In 1Cor. 8, Paul talks about the idea of going to the local heathen temple and having a steak at their restaurant/market. The believer has a right to do this, to enjoy such a steak, even though the animal was sacrificed to some heathen god. However, that believer needed to self-regulate—if such an action had an adverse affect on an immature believer, he was not to exercise this freedom. My pastor taught this passage a few years ago, spent too much time on it, and gave too few examples, but this past couple weeks have given us 2 examples of freedom versus self-regulation (a distinction which MSNBC is trying to blur).
I watched a Rachel Maddox clone on MSNBC trying to tell us that the Ground Zero Mosque imam having the right to build a mosque at ground zero is unequivocal. If he wants to build it, he should build it, because this is a free country. Wrong. Americans, as a whole, are smarter than that. Americans polled 2 to 1 agreeing that Imam Rauf has the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. However, they also polled 2 to 1 saying that he ought not build the mosque. Just because you have the freedom to do something, does not mean that you exercise that freedom. An imam who is serious and sincere about building bridges would have backed off this mosque idea long ago, when it became clear that this was a very bad idea.
Dr. Laura faced the same sort of decision recently, and in a call where the caller felt her in-laws were saying racist things, Dr. Laura told her that she was being hypersensitive and used the n-word several times (I did not hear this broadcast, so I am relaying it 2nd hand). Dr. Laura had the right to use that word; it is not forbidden by the F.C.C. Dr. Laura had the right to use the word, but she should have self-regulated.
There is a fine line between self-regulation and political correctness. The former is commendable, the latter is a blight on our civilization. In the two recent examples, choosing to build a mosque close to Ground Zero and Dr. Laura’s use of the n-word are times where self-regulation is called for. Not singing a Christmas carol in a public school around Christmas time falls under political correctness. Self-regulation is concerned with the greater good of society; political correctness simply caters to some small but activist political or religious group.
News organizations face this choice all of the time. There is a lot of information out there that they can print. Too often, the alphabet media chooses to downplay or even ignore stories which make the present administration look bad. Do you recall that almost no news organizations covered the first TEA parties? 3000 people were demonstrating in downtown Sacramento for the first Sacto TEA party, and the Sacramento Bee and all of the local television stations completely ignored this. It was blacked out of their news. So it was across all of America. Yet, these same news organizations might print information which will damage our war effort if this same information helps to damage a president which they do not like. They have the freedom to do this, just as we have the freedom to stop using them as a news source. Freedom requires responsibility; propaganda does not.
Let me give you an example of an entity which got this principle right. In World War II, the allied forces defeated German, Japan and Italy, and the leaders of the allied forced met in Yalta to divide up the spoils. It would have been legitimate for the United States to take Japan and make this nation into a U.S. territory. However, we did not. Under the wise and benevolent leadership of Douglas MacArthur, Japan was built into a thriving, prosperous and independent nation. The United States had the right to exploit Japan, its people and its resources yet we chose not to. MacArthur called for missionaries and Bibles and then worked to make Japan into a free and independent nation, a great ally of the United States, and they used this independence to become a free economic superpower. The United States used self-regulation here, and the end result was a great and wonderful ally.
True freedom always demands morality, responsibility and self-regulation. That MSNBC seeks to blur this distinction does a great disservice to both of its viewers.
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
The 19 perpetrators of the 911 mass murder WERE exercising their freedom of religion.
They were practicing Muslims, and engaged in jihad.
They had been promised paradise for their efforts, a rather grand reward.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends before your fist contacts my nose.
The Jews apparently cannot build houses on land they won in war. But Muslims can build a Mosque to celebrate their victory over the Evil West.
Cordoba House is a celebration of Islamic victory over 3,000 infidels (although some of the infidels may have followed Allah under some less bloodthirsty Imam).
Visitors to this visitor’s center and Mosque will have the purpose of celebrating their victory.
The history of the spread of Islam at the point of the sword is well-documented. Just ask the people of India, who have had a lot of contact with the Muslim religion. And they are not Christian.
And as for the Religion of Peace: there will only be peace when there is no worship of anyone other than Allah, Shariah law controls the world, and the Twelfth Imam rules.
Until then, it will be war, war, war.
Then again, maybe not. Maybe then the wars will really start, as the Sunnis and Shi’ites really go at it. I will not live to see that. Do not forget: the other Hussein (the Saddam version) wanted to control all the Muslim holy sites – that’s why he invaded Iran. He wanted Qom.
I say again: there is no religious freedom in Islam. Islam means submission, and all who do not accept the pillars of Islam are to be subjugated, taxed, and take second place.
There will never be a Christian Church in Saudi Arabia.
There should be no Cordoba House Mosque at Ground Zero.
Our freedom of religion is robust enough to repel even the suggestion that Islam be allowed free and unfettered promulgation in this free country.
Some people are exercising their “freedoms” too.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_we_wont_build_it_hardhats_say_no_way_they_will_work_on_wtc_mosque.html
How long before SanFranNan calls for a federal investigation into the funding for the people joining this movement? Or, how long before we hear the cries of the left stating these people are abridging ‘freedom of religion’?
It seems to me that the argument presented in this article can be viewed in reverse too. If most Americans believe Muslims have a ‘right’ to build a Community Center at Ground Zero, then even though they also question the ‘correctness’ of the construction, then the ‘right’ of ‘freedom’ should take precedence over the ‘judgment’ of ‘political correctness’.
As evidence for the writer’s statement of opinion, as statement though it was a fact, certain comparisons are between General MacArthur, Christianity, and Japan’s post-WWII. Of course, no references are given with the article, so as to verify the information.
So, when I tried to research the material, I was unable to confirm it as fact; but I did find some interesting information about the subject at http://thesoulofjapan.blogspot.com/2010/03/deboning-macarthur.html which I am now sharing with you, in case you have an interest.
The reason why scholars generally cite sources when claiming the veracity of their opinions, is so that other people can see how they arrived at their conclusions, and judge whether their reasons are adequate.
Sometimes, things are not ‘black and white’, and not not necessarily provable, or disprovable–like gods and unicorns. But by reviewing the evidence offered by the presenter, one can arrive at their own conclusion–assuming, of course, they haven’t arrived a conclusion before reading the presentation.
Maybe I should have been more specific on what political correctness is: political correctness is when you curb or alter your behavior to please a minority of people and/or some liberal cause or position. When there is a clear majority of the American people in this or that community, in most cases, it would seem wise to back off.