One of the weirder developments in the American battle over religious liberty is that some liberal Christians have come out against it for traditional Christians. Indeed, some claim the concept is a tool of white Christian privilege.
(Read rest of column here.)
Comment by Donald on August 19, 2018 at 7:49 am
It doesn’t surprise me that Merritt or Hartgrove-Wilson refused to acknowledge the comparison outright. This is one of the tactics of progressives – simply to deny logical comparisons with no return demonstration of why the comparison isn’t apt.
It also doesn’t surprise me that when forcing a member of the Progressive-Liberal wing of the church to choose between sexual libertinism and anything else, they’re going to maintain libertinism. This is a pattern as old as the ancient kings of Israel. The results which come to those leaders is the same, an ultimate decline and loss of their authority.
Post-modernism and libertinism in both the church and society are fighting an intense rear-guard action, but as the membership decline among their congregations demonstrate, “for low, their doom is sure.”
Comment by Dan on August 19, 2018 at 5:30 pm
I don’t think I’ve seen an angel face plant before. Seems to perfectly embody the response I would expect from the Almighty.
Comment by William on August 19, 2018 at 8:19 pm
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A10-12&version=NIV
Comment by Carl D. Fuglein on August 20, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I discussed the “baker” case with my middle school small group. They had the best answer of all. – “Why didn’t they just go to another baker.”
Comment by Ted R. Weiland on August 20, 2018 at 6:33 pm
What exactly is religious freedom, as provided by the First Amendment?
It allows not only Christians to build churches but Muslims their Mosques, Jews their Synagogues, Hindus their Temples, etc.
Please, dear Christian, where do you find this in Bible?
Of course, it’s nowhere to be found in the Bible. Instead, it’s a unequivocal violation of the First Commandment. Thus, for Christians or Patriots to promote religious freedom is to promote sedition against Yahweh, God of the Bible.
It’s one thing to allow for individual freedom of conscience and private choice of gods, something impossible to legislate for or against. It’s another matter altogether for government to enable any and all religions to proliferate through the land and evangelize our posterity to false gods. This is what the First Amendment legitimizes. It is an unequivocal violation of the First Commandment and the polar opposite of the following First Commandment statute:
“[Y]e shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shall worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou … go a whoring after their gods….” (Exodus 34:13-15)
It’s the First Amendment that the sodomites, lesbians, and atheists hang their hats on and that they’ve been able to utilize for their cause. It’s likewise the First Amendment that so many Christians hang their hat on as if there’s something intrinsically Christian about it when, in fact, it is entirely antithetical to the Bible. It’s thus suicide for Christians to appeal to the First Amendment in any fashion whatsoever.
For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.
Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.
Comment by Davis Gingrich on August 21, 2018 at 8:02 am
Ted, may I respectfully suggest you try to improve your understanding of politics. When the government bans mosques and synagogues, the banishment of churches will quickly follow.
Comment by Bruce on August 21, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Exactly right! Satan is more successful than ever.
Comment by James Higginbotham on August 22, 2018 at 1:03 am
RIGHT YOU ARE.
Comment by David on August 22, 2018 at 8:31 am
We have been through this before. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, some providers of public accommodations claimed it was contrary to their religion to serve Blacks. The courts at that time ruled against this use of religion. The operation of a business is not a practice of religion. Businesses are required to follow governmental regulations in regards to sanitation, treatment of employees, serving the public, etc. Supposed a company decided it was their firmly held belief that employees should live in “holy poverty” and refused to pay minimum wages? Religious belief can be used to justify anything, though a I doubt the courts would support not rendering unto Caesar.
Comment by Joe on August 23, 2018 at 12:09 am
They answer is simple. They belong to a decentralized fatwa-based religion that will have no other gods before it, and is not shy about using force to enforce its religious edicts.
That religion is not Christianity. Or Islam. But it is very much a religion. Even if its only rewards are pathetic scraps of worldly status and the ability to gratify sadistic desires for power (and sometimes also for the suffering of others).
After all, the only way to implement a theocracy in a country that separates church and state is to act like a religion while denying that you are one.
Using the cuckoo strategy from within existing religious institutions is just a way of weakening and destroying competing religions.