Well I didn’t really mean he was defying Obama. I meant that he may feel the need to point out and speak up about something that he believes will bring harm to his troops or threaten their mission because Obama’s priority is never the troops or national security. Not that this is such an issue IMO, but Patraeus perceives it as such.
Since Holder has spoken up about it, then it could be an orchestrated effort. Did Holder comment before or after Patraeus? If it was before, you’re probably right. If it was after, it could be that Patraeus’ comments shamed or embarassed the WH and they felt that they needed to publicly back Patraeus.
It’s late. I could be loopy.
I just heard on Fox News this evening that Holder had made a statement. Haven’t seen it from a second source actually. I sure don’t agree with Petraeus’ reasoning though.
Embarrassed, not embarassed. Geez, I’m so embarrassed.
I concur that Petraeus might have cause to comment, depending upon the situation, but I find his comments to manifest he sits on the wrong side of the issue. It also indicates a lack of virtue in our leadership.
Several issues arise.
1) Insofar as the Koran-burning act might be judged in Divine terms, there is nothing wrong in the act, unless the god being worshipped is not the God of Scripture, the Great, ‘I am’, manifest to us in 3 persons through what He provides.
2) From the Islamic perspective, a perspective which either rejects what God has provided, or seeks a counterfeit substitute for what God provides, the Koran is not simply a holy communication, but is considered to be physically Holy. From that perspective, burning a Koran is considered to be blasphemous, demanding judgment and punishment. Islam attempts to enforce holiness from without, instead of from within.
3) From the Christian perspective, our focus is to be on loving our fellow man in the performance of the Great Commission. Depending upon the audience and situation, the burning of the Koran might be appropriate or not.
Amongst believers, we are not to entice conflicts, but adhere to the spirit provided from God through faith in Christ. All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable. While burning a Koran might manifest conflict, tolerance of antiChristian thinking also is not without consequence. If the pastor is simply making a statement amongst believers, he is well within his rights to perform those actions.
Amongst non-believers, Col 4:5-6 provides guidance.
Col 4:5-6
(5) Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.
(6) Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
For a believer in fellowship with God, through faith in Christ, we know the Koran is not a Holy or sanctified object. We also know that God does indeed provide sanctification, and we seek to share this fabulous process with those who do not have it, because we also at one time did not have it and only received it after returning to God on His terms.
We recognize that it is difficult to communicate this good news of what God provides to an audience whom we initially insult or behave to lessen their propensity to hear our message.
There are also audiences, who have already determined they will not receive the Gospel, such that tact might not be a successful mechanism to provide a witness.
The proper solution, as for any problem in life, is only through faith in what God provides. If such thinking fails to recognize what is provided in Christ on the Cross, then it insufficiently addresses what God has provided.