# Muslims' Rights to Build Mosques?



## scottmaciver (Apr 25, 2018)

A small mosque is being built in my town, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis. What ought the correct response of the church be to the establishment of the first mosque on our Islands?

Opposition has come from the moderator of the Presbytery of the Free Church (Continuing), Rev Greg Macdonald who said, _“On the basis of this biblical teaching, we object to the promotion of all false religion, including the promotion of Islam through a mosque in Stornoway. God’s right to be worshipped by his creatures in the way he requires must take precedence over any other supposed rights.”_

On the other hand, the Free Church, through Rev. James Maciver, support the Muslim's right to worship, _"They have always been regarded by the local community as people who’ve contributed to the local economy and integrated well. I don’t remember any animosity towards them. Outsiders may have got the impression that the Christian community here have resisted the mosque, but that’s not the case. I come at this from the point of view of liberty of conscience, freedom of religion. I don’t personally see Islam as the way to salvation, but they have a civil right to a place of worship. I have no right to come between someone’s conscience and their god.”_
(See the Guardian article Here for further details, including the context for the above quotes)

Elsewhere, Thomas Guthrie was quoted to support the Free Church position, as follows, _"When one of the early Free Church leaders, Dr Thomas Guthrie, appeared to give evidence before a select committee of the House of Commons in 1847, about the Free Church being granted sites to build churches, he was asked if he would grant a site to any group other than Christians. He said, ‘I would grant a site to any man who desired to worship God according to his conscience’. The committee then asked, ‘To a Jew, or a Muslim, or even an idolater?’ He said, ‘Yes, I have no right to stand between a man and his conscience.’"_

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 25, 2018)

scottmaciver said:


> A small mosque is being built in my town, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis. What ought the correct response of the church be to the establishment of the first mosque on our Islands?
> 
> Opposition has come from the moderator of the Presbytery of the Free Church (Continuing), Rev Greg Macdonald who said, _“On the basis of this biblical teaching, we object to the promotion of all false religion, including the promotion of Islam through a mosque in Stornoway. God’s right to be worshipped by his creatures in the way he requires must take precedence over any other supposed rights.[7]”_
> 
> ...


I'm definitely with Rev. MacDonald and the Westminster Confession on this one.


> XXXIII.iii. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.



I really doubt that James Maciver would stand before his congregation and say, "I have no right to come between your conscience and your god of choice. I personally believe that you should obey the Scriptures, but just do what is right in your own eyes." If his stance on public morality and religion were taken to its logical conclusion, it would be clear that it's just plain silly.

That's a shame about Thomas Guthrie. I don't see how he could have reconciled his views with the confession he subscribed.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 25, 2018)

The FCC's response is the right one, although it's not likely to be popular.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I'm definitely with Rev. MacDonald and the Westminster Confession on this one.
> 
> 
> I really doubt that James Maciver would stand before his congregation and say, "I have no right to come between your conscience and your god of choice. I personally believe that you should obey the Scriptures, but just do what is right in your own eyes." If his stance on public morality and religion were taken to its logical conclusion, it would be clear that it's just plain silly.
> ...


The Confession refers to false doctrines within the local church, not outside of it though, correct?


----------



## Von (Apr 25, 2018)

I see you have a JW Kingdom Hall and a Catholic church as well. Any thoughts on those?


----------



## scottmaciver (Apr 25, 2018)

Von said:


> I see you have a JW Kingdom Hall and a Catholic church as well. Any thoughts on those?



The false religions you mentioned, amongst others, have had places of worship in Stornoway for years. They would be in the same bracket, aside from the fact that the mosque is currently being built & has been drawning media attention.


----------



## Von (Apr 25, 2018)

Just for interest sake: Do you lean towards an opinion on this?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

scottmaciver said:


> The false religions you mentioned, amongst others, have had places of worship in Stornoway for years. They would be in the same bracket, aside from the fact that the mosque is currently being built & has been drawning media attention.


The Confession is speaking to allowing Islam within the church, but not speaking to outside of it, correct?


----------



## Von (Apr 25, 2018)

I struggle to determine to what extent my culture is affecting my judgment on this, but since they are not worshipping God, it falls in the same category as putting up a building for Rotary or the Boy Scouts.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## scottmaciver (Apr 25, 2018)

Von said:


> Just for interest sake: Do you lean towards an opinion on this?



I was more interested in the opinions of others, particularly from a confessional perspective, than making my own views known. However, I agree with the FCC position.

Having said that, I am friendly with some of the Muslims involved in the mosque build and while disagreeing with them and their religious beliefs, I would like to see them treated with respect by all concerned. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, aside from those who would equate "disagreement" with "hate."


----------



## ZackF (Apr 25, 2018)

Isn’t Islam more orthodox than JWs?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

scottmaciver said:


> I was more interested in the opinions of others, particularly from a confessional perspective, than making my own views known. However, I agree with the FCC position.
> 
> Having said that, I am friendly with some of the Muslims involved in the mosque build and while disagreeing with them and their religious beliefs, I would like to see them treated with respect by all concerned. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, aside from those who would equate "disagreement" with "hate."


what is the concern, as the true Jesus is still sovereign over false Allah, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

ZackF said:


> Isn’t Islam more orthodox than JWs?


Islam has been called the satanic counterfeit world religion.


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 25, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Confession is speaking to allowing Islam within the church, but not speaking to outside of it, correct?



No. It states that any false worship should not be tolerated, inside the church or outside.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## jw (Apr 25, 2018)

With respect to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 9th commandments -both explicitly and by way of necessary consequence- of course we should not support the erecting of Muslim temples. The LORD God of truth is decidedly against "freedom" of religion.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Username3000 (Apr 25, 2018)

I see this issue as having two different aspects.

1. Should we as the church be okay with false places of worship being built? That is a hard one.

We know that a man can commit idolatry in his heart with regard to anything. If every place that I commit idolatry in my heart was torn down, there'd be no world left.

How do we make these distinctions? Formal religions don't get buildings, but naturalistic atheists get their worldly places of worship (malls, theatres, etc.)?


2. Should the state be doing something about this, especially in light of the Islamification of Europe?

I say yes. Importing too many foreigners with a different culture will eventually destroy your own culture.

I hope to make it to Scotland to visit my ancestral homeland one day; I sure do hope it is Scotland still.

Perhaps I need to let go of the West, and only care about God's kingdom; but it is hard to see enemies being welcomed into our homelands and do nothing. Ask Sweden and Germany how that is going.

Another point is that there will only exist freedom of religion until Islam is powerful enough to enforce its own theocracy.

This may not represent all Muslims and mosque building, but I am speaking generally about the state of certain parts of Europe right now.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I see this issue as having two different aspects.
> 
> 1. Should we as the church be okay with false places of worship being built? That is a hard one.
> 
> ...


Did the early Christians have all of the pagan temples and worship of false gods outlawed though?


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 25, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Did the early Christians have all of the pagan temples and worship of false gods outlawed though?



That is irrelevant to the conversation. The earliest Christians were not in positions of political power. They couldn't outlaw anything. But they could still hate a thing on the grounds that God hates it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 25, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Did the early Christians have all of the pagan temples and worship of false gods outlawed though?



They also didn't outlaw child p0rnography, but that doesn't prove anything for today.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Apr 25, 2018)

Von said:


> I struggle to determine to what extent my culture is affecting my judgment on this, but since they are not worshipping God, it falls in the same category as putting up a building for Rotary or the Boy Scouts.



How is setting up a place of worship to a false god the same as a Boy Scout troop? Did the Lord regard Asherim or altars to Baal in the same manner He did a place of business or merchant's guild?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Username3000 (Apr 25, 2018)

Since we don't live in theocracies, the most we as individuals can do is petition the city to not allow the building permit for the mosque. 

Why don't we do that for all evil places though?


----------



## SavedSinner (Apr 25, 2018)

The Swiss allow them to gather for their false worship, but they are not allowed to build the mosques. We have plenty of proof that these mosques have been used as terrorist training centers. Your Muslim "friends" could be planning the next terrorist attack.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 25, 2018)

We aren't to tolerate false religion within the church. We are to spread the Gospel to those outside the church. There's nothing in Scripture which gives us the right to force people into Christianity, and there's nothing in Scripture which tells us that we are allowed to prevent others from worshipping false gods who are not apart of the church. 

In America, we all have the freedom of religion for a reason. We don't have a state religion for one very good reason.....we don't want the government telling us how to run our religious life. Therefore everyone is free to worship the true God or false gods. 

I have a problem with idolatrous buildings for worship because they are idolatrous to God. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with said buildings because that's the freedom our Constitution has given to us and barring them isn't commanded in Scripture.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 25, 2018)

Ultimately, the question is very simple. Is a thing pleasing to God? If not, then why should we, who are God's people, tolerate it?

If a country's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, does that trump God's hatred of idolatry?

Of course we do not live in Christian countries. But we are Christians, aren't we?

It's about what is right before God. But we've had this discussion already, and not even that long ago.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Username3000 (Apr 25, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Ultimately, the question is very simple. Is a thing pleasing to God? If not, then why should we, who are God's people, tolerate it?
> 
> If a country's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, does that trump God's hatred of idolatry?
> 
> ...



The weapons of our warfare are the Word of God, prayer, sacrificial love, and perhaps even suffering. By these we shall conquer.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 25, 2018)

The question was: what is the right response of _the church_?

First, to pray for idolaters that they repent. Second, to point the magistrate to the law, reminding them of their duty to kiss the Son and worship the Lord. This quite obviously would restrict the assembly for false worship and the building of places where said assembly takes place. Third, if neither the first nor the second happen, to storm the gates of heaven until the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as a sea.

As the Reformed, establishmentarian position was, originally, the protection and promotion of a Protestant expression of the Christian faith as constituted in _one_ Reformed church in the land, this also means that the duty of the church here is to lament its own divisions and pray that the Lord would make us one. This would also imply that we need to work at healing the divisions amongst God's people by promoting God's truth. Church courts need to actually debate and discuss the differences amongst us and attempt at unity under one constitutional, confessional document for theology, worship and practice.

Finally, I do also believe that the church has to be consistent. If not Muslims, then why JWs or Mormons or Catholics? It doesn't help the accusation of hypocrisy constantly levelled against us when we fail to apply our own standards fairly.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jw (Apr 25, 2018)

We are not talking about what _is_, or _was_, but discussing what _ought_ to be. The secret and providential workings of God in history are not the pattern/standard He has given to His creatures as to how they _*ought* _to act. No, _duty_ is ours, and _consequences/results _are His. He has -in His most gracious kindness- given us His Law and His Word, which tells us our duty. That is, what we _ought_ to do.

This particular nation of states -the US, allegedly united by law in the form of the federal Constitution, was arguably not a Christian nation from the beginning, at least not at the federal level. There is no reference to Christ as Lawgiver, and governing according to His Law. There is reference to a Creator, but such broadness surely opens up for too much abuse. Regardless, this should not be a debate over whether America may rightly be called a "Christian nation," or not. Such is irrelevant if we are to consider _our_ duty (that is, professing Christians), which is bound by God and Scripture alone.

Instead, then, we should begin with the assertion that all magistrates -and especially professing Christian magistrates- have the duty to "be just, ruling in the fear of God," (2 Sam. 23.3) whether America and its Constitution asserts that or not. I believe the Scriptures necessarily teach this. However, it seems the whole matter has become needlessly convoluted amongst professing Christians, and much of this is perhaps due to pragmatism, or historical ignorance and misguided nationalism, unwittingly styled as patriotism. Consider 2 Samuel 23.3:

The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men _must be_ just, ruling in the fear of God.​
These are a part of the last words of David, as a prophet, pertaining specifically to those who would rule in Israel, but more generally, those who would rule over men period. In the general consideration of this passage, it seems clear that men must be just, and they must rule in the fear of God. We should be careful not to understand the term _God_ here with some nebulous entity fitting to any and every man's religious machinations, but rather the God and Rock of Israel. If Christians believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God, ergo the rule of life (and they should), then we must believe that God, as mentioned in 2 Samuel 23.3 is, in fact, the God revealed in the rest of Scripture.

Psalm 111 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." We read also several times in the book of Proverbs that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." These Scriptures provide us with many implications, two of which I will mention. _First_, that without the fear of the Lord, we really cannot even begin to have wisdom in the truest sense. _Secondly_, that tied to "the fear of the Lord" is an execution of His commandments, and without a knowledge of them, we cannot rightly execute them.
------------------------------------------------
"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."
- Deuteronomy 29:29​------------------------------------------------

1."But those things which are revealed . . ."

Q. What are the "Revealed" Things?
A. Well, they're summed up in the 10 Commandments, a few of which we will consider. Let's remember, however, that all the Commandments are somewhat intertwined seeing that what is forbidden in one may also be covered in another, and what is commanded in one, may also be required in another. So, while we will only consider a few, there are implications and correlations to other commandments that we simply will not address.

-The first commandment is "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
-The second commandment is "Thou shalt not make unto me any graven image, or any likeness of anything..."
-The third commandment is "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain."
-The fifth commandment is "Honour thy father and thy mother."
-The eighth commandment is "Thou shalt not steal."

These are some of those "things revealed."
--------------------------------------
2. Responsible Persons

Q. Who is Responsible to Obey These?
A. In the context, the children of Israel were the addressed party; however, as God holds all men accountable to His law, so are all men responsible for obedience thereunto. For example:

-It's always been wrong to have other gods (Gen. 3:17ff).
-It's always been wrong to worship God outside of his parameters set (Gen. 4:1-7, Heb. 11:4).
-It's always been wrong to dishonor superiors (Gen. 9:20-25)
-It's always been wrong to murder (Gen. 4:1-10).
-It's always been wrong to steal (Gen. 2:15, 16, Gen. 31:26-32).
-It's always been wrong to violate the sabbath day (Gen. 2:2-3 & Ex. 16:25, Ex. 20:11).

All of these "moral laws" are applicable to each and every person born of Adam.
--------------------------------------
3. From the Lesser to the Greater, Particularly in Light of the 5th Commandment

Q. Since God Requires Obedience of the Private Individual, Does He Not Surely Require, Then, Also of Superiors, Particularly in Light of the 5th Commandment?
A. Particularly in light of a superior's duties himself to obey the Law of God, he must, according to place, station, and sphere of influence, rule in such a way as to countenance that those under his authority obey these laws, and discountenance disobedience (insofar as said obediences/disobediences are aggravations in public) to them.

-If the magistrate may have no other Gods, and he is required to "Kiss the Son" (Psa. 2) how may he countenance, even righteously protect by "law," religions which conspire against Yahweh and His Supreme Authority? He may not (Psalm 94.20).
-If the magistrate is not welcome to worship God according to His whimsical desire, how may he righteously protect by "law" public worship which assaults the precepts God has laid down for His worship? He may not.
- If a private citizen may not worship other Gods, why would a public magistrate protect by "law" a practice (the civil and public worship of false religion) which God has prohibited in His Law?
------------------------------------------
No one is saying that we the magistrate's duty is to convert people to Christianity. But we _are_ saying that it is every man's duty -according to place and station, in light of all that is required between inferiors, superiors, and equals with regard to the 5th commandment- not to hate their brother in their hearts, exemplified by suffering sin upon him. Now this is applied different by degree and intensity according to one's place and station. But surely a magistrate's duty is to suppress false religion in the public square, seeing as such false religion being permitted openly to flourish is tantamount to letting run freely what Rutherford calls _soul murder _in his _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_. Let's argue from the lesser to the greater: If we agree that murder is to be punished; how much more, then, the open propagation of _soul murder_? Men's misinformed consciences -neverso sincere and earnest- are not greater or more sacred than God's Law.

Our *first salvo* in considering the current estate of our nation ought to be tears of repentance, shame, and "confusion of face" in our own closets, for our own sins, which no doubt have contributed to national sins, in their outworking. Then, tears of repentance, shame, and confusion of face, as a nation for our disregard of God's many kindnesses shown and judgments abated. As it stands, as the visible church, and as a nation, we are much like Sodom, bringing self-inflicted judgments by way of pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness, and neglecting to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy (Ezek. 16.48). Our leaders cry _peace_, when there is no peace, and we have sinned unto such a degree that we cannot even blush (Jeremiah 8). We interpret God's manifest non-action in ways of more severe judgments as apathy, or altogether approval, as if He were such an one as ourselves (Psalm 50.16-21), thinking He will not do good, neither will He do evil (Zeph. 1.12). We should be diligent in confessing our particular sins, particularly, and our national sins, nationally. Begging Him not to forsake us and leave us to our own machinations. Then praying for new obedience, for the Gospel to flourish such that men's hearts of the populace might be changed, resulting in a desire for godly leaders, and that working its way out in legislation, Constitutional amendments, and the lawful voting for godly men, etc. Let us beseech our God to turn us, that we shall be turned.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 25, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> The weapons of our warfare are the Word of God, prayer, sacrificial love, and perhaps even suffering. By these we shall conquer.



I wouldn't disagree with you there. Since the Word of God is our weapon, it ought to be applied.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Apr 25, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I wouldn't disagree with you there. Since the Word of God is our weapon, it ought to be applied.


How is it to be applied in this particular situation in Scotland?


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 25, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> How is it to be applied in this particular situation in Scotland?



I think the response of Rev. Macdonald repsonse is appropriate

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Username3000 (Apr 25, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I think the response of Rev. Macdonald repsonse is appropriate


That response, however so true, does nothing to stop the building of the mosque. Does it stop there?

Edit: What I mean is besides using the aforementioned spiritual weapons. Should civic action be taken?


----------



## Wayne (Apr 25, 2018)

Be very actively engaged in prayer. Join with others in prayer. See that the Gospel is faithfully proclaimed. Watch expectantly to see the Lord at work.

http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2013/10/october-13-christian-weapons-not-carnal-but-spiritual/

Reactions: Amen 3


----------



## Von (Apr 26, 2018)

Joshua said:


> We are not talking about what _is_, or _was_, but discussing what _ought_ to be.


Am I correct to summarise your whole post as follows:
The government is *suppose* to do something, whilst the church follow the path of reformation of herself, preaching the gospel unto repentance and lawful petitioning.


----------



## jw (Apr 26, 2018)

Von said:


> Am I correct to summarise your whole post as follows:
> The government is *suppose* to do something, whilst the church follow the path of reformation of herself, preaching the gospel unto repentance and lawful petitioning.


I am saying that every man is responsible -according to place, station, and respective sphere of influence- for being mindful of his duties as required by the Law of God, and endeavor toward full obedience thereunto. Inferiors to their superiors, superiors to inferiors, and equals to equals.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Wayne said:


> Be very actively engaged in prayer. Join with others in prayer. See that the Gospel is faithfully proclaimed. Watch expectantly to see the Lord at work.
> 
> http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2013/10/october-13-christian-weapons-not-carnal-but-spiritual/


The muslims can put up as many Mosques as they want, but they are worshipping a fake god, and the Christians need to pray to God for Him to have His way with them

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Apr 26, 2018)

It astounds me that believers could think it is acceptable that civil authorities should perish and go to God, and bear the awful judgment for their approval of public idolatry in their lands, being completely unchallenged by the church in this life. Even more, that they should go to God and actually be able to claim the church _stood with them_ in countenancing gross and public wickedness amidst their people.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 26, 2018)

All Men are commanded to repent. That means from the highest station to the lowest. 



> (Act 17:22) Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
> (Act 17:23) For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
> (Act 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
> (Act 17:25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
> ...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Von (Apr 26, 2018)

Joshua said:


> I am saying that every man is responsible -according to place, station, and respective sphere of influence- for being mindful of his duties as required by the Law of God, and endeavor toward full obedience thereunto. Inferiors to their superiors, superiors to inferiors, and equals to equals.


I think I am convinced and subsequently convicted by what you have said.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> It astounds me that believers could think it is acceptable that civil authorities should perish and go to God, and bear the awful judgment for their approval of public idolatry in their lands, being completely unchallenged by the church in this life. Even more, that they should go to God and actually be able to claim the church _stood with them_ in countenancing gross and public wickedness amidst their people.


Those who are not Christian in leadership would not be concerned with doing the right thing as per the scriptures, and those who are say the Pastor of the Christian church can let his feelings be known, but still cannot block Mosque from being built , not unless the authorities in government agreed to block it.


----------



## Parakaleo (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> the Pastor of the Christian church can let his feelings be known



This might be the closest to the truth I have seen from you on this subject, yet. Replace a few words and you'll be there.

"The pastor of the Christian church can *has a duty to* let his feelings be known *declare the judgment of God against idolatry in all its forms*."

Wouldn't you agree?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Apr 26, 2018)

Von said:


> I think I am convinced and subsequently convicted by what you have said.


Brother, let the Word of God be the informer of your conscience and practice. I am grateful that you think I’ve been of help, but I simply think that a logical thinking through of the commandments, with reference to the other Scriptures aforeferences- cannot be gainsayed, and that’s not a source from my own cracked brain (praise be to God).


----------



## Edward (Apr 26, 2018)

Joshua said:


> This particular nation of states -the US, allegedly united by law in the form of the federal Constitution, was arguably not a Christian nation from the beginning, at least not at the federal level. There is no reference to Christ as Lawgiver, and governing according to His Law.



Unlike that Christian nation, invaded and destroyed by the United States, which had the following preamble to its Constitution:



> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 27, 2018)

Edward said:


> Unlike that Christian nation, invaded and destroyed by the United States, which had the following preamble to its Constitution:


All under the banner of having institutionalized slavery.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 27, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> This might be the closest to the truth I have seen from you on this subject, yet. Replace a few words and you'll be there.
> 
> "The pastor of the Christian church can *has a duty to* let his feelings be known *declare the judgment of God against idolatry in all its forms*."
> Yes, as its not just the pastors, but all Christians who should be sounding the alarm of the false religion of Islam.
> Wouldn't you agree?


Yes, as its not just the pastors, but all Christians who should be sounding the alarm of the false religion of Islam.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## jw (Apr 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> All under the banner of having institutionalized slavery.


We will not turn the thread into an argument about such patently false sweeping generalizations as this. Stick with the subject.


----------



## Username3000 (Apr 27, 2018)

Joshua said:


> We will not turn the thread into an argument about such patently false sweeping generalizations as this. Stick with the subject.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 27, 2018)

Joshua said:


> We will not turn the thread into an argument about such patently false sweeping generalizations as this. Stick with the subject.


I am not trying to do anything, but did not the Southern states want to keep the institution of slavery alive?


----------



## Edward (Apr 27, 2018)

Joshua said:


> We will not turn the thread into an argument about such patently false sweeping generalizations as this.



I do want to honor your request, and was willing to give them the last shot, but the yankees just won't leave it alone, and it's getting mighty difficult.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 27, 2018)

One of the requirements of the civil magistrate is “that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed” (WCF 23.3). This would include Mormons and Muslims alike.

Here are two Westminster Divines on the topic:

https://renopres.com/2016/11/23/william-reyner-the-magistrate-to-prevent-idolatry/

https://renopres.com/2016/11/24/edmund-calamy-magistrate-keeper-of-the-first-table/

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 27, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> One of the requirements of the civil magistrate is “that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed” (WCF 23.3). This would include Mormons and Muslims alike.


Andrew I have discovered one of the great mysteries of the Puritanboard. Your avatar describes you as P.C. But the answer you gave is not P.C. Is this a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Or would it be better to see it as a mystery?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## scottmaciver (May 1, 2018)

Here's a link to an ITV News piece in relation to the Stornoway mosque. Rev. Graeme Craig (Stornoway FCC) is interviewed (Here).


----------



## Tom Hart (May 1, 2018)

scottmaciver said:


> Here's a link to an ITV News piece in relation to the Stornoway mosque. Rev. Graeme Craig (Stornoway FCC) is interviewed (Here).



The interviewer is seemingly baffled by Rev. Craig's response. How could anyone have such an opinion in the 21st century, right?


----------



## Username3000 (May 1, 2018)

Interesting.

I think it's wrong to call any place a 'Christian' place; surely all 18,000 people on the island are not regenerate. That kind of thinking is sort of like the US south, where Christianity is merely cultural for so many, and these types of situations get muddied.

Is there any push back against other religions on the island?

Those two unbelieving Scots they interviewed reveal what a bigger problem may be: locals who have grown up around this "Christian island," and yet want nothing to do with Christ. Of course Christ-hating religions will be welcome there then.


----------



## scottmaciver (May 1, 2018)

Those who were interviewed weren't actually local, by that I mean that they weren't born and bred here, as you could probably tell by the accents.

As far as the ITV reporting went in general, it was poor quality and deceitful. However, we have come to expect that from an increasingly secular and hostile national media, so it comes as no surprise.


----------



## TylerRay (May 1, 2018)

scottmaciver said:


> Those who were interviewed weren't actually local, by that I mean that they weren't born and bred here, as you could probably tell by the accents.
> 
> As far the ITV reporting went in general, it was poor quality and deceitful. However, we have come to expect that from the increasingly secular and hostile national media, so it comes as no surprise.


Indeed. The clip of Rev. Craig simply emphasized his lack of in-depth knowledge of Islam. From all appearances, they clipped the context out and just showed him, on the one hand admitting that he hasn't studied it in-depth, and on the other hand, opposing it.

The message was clear: ignorant Christian minister opposes what he doesn't understand.

I had the privilege of meeting Rev. Craig in March, and though I only spoke with him briefly, I think I can safely say that he is neither as foolish nor as severe as ITV tried to make him look.


----------



## Tom Hart (May 1, 2018)

Maybe it'd be better to not do interviews if the media will only misrepresent the views shared.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## scottmaciver (May 1, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Maybe it'd be better to not do interviews if the media will only misrepresent the views shared.



Perhaps you're right Tom!


----------



## Username3000 (May 1, 2018)

scottmaciver said:


> Those who were interviewed weren't actually local, by that I mean that they weren't born and bred here, as you could probably tell by the accents.
> 
> As far as the ITV reporting went in general, it was poor quality and deceitful. However, we have come to expect that from an increasingly secular and hostile national media, so it comes as no surprise.


Unfortunately, I don't know my regional Scottish accents. I wish I did.

Scott, can you explain the relationship between the community and the church on the island? Do most identify as Christians? Is there a misconception of Christianity and the Church among those who were brought up in a 'religious' home there?

If I had no responsibilities (wife, children) I would spend my days travelling every inch of Scotland, Lord willing. I could ask you 100 questions about it.


----------



## ZackF (May 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Maybe it'd be better to not do interviews if the media will only misrepresent the views shared.



Or insist that you be allowed to record the interview.


----------



## scottmaciver (May 2, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Unfortunately, I don't know my regional Scottish accents. I wish I did.
> 
> Scott, can you explain the relationship between the community and the church on the island? Do most identify as Christians? Is there a misconception of Christianity and the Church among those who were brought up in a 'religious' home there?
> 
> If I had no responsibilities (wife, children) I would spend my days travelling every inch of Scotland, Lord willing. I could ask you 100 questions about it.



One of them was English, so that's far from anything Scottish! 

As far as the relationship between the community and the church goes, the majority of people would have been brought up in church, although many have stopped attending and a new generation of children are being brought up not attending church. That said there are still a lot of families in the church.

Due to the fact that many of the non-church goers have family members in church, the community still has a reasonable respect for the church, although this has been damaged by recent church controversies. There is also a small but very vocal Secular Society, who are agitating against the Lord's Day and anything church related. However, in a recent election to the Stornoway Trust, which is a large community owned estate, none of the secular candidates, who stood on a secular card, were elected . Those elected were all church goers and it was reported in the media as "five traditionalists."


----------



## Username3000 (May 2, 2018)

scottmaciver said:


> One of them was English, so that's far from anything Scottish!
> 
> As far as the relationship between the community and the church goes, the majority of people would have been brought up in church, although many have stopped attending and a new generation of children are being brought up not attending church. That said there are still a lot of families in the church.
> 
> Due to the fact that many of the non-church goers have family members in church, the community still has a reasonable respect for the church, although this has been damaged by recent church controversies. There is also a small but very vocal Secular Society, who are agitating against the Lord's Day and anything church related. However, in a recent election to the Stornoway Trust, which is a large community owned estate, none of the secular candidates, who stood on a secular card, were elected . Those elected were all church goers and it was reported in the media as "five traditionalists."


Very interesting, thank you.

Where I live in western Canada, I think there may be more churches per capita of any place I know (churches seemingly on every corner, and even across the street from each other), and yet the culture is extremely secular. Granted, a huge percentage of those churches aren't gospel-preaching.

The thought of a place where people still have some respect for the church, and the church is still a part of the cultural fabric is foreign to me.

The only "Christian" culture I see here is gospel-lite, seeker sensitive, doctrine-less "Christianity," with some woman preachers, sinner's prayers, and numerous programs to get "connected" thrown in. But that doesn't leave those churches. The city is still secular to the nth degree. Rainbow crosswalks for crying out loud!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 4, 2018)

> I am not trying to do anything, but did not the Southern states want to keep the institution of slavery alive? , but did not the Southern states want to keep the institution of slavery alive?



This is evidently a topic that has a lot of Historical significance and our younger generation has little knowledge of it as well as our own. There is a lot of historical ignorance here. There were four States that had legal slavery in them during the Civil War here in the States. President Lincoln was not an abolitionist by conviction. He should have been. Robert E. Lee, one of the foremost generals was not a Slave owner during its time and neither was the famous General Thomas Stonewall Jackson who hated it. 

The Reformed Presbyterian Church hated it as it was gross sin. Many moved North to voice their opposition in vain in my estimation. They should have stood their ground. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/negro-slavery-unjustifiable-rev-mcleod-1802/

I live in a Northern State and I hate the idea that Slavery was ever introduced into our lives. My Denomination set out to stop it. It is inherently evil when men look at servitude based upon... We love to think we are better then others and they owe us as animals do. Even indentured slavery recognized the humanity of man and his dignity. 

I am not trying to do anything but clarify this problem and the ignorance.||


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 4, 2018)

I think a better question would be what did Islam or Muslim Culture and worship have upon our Country as a beginning and does it deserve a hearing. Should they be able to build as a Religion of America. I say no. I am a descendant of William Bradford as I understand it. He composed the Mayflower Compact.

I am adding this. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fabric-nation/


----------



## Tom Hart (May 4, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Rainbow crosswalks for crying out loud!



It's nice to hear they remember God's covenant with Noah.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Username3000 (May 4, 2018)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I think a better question would be what did Islam or Muslim Culture and worship have upon our Country as a beginning and does it deserve a hearing. Should they be able to build as a Religion of America. I say no. I am a descendant of William Bradford as I understand it. He composed the Mayflower Compact.
> 
> I am adding this. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fabric-nation/


Should mosques be built in Scotland?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 5, 2018)

I do not believe a False Devilish deception should be aloud any ground.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

