Wade Burleson on Multiculturalism

[Gene Scarborough]

I think we have a fair and balanced group of Moderators well able to note excess.

For a year before joining the discussions here, I was a SBC Voices. There moderation is so one-sided it's not funny. Vile things are said with a vile spirit by certain most conservative and set-in-concrete attitude people.

I was representing the more moderate side of Baptist life and drew vile commentary. I gave back what I was given and was moderated off. Their syle of blog reflects a definite bias which I have never seen here and don't expect to---but there is a resonable limit clearly stated in the rules of discussion.

I think it is reasonable and reasonably enforced only when extremes creep in. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Neither do we need such "pretended sweetness" that we can't back up differences with facts. From the beginning of the Christian faith, even the Disciples became disagreeable at times and Jesus corrected them with love and example.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Wade Burleson]

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen ,

Since 2006 and my first experience with Baptist Life I have learned a great deal from all commentators, including Hauro, Big Daddy, and the moderators of the forum who, though not always agreeing with me, have been fair.

I welcome the criticism of my post on multiculturalism, and am taking in the points of offense from perspectives of those who despised what I wrote. Interestingly, I am considered by my fundamentalist friends a "liberal" and by my liberal friends a "fundamentalist." Regardless, I believe that both sides are Christian and my brothers and sisters in Christ and I learn from all who have been gifted by the Holy Spirit and that includes everyone I've met on-line in this forum.

My wife tells me that sometimes my writing does not come across the way I intend because the reader has no perspective about me the author. In other words, she says that sometimes my point is missed because my words are misinterpreted as to my meaning. The misinterpretation is not always the reader's fault--sometimes my writing is weak.

So....

Having seen this particular post of Big Daddy divert from the original criticism of my post, I thought I might chime in and say "Thanks" to all who have commented on my post and make one FINAL attempt to make my point in a clear, succinct, and unambigious manner without any history, Scripture, or comment. The following is a true, sincere, question.

"Why do Baptists, who were so emphatic on "separation of church and state" in the 1700's, receive with either welcome arms or stony face silence radical Muslims becoming U.S. citizens and/or government leaders, Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture--not to mention the world and world culture--with Islamic law and principles?"

In my opinion, all Baptists, liberal and convservative, should shout from the rooftops the danger we are seeing in this world of secular states becoming radical Muslim states (i.e. Turkey).

[Sandy]

Almost anything I can find on Fethullah Gulen from neutral sources show him as being opposed to radical Islam, committed to "dialogue" between Muslims and other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, whom he references as "people of the book," and placing the emphasis of Islamic teaching on the moral values and away from what he and many Sufis consider to be the more "barbaric" aspects of Islam. It seems that virtually no one who has first hand knowledge of him considers him to be either "radical" or a threat to the authority of the constitution or the rule of law. Nor does he seem to be doing anything to Turkey except influencing it away from radical Islamic extremism.

That's not a justification of the legitimacy of Islamic teaching. However, to cite Gulen as an example of why there is a rush to pass legislation prohibiting Sharia Law, and further, as an example of the "Pro-Islamic" sympathies of President Obama completely undermines the credibility of those who are making the claim. It makes them appear that they haven't done their homework, and it makes you wonder where they are getting their mis-information and why they are intent on spreading it.

[Dave Roberts]

[Haruo]

[Neil Heath]

[Neil Heath]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Wade Burleson]

[Wade Burleson]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

[Neil Heath]

Perhaps you'll no longer post but perhaps you'll read...I'll reply to you once more on the chance you do.

I know it's opinion most of the time, even though it's usually stated as fact. And I know I do that too. I don't like the character assassination or name-calling either and fail to see the value in it. I do think you're wrong about being targeted the most. I think much of our readership ignores you because of the way you tend to post.

I'll ignore the Bush as mass-murderer comment since I've never said that. But don't assume that silent mods means that we agree.
Sandy expresses opinions I've liked and some I've disliked, but he does it in a more civil manner--though strongly worded.

I have not discussed a ban of you with any moderators, Jim, and that has not been my intention in raising the issue. I agree that there are others who express themselves in strong language here. Perhaps we as mods should be reining in more of it than we have. I'll try to do better. You probably aren't always aware when moderators have deleted posts or parts of posts more than once when we thought it was improper to let it stand. I was merely suggesting you needed to tone down the rhetoric a bit so yours wouldn't get zapped.

Perhaps it's just me, since I can't hear your tone of voice, but I often find in your posts an angry, almost irrational hatred of certain things that get your goat. Perhaps you are actually saying it in dulcet tones if I could hear you, but that's not how they come across. Others are welcome to express a different reading if I'm wrong on this.

I know you have a gift for words from the poems you post. I would love to see that same gift used to participate in civil dialogue instead of diatribes. Sometimes you do one, sometimes you do the other. I know which one will get your ideas heard and considered instead of ignored.

Neil

[Gene Scarborough]

I agree with the moderation approach and the reason for it. When the name calling starts, that's where I draw a line.

The President and Economy deserves commentary, but if I don't like Bush, I should keep the insult terms out. When the Obama haters start to use dirisive terms it insults a position we need to all honor. That's why the halls of Congress are full of hate, but the rules of address use "Mr. Speaker / Mr. President / Honorable Representative. If they can maintain that kind of respectful speech, so should we.

On the newcomer side, I give back what I get, but don't ever start the battle. If we go without any rules or moderation it can quickly degenerate to the level of some public commentaries like USA Today's religious section. That one draws extremes and emotion much greater than the differences, mostly used most of the time, here.

[Gene Scarborough]

While not exactly on target with the specific issue, this article says much about the church and it's relation to culture today:



In this case it addresses the "Religion of Prosperity."

[Haruo]

Wade, you speak of "Muslims who desire to place their hand on the Koran when swearing an oath, Muslims who by the very nature of their Islamic faith CANNOT separate their belief system from their desire to dominate the state and American culture…" Even the most church-state-separatist of us still prays "thy kingdom come, in earth" (okay, well, by now most of us say "on earth"). I am not clear how we differ from Muslims, whose desire to see God's laws obeyed in human society looks to me like the same principle at work. The specifics differ, but again, look at how the UCC's forebears treated ours.

[Chris]

[Chris]

[Chris]

[Neil Heath]

[Gene Scarborough]

Most interesting!!!

In a day that many colonies were based on that "Christian Faith" posited by conservatives, Jefferson was honoring the Moslem religion!!!

I think somebody missed an important part of Freedom of Religion and I thank you for sharing it!!!

[Haruo]

Well, I heard on the radio that Jefferson was secretLy a democrat, so it should come as no surprise to learn that, like Hussain Obama, he was also a thinly veiled Muslim.

[Mrs Haruo]

If Jefferson were a woman, he would have been a more thickly veiled democrat.

[David Flick]