyers in the United States in the field of religious liberty. We’re trying to figure out how to preserve for our children and grandchildren the freedom to follow Christ. Meanwhile, back home, Christians are going to City Hall seeking to become religious oppressors.
and
I tell you, my friends, whatever the city government does against an Islamic training center today, they’ll be doing it against Bible-believing, Bible-preaching churches in twenty years. Mark my words. And if you tell the City of Farmersville today that you want them to have and to exercise this sort of power, your objections on that day are going to ring pretty hollow.
As for me, I think the First Amendment is a pretty good thing. I’m in favor of Religious Liberty for all Americans. That means anywhere I can build a church, the Moslems can build a mosque. Anywhere I can put a Baptist campground (which is pretty much a Christian training center, and we have one on Lake Lavon already), Moslems can build an Islamic training center.
The pastor of another church in town, self-identified as a “conservative Southern Baptist” church, is vehemently opposed to the proposal. The Farmersville Times reporting,
Pastor David Meeks of Bethlehem Baptist Church also spoke and expressed his strong opposition to the cemetery.
“The Islamic faith bases their beliefs on the Koran. I have a copy in English right here and I just want to take a moment in my allotted time and read from it,” he said. “O ye who believe, take not Jews or Christians as friends. They are friends one to another.”
Meeks went on to say that in the Koran more than 100 times, there are references to murder, killing and even rape.
“Our history is full of Islamic problems,” Meeks said about Muslims in America. “They’re at war with us.”
A Koran quoting Baptist pastor? Let us pray about that. The brother is an alarmist who is unfamiliar with our Bill of Rights. Perhaps he should expand his reading beyond the Koran.
I appreciate, greatly, the defense of religious freedom offered by Bart Barber. I also appreciate that some more timid and less convictional Southern Baptist pastors would find a way to finesse this as a local issue because there could be a personal cost in taking such a strong position.
God bless Bart Barber for standing up in a concrete way on an issue that most of us will encounter only in the abstract.
Russ Moore just preached in Bart’s church last Sunday. I am sure that he and Bart have had conversations about this. Bart, as the local church pastor, is handling this beautifully. I, for one, am glad that Bart is taking the lead on this instead of the ERLC directly addressing this right at this moment. But, I have no doubt where the ERLC stands and since Bart writes for them regulary, I think that we can see his position as their’s.
Not sure why you want Russ Moore to comment on everything, especially since he has commented on this type of thing in the past. If you asked him, I have no doubt that he would say, “What Bart Barber said.”
The locus of Southern Baptist life is still the local church. Bart is demonstrating that right now. In this situation, it is FAR more important what Bart, as pastor of FBC Farmersville, has to say than it is what Russ Moore says.
Perhaps you can know my state of mind and express my desires for me (“not sure why you want Russ Moore to comment on everything”)…but probably not. Moore has a sufficient staff of media savvy people to easily address any religious liberty issue of this level. He or his office should do so.
William, obviously I cannot know your mind. I was trying to respond to what you said. If “everything” is too all-inclusive, as it is by definition, then I apologize. Sincerely not trying to put words in your mouth.
Was the section of your post on Moore and the ERLC removed? Or, am I mistakenly remembering it being there. In light of your post as it now reads, my comment makes no sense. I am fine with you revising (if that is what happened). It that is what you did, I give you or Dave permission to remove my comment above since it makes no sense now.
And, if it isn’t completely clear, I agree with Bart on this completely and have told him so.
I likely agree with Bart that they should be allowed to build the mosque, but without knowing the details, I cannot say for certain. I do, however, disagree with the points he makes in his post. While each of them could be true, they are not necessarily true. It really depends on why an individual Christian opposes building the mosque. It really may not have anything to do with fear or a lack of confidence in the gospel. While I have seen islamophobes, I have also seen those who blindly accept Islam as just another religion (not accusing Bart of doing that here). While religious liberty is important to this discussion, it is not the only consideration.
Bart is unequivocal and clear that he is not a supporter of Islam in any way. But if we oppose religious freedom for Muslims in America, we are limiting it for ourselves as well.
If we use the power of government to control the religious freedoms of Muslims, that power exists to control us as we become less popular.
We want to be unqualified supporters of religious freedom – even of religions we oppose. We win them to Christ, we do not limit them through governmental stricture.
Dave Miller,
Respectfully, I’m thinking phrase you used above “we want to be unqualified supporters of religious freedom” might need some tweaking.
You cannot EVER think of a time when the opposition to “Islamic religious training” on US soil should be opposed/stopped by the govt.?
We ought NEVER be opposed to Islamic RELIGIOUS training on American soil.
If they are using their Islamic training as a front for radicalization or terror, then by all means, let our government deal with that. But the religious training HAS to be free.
IISIS/ISIL identifies what they do as “religious training”…as does the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban and Al Queda.
Jihadists are radicalized in Mosques. Their Mosques are connected to their “Holy war” against all who do not believe as they do.
I truly assume Bart did his homework here – He always does – but Mosques connected to terror groups (like the Muslim Brotherhood, and its front groups) are in the business of radicalization of Americans.
If this a mosque that is not connected with jihad in any way then, if I lived in that community, I would join Bart – but lets be honest here – call it Islamaphobia if you must – Islam is not always just another religion, and Mosques are not always simply places of worship.
I do not think it is NECESSARILY anti religious liberty, or Islamaphobic to ask (even demand) that my government ensure that this is a worship center and not a recruitment center for jihadisits. I do not see it as inherently an attack on Liberty to ask those questions when it relates to a religion in which large swaths of them are looking to establish a caliphate, destroy America, have actually declared war on the United States and have demonstrated plans to radicalize Americans to carry out attacks because they are easier to “hide”.
Yes, philosophically we should not oppose religious training centers (I have spoken against that too, as I stated earlier) – but I think there is also ample evidence that these are not just always religious training centers – I am just not sure we should use words like never and unequivocal and unqualified when talking these issues.
Again, I am sure Bart knows what he is talking about with this planned Muslim center and cemetery. I am willing to give him deference on the matter – he is there – but I am not sure I am willing to say that I would NEVER oppose a, “Islamic training center”.
You usually do better than this.
“ISIS/ISIL…ample evidence…not just always…”
We have laws. Are you arguing for some prior approval process for Islamic facilities?
I don’t know, William. Maybe.
I realize the unintended consequences of such (the same standards being used against Christian training centers) but at the same time – There has been an holy war declared against our nation and our people by MUSLIMS. There has been radicalization in American Mosques.
I admit, I do not know what the answer is – but I still resist words like never, and unequivocal when talking about opposing Islamic centers.
Bart used an example about at Baptist Camp saying that it too is a training center. I understand the connection he is making and the religious liberty point is asserting…but it is a bit of a false equivalency – I am assuming there are no little baptist boys and girls being trained there as to how and why to kill people who aren’t Baptists – I am sure that the marriage retreats or church staff retreats that probably take place there do not feature that learning track either.
I can appreciate your concern for religious liberty in my home town, the city in which I was born. My mothers family came to this area in 1820, and today I have 7 grandchildren 5 of which attend the public schools here
To say never should we oppose religious training centers is saying far too much for me in light of the devious and divisive practices of islam both in America and throughout the world. In my opinion they fail to qualify as a legitimate religion and I am surprised that others have not stated this case. I believe it is a demonic and satanic inspired pseudoreligious political ideaology and has been since its inception. Must I wait for the federal government to make such a declaration. Have I broken a law in petitioning my local government or violated scriptural principals in sounding a warning. Again this goes beyond the religious liberty issue in my opinion.
Islam is using our freedoms along with the watchwords of tolerance, diversity, and political correction to expand its influence. It seems that we have the Neville Chamberlin disease or lets never offend anyone syndrome.
Islam is not a legitimate religion in my perspective. I respect differing viewpoints but as yet I will continue my lawful opposition.
To those concern with my educational process, I have expanded my reading materials beyond the Koran. Sometimes I read the Bible. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them. I have read the bill of rights but I am not astute as a politician but I am aware of the Danbury Baptist and their religious concerns that they shared with Thomas Jefferson. But the nature of this evil has transcended the principal of religious liberty for me. This islamic problem has reached the so-called game changing status.
I will try to love my enemies but I cannot be silent. My chidren, grandchildren, require my providing for my own which must include their protection from real, not simply perceived, threats. I can do no other.
And in America, we have put the burden on the government to prove ill-will and criminal intent. A group of Muslims has a constitutional right to gather and worship. We cannot assume that they are gathering for criminal intent (though we could keep our eyes open).
Agreed philosophically.
I wish all this were a neat little box – but I am not sure it is when it comes to war- which is, whether we or our nations leaders want to admit it or not, exactly what is going on. America is at war with Islamic Jihadists. Both “over there” and at home!
Notice I did not say we are at war with Islam or all Muslims – I said we are war with Islamic Jihad. I think that fact impact the neat little box we are trying to put this in.
Isn’t reasonable to ask our govt. when they considering approving such under current zoning laws, that they are not putting us in “bed with the enemy”?
One of the downsides of American freedom. They are two separate issues. People’s freedoms can only be limited if they give the government a reason to do so.
Only those who commit crimes or do something else dangerous should be restricted from gun ownership (though many try).
If my parents are both drug addicts and criminals, am I likely to be one? Perhaps. But I’m not incarcerated until the gov’t can PROVE that I committed a crime.
Does a Muslim in America have the right to buy land and build a mosque to worship Allah? Yes. It is a constitutional right.
The government ought not restrict that right unless it has evidence of radicalization or support of terror. We cannot restrict constitutional rights because of suspicions, insinuations or such.
If we play that game when we have cultural power we’d better die fighting the culture wars! We’d better not become what I think we already are – a cultural minority in America. If we are, then the majority (post-Christian secularists) can use the same tactics against us.
Jesus said something about, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” We’d better treat the Muslim minority exactly the way we want the secular majority to treat us!
Dave Miller,
“Does a Muslim in America have the right to buy land and build a mosque to worship Allah? Yes. It is a constitutional right.
The government ought not restrict that right unless it has evidence of radicalization or support of terror. We cannot restrict constitutional rights because of suspicions, insinuations or such. ”
We are saying the same thing. We are in agreement here.
I am assuming that the govt. had checked them out and there are no evidences of connection to terror or radicalization – If I pastored 3rd Baptist Church in Famersville – I might even ask the local officials if they had. If they assure me, as best they reasonably can, that the Muslim center posses no known threat to the community – I would stand beside Bart and Adam and support their religious liberty.
But, seeing as how it is an established tactic of our national enemy to radicalize in America for attacks – if no effort was made to determine if there is a threat, or if the clerics were radicals – I might oppose it. Such is separate issue from religious liberty.
By the way, Tarheel, you seem to be saying that all “jihad” is terrorism. While the word can mean that and “conversion at the point of a sword,” it can also mean the Muslim equivalent of Christian evangelism. Consequently, if you ask ANY Muslim if he/she believes in jihad, they will answer in the affirmative–but that affirmative answer does not mean they support terrorist activities or any sort of violence.
BTW, back when I was a police officer, if someone asked me or anyone up to the chief if such-and-such a group was above board, you would not get an unequivocal answer. The most you could expect was some qualification like “to the best of our knowledge” or “based on what we currently know.” I doubt that has changed now. And I am not sure what I think about a religious group having to be investigated before religious freedom can be extended toward them–but I don’t think I like it.
Kudos to Dr. Bart.
John
The most you could expect was some qualification like “to the best of our knowledge” or “based on what we currently know.””
That would be enough for me so long as they actually tried to discern the answer. This is why I said “reasonably assure”. I understand they cannot be unequivocal – but I think it reasonable for them to be asked by citizenry given the situations we are facing with a worldwide Jihad, and I think it reasonable for those tasked with protecting the public to check it out.
Such actually goes to my point about why it might not be a good idea to state that we as Christians should never be against “Muslim training centers” under and circumstances – I think one can reasonably and with good reason envision a scenario where it would be completely honorable to be so.
Tarheel, your thinking is mixed up on this.
Government can always come up with a good reason to deny some group religious liberty. Always.
We are not at war with Islam and are not in any declared war with anyone. But I thank you for not arguing that American is a Christian nation; therefore, Christians are to have religious freedom, others maybe so, maybe not.
I clearly said that we are not at war with Islam – but we are at war with Islamic jihadists. They have clearly declared war on us – have they not?
Tarheel, you still have not interacted with the implied assertion that jihad = terrorism. I understand the word actually means “holy effort.” As such, it can mean evangelism (listen to “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus) OR it can mean war. Your comments suggest it is always the later when in fact it is not.
John
To use a Dave Miller tactic, I do not wish to parse words – its very clear what I mean by Jihad in the context of my remarks.
I am guessing you might prefer – “Islamic Radical” – however one could argue that using that word as is the tactic of apologists for Islamic terrorists has a double meaning as well – one that seeks to minimize the connection and unifying cause that all these terrorists have – Islam.
maybe I will just rephrase…
“we are at war with violent, murderous terrorists who are unified under the cause of Islam.”
That better?
Nice way to side-step the issue.
John
Good points Adam – it would be very important to know the reasons Christians are objecting before we label them as necessarily acting in “islamaphobia”.
Fair enough, Adam. Would you mind providing some legitimate reasons? Neighbors complained of increased traffic and soil erosion, legitimate, typical zoning stuff. The Koran-quoting pastor has some in print (read the links). Do you find these acceptable?
As I said, William, I would probably line up with Bart in saying Christians should not oppose the building of the mosque were I pastoring Farmersville Second Baptist. I don’t know the situation, and cannot give reasons why I might oppose the mosque. If the mosque is the equivalent of the local Kingdom Hall in my town (as far as deception is concerned), I would not oppose it. I would want to win those people by the power of the gospel rather than rely upon coercion.
Adam: Sure you know the situation, it’s written in the OP above!
Good thoughts Bart and I agree with all of it. In America we have freedoms that include freedom of religion and it should be for all religions. Glad you are leading the way on this.
My dear brother, there was a time when I might have said that islam is worthy of first amendment rights, but not today. I opposethe mosque and training center in Farmersville Texas because of the nature of this demonic ideaology.
I oppose them as a citizen believing that is a right and a duty to do so. Islam is not just a religious system but a political worldview that has immigration, terror, and killing as tools of expansion. I would not oppose a Hindu or Buddhist temple. But I will oppse a murderous cult that its very basis of truth glorifies the subjugation of innocent people. On a daily basis lslam calls for the death of americans and jews. How does Oklahoma City feel about their mosque today. Fort Hood Texas or Boston has experienced some not so peaceful Muslims.
Just this past april while holding revival services in a church near Bonham Texas, Chris Litteral the young pastor had a muslim man arrive at his home to purchase goats. The man bought a goat and then attempted to convert Chris to islam. Finally the pastor said Jesus is my saviour and the only way to heaven. The muslim became angry and while beating on his stearing wheel shouted repeatedly allah is great and we will conquer america.
Franklin Graham has said numerous times Islam is a religion of death. Gov. Scot Walker just yesterday said our greatest threat in America is radical islam. Did anyone in Boston know those two brothers were radical islamist before the act of terror?
If pastors will not defend their cities from this scourge and do all they can legally do to stop its deadly spread who will? I feel I am a watchman on the wall warning of coming judgement but the precursor to the greater judgment could be this vile false religious system.
Allow me to comment on presuppositions in other posts. Bro Bart inferred that we had no faith in the power of the gospel. Someone else said had we invited muslims to our fish fry. If a muslim lives with a 15 minute circle of our church we have knocked on his door. Every Tuesday 10 to 15 men visit for 1 to 2 hours mostly knocking on doors. We baptised two Sunday that were visited by these men and two others joined by letter who were also visited by these men.
Everyone here believes that Islam is a false religion. Everyone. That is not the issue.
The issue is whether the government should get into the business of deciding who gets religious freedom. If these people in Farmersville are demonstrably radicalized and are organizing for the purpose of supporting terrorism, then your point is well taken.
However, just because radical Islam is a worldwide threat does not give you the right to paint the Muslims of Farmersville, TX, as radicals. The government is not allowed to generalize as you did.
There was a frequent commenter on here, a woman who was constantly trying to paint all of us as Baptists with the “Westboro” brush. She was sneaky about it, but that was her game. I am a Baptist, but I am not Westboro.
And if the government said, “See, Baptists are dangerous, look at Westboro. We need to refuse the rights of all Baptists to build their buildings,” you’d be hopping mad.
You can make wild generalizations as you did in your comment. The government cannot – not if it respects religious freedom.
A man has the right to try to convert you to Islam just as you have the right to share the gospel with him. If he threatens violence, call the cops. But unless someone proves that this particular group is radicalized, criminal, or terroristic, they are constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion.
And it is foolish for you or anyone else to oppose their freedom. When we get the government in the business of restricting religious freedom, we will generally regret it in the future.
Dave Miller,
” If these people in Farmersville are demonstrably radicalized and are organizing for the purpose of supporting terrorism, then your point is well taken.”
Point well taken? I thought you said that we should unequivocally NEVER oppose Islamic training centers on US soil?
Glad to see you are softening that position.
As I have said before – Mosques are not just worship centers, and Islam is not just another religion. I think caution here is reasonable and justified, and opposition is not NECESSARILY anti first amendment or a strike against of religious liberty.
I believe in religious liberty, but I also think it is naive to think that those who have sworn to kill us will not use our passion for that to further their goals.
Also, the Westboro analogy is a faulty one as they are not only not recognized as being part of Baptist (even Christian) life – they are repudiated regularly by all of us who have integrity.
I understand the Liberty concerns (as a conservative – I am solidly in favor of religious liberties). and I already admitted that I do not know the right answer to this issue – I trust that Bart is comfortable with his stance, and I respect it completely – but I do still resist the absolutist position that is being taken by you and others here – that we should never, under any circumstances oppose the starting of a “religious” training centers” in our community.
Dave, I basically agree with what you said in your analogy with Westboro. I’d be interested to hear what you would say to someone that says this is a “false” analogy?
Whereas I agree with you that “Westboro” is an aberration of everything taught in the Bible, I do not think it is the same to say that “radical Islamists” are an aberration of everything taught in the Koran.
This is a difficult point to make, but an important one I think.
I believe the one posting is painting with a broad brush, but he may have the right color paint. There seems to be a subtle difference when painting Islam because of the militant nature of their faith, their Book, and their founder.
It has been my experience, with several Middle Eastern friends and associates over the years, that there is a great deal of difficulty in Muslims distancing themselves from radical Islamists. They certainly do not agree or like the brutality, but they are not sure exactly how to deny a connection with those who are acting out exactly what they read in their Book.
Again, I think your point in regard to the other brother’s post is well taken and I agree in large part, if not the whole. I just struggle with the construction of “two Islams.” I don’t think it is going to work out that way in the end.
Thank you for your kindness. I am sure that you are passionately convinced that there is never a threat that endangers my family or neighbors. I am not that convinced. Will there ever be, in your opinion, a situation where government must label a pseudoreligious entity a danger to society. And as in romans 13, judge the evil and protect the good.
Can you guarantee to me that Farmersville will not become a smaller version of London, with entire areas under islamic domination. Is that not the case with London or is this more islamophobic wild generalizations. You keep waving the flag of religious liberty and have not given your opinion, is islam a legitimate religion worthy of first amendment protection.
Along with that question does the Koran teach that a good muslim should become a radical
You avoided my point with the young preacher and the islamic cleric. Radicalism is within a few miles of my home for this koranic study group is meeting near Bonham Texas. It is not wise in my opinion to choose to be blind to this threat.
The foolish man on the street, is concerned with your wisdom. He has observed hinduism and Buddhism and has not seen or heard the threats to their families like he has seen and heard concerning islam. Just some good common sense for them will suffice.
I am fearful that you will not disqualify islam because you might be fearful of the repercussions that will follow. Your war for religious freedom supersedes the sword of government defending the good. Your analysis of islam has not reached the critical level. For me it has.
Suffer me in my foolishment.
I took some flak from some of my own church members years ago when I posted some similar thoughts on Facebook about the proposed Muslim training center in NYC.
Philosophically and constitutionally I think we must argue for all religious liberty else we lose it.
As far as gospel power – I agree with Bart on that too. It’s a mighty weak gospel and God, who can’t further thier message if there’s “competing religions” around.
However, lest anyone think that Christians (whether Bart Barber as pastor of the church or Russ Moore as leader of the ethics and religious liberty commission) are gaining any love or favors from those who wish us harm – jihadist Muslims, American progressive politicians and lobbyists, etc…I think they had probably better think again.
Yeah, that seems kinda like a back-handed tweak at Dr. Moore. The ERLC staff have spoken loudly in support of Bart and his stance. No question on this one.
I asked Bart to repost his post here, and he might do that later. He’s been traveling.
Bart’s post is worth a read. It is especially good considering the fact that public sentiment in Farmersville was most likely not on his side, at least not universally.
Christians who use government to stop Muslims from building a mosque are limiiting religious freedom, just like the government officials in Oregon are doing to a Christian business.
We need to be about the support of religious freedom, not about using the government to enforce our views.
Did I miss where they “have spoken loudly in support of Bart…”? Didn’t see it. If so, I’ll fix the tweak.
You seemed to be taking a backhanded shot at Dr. Moore, as if he were dropping the ball on this or owed a statement he hadn’t made.
Was that NOT your intent?
You bet. Insofar as BB’s piece is the best in an active context I have seen from SBCers, it is a distraction to get into what RM should or shouldn’t say. I detweaked it.
I would think that this example, two SBC pastors with strongly differing views, would provide a splendid occasion for ERLC to highlight the correct religious liberty view.
…leave that for another day.
That’s good.
I was SO impressed with Bart’s stand.
“A Koran quoting Baptist pastor? Let us pray about that. The brother is an Islamophobe alarmist who is unfamiliar with our Bill of Rights. Perhaps he should expand his reading beyond the Koran.”
I think that the conservative pastor stepped out too far.
Rather he should use the threat he sees to raise the alarm for the church, not only his own, but, at least, for all those in the surrounding communities.
False religions appeal to fallen man. And many feel that any religion makes them okay with God.
We as the church need to make the distinction very clear : there is no path to God outside of the Lordship of Jesus.
Wake up Mr. Conservative Pastor, and wake up your church. If you haven’t noticed, there is a war happening all around us.
I am not sure you are addressing the issue that Bart is addressing.
No one disagrees that Islam is a false religion. The question is whether we should seek to use the force of government to prevent them from building a mosque.
If in a majority Christian area the force of government can be used to prevent the spread of Islam, why do we complain when in a MINORITY Christian area (like Oregon) do we complain when the government sanctions Christians?
Is it okay for the majority to use its power against the minority? Does a small group of Muslims have religious freedom?
That is the issue.
Dave,
Do you think I am asking the pastor to wake up to fight Muslim mosque building? He is already, in a sense, awake and speaking against that.
The battle isn’t against Muslims. Its for them.
It isn’t waged at the ballot box or in the places of power.
The Muslims wanting to build a mosque pales in comparison to the huge temples built all around us [and from what I hear, mores in Texas] that worship athletes and movie stars.
There is nothing wrong with religious freedom, and I would vote for it and desire it to be applied to all.
But what if, and I mean IF since I know not the future or how things would play out, what if the church persecuted and limited by secular forces actually grew and grew stronger than it does [or did] in times of a freedom and a peace granted to it by those same secular powers?
What if such persecution separated true believers from nominal ones and purified the body? Would that [persecution, loss of religious freedom] be a bad thing?
Nothing against those who are called and/or led [like Bart] to do as he is doing for God uses many ways to accomplish His ends, but I think religious freedom here in the USA will sooner than later be modified and the only-ness we witness to will be considered by the world as not only ill advised but possibly hate speech.
I have no doubt that in the future, our freedoms as Christians (and as Americans) will continue to be limited. The secular and the left have always leaned toward totalitarianism and the imposition of powerful governmental control. Left-ism and freedom do not coexist very well.
But if we are going to do anything as Americans in the political realm, it ought to be to protect freedom and to promote it, not to use whatever power we might have to bully a minority.
If we use our power to bully a minority, we cannot complain when we are a minority and are bullied by the majority.
Dave,
“If we use our power to bully a minority, we cannot complain when we are a minority and are bullied by the majority.”
Wake up Dave!
We are the minority. Yes, we should, as called, seek to protect religious freedom for all, but we are already being ‘bullied’ by the majority.
Our bullying days are over. Many ‘Christian’ churches and denominations are no longer Christian but in name only. They did not stand for truth when there wasn’t tough opposition and they certainly will not stand for truth in today’s and tomorrow’s battles.
The sooner we realize that we don’t need rights from the earthly powers [though we will use them if available] the sooner we realize that God alone is our portion and thus throw ourselves completely upon Him and then what lights we will be in the darkness!
Bart’s point (I think) is that if we believe in the power of the gospel, we don’t need the government to do our work for us. We just need to seek the freedom to do our work without interference.
Dave,
“We just need to seek the freedom to do our work without interference.”
That is not a NEED. Maybe it is a hindrance? I don’t know. But maybe we have lived so easy [I know I have] here in the USA that it has become easy to assume that we are a Christian nation that needs to send missionaries to the ends of the earth [a good thing] instead of seeing USA as it really is: more pagan than godly.
Maybe the loss of worldly given rights will open our eyes to the reality of the place we reside in.
But in loving other as self, we should seek to preserve for them the rights we also desire for ourselves. But we don’t need them.
Dave, If you believe in the power of the Gospel and dont need government to do our work for us then why then would you fall to government to protect your ability to build a church or preach the gospel…. Don’t you believe the gospel will prosper without government protection? The first commandment will continue on LONG after the first amendment has been trampled under foot..
The Christian faith IS superior to ALL other beliefs (which are false and abominations to the LORD)… we should recognize that and celebrate it.
Dave, I think that is a good point and the reason that democracy is generally short-lived as a political system for a nation.
The very freedom we defend for ourselves we extend to our enemies, and soon it becomes a simple matter of who has 50% plus one.
I must say I agree with you that we must extend the same freedom to Muslims as we would like for ourselves. This does cause me at least some anxiety realizing that a major tenet of Islam is the complete subjugation (or annihilation) of all other religions.
It makes me feel a little bit like the days of my youth when Dad would send me out to the willow tree out back to cut a switch for my own whipping.
And, if I understand you rightly, YOU need to wake up.
The war happening around us is the war for religious freedom. If we keep trying to flex our political muscles and get the government to enforce our will, we will find ourselves on the OTHER end of that sword all too often.
Wake up! Fight the fight for religious freedom in America!
Amen Dave!
Dave,
“The war happening around us is the war for religious freedom”
Really? SomehowI have gotten the impression that the fight for religious freedom is only one of many battles in the real war against the powers of darkness that enslave the souls of men.
And from my viewpoint, even if that battle is lost, the war goes on, and the souls of the people can still be won. Yea, those to be won will be won.
If you are called to fight for religious freedom, than fight hard brother. But don’t forget the real war.
And in reflection, losing that battle will upset many lives, probably including mine as well. But it isn’t the war.
Mike: In this discussion I think we need to think as Americans as well as Christians. Religious freedom is the real war. You want to think spiritual war, fine. But I don’t think being free and comfortable is a sin or a crime. But….we need to give all people freedom, not just a choice group. You can’t stomp on what America stands for and not expect some repercussions yourself.
Debbie,
“You can’t stomp on what America stands for and not expect some repercussions yourself.”
I have done no stomping. But I don’t mind repercussions for speaking what I think.
“But….we need to give all people freedom, not just a choice group.”
What we should do is give them Jesus. They need more than freedom if the world.
“But I don’t think being free and comfortable is a sin or a crime.”
No its not. But its not a hill to die on. Its a good battle, but not one that is needed to be won in order to win the war.
“Religious freedom is the real war. You want to think spiritual war, fine”
Is your purpose on earth to be free and comfortable while sin under the guise of freedom destroys your neighbors? Or would you be willing to give up some freedoms and the ease of American life to show the glory of the cross? I’m not saying you have to, I am asking if you are willing to do so. Because the day may come when your choice is the cross or comfortable ease.
From 2nd Timothy 2
Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier…
Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.
…is the fight for ease and comfort?
It shouldn’t be.
That’s going around Mike. It’s not facing the issue head on. Of course they need Christ, of course we tell them, but let’s also live in the real world which I live in every single day. I can’t hide behind my religion at work. But you cannot as an American Citizen force them to worship Christ and not give them freedom. That is doing the very thing you accuse them of and that is just ridiculous. We are both American Citizens and Christians.
A quick comment from the parking lot of a McDonalds in Amarillo:
1. ERLC has been very supportive. If I needed Dr. Moore to make a comment, I’m sure he would. I choose to think that I’ve got this handled. 🙂
2. I cannot think of a single valid objection to the construction of the cemetery and the presumed mosque or training center that would be fit material for the Planning & Zoning Commission to consider. If anyone has worthwhile evidence to consider alleging that this group is plotting the violent upheaval of the government, then let them present it to the FBI.
The violent overthrow of the Farmersville town council has always been one of militant Islam’s objectives!!
That way they can force good ice cream choices on the people of that region.
It would take ISIS to get me to eat any more of that swill you call ice cream—especially now that hope shines anew with the announcement of Blue Bell’s reboot!
It is worthwhile to consider what we would do without government permission to worship Jesus Christ as the Bible presents Him.
Those who will compromise God’s words will have less difficulty with the government, for they honor the government more than God’s words.
Those who would be faithful whether the government like it or not are certainly not less heroic than those trying to get the government to “let us” worship.
I am still very grateful that God has answered the prayer of 1 Timothy 2:1-3. We have enjoyed this blessing all of our lives. But it can be lost…
My thanks to Bart for his faithfulness and articulate wisdom. Yet I doubt he would be working for the same religious freedom were he a Levite in the months following God’s appearance on Sinai.
Comments like these can help us focus on the difference between being American citizens and Citizens of the Kingdom.
“””Comments like these can help us focus on the difference between being American citizens and Citizens of the Kingdom.”””
I didn’t know that the Bible forces us to such a sharp distinction. It seems words like, “live at peace as much as you are able,” and “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” implies we are not only to be good Christians, but good citizens of our nation as well.
Of course, there may come a time when we will be faced with the verse, “whether we obey God or man,” but I don’t think we should jump to that position just yet. Who knows how much better the country may be under a Trump presidency.
Jack,
There is a sense in which advocating religious freedom is the advocacy for idolatry.
But when you play the “Trump” card, then what can I say? You win, of course.
Jerry, I apologize for playing the “Trump” card. That was a low blow.
I do appreciate the danger you point out when we blur the issue of which “citizenship” trumps (no pun intended–well, maybe a little) which.
I can see how anybody that knows me well may feel that I think the American Flag trumps (I just can’t get past this word) the Christian Flag. I certainly do not believe that.
We have “dual” citizenship, but that does not mean “equal” citizenship. The Bible makes this very clear when it asks the question: “Should we obey God or man?”
So proud to have been your friend and friendly adversary for going on four decades now. Keep up the great work of the faith.
Jerry: Right now we are both. We are citizens of the United States and we are citizens of the Kingdom. I don’t know about you but right now, in the real world, we are both and do not have to choose.
I think it’s a cop out at times to say we are not citizens of the United States but the Kingdom. I am both.
There is the issue that Islam, as a religion, and therefore its strictest adherents, cannot in good faith live by the U.S. Constitution, including the 1st Amendment. This is because they want to live by Sharia Law and ultimately bring all the people in submission to it. Therefore, they would ultimately throw out the U.S. Constitution and create a Theocracy, given the chance. Christians, on the other hand, while desiring all people come to faith in Christ, would not forcibly have people submit to that, hence the 1st Amendment.
What I am not saying. I am not saying “all” Muslims are desirous of the aforementioned items, but make no mistake, Islam is not about freedom of religion, and its strictest adherents “Cannot”, in good faith, live under the U.S. Constitution and desire freedom of religion to all others.
The same could be said of the Jews, could it not? Did people living in Israel in OT times have freedom of religion?
Not in the US they wouldn’t. They would desire a theocracy in Israel so I’m not really sure what your point is. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the 1st amendment.
People living in Israel worshipped Baal and many other idols. They were commanded to follow Jehovah but the Kings themselves led them astray. Don’t know if that’s religious freedom but Israel rejected theocracy when they demanded a king and aGod let them
Nate,
People have a right to wish the disestablishment of our form of government in favor of a theocracy. Political freedom was actually an intent behind the constitution that preceded religious freedom.
Now, once they start taking action actually to accomplish the overthrow of the government, things change, if I understand the law correctly.
Bart, if you immigrate here and become a citizen, you take an oath to uphold the Constitution, so I’m not buying that. Furthermore, only States can ultimately alter the Constitution, not individual people so you’re stretching your argument there as well.
How about this quote from Bart:
“Because I am confident in the power of God in the gospel, I don’t believe that I have to supplement its power with the authority of the Farmersville City Council. It’s not a very big God who needs Mayor Helmberger to come to His rescue (and I mean no offense to the mayor by saying so). ”
Here is an honest question. What separates opposing a Mosque from going up to opposing a Hooters from going up in town? No seriously! For right or wrong, people will argue that we should not oppose any Muslims from wanting to establish a Mosque in their town because they stand behind the principles of the 1st Amendment, which states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise their of…”
However the 1st Amendment does not end there and continues, “…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
One could rightly argue that if a person wants to build an establishment where people of like mind want to gather and assemble, to all eat hot wings, drink beer, watch sports, while being served by barely clothed women; that it is their right to assemble as such. So long as they and their establishment conducts their business in “peace” they have every right to do so, at least according to a very plausible reading of the 1st Amendment. And yet I would wager that most Southern Baptists, including some participating in this very Topic, have or would oppose the building of a Hooters in their town or near their church.
Is it logically, ethically, morally, or legally consistent to adhere so strongly to one aspect of the 1st Amendment but not to another?
The right of assembly does not include the right to dress however you wish when you assemble, act however you wish when you assemble. Our legal system is generally pretty tolerant of people’s dress and behavior, but only the act of assembling is a constitutional right, and not the other things.
So you would deny someone the right to establish a restaurant that breaks no laws? It would be one thing through zoning laws to prevent “any” restaurant from going up in the middle of a residential neighborhood. But to prevent a restaurant that breaks no laws from going up next to other restaurants…frankly I see no grounds for Christians to oppose such a thing. That is if we want to be constitutionally consistent.
After all, the Constitution states that Congress (and the states, local governments ect) cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, but they can place restrictions on such things as zoning right? If then we can restrict where a Hooters can go up, can we not then place restrictions on where a Mosque can go up?
Or is it we simply do not like Hooters, and they are not a religion (freedom of religion is one of Southern Baptists sacred cows) so lets ban them? So while we are at it, we have no room to speak against municipalities from banning Christian businesses who oppose and refuse to participate in homosexual marriages. Right? I mean if we use standards of decency to oppose Hooters, then if society views opposition to homosexual marriage as equally abhorrent then they can restrict/ban them as we try against Hooters. So then we can all ban that which we don’t like, oppose all opposing thoughts or practices…that is unless it is a religious place of worship. Then we must allow it no matter what.
My point is when we start dictating what businesses OR religious institutions can do what where, we start chipping away at our freedoms. I personally think if a business wants to cater only to a specific ethnicity…That is their business. I personally will not patron a racist establishment. If a business does not want to cater homosexual marriages, that is their right…and I will patron their establishment. If there are enough believers of a religion to warrant the establishment of a sanctuary of worship, that is their right. Simply put, as Christians, if we want to be consistent towards true societal freedom in this constitutional republic, we must oppose “banning” of places of worship AND private businesses.
No. There are some businesses that simply should not exist. They encourage behaviors that no one who claims to be “moral” should tolerate. As the supreme court justice (sort of) said, I can’t define them, but I certainly know them when I see them.
There are some houses of worship that should not exist. They encourage beliefs and behaviors that no one who claims to be moral should tolerate.
Same argument right?
If we want to talk about Islam then lets talk about the “hidden” polygamy within Muslim immigrants to the United States. Or the support for and calls for Sharia laws governing muslim communities with in America. Or the problems with “honor killing” among Muslim families in America. Or forced marriages. Or child brides…Need I go on?
I would hope you think all of these issues are worse than any restaurant like Hooters could ever possibly be. And yet we tolerate the restrictions and prohibitions on one, and yet not the other. If your morals and beliefs should be used to restrict one avenue of a free nation, why not others? Or worse, lets go back to the issue of Christian businesses who wish not to support or cater to homosexual marriages. Society is quickly taking the position that such businesses need to either change, or shut down. And in a way, Christians who support shutting down Hooters play a part of the blame. Because if the majority can shut down one business, what happens when another majority rises up to shut down other businesses?
If we as Southern Baptists favor allowing other religions to worship freely, primarily because we use to be targeted and silenced, then should we in the public sphere also support the freedom of businesses to run as they see fit, because we can clearly now see that people will be targeting us now too?
SV, you are all over the lot here. Commercial establishments do not have the same constitutional rights as do religious establishments and the state regulates them in a variety of ways – zoning, health, taxation, public accommodation, labor law, licensing, etc. There is a considerable body of law on all these. Churches are subject to some of these laws – building codes, zoning, and similar.
Citizens wanted the Farmersville mosque denied on the basis of some zoning permit. Fine, if the same standards are applied to Baptists and Bhuddists.
Restaurants operate by government priviledge and permission. Churches by right, subject only to such regulation in which gummit has a compelling interest – fire safety, for example.
I don’t find your last paragraph to be a good point. I doubt many would. Barber’s case is pretty straightforward – a mosque seeking routine zoning permits. The cake bakers and flower arrangers present substantially different questions that involve conflict between constitutional rights. If my religion informs me that certain marriages are sinful, do I as a commercial wedding venue owner have the FA right to screen couples according to my views? Probably not. Lawyers are working furiously as we discuss.
I think you are wrong on the extent the government can (or should) restrict businesses such as restaurants. The vast majority of businesses, especially at the local level, are owned and operated by an individual. Either as a standalone business, or as part of a franchise. If a person wants to build a store that only sells merchandise dedicated to one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater, then they should have that right, and assuming he abides by all city codes (fire, water, ect) nothing or no one should be able to stop him. I believe, the same should be said about a place like Hooters (the majority of which are franchise owned). If an individual wishes to open one as a franchise, abides by all city codes, then there is no legal reason why they should not be able to build one. And I argue that the same should be said for the Mosque. As long as they follow all codes in building it, there is no LEGAL reason why it should not be able to be built. Or are we saying that a religious group has rights than an individual does not? Are we saying that an individual does not have the right to own and operate a business?
What if it is not hooters, but say a Christian Book store that someone wants to open in a heavily Muslim immigrant part of a city. Should they have that right? Or to those of you who oppose a Mosque going up, what about a church plant that wants to go up in the middle of a Muslim immigrant community? What if the Muslims don’t want it to be built? What if they go to the city and lobby to prevent it from being built?
Why Christians would be apoplectic if Muslims ever tried to prevent a Church from going up here in the United States. So why do the same to them?
We can (a) discuss how we think things ought to work out in a free society, or (b) discuss what are the rights awarded by the Constitution of the United States of America. Not all legal activities rise to the level of being constitutional liberties. The free exercise of religion does. Whatever they do at Hooters does not.
Furthermore, I do not deny that zoning laws can affect where one can build a church or a mosque. I merely have said, I think pretty plainly and consistently, that wherever I can build a church a Moslem congregation can build a mosque. Your line of argumentation reveals a common misunderstanding about constitutional rights. They do not automatically win in every dispute. Rather, they merely invoke a heightened scrutiny in court cases.
Zoning laws that accomplish a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive way possible can absolutely limit religious liberty. Thus, for example, I might not be able to construct a church building next to the nuclear power plant (or a mosque, either).
Can not a Mosque be opposed on other than “religious grounds”–or a Hooter’s even.
For example, I would support Muslims building a Mosque anywhere the building of a similar edifice was allowed, based upon 1st Amendment rights
However, I would (and did) oppose the Mosque at Ground Zero. This was on Patriotic grounds. It seemed insensitive, almost perverse, for a Muslim building to be erected upon the ground hallowed by Americans (and others) killed by Muslims in the name of the same Allah that would be worshipped at the Mosque.
I don’t see the two issues as exactly convergent.
Maybe the better question from the article mentioned…..Did Bethlehem Baptist invite any Muslim families to their Fish Fry in June?
Jesus was always clear that we should not fear those that can kill the body, but fear the one that can kill both body and soul in hell. It sounds like the folks needing the cemetery are trying to follow the law.
Of course Bart is right in how he is handling this situation! I hope he has an opportunity to speak with some of these Muslim folks and share the good news.
Bart, it is not lost on me the amount of courage required to take such a position. Thank you for being strong in the grace that is in Jesus Christ. I imagine taking such a position in Farmersville would be akin to saying I don’t think Emmitt Smith was all that good of a running back.
Let me just say, for the $.02 it may be worth, that I too respect Bart’s stand here and I agree with him that the gospel is powerful enough to not need to either run off “competition” or have the hand of the govt. to accomplish the plans of God.
I also agree that Muslims are constitutionally protected to build a Mosque for worship of their false God – so long as there is no connection to terror, the clerics are not radical ones preaching the destruction of America and that the intent truly is peaceful and not dangerous to others. If the powers that be in Farmersville have indicated that this, to the best of their research and knowledge, is the case – then OK.
I part ways with those who have insisted that there should NEVER be a time in which a Christian might legitimately oppose Islamic centers (I am not sure Bart has said this) – I do not think such absolute statements are wise and might just box people in a corner they do not want to be in down the road. Further, I think that the reasoning a Christian might have for opposing is important. The reasoning might be improper or it might be proper. I resist the notion that all opposition to Islamic centers is necessarily wrong, sinful, or even anti first amendment.
I think the fact that Islam is at the crux of so many attacks against our nation and there is increasing evidence that they are seeking to radicalize persons here for attacks against us, justifies a bit a reasoned caution. Not obstinacy , but caution.
In a sense this is not that big a deal to me.
My Baptist church is about five miles from a Muslim Mosque.
The Mosque is probably a little closer to me than our Baptist Association office.
And our Baptist Association office is next door to a Mormon church.
I believe in Religious Liberty.
But next time we speak to Saudi Arabia we should point out that Muslims have freedom to build their Mosque in Farmerville, Texas.
So, where is the First Baptist Church of Mecca?
And why don’t they, and other predominately Muslim countries allow true Religious Liberty like America does?
David R. Brumbelow
I think it’s obvious, David B, that not all the world is like America. Nor should we have unrealistic expectations. It’s what makes America the land many people from around the world want to come to.
I do think that some of these comments are based on fear more than fact, unfounded fear. That is never a reasonable way to make a decision as it usually ends up being the wrong decision that bites Christians in the end. It’s never good to base things on half cocked fears that are usually not based on hard facts.
Debbie, I would suggest there is reason to fear when you look at the state of religion in the world.
Personally, I have faced an enemy with a different religious perspective than I have. His goal was to annihilate my point of view by annihilating me.
I think a little “fear” (if you want to call it that) may be helpful in keeping our focus sharp.
Most places around the world complete weld their political and religious views. Promoting religious freedom around the world is in the best interest of all.
The Bible says, no weapon formed against us will prosper, and that God has not given us the spirit of fear, in fact it says, he has given us power, love, and a sound mind. God will do what He said He will do. He has not lost control and is well aware of what is happening right now. It seems our trust should be in Him, not headlines on the news.
Debbie, I see your point. You are brave and fear no one. So what if ISIS cuts off a few heads–they are not your head.
So what if radical Muslims blow up a few thousand of our military–no skin of your back.
Your premise is self-defeating. You talk of weapons, but want to dismiss the war. Having a “Spirit of fear” is not the same as having a healthy respect for the multitude of enemies that stand ready to kill real people–not “spiritual” people, but real flesh and blood people.
Your point of view is seen often in discussions about Islam. The myth goes something like this: it is just another false religion, like Buddhism or Zoroastrianism or Mormonism.
That is a dangerous perspective that lacks a realistic understanding of Islam. Islam, by fiat and Holy Book, is aggressively militant. They are not listening to Bono’s nonsense about “Coexist.” Islam means “submission.”
So, I assure you that your quoting of the above verse is not the first time I’ve heard that. In fact, I remember reading this verse about 40 years ago while leaning against a 4-story Poseidon missile submerged on a nuclear submarine.
I understand warfare. I understand the realistic issues with Islam that give me cause for fear. And, by the way, it is not just Islam. There is also the Biblical issue of the 200 million man army. There is only one country that can field that, China.
I do not have a “spirit of fear,” but I do have a healthy fear of those that would harm me or others in the name of their religion.
Also, your misunderstanding of trust as “blindness to the issues of the world” is not supported by Scripture in my opinion. As Wesley pointed out after meditating on the Scriptures, we need to see the world through two spectacles–the spectacles of the Word, and the spectacles of the world.
So, we disagree on how to apply the verses on warfare (which are many) in the Bible. I respect your right to dismiss the news and rely on the blood and effort of others to preserve your freedom.
Jack: You are right. I am not afraid. My hope and trust are in God, who is all in all and not asleep. Try it. It makes living life a whole lot more sweet.
It’s so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His word. Just to rest upon His promise, just to say “Thus saith the Lord.”
Jack: You are a war kind of guy it seems. I am not. I have been through much in my 59 years. I am not naive. I have also lived through the Left Behind years of fear, and I am not going to do that again. I suggest you do the same. Trust in a God who knows what is going on. Pray. But you cannot stop whatever may be coming. You can only Trust and Pray.
For Christians to be wringing their hands and saying woe is us is against everything the Bible teaches. It’s time we quit acting on fear that is mostly false fear, and act as the Christians who believe in God and all He is. Unbelievers react in the way you are Jack, not Christians who have God, Christ.
BTW: I have a great respect for the military, I am just not living in a fearful, wringing my hands, it’s the end of America because we let them in, Fox news stories kind of state. I get tired of those who do and have little patience for it as you can probably tell.
I like what Bart said in his post. I love the reasons as those are the very reasons I am not afraid. God is in control of every minute second and every situation. If we can’t teach this instead of what you and others here have said, let’s close the church doors because we are selling a lie that there is a God and he cares for us. We are giving a lie that others need to know the Christ we share, because we are no different than them, except we are going to heaven. That’s all the difference there is.
Jack, at some point I wish my pastor colleagues would acknowledge that there are a billion and then hundreds of millions more Muslims. Despite what Koran-quoting Baptists say, few of these are informed by their religion that they are obligated to kill infidels.
Y’all are right. No reason for caution.
Muslims have no desire to kill infidels. By they don’t do it. They don’t teach it.
It’s all foxnews hype.
Sighhhhhh….
YES WE SHOULD!!!
It bothers me how little our government does to try to promote religious liberty around the world.
Bart,
False religion isn’t religious freedom. Its religious slavery. And the governments of the world use this slavery to control their people.
The question is why would a government that caters to its culture, like the USA, seek to promote religious freedom anywhere? Religious freedom makes their people less controlable.
Take for example our current president, President Obama. His idea of religious freedom has nothing to do with setting people free to worship the One True God, but rather allowing the people to be enslaved to their religion as long as it doesn’t interfere with real world actions. In other words: keep it private, keep it subservient to the government. He doesn’t think of it in those terms exactly, of course, but when looking at the big picture, that is the plan.
When Jesus lived and preached true religion, both the religious leaders and the political powers sought to silence Him and thought they did by sending Him to the cross. THAT is the true reaction to true religion by the governments and the religious people. And that is because true religion is a threat to them. Jesus is a threat to governments and to religious authorities not aligned under Him.
His goal is to put them under His feet. So they correctly [in a perverted twisted way] oppose Him.
In promoting the cult of man, our government has no place for the truth of the God-man.
So we use the liberties provided for us [even as Paul used his Roman citizenship] but we should realize that what Caesar gives, Caesar can take away. Paul spent his last liberty as a Roman citizen under house arrest or in a cell.
I support your struggle, but is it true religious freedom when a person is bound to a religion that speeds him or her to a negative destiny?
Bart: So you think our government should dictate world wide? I really think that is unrealistic and a little dangerous. America was formed to give freedom that we did not have under English rule. I don’t think it was meant to be worldwide.
I would love for religious freedom to be everywhere, but that is not the case.
Debbie,
Bart said nothing about the United States dictating anything. The word he used was promote. And I agree that the United States should use its considerable influence to promote religious liberty around the world, the same way it would advocate for any other human rights issue.
Yes, I believe America should use its Bully Pulpit and negotiating leverage to promote religious freedom everywhere. Religious liberty is not merely an American ideal, it is a basic human right.
Todd,
Is it a God given right to worship false gods?
Why is the ability to sin a right?
Mike,
I can’t speak for Todd, but in my opinion yes the prerogative to worship or not to worship is a God given right. Other wise, God would just forcibly convert everyone to faith in Him.
John, question –
Where and when did God enunciate this as a right?
I’m thankful our founding fathers did so – but I’m not sure I see where God did it?
I mean – didn’t God say in both the old and new testaments that He and only He is to worshiped?
Well, it’s inferred in every passage where there is a call to follow/trust the true God or not. You see what separates us from terrorists Tarheel, is the fact that we don’t believe in forced conversion. And our nation was founded on the principle of having the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of your own conscience. Since I believe that nations owe their existence and authority to God, God saw fit to place you and I in a nation that affords us that right.
Jos 24:14-15 “Now therefore, fear the LORD, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the LORD! (15) And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
I would say the right to choose one’s path is granted by God, but God also notes that our path leads to either life or death (e.g., Deut 30:19; Joshua 24:15-22). Our role is not to deny persons the right to choose, but to warn people of the consequences of their chosen path and lead them to the truth of the gospel.
Thanks guys.
Religious Liberty works both ways. It means those in what we consider false religions have the liberty to practice their beliefs. They probably consider ours a false religion. But we would also have the liberty to practice our beliefs.
It means being free and fair to all faiths.
This liberty would be both inside and outside of our church buildings.
It includes the liberty to evangelize and convert from one faith to another.
In other words, the free marketplace of ideas when it comes to religion.
It means asking Muslim, Communist, and dictatorial countries why they have no free Baptist churches, and other Christian churches, in their countries.
America has, and should continue to promote Religious Liberty in all countries around the world.
I just wish our American officials would make it a higher priority.
One of the defining marks of a free country is their acceptance of Religious Liberty.
David R. Brumbelow
Well put.
David,
Free in what way?
What do I mean by freedom?
Freedom for all to worship according to the dictates of their consciences, or not to worship at all. That is what true Religious Liberty means.
Yes, in our Christian way of looking at it, a person in a false religion is not free, but bound in the chains of darkness. That is why we preach, evangelize, give out literature, send missionaries, pray for revival.
But Religious Liberty must work for all faiths, not just the one we consider the true faith.
Otherwise, we will take away the freedom of others to worship according to the dictates of their consciences.
Otherwise, rather than others freely choosing Christ, we coerce them into a false acceptance of Him.
Don’t allow others this freedom, and what happens to us when they are in control?
What happens to us when they feel we should be forced into the “freedom” of their religion?
And who would you want to permanently set up as the religious police?
The government has no right or authority to take the place of God.
The government has no right or authority to determine a church’s doctrine.
Promote Religious Liberty for all faiths, and then let’s go tell them about the One who loves them, and died and rose again for their salvation.
Ultimately, the Prince of Peace will return in glory. He will sort out all the details. Until then, Religious Liberty for all is the best way to go.
By the way, for any who don’t know the history,
Baptists are famous for their promotion of Religious Liberty for all.
Religious Liberty is a Baptist gift to the world.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
We are in no position to take away anyone’s religious ‘freedom’. But why would a secular government which by its nature bows to the prince of darkness, desire to aid us in promoting freedom of our religion throughout the world?
tough issue.
Bart is right from the standpoint of religious liberty.
However, what becomes of “religious liberty” when it is no longer defined/understood/appropriated from a Judeo-Christian framework?
What happens when “religious liberty” becomes the platform for establishment of other than Judeo-Christian norms/values?
Exactly Scott.
Obviously in the USA, the government does not take the religion of true Christianity into account when deciding to legalize murder and perversity.
The wedge is in. The true church is being quickly separated from governmental and cultural acceptance. Soon individual churches will face the same pressures to lessen their doctrinal stances or lose members. The ‘face’ of ‘normal’ Christianity will be one that goes along and doesn’t make waves.
That nominal Christianity will be used as a lever against true evangelical churches and believers. “Do you want freedom? Then accept these cultural norms!”
Religious freedom around the world is tolerated within the parameters that keep it subservient to the political powers. True Christianity is anti-cultural.
The Anglican Church of Henry VIII being one such example in its day and time.
My dear brother, there was a time when I might have said that islam is worthy of first amendment rights, but not today. I oppose the mosque and training center in Farmersville Texas because of the nature of this demonic ideaology.
I oppose them as a citizen believing that is a right and a duty to do so. Islam is not just a religious system but a political worldview that has immigration, terror, and killing as tools of expansion. I would not oppose a Hindu or Buddhist temple. But I will oppose a murderous cult that its very basis of truth glorifies the subjugation of innocent people. On a daily basis lslam calls for the death of americans and jews. How does Oklahoma City feel about their mosque today. Fort Hood Texas or Boston has experienced some not so peaceful Muslims.
Just this past april while holding revival services in a church near Bonham Texas, Chris Litteral the young pastor had a muslim man arrive at his home to purchase goats. The man bought a goat and then attempted to convert Chris to islam. Finally the pastor said Jesus is my saviour and the only way to heaven. The muslim became angry and while beating on his steering wheel shouted repeatedly allah is great and we will conquer america.
Franklin Graham has said numerous times Islam is a religion of death. Gov. Scot Walker just yesterday said our greatest threat in America is radical islam. Did anyone in Boston know those two brothers were radical islamist before the act of terror?
If pastors will not defend their cities from this scourge and do all they can legally do to stop its deadly spread who will? I feel I am a watchman on the wall warning of coming judgement but the precursor to the greater judgment could be this vile false religious system.
Allow me to comment on presuppositions in other posts. Bro Bart inferred that we had no faith in the power of the gospel. Someone else said had we invited muslims to our fish fry. If a muslim lives with a 15 minute circle of our church we have knocked on his door. Every Tuesday 10 to 15 men visit for 1 to 2 hours mostly knocking on doors. We baptized two Sunday that were visited by these men and two others joined by letter who were also visited by these men.
I can appreciate your concern for religious liberty in my home town, the city in which I was born. My mother’s family came to this area in 1820, and today I have 7 grandchildren 5 of which attend the public schools here
To say never should we oppose religious training centers is saying far too much for me in light of the devious and divisive practices of islam both in America and throughout the world. In my opinion they fail to qualify as a legitimate religion and I am surprised that others have not stated this case. I believe it is a demonic and satanic inspired pseudoreligious political ideaology and has been since its inception. Must I wait for the federal government to make such a declaration? Have I broken a law in petitioning my local government or violated scriptural principals in sounding a warning. Again this goes beyond the religious liberty issue in my opinion.
Islam is using our freedoms along with the watchwords of tolerance, diversity, and political correction to expand its influence. It seems that we have the Neville Chamberlin disease or lets never offend anyone syndrome.
Islam is not a legitimate religion in my perspective. I respect differing viewpoints but as yet I will continue my lawful opposition.
To those concerned with my educational process, I have expanded my reading materials beyond the Koran. Sometimes I read the Bible. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them. I have read the bill of rights but I am not astute as a politician but I am aware of the Danbury Baptist and their religious concerns that they shared with Thomas Jefferson. But the nature of this evil has transcended the principal of religious liberty for me. This islamic problem has reached the so-called game changing status.
I will try to love my enemies but I cannot be silent. My children, grandchildren, require my providing for my own which must include their protection from real, not simply perceived, threats. I can do no other.
There are people far more eloquent here on this board, and certainly much deeper thinkers as well, but the idea of “freedom to worship” will only go so far. At some point, the majority(or whoever makes the laws) will define how far another’s “worship” can proceed. We can talk about equal opportunity here in the USA to worship, but certainly it is limited. Going forward, I believe that we will see the “Christian” religion become more restricted, and you will see Islam, secular humanism, and more hedonistic religions gaining the more favored status. My hope is in nothing less than literal return and reign of Christ……all other proposed solutions seem futile given the cultural context we face,
I am late to the party, but I want to say that I very much appreciate the stand Bart is taking here. It’s in moments like these that we see if we really believe in the principle of religious liberty or are merely seeking protection for our own choices and way of life. If we claim freedom for ourselves and deny it to others, our cries for religious liberty are merely noisy gongs and clanging cymbals.
At moments like these we see to what extent and by what “definition” religious liberty will get us …….killed?
Perhaps the local application of religious liberty in a “republic” is best decided by local majorities (i.e. communities, state).
That would be real religious liberty.
David Meeks is a fellow pastor of a local Baptist church in this area. He and I see this issue very differently, and I could not be more firmly opposed to his view on this, but we are on the same team, he is a valued brother in Christ, and I am thankful overall for the witness of his church in our area. This is his first time to participate in the world of Baptist blogging. I encourage you all to get to know this brother.
I do want to offer one thing for all of us to consider. Is it possible that we think Moslems are more violent simply because we hear more about their violence in the media, just because of where we live? If we lived in Senegal, we’d hear about the violence of the animists, not the Moslems. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Christians (Slobodan Milosevic) are the ones presumed violent. I spent two hours on Thursday (or was it last Wednesday?) listening to the stories of Indian Christians beaten, raped, bludgeoned to death, and otherwise persecuted by Hindus, who systemically suppress religious dissension in India, although people think of them here as peaceful.
I’m thankful that my church is not judged by the actions of Slobodan Milosevic. I’m thankful that my church is not judged by the actions of Fred Phelps. What worries me the most is the historically demonstrated unlikelihood of the average Christian to share the gospel with someone of whom they are afraid or at whom they are enraged. Subjecting our fears to the facts and yielding our attitudes to the Great Commission of Christ will lead us all through this tumultuous time in our nation.
“Is it possible that we think Moslems are more violent simply because we hear more about their violence in the media, just because of where we live?”
NO! Islam’s history of domination and subjecting the people (and nations) they have conquered is evidence enough. It is far more egregious and continuous than anything someone can accuse “Christian Nations” of throughout history.
By what measure? It is difficult to make or to refute a comparison unless we know what we are measuring. But you can set the terms of our discussion to your liking, then I will be happy to look at numbers with you. Number of people slain, number of cultures subjugated: Take your pick.
Now, it is true that Christians like US are mostly innocent. But that’s sort of the point—that a willingness to make finer distinctions is in order.
Might want to keep in mind that some part (and I suspect a large part) of the anger in the Muslim world goes back to the Crusades, when European “Christians” invaded the Middle East and conversion to Christianity was at the point of their swords. And sometimes, the practice was convert AND die anyway, man, woman, child, soldier, camel herder, or whatever. Remember, they tend to have long memories in the Middle East, viz., the descendants of Israel verses the descendents of Ismael.
John
I am sure there is enough shameful history to choke an elephant on BOTH sides.
…and none of that justifies their actions today.
Justification is one thing, understanding why is another altogether. Nothing justifies what terrorists do, but history provides some clues as to why they do it. At times, you seem to equate the two.
John
The most bloody history by far in India is that of Islam, Bart.
At present, the Sunni adherents of Islam abroad and possibly at home appreciate religious liberty far less than you, possibly part of the need to establish mosques?
Here’s where it seems to me that our thinking gets muddled (in America).
The church is at odds with the darkness of Islam, the government is not.
America has no beef with Islam unless it becomes violent or supports that violence.
America, where religious freedom is a constitutional right has a duty to support the rights of Muslims to freely practice their faith.
The job of the church is to stop the spread of Islam by winning people to Christ.
It is not the job of the government to stop the spread of Islam.
If that Islam becomes violent or terroristic, then the government has an interest.
Our goal ought to be to ask our government to stay out of religion completely, unless the religion in some way is violent or criminal – with the burden on the gov’t to prove that.
As Bart said (I think it was Bart), there will come a time when we, the church, regret any power we give to the government today to regulate Islam.
Dave,
I agree.
I appreciate that David Meeks will speak his piece here, and affix his name to it. I also like that he shows a sense of humor (“sometimes I read my Bible”). That’s the way to do it.
But I think him to be exactly wrong in expecting the government to adopt his conclusion that Islam is illegitimate, etc. No problem in his saying this, since free speech doesn’t require being accurate, rational, or persuasive.
Baptists were the illegitimate religion of an earlier day.
John,
Having a right to sin? Or else we are forced to worship God? Really?
Do men have the right to abort babies? Do they have the right to abuse children? Marry same gender? Lie? Steal? Covet? Coveting is a God given right?
Having an ability to do something or not isn’t the same as having a right to do it.
And not having a right to do wrong doesn’t mean you are forced to do right.
Mike,
Freedom to choose is given by God.
John,
Then why do you say it is a right to sin? and if it isn’t a right, it is forced worship of God?
Freedom to sin isn’t the same as a right to sin.
Look at it another way:
Sin enslaves.
A person chooses sin and becomes its slave.
or a person chooses sin because he/she is already its slave.
Either way, they no longer have freedom. They are enslaved to sin.
Freedom only happens when they are delivered from the dominion of darkness.
So an unbeliever is enslaved to sin: they do not have the ability to grasp which god is True and which is false.
Thus they do not have the ability or freedom to choose to worship the True God.
They have the ability to not disobey moral commands, for those works are written on their conscience. But which god is True is not. So the only ‘freedom’ they might have is which false god to worship. To worship the True God takes faith. And by definition, they are unbelievers: lacking faith.
So freedom of religion is not a God given right: it is a secular given right. It is given by governmental power and in many if not most places in the world it is a power the government uses to control the people. Thus the only ones with REAL freedom of religion are Christians.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek our government to use its power to allow people to worship as they please, but it isn’t a right. At least not a God given right to all people.
Some observations!
During Israel’s times of faithfulness there was no tolerance for other religions. During Israel’s times of faithlessness, there was great tolerance for other religions (idolatry).
God tolerates a great deal of evil while His patience and tolerance runs its course. Then He acts in judgment.
Differing countries have had different approaches to religious freedom. Sometimes certain religions were tolerated or favored while other religions were persecuted or pursued with a vengeance. Sometimes Christianity was found in different shades of this spectrum. When a government decides they will not tolerate a given religion, they can give voice to what they consider very good reasons!
When the Constitution of the United States was written (and amended) there was a great majority of citizens who professed some degree of Christian commitment. Remember that the context of the origin of religious freedom in our land reveals that the vast majority of “religions” were “Christian”.
On the one hand, non-Christian religions are idolatry, something God strongly condemns. There are consequences to our support of idolatry. On the other hand, we have a tradition of confidence in the Constitution and the right to religious liberty. There are consequences that would follow changes in the Constitutional rights to freedom of religion. If we do not support the freedom of all, are we not hypocritical in expecting tolerance and freedom of our own worship? What will the various state governments and federal government think of such hypocrisy?
“All people are created equal” in the eyes of the law. Fine. Good theory. In reality, there are no equal people. Nor are there equal religions. Some may fall out of favor with the existing government and face increasing sanctions. It could happen! It has happened to Christians more than a few times.
But some may have confidence in the tradition of freedom of religion; therefore it can’t happen here. We must protect and defend the Constitution so that we protect and defend our own liberty. It is a reasonable conclusion.
However, it is also increasingly likely that the current citizens, state governments and federal government will realize they care about the contextual opinions of the founding fathers about as much as they care for the contextual opinons of the native western hemisphere peoples who were removed from control of the continent. The political trends indicate that dramatic changes in religious freedom are only one Constitutional Convention away! It is a reasonable conclusion!
One final observation: While religious persecution is diametrically opposed to living the American Dream, it is not able to quench the purpose of God. Religious freedom is not a requirement in a world of good and evil.
Faithfulness to God is a requirement.
Now my opinion, more than a mere observation: I hope the Christians on both “sides” in Farmersville will not lose their commitment to one another over the eruption of this passionate issue.
Jerry,
I would find the pattern of the Old Testament instructive in this case if (a) I believed that the United States of America is God’s Chosen People in just the same way that the Davidic Kingdom was, and (b) I had not read the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. But neither of those things is true. I do not believe that the United States of America is ancient Israel, and I have read Jesus commandment ordering us to do nothing to accelerate the plucking up and burning of the tares. Jesus furthermore warned us that the reason He forbade tare-plucking adventures by which we volunteer to clean up God’s field for Him is not some over-fondness toward the tares but a concern for the wheat. The state, once empowered to go after the tares, always gets some wheat. Always. Like, 100% of the time in every moment since the beginning of Christianity.
Idolatry is a sin. It merits judgment. God has explicitly, multiple times in the New Testament, plucked that particular kind of judgment (the judgment of religious infidelity) out of the hands of mankind and has reserved it unto Himself alone.
One can draw your comparison in a different way. It was in the times of Israel’s greatest faithfulness that they allowed prophets to speak and act contrary to the king’s beliefs, and it was in the times of Israel’s greatest unfaithfulness that they persecuted people for declaring religious truth that was deemed dangerous and unsuitable by the powers that be.
Bart,
I don’t have a complete answer to solving the evil in the world apart from the return of Jesus Christ. As of today, I do not have to solve the issue in my immediate context. I am comfortable that the community of Farmersville will hash this out on their own. No doubt, your preference will prevail. Your respect for others who disagree is also obvious.
Bart Barber, personally, is not the problem!
The United States is certainly not an adequate substitute or clone for a faithful Israel. But the United States is also not a church, so that the “tares and wheat” instruction does not apply.
Bart Barber, personally, is not the problem. The problem is that there are people who would be willing to amend the constitution, or “interpret away” the constitution, or even to care more for the constitution than they do the will of God.
It is not clear to me that the gospel will conquor idolatry. Frankly, when the faithful church and the idolaters collide, the gutters run red with the blood of the church. The presence of idolaters still has a measurable effect on the society in which they live and that effect would not be there if the idolaters were not there. What defeats idolatry is the forceful return of Jesus Christ and nothing else. *
* And one other thing, but this reply is getting to long…
It’s difficult to imagine why Old Testament instructions to Joshua would apply to the way that Christians interact with government and with unbelievers while Jesus’ words in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares do not.
What do you think is the proper application of that parable? Can you give me a contemporary example in which you think a Christian would rightly apply Jesus’ words in that parable?
Bart,
Thank you for your gracious attitude! I know that it is normal to be tempted to take my observations as criticism to your reasoning. You don’t seem to be doing that. Like Jack, I am seeking understanding and asking questions that should be asked by the faithful church in America. I have no better solution for Farmersville than you have expressed!
In my opinion “old testament instructions to Joshua” were based on an eternal truth: Idolatry is evil. Idolatry is godless. Whether in a theocracy, constitutional republic, or faithful church, idolatry is evil.
In the theomonarchy to come (did I invent a word?) idolatry will not be tolerated. Perhaps no one less than an infinite all-powerful God can make that happen justly. I certainly have no suggestions. And I am not aware of any nation’s good example for the past two thousand years.
Regarding the teaching of the wheat and the tares, I think it applies only to the church. If that is a critical point that you want me to exposit more fully, then I will make the time to do so. But within the church idolaters are not to be tolerated. In 1 Corinthians 5 it is clear that unrepentant Christians who practice idolatry are better off dead; and that the church is not to eat with them. That is a less-than-impressive example of religious tolerance.
Again, Bart. You are doing a good service through interacting with us on this post. I’m glad William put it up!
And I think many if not most of us are reading and thinking about the future, and of the whole national context, not just Farmersville.
Thanks, Jerry. I appreciate the affirmation.
Here’s my take on the Wheat and the Tares. Jesus told the disciples that the field was the world, not the church. I, too, for many of my formative years, thought it was talking about the church. I thought so because I had heard it preached and applied in this way so many times. That interpretation doesn’t square up with the interpretation of the parable that Jesus gave, since He said that the field was the world.
Also, as you have hinted at, Jesus’ message in this parable doesn’t line up with what Jesus taught us about the church. We are not called to tolerate tares in the church. We are called to tolerate them in the world. To use another passage, looking at 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 shows us the division here. Those inside the church we are to judge. Those outside the church—those in the world—God judges in the harvest when He will separate the wheat from the tares.
Again, this seems the only tenable interpretation of the passage, since in Matthew 13:38 Jesus explicitly says, “The field is the world.”
And because the wheat and the tares coexist in the world, we are the Gospel light as a witness to the world. For once we were the tares, and now we are the wheat.
Bart,
Thankyou for pointing out that the “field is the world”. There are times when I miss the obvious. While it is somewhat embarrassing, it is much better than remaining in error!
I still think your approach to the religious freedom issue is the best one for the Summer of 2015. However, religious freedom granted by the government is unlikely to be reliable in the long term. And actions taken this summer will have results that may last for many decades.
Also, the Scripture about the “wheat and the tares” raises another question. Part of the text of the parable is as follows: “The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil”. Matthew 13:38, 39b
This new question regards ‘tares already sowed’, as opposed to ‘welcoming a training center for tare-sowers’. See what I am getting at? There is a difference between uprooting tares already sown, and reducing the number of tares to be sown in the future. While the text sheds light on the Farmersville circumstance, does the text definitively prescribe the actions of the ‘sons of the kingdom’?
Further, a strict adherance to the American principle of religious freedom could be used in an attenpt to sanction satanism, the worship of molech, or the scientism of abortion.
Brother, don’t take that previous paragraph as an accusation! It is not! It is an observation that I do not yet know how to apply to our American context.
Jack, William or Dave can probably clear it up with a brief sentence, though.
I’ve been so indebted to the thinking of Roger Williams on these matters. He was one of those remarkable people with legal training and a calling to preach. He used the idea of the “two tables of the law” (the first four of the 10 commandments versus the last six) to explain the difference.
The first table of the law represents the responsibilities of the human conscience before God (whom you worship, how you represent the one you worship, how you address and speak of the divine, which days you set apart and how). The second table of the law represents the way people interact with one another. Williams’s theory was that God instituted government to regulate interpersonal behavior of people (second-table items). This squares well with what I understand of Jesus’ teaching and other biblical sources about religious liberty alongside Romans 12-13 and other sources about the role of government.
So, as I’ve said before, if there are credible reasons to believe that a particular group of people (be they Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or Hindu) poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America, then call the FBI. The religious status of those people should be no hindrance to their prosecution. It is a second-table-of-the-law matter to discover that a group is planning insurrection, murdering babies, et al.
But that’s a far cry from trying to use zoning laws to keep Muslims out of town just because they are Muslims—because of whom they worship and how.
As to Satanists, someone asked me how I’d feel about a group’s putting up a statue to Satan outside the state legislature building. I replied, “Satan is moving OUTSIDE the Statehouse? Praise the Lord!!” 🙂
Muslims believe they alone worship God correctly. When we oppose them on a civics level and fail to show them the love of Jesus, we reinforce their beliefs: 1] We show fear [instead of trust in God] and 2] we show them that we are their enemy.
Rather we should fear God alone. In this global war against evil, the Muslims are not our enemy [we wrestle not against flesh and blood] but whom we seek to bring the Gospel light to.
If in this war, we lose family and friends and even our own lives [in this case to due to ‘home-grown’ terrorists] we know one of two things: a] they were saved and are in a far better place or b] they weren’t saved and they will get what we all deserve.
In the latter case, we should use the influx of Muslims as a point to show the Gospel to our lost family and neighbors.
Bart, good one on Satanism and the Statehouse, LOL!
Jerry, I think you hit on the key issue in religious freedom debates: the context of the Constitution.
I believe the Constitution has been set aside in our generation time and time again, not because the Constitutional principles changed in any way, but because the context changed paradigmatically.
Our Constitution has about as much relevance to our culture as the Ceremonial Law of Israel has to Christian living. It is only remotely instructive at best, but carries no force for shaping culture.
The Constitution, without a Christian cultural context, can carry on force. Words have different meanings and the Lex Rex principle is turned on its head to become once again, Rex Lex. The only difference is: instead of one monarch, we have a panel of five (oligarchy).
In a time when the context is that of Isaiah 5:20 (evil is good, good is evil), the Constitution which firmly rested on biblical principles must, of necessity, give way to the law of men–leading to anarchy, and then tyranny.
I agree with your last premise, or opinion. What must bind us together as Christians must be the Bible, and It’s teachings to love one another, not the Constitution.
The present trajectory of our culture will make any idea of religious freedom a mute point, and the Constitution will be reduced to a quaint parchment in history.
PS–In case my post look as if it does not apply to the issue of religious liberty for Muslims, let me say, I do not think that one can easily adapt the First Amendment to Muslims on Constitutional principles.
That does not mean I oppose giving others the right to practice whatever faith they wish, or no faith at all. It means I find other reasons rather than the First Amendment to do so.
“Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God’s Spirit, the Word of God.”
-Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, 1644.
Looks to me like religious liberty for Muslims (Turks) is not actually a later development to which the Constitution must be applied. Looks to me like that was the idea all along, even a century before the First Amendment was ratified.
Bart, you prove my point in two ways, 1) religious freedom ideals predates the Constitution; and 2) religious freedom requires a Christian context.
There is no “secular” basis for religious liberty, because there is no secular foundation for absolute truth or the Sovereignty of God.
To argue for religious liberty based upon the Constitution is a dead end in a culture dead to Christianity.
What we are likely to see happen in America is what is already happening in Europe. The increasing influence of Muslim ideology will work against religious freedom, not for it.
I don’t see an easy solution (politically) to the horns of this dilemma. Democracy always carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. This does not lend itself to a easy discussion of religious freedom in a pluralistic society.
Roger Williams viewed religious freedom as those matters endowed unto us by a Creator, not a sovereign or sovereigns.
The problem becomes compounded anytime a people tend toward federalism of some kind. Our Constitution intentionally mitigates against a federalism that the Courts themselves seem to be moving us toward.
My point is not, should Muslims be granted freedom of religion, but can the Constitution steeped in a Christian context answer that question. If the answer is “yes,” then I would say it must require giving the language of the Constitution different meaning than intended. As such, the Constitution becomes subject to the ruling party and we are back to a point before the revolution.
My point, that I don’t seem to be making very well is that our Constitution has been so wrenched from its context as to be obsolete. Therefore, we are back to be ruled by the king, not the law.
For example: American jurisprudence recognizes the “right” to kill a child at any time up until the last toe leaves the womb. This is a “Constitutional” right found in the 14th Amendment. I would suggest that if one can find that right in the 14th Amendment, then there is still yet hope for finding a “unicorn.”
The very phrases, “endowed by our Creator,” or “will and command of God” (Williams) have little or no meaning in America. The Creator of the Framers and the God of Williams is not the “god” of America. This it seems to me is not an insignificant distinction.
Can two parties discuss a matter using different–diametrically opposed–meanings for a word as significant as “God?” Being more specific, can a Republic exist where both Allah and Yahweh stand on equal ground?
I do not think this is going to be an easy road to pave politically or socially. If one needs a model for how this “equality” plays out, simply look to the East–the Middle East. And, simply go back over the last 15 centuries or so.
Bart, I am not trying to prove or disprove your argument but I am simply grappling with understanding my times in the context of my call to reach lost people for Christ.
Thanks for the conversation.
I misunderstood, and I apologize.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I do not advocate for religious liberty because it is constitutional (although it certainly is); I advocate for religious liberty because it is biblical, Christian, and right. It most certainly does predate the Constitution. It most certainly does arise out of Christianity.
“Fifth. The federal constitution certainly had the advantage of any of the state constitutions, in being made by the wisest men in the whole nation, and after an experiment of a number of years trial upon republican principles; and that constitution forbids Congress ever to establish any kind of religion, or require any religious test to qualify any officer in any department of federal government. let a man be Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian, he is eligible to any post in that government.”
-John Leland, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, 1791
Since 1791 is the year that the First Amendment was ratified, and since John Leland played an important part in lobbying for and securing passage of the First Amendment, I’d say that religious liberty for Muslims (Turks) is not actually a later development to which the Constitution must now be applied. Looks to me like that was the idea all along, even in the very year that the First Amendment was ratified.
Roger Williams and John Leland lived in a completely different world than we find ourselves living in.
Wonder how some of their views might be modified or adjusted were they able to travel forward in time and observe what’s become of those fledgling colonies by the year 2015.
Thanks for quoting John Leland. Too many of our people are ignorant of him, or, hearing his words without knowing who he was, automatically oppose him.
John
Sure Bart,
A sincere question for thought regarding Leland’s “(safeguarding Muslims was his) idea all along, even in the very year that the First Amendment was ratified.”
Were Turks at that time systematically and with murderous intent hunting down Americans and killing them? Was there a waged war against America by the “Turks”? Was there a worldwide political movement masking itself as a religion followed by the Turks?
None of this is as easy as imagined. I am a firm advocate for religious liberty, having studied our Baptist predecessors (and in some cases ancestors) who wrote, suffered, and in some instances died for their belief in religious liberty for all. If memory serves correctly, I think Roger Williams even mentioned Islam in his advocacy of religious liberty. And the Jews built their first synagogue in the New World in Rhode Island where religious liberty was first established in precept and practice. However, having said as much, there is the problem of the Jihadists who might or might not become recruits of ISIS or some of the other radical groups and therefore become a threat to our own liberties and lives as well.
We also had the other problems of that religion, like honor killings, polygamy, and the drive to make converts or pressure people to move out of their neighborhoods and not allow any Christian group into their neighborhoods to evangelize. I advocate the right to work by persuasion, even for Moslems, because that is the biblical way. If they can persuade my by facts, etc., then that is alright, but to use force, trickery, manipulation, things that some Christians have used, is wrong, an evil which shall be most deleterious in the years ahead and in the lives of those affected.
I too believe in religious liberty – I just resist the idea that we should never, under any circumstances exercise caution when dealing with a group of people who have waged war against anyone not like them. Sure not all terrorists are Islamic Jihadist – but it is certainly true that most terrorists are Islamic Jihadists.
The Chattanooga killer by all accounts we’ve heard from people who knew him was nothing more than a “devout Muslim” – He took it seriously, they all say. Nothing indicated that he was “unstable” or “a zealot” or “radicalized” – yet he clearly was.
I think it is naive to act as if this is not the new normal. The furtherance of waging of war that Islamic’s have been perpetrating on this county for 3 decades. I know they are not all acting on the declaration of war that has been made – but hey the ones who do this type of thing all have several things in common and being “devout Muslims” looms large as one of them.
Like I said, I know and understand the liberty issues involved – but there is reality involved. I am not sure how to balance the two – some seem very comfortable in erring on the side of absolute religious freedom. It is a neat little box with a bow on they can celebrate. Listen, I am going to be really transparent here – I WANT to be there too – but at the same time I am tired of seeing my fellow Americans and Christians slaughtered by a *political* and violent ideology that *masks* itself in religion. I am praying and thinking thought this – I am not even sure I even like what I am saying – but at the same time what I am saying is true – respectfully it seems as though some are arguing as if religious liberty is basically just an unassailable theory that is void of real life consequences.
So often we are seeing these consequences result in death of people they call dogs and infidels – translation – US!
I am seeing our nations leaders yield everything including the kitchen sink and faucet to political Islamic Jihadists while these same are killing people left and right in our neighborhoods, and pose a very real, present and growing danger to us and our best geopolitical friends in the world, Israel.
Even more disturbing I am reading other pastors accusing those of us who say – “YES we believe in religious liberty but PLEASE lets exercise caution and not with careless abandon open our doors for those who have taken holy vows to kill and destroy us and are clearly doing so” – of being anti religious liberty and anti biblical and such.
Did those who used to bomb abortion clinics and kill abortion doctor, workers, representative of all Christians Tarheel? Of course not. Neither are acts such as this gunman and others representative of all Muslims.
No the mere handful of people you speak of do not in any way represent Christianity. (come on, you know how much more rare that is)
Also, when you speak to the acquaintances, family and friends of the few instances you infer you do not hear “he was normal” , he just took his faith seriously” – No – you hear he was mentally ill – unstable – etc….Also almost all Christian leaders denounce them as not representative. It is in no way representative of New Testament Christianity to do those things – no where in the NT are Christians told to kill anyone, compel faith by sword, or….but with Islam?.
On the other hand when you hear of the violent jihadists – you hear “he was devout”, etc…
That is a real difference.
Tarheel and Debbie,
Another quite profound difference and one that supports Dave’s argument is that this Chattanooga killer as well as the other terrorists are being true to the Koran. They are being true to its words and to the essence of his message. Abortion bombers are not being true to the Bible’s words ot its essence.
Maybe they are and maybe they are not Mike. I don’t think any of us can truly read all and decipher the Koran any more properly than they can. So I don’t take your statement quite as fact. The point is the one I made. Not all Muslims, in fact many, did not rejoice on 9/11, and not all are murderous thugs. They are however Americans, human beings, who deserve the same religious freedoms we have.
Debbie,
I take it that you mean government granted religious freedom. If so, okay.
But as long as you also understand that Christians don’t need the government to grant us freedom to worship. And that what the government grants really isn’t freedom.
But the truth of the matter is that false religions bring down a society. Even as false Christianity does the same. It is not a plus for society to grant freedom to worship idols any more than it is for them to legalize murder of innocents and the perversity of same sex marriage.
The only Holy Book for Muslims–all Muslims–not only encourages jihadist activity, it demands it.
One cannot be a “Muslim” of any stripe without submitting (Islam means total submission) to Allah as revealed in the Holy Koran.
A so-called Christian who bombs an abortion clinic departs from the Holy Book, the Bible. A Muslim who bombs infidels does not depart from the teachings of their Holy Book, the Koran.
Americans will simply never be able to deal with Islamic terrorists until they accept that these Muslims are fulfilling the Koran in the exact way their Founder fulfilled it.
That may be an uncomfortable truth for Muslims, but it is the only truth available to them.
The alternative is not to become a “moderate” Muslim but to reject Islam out of hand. I have never known a Muslim in America (and I’ve know some quite well) that is willing to do that.
Your analogy in regard to those that violate the commands of Christ and those that are following the commands of Allah could not be more mistaken.
Jack,
We must have been thinking and typing at the same time.
Oh, and the same thing as well.
The truths you mentioned are one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why Muslims rejoiced on 911. Their brothers had the courage to do obedience ‘above and beyond’. But in reality it was obedience that wasn’t above and beyond. It was being faithful to the Koran.
But those moderate Muslims prefer a god of a different make than the Koran speaks of. So they seek to live a more ‘normal’ life. The problem is that such a life is unfulfilling [we know why- they are missing the Lordship of Jesus] and so some seek to ‘up’ their game and become more militant. Others would rather have the pleasures of this world or simply follow Allah because of family or culture [we have those types of ‘Christians’].
People from around the world have flocked to ISIS to have a more authentic experience with god than they have at present. And moderate Muslims could at any time erupt with a fervor and become home grown terrorists.
“some are arguing as if religious liberty is basically just an unassailable theory that is void of real life consequences.”
This is what I believe is meant by “freedom isnt free”.
You’re right, we do have a choice to make. Freedom or security, and I think you know the old saying that goes here.
Yea, I do.
Like I said though – its not a neat little box as it relates to Islamic Jihad and freedom of religion.
There are valid reasons to exercise caution when dealing with a *political/militarily violent* ideology that masks itself in religion.
Tarheel,
Not really. For you hold a dual citizenship. The one nation is duty bound to give them equal rights under the law. The other nation is to look past the possible terror they might bring and bring to them the Gospel.
Don’t mix the two views. There isn’t a hybrid position.
I choose freedom.
I choose both.
It does not have to be an either/or.
Again… perfectly shaped square boxes with shiny paper and bows on them look great tucked under the Christmas tree – but issues such as these do not always fit so nicely in them.
Tarheel,
But you aren’t in government with power. You can’t choose for them. As long as the USA law recognizes freedom of religion, their religion is as valid as ours.
And that brings us back to Bart’s point.
The government can watch but unless there is threatening circumstances, it plays the role of one who reacts, sadly, like Chattanooga.
I contend that not all Islamic endeavors are religious….they are violently and warring political masking as religious.
There is the rub.
*violent warring political endeavors masking as religious.
Tarheel,
Those two attributes are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would say that in the case of most religions, if they are both present, they go hand in glove.
ISIS is driven by religion.
I didn’t think I would ever say this but I agree with Tarheel. Some have mentioned if you suspect anything call the FBI. The latest shooting was not suspected, as far as I know. After something happens it’s to late to call the FBI. I think there is a real war against Christianity going on. The government knows who the main line denominations are. I think when Islam moves in it’s too late to do anything about it.
Just when I thought we had seen the depths of Jess’ strange and heretical beliefs, he goes and agrees with Tarheel…
Adam Blosser,
If I had your strange and heretical beliefs, I wouldn’t want to be seen in public. It’s alright to be silly, Adam. but do you have to be stupid too.
This is a serious topic, you should get with the program and add something constructive to the conversation, and not just comment on what I have to say. If Dave doesn’t put a stop to your nonsense, then I will. Act like you have some sense!
“If I had your strange and heretical beliefs, I wouldn’t want to be seen in public.”
I’m never seen in public.
“If Dave doesn’t put a stop to your nonsense, then I will.”
How do you know the location of my mom’s basement?
Jess, a friendly word of advice –
I know the location of Adam’s mom’s basement and trust me, Jess – you do not want to go there unannounced.
Oh my Jess. I think I’ll leave you gentlemen to your miseries.
In the NY Times, the mosque in Chatanooga where the gunman had formerly worshiped closed in mourning of the slain marines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/us/chattanooga-mosque-where-gunman-worshiped-mourns-marines.html
I forgot to add, this link came from Emilly Hunter McGowin on Facebook.
No question that there are moderate Muslims.
But the other question is, what does the Koran teach?
For the young man who worshipped with the moderate Muslims seems to have gotten his understanding of life and religion from another source.
Neither the moderate type of teaching nor the extremists can bring internal peace to the Muslim. Seems like this guy tried the moderate way, and it didn’t work for him, so he tried the extremist way.
But no Jesus, no peace.
I just read today that the shooter in Chattanooga abused drugs, both prescription and non. They found no correspondence, electronically or paper, to suggest that he was getting instructions from ISIS or any other group.
He was a depressed person who sought martyrdom for Allah as a way out of this life. As we all know, Jesus alone has overcome the world, and we do through Him. But nothing in Islam gives spiritual power.
Does that mean we should round them all up and deport them? Of course not. But we need to recognize that there is no freedom in their religion to escape the slavery to evil. And we shouldn’t speak as if they have such freedom.
The world at large sees many paths to God, Islam as being one of them. Although it would a radical stance, we should hold to and proclaim forthwith that there is only one way to God through His crucified and risen Son, Jesus the Lord, and that all other religions are religions that help people be enslaved to evil.
Not PC.
But I think it is Time.
You do realize that lying and misleading infidels is also taught in the Koran.
There is no such being as a “Muslim that does not follow the Koran.” Until they denounce the Koran, they simply cannot be trusted.
That may not be politically correct or fit the current culture-driven Christianity, but the Bible clearly speaks of being “wise as serpents while being harmless as doves.” It is not either/or, but both.
The Bible also talks about prudence. Proverbs teaches that wise people see trouble coming and adjust accordingly.
As long as leaders in our government have this misguided understanding of Islam, soldiers and sailors, including my son, are in needless danger.
Again, the Koran encourages lying and misleading to move the cause forward. How then can we accept any act of moderation if the Muslims do not denounce these teachings in the Koran?
My answer: one cannot. There is no virtue in ignorance.