The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[Josh]

obama’s “special insights and special heart” were for homosexuals.
(which, btw, he claimed otherwise in his campaign, for the purpose of winning the election.) he later admitted.
in general, black voters, largely Christian, were not big proponents of special protections+rights for homosexuals.

White voters, largely nominally Christian, have been very big proponents of special protections+rights for homosexuals.

as POTUS he was effective in creating this identified group of super citizens. equal is not sufficient.

Trump did the same thing. One really can't find much difference between the Obama and Trump administrations. One should ask one's self if there really ever was any difference; Obama was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected to office, whereas Trump was in favour of it.

[temporal1]

obama’s “special insights and special heart” were for homosexuals.
(which, btw, he claimed otherwise in his campaign, for the purpose of winning the election.) he later admitted.
in general, black voters, largely Christian, were not big proponents of special protections+rights for homosexuals.

White voters, largely nominally Christian, have been very big proponents of special protections+rights for homosexuals.

as POTUS he was effective in creating this identified group of super citizens. equal is not sufficient.

Trump did the same thing. One really can't find much difference between the Obama and Trump administrations. One should ask one's self if there really ever was any difference; Obama was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected to office, whereas Trump was in favour of it.

outside ancient Greece, i don’t know of any religion or culture that promotes homosexuality and all related, as is present today, through support of a powerful political bloc (esp by academia) a human construct.

it’s uncanny.
i seriously doubt even they ever expected to have such prominence!
it’s just they are shrewd enough to not “look a gift horse in the mouth.”

“the people” might want to become aware of the trend toward creation of Super Citizens.
it’s not about to stop with one identified group. many self-claimed identified groups are now fighting for their special place in human law, with generous access to the public treasury.

equal is so “yesterday.” (i commend Robert’s consistent reminders equal should be the goal.) definitely agree.

legal gold: legal precedence. human law schools teach it and thrive on it.

[Ken]

I will close with this and I do hope you take what I've written not as an attack but as my perception of your perception of we traditionalists. After David Gushee published his predictions of the narrowing of space for neutrality on gay rights; Andrew T. Walker published a response to him in which he asked the following questions. I would be curious to see how you and SZD would respond to these questions:

1. Are Christians who hold to the historical position on sexual ethics engaging in invidious discrimination?
2. Are Christians who hold to the historic position on sexual ethics holding the same type of beliefs and engaging in the same types of
actions as avowed racists?
3. Can there be actual disagreement on this issue that doesn’t impute to the other side the worst possible motivations?
4. Can there be a state of mutual respect that allows for different people to reach different conclusions about the purposes of human
embodiment?

My own opinion?

I believe as Christians it is our duty to treat everyone we encounter with love and respect. And in a democratic and pluralist society I don't believe it is our place to impose our beliefs on others who do not share them, whether we are talking about dress codes, dietary rules, work on Sunday, marriage and divorce, poverty and wealth, or who chooses to sleep with who.

I believe that every faith should be free to practice its own beliefs unmolested within certain limits largely related to the treatment of children. For example, I would oppose female genital mutilation or child marriages because the minor children who are subject to those practices are not of the age of consent.

If the Catholic Church or Mennonite Church or any other church or faith wants to prohibit gay marriages or divorce or any other marriage-related restriction within their ranks I'm 100% fine with that and support their right to do so. That is what the first amendment is all about.

The gray areas don't arise when we are talking about churches and their members. They arise when churches stray into areas of secular public policy. Like for example when churches get involved in administering adoption and foster child programs on behalf of the state. Or when they take taxpayer dollars for some public purpose. Then the public who is providing those taxpayer resources has a right to expect that they are not being used in a discriminatory manner.

That is the distinction that I would make. Obviously you draw the line elsewhere.

I find the stuff about wedding cake bakers to be largely a distraction and a pointless performative fight that is sought by obstinate people on both sides. The bakers who want to make a public culture war point about gay marriage. And the gay activists who seek out those businesses to make their own point. I think a little more tolerance in both directions is what is called for.

[Josh]

In other words, you don’t want us involved in adoption or foster care at all, unless we agree to renounce our religion first.

Got it.

[Soloist]

Ken, how would you see the role of the parent in regard to your post?

For example, lets say my son comes out as mtf... What do you see me as a Christian in your utopia legally able to do? He's 9 years old...

What about the cases of excommunicated members suing the church successfully?

What about the laws specifically banning ministers from endorsing political candidates or forbidding voting?

[Ken]

In other words, you don’t want us involved in adoption or foster care at all, unless we agree to renounce our religion first.

Got it.

No, you don't have it. Once again you are creating strawmen to attack and putting words into the mouths of others rather than thoughtfully thinking about what they ACTUALLY wrote. All I said was that the gray areas arise when churches get involved in public policy and the administration of taxpayer funded programs. That is all that I said. When that happens there are a lot of fine lines that the courts generally have to sort out.

But since you brought it up. Does your religion require that you discriminate against non-evangelical Christian families when administering foster care programs? Because that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about evangelical foster care agencies who are paid by the state to place foster children with families and who screen those families so that the children under their care (who may not be from Christian families at all) are only placed with families that pass their test of being sufficiently evangelical Christian.

https://www.postandcourier.com/health/s ... 5f01c.html

[Ken]

Ken, how would you see the role of the parent in regard to your post?

For example, lets say my son comes out as mtf... What do you see me as a Christian in your utopia legally able to do? He's 9 years old...

What about the cases of excommunicated members suing the church successfully?

What about the laws specifically banning ministers from endorsing political candidates or forbidding voting?

1. If you have an LGBT child then I think it is largely your right to raise them and teach them as you see fit. Just like if you have a straight child or any other kind of child. However at some point your beliefs and their identity are likely to come into conflict. Maybe when they are age 18. Maybe younger. And that is something you will have to sort out. Children can legally seek emancipation as young as age 14 in some states. In other states as old as 16. If you choose to stand rigidly to your beliefs you might just have to let them go. Either at age 18 or perhaps even sooner. Your children are not your possessions. They have their own rights as well.

2. As for lawsuits related to excommunication? I'm not really familiar with what you are referring. I think churches should be free to excommunicate anyone they want. What are these lawsuits of which you speak?

3. Finally with respect to religion and politics. The law doesn't specifically restrict ministers from endorsing candidates. It prohibits ANY religious or secular tax-exempt organization from endorsing candidates. Tax exemptions are granted to organizations that serve some public purpose. The quid pro quo is that they don't then turn around and use that taxpayer subsidy (which is what a tax exemption is) for partisan political purposes. And, in any event, the law doesn't even restrict ministers from endorsing political candidates. They have an absolute first amendment right to do so and in the past election there were thousands of ministers making endorsements for one candidate or the other. What they law actually prohibits is using a tax exempt church forum for making that endorsement. The actual official guidance is here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Specifically:

All IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
* their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual;
* they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests;
* they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation;
* they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office; and
* the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

NOTE: These restrictions apply to the church or other 501(c)(3) organization itself, not what the minister might choose to do in his or her free time. In fact the guidance specifically states:

The political campaign activity prohibition isn’t intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(3), religious leaders can’t make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions.

I don't find that to be overly restrictive. It applies to every 501(c)(3) organization from churches to Planned Parenthood to the Salvation Army to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If such organizations want to get involved in politics they have to form separate PAC organizations that are not tax exempt and donations to such organizations for political purposes are also not tax deductible.

[Josh]

Hey Ken, here's a free tip: conservative Mennonites aren't concerned about the government telling our churches we can't endorse a particular candidate, because our churches already tell their own members and preachers not do that anyway.

[Josh]

But since you brought it up. Does your religion require that you discriminate against non-evangelical Christian families when administering foster care programs? Because that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about evangelical foster care agencies who are paid by the state to place foster children with families and who screen those families so that the children under their care (who may not be from Christian families at all) are only placed with families that pass their test of being sufficiently evangelical Christian.

https://www.postandcourier.com/health/s ... 5f01c.html

Looks fine to me. An atheist nonprofit could establish a foster care agency that places children into what they think are good atheist homes. (As far as I know, no such institution exists, and atheists are notorious for not actually participating in charitable activity like this - charitable activity like caring for unwanted, neglected, or abused children has always been the domain of Christianity, because other people have no selfish motivation for doing so.)

The state pays foster care agencies because, generally speaking, there are way more foster children in need of homes then there are families who are ready and willing to take care of them. So they need additional, private agencies to fill in the gap. Otherwise these children would literally have nowhere to go.

If atheists or other religious people are upset about this 1 particular group, then they should start their own group and show they can do even better.

[Ken]

But since you brought it up. Does your religion require that you discriminate against non-evangelical Christian families when administering foster care programs? Because that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about evangelical foster care agencies who are paid by the state to place foster children with families and who screen those families so that the children under their care (who may not be from Christian families at all) are only placed with families that pass their test of being sufficiently evangelical Christian.

https://www.postandcourier.com/health/s ... 5f01c.html

Looks fine to me. An atheist nonprofit could establish a foster care agency that places children into what they think are good atheist homes. (As far as I know, no such institution exists, and atheists are notorious for not actually participating in charitable activity like this - charitable activity like caring for unwanted, neglected, or abused children has always been the domain of Christianity, because other people have no selfish motivation for doing so.)

The state pays foster care agencies because, generally speaking, there are way more foster children in need of homes then there are families who are ready and willing to take care of them. So they need additional, private agencies to fill in the gap. Otherwise these children would literally have nowhere to go.

If atheists or other religious people are upset about this 1 particular group, then they should start their own group and show they can do even better.

So you are fine with an atheist or Muslim or Mormon foster child agency taking Christian children and placing them ONLY in atheist or Muslim or Mormon homes so that those families can prosthelytize to them and convince them to abandon Christianity for those other faiths or non-faiths? Because that is what we are talking about here. These evangelical foster child agencies are not just serving children from Christian homes. They take children from every faith and then only place them in evangelical Southern Baptist homes that meet their approval. Whether or not it is even what the child themselves wants.

You might be fine with it and that's OK. The world will go on whether or not you personally approve. But like I said, it is a legal gray area and something that the courts are likely to parse. And it is pretty much only these legal gray areas where we get into conflicts between religious rights and secular or public rights. No one much bothers the Amish, for example, because they don't tend to insert themselves into the secular world or matters of public policy.