Fastbreak

Transy Coach Brian Lane picks up a great kid and a solid family.

 

Congratulations all around! :thumb:

A quick update to not that Ryan Popp is not playing ball at Thomas More. I have no further information, but the kid is quick with tremendous handles, it would be a shame for him not to be competing somewhere.

 

Also just learned that Chad Jackson has withdrawn from James Madison following his freshman season and has signed to play at Northern Kentucky University.

Thanks for the information Fastbreak. Sounds like the majority of those kids played or are playing at the next level.

11 of 12 playing college ball and the one kid that could be playing at a lot of schools.

• Seven NCAA Division One schollys
  
• Two D-IIIs
  
• Two NAIAs
  
• I even know of one kid a grade behind these guys that played with the Patriots in a few events over a couple of years when his primary AAU squad was not in action that just signed to play D-II next year.

These guys were good, from the parents, coaches and behind the scenes folks keeping things rolling, to the players themselves... and a better group of kids would be hard to find.

 

This is a shining example of what is possible when people work together and do things right. :thumb:

Just learned some more on other former Patriots:

 

• Jordan Siebert - Ohio State
  
• Juan Staten - Dayton who just transferred Penn State
  
• Griffin McKenzie - Xavier
  
• Andy Earls is at Cincinnati State but not playing basketball... (...a shame to me...)
  

 

They had some great kids and a tremendous program... Five (or more) state titles, numerous trips to nationals, and a majority of their players still competing in college ball pretty much debunks a lot of high school coaches complaints about AAU encouraging bad habits and not teaching team play. Granted, the Patriots weren't an average team, but they also prove that not all AAU ball is bad. :thumb:

If Andy is playing somewhere it's not showing up on Google.

I edited my previous post after you posted...

 

"The last I heard is he was considering Cincinnati-Clermont and Wilmington, but don't know for sure where he ended up, or if he is still playing. It would be a shame if he isn't."

 

Andy is a good kid who worked hard to develop his skills. I do hope he's still competing somewhere.

The following are the kids that come to mind from this AAU team. The information is current to the best of my knowledge, but may change at any time.

 

• Chad Jackson was at James Madison and may be looking for a new opportunity.
  
• Dakotah Euton was at Akron, and is now at Asbury
  
• Austin Flannery was at Asbury
  
• Kyle Bair was at Asbury
  
• Ryan Popp was at Thomas More
  
• Daniel Corbett was at Johns Hopkins
  
• Josh Sewell is at Miami Ohio
  
• Mikey Gabbard was at Western Kentucky but is rumored to be transferring to Erskine
  
• Andy Earls has to be playing somewhere. The last I heard is he was considering Cincinnati-Clermont and Wilmington, but don't know for sure where he ended up, or if he is still playing. It would be a shame if he isn't.
  

There are several other kids that played with the Patriots at one time or another, but I have no information at this time.

Congratulations to Jake and his parents.

 

Great kid, great family! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I'm just waiting for an Onion article proclaiming:

 

One Week After France Bans Veils, New Law Requires Brown Paper Bags

Why does it have to be a % of blame affixed? Aren't both as guilty?

Hatz, I understand and share your concerns for missionaries around the globe, and the jeopardy they face when clowns like Jones seek their own magnification above Christ’s. There is no good excuse for what he has done. This is a valid point able to stand on its own.

 

My broader point is that simply by acknowledging your words, we depart any semblance of political correctness insisting that Islam is nothing more than a “religion of peace”. There is a clear understanding by many actually out in the Muslim nations around the world that any offense to the prophet or the book will almost automatically result in violence and death, very often to those that had absolutely nothing to do with causing the offense.

 

I have no doubt there are many Muslims who prefer peace, but that does nothing to disarm the many who justify violent jihad against infidels with ample support in the teachings of the prophet and his present day imams.

 

It is impossible to solve problems by denying they exist, or by recasting them and insisting they are something else. Political correctness is not a more polite way of saying and doing things. It is willful ignorance leading to feebleness.

I have a hypothetical question, and would love to hear the thoughts of the greatest debaters on the planet, here on BGP. This really isn't political or religious, but I suspect it will be debated on moral grounds; so I'm asking it here.

On behalf of all the master debaters on BGP, I have to agree with Mom, Hatz, Colonels, Habib, Larry, et. al.

 

Very sound advice... tougher to actually implement, especially if pressed by party B, but very wise advice. :thumb:

In no way do I endorse the burning of the Koran (or any book for that matter.) Terry Jones is a feeble, agenda driven boob acting to selfishly promote his own self-interests.

 

That being said, I am genuinely at a loss as to how the actions of murderous monsters brutally assassinating innocent people that had absolutely nothing to do with barbecuing a supposed “Book of Peace” half a world away can be blamed on anyone other than the fiends doing the killing.

 

We’re led to believe that these faithful practitioners of a “religion of peace” had no control over their reactions and cannot be held accountable for them.

 

Is it truly our responsibility to ensure the Islamic world behaves in a civilized manner?

 

Are they nothing more than irresponsible children?

 

This is absurd.

 

The Muslims that have to date killed 25 people in Afghanistan and Pakistan – not one of which have ever burned a Koran, or interacted with anyone who did – are murderers.

 

Tyranny is tyranny, whether political, military, religious or otherwise.

 

This whole episode illustrates as well as any the weight of our responsibility to endure speech we may find offensive without responding violently, and to remain a bastion for freedom of expression as a safeguard against tyranny in the world.

I've seen both pros and cons in terms of player development. From my experience it has been almost entirely favorable.

 

Spring and summer ball many not be essential, but it is invaluable for helping kids already with solid fundamentals improve their skills and thinking in actual game situations against very good competition. Under the right circumstances, this carries over to their school teams and into confidence off the court.

 

Some of the very best coaches in the game, without time or credentials to coach high school ball have excellent summer teams. Of course there are some stinkers too.

 

In terms of kids with the physique and skills to play beyond high school, it is almost mandatory for them to compete on a decent team in events attended my college coaches. Not many players - great or average - have the opportunity to play in the Sweet 16 at Rupp. Only a handful ever have a tourney like Mr. Hickey did this year. But a lot of good players can participate on summer teams that will play in events with more coaches present than ever attend the Sweet 16. I've seen more than 70 coaches at a single summer game, and over 300 at some tournaments. It's a numbers thing, and for good players, every bit of extra exposure is almost always a good thing.

 

There are exceptions to the rule, but they are becoming increasingly rare. It's just too easy for college coaches to visit a handful of key events in July and see more talent than they have time or budget to see otherwise.

:lol: And a fun story to tell KY Baptists who have no knowledge of their own religious history.

I have been a fan of the good Brother Craig for some time now. I reside where he last practiced his crafts, (preaching and distilling) very near the limestone spring that provided pure water for his product. You are absolutely correct, it is an outright hoot to watch the reactions of his present day Baptist brethren as I recount his story for them.

Actually not all Baptists would agree with the above. Most probably would but not all. (Historically or in the modern era)

 

Check out Elijah Craig's story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Craig

 

He was co-founder (with Aaron Bledsoe) of my last church here in Virginia. In 1774 he helped establish Bledsoe's Meeting House. They later changed the name to North Pamunkey Baptist Church in the 1820's after a scandal involving Rev. Bledsoe. History is stranger than fiction. :thumb:

Brother Craig remains one of my favorite Baptists to this day... :thumb:

There are large varieties of interpretations of both texts. As a Christian I believe the use of the bible to support genocide and the capture of slaves in the 16th century was deplorable.

Not sure how anyone could be for genocide or slavery… certainly not “enlightened” Christians.

 

There are many Muslims today who believe the use of the Quran to support terrorism is similarly deplorable.

I don’t deny this. I agree 100%. Regardless of what’s written in any book, it is deplorable to use printed words to justify murder, torture and mayhem.

 

Again, this gets back to my original premise, and the whole reason I first posted in this thread. This is a battle for hearts and minds. It is first and foremost within the Muslim faith, and secondarily, for hearts and minds outside the Muslim faith.

 

If “peace loving” Muslims genuinely believe theirs is the correct interpretation of the prophet’s teachings, they need to capture the moral high ground within their faith and aggressively begin educating potential terrorists before they become indoctrinated in the dark side. They need to find ways to remove or discredit mullahs spewing hatred and discord. They need to do everything possible to educate their brethren and defeat terrorism within their ranks.

 

Unfortunately, I do not believe they will be successful in this. There are too many passages in the Koran that justify violence as a means of protecting and/or spreading the faith. There are too many who view violence as the more expedient means to teh end they have in mind.

 

I honestly believe we will witness things grow steadily worse with the actions of “violent” Islamists who feel fully vindicated by the words of their prophet to wage fiery warfare upon infidels.

 

I truly hope I am wrong on this… we shall see.

And, again, I am not saying that those who justify brutal actions with the Christian bible are correct, I am saying that the possibility to interpret things differently, even wildly differently, exists.

No one with any sense would argue with this point.

 

As I understand it, you believe there is only one valid interpretation of the Christian texts and one valid interpretation of the Islamic texts. I simply disagree with that.

My point, and where you may have misunderstood my intent, is that I do believe there is one “ideal” or “most accurate” message of scripture. Unfortunately, due to our human condition, it sometimes requires a variety of interpretations to arrive at the “most likely” intent. I am not convinced there is any one human capable of interpreting every single passage of scripture flawlessly every single time. We all have different understandings and life experiences that lead us to filter information differently. Some are consistently more accurate than others, but no one is flawless. Again, the whole “through a glass darkly” issue.

 

An example in our culture is Baptists who read certain passages and determine that the only correct path is absolute abstinence from alcohol at all times, in all ways. We then have Catholics who read the same verses and have a fish fry with a cold keg in the community building next to the sanctuary. I personally fall somewhere in between the two.

 

Is one more right than the other? It is not my job to say. I am only able to decide what I believe God wants me to do in faith. :thumb:

I believe I have your position correct, again. I happen to agree with this, personally, as it is by belief, though I often find myself in the minority. I’ve heard plenty of preachers and Christians invoke the Old Testament. It was thoroughly taught to me, and I’m confident it is still thoroughly taught in Sunday schools across the US today. You even say that you do not deny the entirety of the Bible. How, then, can you say only the New Testament matters to Christians? My point is if you want to compare the Christian bible to the Quran in terms of violence, you have to selectively edit to say that only the Quran contains violence, which is my point. I do not think it is reasonable to say that you believe in the entirety of the bible and also say only half of it is valid for comparison, especially when Christians today study and invoke the Old Testament as part of their faith.

Habib, I am not suggesting we toss out over half of the Bible. Paul instructs us, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

 

I am merely saying that the New Testament is the collection of letters/books that deal exclusively with Christianity. As a Christian, the words, actions and teaching of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament are our preeminent authority. His is the ultimate teaching for me to follow. None of this abolishes the good teachings, wisdom and history found in the Old Testament. The N.T. merely supersedes the O.T. in authority for me as a Christian.

 

Paul said, “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” He is speaking of our ability to understand and perceive here and now versus our ability to do so in God’s full presence. IMO, the time Jesus walked the earth and spoke directly to us was one of those moments of razor sharp clarity Paul speaks of… a time of unambiguous lucidity unencumbered by the filter of human interpretation. The words He spoke, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the most loving, inspired and challenging in the entire Bible. Everything else, is as Paul says in the KJV is “through a glass darkly”.

 

I’ve been slapped by Hatz for hyperbole, but it is my genuine belief that the entire Old Testament, in one way or another, points to the need for, and pending arrival of a Messiah. From original sin; to the hopeless prospect of more than 500 laws no human could ever fulfill to the letter; to the hundreds of prophecies describing the who, what, when, where, why and how of His arrival.

 

You don’t have to agree with me, (…really… I’m okay with that… lol) but If Muhammad is the singular standard for representing the Muslim faith, Jesus Christ is the only reasonable/fair option for representing Christianity. Muhammad is the sole author of the Koran. It seems correct to compare his words and teaching with those of Jesus.

 

You will find nowhere in the words of Jesus (or any of His disciples, or in the entire New Testament for that matter) where he instructs us to take up the sword in the name of God. He instructs us to love God and love our neighbor (and to even love our enemies.) There is no ambiguity in His teaching. There is no room for waging violent jihad against non-believers in the name of His faith.

 

Pulling out things recorded in the O.T. and trying to hang them on Jesus is a reach in this regard. Feel free to do so if you deem it necessary. It's just a reach IMO.

I also disagree that Saudi Arabia is among the “liberal” states in the Middle East. You would be hard pressed to find a country more hard pressed for a liberal society, democracy, and, coincidentally, education in the world. They are also a country with the highest concentration of Wahhabis in the world, who certainly do have a violent interpretation of Islam. If the West didn’t glad-hand it to get its oil the kingdom would have likely collapsed. The corollary of your complaint is that the West is propping this backward society up. .

You have so predetermined my viewpoint and are prepared to be against what you “think” I’m trying to say, you’re not providing any “benefit of the doubt” to my actual words. I never said that “I” claim the Saudis are “liberal”. How could any sensible Westerner reading about people being beheaded, beaten and imprisoned for believing in Jesus Christ suggest this culture is “liberal”? Come on man…

 

I said, “Many Muslims decry the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as corrupt due to their general friendliness with the West.” The intent was that the Saudis are viewed as being too “liberal” by many of their own hard line Muslim brethren. You are welcome to agree or disagree, but please understand my intent as you do.

 

Your original post said that those “in the know” consider peaceful Muslims to be secular apostates. I understood that to mean that objective outside observers, such as you consider yourself, believe the terrorists to be truest followers of the faith. Yet, here you merely say that there are violent strains of Islam being taught and practiced and that those who practice peace are also faithful Muslims. Which part have I mistaken? .

I was not referring to myself, or even “objective outside observers” but former Muslim jihadists who at one time were on the “inside” of violence against the West. They have since fled to escape the brutal conditions in the lands of their youth. As they have come to see the bigger picture, they have turned from violence and elected to reveal what is being taught, believed and practiced by growing numbers of their former countrymen.

 

THEY CLAIM that “peace loving” Muslims content with making nice with infidels are considered to be weak apostates by hard line adherents. This is not a surmise or opinion on my part, but the words and opinions of former Islamic jihadists, based upon THEIR UNDERSTANDING (not mine) of the writings of the prophet.

 

I do not believe anyone in the world denies that there is violence being taught.

Nor does anyone who has ever actually read the Koran in its entirety been able to truthfully deny Muhammad’s writings (specifically regarding violence and jihad against infidels) that are used to support such interpretations. This is a big challenge for the proponents of a “peaceful” Islam. I genuinely wish them well. :thumb:

Again, it appears I have correctly construed your position. Though, you both say that violence is a component of Islam and that not all Muslims must behave this way to be true followers. This is confusing.

I was stunned when I first read the Koran in its entirety in 1983 with all the instructions for violence by the prophet. These occur consistently throughout the text. They are not random exceptions, but a recurring theme for dealing with infidels and transgressors of the law as presented by Muhammad.

 

I am NOT asserting that “peace loving” Muslims or “violent jihadists” are more or less faithful to the teachings of the prophet. What I AM SAYING is that those on both sides have ample justification in the Koran to support their viewpoints as being faithful. This is an internal struggle within Islam, based upon differing perspectives and selective emphasis on certain themes within the text.

 

It is important to understand that neither side is amplifying a few scant verses here or there out of context to essentially build a mountain out of a molehill. Both peaceful and violent verses/teachings are in the Koran. Neither POV requires a magnifying glass and narrow scrutiny to reveal. Those who deny this are either ignorant of the facts and/or disingenuous.

 

Personally, I would prefer to see the “peace loving” Muslims win the debate, but having read the book, I genuinely do not think it is possible for them to defuse those leaning toward violent means… and certainly not by denying that violence is clearly instructed by Muhammad in the Koran.

I'm a bit reluctant to break up a hearty gay rights debate in a thread entitled, "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door" to discuss Muslim issues, but here goes... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Habib, I again split up your post to address your points…

You said that I have put words in your mouth, but then write a lengthy post saying that I have correctly construed your position on this point. And I do disagree with it. They have largely spoken out against terrorism, so I see the incessant claims that they do not as either an impossible litmus test or an unwillingness to listen. I also find the notion that any group must pass such a litmus test to avoid hostile treatment to indeed be intolerant.

As long as there are Muslims capturing headlines and dominating coverage in the 24/7 news cycle by perpetrating violence in the name of Allah, “peace loving” Muslims need to point out and keep pointing out how the actions of these so called “extremists” are out of line with what they believe are the authentic teachings of the prophet.

 

Not to suit me…

 

…not to meet some stringent “litmus test”…

 

…but for the benefit of their own faith and image.

 

This is simple public relations.

 

I have not once in this thread said, “There are no Muslims speaking out against terrorism” nor have I demanded they do so as some sort of “litmus test”.

 

The fact that you were so readily able to produce a 9Mb PDF file containing letters from Muslim individuals and groups denouncing the acts of terrorists acting in the name of their faith tells me THEY felt this was necessary and potentially beneficial.

 

Good P.R. IMO. They need to keep it up until their message gets out to enough people—especially those within their own faith—to turn the tide against those they assert are misappropriating their faith.

 

I certainly do not see how it is intolerant and hateful to suggest that “peace loving” Muslims would do themselves and their faith a tremendous favor to continue these denouncements… not as a “litmus test” but as a platform for moving their “peaceful and gentle” interpretation of the faith into a position of better understanding and acceptance on the world stage… and to help eliminate misunderstandings with potential neighbors in communities across the U.S.

 

If you find fault with this position, we will simply have to agree to disagree. :thumb:

Just sitting down to watch this now. First, I find it awesomely terrible that Soledad OBrien showed up to the mosque wearing a skirt. :lol:

 

Just a question (for mountain ref and Fastbreak in particular)- do you believe the Muslims in Murfreesboro have a right to build a mosque where they want?

Yes...

You argue that there are no violent passages in the texts of the Christian faith, but delete the Old Testament from comparison, citing your interpretation of the Old Testament’s utility to the religion.

I hate to break it to you, but there were no Christians in the O.T. The first actual Christian make an appearance more than 400 years after the final text of the O.T. was written.

I do not deny the entirety of the Bible, but as a Christian, I am not bound to all the laws recorded in the Old Testament. Just a few examples are:

• I do not practice the sacrifice of lambs, bulls, doves and other animals at my local temple.
  
• I do not abstain from eating pork, shellfish or fish without scales.
  
• I certainly do not feel that God has appointed me to be a tool to cleanse infidels from the land.
  

I do not believe I am erring in my faith to disregard these laws that were at one time very important to early Jewish followers. It is my understanding that when Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law as a requirement for righteousness: (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

 

You are free to present all the violent acts described in the O.T. as proof of whatever you want. You will not find any preachers or teachers of sound Christian doctrine espousing those today… and certainly not without considerable fallout from those who understand the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

The only reasonable comparison in my mind therefore; is between the ultimate authority of the Christian faith and the ultimate authority of the Muslim faith. It is not a dodge for me to say that all other voices and teachings are secondary.

 

Jesus teaches unconditional love to all, Muhammad is more selective.

When presented with evidence that very many Muslims have in fact condemned terrorism, you argue that the fundamentalists are the most true adherents of the faith, that those condemning terrorism are apostates.

I have never made such a blanket assertion… but merely that there are many mullahs across the Middle East instructing the faithful (illiterate or otherwise) that violent jihad against infidels is the purest form of the faith.

 

What I will again clearly state, is that if Islam is truly a religion of peace and these mullahs preaching violence and hatred toward the West have no basis whatsoever in Koranic scripture to support their wayward teachings, it should be a simple matter for a vast majority of learned scholars of the Koran to debunk and defuse their vitriolic rants. It should be a simple matter, given time and persistence, for the teachers of peace and tolerance in the faith to root out the terrorists. As it is, I am aware of countless verses to the contrary. Tolerance and faith in the Koran is primarily reserved for fellow followers of the prophet. Violence is instructed and approved by Muhammad numerous times.

 

I do not deny that those who love peace and follow the path of non-violence are indeed Muslims. All I am saying is that there are many who preach and practice the use of violence in propagating the faith with solid justification that they too are faithful. The fact that Muhammad himself is credited with numerous acts of violence and force over non-believers makes it difficult to discredit the violent branch of the faith. You are taking issue with me, when there is ample documentation of mullahs teaching that practitioners of violent jihad are the most faithful adherents of Islam.

 

Their teaching… not mine.

You wonder why there is no outcry from Muslims against terrorism. It is implied that this is because it is part of the religion; otherwise “learned scholars” would condemn it.

To deny that violence and terrorism are a component of Islam, both currently and historically is to deny the truth.

 

Violent acts are clearly outlined by Muhammad multiple times throughout the Koran as a proper means of dealing with criminals and infidels. Those who state otherwise have no depth of knowledge about what is actually in the Koran. Violent treatment of infidels is permitted and actually instructed throughout the Koran. It is taught by mullahs around the world to passionate adherents as a means of gaining the rewards of Allah in paradise.

 

Many Muslims decry the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as corrupt due to their general friendliness with the West (primarily to keep their oil revenues flowing.) This is the home to both Mecca and Medina, the cradle of Islam, the religious center toward which over a billion Muslims kneel and pray five times a day.

 

The concept of religious freedom does not exist in Saudi Arabia. It is illegal to voice a non-Muslim prayer anywhere, even in the privacy of one’s own home. Owning or even reading from a Bible is not permitted. Conversion to Christianity is legally punishable by public beheading.

 

Amnesty International reports that the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia has "increased dramatically" in recent years. There are more than one thousand reports of Christian workers being arrested, imprisoned and beaten for participating in private worship meetings… not out evangelizing on street corners, but for worshiping in private.

 

I don’t know about you, but the threat of beheading, beating and imprisonment sounds pretty “terrifying” as a response to a person’s mere beliefs. All are endorsed by “learned scholars” of the Koran.

 

The concept that Islam instructs people on how they may “live together in peace and harmony regardless of race, class or beliefs” is apparently nonexistent in Saudi Arabia, one of the more liberal Islamic nations in the Middle East… a nation widely regarded as being too friendly with infidels.

 

I am NOT saying that all Muslims must behave this way to be true followers of the prophet, only that a good number of them in Saudi Arabia apparently believe so.

 

If such violence against non-believers is strongly condemned in the Koran, and Islam is in fact supposed to be a religion of peace to ALL PEOPLE, I do not see why it would be any great task for Islamic scholars to point out the error of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of non-Muslims.

I don’t believe I have put words in your mouth or misconstrued what you have written:

You absolutely have done so. For someone so intent upon logic, you make leaps that may follow your own assumptions, but are not in necessarily in unity with the facts.

 

I am going to address your points in separate posts just to keep things focused.

 

You cosigned the statement that if more Muslims condemned terrorism, then Americans would be more receptive to them.

Do you honestly believe that this is not a reasonable concept? Seriously?

 

The fact that you provided a PDF with documents by predominantly Western Muslims denouncing terrorism in the name of Allah indicates that at least some Muslims saw the wisdom of separating themselves from their fundamentalist brethren. They clearly felt this was necessary and might possibly be beneficial. My question is, "Why are these Muslims not getting more ink and air time to express their views?" Do you genuinely believe that average Americans with only a passing understanding of Islam would not be moved by the sincere and passionate denouncements of terrorism in the name of jihad by authentic followers of Islam?

 

If by “cosigned” you mean, I do not understand how encouraging peace loving Muslims to speak out against terrorism by other followers of their faith is considered intolerant or hateful... then yeah, I guess I cosigned.

 

I would not hesitate to agree that it would be a good idea for mainstream “peace loving” Christians to denounce the ludicrous actions of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist, abortion clinic bombers, etc.

 

If you do nothing else in response to this post, I urge you to explain how my suggestion that “peaceful” Muslims be more vocal in denouncing the actions of their “violent/terroristic” brethren is intolerant or hateful.