# "Christian values in America are under attack, these days"?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2015, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295 "2015-09-23T14:00:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/81 "2015-09-25T01:11:41Z")
Personally, I think it rude to presume the nature and intensity of someone’s religious convictions, or lack thereof. The entirely secular greeting, sentiment, card, whatsoever does not make such presumptions. It carries whatever sentiment is appropriate without extra baggage, without the risk of being inadvertently rude. Sometimes, of course, you just _have_ to be rude. But you should conserve your ammo. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/82 "2015-09-25T04:53:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I don’t think it’s an attack, though I think it’s rather silly. To say that one needs a non-Christian card out of respect for non-Christian employees doesn’t make any sense to me, since the card is not aimed to them. I see nothing stopping a non-Christian employee from signing a card with scripture on it, just as I wouldn’t hesitate to sign a card related to some other religion in a similar situation. If it helps to bring comfort to a grieving person, why not? In the situation as presented, nobody knows that an explicitly religious card WOULD bring comfort, though–nobody knows whether the boss is a hardcore Catholic true believer or a cultural Catholic who is really atheist. When a card makes the SENDER feel all warm and fuzzy but may not bring any comfort at all to the recipient, or may indeed be offensive to him, why send it? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/83 "2015-09-25T05:14:32Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I see nothing stopping a non-Christian employee from signing a card with scripture on it, just as I wouldn’t hesitate to sign a card related to some other religion in a similar situation. If it helps to bring comfort to a grieving person, why not? An atheist (or a person whose personal beliefs were somehow at odds with the highly religious sentiment on that card) might well feel that signing that card was implicitly indicating that they were in agreement with the religious message of the card. Not unlike a certain clerk in Kentucky who felt that she was being asked to implicitly approve of SSM because her signature was on the marriage license. I suspect you have sympathy for Kim Davis’s views, but not the atheist’s view in this circumstance? Also: Pizzaguy, that was an awesome post. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/84 "2015-09-25T05:42:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The issue was over people objecting to an action because of their religion. “The hospital performing abortions” obscures who was doing what. It was doctors and nurses who were performing the abortions. The bishops who owned the hospital were not being asked to perform any abortions. Which means their religious objection was about other people performing abortions. My position is that the bishops had a right to choose their own actions in this issue but did not have the right to impose their choice on other people. First of all, you said “it was doctors and nurses who were performing the abortions”. As I’ve pointed out to you already (twice!) no abortions were performed at the hospital that’s the subject of the ACLU v. USCCB case. So you’re wrong about that. Then you refer to “the bishops who own the hospital”. The hospital is not owned by bishops. None is, as far as I know. So you’re wrong about that. Third, you seem to think that a hospital has no right to choose to not offer abortions. In fact, [the hospital has such a right](http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/ConscienceProtect/42usc300a7.pdf). If you click on the civil rights ordinance that I just linked to, you’ll see that “any individual or entity” has the right to choose not to “make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions”. A hospital is an entity, despite your incorrect insistence that hospitals are only buildings, and the administration of a hospital does indeed have the legal right to decide whether or not abortions will be performed by that hospital. So you’re wrong about that, too. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/85 "2015-09-25T06:18:36Z")
Christianity has a persecution complex sort of built into it. In the Early church, it was true - persecution came in the form of imprisonment, stonings and lions and all, but nowadays, and especially in the developed world, they have to go looking for it. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/86 "2015-09-25T08:19:14Z")
“These days” you say? Christianity has been fighting a rearguard action since the Enlightenment. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/87 "2015-09-25T15:26:36Z")
ITR champion: does a hospital receiving federal funds (e.g., Medicare or Medicaid) have the right to refuse to provide medically-appropriate care because of their religious beliefs? You seem to be arguing that they do, that for example requiring them to save the life of their current patient (a pregnant woman) at the expense of a future patient (her ectopic fetus, say) is an assault on their Christian values. Is that really your position, or are you tap-dancing around the question? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/88 "2015-09-25T16:38:52Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > First of all, you said “it was doctors and nurses who were performing the abortions”. As I’ve pointed out to you already (twice!) no abortions were performed at the hospital that’s the subject of the ACLU v. USCCB case. So you’re wrong about that. > > Then you refer to “the bishops who own the hospital”. The hospital is not owned by bishops. None is, as far as I know. So you’re wrong about that. > > Third, you seem to think that a hospital has no right to choose to not offer abortions. In fact, [the hospital has such a right](http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/ConscienceProtect/42usc300a7.pdf). If you click on the civil rights ordinance that I just linked to, you’ll see that “any individual or entity” has the right to choose not to “make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions”. A hospital is an entity, despite your incorrect insistence that hospitals are only buildings, and the administration of a hospital does indeed have the legal right to decide whether or not abortions will be performed by that hospital. So you’re wrong about that, too. Do hospitals have the right to withhold emergency care from a patient, when that care is necessary to protect their life and/or long term health? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/89 "2015-09-25T16:51:34Z")
Well, if providing that care would be contrary to their religious principles, they should take the appropriate action: get different religious principles. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/90 "2015-09-25T18:33:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Nonsense. Christians are not the only ones to want to help the homeless. I agree with this, and never said otherwise. Obviously helping the homeless is not an exclusively Christian value. However, if you look at actual people and organizations that are helping the homeless and the hungry, you’ll find that Christians and Christian organizations are overrepresented compared to their proportion in the population. So it’s more than fair to consider that sort of charity to be a Christian value, while not suggesting in any way that it’s a value that others (I consider it to be a personal value as an atheist) can’t also hold. > [@](#): > > Since the law applies to groups of all religions - or no religion - who want to help the homeless saying it is opposed to all these values, as opposed to one expression of these values - is incorrect. I addressed it with my allusion to Anatole France. A law can have a secular purpose and still oppose religious values. Again, as I stated above, I’m not claiming that the values it opposes are exclusively religious. > [@](#): > > If someone thinks that their religious values require discrimination, laws against discrimination may hurt their religious values but are not designed to do so, but are designed to just prevent discrimination from any source. Sure, but we’re not talking about laws against discrimination here. We’re talking about laws against human decency and charity. There are obviously bigots who think that their hate is a value, and I don’t agree with them. But they are not relevant to the two stories I’m responding to here. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/91 "2015-09-25T18:45:57Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > First of all, you said “it was doctors and nurses who were performing the abortions”. As I’ve pointed out to you already (twice!) no abortions were performed at the hospital that’s the subject of the ACLU v. USCCB case. So you’re wrong about that. > > Then you refer to “the bishops who own the hospital”. The hospital is not owned by bishops. None is, as far as I know. So you’re wrong about that. > > Third, you seem to think that a hospital has no right to choose to not offer abortions. In fact, [the hospital has such a right](http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/ConscienceProtect/42usc300a7.pdf). If you click on the civil rights ordinance that I just linked to, you’ll see that “any individual or entity” has the right to choose not to “make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions”. A hospital is an entity, despite your incorrect insistence that hospitals are only buildings, and the administration of a hospital does indeed have the legal right to decide whether or not abortions will be performed by that hospital. So you’re wrong about that, too. What I think is that you are still trying to avoid the main issue by attempting to divert the discussion towards nitpicking. Here are the main issues that are relevant to the topic of this thread: In your opinion, do people have a right to refuse to obey a law if they claim doing so would violate their religious beliefs? Do they have no right to do this? Do they have an absolute right to do this? Or do they have a partial right to do this? If people have a partial right, how should we determine if a person has a right to refuse to obey a specific law due to their religious beliefs? In your opinion, is a person limited to only limiting their own actions due to their religious beliefs? Or do you feel that a person can use their religious beliefs as the basis to limit another person’s actions? If so, how should we determine if a person can limit somebody else’s actions because they have religious beliefs against those actions? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/92 "2015-09-25T21:47:33Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I agree with this, and never said otherwise. Obviously helping the homeless is not an exclusively Christian value. However, if you look at actual people and organizations that are helping the homeless and the hungry, you’ll find that Christians and Christian organizations are overrepresented compared to their proportion in the population. So it’s more than fair to consider that sort of charity to be a Christian value, while not suggesting in any way that it’s a value that others (I consider it to be a personal value as an atheist) can’t also hold. If Catholics were over-represented in charity work, would the law then be against Catholic values as opposed to Methodist values? If you claim the law opposes the values of one group helping the homeless, then it must be against the values of all groups helping the homeless - unless the legislative debate about the law specifically targets one group with the others getting collateral damage. I think you’re going to have a hard time finding such evidence. > [@](#): > > I addressed it with my allusion to Anatole France. A law can have a secular purpose and still oppose religious values. Again, as I stated above, I’m not claiming that the values it opposes are exclusively religious. It’s possible. But in the current case it “opposes” such a wide range of both religious and secular values that I think it is a bit strange to say there is a religious component at all. Do laws against murder oppose Aztec values? > [@](#): > > Sure, but we’re not talking about laws against discrimination here. We’re talking about laws against human decency and charity. There are a 1,000 way, at least, to follow Christian charitable values. If the state bans one of them, but supports the other 999 (for instance through tax deductions) how can we say the state is opposing Christian values as a whole? > [@](#): > > There are obviously bigots who think that their hate is a value, and I don’t agree with them. But they are not relevant to the two stories I’m responding to here. While we both support one and not the other, the cases are similar. Not allowing a specific expression of a religious value - while allowing all or most others - can’t be generalized to opposing the more general values. Now a religion or group built totally around discrimination can argue that. If the KKK says that the state opposes their values, they have a point. But not Christians or any other religion. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/93 "2015-09-25T22:09:00Z")
It’s currently illegal to hold a prayer meeting in the middle of the freeway. Is that law also an attack on Christian values? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/94 "2015-09-25T23:20:20Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > What defines an attack on Christian values? That fact that it does. > [@](#): > > What about attacks on the values of people who aren’t Christians, or not the same brand of Christian as yours? Is having different values an attack on Christian values? No. > [@](#): > > Tell me: > > **Am I allowed to not be Christian,** or is that an attack on Christian values? Yes, no. > [@](#): > > **Am I allowed to live my life in the way I choose, in a non-Christian way,** not preventing you from living your life in the way you choose, in a Christian way? Generally yes, but, because “in the way I choose” can mean a lot of things, not necessarily. > [@](#): > > \*\*Am I allowed to vote? \*\*Am I allowed to vote in a way that doesn’t follow scripture? Yes, yes. > [@](#): > > \*\*Am I allowed to be a judge, \*\*and make a ruling that doesn’t follow scripture? Yes, yes. > [@](#): > > If that ruling upholds the constitution, and the Supreme Court looks at it and says it’s a good ruling, does that mean the laws are what they are, even if they don’t follow scripture? Yes. It doesn’t those laws are just, good or inmutable (Jim Crow) > [@](#): > > Are any of these things attacks on Christian values? Per se, no. But they can or a cas-by-case basis. > [@](#): > > You see, as much as people like to proudly display their allegiance to a church and a holy book, these religions teach how you conduct your own private life. > > It does not say that everyone else on Earth needs to conduct themselves according to what you believe. For you to get your sky cake, which is so delicious, all you have to do is follow what you believe. You don’t have to get me to follow what you believe. Some holy books do and yes, in a democracy/republic we get to tell people what they do. Inside your head you can believe as you wish, but when you do, whole 'nuther thing. > [@](#): > > Don’t worry, you can have my piece of sky cake. I’m not that hungry. Ok. > [@](#): > > All I \*really \*want is a separation of church, and myself. Ok. Does it also mean separation between your beliefs and others’ lives? > [@](#): > > I’m fine with God being written on the money. Fills me with indiference. > [@](#): > > I’m fine with tax breaks for churches, even though sick people could use that money, and we’d all have proper healthcare if all the churches were required to pay some taxes. Well, skipping a couple of cheeseburger and not giving hundreds of millions to rich people for their stadium would help a lot Re tax breaks: Cancel them for sure, but please, do be sure to run the numbers correctly. Economics has this nasty thing called “unintended consequences” > [@](#): > > I’m fine with Congress being basically 99 percent Christian. 99% CINO. My WAG for US congress is 10-15% really Christian. It’s also 99% beholden to special interest and it’s much worse. > [@](#): > > I don’t care about that. I just want to be able to live my life normally, without someone from a church saying that I have to live my life the way a church says to. Ok, provided you return the favor. > [@](#): > > That’s being a busybody. No really. Kind of a crybaby, but not much. > [@](#): > > I don’t go down to your church and tell you how to conduct your private life or your religion. Maybe you personally don’t, but lots of people do. > [@](#): > > I don’t go down to your church and say your holy book is a disgrace, and it teaches a supremacist attitude toward other religions, the non-religious, the divorced, non-heterosexuals, and treats women as lesser human beings and as property. I don’t point out that it’s fine with slavery. I don’t point out that the religion was used to argue against the ending of slavery, the progress of women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights. I don’t go down to your church and get behind a podium and rant about how offensive and ignorant and backward the teachings are. I restrict that to the internet. I don’t go to your house or club either. We could discuss lots of the incorrect stuff in that paragraph, but that’d be a hijack I want no part in. > [@](#): > > I think ideas are worth criticizing, and I think bad ideas shouldn’t be taught in place of better ideas. Are you the one who defines which are the “bad” ideas? > [@](#): > > I think that the only reason these bad ideas exist still today is because when someone says something stupid, like they believe God told them to run for President only to drop out of the race two months later because God told them that was his plan, or that they will pray their child’s disease away instead of seeking medical treatment, it’s everyone’s right, in fact, it’s everyone’s moral obligation to point out how demonstrably wrong and sickening to society these ideas are. 100% agreed, provided, again, that you return the favor with those covering themselves in the mantle of science and reason for the same kinds of nasty stuff. There are boundaries, though. You live your life how you want. > [@](#): > > You want to go down to a dungeon and pay a lady to whack your bare butt with a coat hanger, and everyone involved is giving permission for this to happen, I don’t have to agree with it, endorse it, care about it. But whether I think it’s a great way to live your life or not, I don’t go down there and try to stop people from living their lives how they want to, as consenting adults. Basically yes. Would you agree on someone selling themself as a slave? > [@](#): > > That’s the line. That’s the boundary. YOUR line, YOUR boundary. > [@](#): > > It’s none of my business what you believe, or who you live with, or what you do together in your own private space. And when you’re out in this shared space, with me, all you have to do is not whack me with a coat hanger, and I really don’t give a shit. Ok. > [@](#): > > If you want to believe it’s God’s plan for the little girls who get raped by members of their own family to raise the child, if you want to believe each little fetus is a miracle, that’s your business. You do with your own uterus what you want, it’s your choice. Ok, but you suck at foreshadowing. > [@](#): > > The problem is, you don’t get to dictate to other people what they do with theirs. You can’t force them to have children inside of there that they don’t want. I’m surprised that you think you’ve solved the abortion issue simply by stating that what you think is right is THE right thing. Especially just after bitching about other people doing the same thing. > [@](#): > > You don’t get to dictate to other people that they can’t be with another consenting adult. Yup, but that means you’re Ok with voluntary slavery, voluntary murder (accepting being killed) or organ selling. > [@](#): > > You don’t get to dictate to the society at large that everyone must have a Christian education with the public fund we all pay into. Agreed, but you don’t get to dictate the all must have non-Christian education. > [@](#): > > You don’t get to require me to swear to your God as a legal requirement before I do something. Why would an oath to a figure I believe is imaginary hold any more weight than an oath I actually made in good faith, on my own honor? Do you really want me to lie? Ok. Alternatives MUST exist. But, “good faith” and “own honor” are also quite imaginary; I mean, they don’t actually exist. > [@](#): > > Are these attacks on Christian values? Mostly not in themselves, but it’s also the classic thing said by people, not you in particular, who will go on until the squash everytihing they deem “not correct” in the name of some other, imaginary, ideal; you know, Gödel. > [@](#): > > No. They are the exact middle ground of tolerance, where you do what you want with your own personal body that belongs to you, and the other people in your life who also share those values and agree to them. Mostly yes, but it’s all posturing for saying “abortion is right”. > [@](#): > > Now, in the public space, some people won’t share those values or agree to them. You can’t force them to. Force values? No Force actions? That’s what living in society is all about, well, not all. > [@](#): > > That’s the line. I cross it and start telling you how to live your life in private, you can tell me to piss off. I go down to your church and start ranting everything I just said, you can ask me to leave. You don’t have to invite me over for dinner. Ok. > [@](#): > > But I’m not the enemy. I’m just a fellow human being who wants to not be shackled in my own private life by things you were told by your church. Which things told where by whom will you be shackled with? > [@](#): > > That’s all. It ain’t. > [@](#): > > It’s a very simple, basic, human rights kind of request. Mostly yes. > [@](#): > > All I’m asking is to not be a member of your club, and to allow your club to exist, and for us to have reasonable rules about what we who are in the club, and we who are not in the club, compromise on in the great shared space called the public. Yes, compromise, yes. > [@](#): > > You don’t get to own 100 percent of the shared space. Agreed, but not 0% either. > [@](#): > > We share the space. We compromise. I get to live my life reasonably in the shared space my own way, you live in the shared space and share your ideas, but cannot enforce them. You seem to want to enforce yours. That paragraph means “I get to do what I think is ok and you get to do what I think is ok.” > [@](#): > > Even Stephen. Fifty Fifty. And then we all live in this society together, not as enemies. But as people with differences. Oh my god, what a concept. Ok. > [@](#): > > When you open a business and you thump a bible and say that you’re not allowed to bake a cake for a gay person, I have news for you, I read the bible, and that’s not what’s written in the bible. You’re now just making shit up to justify your bigotry. Where did the whole “consenting adults” go? Where did “not forcing” go to? > [@](#): > > You know, you don’t have to have a gay couple over for dinner. Just ring them up for their cake, take their fuckin’ money. So, you’re ok with forcing people just after saying you weren’t. > [@](#): > > Because I am far more concerned about the attack by Christians on others they look down their nose at, than the horrible compromises some minority of Christian hardliners have to make to make reasonable considerations for other goddamned people in this society. Such is your right. > [@](#): > > I don’t give a shit if they feel they’re under attack. The people who waited 10 years for gay marriage to finally be legal, who went down to the courthouse to just make it official, get blocked by someone too stupid to understand the difference between public and private, and now the government’s bureaucracy is ground to an utter standstill and ceases to function not just for that couple, but for other couples as well. So, enforce the law. > [@](#): > > Don’t care about them? How about the straight couple behind them that just wanted to get married without being stopped by a clerk who can’t tell her asshole from someone else’s legal rights. Enforce the law. > [@](#): > > I’m concerned with the real people whose real private lives and real private rights are under constant attack by busybodies like her who believe that they can’t have sky cake unless they personally stop everyone else from living their lives the way they want. Ok, provided your own version of the sky cake doesn’t win either. > [@](#): > > Guess what, it’s \*\*not your responsibility \*\*to be the moral guardian of the universe. Your morals leave a whole hell of a lot to be desired in the first place, now piss off. Apparently it’s not mine because it’s already yours. > [@](#): > > Your job is to stamp their fuckin’ ticket, bake their fuckin cake, and shut your goddamned mouth until you get home. Ticket: Yes Cake: No, but laws may differ. Of course, it’s show your whole “consenting adults” is posturing. > [@](#): > > Or, be a prick and tell them to their face you think their lifestyle is a shame, and stamp their ticket. Then, they can tell you to piss off, and freedom of speech has been preserved, and everyone will know that you’ve got no use for people who aren’t exactly like you, and won’t that reflect well on your character. There’s is no lifestyle you find shameful? You’d always stamp the ticket? It seem that you want to make city officials into robots, just following orders, right? No moral responsibility, right? > [@](#): > > Or, you can be like the millions of other Christians just like you who have already figured it out, because it’s not really a mystery. They understand they can pray and go to church and believe what they want to believe and it doesn’t mean they have to personally enforce all of “God’s” laws. All? No. > [@](#): > > Or maybe they think some of those laws are bullshit and they do what every religious person does and pick and choose which laws they actually follow, except they’ll admit it, and rationalize it, and say well, those laws don’t apply anymore, because I have a human brain inside my skull and it says they don’t apply anymore, because it’s not 3000 BC anymore and we’ve had a cultural and philosophical revolution that says we don’t need to stone people to death for wearing blended fabrics on a Friday while seated next to a woman who is menstruating and eating lobster while trimming her husband’s beard. Maybe actually knowing what you’re talking about might help. > [@](#): > > I don’t know, figure it out. But really, the folks “under attack” are the folks who don’t believe in a religion but aren’t allowed to not follow it. Poor them > [@](#): > > That’s the line, and folks with certain “beliefs” have been crossing it for thousands of years. Only now are people actually putting a stop to it, drawing a line down the middle and saying, yes, \*you \*can be religious, but not \*everyone \*has to follow _your_ religion exactly the way \*you \*do. Agreed. > [@](#): > > And believe it or not, the world is a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH happier and fairer and more moral and more just world because of it. Now other people who exist outside of your little bubble can have rights and freedoms too! So glad that your knowledge of reality is tenous. > [@](#): > > ^Addressed to anyone who believes Christian values are under attack. > > When the day comes that the government walks down to your church and shuts the doors and says religion cannot be practiced here, give me a ring, I’ll come running. Well, I’ll walk. That’s what churches have been doing to people who don’t practice for countless generations, intruding upon their freedoms. When you’re not allowed to have a Christian marriage, then yeah, your values will be under attack. Allowing people to have a _non_-christian marriage isn’t the same as that. Yup, you’ll show us by doing the exact thing. > [@](#): > > Mind blown, I know. You’ll adjust, or, old age will take you and life will go on and society will march on without you. So good to have all the answers, you have a nice life oh perfect master of knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/95 "2015-09-25T23:32:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If Catholics were over-represented in charity work, would the law then be against Catholic values as opposed to Methodist values? I think you could make a very good argument that you can determine the values of people via their actions. Like revealed preferences in economics. I think you could then say that charitable work was more of a Catholic value than a Methodist one. Doesn’t mean that it’s not a Methodist value. I think the heart of our disagreement is one of labeling and group association. A group of people who would apply the same label to themselves isn’t going to be composed of cookie-cutter duplicates. There will be variations within the group, and also plenty of people outside the group who might agree with some or most of what the majority of the group agrees with. But we can still make reasonable claims about values that group has. If I said “Legalized same-sex marriage is a goal of the Democratic party”, the facts that 1. there are members of the Democratic party who do not share that goal _and_ 2. there are members of the Republican party (and other parties, and no political affiliation) who do share that goal would not make my statement incorrect. Political parties (like religions) are messy conglomerations of complicated individuals and ideas and values. But we can still discuss those values as being held by the group. > [@](#): > > Do laws against murder oppose Aztec values? Possibly, depending on the nature of Aztec human sacrifice. I don’t know much about it. That doesn’t mean I think we shouldn’t have laws against murder, if that’s the conclusion you’re going for. > [@](#): > > There are a 1,000 way, at least, to follow Christian charitable values. If the state bans one of them, but supports the other 999 (for instance through tax deductions) how can we say the state is opposing Christian values as a whole? I think this is a good point, and I would not go nearly as far as saying that the state is opposing Christian values as a whole. What I said was that the stories about preventing Christians from providing food to the hungry supported the claim, not that it was absolute proof, or the last word on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2015, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/96 "2015-09-26T03:29:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What I think is that you are still trying to avoid the main issue by attempting to divert the discussion towards nitpicking. > > Here are the main issues that are relevant to the topic of this thread: > > In your opinion, do people have a right to refuse to obey a law if they claim doing so would violate their religious beliefs? Do they have no right to do this? Do they have an absolute right to do this? Or do they have a partial right to do this? If people have a partial right, how should we determine if a person has a right to refuse to obey a specific law due to their religious beliefs? I believe what Martin Luther King, Jr., said on the matter: One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. I would further say that in the USA, the Constitution is the supreme law. It says, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof”. (And precedent clearly establishes that this applies to all parts of government, not just Congress.) So if Congres infringes on the right of the people to practice their religion freely, it is Congress who is breaking the supreme law of the country; likewise any other branch of government. I have already mentioned the [case](http://fee.org/freeman/thats-not-kosher-how-four-jewish-butchers-brought-down-the-first-new-deal/) of the Schechter brothers. To recap, the FDR Administration passed restrictive laws on businesses that prepared food, which made it impossible for butchers to offer kosher food. This violated the first amendment rights of Jewish butchers, who fought back in court and had FDR’s rules overturned. In this case it was the Roosevelt Administration that was breaking the law; specifically, they were breaking the First Amendment. If you want to whine about people breaking the law, surely politicians who disobey the Constitution should be at the top of your list. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2015, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/97 "2015-09-26T05:37:30Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I think you could make a very good argument that you can determine the values of people via their actions. Like revealed preferences in economics. > > I think you could then say that charitable work was more of a Catholic value than a Methodist one. Doesn’t mean that it’s not a Methodist value. Then a law preventing some sort of charitable work would be an attack on not just Catholic values but also on Methodist values. In the broader sense, it would be an attack on Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic and secular humanist values. And of course the law does not prevent all or even most charity, just one particular expression of it. Since the law treats all group values equally, and does not condemn almost any expression of the value, saying that the law attacks the broader value is quite odd. On one hand the law attacks the value, on the other hand it rewards it. Either the lawmakers are very confused or else the law says that this particular expression has enough adverse consequences to ban. > [@](#): > > I think the heart of our disagreement is one of labeling and group association. Irrelevant, since I’m not disputing that it is a group value. Though Christians probably wrote the law. > [@](#): > > Possibly, depending on the nature of Aztec human sacrifice. I don’t know much about it. That doesn’t mean I think we shouldn’t have laws against murder, if that’s the conclusion you’re going for. No, the conclusion is that laws against murder are in no way attacks on Aztec religious practice - because the lawmakers almost certainly never considered this. I doubt the writers of the homeless law ever said “we’ll show those Christians!” > [@](#): > > I think this is a good point, and I would not go nearly as far as saying that the state is opposing Christian values as a whole. > > What I said was that the stories about preventing Christians from providing food to the hungry supported the claim, not that it was absolute proof, or the last word on the subject. And again they are preventing everyone from providing this food. The religion of the person doing the providing has nothing to do with anything. To bring it back to Kimmy, sharia law is probably not too fond of SSM either. I have not heard the religious freedomists condemn the decision as an attack on this. Why not? A fundamentalist Muslim is just as forced to issue the license as a fundamentalist Christian. I say that if we hold a demonstration thanking Kim for supporting Sharia law this whole thing would get wound up in no time flat. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2015, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/98 "2015-09-26T14:21:46Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I believe what Martin Luther King, Jr., said on the matter: > One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” > > Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. Okay, so to summarize: a person is allowed to disobey a law for religious reasons if that law is out of harmony with the moral law, not rooted in eternal law and natural law, and degrades human personality. I have to say I find some ambiguity in these standards. They seem subjective. I’m guessing things like moral laws, eternal laws, and natural laws aren’t written down anywhere so we can’t compare them to statutory laws and see if there’s a conflict. And I’m also guessing there’s not a scientific instrument that can measure a human personality and tell if it’s being degraded. So how can we tell if a law is unjust by the standards you’ve offered? You might say a law is just and I might say that same law is unjust. Is each of us allowed to apply our own decision? Or is there some method for determining which of us is right and creating a universal standard? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2015, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/99 "2015-09-27T05:03:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > In your opinion, is a person limited to only limiting their own actions due to their religious beliefs? Or do you feel that a person can use their religious beliefs as the basis to limit another person’s actions? If so, how should we determine if a person can limit somebody else’s actions because they have religious beliefs against those actions? I presume you are smart enough to understand the difference between a government that forces people to obey laws and rules, and an institution that people are voluntarily taking part in or doing business with. The former limits people’s freedom, while the later does not. For example, if the government [bans certain types of cheese](http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2014/06/10/government-is-cracking-down-artisanal-cheese), or [certain types of dishwashers](http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/248385-industry-rails-against-obamas-dishwasher-rules), or [severely restricts the use of manure on organic farms](http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013/11/21/this-one-weird-npr-story-about-manure-explains-our-government/), then the government is limiting people’s choices, because it means that no one in the country can legally choose to buy/sell/produce the things that the government has banned. But if a Catholic hospital chooses not to offer abortions, or a Jewish butcher chooses not to sell non-kosher meat, or a chain of hobby stores chooses to sell insurance that doesn’t cover birth control, that doesn’t restrict anyone’s choices, because no one is forced to participate in any way. If you don’t like the abortion choices at the local hospital you can go to a different hospital. If you don’t like the meat for sale at a kosher butcher shop, you can go to a different butcher shop. You implied that by choosing not to offer abortions in a particular hospital, the directors of that hospital were “imposing their choice on other people,” specifically on doctors and nurses within that hospital. You’re wrong, of course. Anyone who works at a hospital and doesn’t like that hospital’s stance on abortion is free to quit their job and seek a new job elsewhere. Obviously, the directors of any hospital are going to make decisions about what takes place in the hospital and enforce those decisions. To say that the directors can’t limit what takes place in the hospital is absurd, and would lead to consequences that are simultaneously dangerous and farcical. Suppose the directors and Northeast Bob Hospital (NHB) decide that NHB will not offer acupuncture. Can they require that everyone working at NHB abide by this decision? Of course. Doctors have no right to go rogue and offer whatever medical services they feel like. If a doctor at NHB decides that he or she absolutely must offer acupuncture to patients, he or she can seek employment elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/100 "2015-09-27T21:56:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > …Anyone who works at a hospital and doesn’t like that hospital’s stance on abortion is free to quit their job and seek a new job elsewhere… Is it equally true in terms of consequences? Doctors and nurses are in relatively high demand, and therefore are not as subject to negative consequences. Is that equally true of the janitorial staff? Most places you can’t get unemployment benefits if you quit voluntarily, is there are a special provision for quitting due to religious conviction? If not, then freedom of conscience is a right that is largely dependent on economic circumstances. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295.md?page=6)