"If you are against religious liberty for Muslims, you are an opponent of religious liberty. "

I think in many ways we are talking past each other. I agree with much you have said, but I wonder if you even understand the concerns people have today who feel threatened by militant Islam and worry about the way President Obama and his administration have compromised our country. Of course, not every Muslim, in fact perhaps few Muslims are radical and fascist. But many of their imams who lead the mosques are anti-American. and they take shelter in freedom of religion to promote anti-Americanism to their congregants. Why else has the FBI done surveillance in them? You might just google to find out about the now thousands who have been killed in this country in the name of Allah. Do you have no concern at all about this disparity in Christian beliefs and Muslim practices?

If we are going to try to offset Westboro Baptist against militant Muslims in order to even the score, even that’s not fair. There is no record of any Baptist or evangelical, or even Christian in the broadest sense killing Muslims in the name of their religion. is there?. A little balance is needed.

Do you suppose it might just be a little bit fair to make it reciprocal for our government to demand that Saudi Arabia permit Christian presence and proselyting in that country by our adherents to our Christian religion in compensation for their operations in our country. The exchange of ambassadors and government is reciprocal. Are you aware that during the Gulf Wars, the Saudi Kingdom did not allow Bibles to be brought or any public expressions of worship by U.S. troops who were there to protect them from Sadaam? Let’s get real instead of keeping everything in the realm of the ethereal.

What does the Tea Party and reference to Gothardites have to do with this subject, Joeb? Apart from some extremist who spouts off nonsense, Tea Partiers are sane, patriotic Constitutionalists, who believe in religious freedom and freedom of speech. As a movement, the Tea Party does not adhere to nor tolerate such nonsense. Of course, no individual represents the movement, and there is usually self-correcting that takes place in the kinds of instances that Joeb presents. Blowing up buildings in the name of religion, killing people for being gays, killing of anti-abortion doctors, white supremacism — these are obviously violations of human rights and other laws, and they exactly illustrate that one can’t violate other laws in the name of religion. I don’t think anyone on this thread would argue that a person may claim the right to follow unlawful practices under the First Amendment that violate other laws, A belief system may not violate the laws that protect others from harm done in the name of religion. I don’t think there is a person on this thread who would accept religious freedom to include the practice of Islam’s Sharia Law with its barbaric penalties. Muslims do NOT have the freedom to practice this belief system in the U.S., despite the First Amendment. I do suppose, Joeb, that some pastor who makes an off-the-wall statement about “gays should be hung” may represent his own “belief system,” and be protected under the “freedom of speech” clause of the First Amendment, but carrying out that speech will not be protected, thankfully, and the First Amendment will not give him cover for such stupidity. A person has the Constitutional right so far to say things that he doesn’t have the right to carry out. Even this traditional right of free speech is now being contested in the courts as “hate speech” in many instances. An Imam who teaches his followers to stone an adulterer may be cited for “hate speech” and even held accountable for inciting a criminal act. And no, it is not the “same same,” as you say, Joeb.

Are some of you saying (Tyler, Aaron) that religious freedom gives anyone the right to act on his beliefs? You certainly would not cede this right to Islamists who seek to institute Sharia Law in America.

I am assuming you do not believe that Christian charity extends to allowing immigrants to flood our society who submit to the idea of Sharia Law How is that working out in Europe? Terrorist shootings in Paris and Brussels, rapes in the streets of Germany, whole communities being taken over by Muslim immigrants?

Should illegal immigrations, that are being justified by poverty and human rights violations in other countries, be tolerated in the name of Christian compassion?

Should welcoming persons with inadequate back-ground checks, as the Obama Administration confesses to doing, be tolerated because this brings people who need the gospel to our shores when it might be difficult or even impossible to send missionaries to those closed countries. Does our belief in freedom of religion require us to show it by putting our citizens into possible danger?

Was it a violation of the religious freedom of Mormons to forbid them from practicing polygamy? It was their religious belief, wasn’t it? Should they have been able to follow the dictates of their own conscience?

Are these all accepted practices because our belief in freedom of religion over-rides common sense and places no restrictions on those whose religion is anti-thetical to our system of government?

Does freedom of religion have any check and balance under our Constitution?

the same type of debate about Roman Catholics back when the papacy had an actual army. Back, then it had to do with Irish RCC immigrants.

[Joel Shaffer]

Some of them have dreams of Jesus,

this fails the Romans 10:14-15 test

I blogged on this

Actually it doesn’t fail the Romans 10:14-15 test. The ones that I’m talking about had a dream about Jesus, went and found a Christian and asked them about it, the gospel was clearly presented to them by the Christian, and they responded with repentance and faith in Christ. No angel of light in the situations that I am talking about. In fact, I was first exposed to hearing about dreams through one of my Bible professors in Seminary that spent 10 years in Thailand, Manila, and Singapore with the Asia Biblical Theological Seminary (Baptist/Fundamentalist historical roots) Several of his students from Muslim backgrounds had dreams about Jesus and they eventually connected with Christians, who in turn shared the gospel with them and they responded with repentance and faith in Christ.

I recommend that everyone go back and consider Acts 9 and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. He saw Christ on the Damascus road, which led him to Ananias, who further instructed him on what the vision meant. Those who say that God is giving dreams of Christ to people today, especially in territories controlled by Islam where the gospel is hard to come by, should acknowledge that God may use any means He chooses to make Christ known, yet it is an understanding of the gospel that converts the soul. I have no problem biblically in accepting that, especially in areas where the gospel is not preached openly, God may use radio, satellite TV, the reception of printed messages that are clandestinely circulated by hand and by mail, to bring the person to a fuller understanding of the gospel. If God did it once in the case of Saul of Tarsus, can anyone show from Scripture why God might not point others to Christ by instructing them in a dream where they might hear the gospel? I heartily recommend the books by Mid-East Southern Baptist missionary Tom Doyle — there are several books — cataloging many actual and authenticated cases of conversion that grew out of dreams/visions. Before anyone trumps up some reason why this is somehow unbiblical, do a little more research.

The dream is simply a medium God uses to bring people under the sound of the gospel. A subjective dream is not in itself the foundation of faith. It is a tool that guides to faith. Let God be God, John. He is not bound by only one method of pointing man to Christ, who Alone can saved. The person’s faith does not rest upon a dream. In cases that are reported, the individual does not hear or see the gospel presented in dream. He gets instructions on where to go to hear the gospel. Biblical example: Acts 10, where an angel instructed Cornelius to bring Peter to tell him what he must do to be saved. How God gives this instruction or guidance, and whether the individual receives specific instruction or simply is led, unbeknown of the method or circumstance, is immaterial. Again, the Author of our salvation controls the circumstances that guide us to the Gospel. Still only Christ saved through the Gospel.

You’re really mixed up and un-informed on many things you comment about. It’s like you have snippets of information that get introduced into the subject at hand. Gothard was never a leading Tea Party adherent or proponent, if at all. I have been involved in the Tea Party from the beginning, and his name was never mentioned. And, another thing, it’s GARBC, not GRABC. Do you know what the acronym stands for? There is absolutely no “Tea Party spokesman.” Each TP is an independently operated and organized entity. It does not belong organically to any national organization. The only thing that ties them together is a group of core beliefs, something like independent Baptist churches. I think everyone who blogs here believes “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Please research these ideas, and speak with more knowledge about them. I appreciate your zeal, so keep blogging.