Persecution for His name’s sake is when one is inflicted with trouble due to the hatred of Christ and His message, alone. I don’t believe that hatred of obnoxious personality, methods, or pious prejudice is ever a cause of persecution for His name even though these might incite serious repercussions.

If a U.S. envoy visited a foreign country and was beaten by a mob due to his disrespectful actions toward the people of that country, could he claim persecution in the name of the U.S.?

And Christians do not think there are different truths about the same reality. There is truth. And there is falsehood. And to quote a person whom I greatly admire “sometimes you have to draw the line in the sand and stand for truth.”

1. To state what I think is obvious, it’s horrible.

2. I’m wondering where all of the celebrities normally so concerned with peoples’ “rights” are. Maybe they’re speaking up, and it’s just not being reported (perish the thought!).

3. I think this is a clear example of why cultural relativism is ultimately untenable. There are almost certainly many people around the world of various spiritual persuasions who are appalled by what’s happening. However, if you’re a relativist, don’t you have to yield to whatever the Afghan culture says is “right” regarding this situation? I actually read a quote from an Afghan official saying that they weren’t against any religion, but this was the law. A hard statement to comprehend, but reflective of the global zeitgeist, I think.

Visit ampleape.blogspot.com

It would have been nice to have them talk to a psychologist on the other side of the issue, so it didn’t come off so much as religion vs science, but otherwise it seemed okay.

First, I agree that the right to freedom of expression can be an idol of narcissism, and that the press too often leads the way.

But the point of the controversy isn’t about not getting one’s way, it’s about the double-standard that exists in the world about how different religious groups are treated, and the nature of those groups beliefs to affect such a double-standard.

As a Christian, I could easily be offended by any number of depictions of Christ, whether verbally or graphically (though I must admit that I took exception to the Larger Catechism’s Question 109 regarding the sins forbidden by the second commandment). But I’m not. First, because, consistent with my other Christian beliefs, I don’t feel called to violence or protest, nor do I even expect or hold accountable everyone to adhere to Christian beliefs. The Muslim protestors (and those who cow-tow to them) have a different point of view. The irony is that Christians (and Jews) have more of a “cause” to be offended than Muslims, for whom it’s not even clear that such imagery is forbidden.

The point of the present controversy is not getting one’s way. It’s not even that the State Department is reacting to the reaction (which is, I know, the point of your post). I happen to believe that the State Department got it exactly right. There needs to be some accountability for ideas that are promulgated in the press. The assertion that these were *only* cartoons, and that Muslims should get over it is ridiculous. I would feel the same if someone drew a picture of Budda stomping on a bug or of a Hindu sitting down to a steak dinner. The point of the cartoons was never to report or inform, it was to inflame the opposition and galvanize those who agree.

you can see the cartoons at the bottom of this article, and you can see why there is anger and outrage over them.

The right to freedom of expression is an idol of narcissism, and the press too often leads the way.

Peace,
ck

“Instead, the court did something just as unthinkable: It handed that power over life and death to the same child welfare agency that had failed time and time and time again to protect Haleigh from her abusers in the first place.”

Ideas have consequences, as we’re seeing here, with power being ceded to “experts” and government entities. This is highly troubling and terribly sad. It’s too bad none of these “decision”-makers was able to hear the sermon on Sunday.

That’s an amazing Lego church, but the whole design looks a little too Robert Schuller/Crystal Cathedralish for my tastes…

Christian Science Monitor: an international daily newspaper; founded in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy, it is unlike most US dailies in that it does not rely primarily on wire services, like AP and Reuters, for its international coverage (has writers based in 11 countries and throughout the US).

Another, less popular because it is less immediately gratifying, option is to stop contributing money to “international welfare” organizations like the UN and avoid the bureacratic waste (to say nothing of the scandals) and allow our own country to improve its own economy, and in turn offer global opportunity to the disadvantaged. It’s a seemingly much slower process, but slower amelioration is perferable to quicker waste.

This isn’t a haughty condescension, nor is it a slap on the wrist. I am sincerely asking. I grew up in church and am still part of a church and this kind of battering and viciousness has been present in varying degrees everywhere. Can’t we look for a way to attack error and pronounce truth without attacking the people who hold erroneous views and pronouncing ourselves righteous?

Thanks so much for adding your perspective to our blog. To answer your question, no, our church is not a representative of the republican party. This blog is a forum in which members of our church can share their perspective, and in which we ca uphold one of the values that we hold very dear: the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of objective truth. I won’t get involved in the particular issues that are in this post, but I’m sure that if you read other posts, you’ll see that there are a wide variety of perspectives on a number of issues. You are right. God is not the God of republicans only, nor is he the God of democrats or any other political party. He supercedes them all, and we are responsible to work out how we live Coram Deo, before the face of God.