The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[ken_sylvania]

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.

This is one of the reason that our churches refuse to accept government assistance, stimulus, and other handouts. We recognize that government funds come with strings attached.

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.

But what you are asking for, if I understand you correctly, is for someone to violate their honestly held religious convictions in the name of tolerance. I don't see the difference between this and, for instance, saying that relations between the Christians and the emperors in ancient Rome could have been much better if the Christians had been willing to show a little tolerance and offer incense to the gods.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that it would have been better for the baker to have quietly accepted the penalty imposed by the state and closed his bakery, rather than appealing the issue to the SCOTUS. If so, I probably agree with you. Such an action would have been more in line with traditional Anabaptist understandings of the principle of non-resistance.

[Ken]

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.

Equal rights actually, not "special" rights.

I challenge you to come up with any rights afforded to gay Americans (or requested by the gay Americans) that are not already afforded to straight Americans.

[Josh]

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.

Well, if someone ends up in foster care, they aren't exactly being taken care of by their parents or raised with their parents' values.

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.

If other faiths feel it's important to raise foster children in the same faith as their birth parents then by all means I'm sure the state will not mind if they start a foster agency as well.

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.

You seem to have a particular vendetta against the Southern Baptists. Personally I find they are far too liberal for me, but I don't have some longstanding quarrel with everything they do. Overall, as someone who has spent lots of time working within the foster system, I would say that every agency is welcome and needed, and outside interference from the courts is not needed.

[Josh]

I challenge you to come up with any rights afforded to gay Americans (or requested by the gay Americans) that are not already afforded to straight Americans.

In one particular example, a gay person was able to turn their ex into a fugitive after getting the courts to give legal privilege for her to steal her ex's child that she had no blood, family, or other relation to. (Children can't have two mothers; children have a mother and a father.) That's a privilege straight Americans don't have.

In another example, a gay "couple" shops around repeatedly until they find a bakery (or pizza shop) uncomfortable with catering an explictly gay wedding. They then use the full force and power of the state to sue them and put them out of business. That's another power straight people just don't have. We don't go around finding gay florists or gay bakers and then demanding they bake a cake with a message that they are uncomfortable with, and then getting the state to sue them.

Gay people are a coddled, privileged, elite class in America, much as transsexuals are, and who are gaining even more and more rights and privileges as America heads in a more godless and sinful direction. Eventually, it will probably be illegal to protect your children from homosexual predators; it's already illegal to protect your children from transsexual predators who groom young children into thinking they're "trans".

[Ken]

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.

This is one of the reason that our churches refuse to accept government assistance, stimulus, and other handouts. We recognize that government funds come with strings attached.

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.

But what you are asking for, if I understand you correctly, is for someone to violate their honestly held religious convictions in the name of tolerance. I don't see the difference between this and, for instance, saying that relations between the Christians and the emperors in ancient Rome could have been much better if the Christians had been willing to show a little tolerance and offer incense to the gods.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that it would have been better for the baker to have quietly accepted the penalty imposed by the state and closed his bakery, rather than appealing the issue to the SCOTUS. If so, I probably agree with you. Such an action would have been more in line with traditional Anabaptist understandings of the principle of non-resistance.

No, what I'm saying is that I think this wedding cake fight largely performative culture war stuff that is peripheral to actual Christianity. Does a car salesman refuse to complete the sale if he realizes that he is selling to a gay couple? Does a real estate agent refuse to sell to a gay couple because he will be aiding and abetting their living in a state of sin? Does a plumber who arrives at a house to make a repair refuse to do so and walk away when he discovers that a gay couple lives there? For fear of being tainted by the gay or being seen to endorse their lifestyle with his labor? Does a flour wholesaler refuse to deliver to bakeries that do bake cakes for gay weddings for fear that his flour will wind up being used in a gay wedding cake? Where does it end?

Is it REALLY the case that the only business transaction that God forbids us to conduct with gay couples is the sale of a wedding cake? But that every other type of business transaction is perfectly OK? I don't buy it. I don't think it is biblical or even logical. Can you provide a list of business transactions that are permissible to conduct with a gay couple and those that are not?

I don't think it is even the marriage part that people object to so much as the sex. If two close friends simply wanted to enter into a legal partnership like a civil marriage for the purpose of inheritance, tax benefits, medical power of attorney, joint ownership of property, and all the other legal rights associated with marriage but they were straight and celibate. Then I don't think very many people would even object or care. I think it's the gay sex part not the civil marriage part that people tend to have a religious problem with.

But yes, if a particular business finds that their convictions compel them to discriminate against a certain class of customers who nevertheless pay the taxes that support that business. Then I would suggest that they should probably find another line of business.

[Ken]

I challenge you to come up with any rights afforded to gay Americans (or requested by the gay Americans) that are not already afforded to straight Americans.

In one particular example, a gay person was able to turn their ex into a fugitive after getting the courts to give legal privilege for her to steal her ex's child that she had no blood, family, or other relation to. (Children can't have two mothers; children have a mother and a father.) That's a privilege straight Americans don't have.

In another example, a gay "couple" shops around repeatedly until they find a bakery (or pizza shop) uncomfortable with catering an explictly gay wedding. They then use the full force and power of the state to sue them and put them out of business. That's another power straight people just don't have. We don't go around finding gay florists or gay bakers and then demanding they bake a cake with a message that they are uncomfortable with, and then getting the state to sue them.

Gay people are a coddled, privileged, elite class in America, much as transsexuals are, and who are gaining even more and more rights and privileges as America heads in a more godless and sinful direction. Eventually, it will probably be illegal to protect your children from homosexual predators; it's already illegal to protect your children from transsexual predators who groom young children into thinking they're "trans".

1. Yes, custody fights happen in straight marriages just as they do in gay marriages. And biology has nothing to do with it. Many children who are the subject of custody fights are adopted or conceived through sperm donors or otherwise not the biological offspring of one or both parents. There is absolutely nothing that happened in the Lisa Miller case that doesn't happen tens of thousands of times per year in straight marriages. Divorce is often ugly when children are involved.

2. Yes, straight couples are free to shop around and find florists and bakeries who wish to discriminate against them. And they are free to sue them as well. That isn't some special right that only gay couples have. I expect they will have to search a LOT harder to find discrimination though.

3. No, gay pedophiles don't have any more special rights to prey on children than straight pedophiles do.

[Josh]

1. Yes, custody fights happen in straight marriages just as they do in gay marriages.

The situation I brought up was not a marriage, gay or otherwise.

And biology has nothing to do with it. Many children who are the subject of custody fights are adopted or conceived through sperm donors or otherwise not the biological offspring of one or both parents. There is absolutely nothing that happened in the Lisa Miller case that doesn't happen tens of thousands of times per year in straight marriages. Divorce is often ugly when children are involved.

Lisa Miller was never "married" to her ex. This was a case of Lisa trying to protect her child from an abuser, plain and simple, and the full force of the legal system, the elite, and the powerful rallying behind an abuser. (Much the same story we see in other situations with big, powerful organisations protecting abusers and hurting victims.) In this case, she's being sent to prison for keeping her child safe from an abuser.

3. No, gay pedophiles don't have any more special rights to prey on children than straight pedophiles do.

lol

[Josh]

No, what I'm saying is that I think this wedding cake fight largely performative culture war stuff that is peripheral to actual Christianity. Does a car salesman refuse to complete the sale if he realizes that he is selling to a gay couple? Does a real estate agent refuse to sell to a gay couple because he will be aiding and abetting their living in a state of sin? Does a plumber who arrives at a house to make a repair refuse to do so and walk away when he discovers that a gay couple lives there? For fear of being tainted by the gay or being seen to endorse their lifestyle with his labor? Does a flour wholesaler refuse to deliver to bakeries that do bake cakes for gay weddings for fear that his flour will wind up being used in a gay wedding cake? Where does it end?

The baker was specifically asked to decorate the cake with a specific message.

So in your opinion a homosexual person should be allowed to force me to write out a specific message, contrary to my religious beliefs? Got it.

But yes, if a particular business finds that their convictions compel them to discriminate against a certain class of customers who nevertheless pay the taxes that support that business. Then I would suggest that they should probably find another line of business.

I don't know what kind of "business" you think businesspeople run, but businesses are not supported by taxes - businesses PAY taxes. And no, businesses do not exist because the state grants them some freedom to do so. The right to earn a living is a fundamental human right every person has, and the state has no right to impinge on someone's right to try to earn a living. Nor does the state have a right to compel someone to write and say pro-homosexual messages.

[Ken]

The baker was specifically asked to decorate the cake with a specific message.

So in your opinion a homosexual person should be allowed to force me to write out a specific message, contrary to my religious beliefs? Got it.

So God is OK with it if you sell a generic wedding cake to a gay couple. He just objects if you custom decorate it?

I'm always intrigued by these lines that people draw in the sand.

[Josh]

The baker was specifically asked to decorate the cake with a specific message.

So in your opinion a homosexual person should be allowed to force me to write out a specific message, contrary to my religious beliefs? Got it.

So God is OK with it if you sell a generic wedding cake to a gay couple. He just objects if you custom decorate it?

I'm always intrigued by these lines that people draw in the sand.

I'm talking about the specific case that happened in Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop. What are you talking about?

The end game of where society is heading is rather obvious: to remain part of acceptable mainstream society, one must enthusiastically affirm how noble and good homosexual relations are. If you are not willing to do this, you will eventually be imprisoned, executed, or worse. It will be a crime against the state to oppose a homosexual abusing your child, as already happened to Lisa Miller. They want to make an example out of her so the rest of us will cower in fear.

The Bible is quite clear on this issue; you cannot serve God or follow Jesus and simultaneously accept, affirm, or promote homosexuality in any way, shape, or form. Jude has a rather crisp reminder for people who want to forget this:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Those who give themselves over to sexual immorality and perversion often slip into the community of believers. We must remember that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but those who refuse to believe in God will ultimately be destroyed. The end result of Sodom and Gomorrah was eternal destruction. I do not want any person on earth to experience that fate, which is why the message of the believer to the sexually immoral and perverse must be: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"