# "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:** 6
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/101 "2015-09-28T06:06:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. . . . Actually, I would think that psychological science is well-enough advanced to give us some pretty good working definitions of personal degradation. The problem is that both sides of, say, the abortion debate can use that to their benefit. Otherwise (and that was nitpicking) you’re right: “Natural Law” means nothing. There are no “inalienable” rights. And…if someone here declares, yes, there are, then tell me which side of the abortion debate is “inalienable”: the right of a fetus to life, or the right of a woman to personal control over her own body? You can’t have both…but both are, to many people, “natural” and “inalienable.” At least the approach of the U.S. Bill of Rights is pretty clear: it defines “rights” as activities the government cannot legitimately curtail, and sets limits on the government’s power to make laws. At least we all have something there we can point to and say, “There! That thing, there is a right.” ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/102 "2015-09-28T18:00:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. > > [snip] If you don’t like the abortion choices at the local hospital you can go to a different hospital. In the lawsuit to which you have repeatedly alluded (ACLU vs the bishops), the whole point of the lawsuit was that the woman showed up at the only hospital in her county, in the middle of a medical emergency, and was discharged _ **without ever being told** _ that the reason that the hospital was not treating her condition or easing her pain was because they considered the medically appropriate treatment constituted an abortion as defined by the bishops. If you are not ever even told what the choices are at the local hospital, how do you know that you need to go elsewhere? How “voluntary” was the lady’s decision under the specific circumstances of that case? (Yes, I am aware that you have failed to address every other comment about this case I’ve made in the thread, but I’m going to keep bringing it up in counterpoint to your arguments anyway.) ---
**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 28, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/103 "2015-09-28T19:02:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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 the crux of our disagreement. I don’t agree that the lawmakers needed to have considered this particular aspect of the law, nor that they needed to have acted out of malice toward a particular group, for the result of the law to constitute a substantive attack. I think reasonable people can disagree on this. ---
**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 28, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/104 "2015-09-28T19:19:30Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I think this is the crux of our disagreement. > > I don’t agree that the lawmakers needed to have considered this particular aspect of the law, nor that they needed to have acted out of malice toward a particular group, for the result of the law to constitute a substantive attack. > > I think reasonable people can disagree on this. I guess it boils down to what you mean by attack. If I see an ant crawling on my floor, and I stomp it, I’m attacking that ant. If I happen to step on an ant outside, without knowing it, I don’t think I’m attacking that ant - though it is all the same to the ant. When the Christians claim they are being attacked, they are claiming that this attack is deliberate. Since people sympathize with those being attacked, this stance makes their actions easier to defend than if they had to defend the bigotry of anti-SSM laws. Specifically, why do all those Christians who do support SSM not feel they are being attacked? Maybe this is an outgrowth of identity politics. They escalate from “your attack on my position is wrong” (and that is an actual attack) to “your attack on my position is actually an attack on my group” as if everyone in the group held the same belief. They are kind of like the people who can’t take criticism. “You said that sentence was ungrammatical? Why do you hate me so much!” ---
**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 28, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/105 "2015-09-28T21:46:47Z")
I agree that “attack” is very charged language, and it does imply things like aggression and purposeful defiance. And that there are plenty of blowhards out there who will claim victimhood when they can’t force everyone else to act the way they want. ---
**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 30, 2015, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/106 "2015-09-30T04:32:05Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > In the lawsuit to which you have repeatedly alluded (ACLU vs the bishops), the whole point of the lawsuit was that the woman showed up at the only hospital in her county, in the middle of a medical emergency, and was discharged _ **without ever being told** _ that the reason that the hospital was not treating her condition or easing her pain was because they considered the medically appropriate treatment constituted an abortion as defined by the bishops. > > If you are not ever even told what the choices are at the local hospital, how do you know that you need to go elsewhere? How “voluntary” was the lady’s decision under the specific circumstances of that case? > > (Yes, I am aware that you have failed to address every other comment about this case I’ve made in the thread, but I’m going to keep bringing it up in counterpoint to your arguments anyway.) Yes, that’s what the ACLU claims. The judge looked at the facts and threw out their lawsuit. If the woman believes that she was given medically incorrect treatment, the correct legal path would have been a malpractice lawsuit against the hospital. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2015, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/107 "2015-09-30T05:47:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The counter-argument is that nobody, Christian or otherwise, is required to have an abortion or a same-sex marriage. So anyone who believes these things are wrong can simply choose to not do them. I’m pro-choice, but I can see why that argument doesn’t fly with abortion. Civil marriage for same-sex couples may somehow be a violation of religious law, but people say abortion is murder; you don’t have to be religious to object to murder, and if the Supreme Court struck down all laws against murder I doubt many people would shrug and say “well, you don’t have to kill anyone if you don’t want to” But I don’t want to start yet another derail. > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > No. The law against feeding the homeless is not a law against Christianity, it’s a law intended to drive the homeless away from certain communities. Yes, but it has the effect of punishing people for practicing Christianity, and whether that was the intended effect is of limited relevance. I don’t find “it’s my religious duty to break this law” all that compelling a defense, frankly, but these laws in particular are cruel to begin with, and I’m totally going to support kindness over cruelty. That said, I agree with those who say “attack on Christianity” implies intent. These laws may punish Christians for doing what they view as their religious duty, but they aren’t motivated by antipathy towards Christianity. [QUOTE=Larry Borgia] Anyone who violates these laws–and good on them for doing so–will be arrested, whether their motivation is because they feel God compels them to do so, or whether they are just acting out of compassion for their less fortunate fellow humans. [/QUOTE] I like the distinction you’ve drawn. Did you intend to? > [@BigT](#): > > You don’t get to decide that the true meaning is “the law is specifically attacking Christians.” That’s not what they mean. I know you want to believe that, so you can dismiss them, but that makes it a strawman. Hm. Is the question whether people who think Christian values are under attack are correct, or is it what actions they see as attacks on Christian values? If it’s the second, you’re right, there’s no point arguing they don’t consider something an attack when they actually do. If it’s the first, defining our terms isn’t irrelevant. Like **kenobi** , I have a feeling that the Christian values people are saying are being attacked aren’t primarily those relating to charity. > [@kenobi\_65](#): > > 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. Indeed. As an atheist, I would totally have signed the card. But I would endorse the sentiment (“your mom died, that sucks”) even if I didn’t endorse the presentation. Just as Davis is being asked to certify that the couples meet the legal requirements for a civil marriage licence, not to express personal or even official (let alone divine) approval of the marriage. > [@elucidator](#): > > Well, if providing that care would be contrary to their religious principles, they should take the appropriate action: get different religious principles. As a Jew, I find the idea that a life-saving medical procedure is against someone’s religion alien ---
**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 30, 2015, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/108 "2015-09-30T12:03:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. Does this mean that you’ve abandoned the whole eternal law/moral law/natural law justification? Or are you now saying that natural law is that a person has the rights and liberties that their employer endows upon them? Doesn’t your “you can always go someplace else if you don’t like our rules” apply to government as well? Your argument is that if you don’t like your boss’s rules you can quit and find another place to work. But if you don’t like the laws, can’t you just move and find another place to live? I realize the two situations aren’t identical. In a democratic society, the people who make the rules are chosen by the people who live under the rules - so people are essentially ruling themselves. This of course is not the case in a workplace. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2015, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/109 "2015-09-30T14:05:08Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yes, that’s what the ACLU claims. The judge looked at the facts and threw out their lawsuit. > > If the woman believes that she was given medically incorrect treatment, the correct legal path would have been a malpractice lawsuit against the hospital. The judge threw out the lawsuit on the grounds that even if everything the ACLU said was true, it didn’t matter, because the bishops weren’t the ones on duty in the hospital that day. How does that fact in any way answer the questions posed to you? ---
**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:** [October 2, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/110 "2015-10-02T15:18:40Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > The judge threw out the lawsuit on the grounds that even if everything the ACLU said was true, it didn’t matter, because the bishops weren’t the ones on duty in the hospital that day. > > How does that fact in any way answer the questions posed to you? Is there any evidence that the version of events presented by the ACLU is true? I have yet to see any. Given the ACLU’s history of anti-Catholic bigotry, it would certainly be foolish to blindly believe a story they were using to smear Catholics without a trace of evidence. Again, as I pointed out, if the woman in this case received bad or incorrect medical treatment, the right response would have been to sue the hospital for malpractice, not to sue a Catholic organization that was never involved in her treatment. Yet neither the woman nor the ACLU is suing the hospital for malpractice, implying that they don’t have any legal grounds for saying that the treatment was incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/111 "2015-10-02T19:06:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Given the ACLU’s history of anti-Catholic bigotry I’m curious about this. Has the ACLU been taking positions that the Catholic Church is bad? Have they been refusing to defend the religious freedom of Catholics while defending the religious freedom of other groups in parallel situations? I Googled, but found (aside from obviously biased\* essays and blog posts by the ACLU itself and various chapters thereof refuting the claim) only articles about the ACLU working for the freedom of non-Catholics to not have to follow Catholic doctrine or restrictions, or otherwise not going along with assertions that the Church position _per se_ should be deferred to. \*Not sarcasm. Just because I agree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t a bias ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/112 "2015-10-02T19:20:50Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yet neither the woman nor the ACLU is suing the hospital for malpractice, implying that they don’t have any legal grounds for saying that the treatment was incorrect. This is a bizarre claim. If you actually read the [complaint](https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/complaint_final_1.pdf), you’ll see that it sets forth in great detail why what the hospital did was malpractice. Paragraph 52 sets out exactly what the standard of care requires. The fact that Ms. Means chose to sue the people who force multiple hospitals to follow that policy, and not the doctors in an individual hospital who had no choice but to carry it out, does not reflect on whether they had medical grounds for saying the treatment was incorrect. ---
**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:** [October 2, 2015, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/113 "2015-10-02T23:50:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Does this mean that you’ve abandoned the whole eternal law/moral law/natural law justification? Or are you now saying that natural law is that a person has the rights and liberties that their employer endows upon them? No, I am not saying that or anything like that. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t your “you can always go someplace else if you don’t like our rules” apply to government as well? Your argument is that if you don’t like your boss’s rules you can quit and find another place to work. But if you don’t like the laws, can’t you just move and find another place to live? > > I realize the two situations aren’t identical. I’m glad you realize that the two situation aren’t identical. I’m pretty sure everyone else realizes why the two situations aren’t identical as well. But just to be sure, let’s explore why the two situations aren’t identical. Let’s say I’m employed by McDonald’s. Then I decide that I don’t like something about the terms of my employment–I don’t like the uniform I’m required to wear, or the health insurance that McDonald’s is selling, or the greasy smell in the building. I can leave McDonald’s at any time I want, and once I choose to terminate my employment with McDonald’s, the McDonald’s corporation won’t inflict any punishment on me. They won’t impose fines, put me in jail, or kill me. But now let’s say I live in the United States, and make a similar decision that I don’t like some law of the United Sates–I don’t like giving 25% of my income to the government as taxes, or I don’t like being banned from smoking marijuana. If I disobey the laws of the government, the government will come and punish me. They’ll send some big guys with guns to either take my money, or kill me, or arrest me. That’s the difference between an employer that I’m voluntarily entering into agreement with, and a government that I don’t have any choice about obeying. The same argument that applies to employers does not apply to the government, because the government sends big guys with guns to force everybody to obey it, while my employer does not. Is this really that difficult to understand? ---
**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:** [October 3, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/114 "2015-10-03T00:17:38Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > I’m curious about this. Has the ACLU been taking positions that the Catholic Church is bad? Have they been refusing to defend the religious freedom of Catholics while defending the religious freedom of other groups in parallel situations? They’ve certain been refusing to defend the religious freedom of Catholics, since as we’ve already seen, they’ve been suing to try to get the religious freedom of Catholics taken away. The lawsuit I mentioned in this thread is far from the only case in which the ACLU has legally harassed Catholic organizations. For instance, you may recall last year that there was a wave of immigrant children attempting to cross the border into the United States. Catholic charities along with others arrived on the scene, determined to help the children by providing food, housing, and other necessities. The ACLU, naturally, filed [a harassing lawsuit](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/23/aclu-lawsuit-pushes-feds-force-catholic-charities-/?page=all) aiming to cut off federal funding for this charitable effort, because the Catholic Charity groups weren’t providing abortions. I do not know whether the ACLU has similarly harassed members of other religious groups in parallel situations, or whether any other group has even been in a parallel situation, but obviously attempting to force Catholic charities to perform abortions is anti-Catholic bigotry. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/115 "2015-10-03T00:43:35Z")
[Here’s a list of cases the ACLU has taken on behalf of Christians.](http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/) I can see at least a couple of Catholics on there. Probably more, but they don’t always identify the flavor of Christianity that was under attack. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/116 "2015-10-03T00:58:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > They’ve certain been refusing to defend the religious freedom of Catholics, since as we’ve already seen, they’ve been suing to try to get the religious freedom of Catholics taken away. . . . Bullshit. That only works if you define “religious freedom” as the ability to prevent someone else from exercising their own rights. Are there Catholic Churches being seized under eminent domain? Are Catholics prohibited from holding public office? Is teaching Trinitarianism or Transubstantiation illegal? Was the Pope prohibited from speaking publicly? The ACLU is one of the reasons Catholics aren’t as oppressed in this country as they were in 1925. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/117 "2015-10-03T01:00:02Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > I just figure they’re complaining about a diminishment of Christian privilege. Very much this. Politicians pander for votes, news pundits spew screeds, racist xenophobes do thier thing, but this is the essence of issue. It doesn’t always feel like it, but we are changing culturaly very quickly and I am ok wi th that. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2015, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/118 "2015-10-03T05:55:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Bullshit. That only works if you define “religious freedom” as the ability to prevent someone else from exercising their own rights. Actually no, it does not. I’ve already linked to two lawsuits filed by the ACLU, one in which the ACLU seeks to force Catholic hospitals to change policy on abortions, and one in which the ACLU seeks to force Catholic charities to perform abortions and distribute birth control. To state the obvious, neither of these cases involves Catholics preventing someone else from exercising their rights. Both involve the ACLU trying to prevent Catholics from exercising their First Amendment rights. [Other cases](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-hospital-faces-lawsuit-for-refusing-sterilization) where the ACLU has tried to prevent Catholics from practicing their religion can certainly be found. ---
**Author:** ![tafowler87](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f07891/32.png) [@tafowler87](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tafowler87)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2015, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/119 "2015-10-03T08:05:43Z")
Did these “Christians” specify why they felt their values were under attack? ---
**Author:** ![tafowler87](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f07891/32.png) [@tafowler87](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tafowler87)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2015, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295/120 "2015-10-03T08:14:12Z")
What values? Are they referring to a difference in value? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-values-in-america-are-under-attack-these-days/732295.md?page=7)