The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[Ken]

I believe they, and their proponents were in the minority. They wouldn’t have these rights nor the support of society had the courts not overruled the majority of the the citizens. When you have a society such as the US now is, where there is no solid sense of right and wrong, and has rejected Truth, and everything about morality is relative, then you have a majority that is only bounded by the laws of the land. They are asleep at the wheel so to speak, and when they wake up to find what they once thought to be wrong, is now legal, they adjust accordingly. It doesn’t matter if it is immodesty, fornication/homosexuality/adultery/pedophilia/beastialit greed, racism, abortion, or drugs. They just adjust to the new norm. Not all people do, thank God. But a huge amount of society does exactly that. They equate legal to moral. So had these things not become legal, a majority of people would still think them to be wrong.

On your last edited note, what minority right do you think is more powerful in this country today, gay or religious? There is no question that gay rights are much more stylish that religion is. Today Congress voted to make Pulse gay nightclub a national monument.

I would disagree and suggest that religious rights are far more "powerful" and pervasive in this country. And for that matter, Christians are not any sort of minority but an overwhelming majority, especially when it comes to the avenues of power. To cite two examples:

First, there are six practicing Catholics on the Supreme Court, two Jews, and one Episcopalian (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic and switched to Episcopalian after marriage. That is hardly a minority. By contrast there are no LGBT members on the court and never have been in the entire history of the Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... ted_States

Second, there are 86 self-identified Christians in the US Senate, 9 Jews, and one Buddhist, which means that 86% of the Senate is Christian and 95% is Judeo-Christian. Only 4 Senators have no religious affiliation. By contrast there are only two LGBT members of the US Senate (Kristen Sinema and Tammy Baldwin) which is a whopping 2%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... tes_Senate

The Supreme Court and the Senate are the two most powerful institutions in the country outside of the presidency which has been held by a practicing Christian since the beginning of the Republic.

Christians are not a minority in this country and are most certainly not a minority when it comes to the institutions of power. You seem to have a persecution complex that is not warranted by reality.

I may have a bit of a misplaced persecution complex, I can accept that. But it isn’t completely pulled from thin air, or completely divorced from reason either.

Go back and see what I was commenting on in context, which was the idea that Christians shouldn’t expect certain things because these certain beliefs are not the majority.

You are latching onto one small point that is taking the conversation to a different place. Yes, “Christians” are still in the majority and hold considerable influence in this country. But smart, forward looking people can see what is coming. It’s not imagined.

The real point I’m making is that a belief held by a minority of Christian people, is overruled. While sexual beliefs (that were) held by a minority of society, is promoted. My point is that minority beliefs can win, in spite of their minority status. Yet Christians are told that since our beliefs are in the minority, we should just accept the majorities beliefs because we live in a democracy and that’s how democracies work.
Well, actually that isn’t how we’ve seen these things work. They work forced into society by judges. Not by democracy.

In the past few years I have only seen two categories of issues where some Christians have claimed persecution.

The first is with respect to discriminating against others. There has been a lot of recent fervor about how Christians are no longer able to discriminate against LGBT folks in terms of employment or services provided or whatever. When we are talking about religious organizations we find that discrimination is generally allowed for religious reasons. Catholic schools are always legally free to fire gay teachers, and many have. Churches are free to refuse to perform gay marriages. You won't find a Catholic church anywhere in the country that will perform a gay marriage, even in San Francisco. As is their legal right. But when it comes to ordinary businesses or organizations that take public dollars to provide a public service they are generally required to follow the same anti-discrimination rules as everyone else. Although the law is still far from settled, and in many right to work states people can be fired for basically any reason anyway. And frankly I don't have a problem with being asked to provide the same 14th Amendment non-discrimination rights to all Americans regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation if you are an organization that takes public money, or an employee of an organization that serves the public.

The second is with respect to Covid and all the claims of persecution by churches who were forced to close to in-person services, or follow strict guidelines for social distancing and masking and so forth. These have almost entirely gone away in most states and likely will all be gone within weeks in the few remaining states. And in many states, churches were exempted from Covid regulations from the beginning. I personally don't view public health restrictions in the middle of the worst worldwide pandemic in a century in which over 600,000 Americans have died to be a form of anti-Christian persecution. Every business and organization in the country was affected. And we are rapidly re-opening or have already done so in most of the country.

Other than prohibitions on anti-LGBT discrimination, and temporary public health measures I don't see any other categories of anti-Christian discrimination in this country. Certainly nothing widespread or systemic in any way. I don't see Christians fired for simply being Christian. I don't see Christians turned away from businesses simply for being Christian. I don't see Christians denied government services simply for being Christian. I don't see any persecution of any kind frankly. I see Christians sometimes fired or disciplined because they insist that their Christianity requires that they discriminate or fail to do the job that they were hired to do. But I don't see that as the same thing. That is just the law saying that your religion doesn't privilege you to violate the rights of others.

Real persecution is what is happening to Christians in places like Iraq, Pakistan, China, and Saudi Arabia.

I realize others don't see it that way. But that is where I'm coming from.

[RZehr]

I’m saying that “minority beliefs” are argued to be justification for the erosion of Christian beliefs and protection, all the while knowing that “minority beliefs” was not a reason to keep LGBTQ or abortion rights from being eroded. Those minority values were forced upon the majority through the courts, while the liberals who happen to support them tell religious folks to hush because religious values are in the minority and therefor, in the name of democracy, accept it.

Where was the hushing to these other groups? Why shouldn’t they have to accept the majority in the name of democracy?
Religious rights are the oldest and most important rights in this country.

[Ken]

I’m saying that “minority beliefs” are argued to be justification for the erosion of Christian beliefs and protection, all the while knowing that “minority beliefs” was not a reason to keep LGBTQ or abortion rights from being eroded. Those minority values were forced upon the majority through the courts, while the liberals who happen to support them tell religious folks to hush because religious values are in the minority and therefor, in the name of democracy, accept it.

Where was the hushing to these other groups? Why shouldn’t they have to accept the majority in the name of democracy?
Religious rights are the oldest and most important rights in this country.

I'm really somewhat confused as to what you are talking about.

Minority values or beliefs aren't forced on anyone. You can't force a belief on anyone. We still have white supremacists in this country who believe that the Confederacy should have won and black people should still be in chains. And it is their right to believe that if they want. They just can't act on it.

As for "minority rights". There really isn't such as concept as minority rights in this country. There are only rights period. That everyone, majorities and minorities are entitled to. The Constitution and bill of rights applies equally to everyone. At least in theory. Although we haven't always lived up to that ideal.

[temporal1]

.. But at present about 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage and only 30% oppose it. ..

These types of statements are ludicrous.
If, for instance, Christianity, were taught+promoted, protected, in public schools and healthcare and in the public arena in the same ways homosexuality and abortion are gov-protected+promoted IN ALL THESE PLACES, statistics would reflect .. what? -
99% Christianity in the U.S.? Christian flags waving over government buildings? Found in public school classrooms+hallways?

The NONSENSE commonly reported as facts is breathtaking.

God have mercy.

[Josh]

How are you defining minority and majority?

When I lived in California, a MAJORITY of people passed Proposition 8. Californians wanted to outlaw gay marriage.

Then a federal court overtuned the constitutional amendment and forced California to have legal gay marriage.

The same thing happened in Ohio, where a MAJORITY of the legislature, elected by a MAJORITY of the voters, passed a bill against gay marriage. The Supreme Court overruled this.

Roe v. Wade was the exact same story. Most states had sensible laws against abortion. Roe v. Wade forced the entire country to allow killing unborn babies.

This is tyranny by the elite, well-connected, powerful minority, which obviously includes homosexuals and people who are pro-abortion.

[Josh]

I personally don't view public health restrictions in the middle of the worst worldwide pandemic in a century in which over 600,000 Americans have died to be a form of anti-Christian persecution.

As I cited elsewhere on MennoNet, more babies died from abortion than Americans have died from COVID. You're completely against any laws against abortion, right up until a baby's about to be born, yet you think shutting down churches for a year for a "pandemic" is somehow justified?

Why do you hate babies so much?

[Josh]

You are still evading the question. The question isn't what your moral views are towards abortion. Plenty of pro-choice people also think that life starts at conception. They just don't believe it is the role of the state to criminalize women for making their own choice in this matter. The question is what you think US law should look like with respect to abortion. Would you criminalize any intentional act of any kind by anyone that threatens or harms any human zygote from the moment of conception onwards? If not, where would you draw the line?

I'm not evading any question. Life begins at conception. Taking affirmative, violent action to end a human life is murder.

If you want specific legislation, look at the laws different states had on their books before Roe v. Wade. And look at how they were enforced back then. That would be a good place to start. Or you could look at other countries where abortion has recently been illegal, like Ireland or Portugal.

Would you criminalize any intentional act of any kind by anyone that threatens or harms any human zygote from the moment of conception onwards?

This is a silly question. I said I think murder should be illegal. Murder is the actual, real destruction of another human life, intentionally. I think this should be illegal, regardless of the age of the human involved.

Believe it or not, there are actually laws that get enforced against attempted murder of an unborn child - they often appear in domestic violence cases when someone tries to beat their pregnant girlfriend and is angry they're pregnant.

A lot of your questions are asking about distinctions between murder and manslaughter. Again, there are already prosecutions both criminal and civil for manslaughter of an unborn child. The most common situation is in car accidents when someone is at fault and the mother loses her unborn baby.

They just don't believe it is the role of the state to criminalize women for making their own choice in this matter.

Should women have their "own choice in this matter" after their baby is born? A newborn baby is completely helpless and relies on its mother, or it dies in a few hours.

[RZehr]

I’m saying that “minority beliefs” are argued to be justification for the erosion of Christian beliefs and protection, all the while knowing that “minority beliefs” was not a reason to keep LGBTQ or abortion rights from being eroded. Those minority values were forced upon the majority through the courts, while the liberals who happen to support them tell religious folks to hush because religious values are in the minority and therefor, in the name of democracy, accept it.

Where was the hushing to these other groups? Why shouldn’t they have to accept the majority in the name of democracy?
Religious rights are the oldest and most important rights in this country.

I'm really somewhat confused as to what you are talking about.

Minority values or beliefs aren't forced on anyone. You can't force a belief on anyone.
We still have white supremacists in this country who believe that the Confederacy should have won and black people should still be in chains. And it is their right to believe that if they want. They just can't act on it.

As for "minority rights". There really isn't such as concept as minority rights in this country. There are only rights period. That everyone, majorities and minorities are entitled to. The Constitution and bill of rights applies equally to everyone. At least in theory. Although we haven't always lived up to that ideal.

“Minority rights”, my term, refers simply to rights that are not shared by the majority but are protected from democracy or the mob. One example is the electoral college. Another would be the freedom of speech (which was instituted to as a religious protection). But enough about that term. The real issue at hand here, is the idea that when it comes to religious issues, we can’t expect everyone else to jump to our minority tune, we can’t have a minority control everyone else through intensity. All the while that is exactly what happened with the other groups minority views.
Here is the comment I’m talking about:

There seems to be a notion that a minority can control everyone else in a democracy just by being more intense.

Somehow it works that way for the LGBTQ folks. And it was a minority that made both homosexual rights and abortion legal in the US.
But it can’t work that way for the much larger, yet still minority, anti-abortion folks? One of the purported benefits of a Republic is supposed to be minority protection, right?

You say:
“Minority values or beliefs aren't forced on anyone. You can't force a belief on anyone.”

I disagree. While I agree to a certain extent, particularly when one is hamfisted about it, one can certainly accomplish it if one goes about it cleverly.

Plenty of governments and religions have accomplished that. And we have just watched a coalition of the courts and the media and academia and a minority with intensity, accomplish the same thing in this country.

And adult people who are casually religious, are actually more political that religious, and are tend to equate legal with moral. And so the peoples core beliefs change with the law, and are then reflected in the opinion polls. Children are brainwashed at school, and parents are more interested in other things than teaching their children Truth. So the children accept the lies.

[temporal1]

RZehr,
i agree with your observations.
i’ll file them under, “Train wrecks after human reasoning goes to law school.”

boot:
There seems to be a notion that a minority can control everyone else in a democracy just by being more intense.

Yes. Avoid organized political blocs+cults, this is their sole reason to exist.

[Ken]

How are you defining minority and majority?

When I lived in California, a MAJORITY of people passed Proposition 8. Californians wanted to outlaw gay marriage.

Then a federal court overtuned the constitutional amendment and forced California to have legal gay marriage.

The same thing happened in Ohio, where a MAJORITY of the legislature, elected by a MAJORITY of the voters, passed a bill against gay marriage. The Supreme Court overruled this.

Roe v. Wade was the exact same story. Most states had sensible laws against abortion. Roe v. Wade forced the entire country to allow killing unborn babies.

This is tyranny by the elite, well-connected, powerful minority, which obviously includes homosexuals and people who are pro-abortion.

Don't be silly Josh. We live in a Constitutional democracy. What actually happened is that the Federal district court found that proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment which states:

• No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the Supreme Court with a conservative Christian majority agreed with the lower courts and upheld the decision.

This sort of thing actually happens all the time. States laws are constantly being struck down on Constitutional grounds. Even in California.

Just recently the Supreme Court overturned California's restrictions on in-person church services in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church vs. the State of California on 1st Amendment grounds. Did the Supreme Court overstep the state's authority in that decision? https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/ ... 824de11e88

And just this week a federal district court overturned California's ban on assault weapons on 2nd Amendment grounds in a case that is likely to make its way to the Supreme Court. The assault weapons ban in CA is supported by large majorities in CA. Should the majority opinion rule here? Did the court overstep its bounds in that case? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-fed ... 021-06-05/

And in any event, no one in CA is forced to have a gay marriage. I'm not aware of any place in CA where Christians are having their religious rights violated by being forced into shotgun gay marriages against their will.

But hey. You are free to start the process of amending Article 1 of the 14th Amendment to read "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws except for LGBT people if that is what you truly believe. Good luck with that.