The story has since taken a strange turn. The minister might not burn the korans...but claims the imam will be moving the NYC near Ground Zero proposed mosque elsewhere. And the imam says he never struck that deai with this minister....

But Christians should not be burning others' religious books. Needlessly offensive!!!

I like it. Extreme boorishness. A perfect description that Chesterton would be proud of.

Legally, treason is simply an american citizen making war upon the United States and must be restricted to such. Colloquially it can at times mean "extreme disloyalty" as long as one understands that it is not prosecutable.

This case is an example of neither. It is just extreme boorishness.

only weapon the Gainesville pastor has at his disposal is the match. A review of the discourse indicates to me a thelogically shallow diatribe, unable to wage the conversations that Wehner or Ben W articulate ( although I doubt Ben's conversation would reach a point farther than accomodation and world understanding).

I would also be willing to bet that Dear Pastor Terry has ever sat down and read the Quran or had lunch with a Muslim. The lack of interaction makes poor ground for growing wisdom. Lack of personal interaction makes ones "enemies" into inanimate objects instead of image bearers who need Christ.

Treason... well if the pastors bonfire rises to treason, then Senator Rieds "this war is lost" does too and we need remedy on both counts. I find his expression not so much distastefull as silly... really really silly, as in I would be hard pressed to take what he says seriously. I am for a solid Biblical exposition of why Jesus the Prophet, bar Joseph of Nazareth was raised form the dead and really is the One and Only Mediator between God and Man.

The "treason" is against our Lord Jesus Christ:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. ...If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them...
Luke 6

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on 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."--Romans 12

Ben, the people of New York have as much right, to refuse to work on the mosque as the builders have to build it. It is a strange sort of freedom of expression that allows the first and condemns the second. It is obvious that both are attempting to "dis" the other. If you choose to continue in an artificial objectivity you must accept both. If you wish to be prejudiced toward your own country you should be opposed to the mosque. Because while the mosque-builders have a right to build on that sight, the construction workers of New York have a right not to and fairs, fair.

"Let me know when the Muslims invade the US -"

So what were 9/11, Ft Hood, Little Rock, NYC, etc?

Seems the right analogy is the Maginot line. Someone is going to cry foul because invasion didn't look like it was "supposed" to.

Lee wrote,
"And another thing...!!
We're expected to chant like a mantra that radical Islam doesn't represent all Muslims, that moderate Muslims are peaceful and abhor violence, etc., etc.

Yet some clown with an entire congregation smaller than the average church *choir* is going to put American troops at risk? Many of those troops aren't even *Christian*, much less listen to this pastor preach! How can they be attacked for something one person did, when that person hardly represents a group the size of the average platoon?"

Great point. (Hope it's not too rude of me to say so :P )

Interesting question, LQ. But those Muslims *are* condemned who can't tell crazy pastors from US troops, and who use this to justify attacking troops. They're terrorists and insurgents - do you think the non-radical Muslims support these radicals?

But to be fair to the almost-terrorists on the fence, the issue is a bit ambiguous. Many of our politicians speak of the US as a "Christian nation", a nation that has killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the last decade and displaced millions more. (And lest you say that it was in self-defense, Iraq didn't pose any serious threat.) For Muslims in some countries, it can be difficult to distinguish between the aggressive and non-aggressive Christians, particularly when it now seems we only favor freedom and liberty for certain religions. This isn't justification for terrorism; I'm simply explaining that it's not always obvious that US is the good guys when you're on the other side of the stick and the propaganda.

Thus the Koran-burning is perfectly timed as a follow-up to the NYC mosque issue, and both make us seem more like a "Christian" nation-state than a genuinely Christian people.


And.. Neville Chamberlain? Really? Aside from being a closet Godwin's Law invocation, it's not even a good analogy. Let me know when the Muslims invade the US - (immigration is hardly the same thing). Besides, I remember someone else who sat and talked with sinners, pagans, and Romans.. perhaps it would have been better if he had just formed an army and pushed the Romans out of the Holy Land instead?

For the love all that is good, I'm not talking about appeasement. I'm talking about standing on the principles on which this country was founded - that all men are created equal, with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As Americans, we should be focused on protecting those rights, and as Christians, we should focus on opening a dialogue with people of other religions. You can treat your fellow Americans like the enemy when they start trying to change the laws or Constitution to favor Islam.. but to do so at this point is both anti-Christian and anti-American.

We're expected to chant like a mantra that radical Islam doesn't represent all Muslims, that moderate Muslims are peaceful and abhor violence, etc., etc.

Yet some clown with an entire congregation smaller than the average church *choir* is going to put American troops at risk? Many of those troops aren't even *Christian*, much less listen to this pastor preach! How can they be attacked for something one person did, when that person hardly represents a group the size of the average platoon?

So how is it that we can be condemned for not separating their radicals from their mainstream, and yet they don't get condemned for a far less justifiable one-to-many fallacy?

Is there some kind of racism on the American Left, a racism that believes foreign Muslims are too backward and stupid to make those kinds of distinctions?

Humph.

Treason, no. Ignorance, yes. I certainly agree with 1 Peter 3:15-16 that we should set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts, and be ready with good, coherent answers for the hope we have, but to do so with gentleness and respect. This is certainly not the way to do that. Paul also talked about showing respect to pagan temples - NOT worshiping there, of course, but respecting the property of the pagans, and connecting with their desire to connect with God, which is currently misguided. Also, I have heard a couple of people, very experienced in dealing with the Muslim world, who insist that the way to their hearts is by lifting up Christ, not bashing the Qur'an or Muhammad. Muslims respect Jesus as a prophet, and think well of Him, so it is much better to plug into that side of their belief system than to act as horrible mis-representatives of Him.

Ben, you wrote: "the way to do it would be to welcome them to build their mosque, invite them over for coffee and scones, and have a friendly theological discussion."

Ah, yes - the Neville Chamberlain Defense. Didn't work then, either, my friend. (And some interesting parallels, too: first Europe, then the USA, then as now.)

But as always, you go to the heart of the liberal/conservative divide: should Christians defend, or accommodate? Should it be peace at *any price whatsoever*, or *only on my terms*? We're much more comfortable with the role of being powerless and persecuted than we are with having power and deciding how to use it.

Besides, the point our dearest Anne is making is simple: the act of burning those books would endanger troops. She didn't take sides on whether the pastor would be right or wrong in doing so; rather she's simply pointing out the consequences.

Anne, I don't think an arrest for treason would have the consequences you'd prefer - not with *this* administration, anyway. I *actually* expected Ben to jump all over your call for Marine moms to threaten someone. Personally, I'd like to see this pastor rebuked at length by every speaker like Chuck Colson who has access to radio time. If the pastor wants so much attention, maybe he can get the kind he won't like. Granted, this is merely book burning, not the martyrdom that several Christians have faced at the hands of Muslims for the crime of evangelism - or for conversion from Islam - but still it's worthy of some negative fame.

That said, a confrontation with one angry momma grizzly is intense, but being surrounded by a pack of them would make a Youtube-worthy moment for that pastor. Heh.

I'm praying that someone will be able to convince this man that he is not acting in the best interests of Christ, the Church, or soldiers and missionaries serving in Muslim lands. If it takes a brigade of Marine moms, so be it!

When you start calling that sort of thing treason you really have made the constitution meaningless. I think "treason" is simply "An American citizen making war upon the United States." That would apply to a spy, but not this.

That said, it was an extremely distasteful thing to do.

Not to seem snarky, but is protesting a mosque in New York also in "a spirit of grace and understanding"? I would think that if we were interested in spreading the Gospel, the way to do it would be to welcome them to build their mosque, invite them over for coffee and scones, and have a friendly theological discussion.

I just see it as hypocritical to protest both the Koran-burning and the NYC mosque.

"Quick question: If someone knowingly acts in such a way as to endanger the lives of our troops ... shouldn't he be arrested for treason? "

In this case, absolutely not. It's abhorrant even to suggest such a thing.

Appeasing any and every enemy because is not the role of a government. Nor is it treason not to pursue such a path.

It may be obnoxious by this pastor and his congregation, but they are NOT the ones endangering US Marines.