Indiana’s law is similar to other versions, but not exactly identical. None of the differences explain why Democrats went bananas about this law. Do Democrats think that all businesses should be outlawed from discrimination based on sexual orientation? If yes, then why weren’t they furious at Indiana and dozens of other states before the Indiana RFRA was passed? If no, then what’s all the fuss about?
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is more about the birth control decision than anything else. Democrats have just finally figured out that laws that protect our freedoms keep them from doing things they want to do, and they can’t always know in advance what bright ideas they come up with will face legal and constitutional problems. But they can’t attack RFRAs directly on their own merits, so this is a decent strategy for now.
It’s not my fault that you don’t understand Christianity and then make me explain it to you. If you want pose as a Christian, first do your homework.
I’m, again, a Catholic not a fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalist Christians are a tiny minority in Christianity. Strict literalists are a tiny minority in Christianity. Furthermore, Catholics and Orthodox have both the Bible and Holy Tradition to draw their faith from. I won’t something I don’t belive in for the benefit of someone both doesn’t believe nor understands it.
The problem is, as usual when non-beleivers want to use the Bible against Christians, that you can’t simply read one line and figure out the meaning just from that (the same goes with almost any long literary text).
The “thingy” is not a problema since Acts 15 aka “The Council of Jeruslaem”, where Mosaic law was abrogated in its many rules (food, cloth, menstruation, that kind of stuff)
I thought that, for the purpose of this thread, you were a Fundamentalist Christian. To continue this ruse, you have to know at least up to Christianity 203. I won’t explain the basic stuff.
See above. You are now changing your OP to “I won’t believe anything that is not expressly written in the Bible”. The number od Christians who believe that is in the very low hundreds.
You are ridiculously uniformed about Christianity.
Seems to me that Christians are supposed to obey secular laws, but they are also to keep Christian ethics. So ratting on their neighbors to Commie authorities would not be a Christian obligation for Christians who lived under Communist rule.
I have pointed out exactly why the Indiana law is different and why it is outrageous. Specifically the aspect that prohibits a person from seeking redress in the civil courts as long as the the person (or business) exhibiting discriminatory behavior cries “religious belief.” Prior to this law, homophobia could be expressed in business transactions, but the party against whom the discriminatory action was taken could still pursue redress in court. They may or may not have been successful, but their suit would have been decided on the facts of the case presented to the jury. Now, the homophobe has merely to claim “religious belief” to have the suit dismissed, regardless of the facts involved.
It is amusing that you actually quoted my post and then pretended as though I had not pointed out that exact issue.
Exactly.
All I want is one freakin’ citation from the Bible that is as explicit as the ones I have provided. If were were talking about how much God hates homosexuality, the Christians in this thread wouldn’t hesitate to provide those supporting tracts. But because they can’t provide the information I am seeking, somehow that means I “misunderstanding Christianity”.
This is not me calling them out for mixing fibers or having contact with menstruating women. I’m only pointing Jesus’s own words and the words of his first fanboy Paul.
Truth be told, the activism of Christianity is the one thing I do like about it, apart from current events. The Quakers were instrumental in the fight against slavery–though it took a century for them to see the light (pun intended). Christians of almost all stripes were huge in the Civil Rights Movement. And liberal Christians are doing wonderful things to combat poverty and other social justice issues. My quibble isn’t with Christian activism. It’s with certain Christians picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they care about, to the detriment of everyone else. Why should the state give special deference to a holy text when its adherents don’t seem to respect it?
I’ve said this before in another thread, but clearly not loudly enough.
The text of the law is irrelevant. The intent of the law is irrelevant. Everything about the law is irrelevant as concerns why this has blown up.
The thing that made this one blow up is the fact that public opinion has turned very quickly and to an enormous extent. As recently as 2011 Gallup has SSM pro/con at 48-48. Now it’s at 55-42. Pew reflects a similar curve. I’ve seen others that are even more favorable. Going along with this trend on SSM is a sensitivity to gay rights and opposition to discrimination against gays.
Everyone arguing on policy grounds is missing the point. The bill isn’t the issue. It’s the politics that matter. Pence was blindsided - and likely lost his shot at VP consideration - by misreading the politics not the policy.
It’s also silly to consider this a party issue when it’s largely generational. Saying ‘why are democrats upset’ is missing the fact that 61% of young Republicans are in favor of SSM and again hold commensurate views against discrimination against gays.
It would not surprise me to see some of the RFRAs across the country begin to see challenges in the new climate of public opinion. Even the federal law might face some issues at some point. I never thought I’d see the Supreme Court take a bite out of DOMA yet it occurred. Near as I can tell what made that happen was the change in overall public opinion and comment on the issue.
You made a couple of assertions about the law, but both of them are false.
It is not even slightly amusing that you would ignore factual refutation.
Regards,
Shodan
Acts 5 (my bolding)
25 Then a man arrived with fresh news. ‘Look!’ he said, ‘the men you imprisoned are in the Temple. They are standing there preaching to the people.’
26 The captain went with his men and fetched them – though not by force, for they were afraid that the people might stone them.
27 When they had brought them in to face the Sanhedrin, the high priest demanded an explanation.
28 ‘We gave you a strong warning’, he said, ‘not to preach in this name, and what have you done? You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and seem determined to fix the guilt for this man’s death on us.’
29 In reply Peter and the apostles said, 'Obedience to God comes before obedience to men;
This. The fact that someone somewhere thought a bill like this needed authoring is indicative of regressive thinking regardless of whether its technically okay constitutionally or whatever, and that’s what the backlash is about. It’s about people rejecting the pursuit of cheap political points mined from prejudice, cultural insularity, and Christian supremacy.
At a time when there is no shortage of more pressing issues to worry about, it speaks volumes when a politician goes out of his way thumb his/her nose at homosexuals. It suggests misplaced priorities and poor judgment.
This brouhaha is a wakeup call: using legislation to turn innocent people into second class citizens is socially unacceptable. Ignorance is not an excuse any more.
I think a more fundamental reason for Christians to oppose the Indiana law, and others like it, is that Christianity is supposedly about love. You know, “God is love,” “love your neighbor as yourself,” and all them verses.
It doesn’t say “love your heterosexual neighbor who only commits the sorts of sins that don’t bother us too much as yourself.” There’s no qualification in there.
If your goal - hell, your calling - is to love your neighbor as yourself, then a more modest goal in that direction would be to tolerate that neighbor sufficiently to provide to them the same business services you’d provide to any other paying customer.
It’s not the same thing, but like I said, it’s a quite modest step in the right direction.
Apparently there are people who call themselves Christians who are demanding to be protected from even a minor step in the direction of that which Jesus is calling them to do.
Yes, i can, but I doubt you’ll find such a cite convincing, so what’s the point?
Well, I can certainly stick to the Bible, but my own religious tradition teaches that the Bible alone is NOT the appropriate source of teaching: as a Roman Catholic, I look to both Holy Tradition and the Scripture. Is your argument aimed solely at Christians who accept sola scriptura authority?
I am a Christian, and I’ve never said that the Bible is my only source of morality. But I agree there are Christians that make this claim. Is your argument relevant only to them?
I know I"m guilty of this myself, but we non-Christians should have some humility in telling Christians what they should and should not believe. My only excuse is that I was raised a Christian (Catholic, to be precise), and so have some sense of that mindset. Still, there are all sorts of flavors of Christianity so one’s experience with one flavor is not necessarily informative of the other flavors.
You don’t remember the thing about not hiding you light under a bushel?
There’s also Matthew 18:15-17
You are not going to win this game. You can quote the Bible or even the NT to justify pretty much anything you want. Contradictions abound.
That’s what I like about the Bible-There’s a verse to support just about anybody’s viewpoint.
I would argue that the entire Book of the Acts of the Apostles indicates that God doesn’t want his children to sit quietly, meekly, submissively, waiting for God to do things. The Apostles, under instruction from Jesus (Matthew 28:19), went all over the place, preaching and causing a ruckus by doing so (they were killed for a reason, after all).
Not for nothing, there are also a number of scholars (Reza Aslan is one of the more recent) who believe Jesus was killed because Rome saw him as an insurrectionist.
Also compare “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and God that which is God” to Matthew 28:17: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. So what is left for Caesar?
Psalm 37:7-9
*7 Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for him; do not fret when people succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes.
8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil.
9 For those who are evil will be destroyed, but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.*
I’m a devout Christian, so here’s my take. Jesus said in the sermon on the mount (I’m paraphrasing): “If someone asks you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for him two.”
I saw one of my priest friends post that the other day on FB and I agree. I also like the comment above about the Greatest Commandments - love God with all your heart and soul and mind; and love others as yourself. Refusing to serve someone because you don’t like the way they live their life feels very un-Christlike to me.
Christ tells us to fear God and not man: Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
When the Apostles were given an order by the authorities that contradicted what God said they refused to obey.Acts 4: 18-20 "And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all [n]in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
Same thing again in Acts 5:27-29 “27 When they had brought them, they stood them [m]before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and [n]yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”
The Apostle Paul was arrested many times and ultimately executed for preaching the gospel. Despite this he never stopped. In the Old Testament Daniel was thrown into the Lions Den for refusing to obey the Kings Law when it conflicted with God’s law. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace when they wouldn’t obey the King’s law.
Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. The money at that time was issued by Caesar so it was okay to pay taxes. What belongs to God is our obedience so when the laws of man conflict with the laws of God the bible is very clear we are to obey God.
Participating in a sinful activity with someone is not loving. Appearing to condone sinful activity is not loving. The bible tells us to love others, so we can therefore not do things that condone or seem to condone sinful activity.