The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[Ken]

“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?

What we are really talking about here is a potential conflict between the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment. And it has been up to the courts to decide how to balance and reconcile the rights set out in both of those amendments.

The 1st Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The 14th Amendment 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.

This isn't about "majority" or "minority" rights. It is about "individual" rights because rights apply to individuals not minority or majority groups. This is about reconciling the "individual" right to free expression of religion with the "individual" right to equal protection under the law.

The courts generally seek to find the least restrictive way to uphold one set of rights without infringing on the other. Do they always get it right? Of course not. Many of the decisions in this area are 5-4 decisions so there is obvious disagreement. That is why we have a 9-member Supreme Court instead of a single supreme judge.

[ken_sylvania]

According to to the National Congressional Study Survey there are an estimated 380,000 churches in the United States. Not a single one of them ever owes any income or property tax.

That is not true.

No matter how corrupt or venal their leaders might be. No matter how many pedophiles or child abusers they might shelter and cultivate. They receive a blanket privilege of paying no taxes under the US tax code. No matter how much crime the leaders of a church might commit, the church will never lose it's license because... [checks notes] churches are not licensed in the US.

But they might just lose their occupancy permit or lose their building and any other assets, right?

And, for example, most church kitchens are not inspected by health departments unless the church is using the kitchen for commercial purposes or renting it out.

By contrast, gay nightclubs receive none of those privileges. There are only about 800 gay bars in the US compared to 380,000 churches (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 3119894832) and the number is actually declining with increasing acceptance of LGBT folks in the general population because gay folks now feel more free to go to any club, not just a gay one. They pay taxes on every cent they earn as well as property taxes and are subject to every commercial and health regulation. The IRS and health inspectors are generally humorless when violations are found. Gay nightclubs are subject to a wide array of licensing requirements and fees and can be closed down at a moment's notice for hundreds of different potential violations.

Gay nightclubs would receive some of the same benefits if they were non-profits. And if a church runs a for-profit business it loses various of the benefits you claim they enjoy.

[Josh]

I’m very confused. Churches have existed my entire lifetime that are lgbt affirming. Likewise, nightclubs catering to heterosexual people operate under the same rules as ones catering to homosexuals.

What exactly is the moral equivalency between a nightclub / bar and house of worship?

[Ken]

According to to the National Congressional Study Survey there are an estimated 380,000 churches in the United States. Not a single one of them ever owes any income or property tax.

That is not true.

No matter how corrupt or venal their leaders might be. No matter how many pedophiles or child abusers they might shelter and cultivate. They receive a blanket privilege of paying no taxes under the US tax code. No matter how much crime the leaders of a church might commit, the church will never lose it's license because... [checks notes] churches are not licensed in the US.

But they might just lose their occupancy permit or lose their building and any other assets, right?

And, for example, most church kitchens are not inspected by health departments unless the church is using the kitchen for commercial purposes or renting it out.

By contrast, gay nightclubs receive none of those privileges. There are only about 800 gay bars in the US compared to 380,000 churches (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 3119894832) and the number is actually declining with increasing acceptance of LGBT folks in the general population because gay folks now feel more free to go to any club, not just a gay one. They pay taxes on every cent they earn as well as property taxes and are subject to every commercial and health regulation. The IRS and health inspectors are generally humorless when violations are found. Gay nightclubs are subject to a wide array of licensing requirements and fees and can be closed down at a moment's notice for hundreds of different potential violations.

Gay nightclubs would receive some of the same benefits if they were non-profits. And if a church runs a for-profit business it loses various of the benefits you claim they enjoy.

OK sure. I'm sure you can find fringe cases where churches operate for-profit businesses and pay taxes. And where gay organizations operate as 503(c) nonprofits and are tax exempt. (Although most gay organizations engage in politics and so are not tax exempt)

But the point remains. Religious organizations are privileged over LGBT organizations in both our tax code and regulations. And not the opposite as RZehr claimed. In fact it has been that way for so many decades and generations that I think people just don't even see it anymore. It is just part of the baseline fabric of our society.

[Ken]

I’m very confused. Churches have existed my entire lifetime that are lgbt affirming. Likewise, nightclubs catering to heterosexual people operate under the same rules as ones catering to homosexuals.

What exactly is the moral equivalency between a nightclub / bar and house of worship?

I'm not drawing any moral equivalency. I'm using the nightclub example (which was RZehr's example) to refute the notion that rights of LGBT organizations are privileged over those of religious organizations. He claimed that gay nightclubs had more privileged rights than churches because apparently the Senate passed some resolution (of which I was unaware) that honored the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando in some way.

[ken_sylvania]

According to to the National Congressional Study Survey there are an estimated 380,000 churches in the United States. Not a single one of them ever owes any income or property tax.

That is not true.

No matter how corrupt or venal their leaders might be. No matter how many pedophiles or child abusers they might shelter and cultivate. They receive a blanket privilege of paying no taxes under the US tax code. No matter how much crime the leaders of a church might commit, the church will never lose it's license because... [checks notes] churches are not licensed in the US.

But they might just lose their occupancy permit or lose their building and any other assets, right?

And, for example, most church kitchens are not inspected by health departments unless the church is using the kitchen for commercial purposes or renting it out.

By contrast, gay nightclubs receive none of those privileges. There are only about 800 gay bars in the US compared to 380,000 churches (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 3119894832) and the number is actually declining with increasing acceptance of LGBT folks in the general population because gay folks now feel more free to go to any club, not just a gay one. They pay taxes on every cent they earn as well as property taxes and are subject to every commercial and health regulation. The IRS and health inspectors are generally humorless when violations are found. Gay nightclubs are subject to a wide array of licensing requirements and fees and can be closed down at a moment's notice for hundreds of different potential violations.

Gay nightclubs would receive some of the same benefits if they were non-profits. And if a church runs a for-profit business it loses various of the benefits you claim they enjoy.

OK sure. I'm sure you can find fringe cases where churches operate for-profit businesses and pay taxes. And where gay organizations operate as 503(c) nonprofits and are tax exempt. (Although most gay organizations engage in politics and so are not tax exempt)

But the point remains. Religious organizations are privileged over LGBT organizations in both our tax code and regulations. And not the opposite as RZehr claimed. In fact it has been that way for so many decades and generations that I think people just don't even see it anymore. It is just part of the baseline fabric of our society.

RZehr did not claim that LGBT organizations are privileged over religious organizations in our tax code.

[Ken]

RZehr did not claim that LGBT organizations are privileged over religious organizations in our tax code.

His exact words were: "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."

Which I pushed back against by discussing: (1) who has the ACTUAL power in this country in its highest institutions like the Supreme Court and Senate, Christians or LGBT folks? and (2) how both religious and gay organizations are treated and privileged by the US government. The biggest example of which is the tax code and regulations in general.

You want another example of how this actually works in real life? About 15 years ago we lived in the town of China Spring Texas (outside Waco). Soon after we moved there a family moved in down the street into the biggest McMansion on the street and immediately dumped over $100,000 into the place building a fancy pool, new landscaping, etc. It turns out the father was a self-declared martial arts expert, self promoter, and he ran his own prison ministry. He got himself a big write-up in the local paper which made me curious. And he had two 10 year old daughters who joined my daughter's youth soccer team that I coached. My daughter would go down the street to their house from time to time so I felt the need to investigate who these people were.

Basically he sat all day long in his home office playing online video games with 3-screens. His kids said he was always there gaming and never did any actual work. He tried to get my wife to write him a prescription to some sort of opioids because he claimed back pain. She told him "you aren't my patient, I can't possibly do that". He pulled his kids out of the local schools which he deemed too liberal (this was ultra-Baptist rural Texas) and home schooled them by buying some sort of educational DVDs that they would sit in front of the TV and watch. The kids were basically feral with no teaching or supervision from Dad. Mom was out of the picture and he had a rotating series of girl friends passing through. About once a month he would head out to do some sort of martial arts demo at one of the local prisons as part of his "ministry" and he had a fancy web site that solicited donations for his ministry from local corporate interests and such. He put his home in the name of his ministry to avoid paying any property taxes and appeared to basically live off his self-promotion and fundraising prowess because he had no visible means of income.

I actually called the local property tax office to ask about him and turn him in for a fraudulent religious exemption as he clearly wasn't really running any sort of ministry. But they blew me off and said they didn't have time to investigate all the hundreds of religious exemptions that they get. I'm willing to bet that if he was some sort of self-declared LGBT activist claiming a fraudulent property tax exemption they would have been all over him in a heartbeat. This is the actual property I'm talking about if you are curious. He and his family are long gone and I don't know who lives there now: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1117 ... 0468_zpid/ This is the pool he put in using tax-exempt religious donations:



So yes. The gays might be more "stylish" as RZehr puts it. They do run the fashion industry after all as was noted in the barefoot thread. But it is still religion that is actually privileged in this country. In hundreds of ways large and small.

[Outsider]

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.

Bercot's analysis of George Washington's faith casts some doubt on this, even if the definition of a "practicing Christian" is stretched to the limits of elasticity. Recent examples are no better, not to mention most of the ones in between.

Yes, a goodly number of the founders were actually Deist.

[Ken]

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.

Bercot's analysis of George Washington's faith casts some doubt on this, even if the definition of a "practicing Christian" is stretched to the limits of elasticity. Recent examples are no better, not to mention most of the ones in between.

Yes, a goodly number of the founders were actually Deist.

We aren't talking about 1776. We are talking about 2021. I'm not one to challenge anyone's faith. Most of the Senate and all of the Supreme Court self-identify as either Christian or Jewish. Do you have some magic "Christian Detector" you can wave in front of people to tell if they are lying or not? How do you judge? Why would someone lie about being Christian if they are such a persecuted and downtrodden minority with less rights than others?

Lindsey Graham is a good case in point. He is the Senator from South Carolina and big Trump supporter. Also a self-identified Southern Baptist who likes to do photo ops in Baptist churches when back home in South Carolina. There are also longstanding rumors that he is gay. Do you honestly think he would advantage his political career in South Carolina if he renounced Christianity and came out publicly as gay? Because gays are more privileged than Christians in this society? If so I have a bridge to sell you.

[ohio jones]

We aren't talking about 1776. We are talking about 2021.

When you claim that the presidency "has been held by a practicing Christian since the beginning of the Republic" it sure seems like are talking about both 1789 and 2021.

Do you have some magic "Christian Detector" you can wave in front of people to tell if they are lying or not?

It's usually done without the visual theatrics, but if they don't follow the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, I'm not convinced they are a Christian. Even if they are without question a Southern Baptist.

Could you post the Zillow link to that bridge?