Can’t agree with you on that one, LA (2 hours ago). To say in blanket fashion that, if one leaves an entity with which one is in strong disagreement, one is displaying cowardice fails to take into account the circumstances prevailing at the moment. The label of coward could then be applied even to our own Founding Fathers, who appear to have decided that compromise was not possible and proceeded to violate their oaths of loyalty to their ultra-stubborn royal master. Were they cowards?

Would you also label Protestants as cowards? Martin Luther was a monk with the strongest of sworn allegiances to the Holy See. His aim in life, like many others, such as Erasmus, was to convince his own Faith to reform certain practices. He wanted to work from within. But he saw what happened to reformers like John Hus, who tried to come to an understanding with the Faith. Hus was suckered to a meeting under a false assurance of protection, seized, and burned at the stake. That was the response to proposed change. Erasmus never left the Holy Church but always walked a thin line, protected by his reputation as one of the most learned theologians in all Christendom, even though he communicated with the more activist reformers.

Luther had no choice but to capitulate or to separate and wage his war of reform from outside, protected from the retribution of the Holy See and Holy Roman Empire by those princes of the German realm who were like-minded (perhaps even personally ambitious) and had the armed power to do so. The end result was bitter sectarian warfare all across Europe, not just in Germany. Were all the Protestant reformers cowards then?

I myself am an “apostate” from the Protestant denomination of my youth. At issue were certain parts of church governance to which I felt I could not accede. I decided to walk away rather than make a fight of it. That fight, apart from the specific issues in play, would have been one against people I still loved and with whom I still shared most elements of faith. I judged that such a fight might give rise to a bitterness which would reflect ill upon all of us. So, I walked away. Was I a coward without honor or was I someone who decided that a “civil war” on the inside might turn out to be a negative outcome for all concerned?

I understand the issues which caused Jack to leave his denomination. That particular fight has been much larger than just Jack alone. I would say, in fact, that Jack’s departure reflects a variation on an old Ronald Reagan theme: “I did not leave the church. The church left me.” I think Martin Luther would have said something very similar.

Wolverine,

Would you defend Jack’s insistence that Eric leave scouts or that he had no honor?

“The label of coward could then be applied even to our own Founding Fathers, who appear to have decided that compromise was not possible and proceeded to violate their oaths of loyalty to their ultra-stubborn royal master. Were they cowards?”

Wolv, I do not consider someone who chooses to leave their church over doctrinal issues a coward. Shifting to a denomination (or even religion) that is more reflective of your ideals has nothing to do with honor or cowardice. In that case, it is the logical choice and probably one that is consistent with God’s wishes (at least it seems so to me). The FF were another thing entirely. They laid out a fairly good case that they tried everything they could to change the gov’t from within and that it was only as a last resort that they felt compelled to declare independence. Honorable and certainly not cowards.

Eric, I can only opine that there is a total package on which one relies in making the decision to go to war, so to speak, or simply withdraw and let things be. Depends, I would think, on how much you have invested personally in something and what it would cost you pyschologically just to walk away. On the other side of it, one might want to envision what the battlefield could look like after the finally truce is called and whether or not you will find the aftermath an easy place to live. The more bitter the battle, the smaller the eventually territory could be if you come out the winner. Schism is always an option for the guy who doesn’t win. Your call. But you also have to ask: “What will I do if I lose the vote?” Acceptance of defeat or schism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d2n7vSPwhSU

No doubt where this guy stands.

LA —I’m not quite grasping your definition of bigot with regard to Jack. What you refer to as “non-factual negative opinions” seems to me most often to be his use of the Bible, his guiding scripture, to defend his beliefs. I would say that this is “faith-based argument.” It is as old and natural as mankind itself.

Is this different from what you would say if someone called you out on the ascension of Mohammed to Paradise from the Dome of the Rock? Could not your faith-based response also be called a “non-factual opinion”? To ask a man to deny and cast aside his own faith because an opponent claims it is not based in fact seems to me to be a rather serious matter for those so asked. Should either you or Jack be scorned for holding to your faith? Jack’s Bible tells him to be true to his faith and to know that the “world” will hate him for it. I would think there is a similar admonition somewhere in the Qu’ran.

I would respectfully differ on who gets the title of ‘bigot” these days. From what I have seen of late, a defense of traditional faith often seems to get a quick label of “bigot.” Sinner! Bigot! Sinner! Bigot! In my opinion, it has gotten down too often to a name calling contest.

Wolverine,

I understand your reticence to accept a word like bigot in reference to Jack, and I am glad you are taking the time to understand why I have been saying it for Jack. The word has been abused by opponents to the right. They call anyone who disagrees with them a bigot. Your concerns are apt for them. But I come from the right. I am not PC. I only use it when the person has met the definition and is an hurts the cause of the conservatism by serving as an example amongst the independents we must win of why the right cannot be trusted.

It is not a word I use lightly. If you go back to the thread where I used it, I specifically resisted it for many days on the same subject. And only a specific trigger allowed me to use it in Jack’s case.

Jack is not a bigot because he thinks homosexuality is a sin. So do I. In many ways, his and my views on the subject from a religious point of view are similar. I think that adultery is as big a sin or bigger for example.

Jack is not a bigot because he thinks that homosexuality should not be taught to children. He is not a bigot for any of the reasons you suppose. Those are all valid debates to be had in a world of free speech.

Jack is a bigot because he holds a decidedly negative view of homosexuals and refuses to consider that it might not be as he thinks in the view of significant facts. He uses that view to justify banning gay scout leaders, so it is not only a negative opinion, but one which he uses within an organization to limit access to others. this is much like the limiting of blacks based on similar reasons.

Specifically, Jack thinks that homosexual men are more likely to be pedophiles. When he first was asked to support that, he pointed to s single study. In that study, he interpreted the results as indicating greater prevalence of pedophilia amongst homosexuals.

I looked at the study. IN THE VERY SAME PARAGRAPH, the authors caution against that interpretation. Because it is mathematically unsupportable. It also was pointed out to Jack that most pedophiles will do boys or girls because it is not about the sex of the child.

Jack didn’t get that. OK. Not everyone get’s counter-intuitive math problems. Especially in statistics. So I tried to explain. Jack didin’t get it. Still doesn’t make him a bigot. He could just be ignorant of statistics.

But here is where he entered bigot land. He was asked to recognize that the very study he cited in support of his thinking specifically said the opposite. He was asked to identify a statistician that would support his position. He was asked to find another study. He found neither.

And he continued to assert that homosexuals are more likely to be Pedophiles. This despite no evidence except his own interpretation. This despite assertions to the contrary. He resorted to “It is PC that is keeping the truth from being said”.

And he continued to make the assertion of a negative characteristic of a whole people. This is the obstinence required in bigotry. He didn’t vary his statement. He didn’t say “Well maybe”. He held onto this belief in the face of plenty of evidence.

It is THIS which makes him a bigot. By definition. It is quite simply no different than the belief that all blacks are inherently more likely to be criminal. Or that all Muslims will lie.

And in that last point, we will get an opportunity to see whether Jack is also an anti-Muslim bigot. because Taqiyya is the last refuge of the American bigot. Like blaming PC, it is the excuse to which no answer is possible. If Jack holds his beliefs in lies and Muslims despite what I am about to explain to him, then you have another example.

Wolverine, there is an equivalent of PC on the right. You can’t criticize Ronald Reagan (a man deserving much criticism). You can’t call someone a bigot either. But it is important that we on the right call out bigots. They hurt our cause. They turn off the votes we need. They paint us all with their brush.

We must never stand down to bigotry.

Jack,

Incorrect. Go back and read the thread. I explained the counter-intuitive math to you. I far from simply dismissed them out of hand.

And on Islam, you can worry all you want. Doesn’t make you a bigot.

There is no list of verses at the link. Your posting it is a GREAT example of how you have been fooled. There isn’t even the one verse I put on here. There are none. And you know i have dozens of verses ready to go that forbid lying.

You – like Marjorie – are being fooled. Just like the global warming crowd. You posts links to nothing. Some guy with a theoretical PhD that doesn’t consider all the weight or scholarly inputs or even quote any verses? He just asserts – “Muslims are allowed to lie!” And you fall for it? Aren’t you smarter than that Jack?

Where does it say in Taqiyya you can lie for the cause of Advancing Islam? What did I say. Read what I said. You can ONLY lie under Taqiyya if your life is threatened. You cannot lie to “Advance Islam”. Show me an Islamic scholar (or pretty much anyone not a terrorist) who has suggested such a thing. No Shia thinks you can lie to “Advance Islam”.

Now, if you keep insisting despite the facts I am giving you that Taqiyya is not what you think it is, then you are a bigot. It is then a convenient way for you to dismiss Muslims and not listen to our point of view. Rather than find out we are pretty normal and peaceful and pro-American, you will dismiss it all.

And that would be bigotry. Because Zero serious Islamic scholars say you can lie to advance the cause of Islam. Only a very small minority would belive you can lie at all. And then only if your life is threatened.

Now if you OBSTINATELY insist otherwise. Without proof except random verse quoting with which you can prove anything. I can prove the bible encourages incest by selecting the right verses. Would that be fair?

Find a Muslim Scholar with repute that has said what you think the Quran says.

Good luck.

Jack,

Putting aside your blindness….

Thos are all different points.

You didn’t answer the question. Would you agree that Taqiyya is not required or encouraged of Muslims. And that it does not allow for lying to “advance Islam”. Can you trust Muslims not to lie just as much as any other group?

Would you agree you were misinformed by others and now you see that?

(Wolverine, this is what makes him a bigot. He will hold on…. no matter what facts are in front of him. And this is why he and other bigots must be confronted. They are slowing or reversing the progress of the right. )

“How about we postpone the sideline debates with an agreement to disagree and address the real issues?”

Fine with me. If MArjorie and Jack and all the rest will focus on the economy and stop bringing up this stuff I would not say anything. And perhaps Jack would, although he seems the stubborn sort. But Marjorie believes Shariah is a greater threat than anything else it seems.

You are right in many ways. I wish we would all stay focused on the economy. That is what is going to kick out the one who is truly disrespecting and damaging our country.

“> Would you agree you were misinformed….

I will, when the Islamic world …”

And this is when Jack makes clear he is an anti-Muslim bigot. His only condition for agreeing that something he believes is wrong is if the whole Islamic world straightens up. Only THEN will he agree.

And Jack… I am not going to go down this path with you, but it IS behaviour seen in Christians. People who considered themselves Christians killed more human beings (and more children and innocents) in the 20th century (and every single century since the 14th century) than all other religious groups combined. By far. Get off your high horse. I am not going to debate this point because it is as stupid as blaming Islam for the crap you want to blame it for. Don’t even attempt to go down an Islam vs Christianity path with me.

So lets all be clear. Jack says:

“Liberal, what good would it do for Marjorie to go with you to meet more Muslims, when the Koran says that it is good to lie to advance Islam?”

I show in 10 different ways that it says no such thing. And that no Muslim (even most terrorists) believes it does. He points to an article that has no backup and not even a Quranic verse. But he BELIEVES that article. It fits his preconceived negative perceptions.

Yet when presented with FACTS he does not refute them but changes the subject and insists now:

“I would not know — I am not Muslim. I don’t know what is required or encouraged of LDS members, either.”

And yet 10 or so posts ago, he KNEW what a Muslim would believe.

Again Jack, you are caught in your own words.

You are a double bigot. And that is an accurate description. Keep it up. Apparently you and Marjorie WANT Obama to win.

My guess at this point is that you are a Shariah Loving Shia Muslim who is lying under the persona of “Jack” as a form of Taqiyya in order to spread Shariah Law throughout the USA and destroy the constitution.

No wait… don’t say anything…. We know you and Marjorie are lying Muslims and will lie about your own identities to advance Shariah throughout the worlds.

Idiots.

Please, my friends. I am going to tell you a story of “political” hatred in America and what we can do to each other by indulging in it. It is pertinent because it happened exactly 42 years ago — on Memorial Day — on hallowed ground in Arlington Cemetery.

I had just been released from active duty in the US Navy and was going to grad school in Washington. I was a Vietnam vet with a medevac and eight months in a military hospital. Mrs. Wolverine was the first Navy Nurse to take care of me when I was brought home in that medevac plane. We were both still in a “military state of mind.”

On that particular Memorial Day, there were some pretty strident anti-war demonstrations going on in Washington. We opted to stay away from the city and decided to stroll through Arlington instead, since we lived nearby.

On a back road in Arlington, we came upon a strange and yet not so strange scene. In front of a simple white marker knelt an elderly woman with white hair. As we approached, we saw that the stone bore the name of a young Air Force officer — a pilot — with a date indicating that he had died in action in Vietnam. Sensing our presence, the elderly woman turned and looked up at us. Her eyes were wet, her cheeks streaked with tears. She said: “He was my son. Did you see who did this?”

The “this” was a memorial wreath. The boy’s parents had come from far away to visit his grave. They had brought the wreath for him. After the first visit, they had gone to lunch, intending to visit their son once more before driving a long way home. They returned as planned, only to find that, in their absence, someone had come into Arlington, torn that wreath to shreds and placed the remnants back in front of the tombstone in the well known shape of an anti-war symbol of the time. And the boy’s mother could not stop weeping.

As I and the wife both knelt down in front of the tombstone and tried to put the wreath back in some semblance of its original form, I noted that the lady kept talking about herself and her husband visiting the grave. As I looked round, I finally saw “Dad.” Some ways away there was a small tree in bloom. “Dad” was walking round and round that tree. The look on his face was that of a soldier who had just come out of a terrible battle and was suffering extreme shell shock. When I approched him to offer my condoleances, the man could not even talk. He just looked at me and then into space with eyes full of absolute anger and sorrow all mixed together.

I went back to the mother. She asked me if I was military. I told her I was a Vietnam vet myself, one of the fortunate ones who came home. Her face took on an almost pleading look. “Did you know my son?!!” she asked hopefully. I had to tell her I did not. I was Navy. He was Air Force. But I could see that she really needed something more than that. So, I told her this — which was true. I was on the surface — well,on the rivers mostly. He was in the air. But I knew that, if I got into trouble down there, I could count on men like him to bring their silver machines screaming out of the sky to my rescue. We didn’t know each other personally, but you could call us “brothers” nevertheless.

The mother turned back weeping to her son’s grave. The father? He never said a word, just kept walking and walking around that tree. It was time for us to go, so we left them there like that. They were elderly, and most likely neither of them is with us anymore. But those faces reflecting twice-broken hearts are still fixed in our own memories. And their son still rests in honored glory in Arlington.

Political anger wrongly expressed can have consequences. I’ve seen it. On hallowed ground.

“The reason Troll and the other homophiles atheists…”

I am NOT an atheists – this is false witness again. Two times now with a correction in between. There is no doubt now that Jack has willingly and knowingly commited a grave sin and appears to be 100% unrepented. No better or worse (by his standards) than a active homosexual.

>> I am NOT an atheist

>Your own words have condemned you, Troll.

More false witness.

Squiddy,

I should be clearer. When I do that analysis, I am using the same methdology that is used to make talking points that Muslims are responsible for 90%+ of conflicts and that they are the ones doing all the violence.

This ridiculous claim can only be even contemplated if the definition of an Islamic conflict is that it involves Muslims. No matter the motivation.

So the same criteria applied would make the vast majority of the killing of human beings in the last millinea to be done by Christians.

This is not a criteria I agree with. Most “Islamic” conflicts are not about Islam. They are about land or money or resources or freedom or political ideology. The very same reason for must conflicts in the world. Sure, these Muslim soldiers pray and yell Allah Akbar, but their reasons are many and few are about Islam. Our American soldiers often ask Jesus to protect them. Does that make them fighting for Jesus?

This is similar to the ridiculous claim that Islam was spread by the sword. Sure… it was in some cases. But no more so than the spread of Christianity into the Americas.

No…. Very few conflicts in any religion were for the religion. And I am not trying to denigrate Christianity or the Christian world. I get frustrated by some Christians – like Jack and Marjorie – who develop a holier than thou attitude about Islam and the Islamic world. They never see the plank in their own eye.

I will repeat. The Islamic world has problems. It is behind the West in many ways. But Jack and others need to stop throwing out the nonsensical talking points from their cut and past websites or I will give them their logic back to them.

Well, LA, there is an adage in my own religion: A soft answer turneth away wrath.

I am not advocating for an absence of debate on serious issues under contention. Only for the wisdom of the soft answer. Almost all my working life, military and civilian, I had the kind of work which was, in effect, warfare. The object was to defeat someone, to neutralize their power, hopefully to vanquish them. I went to war every day, sometimes as the front line fighter and sometimes as the planner. Now that I have retired from that perpetual combat, it certainly does distress me to see political warfare on my own home ground which seems to be increasingly suffused with hate and insult. Did I spend all my working years trying to protect what I consider to be the greatest experiment in human freedom ever wrought by mankind only to see it turn into an unseemly internal battle among the very people who have inherited that freedom?