If I were a devout Christian, I'd be against the Indiana Law for this reason

Great Debates
1

(Sorry for the click-bait title. I just didn’t know how else to frame my thoughts.)

Matthew 22:15

I know this has been interpreted in a number of ways. The message I’ve always been taught is that Jesus was advocating the separation of church and secular authority. If Caesar says to pax taxes, you pay them. But you also pay tithes and offerings to your Lord. If Ceasar says to jump, your ass should jump. But you had better jump when the Lord tells you to jump, too.

Of course, maybe paying taxes to Caesar wasn’t an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Maybe Jesus would have said something different if the Pharisees had been trying to trick him some other way.

But over the course of his ministry, he had plenty of opportunity to urge his followers to fight the wickedness of the authority around them. Yet he kept his rebellion to social/religious convention. Not secular laws. Which is odd, because I’m sure there was a whole bunch of stuff he could have rallied against.

And then here’s this from Paul (Romans 13:1):“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
The ultra-religious should want the government to forbid morality-based discrimination. Personally, I know that if I had to worry about my spot in heaven every time a new customer walked into my shop, I’d be totally stressed out all the time. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night. What if God really has a problem with me baking a cake for the adulterers more than the gay guys, and here I am protesting over the homos when my ass is already hell-bound? My job would be a lot easier if the government made the decision for me. If St. Peter has a problem with my choices when I come knocking at the Pearly Gates, I can just remind him what St. Paul and Jesus said. Otherwise, I will have to defend why I gave a pass with one group of sinners but not another. That’s a lot of explainin’.

Why does it seem like such pragmaticism is discouraged in Christianity?

2

It is often a mistake to focus on one verse to the exclusion of all others. There are many theological issues where the only correct solution is to try to find the proper balance.

It might be helpful to use the analogy of listening to music. You don’t want everything to come through either the right or left speaker–that’s unbalanced.

The Bible is a seamless, connected whole. It is often necessary to take more than one part into account in order to come up with the correct answer.

Yes, it it good for a Christian to submit to earthly authority–IF that authority does not contradict Divine authority. When it does–
“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

3

Where does it say, though, not to do business with sinners? A business that didn’t trade with sinners would find it has no customers at all.

4

So, when Pliny the Younger was a Roman governor, and he ordered suspected Christians to offer sacrifices to the idols representing Roman gods, you think the Christians should have said, “Sure, no problem”?

They didn’t. They accepted Pliny’s authority to have them imprisoned or put to death, but there were laws they would not and could not obey.

When a devout liberal Episcopalian is ordered by the government to report for military duty, should he say, “No problem, on my way”?

He won’t. At least, he shouldn’t. He should say no, even if he ends up in prison.

If the government requires a Christian to do something he considers immoral, he has an obligation to follow his conscience, and to accept whatever punishment the secular authorities impose.

5

I don’t take the OP seriously. I really don’t. I’m pretty sure he hates Christianity and everything about it, and is offering a dishonest argument that he thinks will put Christians in a bind.

But I’ll pretend he’s sincere.

Monstro, in the REAL world, have you ever heard about a restaurant throwing out a patron just because he seemed a little light in the loafers and MIGHT be gay? Even the owner of the now notorious Memories Pizza parlor in Indiana says she’s never refused to serve gay patrons! Gay people have to eat too, and when a gay guy walked into Memories Pizaa and said, “Gimme a slice with anchovies and a Mountain Dew,” he got what he asked for with no problem. The owner said ONLY that she’d draw the line at catering a wedding- but again, in the REAL world, who hires a pizza parlor to cater a wedding???

NO Christian car dealer has ever said, “I won’t sell a Chevy Impala to a lesbian.” NO Christian furniture dealer has ever said, “I won’t sell a couch to that fruit.” NO Christian florist has ever kicked out a potential client because she seemed a little butch. That’s NOT what the RFRA controversy is about, though you wouldn’t know that if you get your information from CNN.

Humor me a second- would you object morally if a Christian restaurant owner refused to cater Hugh Hefner’s birthday party at the Playboy Mansion?

Would you object if a Christian florist refused to make a big bouquet for a married man to give to his mistress?

Would you object if Memories Pizza refused to make a dozen pies for an orgy at the local swinger’s club?

Would you object if a Christian photographer refused to do nude/semi-nude boudoir shots?

My bet is, you’d regard the Christian entrepreneurs in each of these cases as a bunch of fuddy duddies who SHOULD just provide the service, but I also think you’d acknowledge that the law shouldn’t FORCE them to provide any of these services.

So the question is, why is the law entitled to say, “You’re free to make moral judgements about SOME sexual activities, but not others”?

6

Assuming the Indiana law was about allowing businesses to discriminate against gays*, isn’t that Caesar saying: It’s OK to discriminate against gays. So, render unto Caesar.

I think this is a terrible argument in terms of whether Christians who think homosexuality is a sin should be against the Indiana law.

*It seems that it wouldn’t have done that, even if the authors hoped it would.

7

They were fully capable of not obeying them, and I’m sure some of them didn’t. They weren’t robots, and they acted on their own volition.

My question to you: If one of those Christians had decided to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods just to save his own neck and the neck of his family, God would have sent him to hell? Do you think God is unable to distinguish sincere idol worship from a pragmatic survival tactic?

I’m not the one who is into “shoulding” morality. That what religionists do, and I don’t subscribe to a religion.

If the Episcopalian doesn’t have the balls to become a conscientious objector in a war he believes is immoral, do you think God will punish him for being a wimp?

Everyone can say no. Everyone can face the consequences of saying no, as well. The question many are asking right now isn’t “Should religious people get to say no?” It’s “Should religious people to get say a no and face none of the consequences?”

Right. The same as us all. But this really isn’t the thrust of my debate.

A Christian’s concept of right and wrong comes from the authority of God. Whether it’s the authority of the Bible or the authority bestowed to annointed servants (clergy). Or the authority of the land. If Caesar says you must pay taxes and those taxes support abomination, would God punish his children for still rendering unto Caesar, as Jesus told them they should do? He may exalt those who choose to take a valiant stand. But will he judge them harshly if they choose to be meek and submit to authority? That is the question I’m asking here.

I have provided citations from the Bible indicating that God will not judge them harshly. I’m wondering why it is that Christians don’t seem to be acknowledging this.

8

I’ve been posting on the SDMB for a really long time. I’m not a Christian-basher, despite having every reason to want to bash them, having grown up in a bat-shit crazy denomination. I think my posting history shows that I’m not any more critical towards Christians than I am of any other proselytizing religion or philosophy. I can only hope your weak attempt at poisoning the discussion is seen as the pathetic, overly defensive gesture that it is.

It’s also crazy that you’re acting like you know me well know to question my sincerity, and yet you don’t know my gender. At least get that right.

9

Even simpler Biblical argument, just a few verses later:

Mark 12:31

10

My take on this all is, “Yeah, if there was one thing Jesus was all about, it was avoiding any contact with sinners.”

11

Exactly. And let’s not forget: Do not judge lest you be judged, Let you who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. If you are a Christian, you should be against laws like this because Christ commanded you to love your fellow humans, and to leave the judging up to God.

And when I say “laws like this”, I mean laws that are intended to allow people to discriminate, because this law probably doesn’t allow that in the sense that most people seem to think. There are legitimate reasons to limit the intrusion of government into religion, but if you real purpose in supporting this law is that you want to be able to discriminate against gays, then that’s not exactly the “Christian” thing to do.

12

So, Ms. Monstro (happy now?), you’re saying Christians should go ahead and do whatever the hell the secular authorties tell them, and figure “Hey, God will forgive me, as long as I don’t really believe deep down in what I’m doing?”

You think believing the right things trumps DOING the right things? If so, you really DID grow up in a batshit crazy family.

The bottom line is, yes, cowardice CAN be sinful. Doing the wrong thing to save your skin or avoid embarrassment can be sinful also.

13

The law isn’t forcing businesses to discriminate against gays. It’s giving them a variance if they choose to do so

So no, it’s not “rendering unto Caesar”. It would be, however, if the law was forcing them to.

But it does make me think…

I’m curious if Christians think God will be sending all the white citizens of the Jim Crow South to hell. Surely God is against the kind of government-sanctioned and sponsored oppression that victimized black people for generations. Seems to me if “rendering unto Caesar” doesn’t provide some kind of escape hatch, then it follows that every white citizen who didn’t protest in the street or participate in anti-segregation demonstrations is just as guilty (and is thus as hell-bound) as Bull Connor and George Wallace. Surely this can’t be, though. Surely God has enough mercy to realize that it’s the rare person who has the courage to fight the Man, and that the desire to survive ultimately overrides moral conviction for 99% of humanity.

14

What you call “a pragmatic survival tactic” God calls “lying.” – “Thou shalt not lie.”

You’re still making the mistake of looking at just part of the Bible, instead of the whole thing. Jesus did not come to earth to lay down detailed rules for every conceivable situation. Nor did He come to bring political freedom to the Jews. He came to complete the Divine plan of redemption. To focus exclusively on what Jesus said and did while on earth is to miss a great deal of the Divine law.

I’m sure that you think you have provided the citations that you claim, but in fact you’ve done no such thing. Like I said earlier, in a clash between Divine authority and earthly authority, Divine authority always wins.

15

If Christians are going to thump the Bible and get all preachy about what it says about the homosexuals, don’t you think they need to read what it says about the government and obeying its authority?

I don’t think anyone–Christian or no–should kowtow to secular authority. I think secular authority can be just as dangerous and crazy as religious authority. Which is why I’d prefer the two stay separate. Dealing with one source of insanity is hard enough.

(Neither the title and that exasperated tone is necessary, btw. This is not the Pit or IMHO.)

I grew up in a pragmatic family (my family actually isn’t batshit, thankyouverymuch.) I was raised to know the importance of choosing one’s battles. If someone’s pissed you off, by all means do NOT invite that person to your birthday party. But you should still treat them with respect and kindness. If they ask you to pass the peas at the dinner table, you pass the damn peas and you do it without giving them any lip. Because we are a family. And if those peas should land on the floor because of some drama, all our asses are going to be grounded.

I wouldn’t use the word “sinful”, but I agree with you that being meek and submissive isn’t always the most admirable course to take. For instance, as much as the American slaves rebelled against their white slaveowners, I really wish they had fought even harder–even if this means wiping out my own existence. But my ancestors fought the people who were actively hurting and oppressing them. They had every right to do this. An individual fighting so that he can continue to hurt and oppress others is another matter all together.

Of course, the Bible provides guidance on this too. See Chrono’s post above.

16

Where in the Bible does it say “Though shalt not lie”?

Do you believe God would look unfavorably on someone who told a lie to save someone’s life? Are all lies the same to God, or are some worse than others?

It’s funny, because I feel like this lecture needs to be directed at the people who wrote this crazy law more than someone like myself. They are fixated on the parts of the Bible that don’t make them out to be “sinners”. But I’m guessing all the people who have voted for this law or who voted for the people who voted for this law are guilty of the sins that Jesus himself actually spoke against. That’s the kind of cheery-picking that should be concerning you.

And you have provided absolutely no cites whatsoever. Find me something in the Bible that says God will punish people for merely obeying the law, and maybe we can start having a productive discussion.

17

Well “Thou shalt not bear false witness” may not quite say it but Proverbs 6:16-19 describes a “lying tongue” to be an abomination.

18

Do you think hell is full of people who lied to save themselves and their loved ones?

Do you personally think the “lying tongue” that lies to escape mortal danger is the same abomination as the lying tongue who lies to acquire material possessions?

19

Why does it seem like it’s ONLY when it comes to GLBT stuff that these Christianists feel the need to stand up and push back? Where are all the Christian shop-owners who refuse to bake cakes for a wedding between two divorced people? Who refuse to cater a bankers’ convention? Who refuse to deliver lunch to a board meeting of the Polyester Blend Marketing Consortium?

It’s only gay people. Only. Sure sounds like sound theological thinking to me…

20

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It’s hard to know if someone is getting married for the first or second time, and most Christian denominations are more or less OK with divorce. Certainly there have been Christians not wanting to rent apartments to unmarried straight couples.