Anti-Quran film expected to test the limits of Dutch tolerance

[grandpa]

Quote by: another day It is entirely irrelevant as to what is the muslim "ideal" or what Islam has the potential for as a religion, based on scripture. What's relevant is the social reality, and the reality is that muslim countries are mainly fundamentalist regimes with no room for any concept of tolerance.

I think these Muslim countries illustrate the fundamental proiblem not just with religion, but with religion merged with political systems.

Gary North indicated something like this about Christianity as well:
"...let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of
religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools
until we train up a generation of people who know that there is
no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education,
and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in
constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious
order which finally denies the religious liberty of the
enemies of God." ("Failure of the American Baptist Culture")

Gary North - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This also illustrates why basic secular principles are so important.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa I think these Muslim countries illustrate the fundamental proiblem not just with religion, but with religion merged with political systems. Gary North indicated something like this about Christianity as well: "...let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." ("Failure of the American Baptist Culture") Gary North - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This also illustrates why basic secular principles are so important. Grandpa h.

Well, since it's from Wikipedia, it is not to be taken seriously. Maybe if you had cited a valid source...

Gary North (son-in-law of R. J. Rushdoony, whose Chalcedon Foundation is primarily responsible for starting the Christian Reconstructionism movement) most definitely wants Christians to take political control of the American government (and, indeed, of all governments).

[another day]

Don't be a fool! The paragraph is explicitly referenced to the exact pages available for viewing straight from his book. Your illogical war on wikipedia is delusional, it is a valid source WHEN REFERENCED PROPERLY.

And yes, he does want christians to take control...that's exactly what the quote was saying.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: another day Don't be a fool! The paragraph is explicitly referenced to the exact pages available for viewing straight from his book. Your illogical war on wikipedia is delusional, it is a valid source WHEN REFERENCED PROPERLY.

No, Wikipedia is never a valid source.

And yes, he does want christians to take control...that's exactly what the quote was saying.

Now, go back and READ what I wrote about Gary North.

[another day]

Quote by: Chancellor No, Wikipedia is never a valid source. Now, go back and READ what I wrote about Gary North.

Your being an ass, the pages are linked, right there, to a third party website, scanned from his book. Are you suggesting those are somehow fraudulent too? Why then is anything on the internet a valid source?


Read what you wrote?

Gary north most definitely wants Christians to take political control of the American government. What am I missing?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: another day Your being an ass, the pages are linked, right there, to a third party website, scanned from his book. Are you suggesting those are somehow fraudulent too? Why then is anything on the internet a valid source?

One would have to check all of those links to see if those third party sources were valid. Just because there are links to websites doesn't make Wikipedia a valid source.

Read what you wrote? Gary north most definitely wants Christians to take political control of the American government. What am I missing?

Since your post was in disagreement with my post, I referred you back to what I wrote so that you could see we were in agreement on the last part of your post.

[another day]

Quote by: Chancellor One would have to check all of those links to see if those third party sources were valid. Just because there are links to websites doesn't make Wikipedia a valid source.

So do it. The source is clearly valid because it's the exact pages from his book. I agree the third party sources must be valid, and so you check.

Since your post was in disagreement with my post, I referred you back to what I wrote so that you could see we were in agreement on the last part of your post.

I simply said it seemed like you were attacking grandpas post by questioning his source even though you were actually completely agreeing with what was said.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor Well, since it's from Wikipedia, it is not to be taken seriously. Maybe if you had cited a valid source...

Another Day already responded for me, I guess. Chancellor, are you really going to tell me that literally every article on Wikipedia is totally unreliable? Why? Because they're not all entirely crafted by "expert opinion"?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: another day So do it. The source is clearly valid because it's the exact pages from his book.

Apparently, Chancellor assumes that things from "official sources" or in book form are inherently more trustworthy. By his standards, I could say literally nothing stated on Volconvo has any validity.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa Another Day already responded for me, I guess. Chancellor, are you really going to tell me that literally every article on Wikipedia is totally unreliable? Why?

Yes, because it's Wikipedia, which can be edited by just about anyone.

Because they're not all entirely crafted by "expert opinion"?

Because entries can be made and/or edited by just about anyone.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, because it's Wikipedia, which can be edited by just about anyone. Because entries can be made and/or edited by just about anyone.

And how does that instantly make it totally invalid? Books can be written by "just about anyone" as well.

Grandpa h.

[another day]

And so can websites... Your entire point is invalid Chancellor, the checking of the source for validity is essential no matter what your platform, whether it's google, wikipedia, a book from the library, or a teacher's words. Wikipedia is nothing more then a consolidated archive of links to third party websites. You must check the source for validity just like you must check any site that pops up when you google a term.

But of course, I've noticed you NEVER admit when you're wrong so this is pointless. In reality you are using wikipedia's supposed "unreliability" to conveniently prevent yourself from having to defend against the claims made by those sources.

[Matt W]

Shall we veer back on-topic?

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[rmnunez]

Is there some uncertainty about Gary North's credentials or the representation of his views in Wikipedia?

[another day]

Quote by: rmnunez Is there some uncertainty about Gary North's credentials or the representation of his views in Wikipedia?

Evidently neither, and yet Chancellor still clings steadfast to his belief that wikipedia is a worthless pile of misinformation.

[rmnunez]

I can't comment on either, don't know of Mr. North and the other subject is off limits here.