... and totally expected by anyone who has given any serious consideration to what the leftists do when they can get away with it, and want to do in the future.
Just thinking in print here (so don't hold me to anything that follows - this is a one-brain brainstorming exercise) but maybe it would be a good idea to get rid of the tax exemption for ALL churches, whatever their stand on this or any other supreme court decision. That way pastors could without fear speak out on political issues where morality has a dog in the fight, and we could close down the faux-religious frauds like Scientology and wavy haired televangelists with private jets.
The tax exemption as it stands is not dissimilar from the government in communist China granting state approval to some churches and persecuting others.
^ I don't disagree. But, let's be creative and eliminate tax exemptions for ALL charities and pseudo-charities. And, while we're at it, for universities (*) -- the taxes on Harvard's endowment would pay for a lot of "Obamaphones"
(*) On a related note, it's high time that we get serious about Saparation of School and State!
That way pastors could without fear speak out on political issues
Because we've certainly established that we can trust the government to enforce things fairly, and to the benefit of what is now a formally and legally hated enemy.
Even now, Bob hopes and prays that government will crush his enemies. Trusting government, empowering it, relying on it could never have been the mistake. No, the solution is yet more government. We can trust them to act fairly! The problem with China is that it's underregulated - they need to attack all the churches equally!
You're hot off the heels of the SCOTUS pulling the Constitutional right to gay marriage out of a hat. You have one government abuse after the other. And your speculation is that taxing churches may be a good thing because, what... you imagine it may be 'fair' about what churches it taxes and harasses? Why, you can already imagine it going after the 'bad' religious people! This may turn out well!
Tell me, Bob. If the churches get taxed and targeted for their 'hate speech', and you see every church in your neighborhood sold or bulldozed, can you blame me if I laugh really, really hard?
You'll have to pardon both my sarcasm and cynicism, Bob. It's due to years and years of watching liberal Christians insist that it was a Christian duty to enlarge the size and reach of government. Why, think of all the good it can do!
Now, the elected officials that were so dutifully voted for and supported over the years have decided that it's time to be quite open about their plans for Christian churches - they must be converted, silenced and destroyed. Maybe one before the other, but all three, ideally.
Which may be viewed as an unfortunate and unforeseen possibility, save for all those people warning about it over the years. But hey, that's no reason to lose faith in government. Why, there's still good it may yet do! For instance, forcibly disarming each and every Christian citizen in the country. We can't allow them to have weapons - why, some of them have the silly notion that their government may persecute them someday! Such dangerous thinking.
"you imagine it may be 'fair' about what churches it taxes and harasses"
You seem to have missed the point entirely of my thought experiment. There's no "which" here at all. I was wondering aloud whether the current fear of losing the little "gift" of tax exemption was effectively a leash upon churches, making them "good little boys who don't rock the boat", lest they be taxed. But... if no church was exempt no matter what its behavior, then the government loses its current ability to silence the church.
It's the current system of selective exemptions contingent upon "good behavior" which is harassment, not the other way around.
You seem to have missed the point entirely of my thought experiment. There's no "which" here at all.
You still haven't figured out how this works?
I was wondering aloud whether the current fear of losing the little "gift" of tax exemption was effectively a leash upon churches, making them "good little boys who don't rock the boat", lest they be taxed.
Yeah, you know what? We didn't have to fear this before the effing SCOTUS decision.
You know what would really benefit the church? Telling every liberal member of the congregation - and the clergy - "Get out."
B.Prokop: "No, to be perfectly honest, I haven't. I do not understand at all what you're trying to say."
The crudé-minded fellow is quite clearly saying (*) that you (**) *still* have not admitted that the idol to which you bow -- the continual increase in the reach of goverment -- does not distinguish between "good" Christians, such as yourself (which is to say, leftists, who try to equate their leftism with Christianity) and "bad" Christians, such as myself (which is to say, conservatives, who understand that liberty must be systemic and integral, that it does not come from government and cannot be doled out by government).
We have now reached a point where the 'government' has conjured a right out of thin air, and it has done so with an eye on financially and legally punishing every church that doesn't bow and praise anal sex and moral and true. You respond by wondering if maybe this all isn't a good thing, and perhaps the government will let churches legally preach what they consider 'hate' unmolested, and in the process get rid of those churches you dislike.
It will, I think, quite literally take your own personal church being acquired by the state and bulldozed for you to consider the possibility that maybe empowering the state further is a bad idea. And even then? I honestly wonder if you won't tell yourself, 'No, no, this is good. Churches take a lot of effort to maintain. The early Christians didn't have churches! The government did us a favor!' And then, 'Oh, the state won't let us preach in our homes? No, this is a blessing in disguise. Christianity thrives when persecuted! We should be thanking them! rząd ufam tobie!'
I'm more than a bit mystified at this point. Both Crude and Ilion are the only ones here dividing Christians into "good" and "bad". Witness Crude: You know what would really benefit the church? Telling every liberal member of the congregation - and the clergy - "Get out." I guess then that the "liberals" are the bad ones. Or witness Ilion: Oh heck, why single out any specific quote? It's all he ever really talks about. Left equals bad; conservatives equal good. That distinction is more important to him than Christian/Non-Christian. Ilion (and probably Crude as well) are classic examples of what Lewis referred to in The Screwtape Letters as "Christianity and...". And keep in mind that the biggest fan of such a philosophy was the devil!
Besides, I started this whole thing out by saying I'm simply thinking aloud, and specifically warned the reader that what followed what not necessarily what I thought was right, but simply a possible starting point to coming up with a practical solution to the mess we now find ourselves in, thanks to an insane court decision. I'm not interested in perfect solutions here, but in workable ones.
So Crude's rather bizarre attacks on me are wide of the mark. I really don't know what strawman he's all worked up about, but it ain't me.
"trying hard to not understand"
No, Ilion. I tried quite hard. I read Crude's comment multiple times, and it made no sense whatsoever. I think the basic problem is he's arguing with somebody else, rather than me. He seems to have forgotten that I have renounced all politics, and have repudiated any and all political comments I might have made prior to the renunciation, and have made none since.
POSTSCRIPT: While I was composing this reply, Crude made an additional comment before I could post this one. He says, "You respond by wondering if maybe this all isn't a good thing." Crude, you could not be more wrong. I think last weeks court decision ranks down there with Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, and Citizens United as unqualified judicial disasters. What I'm wondering is whether there might be some way to make lemonade out of this sour lemon.
And by the way, removing the tax exempt status of churches is not "empowering the state further" but rather the exact opposite. What we have now is the government holding a club over every single church in the land, threatening them with the loss of their privileged status unless they keep their mouths shut. Golden handcuffs (or maybe a better analogy would be "silken gag").
You know what? You're right. I'm being overly harsh to you, overly unkind. And for that I apologize. Force of habit - I'm an asshole, you see, and I react poorly to certain things.
But there's a kernel of truth to what I say.
Crude, you could not be more wrong. I think last weeks court decision ranks down there with Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, and Citizens United as unqualified judicial disasters. What I'm wondering is whether there might be some way to make lemonade out of this sour lemon.
Of course you are, Bob. I have no doubt that you are. But the problem is that your solution to the problem is yet more faith in government.
Exactly how much corruption in government do you need to learn the lesson that the biggest mistake was in trusting it so much, and trusting it now?
What we have now is the government holding a club over every single church in the land, threatening them with the loss of their privileged status unless they keep their mouths shut.
/We did not have that before this judicial decision./ But now that same-sex marriage is a right, and given the precedent with the Bob Jones decision, now it's quickly going to become a threat. And your response is, 'Maybe this is good! Maybe we can get the government to go after bad churches I dislike!'
Newflash, Bob: Scientology would survive the loss of tax exemption. Quite a lot of churches, won't. Maybe not even yours. And the idea that the lack of tax exemption will mean they can 'speak freely' is hilariously naive. Do you not realize that it's now ridiculously easy to treat 'opposing same-sex marriage and sodomy in general' as 'hate speech', and that there is a push on to harshly punish 'hate speech', religion be damned?
You're not turning lemons into lemonade. You're try to convince yourself a shit sandwich tastes like steak.
"We did not have that before this judicial decision."
We've had it for as long as I can remember. Every election, we see churches, pastors, preachers, etc. passing out "Voter Guides" that ever so carefully tiptoe around the line of not saying what you really think/believe. No candidate may be endorsed by name. You have to feign "objectivity" in the way you present information. Sure, you can publish a comparative record of two candidates' voting records, but you dare not say which one you prefer.
But in any case, it was just a thought thrown out there to see what people would say, and boy did you ever have your say! The current issue aside, I've always thought the current system of blanket exemption for churches was way overboard. In my humble opinion, if it quacks like a business, it ought to be taxed like one. If a church is running a hotel, a health spa, or a bookstore, then that's a business - not a church.
And the idea that the lack of tax exemption will mean they can 'speak freely' is hilariously naive. Do you not realize that it's now ridiculously easy to treat 'opposing same-sex marriage and sodomy in general' as 'hate speech', and that there is a push on to harshly punish 'hate speech', religion be damned?
Yes, our tyrannical Supreme Court has really made it easy to restrict even the most innocuous instances of allegedly homophobic speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.
...
In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.
I'm pretty sure their bakery wasn't 'tax-exempt'. And yet here we are.
The SCOTUS just demonstrated that it's willing to create rights out of thin air if it feels the public mood is behind them. To say "Oh but look, several years ago they found in favor of letting Westboro Baptist - the organization that LGBT activists actually love - speak out" as if that should encourage anyone is a joke.
Well then, Crude, what's the answer? Not some idealized, "In a perfect world..." answer, but in this piece o' shit world that we find ourselves in. What's to be done? I threw one idea out there, and it got shot down. Fair enough. That's what brainstorming is for. But have you got an actual plan of action that goes beyond complaining? (As justified as that complaining is, it doesn't get us anywhere.)
Nice try. This article presents a clearer view of the facts: http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet-cakes-melissa-damages/
The case has nothing to do with hate speech and there's no punishment involved; there were damages to be paid to the injured party, not just for the initial act of illegal discrimination, but also for subsequent actions. We can argue about whether the anti-discrimination law is a good law, but its use here in just an extension to gay people of anti-discrimination protections that Christians (among other groups) already enjoy. (E.g., as the article notes, a few years ago a Christian dental hygienist was awarded more than $300,000 in damages because her employer told her she had to go to a Scientology thing.) The gag order is because it's illegal to advertise that you'll illegally refuse service to gay people, just as it's illegal to advertise that you'll illegally refuse service to (say) Christians or to put up a "Whites Only" sign. Again, we can argue about whether this is a good law, but it has *no bearing whatsoever* on hate speech laws. You are still, rest assured, allowed to say whatever vile thing you want about gay people; you just can't, in Oregon, advertise that you'll refuse them service.
The SCOTUS just demonstrated that it's willing to create rights out of thin air if it feels the public mood is behind them.
Yeah, no doubt George Wallace felt the same way.
To say "Oh but look, several years ago they found in favor of letting Westboro Baptist - the organization that LGBT activists actually love - speak out" as if that should encourage anyone is a joke.
I mean, look: I gather that many of the more extreme LGBT activists who insist on refusing quarter to conservative religious people do it largely because they're worried that, otherwise, we might see a return to the horrific oppression LGBT people have faced for millenia in the west. They're wrong, too: in civilized societies what we think *might* happen doesn't justify policy choices because, after all, anything *might* happen so long as the "might" is weak enough, but it's not true that anything is therefore justified.
The majority decision in the gay marriage case explicitly affirmed that anti-gay religious people can continue preaching their beliefs. A few years ago, a court with the exact same composition as the current court struck down on free speech grounds a (I would imagine very popular) law placing a very mild restriction on a universally reviled homophobic hate group and did so unanimously except for the dissent of a single (conservative) justice. If you want to keep believing that hey, soon, *you'll* be the truly persecuted one, go ahead, whatever; some people get off on feeling aggrieved. But as for whether you have *reason* to think that...
Nice try. This article presents a clearer view of the facts
Yeah, and it illustrates the exact same thing my own link illustrated: the mere act of not wanting to provide service for a same-sex wedding landed them a six-figure fine, regardless of their willingness to provide service for LGBT people generlaly.
Which is why this...
but its use here in just an extension to gay people of anti-discrimination protections
Is bullshit.
It's not a protection of gay people. It's a protection of the right of LGBT activists to force people to take part in ceremonies they detest.
Meanwhile, if you try to get a cake made at a gay bakery with a statement of Christian belief that the bakers object to, well, that's protected.
You are still, rest assured, allowed to say whatever vile thing you want about gay people
Oh sure, you're able to say whatever you like and be fired, harassed, threatened, and otherwise. But for the present moment, until a court decides otherwise, you can say whatever you like!
Yeah, no doubt George Wallace
And no doubt Adolf Hitler thought he was simply following the letter of the law when he started creatively interpreting what powers he had.
I mean, look: I gather that many of the more extreme LGBT activists who insist on refusing quarter to conservative religious people do it largely because they're worried that, otherwise, we might see a return to the horrific oppression LGBT people have faced for millenia in the west. They're wrong, too:
Oh yeah, horrific oppression from the 'conservative religious people'. It wasn't as if whatever 'oppression' there was was handed down by everything for atheist organizations to secular scientific organizations, right?
The majority decision in the gay marriage case explicitly affirmed that anti-gay religious people can continue preaching their beliefs
The majority decision explicitly affirmed that people are still able to believe what they want, in the privacy of their own homes, and not act on it. Meanwhile it didn't take 24 hours for there to be open speculation about how this will lead to religious organizations being denied tax exempt status, excluded from federal contracts and otherwise, if they oppose same-sex marriage.
If you want to keep believing that hey, soon, *you'll* be the truly persecuted one, go ahead, whatever; some people get off on feeling aggrieved.
Yeah, the fact that you regard 'Break this business and put the family in the poor house' fines for the act of not wanting to provide service for a same-sex wedding as 'acceptable' means that that persecution is already here.
Granted, I know you think it's a good, wise thing to do. After all, as George Wallace may have said, "Those niggers deserve what we're doing to them."
Taxes in this country are a mess. I sat as head of the board (Senior Warden on the Vestry, as they call it in my Anglican tradition) for a few years in my church. The State gets their cut, with a few exemptions, believe me. They get a cut on most everything.
Taxes mostly benefit political rhetoric. They call for tax cuts for business that become more energy efficient and hire new employees to the cheers of the people. Then turn on you after you hire people and upgrade your facilities claiming, "you didn't pay your fair share" to the cheers of people.
Homosexuals currently have a lot of political power and the cheers of people. They will use taxes to benefit their political power. What else is new. I guess we will see how long that will last. However, The Church will remain long after the current political forces, and the United States (God Bless Her) have faded into dust.
the mere act of not wanting to provide service for a same-sex wedding landed them a six-figure fine
It was neither a fine nor just for refusing service.
Meanwhile, if you try to get a cake made at a gay bakery with a statement of Christian belief that the bakers object to, well, that's protected.
You can't make the baker write something they disagree with on the cake because you can't make someone else engage in speech that they disagree with. You couldn't make a religious baker write "Gay Marriage is Right" if they didn't want to, either. (You'll note that a few of the bakeries "said they'd make him the cake, but he would have to apply the words in icing himself," which the law treats very differently than an outright refusal of service, since one involves the baker participating in a speech act and the other just involves giving someone else the materials to perform a speech act.)
So: a Christian can't make a gay person write something they disagree with on a cake, but neither can a gay person do the same to a Christian. In states with anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation, a Christian can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it's a gay wedding, but neither can a gay person refuse to bake a cake for a Christian wedding because it's a Christian wedding.
Oh yeah, horrific oppression from the 'conservative religious people'. It wasn't as if whatever 'oppression' there was was handed down by everything for atheist organizations to secular scientific organizations, right?
I mean, there weren't atheist organizations or secular scientific organizations for most of that time. Once there were, who knows what they would have thought if not for the backdrop of centuries of Christian homophobia. But, sure, drop "conservative religious people" and put in "opponents of gay rights;" same point holds. (It's not like I have any particular interest in defending atheist organizations.)
As for the scare quotes around "oppression": I would say being killed, or imprisoned, or forcibly castrated are all pretty oppressive, yeah?
The majority decision explicitly affirmed that people are still able to believe what they want, in the privacy of their own homes, and not act on it.
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons."
Publicly opposing same-sex marriage is protected by the First Amendment.
Meanwhile it didn't take 24 hours for there to be open speculation about how this will lead to religious organizations being denied tax exempt status, excluded from federal contracts and otherwise, if they oppose same-sex marriage.
Which, of course, is different from having the teaching of their beliefs criminalized. (This isn't to say that such moves would be a good idea, but they're not what you and I have been talking about.)
Yeah, the fact that you regard 'Break this business and put the family in the poor house' fines for the act of not wanting to provide service for a same-sex wedding as 'acceptable' means that that persecution is already here.
I didn't say anything about whether it was acceptable (and, again, your characterization of the case is false). I just said that, on the relevant matters, gays people have exactly the same rights against Christians that Christians have against them and no more, which is pretty much the definition of gay people not persecuting Christians.
(Incidentally, I should say that the reason for the George Wallace comparison wasn't just to be gratuitously insulting, but because the sort of textualism or focus on original intent that naturally lends itself to claims that the court is just making stuff up--rather than, say, substantive dispute about whether there's a compelling state interest in prohibiting gay marriage--probably also cuts equally well against many of the Supreme Court's major civil rights decisions.)
It was neither a fine nor just for refusing service.
Go ahead, say what it was for in addition to refusing service. What was that? The pain and trembling mental damage at being rejected?
If you're going to defend it, defend it.
You can't make the baker write something they disagree with on the cake because you can't make someone else engage in speech that they disagree with.
Actually, you can. 'Congratulations on your Marriage Steve and Jason!'
In states with anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation, a Christian can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it's a gay wedding
Which itself is horseshit, because they'd refuse a same-sex wedding between two straight men as well. But the court says 'Yeah well, we don't care, and the fact that you serve gay people normally is irrelevant too.'
I mean, there weren't atheist organizations or secular scientific organizations for most of that time. Once there were, who knows what they would have thought if not for the backdrop of centuries of Christian homophobia.
And so we see that it's all the Christians' fault, even if the organizations are explicitly atheist or secular.
As for the scare quotes around "oppression": I would say being killed, or imprisoned, or forcibly castrated are all pretty oppressive, yeah?
Which was the penalty for anal sex regardless of your orientation, or even the gender of those involved. It was regarded as a crime against nature, full stop, in most places - anal sex with a woman from a man wasn't considered pure.
Publicly opposing same-sex marriage is protected by the First Amendment.
The word 'public' showed up nowhere in there, and as I keep saying: the fact that the court has shown itself willing to literally make shit up means their promises are worthless.
Which, of course, is different from having the teaching of their beliefs criminalized.
No, it's actually not all that different, and if you actually read about civil rights history you'd see cases where those roundabout methods of snuffing out opposition were treated as tacit criminalization.
I didn't say anything about whether it was acceptable (and, again, your characterization of the case is false).
It's completely correct, and you're not exactly condemning it.
Pardon me if I don't regard you as a reliable defender of Christian rights. When you talk about LGBT activists pining for the persecution of Christians, you excuse it as "Well they're wrong, but poor dears, they're afraid if they don't destroy you that you may get popular again". With Christians, no such sympathy.
I am a Christian.
Baloney.
but because the sort of textualism or focus on original intent that
Guess what? Just because your aim is right doesn't mean what you do to promote it is intellectually valid. You seem to think 'Well, I favor gay marriage and think Christians who oppose it should be punished in every way the state can manage - therefore it's totally okay if the SCOTUS just decides that law exists in the Constitution!'
I used to think, no, we shouldn't abuse power like that just because we can at the moment - we have a system for passing laws and amending the constitution, let's use that. That ideal is dead for most people now, and the SCOTUS's antics were the final nail in the coffin.
Again, Crude. You are eloquent at describing the mess we're in right now, but what is your game plan? And I mean an actual, workable game plan - not some "this would work in an ideal world" scenario.
You are eloquent at describing the mess we're in right now, but what is your game plan?
Eloquent, ha.
Gameplan? I'm no general, I have no solutions. In fact? I think looking for a large-scale 'gameplan' has been the mistake for a while.
Here's where I start: I'm not going to pretend fake-Christians are fellow-Christians. The ones who cheer on state harassment of Christians who just want to run their businesses, their churches and their schools without taking part in same-sex weddings or glorifying anal sex (fun as it is) are not 'my Christian brothers and sisters'. They are to Christianity what Positive Christianity was to Christianity, with a social leftist emphasis. And they usually have a theology to match.
That is merely a start, but it's a necessary line in the sand. We have more intellectual common ground with mormons, hindus and orthodox jews than we do with Episcopalians at this point.
What was that? The pain and trembling mental damage at being rejected?
Nope! Learn about cases before you cite them! Not my job to teach you! (Hint: the article I posted earlier tells you, as does the court decision if you look it up.)
Actually, you can. 'Congratulations on your Marriage Steve and Jason!'
My understanding of the law is that, no, if a Christian baker made the cake but refused to write that on it, that would be fine.
Which itself is horseshit, because they'd refuse a same-sex wedding between two straight men as well.
I take it you think a law outlawing rosaries wouldn't be objectionably discriminatory against Catholics, since non-Catholics would also be forbidden from owning rosaries?
And so we see that it's all the Christians' fault, even if the organizations are explicitly atheist or secular.
No, of course plenty of atheists are at fault too.
Which was the penalty for anal sex regardless of your orientation, or even the gender of those involved.
And if we began killing as idolators people who have statues in their places of worship, this wouldn't oppress Catholics, since, hey, we're killing everybody with statues, right?
The word 'public' showed up nowhere in there,
Advocating is public, basically by definition.
you're not exactly condemning it.
Because whether the law is a good law is irrelevant. (Since you're apparently wondering, I don't have particularly strong feelings about the law either way, though if your initial characterization of the case had been correct, I would agree that it was a bad law.) What's relevant for our purposes is just that the law provides the same protections for gays and Christians.
Baloney.
Fuck you too!
Guess what? Just because your aim is right doesn't mean what you do to promote it is intellectually valid.
Obviously.
You seem to think 'Well, I favor gay marriage and think Christians who oppose it should be punished in every way the state can manage
Of course not. For instance, hate speech laws (about anti-gay speech or anything else) would clearly be both unconstitutional and unjust.
therefore it's totally okay if the SCOTUS just decides that law exists in the Constitution!'
I, like the Supreme Court, think marriage equality is protected by the 14th Amendment. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I pretty obviously don't think the constitution supports everything I support, or opposes everything I oppose, or that the Supreme Court should just make stuff up about the Constitution, since there are lots of other issues where I don't think the Constitution entails my view, and in some cases it even contradicts it, and I don't think the Supreme Court should just legislate my view even so.
Anyway, I'm likely to be busy over the next while, so I'm not likely to check back in on this thread. Don't work yourself up too much.
B.Prokop: "Well then, Crude, what's the answer? Not some idealized, "In a perfect world..." answer, but in this piece o' shit world that we find ourselves in. What's to be done? I threw one idea out there, and it got shot down. Fair enough. That's what brainstorming is for. But have you got an actual plan of action that goes beyond complaining? (As justified as that complaining is, it doesn't get us anywhere.)"
Whatever the answer is, it must *start* with the realization -- and the willingness to admit it -- that leftists (*) have no shame, and that they *always* lie: as witness 'Dustin Crummett' in this very thread.
(*) leftists in general and all the sub-species of leftists -- they will lie even knowing that the people to whom they are lying know they are lying.
I do not believe the answer lies in more politics. We need to expunge from our vocabularies and our very thoughts the concepts of Left and Right, and concentrate on Right and Wrong, True and False, Moral and Immoral, Good and Evil, God's will or my will.
We (corporately) also need to get over our cowardice and any tendency to hide behind anonymity. Good Lord (meant literally, and not as an expletive), the Saints embraced martyrdom. St. Maximilian Kolbe actually prayed for it. When St. Ignatius of Antioch learned that certain persons were seeking a stay of his execution, he begged them to cease their efforts. I could cite thousands of similar examples. We need to be vocal, and make the broader culture aware that this issue is not settled. And we need to be public about it. If we're labeled "bigots" and "haters" then so be it - embrace the terms. Let people know that yes, we do hate sin and evil, that we have zero tolerance for it. And most especially, no tolerance for it within ourselves.
I've just finished one of the most remarkable books I have ever read, period - Divine Mercy in my Soul by Saint Faustina Kowalska. One of the "take aways" from that reading was how there are no insignificant sins - that our least, most trivial opposition to the Will of God is an immeasurable offense and needs to be conquered.
The world will never take us seriously unless we do so first.
"I expect to die in bed. My successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history." Francis Eugene Cardinal George
Nope! Learn about cases before you cite them! Not my job to teach you!
I did! I cited articles! Not my fault they make your side look petty and fucking ridiculous!
As if you have reservations about 'teaching me' when you think you're right.
My understanding of the law is that,
We've got the cases before us, Dustin. These bakers weren't attacked because they 'refused to serve gay people'. They were attacked because they refused to provide service for a particular service, which they objected to regardless of the orientations of those involved.
I take it you think a law outlawing rosaries wouldn't be objectionably discriminatory against Catholics
If a business says they don't want people bringing rosaries into their establishment, yet they happily served known Catholics, then yeah - I think it would be obvious that the claim 'They refuse to provide service to Catholics!' would be obviously wrong. Whatever the complaint is, it isn't that.
No, of course plenty of atheists are at fault too.
You just got done telling me that we can't blame the atheist or secular organizations because they existed with a backdrop of 'Christian' rejection of homosexuality. Run with your inane logic.
Fuck you too!
There comes a point where someone is no longer Christian. Call it the religious Ship of Theseus problem. I say it's when they reject the lion's share of moral teaching across the board insofar as it relates to marriage, family and sex. That's before getting into questions about Christ's resurrection.
For instance, hate speech laws (about anti-gay speech or anything else) would clearly be both unconstitutional and unjust.
Yeah, give it five years. We already have hate speech codes on college campuses - wake me up when they're struck down.
I, like the Supreme Court, think marriage equality is protected by the 14th Amendment.
You, like the supreme court, have complete made up a right and found it in the Constitution, when all evidence indicates it doesn't exist. You see no need to amend the Constitution to add the right, because that would be tough - so you're at home with utterly forcing it on everyone.
And I should pretend that system is trustworthy why, again?
I do not believe the answer lies in more politics. We need to expunge from our vocabularies and our very thoughts the concepts of Left and Right, and concentrate on Right and Wrong, True and False, Moral and Immoral, Good and Evil, God's will or my will.
This isn't about politics, Bob, and what I said wouldn't be a left-right issue.
It comes down specifically to a particular line in the sand, and a personal one. I'm not asking for a statement from the Church. I'm saying how I'll behave, and how others should, as a first step.
We (corporately) also need to get over our cowardice and any tendency to hide behind anonymity.
We need anonymity, and we need public actions. Not everything needs to be anonymous, but frankly, it's important at times.
I do think anonymity has value. But there's a serious downside to it as well, and it's a touchy issue. Too many people play the game of 'I'll endorse this view in private, but in public I'm not saying anything, or even endorsing the opposite view because...'
Because they want to advance professionally. Because they don't want to make waves. Because they don't want to lose friends. Because they don't want to be attacked.
And that, I think, has to end to a degree. It's not easy, and it goes into some whole new, complicated areas.
But there's advantages to anonymity that can't be ignored situationally.
After thinking about the issue of "double taxation" (the money thrown into collection plates has already been taxed), I withdraw my thought experiment suggestion.
I still think that any "church activity" that smells like a business (such as hotels, apartments, gift shops, fitness clubs, coffee shops, spas, wineries, etc.) ought to be under the same rules as any other business.
36 comments:
... and totally expected by anyone who has given any serious consideration to what the leftists do when they can get away with it, and want to do in the future.
Just thinking in print here (so don't hold me to anything that follows - this is a one-brain brainstorming exercise) but maybe it would be a good idea to get rid of the tax exemption for ALL churches, whatever their stand on this or any other supreme court decision. That way pastors could without fear speak out on political issues where morality has a dog in the fight, and we could close down the faux-religious frauds like Scientology and wavy haired televangelists with private jets.
The tax exemption as it stands is not dissimilar from the government in communist China granting state approval to some churches and persecuting others.
Jezu ufam tobie!
^ I don't disagree. But, let's be creative and eliminate tax exemptions for ALL charities and pseudo-charities. And, while we're at it, for universities (*) -- the taxes on Harvard's endowment would pay for a lot of "Obamaphones"
(*) On a related note, it's high time that we get serious about Saparation of School and State!
That way pastors could without fear speak out on political issues
Because we've certainly established that we can trust the government to enforce things fairly, and to the benefit of what is now a formally and legally hated enemy.
Even now, Bob hopes and prays that government will crush his enemies. Trusting government, empowering it, relying on it could never have been the mistake. No, the solution is yet more government. We can trust them to act fairly! The problem with China is that it's underregulated - they need to attack all the churches equally!
God really does have a sense of humor.
Huh? I don't understand your comment.
You're hot off the heels of the SCOTUS pulling the Constitutional right to gay marriage out of a hat. You have one government abuse after the other. And your speculation is that taxing churches may be a good thing because, what... you imagine it may be 'fair' about what churches it taxes and harasses? Why, you can already imagine it going after the 'bad' religious people! This may turn out well!
Tell me, Bob. If the churches get taxed and targeted for their 'hate speech', and you see every church in your neighborhood sold or bulldozed, can you blame me if I laugh really, really hard?
You'll have to pardon both my sarcasm and cynicism, Bob. It's due to years and years of watching liberal Christians insist that it was a Christian duty to enlarge the size and reach of government. Why, think of all the good it can do!
Now, the elected officials that were so dutifully voted for and supported over the years have decided that it's time to be quite open about their plans for Christian churches - they must be converted, silenced and destroyed. Maybe one before the other, but all three, ideally.
Which may be viewed as an unfortunate and unforeseen possibility, save for all those people warning about it over the years. But hey, that's no reason to lose faith in government. Why, there's still good it may yet do! For instance, forcibly disarming each and every Christian citizen in the country. We can't allow them to have weapons - why, some of them have the silly notion that their government may persecute them someday! Such dangerous thinking.
"you imagine it may be 'fair' about what churches it taxes and harasses"
You seem to have missed the point entirely of my thought experiment. There's no "which" here at all. I was wondering aloud whether the current fear of losing the little "gift" of tax exemption was effectively a leash upon churches, making them "good little boys who don't rock the boat", lest they be taxed. But... if no church was exempt no matter what its behavior, then the government loses its current ability to silence the church.
It's the current system of selective exemptions contingent upon "good behavior" which is harassment, not the other way around.
Jezu ufam tobie!
You seem to have missed the point entirely of my thought experiment. There's no "which" here at all.
You still haven't figured out how this works?
I was wondering aloud whether the current fear of losing the little "gift" of tax exemption was effectively a leash upon churches, making them "good little boys who don't rock the boat", lest they be taxed.
Yeah, you know what? We didn't have to fear this before the effing SCOTUS decision.
You know what would really benefit the church? Telling every liberal member of the congregation - and the clergy - "Get out."
"You still haven't figured out how this works?"
No, to be perfectly honest, I haven't. I do not understand at all what you're trying to say.
B.Prokop: "No, to be perfectly honest, I haven't. I do not understand at all what you're trying to say."
The crudé-minded fellow is quite clearly saying (*) that you (**) *still* have not admitted that the idol to which you bow -- the continual increase in the reach of goverment -- does not distinguish between "good" Christians, such as yourself (which is to say, leftists, who try to equate their leftism with Christianity) and "bad" Christians, such as myself (which is to say, conservatives, who understand that liberty must be systemic and integral, that it does not come from government and cannot be doled out by government).
Another example of B.Prokop refusing to understand the nature of his idol
(*) the only "trying" involved is that B.Prokop is trying hard to not understand him (or her).
(**) and since it doesn't involve me, he (or she) is not compelled to lie
Bob,
We have now reached a point where the 'government' has conjured a right out of thin air, and it has done so with an eye on financially and legally punishing every church that doesn't bow and praise anal sex and moral and true. You respond by wondering if maybe this all isn't a good thing, and perhaps the government will let churches legally preach what they consider 'hate' unmolested, and in the process get rid of those churches you dislike.
It will, I think, quite literally take your own personal church being acquired by the state and bulldozed for you to consider the possibility that maybe empowering the state further is a bad idea. And even then? I honestly wonder if you won't tell yourself, 'No, no, this is good. Churches take a lot of effort to maintain. The early Christians didn't have churches! The government did us a favor!' And then, 'Oh, the state won't let us preach in our homes? No, this is a blessing in disguise. Christianity thrives when persecuted! We should be thanking them! rząd ufam tobie!'
I'm more than a bit mystified at this point. Both Crude and Ilion are the only ones here dividing Christians into "good" and "bad". Witness Crude: You know what would really benefit the church? Telling every liberal member of the congregation - and the clergy - "Get out." I guess then that the "liberals" are the bad ones. Or witness Ilion: Oh heck, why single out any specific quote? It's all he ever really talks about. Left equals bad; conservatives equal good. That distinction is more important to him than Christian/Non-Christian. Ilion (and probably Crude as well) are classic examples of what Lewis referred to in The Screwtape Letters as "Christianity and...". And keep in mind that the biggest fan of such a philosophy was the devil!
Besides, I started this whole thing out by saying I'm simply thinking aloud, and specifically warned the reader that what followed what not necessarily what I thought was right, but simply a possible starting point to coming up with a practical solution to the mess we now find ourselves in, thanks to an insane court decision. I'm not interested in perfect solutions here, but in workable ones.
So Crude's rather bizarre attacks on me are wide of the mark. I really don't know what strawman he's all worked up about, but it ain't me.
"trying hard to not understand"
No, Ilion. I tried quite hard. I read Crude's comment multiple times, and it made no sense whatsoever. I think the basic problem is he's arguing with somebody else, rather than me. He seems to have forgotten that I have renounced all politics, and have repudiated any and all political comments I might have made prior to the renunciation, and have made none since.
POSTSCRIPT: While I was composing this reply, Crude made an additional comment before I could post this one. He says, "You respond by wondering if maybe this all isn't a good thing." Crude, you could not be more wrong. I think last weeks court decision ranks down there with Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, and Citizens United as unqualified judicial disasters. What I'm wondering is whether there might be some way to make lemonade out of this sour lemon.
And by the way, removing the tax exempt status of churches is not "empowering the state further" but rather the exact opposite. What we have now is the government holding a club over every single church in the land, threatening them with the loss of their privileged status unless they keep their mouths shut. Golden handcuffs (or maybe a better analogy would be "silken gag").
Jezu ufam tobie!
Bob,
You know what? You're right. I'm being overly harsh to you, overly unkind. And for that I apologize. Force of habit - I'm an asshole, you see, and I react poorly to certain things.
But there's a kernel of truth to what I say.
Crude, you could not be more wrong. I think last weeks court decision ranks down there with Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, and Citizens United as unqualified judicial disasters. What I'm wondering is whether there might be some way to make lemonade out of this sour lemon.
Of course you are, Bob. I have no doubt that you are. But the problem is that your solution to the problem is yet more faith in government.
Exactly how much corruption in government do you need to learn the lesson that the biggest mistake was in trusting it so much, and trusting it now?
What we have now is the government holding a club over every single church in the land, threatening them with the loss of their privileged status unless they keep their mouths shut.
/We did not have that before this judicial decision./ But now that same-sex marriage is a right, and given the precedent with the Bob Jones decision, now it's quickly going to become a threat. And your response is, 'Maybe this is good! Maybe we can get the government to go after bad churches I dislike!'
Newflash, Bob: Scientology would survive the loss of tax exemption. Quite a lot of churches, won't. Maybe not even yours. And the idea that the lack of tax exemption will mean they can 'speak freely' is hilariously naive. Do you not realize that it's now ridiculously easy to treat 'opposing same-sex marriage and sodomy in general' as 'hate speech', and that there is a push on to harshly punish 'hate speech', religion be damned?
You're not turning lemons into lemonade. You're try to convince yourself a shit sandwich tastes like steak.
"We did not have that before this judicial decision."
We've had it for as long as I can remember. Every election, we see churches, pastors, preachers, etc. passing out "Voter Guides" that ever so carefully tiptoe around the line of not saying what you really think/believe. No candidate may be endorsed by name. You have to feign "objectivity" in the way you present information. Sure, you can publish a comparative record of two candidates' voting records, but you dare not say which one you prefer.
But in any case, it was just a thought thrown out there to see what people would say, and boy did you ever have your say! The current issue aside, I've always thought the current system of blanket exemption for churches was way overboard. In my humble opinion, if it quacks like a business, it ought to be taxed like one. If a church is running a hotel, a health spa, or a bookstore, then that's a business - not a church.
Jezu ufam tobie!
And the idea that the lack of tax exemption will mean they can 'speak freely' is hilariously naive. Do you not realize that it's now ridiculously easy to treat 'opposing same-sex marriage and sodomy in general' as 'hate speech', and that there is a push on to harshly punish 'hate speech', religion be damned?
Yes, our tyrannical Supreme Court has really made it easy to restrict even the most innocuous instances of allegedly homophobic speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
Yes, our tyrannical Supreme Court has really made it easy to restrict even the most innocuous instances of allegedly homophobic speech
I'll see your case and raise you.
Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.
...
In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.
I'm pretty sure their bakery wasn't 'tax-exempt'. And yet here we are.
The SCOTUS just demonstrated that it's willing to create rights out of thin air if it feels the public mood is behind them. To say "Oh but look, several years ago they found in favor of letting Westboro Baptist - the organization that LGBT activists actually love - speak out" as if that should encourage anyone is a joke.
Well then, Crude, what's the answer? Not some idealized, "In a perfect world..." answer, but in this piece o' shit world that we find ourselves in. What's to be done? I threw one idea out there, and it got shot down. Fair enough. That's what brainstorming is for. But have you got an actual plan of action that goes beyond complaining? (As justified as that complaining is, it doesn't get us anywhere.)
I'll see your case and raise you.
Nice try. This article presents a clearer view of the facts: http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet-cakes-melissa-damages/
The case has nothing to do with hate speech and there's no punishment involved; there were damages to be paid to the injured party, not just for the initial act of illegal discrimination, but also for subsequent actions. We can argue about whether the anti-discrimination law is a good law, but its use here in just an extension to gay people of anti-discrimination protections that Christians (among other groups) already enjoy. (E.g., as the article notes, a few years ago a Christian dental hygienist was awarded more than $300,000 in damages because her employer told her she had to go to a Scientology thing.) The gag order is because it's illegal to advertise that you'll illegally refuse service to gay people, just as it's illegal to advertise that you'll illegally refuse service to (say) Christians or to put up a "Whites Only" sign. Again, we can argue about whether this is a good law, but it has *no bearing whatsoever* on hate speech laws. You are still, rest assured, allowed to say whatever vile thing you want about gay people; you just can't, in Oregon, advertise that you'll refuse them service.
The SCOTUS just demonstrated that it's willing to create rights out of thin air if it feels the public mood is behind them.
Yeah, no doubt George Wallace felt the same way.
To say "Oh but look, several years ago they found in favor of letting Westboro Baptist - the organization that LGBT activists actually love - speak out" as if that should encourage anyone is a joke.
I mean, look: I gather that many of the more extreme LGBT activists who insist on refusing quarter to conservative religious people do it largely because they're worried that, otherwise, we might see a return to the horrific oppression LGBT people have faced for millenia in the west. They're wrong, too: in civilized societies what we think *might* happen doesn't justify policy choices because, after all, anything *might* happen so long as the "might" is weak enough, but it's not true that anything is therefore justified.
The majority decision in the gay marriage case explicitly affirmed that anti-gay religious people can continue preaching their beliefs. A few years ago, a court with the exact same composition as the current court struck down on free speech grounds a (I would imagine very popular) law placing a very mild restriction on a universally reviled homophobic hate group and did so unanimously except for the dissent of a single (conservative) justice. If you want to keep believing that hey, soon, *you'll* be the truly persecuted one, go ahead, whatever; some people get off on feeling aggrieved. But as for whether you have *reason* to think that...
Nice try. This article presents a clearer view of the facts
Yeah, and it illustrates the exact same thing my own link illustrated: the mere act of not wanting to provide service for a same-sex wedding landed them a six-figure fine, regardless of their willingness to provide service for LGBT people generlaly.
Which is why this...
but its use here in just an extension to gay people of anti-discrimination protections
Is bullshit.
It's not a protection of gay people. It's a protection of the right of LGBT activists to force people to take part in ceremonies they detest.
Meanwhile, if you try to get a cake made at a gay bakery with a statement of Christian belief that the bakers object to, well, that's protected.
You are still, rest assured, allowed to say whatever vile thing you want about gay people
Oh sure, you're able to say whatever you like and be fired, harassed, threatened, and otherwise. But for the present moment, until a court decides otherwise, you can say whatever you like!
Yeah, no doubt George Wallace
And no doubt Adolf Hitler thought he was simply following the letter of the law when he started creatively interpreting what powers he had.
I mean, look: I gather that many of the more extreme LGBT activists who insist on refusing quarter to conservative religious people do it largely because they're worried that, otherwise, we might see a return to the horrific oppression LGBT people have faced for millenia in the west. They're wrong, too:
Oh yeah, horrific oppression from the 'conservative religious people'. It wasn't as if whatever 'oppression' there was was handed down by everything for atheist organizations to secular scientific organizations, right?
The majority decision in the gay marriage case explicitly affirmed that anti-gay religious people can continue preaching their beliefs
The majority decision explicitly affirmed that people are still able to believe what they want, in the privacy of their own homes, and not act on it. Meanwhile it didn't take 24 hours for there to be open speculation about how this will lead to religious organizations being denied tax exempt status, excluded from federal contracts and otherwise, if they oppose same-sex marriage.
If you want to keep believing that hey, soon, *you'll* be the truly persecuted one, go ahead, whatever; some people get off on feeling aggrieved.
Yeah, the fact that you regard 'Break this business and put the family in the poor house' fines for the act of not wanting to provide service for a same-sex wedding as 'acceptable' means that that persecution is already here.
Granted, I know you think it's a good, wise thing to do. After all, as George Wallace may have said, "Those niggers deserve what we're doing to them."
Just like the Christians do, in your view.
Taxes in this country are a mess. I sat as head of the board (Senior Warden on the Vestry, as they call it in my Anglican tradition) for a few years in my church. The State gets their cut, with a few exemptions, believe me. They get a cut on most everything.
Taxes mostly benefit political rhetoric. They call for tax cuts for business that become more energy efficient and hire new employees to the cheers of the people. Then turn on you after you hire people and upgrade your facilities claiming, "you didn't pay your fair share" to the cheers of people.
Homosexuals currently have a lot of political power and the cheers of people. They will use taxes to benefit their political power. What else is new. I guess we will see how long that will last. However, The Church will remain long after the current political forces, and the United States (God Bless Her) have faded into dust.
the mere act of not wanting to provide service for a same-sex wedding landed them a six-figure fine
It was neither a fine nor just for refusing service.
Meanwhile, if you try to get a cake made at a gay bakery with a statement of Christian belief that the bakers object to, well, that's protected.
You can't make the baker write something they disagree with on the cake because you can't make someone else engage in speech that they disagree with. You couldn't make a religious baker write "Gay Marriage is Right" if they didn't want to, either. (You'll note that a few of the bakeries "said they'd make him the cake, but he would have to apply the words in icing himself," which the law treats very differently than an outright refusal of service, since one involves the baker participating in a speech act and the other just involves giving someone else the materials to perform a speech act.)
So: a Christian can't make a gay person write something they disagree with on a cake, but neither can a gay person do the same to a Christian. In states with anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation, a Christian can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it's a gay wedding, but neither can a gay person refuse to bake a cake for a Christian wedding because it's a Christian wedding.
Oh yeah, horrific oppression from the 'conservative religious people'. It wasn't as if whatever 'oppression' there was was handed down by everything for atheist organizations to secular scientific organizations, right?
I mean, there weren't atheist organizations or secular scientific organizations for most of that time. Once there were, who knows what they would have thought if not for the backdrop of centuries of Christian homophobia. But, sure, drop "conservative religious people" and put in "opponents of gay rights;" same point holds. (It's not like I have any particular interest in defending atheist organizations.)
As for the scare quotes around "oppression": I would say being killed, or imprisoned, or forcibly castrated are all pretty oppressive, yeah?
The majority decision explicitly affirmed that people are still able to believe what they want, in the privacy of their own homes, and not act on it.
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons."
Publicly opposing same-sex marriage is protected by the First Amendment.
Meanwhile it didn't take 24 hours for there to be open speculation about how this will lead to religious organizations being denied tax exempt status, excluded from federal contracts and otherwise, if they oppose same-sex marriage.
Which, of course, is different from having the teaching of their beliefs criminalized. (This isn't to say that such moves would be a good idea, but they're not what you and I have been talking about.)
Yeah, the fact that you regard 'Break this business and put the family in the poor house' fines for the act of not wanting to provide service for a same-sex wedding as 'acceptable' means that that persecution is already here.
I didn't say anything about whether it was acceptable (and, again, your characterization of the case is false). I just said that, on the relevant matters, gays people have exactly the same rights against Christians that Christians have against them and no more, which is pretty much the definition of gay people not persecuting Christians.
Just like the Christians do, in your view.
I am a Christian.
(Incidentally, I should say that the reason for the George Wallace comparison wasn't just to be gratuitously insulting, but because the sort of textualism or focus on original intent that naturally lends itself to claims that the court is just making stuff up--rather than, say, substantive dispute about whether there's a compelling state interest in prohibiting gay marriage--probably also cuts equally well against many of the Supreme Court's major civil rights decisions.)
It was neither a fine nor just for refusing service.
Go ahead, say what it was for in addition to refusing service. What was that? The pain and trembling mental damage at being rejected?
If you're going to defend it, defend it.
You can't make the baker write something they disagree with on the cake because you can't make someone else engage in speech that they disagree with.
Actually, you can. 'Congratulations on your Marriage Steve and Jason!'
In states with anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation, a Christian can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it's a gay wedding
Which itself is horseshit, because they'd refuse a same-sex wedding between two straight men as well. But the court says 'Yeah well, we don't care, and the fact that you serve gay people normally is irrelevant too.'
I mean, there weren't atheist organizations or secular scientific organizations for most of that time. Once there were, who knows what they would have thought if not for the backdrop of centuries of Christian homophobia.
And so we see that it's all the Christians' fault, even if the organizations are explicitly atheist or secular.
As for the scare quotes around "oppression": I would say being killed, or imprisoned, or forcibly castrated are all pretty oppressive, yeah?
Which was the penalty for anal sex regardless of your orientation, or even the gender of those involved. It was regarded as a crime against nature, full stop, in most places - anal sex with a woman from a man wasn't considered pure.
Publicly opposing same-sex marriage is protected by the First Amendment.
The word 'public' showed up nowhere in there, and as I keep saying: the fact that the court has shown itself willing to literally make shit up means their promises are worthless.
Which, of course, is different from having the teaching of their beliefs criminalized.
No, it's actually not all that different, and if you actually read about civil rights history you'd see cases where those roundabout methods of snuffing out opposition were treated as tacit criminalization.
I didn't say anything about whether it was acceptable (and, again, your characterization of the case is false).
It's completely correct, and you're not exactly condemning it.
Pardon me if I don't regard you as a reliable defender of Christian rights. When you talk about LGBT activists pining for the persecution of Christians, you excuse it as "Well they're wrong, but poor dears, they're afraid if they don't destroy you that you may get popular again". With Christians, no such sympathy.
I am a Christian.
Baloney.
but because the sort of textualism or focus on original intent that
Guess what? Just because your aim is right doesn't mean what you do to promote it is intellectually valid. You seem to think 'Well, I favor gay marriage and think Christians who oppose it should be punished in every way the state can manage - therefore it's totally okay if the SCOTUS just decides that law exists in the Constitution!'
I used to think, no, we shouldn't abuse power like that just because we can at the moment - we have a system for passing laws and amending the constitution, let's use that. That ideal is dead for most people now, and the SCOTUS's antics were the final nail in the coffin.
Again, Crude. You are eloquent at describing the mess we're in right now, but what is your game plan? And I mean an actual, workable game plan - not some "this would work in an ideal world" scenario.
You are eloquent at describing the mess we're in right now, but what is your game plan?
Eloquent, ha.
Gameplan? I'm no general, I have no solutions. In fact? I think looking for a large-scale 'gameplan' has been the mistake for a while.
Here's where I start: I'm not going to pretend fake-Christians are fellow-Christians. The ones who cheer on state harassment of Christians who just want to run their businesses, their churches and their schools without taking part in same-sex weddings or glorifying anal sex (fun as it is) are not 'my Christian brothers and sisters'. They are to Christianity what Positive Christianity was to Christianity, with a social leftist emphasis. And they usually have a theology to match.
That is merely a start, but it's a necessary line in the sand. We have more intellectual common ground with mormons, hindus and orthodox jews than we do with Episcopalians at this point.
What was that? The pain and trembling mental damage at being rejected?
Nope! Learn about cases before you cite them! Not my job to teach you! (Hint: the article I posted earlier tells you, as does the court decision if you look it up.)
Actually, you can. 'Congratulations on your Marriage Steve and Jason!'
My understanding of the law is that, no, if a Christian baker made the cake but refused to write that on it, that would be fine.
Which itself is horseshit, because they'd refuse a same-sex wedding between two straight men as well.
I take it you think a law outlawing rosaries wouldn't be objectionably discriminatory against Catholics, since non-Catholics would also be forbidden from owning rosaries?
And so we see that it's all the Christians' fault, even if the organizations are explicitly atheist or secular.
No, of course plenty of atheists are at fault too.
Which was the penalty for anal sex regardless of your orientation, or even the gender of those involved.
And if we began killing as idolators people who have statues in their places of worship, this wouldn't oppress Catholics, since, hey, we're killing everybody with statues, right?
The word 'public' showed up nowhere in there,
Advocating is public, basically by definition.
you're not exactly condemning it.
Because whether the law is a good law is irrelevant. (Since you're apparently wondering, I don't have particularly strong feelings about the law either way, though if your initial characterization of the case had been correct, I would agree that it was a bad law.) What's relevant for our purposes is just that the law provides the same protections for gays and Christians.
Baloney.
Fuck you too!
Guess what? Just because your aim is right doesn't mean what you do to promote it is intellectually valid.
Obviously.
You seem to think 'Well, I favor gay marriage and think Christians who oppose it should be punished in every way the state can manage
Of course not. For instance, hate speech laws (about anti-gay speech or anything else) would clearly be both unconstitutional and unjust.
therefore it's totally okay if the SCOTUS just decides that law exists in the Constitution!'
I, like the Supreme Court, think marriage equality is protected by the 14th Amendment. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I pretty obviously don't think the constitution supports everything I support, or opposes everything I oppose, or that the Supreme Court should just make stuff up about the Constitution, since there are lots of other issues where I don't think the Constitution entails my view, and in some cases it even contradicts it, and I don't think the Supreme Court should just legislate my view even so.
Anyway, I'm likely to be busy over the next while, so I'm not likely to check back in on this thread. Don't work yourself up too much.
B.Prokop: "Well then, Crude, what's the answer? Not some idealized, "In a perfect world..." answer, but in this piece o' shit world that we find ourselves in. What's to be done? I threw one idea out there, and it got shot down. Fair enough. That's what brainstorming is for. But have you got an actual plan of action that goes beyond complaining? (As justified as that complaining is, it doesn't get us anywhere.)"
Whatever the answer is, it must *start* with the realization -- and the willingness to admit it -- that leftists (*) have no shame, and that they *always* lie: as witness 'Dustin Crummett' in this very thread.
(*) leftists in general and all the sub-species of leftists -- they will lie even knowing that the people to whom they are lying know they are lying.
I do not believe the answer lies in more politics. We need to expunge from our vocabularies and our very thoughts the concepts of Left and Right, and concentrate on Right and Wrong, True and False, Moral and Immoral, Good and Evil, God's will or my will.
We (corporately) also need to get over our cowardice and any tendency to hide behind anonymity. Good Lord (meant literally, and not as an expletive), the Saints embraced martyrdom. St. Maximilian Kolbe actually prayed for it. When St. Ignatius of Antioch learned that certain persons were seeking a stay of his execution, he begged them to cease their efforts. I could cite thousands of similar examples. We need to be vocal, and make the broader culture aware that this issue is not settled. And we need to be public about it. If we're labeled "bigots" and "haters" then so be it - embrace the terms. Let people know that yes, we do hate sin and evil, that we have zero tolerance for it. And most especially, no tolerance for it within ourselves.
I've just finished one of the most remarkable books I have ever read, period - Divine Mercy in my Soul by Saint Faustina Kowalska. One of the "take aways" from that reading was how there are no insignificant sins - that our least, most trivial opposition to the Will of God is an immeasurable offense and needs to be conquered.
The world will never take us seriously unless we do so first.
"I expect to die in bed. My successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."
Francis Eugene Cardinal George
Jezu ufam tobie!
Dustin,
Nope! Learn about cases before you cite them! Not my job to teach you!
I did! I cited articles! Not my fault they make your side look petty and fucking ridiculous!
As if you have reservations about 'teaching me' when you think you're right.
My understanding of the law is that,
We've got the cases before us, Dustin. These bakers weren't attacked because they 'refused to serve gay people'. They were attacked because they refused to provide service for a particular service, which they objected to regardless of the orientations of those involved.
I take it you think a law outlawing rosaries wouldn't be objectionably discriminatory against Catholics
If a business says they don't want people bringing rosaries into their establishment, yet they happily served known Catholics, then yeah - I think it would be obvious that the claim 'They refuse to provide service to Catholics!' would be obviously wrong. Whatever the complaint is, it isn't that.
No, of course plenty of atheists are at fault too.
You just got done telling me that we can't blame the atheist or secular organizations because they existed with a backdrop of 'Christian' rejection of homosexuality. Run with your inane logic.
Fuck you too!
There comes a point where someone is no longer Christian. Call it the religious Ship of Theseus problem. I say it's when they reject the lion's share of moral teaching across the board insofar as it relates to marriage, family and sex. That's before getting into questions about Christ's resurrection.
For instance, hate speech laws (about anti-gay speech or anything else) would clearly be both unconstitutional and unjust.
Yeah, give it five years. We already have hate speech codes on college campuses - wake me up when they're struck down.
I, like the Supreme Court, think marriage equality is protected by the 14th Amendment.
You, like the supreme court, have complete made up a right and found it in the Constitution, when all evidence indicates it doesn't exist. You see no need to amend the Constitution to add the right, because that would be tough - so you're at home with utterly forcing it on everyone.
And I should pretend that system is trustworthy why, again?
I do not believe the answer lies in more politics. We need to expunge from our vocabularies and our very thoughts the concepts of Left and Right, and concentrate on Right and Wrong, True and False, Moral and Immoral, Good and Evil, God's will or my will.
This isn't about politics, Bob, and what I said wouldn't be a left-right issue.
It comes down specifically to a particular line in the sand, and a personal one. I'm not asking for a statement from the Church. I'm saying how I'll behave, and how others should, as a first step.
We (corporately) also need to get over our cowardice and any tendency to hide behind anonymity.
We need anonymity, and we need public actions. Not everything needs to be anonymous, but frankly, it's important at times.
"what I said"
I was responding to Ilion's comment - not yours.
Let me amend what I said.
I do think anonymity has value. But there's a serious downside to it as well, and it's a touchy issue. Too many people play the game of 'I'll endorse this view in private, but in public I'm not saying anything, or even endorsing the opposite view because...'
Because they want to advance professionally. Because they don't want to make waves. Because they don't want to lose friends. Because they don't want to be attacked.
And that, I think, has to end to a degree. It's not easy, and it goes into some whole new, complicated areas.
But there's advantages to anonymity that can't be ignored situationally.
After thinking about the issue of "double taxation" (the money thrown into collection plates has already been taxed), I withdraw my thought experiment suggestion.
I still think that any "church activity" that smells like a business (such as hotels, apartments, gift shops, fitness clubs, coffee shops, spas, wineries, etc.) ought to be under the same rules as any other business.
Jezu ufam tobie!
Post a Comment