"Christian values in America are under attack, these days"??

[ITR_champion]

@Little_Nemo

Gee, I’m pretty sure somebody brought up the subject of abortions. Let’s see if we can find that post.

I brought up the subject of abortions in post#26, but did not reference any abortions being performed.

In post #29 you quoted what I said, then said “These are examples of people saying that something that is illegal is part of their Christian beliefs.”

In post #37, I quoted that, then said, “Okay, let’s see whether that’s true or not. One of the examples that I mentioned is when the ACLU sued the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in an attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The USCCB defended against the lawsuit, and the court tossed it out with prejudice. What is the ‘something that is illegal’ in this particular case?”

In post #43, you quoted that, but didn’t answer my question. Instead you went off on a tangent about “the abortions”, without ever explaining what abortions you were referring to. Since none of my posts up to that point had ever actually mentioned abortions being performed, there was absolutely nothing which would let any reader know what you were referring to by “the abortions”.

In post #52, I quoted your statement from #43, and then asked, “What abortions are you referring to?”

In post #57, you quoted my question, but didn’t provide an answer. You said that I brought up the subject of abortions, which is correct. However, since I never referred to any specific abortions, it remains completely unclear what abortions you were referring to in post #43. (And while we’re on the topic of things that you haven’t explained, you also haven’t identified the “something that is illegal” that you mentioned in post #29.)

[ITR_champion]

@Trinopus

Anyway, is it true? Did the ACLU sue to try to force a Catholic hospital’s doctors and administrators to perform and authorize abortions? I’d never heard of this, and would like some more details.

(For instance, if the abortion were necessary to save the life or protect the health of the woman who was pregnant, and a hospital’s personnel refused, there could be a real whopper of a lawsuit for improper endangerment and malpractice.)

Full judge’s ruling is here; brief summary here. The ACLU was claiming that a pregnant woman, Tamesha Means, was treated improperly because although her fetus was not viable, the Catholic hospital refused to terminate the pregnancy immediately. According to the ACLU, this was because of rules written by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The judge found the plaintiff’s arguments unclear and not supported by facts, and tossed the case.

If the ACLU had won, it’s not clear exactly what that would have meant for abortions in Catholic hopsitals, but obviously it would mean that the current rules under which all Catholic hospitals agree not to perform abortions would be made illegal. Then again, the case was so weak that there was little chance of winning, and many suspect that the ACLU’s real goal was just to smear Catholics. If so, it certainly fits a pattern, because it’s not the first frivolous lawsuit that the ACLU has used to harass Catholic charities.

[kaylasdad99]

@Little_Nemo

Sorry, you don’t get to declare you won the argument back over your shoulder as you run away.

I didn’t say a hospital can’t be sued. I said - as quoted above - that a building can’t perform an abortion. I’m standing by that. If you disagree, say so.
Gee, I’m pretty sure somebody brought up the subject of abortions. Let’s see if we can find that post.

@Trinopus

Have you never, even once, ever in your entire career posting at SDMB, used a similar linguistic shortcut? Have you never spoken of a nation making war, or a car running a red light, or a knife causing a wound?

It’s obvious that “the hospital” is a shortcut for the people who make up the hospital’s organizing board, its directors, its staff, etc.

Sure, we can all play hyper-linguistic pedantic games, but, c’mon. Is that helpful?

Anyway, is it true? Did the ACLU sue to try to force a Catholic hospital’s doctors and administrators to perform and authorize abortions? I’d never heard of this, and would like some more details.

(For instance, if the abortion were necessary to save the life or protect the health of the woman who was pregnant, and a hospital’s personnel refused, there could be a real whopper of a lawsuit for improper endangerment and malpractice.)

@ITR_champion

I brought up the subject of abortions in post#26, but did not reference any abortions being performed.

In post #29 you quoted what I said, then said “These are examples of people saying that something that is illegal is part of their Christian beliefs.”

In post #37, I quoted that, then said, “Okay, let’s see whether that’s true or not. One of the examples that I mentioned is when the ACLU sued the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in an attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The USCCB defended against the lawsuit, and the court tossed it out with prejudice. What is the ‘something that is illegal’ in this particular case?”

In post #43, you quoted that, but didn’t answer my question. Instead you went off on a tangent about “the abortions”, without ever explaining what abortions you were referring to. Since none of my posts up to that point had ever actually mentioned abortions being performed, there was absolutely nothing which would let any reader know what you were referring to by “the abortions”.

In post #52, I quoted your statement from #43, and then asked, “What abortions are you referring to?”

In post #57, you quoted my question, but didn’t provide an answer. You said that I brought up the subject of abortions, which is correct. However, since I never referred to any specific abortions, it remains completely unclear what abortions you were referring to in post #43. (And while we’re on the topic of things that you haven’t explained, you also haven’t identified the “something that is illegal” that you mentioned in post #29.)

I imagine slash2k must be feeling a little like chopped liver. Postt 44:

@slash2k

And you haven’t given a very accurate summary of that lawsuit. The plaintiff arrived at a Catholic hospital (the only hospital in her county) in the middle of miscarrying at 18 weeks; the hospital sent her home twice and was in the process of discharging her for the third time in two days, while she was in extreme pain and with an active infection, when she delivered an infant who died shortly after birth. Her argument was that the hospital, in following the bishops’ guidelines, did not offer medically appropriate care (inducing labor when it became obvious the pregnancy would not continue), and thereby were directly responsible for medical negligence, causing her unnecessary suffering, and endangering her life. (And I’m pretty sure there’s some illegalities in that.) She did not seek to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions willy-nilly; she wanted a ruling that Catholic hospitals must offer appropriate care to pregnant patients, even if that means terminating an unviable or dangerous pregnancy.

The bishops, in essence, were defending the right to allow a patient to die in the ER rather than save her life, if saving her life meant ending her pregnancy.

(The judge, in dismissing her lawsuit against the bishops, also said she could still sue the hospital and/or the doctors for malpractice, but that the bishops had the right to espouse a religious doctrine that made a woman’s life less important than the church’s stance on abortion.)

[Kobal2]

@Smapti

We’ve basically reached the point in political discourse where phrases like “religious liberty” and “Christian values” are little more than dog whistles along the lines of “states’ rights”.

Eh, not quite. More like rallying cries. They’re empty of any meaning per se, but encode a whole slew of Us stuff. They’re basically a way to say “come support this/me if you’re on my side of the so-called culture war !”. I don’t think they’re ways to sneak unsavoury messages in mixed crowds, which dog whistles are about.

[Richard_Parker]

The lawsuit, by the way, is on appeal. I’d give it even odds.

[YogSothoth]

What we need are government endorsed official definitions of what religions believe in! That’ll solve all our problems!

Want to know if Christians are falsely claiming serving gays violate their religion? Look in the Government Religious Code book! Hmm…it says here that nope, Christians cannot use that as an excuse because being gay is not that serious an offense, also yada yada yada, render unto Caesar, blah blah blah, Old Testament made irrelevant by Jesus and…nope, it looks like you can’t use that as an excuse.

Also, according to the book, Christians should believe in helping the poor and also shouldn’t be that rich either.

[OttoDaFe]

@YogSosoth

<snip>
Also, according to the book, Christians should believe in helping the poor and also shouldn’t be that rich either.

Looks like you’ve fallen into the Satanic trap like so many others. Fortunately the Conservative Bible Project (an endeavor conceived by the same brain cell that brought us Conservapedia [the source of the above link]) will purge the liberal corruptions and return The Book to its original, free-market glory.

[Knorf]

@leftfield6

Is separation of church and state an attack on Christians? Cause that’s all this is.

So, basically, the United States was founded as an attack on Christians, it seems.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Larry_Borgia

2 and 3 involve people being arrested for civilly disobeying laws against feeding the homeless. These are wonderful people and I admire their civil disobedience in the face of these horrible laws. However, they are being prosecuted for disobeying the laws, not for merely being Christian. Jews, Muslims and Atheists would also be arrested for the same acts. I would be willing to bet a fair amount of money that many of those who passed these anti-homeless laws show up faithfully for Church every Sunday.

I think these examples strongly support the claim that Christian values are under attack (which is the phrase used in the OP). Not that Christians are under attack, which is what most people seem to be responding to.

Sure, the law, in its majestic equality, also prevents the Screen Actors Guild and the World Wildlife Fund from giving food to homeless people, but those groups aren’t engaged in that practice. The fact that the law has a secular purpose does not disprove that it is opposed to Christian values. In fact, it arguably supports that, since the secular purpose is entirely at odds with the Christian value in question.

The Christians in question aren’t under attack because they got arrested for breaking a secular law that applies to everyone. “Christian Values” like charity and service are under attack when laws like this get passed in the first place.

I say this all as an atheist who thinks that we’d all be better off if charity and service and compassion played a larger role in public life. Not because God says so, but because it’s the right thing to do.

[Little_Nemo]

@Trinopus

Have you never, even once, ever in your entire career posting at SDMB, used a similar linguistic shortcut? Have you never spoken of a nation making war, or a car running a red light, or a knife causing a wound?

Yes, I have. But in this particular case, it was an important distinction.

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.

[Little_Nemo]

@OttoDaFe

Looks like you’ve fallen into the Satanic trap like so many others. Fortunately the Conservative Bible Project (an endeavor conceived by the same brain cell that brought us Conservapedia [the source of the above link]) will purge the liberal corruptions and return The Book to its original, free-market glory.

I love that they say one of their goals is “not dumbing down the reading level”. Here’s an example of that:

Genesis 1:1, King James Bible - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1, Conservative Bible - For starters, God created the heavens and the earth.

Yes, that really elevates the text.

[Voyager]

@iamthewalrus_3

I think these examples strongly support the claim that Christian values are under attack (which is the phrase used in the OP). Not that Christians are under attack, which is what most people seem to be responding to.

Sure, the law, in its majestic equality, also prevents the Screen Actors Guild and the World Wildlife Fund from giving food to homeless people, but those groups aren’t engaged in that practice. The fact that the law has a secular purpose does not disprove that it is opposed to Christian values. In fact, it arguably supports that, since the secular purpose is entirely at odds with the Christian value in question.

The Christians in question aren’t under attack because they got arrested for breaking a secular law that applies to everyone. “Christian Values” like charity and service are under attack when laws like this get passed in the first place.

I say this all as an atheist who thinks that we’d all be better off if charity and service and compassion played a larger role in public life. Not because God says so, but because it’s the right thing to do.

Nonsense. Christians are not the only ones to want to help the homeless. 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.
So we have two possibilities - one that the intent of the law is to be opposed to a whole gamut of religious and secular values, or the intent of the law is to stop one specific action. I think the most likely case is clear. Plus, since there are groups which are allowed to help the homeless in various ways, a law against that would close them down or forbid donations to them from anyone.
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.

Religious values are not under attack - but bigots may be suffering collateral damage as our society matures.

[Kobal2]

@Little_Nemo

I love that they say one of their goals is “not dumbing down the reading level”. Here’s an example of that:

Genesis 1:1, King James Bible - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1, Conservative Bible - For starters, God created the heavens and the earth.

Yes, that really elevates the text.

Well, it does increase curiosity on what God had as the entrée.

[slash2k]

@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.

It wasn’t even really about abortions as most people would define them (a voluntary decision to end a pregnancy).

Instead, it was about pregnant women whose pregnancies were in trouble (ectopic, or being miscarried, or otherwise threatening the mother’s life, for example). It is the bishops’ position that if the pregnancy cannot possibly result in a healthy infant and is inevitably going to end in a dead fetus, but for right this instant the fetus still has a heartbeat, it is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine to take any direct action to terminate the pregnancy, even if that action would also save the mother.

For example, a “tubal” pregnancy never results in a live birth; the inevitable rupture of the Fallopian tube causes catastrophic bleeding that kills the baby and sometimes the mother too. Removing the embryo from the tube to prevent rupture, the standard medical treatment, constitutes an abortion and is a mortal sin. (Theologians debate with whether salpingectomy [removing the entire tube or the part in which the embryo has attached] is permissible or not.)

The bishops are concerned about the next world, not this one; a woman dying before her time of preventable causes just means she gets to the Heavenly Gates a little bit sooner. However, it’s hardly a universal Christian value to needlessly sacrifice a life.

[bump]

@John_Mace

That’s just part of it. I think it’s mainly that we used to allow much more influence of religion in public life back in the day, such as prayer in schools not that long ago, and now we interpret the 1st amendment more strictly than we used to. Of course, it was always the Christian religion that was allowed to seep into the public sphere, so it’s obvious that it’s going to that religion that is “under attack”.

Many of us argue that this is a good thing, but some see it as a bad thing. They think the country was a “Christian country” before, where Christianity had a special place, and now it’s turning more secular (as well as acknowledging other religions as silenus notes).

It also doesn’t help that many in the Republican party pander to this attitude and that it’s all over Right Wing Talk Radio.

Yep, that’s what I was going to say after reading the OP… that the separation of church and state, especially at state and local levels, was much more blurry than it is nowadays. This is because of various court cases brought by people of other religions (or no religion), and a greater tolerance/acknowledgment of people of other faiths.

There are lots of people whose conception of the US is of a nation where that separation of church and state is very blurry; since the old laws more or less reflected the Christian faith that they hold to, it’s easy to see how an attack on those laws might well be viewed as an attack on their religion and values, since it’s essentially outlawing or removing something that had always been there. It’s the removal of something that was “always” there, even though realistically, it never should have been, that’s the problem.

[Knorf]

@Little_Nemo

I love that they say one of their goals is “not dumbing down the reading level”. Here’s an example of that:

Genesis 1:1, King James Bible - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1, Conservative Bible - For starters, God created the heavens and the earth.

Yes, that really elevates the text.

For the religious right, dumbing down is elevating. Nothing is more anathema to their world view than intellect, knowledge, and critical thinking.

[monstro]

ITR Champion, I’m curious about your take on something.

My boss’s 97-year-old mother just died. His boss tasked his secretary to pick out the card for everyone to sign. Just a few minutes ago, the secretary called me into her cubicle and handed me the card to read. It was practically dripping with Bible scripture, from cover to cover. There was a big ole picture of Jesus inside. She asked me to give her opinion, and not wanting to offend, I just said “It’s…nice.”

Now, the boss should have guessed this was going to happen since the secretary’s religiosity isn’t exactly a secret. The boss told the secretary to return the card and get a more secular one. The secretary has been pouting in her cubicle for the past hour over this. In her opinion, the card is a good one since the boss is Christian and presumably so was his mother. She described it as a “godly” card and intimated that the uber-boss was being ungodly by rejecting it.

But I’m guessing the uber-boss just wants a card that is less overtly Christian out of respect for those non-Christian employees (like possibly herself) who want to show their support. Also, we actually don’t know if the boss is a very religious man. He may be hardcore Catholic, or he may only be culturally Catholic. All the Scripture stuff may go right over his head.

I’m curious to know if you think the secretary would be correct to liken this to an attack on Christian values.

[Askthepizzaguy]

What defines an attack on Christian values?

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?

Tell me:

Am I allowed to not be Christian, or is that an attack on Christian values?

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?

**Am I allowed to vote? **Am I allowed to vote in a way that doesn’t follow scripture?

**Am I allowed to be a judge, **and make a ruling that doesn’t follow scripture?

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?

Are any of these things attacks on Christian values?

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.

Don’t worry, you can have my piece of sky cake. I’m not that hungry.

All I *really *want is a separation of church, and myself.

I’m fine with God being written on the money. 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. I’m fine with Congress being basically 99 percent Christian.

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.

That’s being a busybody.

I don’t go down to your church and tell you how to conduct your private life or your religion.

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 think ideas are worth criticizing, and I think bad ideas shouldn’t be taught in place of better 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.

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.

That’s the line. That’s the 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.

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.

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.

You don’t get to dictate to other people that they can’t be with another consenting adult.

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.

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?

Are these attacks on Christian values?

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.

Now, in the public space, some people won’t share those values or agree to them. You can’t force them to.

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.

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.

That’s all.

It’s a very simple, basic, human rights kind of request.

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.

You don’t get to own 100 percent of the shared space.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your job is to stamp their fuckin’ ticket, bake their fuckin cake, and shut your goddamned mouth until you get home.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

^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.

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.

[leftfield6]

PizzaGuy, that was fucking awesome. That’s all I got.

[ITR_champion]

@monstro

ITR Champion, I’m curious about your take on something.

My boss’s 97-year-old mother just died. His boss tasked his secretary to pick out the card for everyone to sign. Just a few minutes ago, the secretary called me into her cubicle and handed me the card to read. It was practically dripping with Bible scripture, from cover to cover. There was a big ole picture of Jesus inside. She asked me to give her opinion, and not wanting to offend, I just said “It’s…nice.”

Now, the boss should have guessed this was going to happen since the secretary’s religiosity isn’t exactly a secret. The boss told the secretary to return the card and get a more secular one. The secretary has been pouting in her cubicle for the past hour over this. In her opinion, the card is a good one since the boss is Christian and presumably so was his mother. She described it as a “godly” card and intimated that the uber-boss was being ungodly by rejecting it.

But I’m guessing the uber-boss just wants a card that is less overtly Christian out of respect for those non-Christian employees (like possibly herself) who want to show their support. Also, we actually don’t know if the boss is a very religious man. He may be hardcore Catholic, or he may only be culturally Catholic. All the Scripture stuff may go right over his head.

I’m curious to know if you think the secretary would be correct to liken this to an attack on Christian values.

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?

But as I said, not an attack on Christian values. Hate-filled rants in the media and laws that infringe on religious freedom are attacks.