More often than not, Christian speakers are shouted down or not even invited in the first place. Free speech? I think not.

It's terrible when people are so afraid of being challenged that they refuse to engage in dialogue. A shameful situation.

"Nations run by Islamic supremacists are scary places - violent, intolerant and cruel. Not so much because of the rulers but because of the core DNA of Mohammed and the political movement that he started."

Yet more bigoted remarks.....
I suppose, using this kind of perverse logic, that the "core DNA" of Jesus & the movement he started is the cause, and not the individual Christian supremacists/extremists, like Hitler, the Klan, the Crusaders, leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, Salem "witch burners", IRA, etc. etc.?

To say the actions of a small percentage of extremists are due to the "core DNA" & "flawed compass" of an entire religion's beliefs, ignoring the overwhelming majority of its peaceful adherents, is certainly not Christ-like thinking, especially when one's own extremists & the evils perpetrated in the name of one's own religion is ignored, or explained away!

I would never in a million years absolve those evil Christian extremists, and attempt to blame their actions on something "off" in the core teachings of Jesus! Hardly, for his teachings are the real thing, it's when we humans twist them so greatly as to make it seem ok to enslave, slaughter & cruelly denigrate other humans, that creates these evil actions!

Absolving one's own extremists while condemning those of another religion, is just as bigoted as seeing white teens getting into trouble as "youthful indiscretions" while black kids' actions are "crimes committed by thugs".

Erik your off topic about free speech... hes talking about:

Ahmadinejad et al

Now im a college student and i have to say if my university let this "terrorist" speak at my university i would transfer that same moment. Did anyone see him speak on the CBS interview? He's totally against all of christianity with his views.

Anyway good listening to you show guys... keep it up.

sorry wrong site/url. i just designed this guys :)!

Strictly all American.

Allen,

Good to find you on the web.

I recently called the Chaplain of Columbia University to share my views of their invitation to the Iranian President. I did that because I wanted to talk with her, colleague to colleague, about my feelings about the matter.

I have just spent 12 months in Iraq ministering to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, and Atheists. And we were regularly being injured and killed by munitions and personnel supplied or trained by Iran.

Free speech is a right guaranteed by the constitution to US citizens; and it only applies in respect to laws enacted by our Congress. I can keep anyone from speaking in my church that I desire. That is simply a good choice, not censorship. CU can do the same.

Even worse than the invitation was the response of the President of Columbia University. He unwittingly gave the Iranian press plenty of fodder to fuel anti-American fervor. In addition, he was just plain rude to a guest his university invited. He was either trying to use his post as a bully pulpit, or he did not have the courage of his own convictions and bowed to outside pressure.

My fear is that we will pull out of Iraq, leaving a weak government and a vacuum in that country. Nature abhoring a vacuum, Iraq will be filled with radical Sunni extremism that will play well in Tehran. That will worry more moderate Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and surrounding countries. At the same time we will have Kurds in northern Iraq struggling to found Kurdistan joining with Kurds in southern Turkey. That will draw Turkey into the fray and before long we will see a regional conflict. Iran will be the leading player in the Mideast.

Certainly Columbia University can see this. I think much of what is behind their invitation is a hatred of conservatism and the present administration. But, there are consequences to our actions, and I hate to give such a man a platform.

Okay, off my soapbox. I'm glad you are doing what you are doing, and I'm glad to be back on Georgia soil!

Blessings,

Jim

Jim, your comments about the potential mess our leaving Iraq rang pretty true, however, I think you have your finger pointing in the very wrong direction.
#1- There is no guarantee whatsoever, that our staying will not create the very same consequences, or worse; something many generals & civilian experts on the region have stated for quite some time, which is why they all say there are NO good strategies, just "bad & worse".

#2- None of these consequences are a surprise, in fact, Bush's own father warned us, (in his book), as to what exactly what would happen should we foolishly "go to Baghdad", & many others knew this as well. Too bad that Messrs Bush/Cheney & Rumsfeld chose to ignore both the senior Bush's warning, but many top generals (including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), intelligence officials, & experts on the region as well.
However, by ignoring all advice, still invading, then doing it with far, far, too few troops, poorly equipped, untrained for urban occupation & nation-building, making huge blunders upon occupying Iraq, & staunchly refusing any adjustments for years, I believe any "consequences" that arise in Iraq can hardly be laid at the feet of a college president allowing a head of state, however unloved, to give a talk on his campus!

Perhaps your "hatred of liberalism", or more appropriately, of the constitutional ly granted freedoms of this country, are more suspect in this matter. Have you forgotten that such conservative presidents as Nixon (Mao) & Reagan (Gorbachev) saw nothing wrong with meeting and speaking to hated leaders of their day? Did they have some unconscious "hatred of conservatism" as well?

http://www.zenit.org/article-20624?l=english


With this impostor President (Bush) having end of Ramadan dinners at the White House and the Roman Catholic Church building relations with the Muslim world by calling them "believers" (Bush did the same in England in an interview a couple of years ago), it's not a shock to me how blind people have really become. Building peace on religion will not work. Jesus did not come to bring peace, but division ("a sword")

Building peace on religion will not work.

Even a broken clock is right on occasion.

Building peace with Islam is part of the Bush Doctrine

You've all heard it, but who believes it. The call for a "New World Order" is nothing new, but the content of it is the same: Peace and Security

Here is Bush Sr. on Sept 11, 1990 prior to the Gulf War:

"We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come."

Of all the words in the above text, the following is key to understanding where we are (as H.W. Bush would say), "at this juncture.":

"...secure in the quest for peace"

"a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation"

"a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace"

"An era in which the nations...can prosper and live in harmony"

"A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak"

If you want to get an even better understanding where we're headed as a nation, just read the the Millennium Declaration and the Rome Declaration on the web. Just Google them.

StevenCee,

I said neither that I hate liberalism nor that I think we should remain in Iraq.

I would encourage you to re-read my post reading the meaning out of the text rather than attempting to read something in it that is not there.

Jim, please show me where I erred, as I've re-read your post, and stand by my words.

1. You said that CU's "hatred of conservatism & the administration" is the reason they invited him to speak. That sure sounds like you are expressing displeasure with what you see as their "liberalism", plus your characterization of both their motivation for the invitation (what makes you think there is no other possible reasons?), and interpretation of their displeasure with Bush's decisions & policies, as mere "personal hatred" is disingenuous, & just parrots the right-wing pundits' long-time talking point.

It's just so easy to discredit any and everything those who disagree with the Bush administration may say, by using the "they just hate Bush" deflection, which I see as quite intellectually dishonest. As if (unlike the 24/7 endless flow of vitriol directed at Clinton & his family, for his entire term, & before & after) it's just not possible to be able to "hate" his actions/behavior, without personally "hating" him. I find his woefully inept & damaging actions as president to be the worst I've ever seen (& I was around for Nixon), yet I would never say I hate him as a man, never have, and don't now.

2. You presented a case as to why you believe pulling out would be the wrong thing to do, am I wrong? That's sure what your words said, no?

3. That you make a connection that allowing him to speak at Columbia will somehow make the chaos in Iraq worse, is truly wack, an extrapolation requiring quite a huge leap!

Of course the First Amendment allows us to not give someone the podium, but really, he was scheduled to speak the very next day at the UN anyway, not to mention doing interviews with all the networks he chose, so why is one talk at a college so very damaging , in your opinion? I just don't get that at all. What are you so worried about?

Like Bush, I guess you feel the best path to world peace, is not even to "talk softly" (but not at all), while carrying that "big stick".

And one more thing I don't understand, is the outrage that Iran, as a country adjoining Iraq, and with a very real stake in what happens, is supplying arms or expertise to some in Iraq.
Was it not the US, who supplied Bin Laden & the mujahadeen with a vast supply of arms, money, & expertise, back when they were battling the Russians? Did we care what Russia thought about us supplying the munitions killing Russian nationals in Afghanistan? Did risking a nuclear world war stop us from doing it? And we are thousands of miles away, not next door...

Jesus can not to bring peace but a sword was not a premise for war. It was a statement about faith, the truth, and division your faith would have between those you beleive Jesus is the true messiah, God in the flesh that has come to save mankind, or not a deity.

Jesus never killed anybody, but Mohommehad behead entire villages.