Board index Faith Talk Spiritual Matters
What Happens When the 'Moral Majority' Becomes a Minority?
Got a question? We may have some answers!
Re: What Happens When the 'Moral Majority' Becomes a Minority?
Postby ccgr » Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:03 pm
ArcticFox
Contact ArcticFox
Postby ArcticFox » Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:47 pm
Should religious organizations (Nuns aren't paying out of their own pocket) be required to provide insurance that covers birth control?
Yeah, if they are required to provide insurance.
That's like saying If you're required to have a front license plate, then you should be required to have a front license plate.
The problem is that this healthcare legislation was introduced as yet another one-size-fits-all Federal requirement that takes *zero* account of the different needs of the people affected by it. I don't really want to get bogged down in the nitty gritty of exactly how insurance is paid for but suffice to say your employer DOES share some of the cost, it isn't just the employee and the insurance company paying for it. If doing so is forcing someone to help fund something they find morally offensive, then to force them to do so is to trample on their 1st Amendment rights, period. Now, you may agree or disagree on whether that's really true, but to bring this back on point I ask you this: Do you think our current Administration would be fighting so hard to force this if it were Muslims having an issue?
Should gay marriage be illegal because it's against Christian teachings?
No, our laws should not be a mimicry of christian values. It's a not a place for the church to impose their opinions on morality.
Should Christian creation teachings be taught in a science classroom?
No. Let a science classroom teach science, and let the church teach religion.
Should christian iconography be used in public, government buildings?
Only in a cultural standpoint, and it should be open to any religion.
Have I said otherwise in this thread? These seem tangential to the discussion.
Should a political candidate be able to openly profess their belief in another religion or non-belief and still be electable?
Now, this certain is allowed as a right, but it's indicative of a massive christian voting public that does not care to elect those who aren't in with them. This isn't a matter of legislation, of course, but of a more understanding public.
I don't think that's nearly as much of a factor as it once was.
Should a government official be allowed to violate both court rulings on the rights of people and even direct court orders because of cited religious beliefs?
No, but resigning to follow their religious conviction should not be met with shame.
Agreed. Still don't see the relevance.
These are just some off the top of my head because of current issues.
This is not to say the heat Christians take is non-existent either. But when significant portion of the population proclaims that America is a "Christian Nation," there is an over inflated view of the position of Christianity in the government.
What do you mean by "significant" here?
True. Seems like one of the prime causes of miscommunication in these types of debates is that we're both talking to each other, but also both speaking to a more general defense of an issue.
Yeah probably so. That's why I'm trying to focus on the legitimate examples, as opposed to ones where it's just a matter of perception. For example, I think Kim Davis should have resigned, as a publicly elected official.
True. Now, Christianity is a majority religion here in the States, so naturally it'd take the brunt. But it also hits on some of my issues with modern Islam, and I always run the risk of being tagged an "islamophobe," but when it's in a minority, it plays off as a pitiful and cringing minority, in need of special protections. But look no further than when it is a majority power, and you see a theocracy that will make any shudder. I just read about a British man sentenced to 360 lashes because he had home brewed wine. That sort of religious power is terrifying.
Thanks, I appreciate that as well.
One thing, perhaps as an optimistic note, is that people like us might not be so uncommon. We don't make as much noise, and we're fascinated more about ideas than attention. But, it's not the hardest thing to find when discussing with a neighbor, and one seems to beget another when you can sit down and have a grown up conversation.
And, frankly, we need to have these grown up conversations about, say, the expectations of business owners and the rights to refuse service and of what basis. It's a good conversation, and not one you're going to find on the Huffington Post or Fox News.
And really, that's one thing I love about this forum. We can have those grown up conversations with people of very different views and backgrounds.
Agreed 100%. The problem we're seeing culturally is that policy is dictated by whoever makes the most noise.
Yeah, I agree. One's religion is very closely tied with their self-identity and it takes a sort of conscious objectivity before anyone can have conversations with an outside entity. Because of this nature of religion, it's all the more interesting when one undergoes a change in beliefs. And not those boring, apathetic ones. The big ones, when a fervent Catholic becomes an atheist, or a church going Protestant becomes a Mormon, or an outspoken atheist picks up Shintoism. Actually, the one I'm curious about is when a Christian converts to Islam. I've seen it, but I've never quite understood it. Christianity strikes me as the more matured religion, and perhaps that is simply my lack of knowledge of Islam, but... I don't know. Might be worth reading the Quran someday. I hear it's short.
Watch me become a muslim. That'd be weird, right?
Haha yeah it would. I think I'd eat my hat.
Some of the take away is that the PC progressivism and the hostile response to it's violation isn't any sort of unified stance against Christianity or Conservativism.
Honestly, it's gotten pretty nuts.
I'll take a look. Haven't watched it yet. I'll hold off on commenting further until I do just in case I say something that turns out to be redundant
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
Postby ArchAngel » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:12 pm
Well, you asked for cases of special privileges and the like, so I was listing things off the top of my head.
Do you think our current Administration would be fighting so hard to force this if it were Muslims having an issue?
I would hope so. We know what countries under Sharia law look like.
Postby ArcticFox » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:39 pm
I would hope so too, but the Administration is a reflection of the culture, and right now the culture we live in is WAY more reluctant to annoy Muslims than Christians. The best example I can think of for that was South Park, in the episode where they were going to show the Prophet Mohammed onscreen but Comedy Central censored it, but we still got treated to an image of Jesus pooping all over the screen. They were trying to make the same point, and yet I think it was completely lost on most people.
(I haven't forgotten to revisit after the video.)
Postby ArchAngel » Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:27 pm
No doubt there are no small amount of people or vocal power out to try to write off any criticism of Islam as "islamophobia," or, I guess... racism?
This is not to say there aren't people who would judge or discriminate against Muslims out of fear and ignorance.
And yes, militant Islam is, as Hitchens puts it, "the horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness, and self-pity." It's the worst face of religion and the archetype of all I and others criticize religion of.
And it's neither small nor weak.
And yes, it's both despicable and disappointing that so many people would bow to the threats of radical fundamentalists who think they have to right to bully others into censorship. This is something it seems the left is insufferably impotent or blatantly in their absence of condemnation.
This is something you can find yourself standing side by side with many atheists. Probably more likely than even other Christians.
This being said, Islam does not have a power hold in America, though. Nor can it be fully characterized by their more fundamentalist aspects.
We're not in danger of Islam taking over, and frankly, our culture really can't be treated as a single, monolithic entity. It's a beast of many heads that bites and snaps at each other. It seems more content fighting other incarnations of itself than anything else.
Postby Comotto » Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Until the 2nd coming, the battle of good vs evil will continue. We must be ever vigilant and fight the good fight.
Postby ArcticFox » Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:44 pm
So I listened to the video and liked parts of it and other parts not so much, but I'm not sure how directly relevant it is to this topic. They do call people out for the absurdities of political correctness, but I don't see how that applies to the reaction to Christians in particular.
BrWe2
Postby BrWe2 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:35 pm
It really is a shame how Christianity is being attacked in our country. I talk with my friends a lot about how there really ARE two standards - Christians have to be completely open to societal changes and accept everything, but it's totally cool to hate on Christians because sometimes we aren't "with" society.
Yeah don't you love it when they pour the hate and vitriol on us because we're the ones who are so full of hate?
Postby ArcticFox » Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:07 pm
Another example.
"[Bremerton School District is] saying if you're a school official no one can see that you have faith because if anyone sees that you have faith, they'll take that as the establishment of religion from the school district," Lankford said. "That is a standard no court in America has set."
Meanwhile...
But hey guys, we're just being paranoid
Postby ccgr » Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:36 pm
moslem? Never seen it spelled that way before.
It's an older spelling but you'll see it once in a while.
Postby ArchAngel » Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:04 pm
Schools, as it seems, have a pretty poor record when it comes to respecting rights.
The article, though, is a little misleading as it makes it seem like he was doing it off to the side. No, he was in the middle of the field and praying right after a game, as the coach. How comfortable would we be if a Muslim coach insisted doing this?
Being in a leadership role, this does start to run up against what might seem as a public demonstration of endorsement from the school.
Here's the open letter:
http://www.bremertonschools.org/cms/lib ... .28.15.pdf
But then, he does have right to religion expression. The gray area is when he starts exercising that as an agent of the state, especially with a leadership role.
Postby ArcticFox » Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:39 pm
I don't think the article was misleading, since the linked article that preceded it did specifically say he went out to the middle of the field after each game.
And so what if he did? Frankly the people who are making an issue of this are coming off like they're looking for an excuse to label what he's doing a bad thing. If there is any uncertainty between a person's rights and a perception of harm, the rights have to come first. Otherwise, the rules get abused and become a club to silence people with.
As to the points about it being a leadership thing... Again, so what? Nowhere does it say that leaders have to give up their rights or their identity. The man was coercing NOBODY. He was organizing NOTHING. I think it's a bit tacky that he'd pray out in the middle of the field, but that isn't enough to sanction the man.
Return to "Spiritual Matters"