Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[ktgrok]

Israel does not generally make people follow Jewish law and many Jews in Israel aren't particularly religious. There are certain groups of Jews who would like other Jews to follow a stricter set of religious laws (and some get in the news because they're willing to go out and throw rocks at cars driving on the Sabbath, for example), but they're not that interested in whether Muslims or Christians are following Jewish law. Because it's *Jewish* law.

 

Many conservative Christians seem to think their interpretation of religious law applies to everyone. Huge difference.

 

Very good point. 

 

Also, again, in Christianity (not sure about the others) there is the idea of free will. There is no value to obedience if there is no free will. Legislating belief doesn't help anyone get to heaven anyway, so I don't see what the point is. 

[Elisabet1]

I am a conservative Christian and I have no desire at all to tell others how to live their lives.

 

I would like to know why some people like to group an entire large group in to one and say they are all the same and they all ...for example..in this case "feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live." I am a conservative Christian and I have not done that.

[Cammie]

There are lots of Christians who are for gay marriage and pro choice. As a society I wish we were better able to debate our differences without so much animosity. 

 

But, to the OP, dictating your beliefs to others when you are sure you are right is not the exclusive property of Christians, lol. It is the human condition. Atheists do it ALL THE TIME. I lived in Portland for 20 years, I worked in a large hotel where we did all the political meetings for the Democrat party. I was a Democrat until I went to enough of their secret meetings, lol. Those people are atheists, they believe they should dictate how other people live, and although I do see on TV things like the 700 club where Pat Robinson would cheerfully legislate morality, most Christians  I know personally are live and let live folks, so the real issue is not one sided.

 

I didn't conflate all Christians and I think it is important to maintain the distinction.  There is a certain...brand of Christianity that is much more in favor of legislating morality for the rest of the nation.  Yes, the 700 Club is a good example.  I certainly didn't mean to imply that only conservative Christians do it.  We see it with extremists in other religions as well.  The question is...why does it happen.  I don't agree that "it is the human condition."  I have no desire to change the religion of anyone I know and most people I know would fall into that category.  My questions is, what is it in the faith of conservative Christians that makes it important to that group to impose their morality on the rest of society? 

[Crimson Wife]

I really, really don't understand.

 

I have no problem with whatever people want to believe.  Your personal, private beliefs are your own business.

 

I have no problem with whatever rules churches want to have for their followers.  Again, freedom of religion and all that.

 

I would LOVE to understand why conservative Christians have decided that their rules apply to ALL OF US??

 

Do conservative Christians no longer believe in separation of Church and State?

 

 

I really, really don't understand.

 

I have no problem with whatever people want to believe or disbelieve. Your personal, private views on religion are your own business,

 

I have no problem with whatever rules secular organizations want to have. Their organizations, their decision how to run it and all that.

 

I would LOVE to understand why secularists have decided that their rules should apply to religious individuals and organizations?

 

Why should a religious adoption agency be forced to place a child in a home that the agency feels is inappropriate? Homosexuals can just go to another agency if they want to adopt.

 

Why should a wedding photographer or cake baker or other vendor be forced to participate in an event the vendor feels is immoral? Again, the couple can simply find another vendor. Would it be considered acceptable to sue a Jewish caterer who declined to cook a pork meal or a Jewish photographer who declined to work on Friday nights & Saturdays for religious reasons?

 

Why should religious affiliated employers be forced to pay for contraception? It's not like anyone held a gun to the employees' heads and forced them to go work for that organization rather than a secular one. Don't like your benefits package? Quit and go work for someone else.

 

There are many other examples I could give, but you get the point.

 

The inconvenience of one person in having to find a different wedding vendor/adoption agency/employer/etc. should NOT trump the right of the other person to practice his/her religion. Religious liberty should be given precedence as religious liberty is enshrined in our Constitution. There is no "right to convenience" in the Constitution.

[Cammie]

I am a conservative Christian and I have no desire at all to tell others how to live their lives.

 

I would like to know why some people like to group an entire large group in to one and say they are all the same and they all ...for example..in this case "feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live." I am a conservative Christian and I have not done that.

 

It's a fair point.  How else to denote that group?  I have seen them referred to as "fundamentalists" or "Pentecostals" or "born agains."  None of those labels seem to work.  What would you call the type of Christian that is working to ensure that their brand of Christian morality becomes the law of the land?  The people that are working to get Christian symbols into government buildings?  The people that are working to use religion as an excuse not to follow federal anti-discrimination legislation?  If there is a better categorization I would be happy to use it.

[Cammie]

I really, really don't understand.

 

I have no problem with whatever people want to believe or disbelieve. Your personal, private views on religion are your own business,

 

I have no problem with whatever rules secular organizations want to have. Their organizations, their decision how to run it and all that.

 

I would LOVE to understand why secularists have decided that their rules should apply to religious individuals and organizations?

 

Why should a religious adoption agency be forced to place a child in a home that the agency feels is inappropriate? Homosexuals can just go to another agency if they want to adopt.

 

Why should a wedding photographer or cake baker or other vendor be forced to participate in an event the vendor feels is immoral? Again, the couple can simply find another vendor. Would it be considered acceptable to sue a Jewish caterer who declined to cook a pork meal or a Jewish photographer who declined to work on Friday nights & Saturdays for religious reasons?

 

Why should religious affiliated employers be forced to pay for contraception? It's not like anyone held a gun to the employees' heads and forced them to go work for that organization rather than a secular one. Don't like your benefits package? Quit and go work for someone else.

 

There are many other examples I could give, but you get the point.

 

The inconvenience of one person in having to find a different wedding vendor/adoption agency/employer/etc. should NOT trump the right of the other person to practice his/her religion. Religious liberty should be given precedence as religious liberty is enshrined in our Constitution. There is no "right to convenience" in the Constitution.

 

Because...America.

 

And I thank you for posting this because it makes clear exactly the type of thinking I am trying to understand.  Clearly, you feel that your freedoms are under attack.  "Religious liberty" has become synonymous with the right to do "whatever we want to do."  And the fact of the matter is that the nation has decided at different points in its history that we have limits on how much you can use the argument of "liberty" to discriminate against various groups.  And the nation has time and again decided that it is an important and fundamental to our identity that we do not allow discrimination against protected classes of people.  Your freedom of religion is someone else's freedom FROM your religion.  And it is an important national dialogue to determine how those work together.  So far, as a nation, we have determined that there are limits to religious freedom.  We don't allow polygamy even though many world religions recognize it.   We have national standards in how employees should be treated when working for businesses.  It is a very interesting question as to how far one brand of Christianity should be allowed to circumvent those national standards.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Jean, this is exactly what I was wondering about.  I don't understand how this view is then put into the context of America and the founding principles.  I have never heard any conservative group actually say the founding fathers got it wrong.  I have never heard them say anything against America as it was envisioned.  I understand they believe we are a "Christian nation" but that seems not to jive with the freedoms that were guaranteed and even the concerns that certain Christian sects had regarding religious liberty.  It was to protect certain very conservative Christian groups (as I understand it) that those religious freedoms were enshrined in the first place.

 

I really appreciate a dialogue on this.  The country I live in now has an incredible amount of religious diversity.  However, the form that secularism has taken is very different from the form that it is taking in America.  If the majority community started making the same arguments that are being made by some conservative Christians in the US the world would look upon it as a horrible intrusion on the rights of minorities here.  I'm really just trying to wrap my head around the arguments.

 

Thanks!

At it's extreme, this is called Dominion Theology.  Not all Conservative Christians believe this but it is one strand that is out there.  (I am not a Dominionist.)  In some groups that aren't as extreme I don't think it is very well thought out.  For some, I think they've just taken some presuppositions about American history and Christian beliefs that feel safe to them and have gone with it.  I think they are wrong on both the American history and the Christian beliefs.  For a long time in American history there was no clash with culture in doing this because much of mainstream culture went along with this at least on the surface but that has changed in the last 50 years or so.  

[Amy in NH]

Not really weighing in on this thread, but I just wanted to point out, in your example, that your idea of "believing something makes it true" is not exactly true.

 

Just saying. Carry on. :)

 

 

EXACTLY!!  That's the whole point.  Just because you believe that your religion is the only true one doesn't make it so.

 

 

Re: separation of church and state- What I have frequently heard from conservative Christians and their pastors is that America's founding fathers always intended us to be a "Christian nation". Separation of church and state was not intended (per them) to keep religion out of the government, but to keep the government out of the church. Therefore, it was always intended for "Christian values" to heavily influence and/or define laws but not for the government to interfere with the activities of churches.

 

This is laughable if you look at the world history context of the 1700s.  The founding fathers were sick and tired of religious figures running governments from behind the scenes.

 

Well, this is an example of how it goes both ways.  People with wedding chapels who don't believe in same-sex marriages are having their livelihood taken away.   The argument is that if it is legal, then they can't refuse to serve someone and to do so is discrimination.  

 

On the topic of abortion, religion is never an argument I've heard.  "It is murder" is the basic argument.   The right to stretch your arm ends at your neighbor's nose.  

 

I think fundamentally, though, you have a base assumption that America was founded with the government being completely areligious.  That isn't so.  They didn't want a state religion.  They did things that would be unthinkable now, like using government funds to buy bibles.  

 

But this is a religious argument, because murder comes down to defining personhood; you can't murder what isn't a person.  The CC definition of personhood is religiously based, so CCs want to force the rest of us to accept their religious definition of personhood.  The right to stretch your arm ends at your neighbor's body, which contains their uterus.  

[FO4UR]

The entire breakdown of the separation of church and state.  Many conservative Christians are consistently supporting legislation to break down the protections that civil society has created (see what just passed in Minnesota).   Why did conservative Christians fight so hard in Florida to allow religious displays in government buildings?  Why is it so important to have religion mixed in with government and civil society?  Religion is ALWAYS used as an argument about allowing women choice in birth control and abortion.  Why should someone else's religion dictate what I am allowed to do to my own body?  These are honest questions.  I truly don't know the answer.  I believe that the foundation of the US was freedom of belief.  Not freedom to enforce one's belief on others.  But freedom from being dominated by another's religious beliefs.  Each to their own.  I don't understand how conservative Christians jive that background with laws that are based purely on their own religious beliefs.

 

The separation of Church & State was more meant to keep the gov't out of the business of manipulating people via the church and visa versa.  It was not an intention to outlaw prayer or the recognition of personal religious beliefs in the gov't/public sector.  The manner in which these arguments take place today lend the tone that practicing religion (personally) publically is a crime. 

 

 

AFA abortion, conservative Christians (and many other people btw) view it as murder. Just like you would find it horrific to fund the murder of (insert a demographic here), many people find it absolutely horrifying to fund abortions with tax money.  That actually has little/nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with what constitutes murder.

 

The Hobby Lobby Case was essentially about forcing people to fund (via heath benefits) something that they view as murder.  Whether you think abortion is murder or not, I hope you (plural you) can understand that *legislating* that a person must fund abortion is akin to forcing someone to fund murder if they believe that abortion is murder.  Forcing a pharmacist to provide abortion drugs gets even closer to forcing a person to "pull the trigger" on human life.

 

These laws are not even at all about out-lawing abortion, but are simply an attempt to prevent people from being *forced* into participating in the act.  Your right to an abortion should not trump my right to avoid having  murder on my conscience.  Yet, the popular rhetoric is that Conservative Christians (said with disdain) are forcing their views on everyone.  Really?  Refusing to participate myself is not the same thing as outlawing your participation. 

 

 

Also, if the attitude truly were live and let live and churches were allowed to decide what marriage ceremonies to perform within their own walls that would be one thing.  This is not the case.  Pastors and churches are being targeted.  There is a push to *mandate* or *legislate* the requirement that churches perform all marriages.  No matter what you believe as far as homosexuality goes, Gov't forcing churches to perform marriages is an over-reach....gov't officials bullying pastors who believe that homosexuality is a sin is a gov't over-reach.  If one believes that church should perform all marriages, the appropriate course of action is from within the church, not via force of gov't.

 

 

There is a hatred of Christians, especially Conservative Christians, being stoked in our country.  There is hatred being stoked for several demographics, in fact...I find it scary from a political viewpoint.  Live and let live seems to only apply for some.

[Cammie]

There is a push to *mandate* or *legislate* the requirement that churches perform all marriages.  No matter what you believe as far as homosexuality goes, Gov't forcing churches to perform marriages is an over-reach....gov't officials bullying pastors who believe that homosexuality is a sin is a gov't over-reach.  If one believes that church should perform all marriages, the appropriate course of action is from within the church, not via force of gov't.

 

 

There is a hatred of Christians, especially Conservative Christians, being stoked in our country. 

 

 I would love to hear more about this, or read more.  I read a LOT of news.  I have never read anything that would even remotely been in the realm of the government forcing churches to perform certain marriages.  I would oppose such a measure as being a direct violation of the separation of church and state.  I don't imagine many would support this, even if it were a possibility.

[Crimson Wife]

 

But this is a religious argument, because murder comes down to defining personhood; you can't murder what isn't a person.  The CC definition of personhood is religiously based, so CCs want to force the rest of us to accept their religious definition of personhood.  The right to stretch your arm ends at your neighbor's body, which contains their uterus.  

 

Plenty of secular people believe that life starts at conception because that is when a unique (identical twins/triplets/etc. notwithstanding) set of human DNA is created. "Life begins at conception" is not an inherently religious argument. Yes, many religious people agree with that statement and can find quotes from religious texts to support it, but that doesn't make it inherently religious.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

 

Why should a religious adoption agency be forced to place a child in a home that the agency feels is inappropriate? Homosexuals can just go to another agency if they want to adopt.

 

 

Has this happened? I haven't heard about this. Religious adoption agencies aren't protected under the same laws that protect churches from being forced to perform gay marriages? If you have more info, I'd love to see it.

 

 

Why should a wedding photographer or cake baker or other vendor be forced to participate in an event the vendor feels is immoral? Again, the couple can simply find another vendor. Would it be considered acceptable to sue a Jewish caterer who declined to cook a pork meal or a Jewish photographer who declined to work on Friday nights & Saturdays for religious reasons?

 

The difference in your example is that a Jewish caterer asked to cook a pork meal or a Jewish photographer to work Friday or Saturday night is saying no not because they are judging their clients but because doing those things would force them to break their own specifically prescribed religious conventions. Are there Christian denominations that specifically say, "Thou shalt not provide non-religious services to sinners. But only certain kinds. You know which ones we mean"?

 

Clients of the Jewish providers have the option to receive services by changing minor elements of their needs. Gay clients don't have that option. They are who they are. 

 

Why should religious affiliated employers be forced to pay for contraception? It's not like anyone held a gun to the employees' heads and forced them to go work for that organization rather than a secular one. Don't like your benefits package? Quit and go work for someone else.

 

Because these employers are businesses benefiting from operating a public business in our country. They don't get to pick and choose the other laws under which they're governed. They shouldn't get to pick and choose under this one either. I will, however, stand up for their right to do as they did and work through legal channels to change the laws, just the way the private citizens of this country can. I can respect that while also resolving that they will never get a penny of my money. 

 

The inconvenience of one person in having to find a different wedding vendor/adoption agency/employer/etc. should NOT trump the right of the other person to practice his/her religion. Religious liberty should be given precedence as religious liberty is enshrined in our Constitution. There is no "right to convenience" in the Constitution.

 

Anti-discrimination laws do not infringe upon anyone's right to practice their religion. Being required to bake your gay clients a cake does not, in any way, prevent you from going to church, taking Communion, singing in the choir, going door to door to preach or hand out pamphlets on Halloween, sending your kids to religious education classes, or believe exactly as you already believe in the tenets of your religion. You are free in every single way to still practice your religion. You are simply required to also practice your business under the legal requirements of your state and country, even if it's uncomfortable. That's what laws are for, and that's why they apply to ALL.

[Cammie]

Getting late over here...goodnight everyone and thanks for giving me lots to think about!

[Crimson Wife]

 

 

 

Anti-discrimination laws do not infringe upon anyone's right to practice their religion. 

 

 

Yes, they do. The government is forcing religious people to participate in actions that the believers consider immoral.

 

What if the government passed a law that doctors must euthanize disabled babies, those over the age of 75, accident victims who become quadripilegics, etc. as a way of saving society money? Would you support the right of doctors to refuse to participate this program? Or would you claim that they should separate their "business" from their "personal morality"?

[Caroline]

Yes, they do. The government is forcing religious people to participate in actions that the believers consider immoral.

 

What if the government passed a law that doctors must euthanize disabled babies, those over the age of 75, accident victims who become quadripilegics, etc. as a way of saving society money? Would you support the right of doctors to refuse to participate this program? Or would you claim that they should separate their "business" from their "personal morality"?

So now baking a cake is equivalent to killing babies? Really?

[Crimson Wife]

 

Has this happened? I haven't heard about this. Religious adoption agencies aren't protected under the same laws that protect churches from being forced to perform gay marriages? If you have more info, I'd love to see it.

 

Yes, this has happened and why Catholic Charities has had to stop running adoption agencies in many places: https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

 

There is a hatred of Christians, especially Conservative Christians, being stoked in our country.  There is hatred being stoked for several demographics, in fact...I find it scary from a political viewpoint.  Live and let live seems to only apply for some.

 

No. Many Christians only perceive it that way because they're in the process of losing the default power that has accrued to them by being in the majority for so many years. Do some people hate Christians? I'm sure some do, the same way some people hate blacks and some hate Muslims and some hate Jews and so on. Take a pass by the Stormfront site some day and then talk to me about who hates who. 

 

People who work to reduce the effect of the overpowering Christian viewpoint on our society as a whole do it not because they hate Christians but because they don't want Christianity to be the overarching perspective, either because they aren't Christian or because they want other religions represented fairly or because they believe that Christianity shouldn't be the single religion represented in a government space, or...

 

When I say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, it's not because I hate Christians. It's because I can recognize the fact that the person I'm talking to may not even BE Christian, or may be but may not celebrate Christmas, or may not be religious at all. In fact, the main reason I say it is because to me, it encompasses Thanksgiving if it's just passed, Hannukah (if the person may celebrate it), Christmas (if the person may celebrate it), and New Year's, which most people celebrate no matter what religion they are. Yet I can't tell you how many people rave about how the trend toward saying Happy Holidays is a specific slam toward Christians, and Christ is the reason for the season, and that we should be keeping Christ in Christmas. Those are the people who believe that there's hate being stoked toward Christians in this country. 

[Crimson Wife]

So now baking a cake is equivalent to killing babies? Really?

 

No, but for those of us who consider abortion murder, requiring employers to pay for chemical abortions is.

[*Lulu*]

At it's extreme, this is called Dominion Theology. Not all Conservative Christians believe this but it is one strand that is out there. (I am not a Dominionist.) In some groups that aren't as extreme I don't think it is very well thought out. For some, I think they've just taken some presuppositions about American history and Christian beliefs that feel safe to them and have gone with it. I think they are wrong on both the American history and the Christian beliefs. For a long time in American history there was no clash with culture in doing this because much of mainstream culture went along with this at least on the surface but that has changed in the last 50 years or so.

I think this is very true.

 

Where it falls apart for me is this:

 

If conservative groups feel there is a Biblical mandate to bring our government into line with the things that are directives of scripture, where are the conservative Christian organizations pushing for the government to increase social services?

 

Where is the demand that our tax dollars feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, care for the imprisoned and the alien among us?

 

Until I see as much effort to legislate these crystal clear directives of Christ as there is to legislate sexuality I call shenanigans.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Yes, they do. The government is forcing religious people to participate in actions that the believers consider immoral.

 

What if the government passed a law that doctors must euthanize disabled babies, those over the age of 75, accident victims who become quadripilegics, etc. as a way of saving society money? Would you support the right of doctors to refuse to participate this program? Or would you claim that they should separate their "business" from their "personal morality"?

 

Again, no. The laws force providers to participate in the activity of their specified business in spite of who their clients are--taking photos is not inherently immoral, baking a cake is not inherently immoral, etc. 

 

And none of these businesses we are talking about is anything like killing people, so you're going to want to rethink your analogy there, because it's patently ridiculous and makes you sound hysterical.

[Caroline]

Yes, this has happened and why Catholic Charities has had to stop running adoption agencies in many places: https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx

Catholic Charities of DC is still working on adoptions. You can visit their website. http://www.catholiccharitiesdc.org/PAS

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Yes, this has happened and why Catholic Charities has had to stop running adoption agencies in many places: https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx

 

Thank you, I need to do some more research on that one.

[chiguirre]

Has this happened? I haven't heard about this. Religious adoption agencies aren't protected under the same laws that protect churches from being forced to perform gay marriages? If you have more info, I'd love to see it.

The main problem was that the religious adoption agencies were accepting public funds and serving the general community.

 

Here's a link to an article in Our Sunday Visitor (a Catholic periodical) that explains the issue from a Christian pov.

 

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx

 

Here's a quote that summarizes the issue:

 

The collision of constitutional rights poses irreconcilable demands. When religious organizations work for the common good — the welfare of children — and accept taxpayer money from state and local governments, the attached obligation is to treat all comers equally. For Catholic organizations to comply is to violate Church doctrine. - See more at: https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx#sthash.eIKrcj5U.dpuf

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The main problem was that the religious adoption agencies were accepting public funds and serving the general community.

 

Here's a link to an article in Our Sunday Visitor (a Catholic periodical) that explains the issue from a Christian pov.

 

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx

 

Here's a quote that summarizes the issue:

 

The collision of constitutional rights poses irreconcilable demands. When religious organizations work for the common good — the welfare of children — and accept taxpayer money from state and local governments, the attached obligation is to treat all comers equally. For Catholic organizations to comply is to violate Church doctrine. - See more at: https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx#sthash.eIKrcj5U.dpuf

 

Ah, thank you for the additional information. 

[Frances]

Other than same-sex marriage, what, exactly, are we taking about Christians forcing on others?

Adding to the list already provided, I would say trying to influence the content of history and science textbooks in schools, the banning of some books in schools, and the teaching of creationism. Also, it's my understanding that when other states have tried to pass assisted suicide laws like the one OR has, certain religious groups have led the fight against them, including financially. I know that many of my Catholic relatives were very upset when church figures were speaking out against the recent decision of the young terminally ill woman to move to OR and use the law. While they think it's fine for the Church to tell it's own why that is wrong, they think the Church is overstepping by trying to tell others how to live.

 

However, I agree with those who see abortion as a separate issue in this discussion. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

No, but for those of us who consider abortion murder, requiring employers to pay for chemical abortions is.

 

If you're referring to birth control pills as abortifacients, the science on this is under debate. As I said, though, I can respect the results of companies availing themselves of correct process.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Adding to the list already provided, I would say trying to influence the content of history and science textbooks in schools, the banning of some books in schools, and the teaching of creationism. 

 

I just read an interesting (if quite long!) article about this, and it addresses the "founders of a Christian nation" aspect as well. Just as an aside :)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Word Nerd]

This is hardly limited to conservative Christians. People all across the political spectrum attempt to use legislation to compel others to do what they think is right or to protect children and others from what they believe is harmful all. the. time. How many threads at TWTM contain some form of "there ought to be a law..."?

[Frances]

Yes, they do. The government is forcing religious people to participate in actions that the believers consider immoral.

 

What if the government passed a law that doctors must euthanize disabled babies, those over the age of 75, accident victims who become quadripilegics, etc. as a way of saving society money? Would you support the right of doctors to refuse to participate this program? Or would you claim that they should separate their "business" from their "personal morality"?

Baking a cake or making a floral arrangement for someone else who is doing something you consider immoral is worlds apart from you being forced to euthanize a person. Cake or flowers or photographs are not necessary for the wedding to take place.

[Mergath]

The entire breakdown of the separation of church and state.  Many conservative Christians are consistently supporting legislation to break down the protections that civil society has created (see what just passed in Minnesota).   Why did conservative Christians fight so hard in Florida to allow religious displays in government buildings?  Why is it so important to have religion mixed in with government and civil society?  Religion is ALWAYS used as an argument about allowing women choice in birth control and abortion.  Why should someone else's religion dictate what I am allowed to do to my own body?  These are honest questions.  I truly don't know the answer.  I believe that the foundation of the US was freedom of belief.  Not freedom to enforce one's belief on others.  But freedom from being dominated by another's religious beliefs.  Each to their own.  I don't understand how conservative Christians jive that background with laws that are based purely on their own religious beliefs.

 

Wait, what just passed in Minnesota?  I live here and I haven't heard about any conservative legislation passing.  Though perhaps I don't really want to know. :(

[SparklyUnicorn]

There are lots of Christians who are for gay marriage and pro choice. As a society I wish we were better able to debate our differences without so much animosity. 

 

But, to the OP, dictating your beliefs to others when you are sure you are right is not the exclusive property of Christians, lol. It is the human condition. Atheists do it ALL THE TIME. I lived in Portland for 20 years, I worked in a large hotel where we did all the political meetings for the Democrat party. I was a Democrat until I went to enough of their secret meetings, lol. Those people are atheists, they believe they should dictate how other people live, and although I do see on TV things like the 700 club where Pat Robinson would cheerfully legislate morality, most Christians  I know personally are live and let live folks, so the real issue is not one sided.

 

Yep and plenty of gay Christians. 

[Rose in BC]

I have not read any responses but I just wanted to say I just came back from a business trip to the Middle East. Honestly I don't think people here recognize the freedoms we have as women, in choice of religious expression, etc. I guess the perils of having these freedoms is having to tolerate other people's expressions. It's been my experience this is not limited to conservative Christians.

[OneStepAtATime]

I believe that the foundation of the US was freedom of belief.  Not freedom to enforce one's belief on others.  But freedom from being dominated by another's religious beliefs.  Each to their own.  I don't understand how conservative Christians jive that background with laws that are based purely on their own religious beliefs.

 

Cammie, this passage speaks to me.  I would like to address this directly.  FWIW, my ancestors, almost all of them, came to the United States to get away from cultural and religious oppression/persecution in their homelands.  They came because there was more freedom here than their ancestral homes.  I am grateful they had a place to go.  I am saddened that freedom of religion in the U.S. is seen by many as freedom to force their own religion on everyone else, regardless of whether the other person is seeking that input/direction/etc. or not.  That very attitude/viewpoint was what drove my ancestors away from their original homelands in the first place.  But I absolutely support the rights of everyone to speak their views.  That, also, is a freedom I do not want to lose.

 

(Child raised in a Conservative Christian household to clarify my background).

[Frances]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The difference in your example is that a Jewish caterer asked to cook a pork meal or a Jewish photographer to work Friday or Saturday night is saying no not because they are judging their clients but because doing those things would force them to break their own specifically prescribed religious conventions. Are there Christian denominations that specifically say, "Thou shalt not provide non-religious services to sinners. But only certain kinds. You know which ones we mean"?

 

Clients of the Jewish providers have the option to receive services by changing minor elements of their needs. Gay clients don't have that option. They are who they are. 

 

 

 

There is also the fact that the Jewish service providers are not cooking pork meals or working on Friday or Saturday nights for anyone. Those are not services they provide to anyone. The problem is when a public business owner provides a particular service to everyone except a member of a protected class. Then they are breaking the law. They have the option of not owning a business that has agreed to public accommodation laws, not offering particular services to anyone that they are not willing to offer to everyone, working to change the law, or breaking the law and accepting the consequences.

[FO4UR]

No. Many Christians only perceive it that way because they're in the process of losing the default power that has accrued to them by being in the majority for so many years. Do some people hate Christians? I'm sure some do, the same way some people hate blacks and some hate Muslims and some hate Jews and so on. Take a pass by the Stormfront site some day and then talk to me about who hates who. 

 

People who work to reduce the effect of the overpowering Christian viewpoint on our society as a whole do it not because they hate Christians but because they don't want Christianity to be the overarching perspective, either because they aren't Christian or because they want other religions represented fairly or because they believe that Christianity shouldn't be the single religion represented in a government space, or...

 

When I say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, it's not because I hate Christians. It's because I can recognize the fact that the person I'm talking to may not even BE Christian, or may be but may not celebrate Christmas, or may not be religious at all. In fact, the main reason I say it is because to me, it encompasses Thanksgiving if it's just passed, Hannukah (if the person may celebrate it), Christmas (if the person may celebrate it), and New Year's, which most people celebrate no matter what religion they are. Yet I can't tell you how many people rave about how the trend toward saying Happy Holidays is a specific slam toward Christians, and Christ is the reason for the season, and that we should be keeping Christ in Christmas. Those are the people who believe that there's hate being stoked toward Christians in this country. 

 

 

Maybe you don't hear it, but this post shows your disdain for Christians...a perceived power that must be taken from them?

 

 

I would never force a Hindu, Jew, etc...to eat of the animals that they view as either sacred or unclean.  In much the same way, Christians should not be forced into participating in acts that they view as abhorrent.  For that matter, the same RESPECT should apply to vegetarians who come by their ways aside from religion...and to those who come by their passion for saving unborn babies aside from religion.

 

The religious monuments and such should be a reflection of the local people groups and the history of the place.  If one feels that a particular religion is not being represented well, go get active on behalf of that religion through peaceful means, but do not tear others down in an attempt to build your own up.

 

The Happy Holidays thing is not even worth discussing, imho.  Say what you like.  It harms no one.  This is nothing on the spectrum of life & death & freedom matters.  FTR - I do not rant and rave about Holidays vs Christmas, and I am a person who sees the hatred fires being fanned.  Your broad brush doesn't fit my profile.

 

 

I believe in freedom #1 b/c there is no true Faith without freedom anyway.  Adults must be free to make their own decisions. Children must be educated and protected until they reach adulthood and can make their own decisions.  I think that is a fairly universally agreed upon pov.  I'm attempting to point out the ways that, ironically, do the very same things to Christians that Christians are blamed for doing to everyone else. 

[Crimson Wife]

Baking a cake or making a floral arrangement for someone else who is doing something you consider immoral is worlds apart from you being forced to euthanize a person. Cake or flowers or photographs are not necessary for the wedding to take place.

 

It's a slippery slope. Once the government starts forcing people to do things that violate their religious beliefs in the name of separating "business" from "personal morality", then there is no clear place to draw a line. Today, a wedding cake. Several decades from now, who's to say that it won't be about euthanasia?

[Joanne]

I think *part* of it, maybe not for everyone but some of the "energy" behind it is human nature. If a Christian truly believes scripture to mean that narrow salvation through Christ AND the works that follow (sanctification and justifcation), I imagine that the "heart" of certain people is for EVERYONE to have the joy only available (in that worldview) through a life in Christ.

[Frances]

It's a slippery slope. Once the government starts forcing people to do things that violate their religious beliefs in the name of separating "business" from "personal morality", then there is no clear place to draw a line. Today, a wedding cake. Several decades from now, who's to say that it won't be about euthanasia?

It's also a slippery slope to theocracy when people work to have the laws of a country based on their particular religious beliefs.

[Tanaqui]

It's a slippery slope. Once the government starts forcing people to do things that violate their religious beliefs in the name of separating "business" from "personal morality", then there is no clear place to draw a line. Today, a wedding cake. Several decades from now, who's to say that it won't be about euthanasia?

 

Yeah... slippery slope is a well known fallacy. I wouldn't use it to claim your argument is logical.

 

If you're referring to birth control pills as abortifacients, the science on this is under debate.

 

It is not. Well, perhaps the day after pill, but normal BC prevents you from ovulating. If you do not ovulate, you cannot conceive. Period. (Or, uh, not.)

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Maybe you don't hear it, but this post shows your disdain for Christians...a perceived power that must be taken from them?

 

Well, thank you for proving my point that you're hearing only what you want to hear, not what I'm actually saying. 

 

Did I use the word "must"? That was your interpretation, not my statement. My exact words were, "they're in the process of losing the default power that has accrued to them by being in the majority for so many years." And through this same lens of persecution, you've somehow perceived that I have disdain for Christians. My own husband is a Christian. I do believe that NO religion should serve as the default--officially or unofficially--for this country, and I believe the default power Christians wield in our government and culture should be reduced because I don't believe that any one religious group should have that much influence. I don't care what the religion is. If Judaism began to grow to have the same kind of influence, I'd work just as hard to end it. This does not equal disdain for Christians.

 

I would never force a Hindu, Jew, etc...to eat of the animals that they view as either sacred or unclean.  In much the same way, Christians should not be forced into participating in acts that they view as abhorrent.  For that matter, the same RESPECT should apply to vegetarians who come by their ways aside from religion...and to those who come by their passion for saving unborn babies aside from religion.

 

No one is forcing Christians to participate in or even condone homosexual relationships. These are the acts you believe to be abhorrent, correct? The laws we've been discussing require business owners to participate in the acts that comprise their business--taking photos, baking cakes, etc.--without discrimination against the purchasers of those services. As to your points about vegetarians and those who save unborn babies--is there a rash of vegetarians being forced to make meat cakes and anti-choice activists being forced to take photos of abortion parties? If not, your examples don't hold any weight.  

 

 

The Happy Holidays thing is not even worth discussing, imho.  Say what you like.  It harms no one.  This is nothing on the spectrum of life & death & freedom matters.  FTR - I do not rant and rave about Holidays vs Christmas, and I am a person who sees the hatred fires being fanned.  Your broad brush doesn't fit my profile.

 

I wasn't trying to paint you with any kind of brush  :confused1:  Have I ever said Happy Holidays to you? If I haven't, then I'm not talking about you, am I? I'm talking about conversations I've had here and IRL with Christians who rant about the use of Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. These people, even when presented with the reasons that many people use the greeting rather than Merry Christmas, persist in their belief that those who say it are participating in some kind of conspiracy to remove Christ from Christmas. 

 

I believe in freedom #1 b/c there is no true Faith without freedom anyway.  Adults must be free to make their own decisions. Children must be educated and protected until they reach adulthood and can make their own decisions.  I think that is a fairly universally agreed upon pov.  I'm attempting to point out the ways that, ironically, do the very same things to Christians that Christians are blamed for doing to everyone else. 

 

I can completely agree that adults are free to make their own decisions and that children are to be educated and protected until they reach adulthood--under the fullest extent of the law. The laws of this country are here to protect all of us, not just some of us. They protect you as a Christian from discrimination the same way they protect others. If you want to participate in dismantling them for other people, then you don't get to complain when they don't protect you either. 

[Tanaqui]

No one is forcing Christians to participate in or even condone homosexual relationships. These are the acts you believe to be abhorrent, correct? The laws we've been discussing require business owners to participate in the acts that comprise their business--taking photos, baking cakes, etc.--without discrimination against the purchasers of those services. As to your points about vegetarians and those who save unborn babies--is there a rash of vegetarians being forced to make meat cakes and anti-choice activists being forced to take photos of abortion parties? If not, your examples don't hold any weight.

 

For that matter, those bakers and photographers could probably be in the clear if they simply didn't do weddings. But no, they want to pick and choose which weddings to do. Seriously skeevy.

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Yeah... slippery slope is a well known fallacy. I wouldn't use it to claim your argument is logical.

 

It is not. Well, perhaps the day after pill, but normal BC prevents you from ovulating. If you do not ovulate, you cannot conceive. Period. (Or, uh, not.)

 

I know that, but some studies have also indicated that another effect BC pills have is to make the uterus inhospitable for implantation, so that even if ovulation occurs, there's a secondary protection against pregnancy. That's the problem most anti-choice Christians have with BC pills and the reason they consider them potentially abortifacient, and that's the part that's debatable. 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-pill-contraceptive-or-abortifacient/266725/

 

This is just a quote within a quote, really, but it gets to the heart of my point about the study results making some question the issue. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just putting the info out there for the sake of the discussion.

 

[quote]We know from studies such as the 2007 "Changes in measured endometrial thickness predict in vitro fertilization success" that the thickness of a woman's endometrium—the lining of her uterus—determines the likelihood of the successful implantation of an embryo. If an embryo—a living human by all characteristics - does not implant, it is passed out of the uterus in what's popularly called a miscarriage, or a spontaneous abortion. (If you're interested, this study also showed that oral contraceptive use also altered the quality of the endometrium, the markers associated with "endometrial receptivity.")

 

We've known for quite a while that the use of oral contraceptives has the capacity to thin a woman's endometrium. The 1997 study "The effects of monophasic and triphasic oral contraceptives on ovarian function and endometrial thickness" found that "endometrial thickness in OC users was significantly smaller than in controls", that is, than in women who were not using oral contraceptives.

 

A 2001 study of one the most popular oral contraceptives on the market, Yasmin, found that ... oral contraceptives have the effect of thinning the endometrium.

 

​ETA: Sorry about the ugly quoting, not sure why that didn't work!

[texasmama]

I'll be brave and put out a couple of thoughts.  For the interest of full disclosure I'm a conservative Christian but I don't believe everything that some conservative Christians do.  

 

There is a belief stemming from Old Testament Israel, that a nation should obey God in order to have prosperity and security.  Some go so far as to see the US as a "Christian nation" that has taken the place of Israel as God's chosen nation for this time in history.  They want to protect that.  They want prosperity and security in the nation.  They see certain sins as a threat to that.

 

 I'm tired and am going to go to bed but that is one very simplistic answer based on the theology of some conservative Christians.  

 

I have heard and am familiar with this line of thinking, as well. 

 

I also think that fear enters in to dictating how others live.

 

American Christians have historically enjoyed a great deal of privilege.  That seems to be changing, and some American Christians are fighting against that change.  I think it is not a bad thing for the privileged group to get a sense of how it feels to not be quite so privileged.

 

Also, I wish people from all sides of this issue could be kinder.  (Not speaking of this thread, just in general.)

 

 

 

 

[6packofun]

 

 

My Bible tells me to not judge the world, so I don't (terrorism excepted), and my Bible tells me that as much as it is possible according to me to live at peace with the world.  I have no problems with that.  This is why I don't have issues with polar opposite views while keeping my own, but as mentioned before, others care more about Heaven/Hell and try their best to convince others that "our" way is the way because they care about them.  Maybe I just don't care enough.  I personally feel it's not up to me to make that decision for others.

 

Very tolerant.  So do you not believe in hell at all or does your belief in hell have no part in how you live your life or your theology?  I'm always curious about how the belief in hell works itself out in people's lives!  It's such an interesting concept. 

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, this is an example of how it goes both ways. People with wedding chapels who don't believe in same-sex marriages are having their livelihood taken away. The argument is that if it is legal, then they can't refuse to serve someone and to do so is discrimination.

No, both of these statements are wrong. Nobody is having their livelihood "taken away." Nobody is being fined based upon their *belief*. It isn't discrimination to refuse to serve just anyone.

 

You cannot discriminate against protected groups. Those groups have attained protection by the government due to relatively widespread discrimination against them. In *some* (not all) states same sex couples are a protected group. You cannot discriminate against them in those states.

 

That means if you are a wedding chapel that operates as a public business, then you cannot discriminate against protected groups without facing certain consequences. But, nobody is taking anything away from you.

 

You have choices:

 

1) pay the fines

2) become a church because they don't operate under the same rules as a business that is open to the public

3) become a private club with membership requirements because they don't operate under the same rules as a business that is open to the public

4) comply with the law

 

Some people are making a choice to shut down rather than do one of those things, but it is a *choice,* nobody is taking anything away.

[Word Nerd]

Have you ever signed a petition to take a show off the air because it promotes ideas you find repugnant? Told Amazon to remove certain parenting books from its shelves because you find them harmful? Boycotted a restaurant or store because of its owner's views or policies? Supported legislation to require parents to follow certain child safety standards? What motivated you to take those actions? Would you say those activities are motivated by a desire to dictate how others live? Then why does your opening question ascribe a negative intent to conservative Christians when they take political and non-political action?

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Maybe you don't hear it, but this post shows your disdain for Christians...?

 

You know, this statement in particular has been stewing in my head since I read your post, and I need to say more. How dare you take your twisted, I'm-so-persecuted perspective and turn it on me? My husband is a Christian, my mother is a Christian, my saintly mother-in-law is a Christian, my beloved sister-in-law and niece are Christians, my grandmothers are Christians. I buy my grandmother Christian gifts every single Christmas and birthday she has. I read my children books about the religious meaning of Christmas and Easter every damn year. I spent two hours at a Christian ceremony memorializing my brother-in-law a month ago, kneeling, bowing my head, murmuring responses, shaking hands and saying "peace be with you" and Amen. 

 

How dare you be so self-unaware as to put your baggage on me like that? You don't know me, and you didn't read my post for what it actually said. You just laid your own issues right down over top of me. I'm going to suggest that you take a look at YOUR OWN biases right now before you go accusing anyone else of stoking any kind of hatred today, OK? 

[texasmama]

No. Many Christians only perceive it that way because they're in the process of losing the default power that has accrued to them by being in the majority for so many years. Do some people hate Christians? I'm sure some do, the same way some people hate blacks and some hate Muslims and some hate Jews and so on. Take a pass by the Stormfront site some day and then talk to me about who hates who. 

 

People who work to reduce the effect of the overpowering Christian viewpoint on our society as a whole do it not because they hate Christians but because they don't want Christianity to be the overarching perspective, either because they aren't Christian or because they want other religions represented fairly or because they believe that Christianity shouldn't be the single religion represented in a government space, or...

 

When I say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, it's not because I hate Christians. It's because I can recognize the fact that the person I'm talking to may not even BE Christian, or may be but may not celebrate Christmas, or may not be religious at all. In fact, the main reason I say it is because to me, it encompasses Thanksgiving if it's just passed, Hannukah (if the person may celebrate it), Christmas (if the person may celebrate it), and New Year's, which most people celebrate no matter what religion they are. Yet I can't tell you how many people rave about how the trend toward saying Happy Holidays is a specific slam toward Christians, and Christ is the reason for the season, and that we should be keeping Christ in Christmas. Those are the people who believe that there's hate being stoked toward Christians in this country. 

FWIW, I read this (twice) with an eye to look for disdain, and I did not pick up any.

[FO4UR]

Well, thank you for proving my point that you're hearing only what you want to hear, not what I'm actually saying. 

 

Did I use the word "must"? That was your interpretation, not my statement. My exact words were, "they're in the process of losing the default power that has accrued to them by being in the majority for so many years." And through this same lens of persecution, you've somehow perceived that I have disdain for Christians. My own husband is a Christian. I do believe that NO religion should serve as the default--officially or unofficially--for this country, and I believe the default power Christians wield in our government and culture should be reduced because I don't believe that any one religious group should have that much influence. I don't care what the religion is. If Judaism began to grow to have the same kind of influence, I'd work just as hard to end it. This does not equal disdain for Christians.

 

 

 

 

Define "default power."  I would agree that the USA is largely influenced by Christianity b/c it has largely been inhabited by Christians.  We've never had a king or dictator.  These influences have come by the people via our representative government, and not handed down against the will of the people...with a few exceptions where the USA populace was/is largely divided, and one side had to win or lose. Mostly, our gov't reflects the will of the people.  I still hold that if you feel underrepresented, go make a peaceful and positive change rather than tearing another group down.

 

 

 

 

No one is forcing Christians to participate in or even condone homosexual relationships. These are the acts you believe to be abhorrent, correct? The laws we've been discussing require business owners to participate in the acts that comprise their business--taking photos, baking cakes, etc.--without discrimination against the purchasers of those services. As to your points about vegetarians and those who save unborn babies--is there a rash of vegetarians being forced to make meat cakes and anti-choice activists being forced to take photos of abortion parties? If not, your examples don't hold any weight.  

 

 

To some, baking a cake for  homosexual couple is condoning sin.  I don't necessarily hold that view, but I stand by the rights of bakers to go about their business in freedom.  Maybe a better example would be legislating a Jewish family business to butcher & sell pork, even if they do not eat it themselves.  They deserve freedom.  Just the same, you have the right to choose to not patron those businesses...and to tell all of your friends the reason why you don't buy from them.

 

 

Personally, I do believe that abortion is murder and the ultimate rape of a woman.  It makes me wretch to think about supporting the practice in any way.  That's not solely a product of my Christian beliefs, but my ideals as a feminist as well.  Why should I be dictated to support/fund a practice that I view abhorrent and detrimental?  The USA could maintain the legal right to abortion without using taxpayer funds to support it or requiring private citizens and businesses to provide healthcare that covers it.  There is a strawman argument painted that Christians are striving to outlaw abortion when most people who are pro-life merely want the right to NOT FUND it...not be forced to participate in that practice in any way.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to paint you with any kind of brush  :confused1:  Have I ever said Happy Holidays to you? If I haven't, then I'm not talking about you, am I? I'm talking about conversations I've had here and IRL with Christians who rant about the use of Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. These people, even when presented with the reasons that many people use the greeting rather than Merry Christmas, persist in their belief that those who say it are participating in some kind of conspiracy to remove Christ from Christmas. 

 

 

I can completely agree that adults are free to make their own decisions and that children are to be educated and protected until they reach adulthood--under the fullest extent of the law. The laws of this country are here to protect all of us, not just some of us. They protect you as a Christian from discrimination the same way they protect others. If you want to participate in dismantling them for other people, then you don't get to complain when they don't protect you either. 

 

Are the laws really protecting ALL citizens from discrimination?  I don't believe they are...but that would be a whole other thread...  I am all for laws that truly do protect all people from discrimination on the basis of race/religion/gender/etc.

 

 

[Joanne]

No, but for those of us who consider abortion murder, requiring employers to pay for chemical abortions is.

 

 

Benefit packages are part of the compensation structure. In essence, excluding certain medical care is the company spending MY income. In many millions of cases, the employee pay ALSO goes to medical benefits.