Is it appropriate to read the Bible out loud in public?

[Ken]

Obviously to the State since that is what we are talking about.

Instead of constantly defining what "we" are talking about, please speak for yourself.

Well, have we been discussing the actions of Congress and the so-called Respect for Marriage Act and more generally the Supreme Court under Obergefell?

Or have we been discussing the specific marriage rules for church members under the Amish, Holdeman, or other conservative Anabaptist churches?

One is state and one is church. You tell me.

[ohio jones]

Well, have we been discussing the actions of Congress and the so-called Respect for Marriage Act and more generally the Supreme Court under Obergefell?

Or have we been discussing the specific marriage rules for church members under the Amish, Holdeman, or other conservative Anabaptist churches?

Both are rather far from the topic of this thread.

[Josh]

My concern is the “slippery slope” that starts with the government saying it’s wrong to read a few Bible verses in public, but then expands from there.

With other areas of modernity such as “marriage”, the level of state involvement has gradually increased over time, until the state is redefining what it is. There is no reason to think the state will not do the same and eventually claim jurisdiction over the Bible, too.

[MaxPC]

My concern is the “slippery slope” that starts with the government saying it’s wrong to read a few Bible verses in public, but then expands from there.

With other areas of modernity such as “marriage”, the level of state involvement has gradually increased over time, until the state is redefining what it is. There is no reason to think the state will not do the same and eventually claim jurisdiction over the Bible, too.

Indeed, as that old maxim reminds us “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

[temporal1]

My concern is the “slippery slope” that starts with the government saying it’s wrong to read a few Bible verses in public,
but then expands from there.

With other areas of modernity such as “marriage”, the level of state involvement has gradually increased over time, until the state is redefining what it is. There is no reason to think the state will not do the same and eventually claim jurisdiction over the Bible, too.

Indeed, as that old maxim reminds us “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

It’s far from a matter of avoiding the slippery slope; decades-on, it’s searching for the off-ramp.
God is patient. 2 Peter 3:9

[nett]

My concern is the “slippery slope” that starts with the government saying it’s wrong to read a few Bible verses in public, but then expands from there.

With other areas of modernity such as “marriage”, the level of state involvement has gradually increased over time, until the state is redefining what it is. There is no reason to think the state will not do the same and eventually claim jurisdiction over the Bible, too.

I don't think Ken has ever actually admitted that the slippery slope is a very real phenomenon. In this, he's either a complete dolt, the worlds biggest troll, or a truly seditious liar.

[temporal1]

My concern is the “slippery slope” that starts with the government saying it’s wrong to read a few Bible verses in public,
but then expands from there.

With other areas of modernity such as “marriage”, the level of state involvement has gradually increased over time, until the state is redefining what it is. There is no reason to think the state will not do the same and eventually claim jurisdiction over the Bible, too.

I don't think Ken has ever actually admitted that the slippery slope is a very real phenomenon. In this, he's either a complete dolt, the worlds biggest troll, or a truly seditious liar.

4. in need of the Holy Spirit.

[MaxPC]

As a family we are reading one chapter of Luke each day starting Dec 1 and ending on Christmas Eve. It will take us through the entire story of Christ’s life in preparation for Christmas Day. While we were reading, it occurred to me that it would be a wonderful effort to read these chapters aloud in a public place, 1 per day. I can see this done within earshot of doctor’s offices; abortion clinics; government offices; in parks at lunch time; etc etc etc.

We cannot be timid in proclaiming Jesus Christ: who He is and how He saves us. We are His disciples therefore:
Luke 1
47 “My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 
for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49 
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 
And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 
He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
52 
he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
53 
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
54 
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

[Ken]

My concern is the “slippery slope” that starts with the government saying it’s wrong to read a few Bible verses in public, but then expands from there.

With other areas of modernity such as “marriage”, the level of state involvement has gradually increased over time, until the state is redefining what it is. There is no reason to think the state will not do the same and eventually claim jurisdiction over the Bible, too.

I don't think Ken has ever actually admitted that the slippery slope is a very real phenomenon. In this, he's either a complete dolt, the worlds biggest troll, or a truly seditious liar.

The Bible is more readily available today than at any time in human history.

And people's abilities to speak and communicate are also greater than at any time in human history. In the not so recent past our capacity to disseminate information was physically limited by things like printing presses and paper. Or limited airwaves. With the internet it is nearly infinite. You can post a Bible verse on Twitter and nearly the entire planet can read it if they want. Anyone in the US can bring up the complete Bible in any translation or any language on their phone at will and for free. And have it read to them in nearly any language if they want.

What is this slippery slope of Biblical censorship that you think is happening? All the trends are actually in the opposite direction.

And sometimes slippery slopes really don't exist. Let's use the example of marriage. Divorce was largely illegal in the 19th century other than for Biblical grounds (infidelity). It became more common in the early 20th century but it wasn't until 1942 that the Supreme Court ruled that all states had to recognize divorces issued in another state. And it wasn't until the 1960s that no-fault divorce laws became common. But the current legal structure for divorce is now at least 50 years old.

Despite this, can you point me to a single church anywhere in the US that has been forced by law to recognize divorce and accept the civil definition of divorce against their will? There are plenty of conservative Anabaptist sects out there that have very strict divorce rules for their members. Has the government infringed on any of them ever and said that you have to accept divorced members or allow your members to divorce and remain in good standing? I expect you cannot. Which is the very same reason I dismiss the notion that Amish or other conservative Anabaptist groups will ever be forced to accept gay married members or perform gay marriages.

Society is changing, that is true. But the law mostly changes in response to changes in society, not because of it. Laws are actually almost always a trailing indicator of societal change. But none of that affects the ability of churches to practice their religion as they see fit. At worst, all it affects is their ability to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs.

[Grace]

Society is changing, that is true. But the law mostly changes in response to changes in society, not because of it. Laws are actually almost always a trailing indicator of societal change. But none of that affects the ability of churches to practice their religion as they see fit. At worst, all it affects is their ability to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs.

Could you describe how churches discriminate? For example, should churches be required to hire an atheist pastor, organist, etc.? Would that be what you interpret as discrimination?