[paraclete]

This is carrying religious freedom a little too far, a Baptist Church is burning versions of the Bible other than the KJV. This is a radical move that achieves nothing but make Christians look like fascists and extremists.

YouTube - N.C. Church Plans Bible Burning

How is it that a land that prides itsself on freedom and political correctness can tolerate fascism in its midst in the name of religion?

[jakester]

This is carrying religious freedom a little too far, a Baptist Church is burning versions of the Bible other than the KJV. This is a radical move that achieves nothing but make Christians look like fascists and extremists.

YouTube - N.C. Church Plans Bible Burning

How is it that a land that prides itsself on freedom and political correctness can tolerate fascism in its midst in the name of religion?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paraclete - I understand your point but this church is a congregation of 14 people who are led by a lunatical man. How many people are actually going to attend such an event as a bible burning besides the members of that church? It stands that rational people will not be there and this little event will go on and nobody will remember it even happened a month from now.

I think you may be giving more credence to this than it even merits, in my opinion. But I think I get your point; this kind of behavior is ridiculous and even mildly sociopathic but they are not the KKK.

[KUXJ]

It looks like the flames have intensified: ABC 13 - WLOS - Stories

I deleted my early morning post because I still had sleep fog.
I am in agreement with you jakester.

[Fr_Chuck]

I don't see where this has anything to do with religious freedom, burning is not religion, it is merely a freedom if you have a permit to burn ( so not really free since in most areas this would be permited)

Next I would use the term "baptist" very loosely, since they have little in common with the majority of baptist.

[paraclete]

I don't see where this has anything to do with religious freedom, buring is not religion, it is merely a freedom if you hvae a permit to burn ( so not really free since in most areas this would be permited)

Next I would use the term "baptist" very loosely, since they have little in common with the majority of baptist.

How do we know what they have in common with Christians or Baptists or anyoneelse for that matter but this is a deeply offensive act to Christians how can you say they should be permitted to do it. When you say most areas, I hope you are referring to the US and not the civilised world

[TUT317]

How do we know what they have in common with Christians or Baptists or anyoneelse for that matter but this is a deeply offensive act to Christians how can you say they should be permitted to do it. when you say most areas, I hope you are referring to the US and not the civilised world

I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying that the US is not part of the civilized world even though you have trouble spelling worlds such as, colour and programme.

It is interesting how Australians and Americans see things so differently. A possible explanation could be found in the different way we view economic, political and religious freedom. I think Americans see economic freedom and religious freedom as, "ends in themselves" as opposed to, "a means to an end". It is of course possible for some objects of freedom to both at the same time.

Many contributors to discussions get upset whenever universal health care is mentioned. Clearly, the government wants universal health care as a way of meeting an agenda.
From what I have read so far the attack is not so much on the idea of universal health care, but rather an attack on economic freedom as an end in itself. To put this another way it is seen as an attack on the intrinsic value of economic freedom.

In a similar fashion, when someone wants to burn books; while strongly disagreeing with it, you are reluctant to do anything about it because to do so would intrude on this person/s right to religious freedom. In other words, the right to burn books so long as it does not do harm to others.

In Australia we don't see the need to protect freedoms so vigorously because we don't take the intrinsic value of freedom as seriously. Our constitution guarantees us very little.
It is against the law not to vote in elections. It is against the law to carry a gun. A gun is therefore seen as a privilege not a right. It is against the law not to wear a seat-belt, and numerous other restraints on individual freedoms. Except for the ones mentioned here you also have restraints as well but not as intrusive.

We don't necessarily see government intervention in any area of life as an attack on freedom. Most of us are not worried about our freedom because we know it is protected elsewhere in our system of checks and balances.

[artlady]

How is it that a land that prides itsself on freedom and political correctness can tolerate fascism in its midst in the name of religion?

It seems all bets are off when you put religion into the equation.
There is a self serving mindset that precedes common sense and political correctness.

[Fr_Chuck]

Allowed to do it, of course, that is what at least America is all about the right to burn the bible, or books by Obama in protest.

Many Christian groups with a lot of mistaken reasons believe the King James Version to be the best or some to be the only "real" version, not sure if that is only the english version or also the 1000's of other translations of King James.

But they have the same right to burn it as I would to burn porn takes or pro homosexual text books in protest.

But it has nothing to do with religious freedoms as much as political freedom to protest things we don[t like

[artlady]

allowed to do it, of course, that is what at least America is all about the right to burn the bible, or books by Obama in protest.

Many Christian groups with alot of mistaken reasons believe the King James Version to be the best or some to be the only "real" version, not sure if that is only the english version or also the 1000's of other translations of King James.

But they have the same right to burn it as I would to burn porn takes or pro homosexual text books in protest.

But it has nothing to do with religious freedoms as much as political freedom to protest things we don[t like

I hear what your saying ,it is freedom of speech.

The problem,I find ,is that in religious circles the minority follows the leaders,like it or not.

Its one of those,follow this way or you are not a (insert religion)

Be one of us or not at all.

Follow the leader or else.

Who ever decides what is the doctrine for the day must be followed.It bull.

[artlady]

Lets separate ourselves from mental slavery.Free our mind.

[phlanx]

Morning

As a spiritual aetheist, I always find it bemusing when churches or church organisations burn books in their pursuit of religious beliefs

It is always a statement that catches peoples attention

Burning is a symbol that we all recognise, what is being burnt is a symbol of the message trying to be conveyed

Freedom of anything always comes with a price, and in most cases it is the right for people to shout their message the way they like regardless of how other people perceive it

Here in the UK people have freedom of speech, except when that speech contributes towards hatred of a group of people

I don't agree with that statement, I still believe that people have the right to say what they believe, with the only restrictions on what I class as morally acceptable behaviour - swearing for example should not be allowed as part of it as it doesn't convey a message just bad language

Regardless of the message, we should have the right to speak our minds on subjects that effect our lives

If burning something is a way of freedom of expression then I will quite happily give these people the matches, although at the same time I will be stating there ideas are moronic which is my right to freedom of expression

[artlady]

Morning

As a spiritual aetheist, I always find it bemusing when churches or church organisations burn books in their persuit of religeous beliefs

It is always a statement that catches peoples attention

Burning is a symbol that we all recognise, what is being burnt is a symbol of the message trying to be conveyed

Freedom of anything always comes with a price, and in most cases it is the right for people to shout their message the way they like regardless of how other people perceive it

Here in the UK people have freedom of speech, except when that speech contributes towards hatred of a group of people

I dont agree with that statement, I still believe that people have the right to say what they believe, with the only restrictions on what I class as morally acceptable behaviour - swearing for example should not be allowed as part of it as it doesnt convey a message just bad language

Regardless of the message, we should have the right to speak our minds on subjects that effect our lives

If burning something is a way of freedom of expression then I will quite happily give these people the matches, although at the same time I will be stating there ideas are moronic which is my right to freedom of expression

Hay I hear you,we used to burn witches here back in the day! It symbolic of some nastiness.

[phlanx]

Hahaha

Don't worry Artlady, we used to burn catholics, and then protestants and then catholics again

Burning books or flags is considerably good natured compared to the past :)

[artlady]

hahaha

Dont worry Artlady, we used to burn catholics, and then protestants and then catholics again

Burning books or flags is considerably good natured compared to the past :)

Relatively speaking ,I guess some fool's have progressed ! :rolleyes:

[phlanx]

Relatively speaking ,I guess some fool's have progressed ! :rolleyes:

Yeah, imagine in 20 years time though, people will burning ipods and ebooks instead :)

[artlady]

Yeah, imagine in 20 years time though, people will burning ipods and ebooks instead :)

Anything is better than human beings.
The problem is when you take away freedom of speech ,you silence so many and that is what terrorism is all about.
Keeping people locked in ignorance and bigotry.
SAD.

[phlanx]

Slightly disagree, terrorism is a tactic for a small inferrior army to fight a larger army

For many years the Scots used hit and run tactics against the English, as they knew the landscape, were small so mobile - and as such they could not fight an army that they could never defeat going head to head on a battle field

This tactic is being used by people/countries as they cannot fight the US and UK, Australia etc head on

What is at the heart of it all, these people are afraid of freedom of speech, afraid they will loose their identity as a nation, both political and religious

Until their fears are laid to rest the terrorists will continue

How this fear is quitened down - who knows - any suggestions would be great, because I think few know how to go forward

[ETWolverine]

From my perspective, freedom includes the freedom to be an @sshole. The people in that video are certainly excersizing that freedom.

Elliot

[paraclete]

It is interesting how Australians and Americans see things so differently. A possible explanation could be found in the different way we view economic, political and religious freedom. I think Americans see economic freedom and religious freedom as, "ends in themselves" as opposed to, "a means to an end". It is of course possible for some objects of freedom to both at the same time.

Yes we even have a different system of spelling common words and this is because our background is British whilst theirs is European. They deliberately distanced themselves from their British heritage and in isolation developed a different view, much more insular and inward looking, sure of their own view.

In Australia we don't see the need to protect freedoms so vigorously because we don't take the intrinsic value of freedom as seriously. Our constitution guarantees us very little.

And yet it is what is not written that guarantees us the most our freedoms and law are enshrined in an older document and the many many judgments of the courts over a long time. We have a sense that our governments are there to protect us even from ourselves. We don't need to enforce our freedoms at the point of gun. We don't have such love of self that we feel we should solve our differences outside of the rule of Law.

We don't necessarily see government intervention in any area of life as an attack on freedom. Most of us are not worried about our freedom because we know it is protected elsewhere in our system of checks and balances.

This might be because we don't have a radical lunatic fringe gaining any form of influence in government. The two party system creates a path for such people to rise to such positions of influence. We have never suffered a communist or fascist government or found the need to assassinate a leader. Because of our roots we are more willing to accept the concept of a "fair go" as typified by a socialistic approach to provision of services and protection of the under dog. Even some of the ethos of sharing which typified aboriginal society might have unconsciencely found its way into our thinking. Although America is Christian this part of Christian thought appears to be lacking in their behavior

[ETWolverine]

Yes we even have a different system of spelling common words and this is because our background is British whilst theirs is European. They deliberately distanced themselves from their British heritage and in isolation developed a different view, much more insular and inward looking, sure of their own view.



And yet it is what is not written that guarantees us the most our freedoms and law are enshrined in an older document and the many many judgments of the courts over a long time. We have a sense that our governments are there to protect us even from ourselves. We don't need to enforce our freedoms at the point of gun. We don't have such love of self that we feel we should solve our differences outside of the rule of Law.



This might be because we don't have a radical lunatic fringe gaining any form of influence in government. The two party system creates a path for such people to rise to such positions of influence. We have never suffered a communist or fascist government or found the need to assassinate a leader. Because of our roots we are more willing to accept the concept of a "fair go" as typified by a socialistic approach to provision of services and protection of the under dog. Even some of the ethos of sharing which typified aboriginal society might have unconsciencely found its way into our thinking. Although America is Christian this part of Christian thought appears to be lacking in their behavour

Your post assumes that the only way to share is through government intervention, and that is why you are so accepting of government intervention in your lives.

We see sharing and charity as something to do because we WANT to, not because government FORCES us to. And as a result, as I have pointed out before, we are the most charitable nation in the world in terms of personal giving to charities and charitable causes.

As Tom has said, where is the virtue in being FORCED to be charitable.

I'll take it further. Where is the virtue in being forced to give charity to a cause I don't support?

That isn't "charity" or "sharing". It's a tax, pure and simple. It is government TAKING my money to give it to causes I would not choose to support on my own. In what way does it differ from outright theft?

Elliot