No, I don't advocate the government censoring or disallowing Islam, nor squelching the 1st amendment. Nor do I believe that the constitution is a suicide pact, and that the same protections given to the citizenry who support our government are due to those whose avowed intent is to destroy it.
Response:
There is a technical violation there I believe in your logic. Our government is established from the bottom up; in other words, the document and constitution is very much designed so that if the people of the whole nation desire to change it, and they can legally and lawfully and peacefully get the change through all three branches of government plus through the state governments then yes the entire constitution can be altered. That is the whole point of our government being "by the people, for the people, and of the people." So YES, if a group wants to alter and abolish this entire constitution they can do so through an
honest means.
But therein is the key, an honest means. It has to be done through a public debate in a public legislative body and then work its ways through all other levels of government. And that is again the brillance of our founding fathers. NO VIOLENT religion will ever be able to win the debate in the eye of the public in all three branches of government because of the checks and balances system, or at least according to the theory as set forth by our founders. Why not? Because they built our constitution on the law that came forth from the mind and ideas of John Calvin and the Reformation, i.e. all people are self-centered and seek their own self preservation. As some of the most brilliant legal historians and constititional scholars have noted, the three branch system of government, the idea of man being corrupt and absolute power corrupting, the electoral college, and other keys to our government were set in place so that positive checks and balances would take place. Our very system itself was designed around the total depravity doctrine that the Puritians and Pilgrims brought to our country from the wake of the Reformation movement. Could Muslims overtake the country? Possible but highly unlikely unless they hold a 75% to 85% majority in
every state of the union and in
all three branches of the government with enough time to also have altered the courts that often look out for the rights of minorities. By that time their would be a revolt of enough secularists who don't give a flying flip about any religion but just want to be able to live in peace and when Islam showed their selfish desires to control all by the power of the sword it would not go over well in the secular or alternative religious spheres. More than likely when they tried to make laws that openly required submission to their agenda it would be a fire storm in so many areas that it would show their true colors as being a non-peaceful religion.
But again, technically, our framers did indeed design the document so that it could indeed be altered by the very people who created it, but they set in the document boundaries on how it must be done; open debate, in the eye of the public, with a three branch system to keep the process in check as it developed.
Pornographers may have their freedom, but I don't have to allow it into my home.
Response:
Granted, this is a difference between personal choice and public law.
I readily admit to mixed feelings over many issues mixed into this debate. However, as Sadan pointed out, Islamists have purchased Bibles solely so as to burn them. Seems fair enough to return the favor with the message, "Don't like it? Don't do it to ours." When dealing with children who don't reason on a very advanced level, that's sometimes the only sort of logic they understand. Reason hasn't worked well with these folks so far. Maybe that sort of elementary logic would.
Response:
That above is my point about the heart. Muslims who do that declare themselves to be our enemy. Did not Christ and the apostles teach us how to deal with our enemies on a personal, one to one, relationship? Did he teach us to take revenge on a personal level or did he teach us to in return show acts of kindness towards them? For example, did not Paul say: "
Do not repay evil with evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends upon you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge my friends but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty give him something to drink. In doing this, you will reap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:17-21).
According to Paul if they burn our Bible we ought to do something kind in return, not retaliate and do likewise. As for logic it is not elementary or advanced logic or anything in between. It is 180 degrees opposite of logic. It is a violation of the command of Christ given to us through the apostles. Granted, I'll be the first to admit I have not always been kind to those in return who have been enemies of mine. But it does not change the teaching just because of my failures. Likewise, just because it stirs your emotions to see people do something that shows themselves to be an enemy of God does not make revenge or "fair play" to be used in return. It is a tough standard? Certainly! But it is nevertheless God's standard when dealing with an enemy on a personal basis.
Furthermore, your position above is based on a humanistic standard (I'm
not calling you a humanist just saying you are looking at this one issue through a human point of view instead of the divine point of view) instead of one based upon a divine standard. God's through his providence can work and act through the power of love. Proverbs 15:1 teaches this very principle as well. We will never change anyone based on logic or force, not if we are talking about changing their heart. To retaliate is to sttop down to their very level. to love them is to walk in step with the power of the holy Spirit and to trust that God is big enough to change their hearts and minds through his hand of miraculous intervention in their very hearts and souls.
As to Gideon: We can point out dissimilarities and say they don't apply all day. No parallel is going to be perfect. The fact is that he ceased tolerating a clear idolatry in his own community, which is a wee bit different than, say, a doctrinal difference among Christians between the sprinklers and the dunkers. Gideon's community didn't worship the same God differently; they worshipped a different god. Same thing in the case in point.
Response:
Even so, would you still then claim that is someone declares themselves to be a Satanist that we ought to go and by force oust them from the land, sieze their property, force them not to worship as they so choose to do? Or is it better to give them limited freedom so long as they do not resort to violence and if they do we then use the sword to oppose their violence? As it looks to me if we go the first route then all of us will be fighting forever. If we go the second route we can allow for the truest religion of peace to show their true colors in honesty. I think the second option is the logical and correct view as did our founders of the nation. allow for pluralism of views and only restrict non-peaceful actions.
I recently moved here to NE GA from South FL. There I see public transport buses covered in full size ads for this or that mosque. They all sound so reasonable and peaceful, and make Islam sound like such a GOOD thing. Someone is doing a great public relations job, as I was seeing more and more women, mostly black, wearing Islamic garb. I submit (admittedly for argument's sake, as I could well be wrong) that there is nothing inappropriate about taking an action likelyto rip the false peaceful mask off of a sworn enemy's face.
Response:
So back to my point above. You think it is ok to seek to retaliate when God told us not to do the same acts they do back to them, as stated in Romans 12? If they do evil against us it is logical and good to do evil back to them to pay them back? You burn our bibles we shall burn yours?
I also readily admit that it might have been better to not START this particular brouhaha.
Response:
Above you said there was nothing inappropriate but now this phrase suggests it might have ben better not to start this controversy? that is what I was mentioning before, there seems to be a tension in your own mind about this and a degree of uncertainty showing up in your statements that go back and forth.
But having done so, ... You didn't answer my final question from the previous post. Do you doubt for a minute tha when 9/11 passed without a public Quran burning, Islam rejoiced at their victory? They'd backed us down and forced us to bow to their will. About enough to make me go burn MY copy, if I could find it.
Response:
Again it goes back to the point of Romans 12. that text has much to do with how we control our anger. I lost some friends in 9/11. I hurt deeply over it. Did it make me mad? YES! But does that give us the lawful reason to seek to do the same in return on a personal basis in the name of Christ? Hardly, unless there is some direct teaching that i just do not see or know of. What I see is Christ and the apostles telling us to do the exact opposite of what they do to us.
As for bowing to their will, I'm not sure what that means. Our civil government certainly has not. Neither the FBI or the military has bowed to their acts of violence and non-peaceful tactics. As Christians we, if true to our Holy Bible, will continue to teach against their works based religion and show that Christ is the ONLY way to heaven. But burning their Bibles like they do ours shows them nothing about the gospel but shows them we are just like they are, on the same level as them.
Let me take it one step further, my friend. From time to time we have either Islamics or Mormons come on this site and begin voicing their views and attempting to teach their ideas about PM. When that happens, they are politely encouraged to go elsewhere, and their posts may even be removed. THIS site is not sympathetic to their viewpoint. Is that wrong? Should we be tolerating them and their views among us for the sake of toleration? Why or why not?
Response:
Personal property versus public property issues here. You are confusing the two. Toleration is a civil, legal, constitiutional protection that shows all people have natural inalienable rights. All people are born with the natural right given to them by God to worship or not worship him, to love him or hate him, to recognize him or to shun him. Our democratic republic recognizes this natural right that all people have. That is different than personal property and private use of lands, homes, websites etc. The owner of a land can allow who he wants on it or not allow who he does not want on it. the overseers of this site can allow who they want on it and who they do not want on it. Overseers of a religious body that owns private property can let who they desire in and keep out who they do not desire. That is totally different than natural rights that allow people to exercise a natural innate right in the land we live. Toleration applies at the civil public realm, not as the specific private realms where ownership is within a religious body. Just like we as Christians cannot go into aMuslim assembly and take over it, halt it, or hinder it, they cannot do that to us either because we are both protected by the 1st Amendment which applies justice to all in that realm. So long as we do not violate another's well being (by force, acts of violence etc) then both groups are to be tolerated while they preach and teach their particular views.
Whether the burning was the right tactic to pull or not, what impresses me is that we ARE in a war with an enemy using our religious tolerance as a weapon against us. Not fair.
But I think there is no surety that society will be preserved, that our children will not be persecuted, murdered, etc. So for those who desire security/safety for their families, then a more militant path makes sense. But when they come for me, and torture and mutilate my children in front of me, I'll wonder and doubt if my tolerance was in fact the only path God would allow......
I do grumble and complain, but I then work to fix those things that bother me. I'm helping manage a campaign for county supervisor currently on the secular level, just for the insider peek. Interesting how our divine government works....Otherwise I spend my time feeding and housing widows and orphans, because that is our duty to God. 
No seriously, alright here is the deal. Yes it is biblical wrong to revolt. If our colonial brothers and sisters acted in revolt at the non-government levels then it would be sin because that is not peaceful. And as one ggod doctor an Evangelical scholar has so well stated: "How do we know if a government has the right to rule? Well all governments are established by God (Rom 13) so if they exist then that which exists must be the rightful government even if it is acting wrongly." Dr. Geisler also speaks of this in his book: "Christian Ethics: Options and Issues."
