Tags
Adam Hamilton, Addie Darling, Church of the Resurrection, Institute on Religion and Democracy, IRD Blog, Religion and Politics, United Methodist
By Addie Darling
In his sermon last Sunday, megachurch pastor and author Adam Hamilton of prominent United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas spoke to his congregation about the upcoming election, and the Christian case for civil discourse.

During his sermon on Eph. 4:29-32, Rev. Hamilton gently reminded his congregation that Christians can and do come to differing conclusions on matters of faith and that our allegiance is first to Christ, not party or country. However, while Hamilton did elaborate upon the necessity for charity and calm discourse by Christians, he also refused to take stances on some moral questions for the sake of harmony, glossing over some truly “black-and-white” issues by labeling some of the sharpest divides as shades of gray.
Hamilton’s precis was solid, stating that in this election season many of the issues facing voters “are not black and white, but shades of gray.” He referenced the example of the Catholic Vice Presidential Candidates Joe Biden and Paul Ryan as examples of committed Christians coming to differing conclusions on matters of politics.
Hamilton ruminated on the levels of religious observance in the Republican party and the Democratic one, as well as the use of the Sermon on the Mount for decades by presidential candidates of both parties. From these starting points, Hamilton noted that faithful Christians can be found in both parties, and that Christianity doesn’t necessitate that one belong to one party or the other – just ask the nearly 50% of Christians who identify as “Independent.” Neither does any party hold a particular claim on Christianity. Indeed, Hamilton continued, it is possible to take elements from both the Republican and Democratic platforms and find a Biblical roots for many of their policies.
Rev. Hamilton concluded that the central question of faith and politics is this: does Christ come first, or does our political frame? Hamilton said that in everything we ought to be Christ’s ambassadors. Thus, we can have our political views, and we should debate various matters of contention, but we should do so as Christians, and in a calm and respectful manner.
However, in advocating for a civil debate, Hamilton overlooks acts that are unconscionable for Christians – such as the taking of innocent life. Hamilton enumerated a host of offenses that are clear-cut moral issues: child abuse, taking advantage of the poor, racism. Most of the other various issues that face Americans “are not black and white, but shades of gray.”
What Hamilton would not talk about, however, was whether or not abortion and marriage are issues that are “black and white,” as has been taught by the church for millennia. Indeed, he used the Vice-Presidential debate between the Catholic Democratic and Republican candidates Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, respectively, as an example of Christians coming to reasonable political differences while remaining faithful to Christ. What Hamilton failed to mention, however, is that a faithful Catholic cannot, in good conscience, promote abortion, nor promote a re-fashioned vision of marriage.
While misogyny is still a real force within America, and abortion is a complicated and terrible decision for the women faced with it, it is ultimately a black and white decision: either the fetus has moral weight, or it does not. If abortion is, though, as Hamilton suggests, merely a shade of gray, we Christians must consider which shade. To what extent can Christians be comfortable with the mass destruction of unborn human life?
What a load of bull. If you can’t see that the Democratic Party has lost it’s moral compass. You should stay out of the pulpit.
Since there has been no response to my actual points forthcoming, I will assume that we all agree, then, that my actual points are sound. If at any time you have something to address my actual points, to suggest with some actual evidence or support that I’m not on solid ground, feel free to point it out.
Also, as to the scurrilous, false and unsupported charges that “those who disagree with us are false teachers,” since there has been no one to step up and say, “Dan, when you say specifically that we are saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, THAT is a false gospel…” or what have you, I will assume that there is NO evidence to support that I and those like me are preaching a false gospel or are false teachers, but rather, that I’m just another believer who happens to find your arguments unbiblical, irrational and mistaken, and thus I disagree with you and you with me, but that does not make either of us false teachers, just potentially mistaken.
I would suggest that when one makes a false charge and does not support it (because they can not biblically or rationally support it), that it’s okay, mistakes happen. But I’d hope that you all could be adult enough and Christian enough to acknowledge the mistake. A simple, “oops, my bad… sorry!” would speak very well of you.
This silence does not.
While I’m waiting for a response which will hopefully be forthcoming to the questions I’ve asked above, let me address the “false teacher” problem. Tierce said earlier…
The biblical standard for false teacher has nothing to do with sincerity or monetary motives, it has to do with preaching a false gospel.
I would posit that, actually, according to the Bible that yes, false teachers traits DO involve monetary motives and sincerity. If you look at the passages that deal with false teachers, it is not speaking of those who merely disagree with other Christians. Again, that is not even a rational definition, because EVERYONE has others who disagrees with them, so by that measure, EVERYONE is a false teacher, to someone.
I’ve looked at the pertinent passages before on my blog, you can read them here…
False false teacher teachings
As far as “a false gospel,” my gospel is the Christian gospel, that we are sinners who can be saved by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus.
People can and do and will disagree in good faith about this behavior and that behavior, as to whether or not it’s a sin. Disagreeing about various behaviors is not being a “false teacher,” or if it is, then you are a false teacher, because I disagree with you. Given that we’re ALL fallible human beings prone to mistake, calling “those who disagree with me” false teachers is a rather graceless measure.
And, as you can see if you look at what the bible actually says, it’s also not a biblical measure.
This is the whole point Dan. You said:
“I’ll say it again: It sounds like you want religious liberty for yourself (including the “liberty” to tell your employer that you will say whatever the heck you want and to hell – and I mean that literally, not as a rude curse word – with their opinions), but you are not willing to allow liberty for others. Your religious liberty ENDS at another’s. You don’t get to dictate to others what they can and can’t believe OR DO, as long as their liberty is not interfering with others’ liberties.”
This is why they are engaged so heavily in right wing extremist politics. Over the past three decades, the Religious Right discovered that they had a lot of “personal beliefs” about what the Bible says and that they held those beliefs so stronly that they just knew for sure that they must be right. Trouble is, they discovered that a vast array of other faiths and religions, including other Christians, the huge unchurched “Bubba” segment that buys beer at baseball games, and the people of no religion at all did not share that zeal for their peculiar understanding of the Bible. Thus, they had no real hope of victory in their cause unless thay could find a way to take over the government at all levels and force people to behave according to their standards and make people believe as they believe—probably under penatlty of imprisonment, torture, or death (which their Christian reconstructionist wing is already publicly advocating).
So, no Dan. They believe that your understanding of the Apostle Paul’s many comments on religious liberty and those said or implied by Jesus himself are just dirty rags in need of cleaning. If you have ever read any of their writings, religious liberty id defined as being released from condemnation by grace so you have the liberty and freedom to obey the full Old Testament law like an ancient Jew. Jesus says that the yoke of liberty that he offers is “easy and his burden if light.” The religuious liberty these IRD people offer is what the Apostle Paul called “bondage to the law.” In their mind, freedom is slavery. Here is their view of what the Christian faith should be like—-but the Jesus of the New Testament wields an apple and a sledgehammer:
Tierce, I DO hope you will find the time to respond to my 10:47 comment from Oct 19. You are making serious charges – accusing those who merely disagree with you on an issue or two of being “false teachers” and possibly not even Christians. That is as serious as hell, brother. I hope you will respond to this comment, rather than just make these unsupported and unsupportable false charges and leaving them hanging.
Also, I’d ask a question in another way, regarding religious liberty and I’d be very interested in your answers…
Some people believe that God is okay with marriage, gay or straight. Some people believe that they’ve found their mate and would like to marry before God and community, legally, fully married.
That is THEIR religious belief.
For them to get married (and thus, have freedom of religion in their lives) does not require that you approve of it. That they are free to marry is not saying that everyone in our nation/community approves of that marriage.
Given that, would you support their religious liberty to do so, or would you want to try to outlaw that marriage and deny them their religious liberty? How does their right to marry interfere with YOUR right to discriminate and not like their marriage?
I’ll say it again: It sounds like you want religious liberty for yourself (including the “liberty” to tell your employer that you will say whatever the heck you want and to hell – and I mean that literally, not as a rude curse word – with their opinions), but you are not willing to allow liberty for others. Your religious liberty ENDS at another’s. You don’t get to dictate to others what they can and can’t believe OR DO, as long as their liberty is not interfering with others’ liberties.
What part of that is not rational and moral?
I mean, can you imagine what a glorious testimony to the power of God and the sanctuary of God’s Church if we fellow Christians who disagree on some ideas could do so in such an amazingly loving way that outsiders who observed our disagreements – even on topics of great importance and with deep implications – would be impressed, as they were with the early church, saying, “Look at the way they love one another…”?
Can I get an Amen, brothers and sisters?
Let’s hear it for God’s unifying love and the grace, by which we are all saved! Amen?
Eric, why “ignore…”? Why not reason together? Why not acknowledge our mutual inclusion in God’s church and recognize that we disagree on some matters and find out the best ways to disagree and yet still love one another and disagree with grace and respect?
Is that not part of the Way of Christ?
Tierce, do not underestimate the power of ignoring. If a hundred people posted comments on their postings, they would love it, even if all the comments were against them. But if no one even reacted, they would go bonkers.
A little antagonism can be a good thing – keeps us on our toes, mentally speaking. But page after tiresome page of this drivel is just a waste of time. God calls us to make the best use of our time, and arguing with a brick wall is a good use.
I love the way liberals view the world: they are the loving and compassionate ones, anyone who disagrees with them is hate-filled, immoral, and stupid. I guess it hadn’t occurred to them that going on a conservative blog and bashing Christians doesn’t quite jive with their self-image. Must be fun to be always wrong, but never in doubt.
It is a curious thing isn’t it. I wonder why someone like Dover, who reviles both the principles upon which this site is based and the people who follow those principles, even posts here. Perhaps Dover just has a deep hatred for the God of the Bible and those who serve Him, but I don’t know.
Dan is a little bit more complicated, and I think that he genuinely believes in some kind of mission to find common ground between his view and the views of traditional Christianity, perhaps as part of an attempt persuade some who aren’t grounded in their faith, that his views are Biblically acceptable.
Tierce…
I think that he genuinely believes in some kind of mission to find common ground between his view and the views of traditional Christianity, perhaps as part of an attempt persuade some who aren’t grounded in their faith, that his views are Biblically acceptable.
Complicated, am I? I’ll accept that!
I have no “mission” to find common ground. We HAVE common ground. Unless I’m mistaken…
1. We believe in a loving and just God, creator of all the world.
2. We believe in the problem of sin in humanity.
3. We believe that God loves us in spite of our sin, that God wants the best of us, that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all would have everlasting life.
4. We believe that God loved us so much, that God came to this world fully human and fully God, in Jesus, the son of God.
5. We believe that Jesus came, teaching us the way to God and the ways of God. Jesus came teaching us to love one another – even our enemies! even those we disagree with! even calling for us to forgive those who wrong us, not seven times, but endlessly! – and to live lives of grace.
6. We believe that Jesus came, inviting us to repent of our sins and to embrace lives of grace.
7. We believe that we find better lives in following Jesus and agree that this is our heart’s desire, at least at our best moments, when living by God’s grace in the spirit of love, by the Spirit of God.
I could go on and on. We believe in the Holy Scriptures and that they are good for education, correction, rebuke and learning. We believe in prayer to God and meditation upon God and upon God’s Word and upon God’s Way. We believe in the church universal. We believe in tending to/watching out for/siding with the “least of these,” in loving and aiding the poor, the foreigner, the marginalized, the sinners. We acknowledge that we, ourselves, are sinners, in need of forgiveness, grace and salvation.
On and on I could go. We have volumes of common ground.
Am I mistaken?
I don’t think so, as long as you are a follower of Christ, I am sure we have vastly more common ground than not.
And yet, in spite of this vast area of common ground, being human and fallible, we disagree on some points. Is encouraging and supporting our dear gay and straight friends to channel their sexuality into a healthy marriage realm, is this a good or bad idea? Is killing our enemy acceptable for Christians? Is engaging in war acceptable for Christians? How much taxation is good and acceptable and for what purposes? How much concern should we have for God’s creation and how much should we support common rules (ie gov’t regulation) to protect God’s creation?
Yes, we have areas of disagreement. Unfortunately, you are not perfect in all knowledge and sometimes are wrong. AND, as much as I may be loathe to admit it, I am not perfect in all knowledge and sometimes I am mistaken.
But merely being mistaken (or believing that my brothers/sisters are mistaken) is no reason to reject our vast commonality.
Where am I mistaken? SHOULD I reject you as a follower of Christ because you disagree with me on some (what I think are clear) positions? That does not seem to me to be the path of Christ or of grace. And that Path is one we agree about in general, even if we disagree on how best to understand some small parts of it.
I can offer a simpler explanation: Christian conservative are the one group of people in our culture that it’s OK to hate. In fact, not just OK, but Politically Correct to. No one would dare diss Muslims (ask Salman Rushdie), but people can slander Christians till the cows come home and they know we won’t bomb a building in revenge. There is a great book I highly recommend by Eric Hoffer titled The True Believer. He analyzes hatred and how it’s an emotion cultivated by people who have no love in their lives, so they need to feel passionate about something, identify some dragon they can slay, create some drama in their empty lives. Hoffer says that “Hatred is the most accessible of unifying agents. . . . Mass movements can rise and spread without a belief in God, but never without belief in a devil.” When he wrote this in 1951, he no doubt thought of what happened to the Jews under Hitler, but of course the same thing is happening today in America, where demonizing Christians is turning into the national sport.
Is that your explanation as to why you feel you can demonize the presumably “liberal” Christians you slander and misrepresent? “They do it to us so we get to do it to them! Nyaa!”…?
Come, let us reason together.
Congratulations Dan. You have now been officially labeled as “not a Christian.” God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have no say in the matter of whether you are a Christian. It is all up to these IRD guys here, Apparently, to hear these guys talk about it, all three aspects of the Godhead decided to take a 2000-year nap and left them in charge of everything. I somehow suspect that you were not copied on the heavenly nap memo.
Moreover, apparently, as part of their appointment while the three “men we admire most” are asleep, these guys believe that they have been appointed to behave like cough medicine: “Save the Bible!!!” People out there are trying to destroy the Bible, but they are going to save it. They seem to be forgetting what Jesus said, “Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.” In truth, what they are desperately trying to save is their own human-based understanding of what the Bible says. Put another way, “It is my way or the highway.” It reminds me of the famous quotation attributed to Kaiser Wilhelm in Germany before World War I: “There can be but one master in Europe and that is I.” The Bible is literal. The Bible is simple. The Bible is factually inerrant. The Bible is perfect science. The Bible is perfect history. Never mind that the Bible makes no such claims for itself. As one of their kind once said to me quite seriously: “There is a name that is above every name, and that name is “Bible.” Yes, she really said that and really believed it. I did not know whether to laugh or cry.
Here is the thing Dan. These people are taught to believe that if they should ever come to understand that there is just one tiny little crack in this inerrantist mythology they have developed, the belief system they have been taught from childhood instructs them that they MUST conclude that God has lied to them—and they must walk away from Jesus forever because He cannot be trusted. Now, is that not one pitiful, self-destructive albatross to hang around a child’s neck. Do you know what I call Christian fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism? They are the ATHEIST MAKERS.
A child gets fed all of their tripe for 22 years, wakes up one morning, and finds out that the world is not just 5,000 years old and that death has been in it for more than 600 million years. Then he gets angry at Jesus (because this is the expectation the belief system has appointed for this critical moment), and then the kid self-polarizes to atheism on cue. As I have often said, the disillusioned person, automatically like a robot, performs the last great and required act of faith in this belief system by rejecting Jesus, and he then goes out in his own personal supernova. No wonder 88 percent of their children leave the kinds of churches they were raised up in and never go back to them again. These kids know this stuff is stupid and unloving. Only the heart of a child can see such things. Only the heart of a child can see the real Jesus. Dan knows what that means, but I doubt that any of you others do because you have been bitter old white man since the moment you popped out of your mom’s vagina.
You make an excellent point Dan. In my many years of studying the Religious Right, I have learned at least two key things about Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals;
1) They believe that they should be able to exercise their religion whenever they like, wherever they like, and with whomever they like. This includes on private property without the owner’s permission. They should be able to deliver the bad news gospel in the aisles of the grocery store, in their office at work, and even uninvited and crawling into your bedroom at 3:30 a.m. to preach to you and your wife in bed. Part of this is the leftover “me first” cultural delusion of the 1960s, something most of them have never been able to escape. The other part is their belief in the realm of religion that they, and they alone, are right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Therefore, such “rightness” deserves an accord of special access and privileges no one else is allowed to have. Add to this the fact that each one believes he is on an emergency rescue mission—and as one of their more militant evangelists has said, “It is okay to tackle them and break their leg” to rescue them because they will thank you for it years later. This condition or state of being flows over into the civil and political world in the form of, “I just don’t understand why I can’t smoke my cigarette at the table in my favorite restaurant. If people nearby don’t like it, they can move or eat at another restaurant.”
2) They believe that you are just not quite fully Christian unless you are being persecuted. However, they do not have enough guts to go on a mission trip to Tehran so they can get some real first century Biblical persecution. Instead, they like nice, comfortable, downhome, lazy-Saturday-afternoon persecution. The place most of them have ended up is:
“If you disagree with me and tell me about it, then I am being persecuted.”
Nice. Safe. Clean. Bloodless. Lazy.
“If you disagree with me and tell me about it, then I am being persecuted.”
Nice. Safe. Clean. Bloodless. Lazy.
If you were a Christian, it would break my heart to hear you reviling the reality of people losing their jobs, losing their businesses, losing everything they have for holding to truth of the Scriptures. While we haven’t yet reached the level where violent persecution for holding to the scriptures is common (though it happens http://nation.foxnews.com/family-research-council/2012/08/15/wounded-family-research-council-headquarters-shooting) these are real incidents of persecution, which as we have seen in Muslim and Communist countries, almost always precede more violent acts.
In a side note, Dan, figuring out who false teachers are can sometimes be a terribly confusing task. Fortunately, the Apostles provided us with lists of acts which allow us in some cases to easily distinguish. Sexual immorality in general and homosexuality in particular are among them.
Now, the trick is that not all false teachers appear on the lists, and some of them are quite subtle, requiring deep and subtle application of truth to root out and show for the perverters of the Gospel that they are.
But so Dan, yes, when you preach that homosexuality is right, and that opposition to it is wrong, you have given me the biblical warrant to label you a false teacher. You are saying that people, whom the bible calls to repent, don’t need to repent. And it is not as though you are drowning out the Spirit of God in an attempt to justify your own sin, rather you believe that this position is an authentic response to the spirit whom you serve. I have no choice but to take you at your word and must therefore conclude that you do not have the Spirit of God active within you. God may, in his infinite grace, save you at the last moment, but I have no doubts that you are a false teacher, and I unequivocally reject what you are saying as a false Gospel, a denial of the seriousness of sin, and a lack of concern for the words of scripture.
Also included on those lists, “Watchman,” are those who slander, bear false witness and fail to love one another. By that measure, you are a false teacher.
Do you see the problem with the low bar that you set for “false teacher…”? By your graceless measure, EVERYONE becomes a false teacher to someone, and when everyone is a false teacher, then the charge has no meaning.
Biblically, you can see that a “false teacher” is NOT merely “some guy that disagrees with me on gay marriage,” but someone who is deliberately saying things he/she knows to be false, usually for a monetary motive. Since that is clearly not me, I am not a false teacher. At worst, I’m some guy on the internet who respectfully disagrees with you and, at worst, I’m mistaken in my hunches about God on this point.
My dear brother, I call you to repent for your slander and for your gracelessness in dealing the family of God.
Dan,
The biblical standard for false teacher has nothing to do with sincerity or monetary motives, it has to do with preaching a false gospel. The fact of the matter is that many false teachers are motivated by monetary desires, and many of them are insincere, but those are descriptions of a person who has abandoned the Gospel and the truths of Scripture.
While I am not sure that the lists that Watchman refers to serve as grounds for identifying false teachers, (I presume that he is referring to lists such as in Galatians 5:19 “for the deeds of the flesh are obvious…”), I would have to agree that teaching homosexuality as a morally acceptable lifestyle is condemned in 2 Peter 2, as part of Peter’s dialogue on false teachers.
“…if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.” 2 Peter 2:6,9
You know my heart, Eric? I think thou dost presume too much. I know God, I’ve talked with God and my dear brother, you ain’t God.
I’m always open to dialog. For instance, I have stated clearly that no one has arrested any Christians in the US for stating the opinion that homosexuality is a sin. I have offered up the opportunity for someone to show me an instance of that happening. Rather than engage in dialog with me, saying “No, no pastors HAVE been arrested for stating that opinion, but there HAVE been instances of people losing their jobs because they’ve offered that opinion.”
To which I could respond…
But that is not the same as being forced to quit for offering that opinion. Employers have the right to hold their employees to certain standards. An employee choosing not to meet that standard (and that is what appears to be happening in most of those instances Mark offered) does not mean that the Christian doesn’t have freedom of religion. In my job, I can’t call people racist names or write a professional paper that calls all fundamentalist Christians and Muslims “murderers…” I just can’t do it and keep my job. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have freedom of religion, it just means that employers can fire people for violating their standards. No harm, no foul.
So, as to what I’ve actually claimed: Are we in agreement that no one is being forced by weight of law to NOT say “homosexuality is a sin…”? That absolutely no one has EVER been arrested for this? That absolutely NO US church has ever been shut down for this?
Are we in agreement on THAT much? Because I would think it’d be a simple matter to demonstrate that it’s happened.
Mark, you can save your breath, or your keystrokes. Every conservative blog has a few resident liberal croakers with way too much time on their hands, and you’re as likely to change their minds as you are to make Lady Gaga look like a Girl Scout. Dialogue is not their goal.
For what it’s worth, I just googled “Pastor arrested preaching against homosexuality” and came up with MANY hits, but not a SINGLE case that I read involved a Christian being arrested for merely having and voicing the opinion that homosexuality is wrong.
Not a single one.
Some of the “stories” were instances of someone saying, “This could happen!” and then recounting a fictional what-if story.
Some were in other nations that don’t believe as strongly in free speech.
Some were in Muslim nations (again, where religious fundamentalism trumps free speech).
Some were stories of someone being arrested for preaching in a place they didn’t have permission.
Some were stories of someone being arrested for preaching too loudly in a public place or otherwise stating their opinion in an obnoxious or dangerous way.
But not a SINGLE story could be found where a Christian was arrested for saying “um, I uh, you know, think homosexuality is a sin… for what it’s worth…”
Not one.
Even in some of the cases where there was an arrest for OTHER reasons (being in the wrong place, preaching too loudly, etc), those were often dismissed once it got to court because WE BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH and give a good bit of leeway for it.
We also believe in the freedom FROM religion and from obnoxious behavior in general and think reasonable adults can agree that there is a balancing act to do, to accomodate your right to free expression and might right not to be pestered by goofy opinions or opinions I’m not interested in hearing preached at me against my will.
Do you think one person’s right to preach gives them a ticket to say whatever they want, however they want, wherever they want?
Can I come into your church on a Sunday and begin preaching that anti-homosexualists are going to hell?
Can I come to outside your child’s school yard and preach that “All you who go to Christian churches, your mommy and daddy are going to hell!”?
I’m sure we can agree that some reasonable limits on free speech are, indeed, reasonable. We may disagree on where that line is drawn, but we can probably agree that a line is reasonable.
In the meantime, I’m not finding EVEN ONE case of someone being arrested for offering a negative opinion about homosexuality.
If you have even one, present it. Otherwise, it would be the respectful and polite and adult thing to do to admit that it doesn’t exist and apologize for overstating the case.
Dan, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Allow me to pull you a little closer to the water. Again.
These things ARE happening. These are not fictional “what-if” stories. You seem to focus on “arrests,” but people ARE losing their jobs and being prosecuted simply for voicing opposition to homosexual behavior.
Here are some articles that may get you up to speed on the facts about persecution of Christians who hold to orthodox teachings about sexuality:
http://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christians
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-teacher-under-investigation-for-opposing-homosexuality.html
http://exministries.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/pastor-scott-lively-is-sued-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/
Feel free, Tierce, to offer even ONE instance of a pastor being arrested in the US for saying, “Homosexuality is a sin.”
You appear to be delusional, creating facts to support your position. But maybe it is me who is uninformed. Feel free to show me ONE STORY where a pastor was arrested for offering an opinion about homosexuality.
Also, if I may ask a follow up question, just so I’m clear:
Tierce (or anyone), you appear to be saying that you oppose discrimination laws – that you think the gov’t is not right to say to a business owner, “No, you don’t have to serve black folk, Muslims, Jews or gay folk if you don’t want to – if serving these people is a violation of your religious teachings, you don’t have to serve them…” Is that right?
You’d support changing our laws so that people COULD discriminate based on race, religion, creed or orientation if this discrimination satisfied their opinion of what God wants, is that your position?
If so, then yes, we do disagree on that point.
We, the people believe that your right to follow God as you please ends at harming others or interfering with their rights. We, the people, believe that discrimination is harmful and can legitimately be outlawed.
Tell me this: If Religion A was now the greatly dominant religion with Christianity being a minority, and Religion A people (who owned the vast majority of businesses) said, “We won’t rent to, sell to or hire Christians,” would you still support their “right” to discriminate?
Just as a summary:
1. No one will be forced in their churches to affirm homosexuality. It. Won’t. Happen. If it did, progressive Christians of my sort would stand up in opposition to that force. But it won’t happen, not here. It hasn’t with racist Christians, why would it with those opposed to homosexuality?
2. No pastors will be arrested for preaching in their churches that homosexuality is a sin. It won’t happen.
3. IF a preacher goes out in the streets and preaches that homosexuality is a sin, even then, they will not likely be arrested, unless they are disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. But we rightly do this any time someone is disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. That is a reasonable “restriction” on religious liberty. (ie, your “right” to preach ends at causing harm to others, via riots or disturbing the peace).
4. Again, LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. The most extreme examples might be the Westboro idiots. They are behaving atrociously in their expression of their “religious views” but we don’t arrest them because they have a right to free speech, as long as they keep it in legal, reasonable bounds. If we’re not arresting them, then we’re not going to arrest someone saying “You know, um, I happen to think that homosexuality is a sin…” IT IS NOT HAPPENING.
5. As far as businesses go, in OUR nation, we have decided that discrimination is reasonably illegal in our businesses. Therefore, we have created laws that say you can’t discriminate based upon race, or gender, or faith, or orientation. You are free to hold your positions, in our country, but IF your positions include, “I want to be ‘free’ to discriminate in my position against the blacks and the gays and the Jews…,” we have decided that we’re not going to allow that.
Your religious liberty ENDS at violating others’ religious liberty.
6. So, the problem is not that we don’t have religious liberty or free speech. We absolutely do, just look at the evidence. Saying otherwise just sounds paranoid and less than rational.
The problem is when some people want the “liberty” to harm others. We rightly draw a line in the sand in our nation on that point. Discrimination causes harm, thus any religious views that include harmful discrimination, THAT has been banned.
The thing is, we ALL LIKE THIS. We don’t want Group A telling us how to treat our women or what we must wear. We don’t want Group B deciding FOR US what we can and can’t ingest. You have absolute right to express and hold your religious views FOR YOURSELF. You do not have the right to express it for others. We all appreciate it when having another’s view foisted upon us, but some folk then turn around and want to foist their views upon others.
It’s a rather immature complaint and I think we as a nation are growing up a bit and that’s a good thing.
No one will be forced in their churches to affirm homosexuality. It. Won’t. Happen. If it did, progressive Christians of my sort would stand up in opposition to that force.
Dan,
What we have been saying is that not only will it happen, it IS happening.
To say that it isn’t is simply denial of the facts that have been presented over and over again in this thread, on this blog and elsewhere.
To Sum Up. IT. IS. HAPPENING. And where are the progressive Christians? In denial.
You are right. It IS happening. And here are some articles to help get Dan and other like-minded persons up to speed on the facts:
http://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christians
http://exministries.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/pastor-scott-lively-is-sued-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-teacher-under-investigation-for-opposing-homosexuality.html
Oh, I’m quite sure that they oftentimes reject my Christianity, my brotherhood in Christ. But their rejection does not make it true.
In fact, given that I hold such an orthodox position on most essential points of Christianity (God the creator, Christ the risen son, sinfulness of humanity, our need for salvation, our need for God, our need to repent and accept salvation by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus, etc), only makes this rejection and the accompanying rudeness another block being pulled from their towers that are too often built upon pride and arrogance, rather than grace and love… another bit of evidence that may eventually be used by God to open their eyes.
Or maybe it will help to open my own stubborn and sinful eyes. Ultimately, I believe Jesus’ teachings. I believe in overcoming evil with good. I believe in loving my enemy, treating folk with respect, especially those within the family of God who disagree with me. I just believe this to be the teaching of Christ and so I strive to live by it.
I believe that evasiveness, gossip, rudeness and slander, confronted with loving kindness and respect, is rather like Paul’s reminder that doing so is like pouring burning coals over our heads. We can all be undone by our own pride, when confronted with kindness, it seems to me.
I certainly do believe there is a time for harsh rebukes and caustic wit – Jesus certainly used it with the Pharisees of his day. And I don’t always know where that line lies. These days, I’m just a bit tired of disrespect and so, at least these days, I’m leaning towards more respect.
I ultimately changed my position based upon bible study and prayerful, thoughtful contemplation. But I was also in a place where there were loving, kindhearted, respectful Christians who did not badger me and belittle me for disagreeing with them, but who accepted me with loving open arms and being in that place is what allowed me to grow in this way in my faith and walk with Christ.
But I was also in a place where there were loving, kindhearted, respectful Christians who did not badger me and belittle me for disagreeing with them, but who accepted me with loving open arms and being in that place is what allowed me to grow in this way in my faith and walk with Christ.
Dan,
Then your friends allowed you to walk away from Christ, to deny basic truths of the scriptures and to become so confused that you are calling good evil and evil good.
“We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
1 Timothy 1:8-11
So, if I disagree with your hunches about God on gay marriage, then I am no longer a Christian? Are you saying, then, that one can’t be mistaken about any point and still be saved?
Dan. The problem is not that you are out to get them. The problem is that they are out to get you. You may rightly believe that they are brothers and sisters, and that is perhaps the better part, but I can almost guarantee you that they do not view you in the same light. Peace and good luck.
Dan. Jesus said it best. If you choose to cast your pearls before swine, be careful because they are likely to turn on you and mow you down.
Dover
If you truly believe such a thing I am amazed at how consistently you comment on this blog. Why this blog is practically full of swine like me.
And on a side note, its the churches who have abandoned the basic doctrines of the faith that are failing in American society. Those of us who have held true to the ancient truths of the Christian faith, and the churches who have done so, are holding strong and even growing.
they are all short-sighted, wrong, and evil in what they do, say, and espouse. In other words, you organize sane, sensible, and thoughtful people (including Christian people) to work actively with many others in society towards undermining, overwhelming, and destroying virtually everything that they believe, advocate, and do. Whenever one of their insane leaders takes a public stand on some issue, go after him with vicious rebukes and show bystanders and fencesitters that he is in fact an evil and misguided jerk of a man who should never be given consideration or quarter on any subject.
You know, its great to have honest liberals like you show me what real love is like.
Dan. I think this whole argument is ridiculous. I have spent much of the past 25 years of my life studying Christian fundamentalism, conservative evangelicalism, and the Religious Right. One of the key things I have learned in that time is that no one—I repeat—no one— can win a debate or argument with them. It is not because they are correct or righteous in their position. It is because they are, like the scribes and pharisees of old—self righteous and hopelessly stubborn.
If a man has set itself in his mind to believe that a cup of coffee is actually a cup of vegetable soup—and he is determined to stand firmly on that position—regardless of what anyone else says about it—and do it for all infinity—then no one can win an argument with him. Jesus tried to win assorted arguments with them and got nailed to a cross as his reward.
The Borg on Star Trek say it best: “Resistance is futile” in any debate with them.
The best you can ever hope to do, on extremely rare occasions, is to hit one of them over the head with a verbal 2 X 4 to get their attention. However, that only gets their attention. Abandon all hope of ever convincing them of anything that you believe to be truth.
The other thing that I have learned is how to fight them–and so many others have done the same. You do not go to war by engaging them one-on-one in a fight of civil words like you are trying to do. Rather, you go out into American society and gather to your side the many tens of millions of people who either disagree with them, are unaware of them, or are simply indifferent to them in American society. These are the people who can and will be convinced that they are all short-sighted, wrong, and evil in what they do, say, and espouse. In other words, you organize sane, sensible, and thoughtful people (including Christian people) to work actively with many others in society towards undermining, overwhelming, and destroying virtually everything that they believe, advocate, and do. Whenever one of their insane leaders takes a public stand on some issue, go after him with vicious rebukes and show bystanders and fencesitters that he is in fact an evil and misguided jerk of a man who should never be given consideration or quarter on any subject.
In other words, you treat the opposition in the same mean, poison, and disrespectful ways, in front of other people, that they so self-righteously treat other people. This “meannness” has been their key method of operation for decades. These self-righteous bullies believe it is okay for them to crack an iron crowbar over the heads of people who disagree with them—-but they think it would be so very wrong for anyone to even consider cracking a crowbar over one of their sorry heads. This is how the Religious Right gained its power—by hitting its enemies over the head with crowbars—and then snickering when the mainline churches do just as they expect and hope—roll over and play dead in the interest of “good brotherly relations.”
Those days are over now. People like me, both inside and outside of the church, are learning how to fight these people in every sector of American life and do it effectively. The tide is beginning to turn, their churches are losing members, people are turning against them, and no victory will be theirs in this life—and considering Jesus and his discussion of them in Matthew 23—maybe not the next one either.
Dover…
One of the key things I have learned in that time is that no one—I repeat—no one— can win a debate or argument with them.
Dover, I WAS “them” for the first 30 years of my life. People do change. Arguments DO sometimes break through.
I certainly was exactly as you say – positive I couldn’t be mistaken, wholly unwilling to consider the other side, wouldn’t even hardly listen to the arguments, insisting that those who made the arguments weren’t real Christians, just charlatans with an agenda… And yet, one day, the clouds parted and the sun shone through.
Change sometimes happens. Why not speak respectfully and treat them as family members who you believe to be mistaken? What is there to lose? I’m still making my points and who knows what seeds may be planted?
If nothing else, they can see by my mostly calm and mostly respectful treatment of them as brothers and sisters (as they are) that not everyone who disagrees with them is “out to get them…”
Dover.
Wow.
With “tolerance” like this, who needs intolerance??
If you cannot engage an argument rationally and civilly, just tar-and-feather the opposition with the same broad brush, call them all a bunch intolerant boobs and sanctimoniously satisfy yourself that you are morally and/or intellectually superior to them. Other than being bogus, intolerant and hateful, it’s a nice tactic.
It seems to me that your characterizations best fit the Modern Left. Oh, there are plenty of intolerant, stubborn folks on the Right, religious or otherwise, but you have obvious trouble detecting the timber in your own eye.
You have just engaged in one of the most obvious cases of psychological projection I have ever seen.
Tierce said earlier…
if you are going to say that two views are incompatible and I must choose between someone else’s views and my own, OF COURSE I’m gonna pick my own. If I didn’t I wouldn’t believe those views in the first place.
I suppose if we look at some specific situations, it might help. I can think of at least two variations on this idea.
1. Religion A believes in worshiping on Sunday for themselves. They do not necessarily think “Sunday is the One True God-approved day to worship God,” nor do they expect that everyone will want to worship God on Sundays, just believers. Thus, Religion A’s beliefs about Sunday worship in no way interfere with the religious liberty of anyone else.
2. Religion B believes that Saturday is the One True Day of Worship and that ALL people must stop all work, bow down and worship God on Saturday. God will be displeased if all the people of the land do not do this. Thus, Religion B’s would value trying to implement by force of law or gunpoint the enforcement of this rule for all people, not just those who adhere to Religion B. Thus, Religion B’s beliefs about Saturday worship DO interfere with religious liberty.
With me so far?
We can PROBABLY agree that Religion B’s beliefs are antithetical to American ideals, yes? We can PROBABLY agree that we’d both stand opposed to Religion B’s legislataional wants, EVEN IF they claimed religion discrimination. “You’re not letting us practice our religion!” would be true, I guess, but only because their religion imposes behaviors upon others.
But if we agree on these points, how is “religion B” and their worship rules they’d like to implement ON OTHERS different than the Conservative/Fundamentalist Christian’s desires to foist their views on others as it regards marriage?
Wouldn’t a “Religion A” approach be more rational in a civic setting in a culture of mixed religious views? One where they decide FOR THEMSELVES, this is right, but we aren’t imposing it upon others?
This seems like a very reasonable place to stand, to me. You, anyone?
Dan, you consistently conflate things of greater importance with those of lesser importance. This observation is based not just on religious conviction, but on objective analysis.
Does whether or not women wear Burkas or worship on Sunday really compare to a widespread re-definition of an institution–marriage–that flies in the fact of thousands of years of human tradition, religious teaching (of ALL the major faiths), and natural law?
I think not. There are societal concerns here which may be undergirded by religious teaching, but which are clearly congruent with a functional culture, thus having profound ramifications not just for the religiously-inclined but for secular society as a whole.
And this is certainly the case for abortion, suicide and euthanasia. These involve the most profound issues humans are tasked with: those of life and death. How we deal with these matters expands well beyond sectarian religious concerns.
Ergo, even if you reject the Judeo-Christian teachings on these matters, reason alone requires that we proceed with the utmost caution.
Mark…
I think not.
I think so.
Now what?
Are you saying that to oppose religious oppression (in the example of one faith group saying women must wear burkas, whether they want to or not) is okay, but opposing religious oppression (in the example of another group saying gay folk can’t marry freely, whether they agree with you or not) is wrong?
They seem like very similar examples. I’m not sure why it’s right to oppose the one religious oppression, but it’s not right to oppose the other?
For me, when a religion starts telling others that they MUST conform to THEIR religious doctrine, that is an oppression, a blow against religious liberty.
How specifically is it not?
Religion B believes that Saturday is the One True Day of Worship and that ALL people must stop all work, bow down and worship God on Saturday. God will be displeased if all the people of the land do not do this. Thus, Religion B’s would value trying to implement by force of law or gunpoint the enforcement of this rule for all people, not just those who adhere to Religion B. Thus, Religion B’s beliefs about Saturday worship DO interfere with religious liberty.
Dan,
While I’m not sure if you will listen and attempt to rationally evaluate what I am saying, I will say it again, the true religion B in our land right now is the move to institute homosexual marriage as a norm, and attempt to ban all public discourse, business practices, political views, and civil society which disagrees with the new orthodoxy of homosexual marriage.
Even if you cannot understand that, I think I should make it clear that my religious liberty will be undeniably violated if I am forced to affirm homosexuality in my church, my business, my discourse. I understand that you consider yourself a Christian, and might consider yourself able to speak for the Christian community. I should put you on notice that when you say that you are a Christian and I say that I am a Christian, that we appear to mean two incompatibly different things, and that you should not consider yourself an authority over what is and is not a violation of my religious freedom.
So I want to establish the point, again. I would consider being forced to affirm homosexuality by participating in homosexual marriage as a minister or a businessman a grave violation of my religious freedom. I acknowledge that you either do not understand or deny this but if we cannot engage rationally then I will assert for clarity’s sake, that this would be a violation of my basic rights.
So now you are asserting, and others have asserted that failing to take the unprecedented and extraordinary step of redefining the basic social institution of marriage will in fact be a violation of the rights of homosexuals. I find this specious for two reasons 1). I know many homosexuals who do not seem to consider the lack of homosexual marriage an impediment to their rights, in fact they have no more desire to be married to a member of the same sex as they would to a member of the other.
2). If in fact, the denial of homosexual marriage is a violation of fundamental human rights, it is a violation which has been going on without interruption for all of human history, and thus brings into question what “fundamental” rights means in the first place.
However specious I may find it, I have just previously given an argument which asserts a right to assert violations of my own rights, even another lacks the common definitions and basic vocabulary necessary to rationally evaluate of my claims. So let us say that I acknowledge that my rights and their rights are in fundamental conflict, we cannot satisfy one without injuring the other. Once again, as I have said before, absent a rational argument on using authorities and definitions to which I am party, I cannot agree to overturn my views in favor of another’s view. It might be possible to coerce me into silence, but I will still be convinced that my rights are being violated.
Dan, I would suggest that you consider the definition of convictions which says that the rational capacity of the human soul to apprehend the absolute and exclusive truths of scripture allows for the formation of practical and rationally applicable tenets, the disobedience of which is sin, and the obedience to is righteousness. Consider that there are people who actually believe such things, and that I am one of them.
Tierce…
if you cannot understand that, I think I should make it clear that my religious liberty will be undeniably violated if I am forced to affirm homosexuality in my church, my business, my discourse.
1. You will not be “forced to affirm homosexuality in your church.” Do you really think that some police are going to burst into your church while the preaching is going on and say, “Did you just say ‘homosexuality is a sin…’?! Yer under arrest!”…? That is not going to happen and believing that it will is just unbelievable and sounds crazily paranoid.
My evidence? We, as a society, STRONGLY disapprove of racist churches, churches that espouse hateful doctrine towards various races or Muslims. This is VERY culturally unpopular across the US. AND YET, how many racist preachers have been arrested for preaching racist sermons or anti-Muslim sermons? We as a society (liberals especially) value free speech and we support the right of jerks to be jerks and say jerk-y stuff if they want. We don’t arrest them. There is ZERO evidence of this. Your concerns sound irrational and paranoid.
What we DO tend to do is tune out and ignore the crazies. We don’t arrest the “anti-miscegenationists” out there. We ignore them and roll our eyes and find them pathetic reminders of ancient prejudices whose time has come and gone.
2. You won’t be forced to “affirm” homosexuality in your business. You might be required to not to refuse to rent to people, but “forcing” you to rent to gay folk (or black folk or left-handed folk) is not an irrational infringement of your religious liberty. Again, your right to your religious freedom ends when it violates others. You can’t claim oppression when you are simply denied the right to oppress.
3. In your every day discourse, you will not be forced to affirm homosexuality. We don’t do this for racist folk, why would we do it for you?
Your worries are irrational and not based upon real world evidence, my friend.
Look, this isn’t to say that there aren’t missteps. There have been and probably will be people who push back TOO far against the past prejudices and engage in a form of prejudice themselves, taking it too far. Those are the outliers and will even out eventually.
Adam Hamilton continues his slide down the proverbial slippery slope. He is on a trajectory to, eventually, view almost everything as a “shade of gray.”
1. Not everyone agrees that personhood begins at inception.
2. Even for those who think that personhood begins at inception, some may have different moral positions on end of life issues.
2a. For instance, some may think that it’s a reasonable moral position to allow a life to end if the person is in great pain. Others may think it’s reasonably moral to allow a life to end if the person WILL be in great pain. Yet others may think that it’s reasonable to allow a life to end if the quality of life of the affected person will be terribly (itself, a moral judgment call) impaired… the family of a brain-dead individual, for instance.
2b. In a whole host of variables, we will not all agree where to draw the line. Some of us think that, in those instances, the most moral thing to do is allow the AFFECTED FAMILY to decide, not the state. To allow the state to decide would be, some would suggest, a big brother infringement on religious liberty, telling us what medical decisions and end of life decisions we can and cannot make.
I personally think that it may well be the case that way too many abortions are happening for way too frivolous of reasons. Still, I lean towards allow the families involved, NOT the state, to make that decision. I do so as a Christian and a staunch defender of religious liberty, even when I disagree with the Other’s opinions.
1. The fact that some people are in error (or denial) about whether a human being is is a human being does not change the moral evil of taking an innocent life, or the moral responsibility of those who claim to serve the God of the Bible to stand up for those innocent lives which are being sacrificed to prosperity.
2a. To use pain as an excuse for ending the life of the elderly or the disabled, is morally wrong but it is at least an intellectually consistent application of the tenet that claims that the end of humanity is our own pleasure. But children are the last group to whom that calculus ought to apply, particularly because in the overwhelming majority of cases the people who are choosing to kill their children made other choices which led to those children being conceived in the first place.
2b. This reality leads directly into the reason why the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting abortion, because murdering your children is not an acceptable decision for a family to make. To claim that because we do not know, that we must step back is to allow those who claim that an unborn baby has no rights to win by default. A honest agnostic in this case would say that because we do not know, we should move to protect life. If you say, “well this might be murder, I’m not sure” do you go ahead and do it any way? On what conceivable grounds?
And the fact that you defend abortion and homosexual marriage on so-called religious freedom grounds, simply proves that what you mean when you say religious freedom is so different from what religious freedom means to those who hold to the traditions of our Faith, as to make your use of the term meaningless to me.
In other words, are you defining “religious freedom” to mean, “The freedom to agree with ME AND MY TRADITION, but not the actual freedom to make your own moral/religious decisions about what God does/doesn’t want…”? Because that is what it SOUNDS like you’re saying. If so, why don’t you just say that so we can be clear where we all stand.
Yes or no: You are defining “religious freedom” to mean “MY right to do whatever it is I think best as it relates to religion, but not the right of OTHER people who significantly disagree with me to make their own choices…”?
How are you defining religious liberty?
I define it simply, “freedom of religious opinion and worship.”
Interesting, so your religious freedom means that you can have “religious opinions” believe whatever you want inside of your head, but you can’t practice it in the public square, those beliefs can’t matter to you when you do business, when you advocate for public policy.
As far as worship goes, what will freedom of worship mean when a church can be fined or shut down for refusing to marry two men or two women (or three of a kind, take your pick). When a pastor can be threatened with fines or imprisonment for publicly preaching that homosexuality is sinful, offensive to God, and destructive to those who practice it, what will freedom of worship mean?
Now I’m a conservative in the sense that if someone wants to do something self-destructive, then we should oppose them through the use of our free speech and the way we live our lives and not impose laws on them through the coercive power of the state. That in my view is an equal application of liberty (I’m not sure how ‘religious’ liberty applies from the alternative perspective, that is to say how many homosexuals in America view their orientation as a religious calling?)
But what I see is not an equal application of liberty, where we can live as we wish and they can do what they please. Rather I see the coercive power of the state being used to force the issue for one side, by penalizing the other side in practice. That would be offensive enough to me in theory, but since my values are involved I have to say that I believe they are right. Therefore if I believe my own values are righteous I would say that a just system would allow my values to exist, any values which are inherently contradictory to my values therefore, cannot exist in a just system.
For years the main public actors for Christians have maintained that it IS possible for Christian values and a public homosexual community to coexist in one political system. The irony is that it is homosexual actors who have finally declared the two incompatible by attempting to eliminate one view from political discourse, business, and civil society.
Tierce…
so your religious freedom means that you can have “religious opinions” believe whatever you want inside of your head, but you can’t practice it in the public square, those beliefs can’t matter to you when you do business, when you advocate for public policy.
I did not say you can’t express your religious opinions, did I?
1. You, I, we can have religious opinions. We can express religious opinions.
2. We can express them in the public square as long as we are not inciting people to violence (that is, by our words, encouraging people to attack “those awful fundamentalist Christians or Muslilms,” or “those sinful gays,” or “Those who disagree with my hunches about God…”)
3. You/we are free to live your life according to your/our religious views. You will not be compelled to say, “I love gays” or “I think gay marriage is swell” or whatever. You will not be compelled to marry a gay guy against your will (or anyone, against your will). You can say, “You know, I think God does not approve of gay marriage” and no one will arrest you or take away your right to say that. I can say “You know, I think God loves marriage equity for all” and no one will arrest me or take away my right to say that.
4. What I AM saying is that your right to hold your religious views ENDS at another person’s rights to hold their religious views. You are not free to discriminate against a group. If your religious belief informs you that “the gays” or “the blacks” or “the Jews” are sinful and you run a public business, you are not free to discriminate against them based on your prejudices, even if your prejudices are religiously-formed.
Don’t you agree with me that IF someone has the religious opinion that “God hates Muslims” (or “Baptists” or “the gays” or whoever), that they have no right to legally discriminate against them in the marketplace?
Do you think that those whose religious opinons say, “Women can’t walk around without a burka” ought not have the civic liberty to enact that by law? That we have freedom of religion, but also freedom FROM religion? Or do you think that, as long as the 50% + 1 thinks discrimination/oppression/maltreatment is okay, then it’s okay to legislate it?
I’m saying we ought to have religious liberty to believe what we want, BUT we also ought to have the religious liberty to believe what WE want without having someone else’s opinions about what God wants me to do trump MY/OUR opinion. Where am I mistaken?
Tierce…
since my values are involved I have to say that I believe they are right.
? I’m not sure what you’re saying. No one is telling you that you must affirm as “right” something you don’t believe to be right. Is that what you think? That would be an exaample of depriving religious liiberty and I would oppose it, as I believe most Americans would.
Tierce…
Therefore if I believe my own values are righteous I would say that a just system would allow my values to exist, any values which are inherently contradictory to my values therefore, cannot exist in a just system.
I’m not entirely sure you mean this. I believe my own values are righteous. I believe, for instance, that everyone owning their own car is demonstrably, objectively harmful to us individually and collectively and therefore, morally wrong.
BUT, just because the collective embrace of the personal auto is an affront to my sense of morality, that in no way means that I want to say no one can drive a car. I have values that I recognize are my own and that I think are righteous, but where I don’t want to impose that upon everyone.
Presumably, you think that we should observe the Sabbath and keep it holy. Does that mean that you demand everyone NOT work and “keep the sabbath holy” on each Saturday? Or each Sunday? Or do you want to leave it to the individual conscience of each person to make that call?
I absolutely don’t want to say that, since I believe my values are righteous, that all other views ought to be outlawed. Is that what you’re saying?
Do you truly believe that by “religious liberty” you mean the right to agree with you?
I hope I’m misunderstanding you.
3. You/we are free to live your life according to your/our religious views. You will not be compelled to say, “I love gays” or “I think gay marriage is swell” or whatever. You will not be compelled to marry a gay guy against your will (or anyone, against your will).
Dan, do you even bother to read the articles that you comment on? http://juicyecumenism.com/2012/10/15/americas-endangered-religious-liberty/
I think that post refutes this idea of yours pretty decisively.
I absolutely don’t want to say that, since I believe my values are righteous, that all other views ought to be outlawed. Is that what you’re saying?
And you, like the political movements that you carry water for, are accusing me of doing the very thing that is being done to me and mine. Let me say this again, I am not asking for the government to interfere in the damnation that homosexuals are bringing upon themselves. Nor has the Christian community at large asked for that.
And that arguably misplaced tolerance has allowed a small clique of rich and powerful, acting in the name of homosexuals to begin an attempt to outlaw MY views.
That is what we are talking about here Dan, my views being outlawed. It is for views like mine that people are being fined and sued. It is my views which some are attempting to silence using the coercive power of the government.
You can keep saying that no violation of religious liberty is taking place, but thats simply denial Dan. People are already being sued, have lost their jobs. We have seen a trend of similar laws and polices leading to pastors being arrested in Europe and Canada, would you have us keep silent?
When the space for public disagreement is gone, and I am no longer legally permitted to go to the people that I care about and say, that this path they are pursuing is leading them to death, it will be a cold comfort to me to know that you refuse to see that religious liberty is under threat.
That is what we are talking about here Dan, my views being outlawed.
?? Aren’t you all the ones that want to outlaw the religious view that marriage between gay folk is perfectly good and moral?
Do you not see how it seems hypocritical and whiney when others (supposedly) do what you have done yourself?
IF you want our nation to be a nation that values religious liberty, THEN you ought to fight for the religious liberty of even those who disagree with you.
Yes, of course, I read the article you cited. The complaints were against people saying that conservatives can’t legally discriminate against a group of people. THAT is an acceptable line to draw.
You have religious liberty, BUT that religious liberty ends at the liberty of OTHER people.
You want to have religious liberty for YOURSELVES and yet deny it for others.
Where am I mistaken?
Do you or do you not want to say “NO, gay folk can NOT legally marry in this nation, even if they believe it is what God wants for their lives. NO, gay folk can’t adopt children, even if they’re perfectly fine parents…”?
Yes, you have religious liberty.
NO, you don’t have the right to impose your views on others. That we don’t allow you to impose your views is not the same as your being oppressed and you all will continue to sound whiney and childish if you insist on saying, “When I can’t oppress or discriminate against a group by weight of law, I’m being oppressed!”
Where am I mistaken?
It is for views like mine that people are being fined and sued.
Not your views in general, but your ACTIONS that oppress others. You are NOT being sued for holding the opinion “gay folk are sinners.” I challenge you to support that claim, if you’re making it.
The only cases where someone is being sued, at least here, are cases where ACTIONS are being challenged as discriminatory, not opinions.
You want to believe gays are evil? No violation of law, no problem (even if it’s a rather morally shallow opinion).
You want to say “Christian folk can eat at my establishment, but not Muslims” or “I will rent to straight folk, but not to gay folk,” THAT is a violation of discrimination laws and THAT BEHAVIOR can be reasonably challenged.
Now, are you saying that your RELIGIOUS VIEWS and OPINIONS are that God wants you to discriminate against certain groups of people (gay folk, Muslims, liberals…), well, okay, in THAT case, I think we can reasonably say your views will be challenged by law.
But consider this: I THINK YOU AGREE. Do you want our nation to be able to say to a fundamentalist Muslim group, “NO! You can’t force women coming into your dining establishment to wear burkas!”
We can reasonably draw a line in the sand against religious behavior that OPPRESSES or HARMS OTHERS. Don’t you agree?
And Dan your choice of a car as an example of a value, I think shows that while I may disagree with your definition of religious liberty, you either disagree or do not understand my definition of truth and sin.
Sin’s Dan, are things which are always wrong for all people and at all times. Add morality to that list of definitions upon which we defer. Even if the alleged ill effects of cars (and the general petro-based industry) were all true, it would be a matter similar to smoking. Smoking is bad for your health, and its stupid, but smoking is not in and of itself sinful.
Moral issues are things which are always wrong. Rape is always wrong, adultery is always wrong, Stealing is always wrong, False testimony is always wrong, murdering your children is always wrong. And such evils always have consequences.
Take adultery, which while illegal in several states is not enforced. Such laws are unenforceable due to the limits America has placed on the governments power to interfere in the lives of private citizens. But that lack of enforcement does not mean that adultery does not have a terrible cost, on the adulterers and on all who are around them. Ask any cop who homocide about whether adultery has consequences, and if for some very strange reason they chose to answer you, you would be horrified by the consequences which play out every day in our society due to adultery. Now as a nation America has decided that a giving a government the power to investigate and punish adultery would be a tyranny WORSE than the consequences in blood, death, and shattered lives that adultery leaves behind. But that doesn’t mean the price isn’t paid. Though most of us in our nice clean society don’t have to LOOK at the wreckage.
The same is true of homosexuality, while wrong and while carrying terrible consequences, as a society we have determined that giving the government the scope and power to punish such wrongs would be a solution worse than the problem. And while I have my moment of doubt, I generally agree with that view, and I would hope that if a tide of tyranny swept this land and the government siezed the power to deal with the “homosexual problem” I would be intelligent enough to see what would happen to genuine Christians when the political tide turned (and it would turn, that is perhaps the only surety of politics). That is why liberty is the best kind of government.
But in case you have been asleep for the last 80 years, Dan, that is not what is happening. There is a viewpoint which is being outlawed, which is being driven from business, from the public square, from the political discourse, and from civil society, but it is NOT the homosexual viewpoint which is being driven out. Rather it is the authentic and traditional Christian viewpoint. You may not subscribe to it, you may even have insulated yourself so thoroughly that outside of these online discourses you do not even know any traditional Christians, but they are still here, and they are being silenced.
Well, perhaps I will be silenced too, one day, but if that day ever comes it will be a black day not for genuine Christians, and not for the Church, for they will endure. Rather it will be a black day for America, without her liberty, and with a government who has arrogated to itself the power to dictate what theological and political opinions its citizens can and cannot hold and act upon!
Tierce…
To use pain as an excuse for ending the life of the elderly or the disabled, is morally wrong
Prove it.
How do you know that this behavior is wrong? The Bible never addresses the topic of someone allowing their life to end early to escape unbearable pain. Paul himself laments at times that he can see the benefit of life ending early and going on to the great and ecstatic joy of being with God.
Since this is a topic on which the Bible is silent and since God has not offered you God’s opinion, how do you know it is morally wrong? And even if it is your unsupported and unsupportable hunch about what God wants, who says you get to decide for everyone else?
It’s like that on the abortion debate. I certainly have my opinions, but I can’t prove them and I don’t see that I ought to be the one to decide for everyone else. I’m not God enough to make that call. Are you presuming you’re “God enough” to decide for everyone else?
Tierce…
There is a viewpoint which is being outlawed, which is being driven from business, from the public square, from the political discourse, and from civil society, but it is NOT the homosexual viewpoint which is being driven out.
Could you answer these questions, Tierce…
1. Do you agree that we can reasonably regulate/outlaw behavior that oppresses others/interferes with other’s religious liberties?
Do you agree that IF there was a Muslim majority and that majority decided to go the fundamentalist route and demand that all women wear burkas – whether or not that was their religious view – that we can reasonably say, “NO, you can’t force that religious view on others…”?
2. If you agree (and I assume you do), how is that different than you forcing your religious views about who gay folk can/can’t marry or your views that gay folk can’t adopt children (if that is your view)? Why is it the right thing to do to disallow Muslim fundamentalists from forcing their religious views on others but it’s okay for Christian fundamentalists to force their religious views on others?
Do you not see how it seems hypocritical and whiney when others (supposedly) do what you have done yourself?
Dan,
Again, if you are going to say that two views are incompatible and I must choose between someone else’s views and my own, OF COURSE I’m gonna pick my own. If I didn’t I wouldn’t believe those views in the first place.
And Dan, I DO believe that private institutions, which do not receive any government funds, should have the right to refuse service to anyone. I believe that the government overstepped when it went beyond striking down laws which mandated segregation and to began to apply affirmative action principles across the board. It is upon that basis which I believe that if a pastor is approached by a gay couple who ask him to marry them, that he has the right to do so, based solely upon their orientation. Unfortunately, the unjust state of current law means, that as soon as same-sex marriage is legalized, it becomes possible for homosexuals who are thus discriminated against to sue. As they have when cake-makers and invitation businesses refused to affirm their clients orientation by serving them in marriage.
That is the same reason why Apple, and Google, and Facebook should have the legal right to cancel Christian pages and apps. When such things happen, the Christian community has recourse to free speech, but should not pursue legal action, because we believe in Liberty! And we have made that position stick at some cost.
Do you agree that IF there was a Muslim majority and that majority decided to go the fundamentalist route and demand that all women wear burkas – whether or not that was their religious view – that we can reasonably say, “NO, you can’t force that religious view on others…”?
Dan,
Whats hilarious is that you seem to think that if there was a Muslim majority in America that the minorities would be given any choice in the matter. If there was a Muslim majority, and they were orthodox enough to demand that all women wear burkhas, those who dared to stand up and protest such actions would be killed, as they were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan a few years ago, and just as they are being killed in Egypt today.
And even if such a hypothetically open and honest debate took place, a Burkha is a sign of the Muslim religion. Forcing people to wear it would be like forcing everyone to wear a cross, it would be coercing people to affirm one viewpoint, which I have already said I disagree with.
And again, on the subject of Muslim v. Christian “religious views” a marvelously vague term, if I am forced to choose between one view and another, and if one view is to be banned, then I will of course choose my own.
The great thing about most American Muslims right now is that they recognize that you do not have to choose between banning Christianity and banning Islam. That both religions can live together, so long as the coercive power of the government does not force one or the other to prevail at the expense of the other.
If such a thing happens, I will grieve not only for my country but also for all the fine liberty-loving Muslims who are always the first targets of a Muslim campaign of extremism. If the Muslims of America were to rise up and demand that all women wore burkhas, most of my friends would be death or otherwise coercively silenced.
Since this is a topic on which the Bible is silent and since God has not offered you God’s opinion, how do you know it is morally wrong?
…I’m not God enough to make that call. Are you presuming you’re “God enough” to decide for everyone else?
Are you really debating the morality of suicide with me? Killing yourself is a violation of the image of God, it is a rejection of God’s good gift of life, and it has been recognized as tantamount to murder for virtually the Church’s entire history. Protestants don’t have the same hangups with suicide that Catholics do, because of the Protestant rejection of the concept of mortal sins and the need for a priestly confessor, but true Christians throughout the ages have always recognized suicide as wrong.
And the Bible calls us to be Christ’s body in the world. We may be wrong, and must always approach the scriptures with humility and the willingness to be taught be the Divine Authority, but we endure in the world PRECISELY to make these calls, and in so doing to serve as an example to the rest of the world. That is one of the responsibilities we take on as sons of God’s household. That is why convictions are so important, and why it is so important for us to call out sin. We don’t have a right, we are not “God enough,” to use your term, rather we have a responsibility, we are servants, and must necessarily speak the words our Master gives us, regardless of whether the world, or psuedo Christians who deny the Scriptures inerrant, and absolute authority like it.
Tierce…
That both religions can live together, so long as the coercive power of the government does not force one or the other to prevail at the expense of the other.
Yes! This is my point. You are free to exercise your religion UP UNTIL such time as it butts up against other person’s views. THEN, we righteously do not force that one must prevail over the other.
The norm is religious liberty.
I’m free to wear a burka or not.
I’m free to wear a prayer beanie or not.
I’m free to pray or not.
I’m free to approve of marriage for all people or not.
BUT, I am not free to say, “My opinion is that gay marriage is wrong, therefore, YOU can’t marry…”
I can decide for myself what is righteous, I can’t tell YOU what you must do, though (short of saying “You can’t harm or oppress others”).
Are we finding some common ground? Are you agreeing that you can exercise your religion, but you ought not force by weight of law your religious views on others?
Tierce…
Are you really debating the morality of suicide with me? Killing yourself is a violation of the image of God, it is a rejection of God’s good gift of life, and it has been recognized as tantamount to murder for virtually the Church’s entire history.
So, you are basing your opinion on tradition? God has not told you this, but your human (FALLIBLE human) tradition suggests that suicide is a sin and that even wanting to be out of pain qualifies as suicide, and since your fallible human tradition teaches you this, this is what you guess is right in God’s eyes?
Maybe so, but do you get to make that call for everyone else?
Why? On what basis?
Are you suggesting “MY religion has this tradition that says God does probably not approve of suicide and probably not even ‘pulling a plug,’ therefore, we ought to create a law to enforce our religious opinions…”?
Would you approve of it if the majority religious stance was one that taught we should criminalize fundamentalist Christians and disband all such churches?
Why would you approve of enforcing a religious opinion in one case but not the other?
Tierce…
rather we have a responsibility, we are servants, and must necessarily speak the words our Master gives us, regardless of whether the world, or psuedo Christians who deny the Scriptures inerrant, and absolute authority like it.
We have a responsibility to humbly follow God’s ways, as best we understand it. If that is what you are saying, I agree absolutely.
“God’s Word” is absolutely without error. IF God says or wants or decides something, then, being God, what God decides is without error.
No one seriously doubt that there is error in “God’s Word.” Where we get into disagreements is whether or not THIS interpretation (of a Bible verse or an opinion) or THAT interpretation best represents an understanding of God’s Perfect Without-Error Will.
Agreed?
Thus, those like me who might disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATIONS on some opinions are not denying “Scripture,” we’re not denying “God’s Word.” We’re doubting your ability to rightly understand God’s Word.
And you no doubt question OUR ability to understand God’s Word.
Isn’t that fair?
Given that we BOTH/ALL sometimes doubt the Others’ ability to rightly understand God’s Word, on what bases would we suggest that ONE GROUP ought to decide what to legislate and make law?
If we’re going to decide ONE GROUP gets to make the call, I’m okay with it, I guess. As long as it’s MY group!
(Of course, that is a joke. Being a good Baptists/Anabaptist, I would stand just as opposed to legislating OUR OWN understanding in areas of conflict as I stand against legislating YOUR own understanding in areas of conflict. Is that not the more reasonable position?)
I just cannot understand how anyone who is a true follower of Jesus could let Biden get away with indicating its ok to abort babies if that’s your thinking on abortion. To me, Biden is willing to permit sin as long as it will get him enough votes to remain VP.
Also, Biden did say he believes life begins at conception! Did he lie? One cannot both support sin and be against it at the same time.
Re…
To what extent can Christians be comfortable with the mass destruction of unborn human life?
You know, we pacifists and just peacemakers ask that same question of our more conservative brothers and sisters.
Does the fact that you all disagree with the Peace Church traditions regarding war and the shedding of innocent blood (born and unborn) mean that it is a black/white issue and that you are on the side of evil and must be opposed at all costs and your faith rejected as heretical? OR, do you see shades of gray in the taking of innocent human life?
From where I sit, it seems the “conservatives” are pretty darned comfortable with the mass destruction of innocent life and that makes their concern for one subset of innocent human life seem questionable and perhaps a bit hypocritical.
The fact is, even in serious matters such as war/peace, abortion, marriage equity, human rights, civil rights, etc… Christians of good faith DO disagree and there must be shades of gray, even on those serious matters, or why else would Christians of good faith (and good people of other faith traditions, as well) disagree so often?
Pingback: Oh yes, Mormon Mitt but not Methodist Adam | Unsettled Christianity