Why are Christian businesses targeted .....

[Bootstrap]

I was pointing to hate crime statistics. I think hate crimes are a bad thing. I don't think Christians should endorse or studiously ignore hate crimes against other groups. If we do, I think that will eventually come back to bite us. In American law, the same rules apply to hate crimes against Jews or Muslims and hate crimes against Mennonites.

In other words, a pragmatic argument, which is the domain of making compromised political decisions for the "greater good".

Not just.

How did Jesus relate to Samaritans and Gentiles and those of other religions? How did Paul relate to them? Shouldn't we follow their lead? Did either of them advocate for the government to kill heretics? There were governments who did that in Mennonite history, but they weren't on the side of the Mennonites.

If we love our neighbor as ourselves, will we ask the government to persecute them? Or endorse other groups that do?

[Bootstrap]

When the Constitution was drafted, "freedom of religion" meant freedom to practice a particular Christian sect. This is universal historical fact. No serious person in the 1700s thought America needed to be some kind of free-for-all full of Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, and so forth.

An example is that in the early days of America, atheists weren't seen to hold office and weren't allowed to hold office, despite the "first amendment".

Article 6, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution seems to disagree with you.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In 1790, George Washington seemed to disagree with you when he wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

In 1797, John Adams disagreed with you when he wrote this in the Treaty of Tripoli, which involved Muslims:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[GaryK]

You probably will. But here's what I said:



Is it possible to actually discuss that? Or not discuss it if you don't care to?

That is precisely what I was discussing.

You say we can decide to be part of the political outrage machine or seek first the Kingdom of God, but we can't do both. I agree.

Good. That's a start. I'd like to see us focus more on how we seek first the Kingdom of God, what our role is as Christians, etc. That tends to get lost here. Which is ironic, since this is a Mennonite forum.

I'm wanting to know if you constantly talking on MN about how bad Trump/MAGA is, is part of seeking first the Kingdom of God or part of the political outrage machine? Your refusal to answer a legitimate question based on something you said is telling.

I really don't think that I am calling for outrage against Trump or MAGA. I do say that it is legitimate for him to go to trial, but I also say that he should have a fair trial, and we should let the system work. And I don't think we should beat each other up over it. I do think we should be able to explore what the facts are - at a factual level. To me, that's almost the opposite of an outrage machine.

I think that Trump / MAGA have created a political outrage machine that has energized a lot of people, and that this political outrage machine sometimes seems to say it is speaking for Christians, but it is not saying the same thing that Jesus and the New Testament taught at all. It does not have the same ethics or values. It does not teach discipleship to Jesus. We need to know what it is that we seek first and not get lost in this. And I see a lot of Christians getting lost here.

The main argument they make to Christians is that they are the only thing standing between us and horrible persecution. That's quite related to the topic if this thread. I don't think that's true. And I don't think they deserve our loyalty. I also don't think their media should define our worldview.

It appears to me that you believe there is only one political outrage machine, which is the Trump/MAGA one. From what I read in the media, I am convinced there are, and always have been, 2 political outrage machines. On MN, I see you pretty much mirroring the anti-Trump political outrage machine I see the Democrats and left-leaning media using against the other side.

You are constantly saying it's anti-Kingdom of God to be involved in or aligned with or loyal to the Trump/MAGA political outrage machine. I'm asking the question, is it anti-Kingdom of God to be involved in or aligned with or loyal to the anti-Trump/MAGA political outrage machine?

It seems you are implying that media doesn't define your view of politics, that it only happens to those who are not anti-Trump. And yet, as I mentioned above, you say pretty much the same things about Trump/MAGA that left leaning media says. If saying what the Trump/MAGA political outrage machine says equals loyalty to that machine, then surely saying what the anti-Trump/MAGA political outrage machine says equals loyalty to that machine as well.

Now if you think it's possible that you are not loyal to the anti-Trump political outrage machine then perhaps it would behoove you to allow for that same possibility on the other side as well. Perhaps what happens on MN is that everyone, including you, are simply expressing their opinions about politics and therefore it's not a matter of loyalty.

[Ken]

Seriously Josh?

Maybe because we (Americans at least) live under a Constitution in which the First Amendment guarantees everyone freedom of religion and the freedom to practice their faith as they see fit. And most other civilized western nations have similar guarantees of religious freedom. The same laws that protect your freedom to worship as you see fit also protect everyone else, including those who you might think have false teachings.

When the Constitution was drafted, "freedom of religion" meant freedom to practice a particular Christian sect. This is universal historical fact. No serious person in the 1700s thought America needed to be some kind of free-for-all full of Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, and so forth.

An example is that in the early days of America, atheists weren't seen to hold office and weren't allowed to hold office, despite the "first amendment".

Perhaps you would have been happier living under the Spanish Inquisition when certain Christians wielded the power of the state to persecute others they accused of heresy? It sounds like Tomás de Torquemada would have been your guy.

No I didn't say that. I simply say that I shouldn't care about promoting and protecting religions which are full of falsehood and are inspired by satanic, demonic forces. And it's not Christians who are usually engaging in this kind of persecution, either. It's, in fact, usually various heathen sects who are busy trying to kill each other. Mennonites, in particular, are not known for engaging in violent persecution of other faiths.

No, you asked "Why is it a bad thing to persecute false religions?"

And I answered that question.

[Bootstrap]

You are constantly saying it's anti-Kingdom of God to be involved in or aligned with or loyal to the Trump/MAGA political outrage machine. I'm asking the question, is it anti-Kingdom of God to be involved in or aligned with or loyal to the anti-Trump/MAGA political outrage machine?

It seems you are implying that media doesn't define your view of politics, that it only happens to those who are not anti-Trump.

No, but I am saying that political outrage means something specific, and it is different from what I think I generally do. And I don't think outrage is measured by whether it is for or against Trump or any other particular political figure. it's quite possible to disagree with a politician, even vehemently, while trying to be fair and not creating a political outrage machine.

The opposite of outrage is to try to look at the facts, ask what the Kingdom of God response is, look at what Jesus said and did. When we look at the facts, one person really may seem to be guilty of a lot more than another. The American Justice System does not say that everyone is equally guilty and should be punished equally. Each person's behavior determines whether they are guilty, and of what. The Constitution does not guarantee that every President will be equally guilty of the same things.

If we want to discuss these things at all, I don't think the right approach is to assume, without proof, that every charge against Trump is false, or that it's outrageous that he go to trial or impeachment proceedings or be subject to the rule of law. I'm rarely the person who brings a topic up in the first place.

But as long as things are measured as "pro-Trump" versus "anti-Trump" instead of "true", "false", "plausible and well documented", we're not seriously engaged in doing truth. And we're not focused on whether it is pro-Kingdom of God or anti-Kingdom of God. As long as it is an outrage to think there is evidence that should compel Trump to testify or to be tried in court, it's probably important to speak up when that evidence really does seem to be there. As long as people turn very personally on those who think these things are true, it feels a lot more like outrage machine to me than polite, respectful, intelligent conversation. When it's an outrage to think what sure looks like the truth, I generally push back on the outrage.

I think its anti-Kingdom of God to be involved in or loyal to any political outrage machine. But not to check facts and discern what is true. Not to suggest that people check facts themselves before pouring gas on the flames. Or that any discussion of these things really should revolve around reasonable discussion of facts and policies.

[Josh]

No, but I am saying that political outrage means something specific, and it is different from what I think I generally do.

I realise you think that, but some of us think that you do regularly fire up the political outrage machine - particularly on MennoNet.

The opposite of outrage is to try to look at the facts, ask what the Kingdom of God response is, look at what Jesus said and did. When we look at the facts, one person really may seem to be guilty of a lot more than another.

You elevate "the facts" to some kind of objective thing that can be determined, which none of us really can about certain political situations, and then somehow turn that into someone who doesn't join you in denouncing certain politicians is rejecting the facts. That's the essence of what political behaviour is. If you don't want this kind of partisanship and politics corrupting the discussion here, you'd have to choose to stop doing this.

If we want to discuss these things at all, I don't think the right approach is to assume, without proof, that every charge against Trump is false, or that it's outrageous that he go to trial or impeachment proceedings or be subject to the rule of law. I'm rarely the person who brings a topic up in the first place.

I don't think very many people on MennoNet are taking that approach. However, many of us don't believe everything that partisan outlets claim Trump is guilty of, and question narratives that seem to make claims like that he's worse than Hitler, to use a recent example. And in particular a singular focus on Trump seems very odd - he's been out of office for 3 years and a lot of other things are going on in the world. Why the obsession?

It is entirely possible that Trump might not be a very good person yet at the same time it is also possible that election irregularities took place, and it is entirely reasonable to think that things like elections may not be 100% honest. That does not mean someone who thinks those things has bought into a political "outrage machine". It simply means they are someone who has careful, nuanced, balanced opinions.

[GaryK]

You are constantly saying it's anti-Kingdom of God to be involved in or aligned with or loyal to the Trump/MAGA political outrage machine. I'm asking the question, is it anti-Kingdom of God to be involved in or aligned with or loyal to the anti-Trump/MAGA political outrage machine?

It seems you are implying that media doesn't define your view of politics, that it only happens to those who are not anti-Trump.

No, but I am saying that political outrage acts in specific ways that are different from what I think I generally do. And I don't think outrage is measured by whether it is for or against Trump or any other particular political figure.

The opposite of outrage is to try to look at the facts, ask what the Kingdom of God response is, look at what Jesus said and did. When we look at the facts, one person really may seem to be guilty of a lot more than another. The American Justice System does not say that everyone is equally guilty and should be punished equally. Each person's behavior determines whether they are guilty, and of what. The Constitution does not guarantee that every President will be equally guilty of the same things.

If we want to discuss these things at all, I don't think the right approach is to assume, without proof, that every charge against Trump is false, or that it's outrageous that he go to trial or impeachment proceedings or be subject to the rule of law. I'm rarely the person who brings a topic up in the first place.

But as long as things are measured as "pro-Trump" versus "anti-Trump" instead of "true", "false", "plausible and well documented", as long as it is an outrage to think there is evidence that should compel Trump to testify or to be tried in court, as long as people turn very personally on those who think these things, it feels a lot more like outrage machine to me than polite, respectful conversation.

I think its anti-Kingdom of God to be involved in or loyal to any political outrage machine. But not to check facts and discern what is true. Not to suggest that people check facts themselves before pouring gas on the flames. Or that any discussion of these things really should revolve around reasonable discussion of facts and policies.

If you want everyone on MN to believe that you are not involved in political outrage when you say practically the same things one side says about the other, then why not give that same leniency to those who do not agree with your political views?

Investigations, facts, evidence and trials in earthly governmental systems doesn't make one side more pro-Kingdom of God than the other. Both sides are involved in investigations, gathering evidence and trials for the same anti-Kingdom of God purpose, which is to get in power and exploit the other side for their own political gains. It doesn't get more anti-Kingdom of God than that. Therefore, I assert that to try to look at politics from a Kingdom of God perspective is a futile endeavor.

[Bootstrap]

If you want everyone on MN to believe that you are not involved in political outrage when you say practically the same things one side says about the other, then why not give that same leniency to those who do not agree with your political views?

I have no power over the stereotypes people form and promote.

But I really do see a huge difference between (1) saying someone's claims don't seem to be correct, providing facts and (2) attacking the person personally. To me, too many conversations feel like "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Investigations, facts, evidence and trials in earthly governmental systems doesn't make one side more pro-Kingdom of God than the other. Both sides are involved in investigations, gathering evidence and trials for the same anti-Kingdom of God purpose, which is to get in power and exploit the other side for their own political gains. It doesn't get more anti-Kingdom of God than that. Therefore, I assert that to try to look at politics from a Kingdom of God perspective is a futile endeavor.

On MN, these topics usually start with someone expressing very, very strong views on some political issue. Usually, clearly siding with Trump/MAGA. Often, saying that it's an outrage that someone be held accountable by investigating them or taking them to trial. Or that it's an outrage that someone is not automatically seen as guilty even without a trial. I don't hear you push back on that much. I think you often object when I do. I think that's a LOT of what I do here.

In my experience, if we don't push back on that, it tends to take over. Here and in a lot of churches. In polls and focus groups, non-Christians tend to see Christians - and especially evangelical Christians - largely as a political bloc loyal to Trump and MAGA. I think that's a problem for the Kingdom of God. I just haven't seen polls or focus groups making the same claim about Biden.

Though I do think the wilder wing of social justice has a lot of the same problems, just on the left.

[GaryK]

If you want everyone on MN to believe that you are not involved in political outrage when you say practically the same things one side says about the other, then why not give that same leniency to those who do not agree with your political views?

I have no power over the stereotypes people form and promote.

But I really do see a huge difference between (1) saying someone's claims don't seem to be correct, providing facts and (2) attacking the person personally. To me, too many conversations feel like "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Investigations, facts, evidence and trials in earthly governmental systems doesn't make one side more pro-Kingdom of God than the other. Both sides are involved in investigations, gathering evidence and trials for the same anti-Kingdom of God purpose, which is to get in power and exploit the other side for their own political gains. It doesn't get more anti-Kingdom of God than that. Therefore, I assert that to try to look at politics from a Kingdom of God perspective is a futile endeavor.

On MN, these topics usually start with someone expressing very, very strong views on some political issue. Usually, clearly siding with Trump/MAGA. Often, saying that it's an outrage that someone be held accountable by investigating them or taking them to trial. Or that it's an outrage that someone is not automatically seen as guilty even without a trial. I don't hear you push back on that much. I think you often object when I do. I think that's a LOT of what I do here.

In my experience, if we don't push back on that, it tends to take over. Here and in a lot of churches. In polls and focus groups, non-Christians tend to see Christians - and especially evangelical Christians - largely as a political bloc loyal to Trump and MAGA. I think that's a problem for the Kingdom of God. I just haven't seen polls or focus groups making the same claim about Biden.

Though I do think the wilder wing of social justice has a lot of the same problems, just on the left.

And then on the other side, there is language used on MN such as clown show investigations being conducted by the other side, the Durham report being mostly spin, etc. etc. Maybe you don't believe such statements cause or are political outrage but I really don't see that any differently than some of the strong statements you consider to be political outrage.

I object to your constant painting of the other side as anti-Kingdom of God. In essence, doing that, implies that your views are more pro-Kingdom of God. I don't see any political views as being pro-Kingdom of God. I really believe if you would drop all the talk about the Kingdom of God needing to inform our views on political matters, you wouldn't receive the pushback from others like you do. Again, I don't believe any political view is more pro-Kingdom of God than any others.

And, I don't believe that evangelical Christians as a political bloc who are loyal to Trump are a problem at all for the Kingdom of God because I don't believe Jesus' Kingdom involves itself in the political affairs of earthly kingdoms. It involves itself in changing hearts and minds, not by telling people how they should think about certain politicians or by how one ascertains truth about political matters, but rather, by pointing them away from politics to cause much greater than political matters or certain politicians.

[Bootstrap]

And then on the other side, there is language used on MN such as clown show investigations being conducted by the other side,

Did I use that phrase? Where? I can't seem to find it.

the Durham report being mostly spin, etc. etc.

That's easy to find - here it is: viewtopic.php?p=201777#p201777 But I don't think I was promoting outrage there. What is it that strikes you that way? I think I was comparing what Durham said, what the inspector general's report said, and what the DIOG said about predication for this investigation. And also pointing out that the report did not challenge even a single claim made by the Mueller Report. To me, that's really about looking carefully at the facts and discussing them. I don't see that post as asking anyone to get outraged. Not even at Durham.

In fact, I'm basically suggesting that political outrage may not be based on solid facts here.

I'm not sure where the "etc., etc." leads, but if these two are representative, we might want to start with them. As far as I can tell, the first wasn't me, the second doesn't seem to be promoting political outrage.

What is it about the second that strikes you as promoting political outrage? Or is it outrage simply to debunk political talking points that seem to promote outrage?