Religious freedom being eroded?

[prisonchaplain]

Here is the greatest threat to religious liberty in the U.S.--the idea that churches should be taxed: home

The idea of taxing churches is not new. However, it remains, for now, a fringe concept. What could change it is this argument: Why should we subsidize private religious associations--especially when they teach that I am a sinner because of the way I was born???!!!

Prior to that, we will likely see that churches who rent their facilities out for weddings will be required to make them available for same-sex marriages. What will happen if the minister does marriages for non-members? Will s/he be required to officiate same-sex ones, or give up the practice altogether?

Activists have beeen saying for years now that if there is a battle between their group's rights and religious liberty, their group wins every time. Recently an NFL football player said the same thing. NFL Player Brendan Ayanbadejo on Homosexuality: Equality Trumps Religion The idea is already planted that religion--Christianity in particular--is incompatible with "human rights." If so, why should their churches be tax exempt?

We're not there yet, but the handwriting seems to be on the wall.

Edited July 22, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[Gretchen]

Here is the greatest threat to religious liberty in the U.S.: home

The idea of taxing churches is not new. However, it remains, for now, a fringe concept. What could change it is this argument: Why should we subsidize private religious associations--especially when they teach that I am a sinner because of the way I was born???!!!

Prior to that, we will likely see that churches who rent their facilities out for weddings will be required to make them available for same-sex marriages. What will happen if the minister does marriages for non-members? Will s/he be required to officiate same-sex ones, or give up the practice altogether?

Activists have beeen saying for years now that if there is a battle between their group's rights and religious liberty, their group wins every time. Recently an NFL football player said the same thing. The idea is already planted that religion--Christianity in particular--is incompatible with "human rights." If so, why should their churches be tax exempt?

We're not there yet, but the handwriting seems to be on the wall.

The biggest problem is that in the US constitution, it says that something that is recognized in one state (like a drivers license) must be valid in all states. This is why you can be married in Utah and still be leagly recognized as married in Florda. The problem with this is that some states say gays can be married, and others say they can't. Congress can't demand every state make it legal, there would be too large an uproar. And if they say the gays are no longer married, there will also be major riots.

The only thing I can think of to minimize the riots is to legalize it BUT also say that if they want to be married in a church, the church has the legal right to not marry them. It is still not a good solution, but this seems to be a fight that is not going to be pretty either way.

[Lakumi]

I don't think the government should have any say in how a church operates. It shouldn't be able to force them to do anything against their beliefs (obviously within the legality of the law)

saying that I don't believe religion should have any part in how a government is run.

[prisonchaplain]

Gretchen & Lakumi: The government will not DIRECTLY tell churches what to do. However, should they start taxing them...who was it that said "The power to tax is the power to destroy?"

Also, government will not tell ministers to conduct same sex marriages directly. However, it will say that IF you allow non-members to rent your faclity then you are engaging in commericial activity--and you must do likewise for same-sex couples. Likewise for ministers who perform weddings for non-members. None of this directly effects LDS practice...but you will surely hear the noise and feel the rumblings from what is happening to your neighbors.

Also, again--in allowing churches not to perform same sex marriages, advocacy groups could say, "We tolerate them, but they no longer should receive public privilege. They are private associations that preach hate towards us. They should be taxed."

[Gretchen]

But the thing is, if gay marriage is made legal, won't there be a lot of people trying to get the churches to marry them?

I guess the old saying's true... you can't please everyone.

[prisonchaplain]

Common sense would suggest that same-sex couples would not want to have their weddings in churches that oppose their marriages. Yet, let us not forget what happened to the Christian dating service Eharmony: eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service After Lawsuit | Fox News

[Lakumi]

But the thing is, if gay marriage is made legal, won't there be a lot of people trying to get the churches to marry them?

I guess the old saying's true... you can't please everyone.

I suppose but if they could only marry in the courthouse, I still think it would be a big deal

[Wingnut]

[Gretchen]

Agreed. It is hopeless no matter what.

[Jamie123]

"Freedom of religion" is being reduced to "freedom of religious worship", which is not the same thing. Hilary Clinton even used that phrase in one of her speeches. Truly living your religion means engaging with others about it outside of Church - and that is what is being stamped on here.

But look at it in context. In the early days, Christians were persecuted. Nearly all the apostles are believed to have died a violent death (the one exception being John). In Rome Christian believers were burned alive, or thrown to the lions in the Arena.

This went on for a long time until a new Roman Emperor came to power. He saw that despite the best efforts of his predecessors Christianity was still as strong as ever, and a new strategy was clearly needed.

So he became a Christian himself.

This changed things rather radically. Christianity was no longer a despised nonconformity. "Christian" was what all respectable people now were. The Church was a recognised, integral part of the state. The king, duke, emperor etc. were all Christians. And what could be more respectable than that?

So the persecution ceased ... and the Church stagnated. Cardinals and Popes fought each other for power without a thought for the true message of Christ. Those Christians who were serious about their beliefs were largely pitted against those whose ideas differed only slightly from their own. People were burned at the stake over the nature of the Trinity, or number of the Sacrements. It was always (or nearly always) one group of so-called Christians against another, and rarely (as it had once been) the Christians against the Secular World.

[Yes...yes...I know this is a gross oversimplification.]

But society moved on. Kings and emperors gradually lost their importance. Some countries (like the USA) got rid of their kings altogether. Others (like Britain) kept them, but as nominal figurheads presiding over an essentially democratic infrastructure. Either way the common people were now in control.

But not all the common people were Christians.

So this gave rise to the Freedom of Religion. You could now believe and practice whatever you wanted, so long as it didn't harm other people. Christianity now had to compete on equal terms with belief systems totally at odds with its own. So naturally it has become legal to do things totally forbidden under the old Christuan rules. Like have sex with members of your own gender.

Now comes the real stinger: in the modern democratic world all these religions, world views, lifestyles, belief-systems - whatever you want to call them - have equal footing. Well-meaning but essentially clueless people (most of whom have a lot more power than sense) tell us that if we're all to "get along" we must "celebrate the diversity". In other words none of us is allowed to claim they are "right" and others "wrong". Those who do...and that would include all Christians who stay true to what Christianity actually is....are (you've guessed it) persecuted.

We have come full circle.

I don't expect to see burnings and slayings like those under Nero or Diocletian, but maybe a bit of secular persecution will put a spark back into the Christian Church!

Edited July 24, 2013 by Jamie123

[prisonchaplain]

Agreed. It is hopeless no matter what.

In a democracy, with roughly 75% claiming to be Christian, is it really hopeless? Might we not come together as a national community and agree that we want to maintain some of our Judeo-Christian cultural underpinnings? Has the overused and misinterpreted "separation of church and state" really beaten us hopeless?

[Wingnut]

Agreed. It is hopeless no matter what.

My commentary was more about this otherwise good conversation being turned into another thread about gay people.

[prisonchaplain]

My commentary was more about this otherwise good conversation being turned into another thread about gay people.

In the 70s we thought abortion and feminism would erode our religious foundation. In the 80s it was secular humanism, internet porn, and a weakened military. In the 90s we began to see homosexual rights issues conflicting with long-practiced Judeo-Christian mores. 9/11/01 redirected our attention towards Islam, and whether we were a predominantly Christian country that tolerated minority faiths, or were we a truly pluralistic nation. The answer seemed to be the latter. Now we face the specter of a public consensus in favor of same-sex marriages.

All of these support the sense that our nation's Christianness--our Judeo-Christian underpinnings are diminishing. We are not just "talking about gay people." Rather, we're trying to figure out how to love our neighbors while preserving the positive influence of Christian faith in our society. Do we really trigger an automatic beating dead horse icon every time SSA becomes a part of our conversations?

[Canuck Mormon]

My personal opinion is that our religious freedoms are not being eroded, however, society in general is becoming more vocal about the hate that is put forward by some people claiming to be Religious (ahem Westbro)! I think that society has, unfortunately, decided that those one spewing the hate are speaking on behalf of all religions, which is why there is such a backlash against religion.

My 2cents!!

[Guest I_wuz_gentille]

My freedom to post on LDS has seriously been eroded! Sometimes I can't even get to finish a new topic before whiiiiif NINJA ***! (I don't even know how they know!) does that count?

[carlimac]

My commentary was more about this otherwise good conversation being turned into another thread about gay people.

Well, it is part of the issue. We could just not bring it up but there would be a big elephant in pink tennies sittin in the room. ;-)

[bytor2112]

I don't personally see an erosion of religious freedom: instead, I see a general trend to be more opposed to any mixing of religion and government, good or bad. It's not just a trend in the US: the main reason behind the protests in Egypt was that there was that the government was being too religious (which is a remarkable thing for Egyptians to say).

I see a trend to marginalize Christianity by popular culture and the PC left. Does that erode religious freedom if done in the name of tolerance? Is it a form of religion foisted upon us, though not labeled as such, by our government, under names like climate change? The fanatical adherence to this notion is in my view as pervasive as thrusting one's religion on the masses.

Edited July 24, 2013 by bytor2112

[Windseeker]

I see a trend to marginalize Christianity by popular culture and the PC left. Does that erode religious freedom if done in the name of tolerance? Is it a form of religion foisted upon us, though not labeled as such, by our government, under names like climate change? The fanatical adherence to this notion is in my view as pervasive as thrusting one's religion on the masses.

^This is so true.

Secular Humanism is a religion and it's foundation is Darwinism. That is why recent scientific revelations that undermine it are attacked with such blind ferocity.

[LittleWyvern]

I see a trend to marginalize Christianity by popular culture and the PC left. Does that erode religious freedom if done in the name of tolerance? Is it a form of religion foisted upon us, though not labeled as such, by our government, under names like climate change? The fanatical adherence to this notion is in my view as pervasive as thrusting one's religion on the masses.

I'm not sure why that was a reply to my post, so here's a sentence that doesn't mention anything in particular about the post I just quoted!

[Traveler]

^This is so true.

Secular Humanism is a religion and it's foundation is Darwinism. That is why recent scientific revelations that undermine it are attacked with such blind ferocity.

I am sorry but I am uncertain what you are trying to say.

First - what do you mean by Darwinism? Is Darwinism different in your mind than evolution?

Second - in the statement "undermine it" - the aniceedent for "it" is ambugious. Would you clearify what your are referring to? Also what scientific revelations (not sure what a scientific revelation is -- do you mean a scientific discovery?) and how is what discovery "undermining" what principle of evolution or Darwinism (if that is what you intend) - what ever Darwinism is?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not sure why that was a reply to my post, so here's a sentence that doesn't mention anything in particular about the post I just quoted!

He was disagreeing with your suggestion that the separation of church and state is getting stronger, but religious liberty is not eroding. By saying that PC 'doctrines' like global warming are a kind of government religion, he's arguing that religious liberty is indeed being eroded. This is directly related to the portion of your post that he quoted.

[LittleWyvern]

I need a larger winky face.

[MarginOfError]

I need a larger winky face.

Use this one.

[bytor2112]

Or perhaps

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRY8jv_JKQpUPq7Pj5kK5dfrpjqn5UvcTUnKHxATHxQRxaCm9unIg

[kapikui]

The state university I went to went to great lengths to assure that spring break did not coincide with Easter because someone might then call it "Easter break", and that would "obviously" be a violation of separation of church and state.

One young girl several years ago was expelled from her grade school on "separation of church and state" grounds for wanting to say grace over her food in the lunch room and asking her friend to join her.