Posted on 02/28/2014 4:52:43 AM PST by LD Jackson
I have been pondering the question posed in the title of this post for quite some time. I believe the main source of this pondering is the furor that is ongoing in America over the rights of individual business owners, who happen to be Christians and hold certain religious values, to refuse to service certain segments of our population. I was informed last year in a discussion on this blog that these Christian business owners had no such right, that if they did not want to serve a certain group of people, that constituted discrimination, and they should shut their business down. The person who made those statements was so offended by my views on this issue that she has not visited my blog since that time.
This issue has raised its head again in the last few days. The Republican controlled legislature in Arizona passed a bill that gave business owners the specific right to claim their religious beliefs as a defense, were they to be sued for refusing service. The uproar that followed was amazing to me. No matter how much the supporters of that bill tried to explain what it was all about, it was misrepresented and demonized, to the point that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had little choice but to issue a veto.
I engaged in a discussion before the veto on a Politico article in defense of the bill by Rich Lowry. When I questioned why liberals didn't understand that our Christian beliefs were important to us, business owners or not, I was inundated with replies to inform me of the error of my ways. The basic premise was that Christian business owners had no right to allow their religious beliefs in to their business practices. I guess we are supposed to check them at the door, like a hat or coat. I don't know about you, but my religious beliefs are a part of who I am as a human being. I don't remove them when I go to work.
As I was driving home last evening, I happened to be listening to America Now with Andy Dean. He was discussing this issue and said something that somewhat shocked me. He was completely in favor of Governor Brewer's veto, saying we could not allow anything that resembled discrimination. As a proclaimed conservative, he was throwing the religious liberties and beliefs so many of us hold in the trash. Consider me to be now enlightened.
Back to the question at hand. Do our Christian beliefs have a place in our public lives? My short answer to that is a resounding yes. As Christians, are we supposed to leave our religious beliefs at home, on the chance that we may offend someone who does not belief in God or morality? Should we walk around, fearing discrimination so much that we refuse to allow our Christianity to show in public?
The overwhelming sentiment from the left seems to be that anytime Christians voice their opinion on a given issue, no matter if we cite our Christian beliefs or not, it constitutes a cramming of our beliefs down someone's throat. We are summarily informed we can not do that. They expect that to end the discussion because this is America. After all, don't we have "freedom from religion"? What they really mean to say is that we should have freedom from Christianity. Islam, Hinduism, Buddahism, and any other religion is praised to the sky. Because so many people are offended at the name of Jesus Christ and anything to do with his life, Christians are told to check their Christian beliefs at the door, take a seat, and shut up.
My friends, this is not the America I grew up in. Not even close. Our religious freedoms are on their way out.
We were established to be One Nation under God. As General George Washington included in General Orders issued in July,1776 and as President Lincoln included in his Gettysburg Address—and as President Ronald Reagan noted if we ever cease to be a nation under God we will be a nation gone under.Americans have chosen to allow the government usurp Religion and the Church.
The baker's were usually tied to a church or denomination. We had a Catholic cake lady, a Lutheran one, and a Methodist/Baptist one. Each lady typically served their specific church or churches.
In my personal case, as my Bride is Catholic and her cousin was the local “Catholic” church cake lady, she got our business. But typically it was (and I think still is) done by where the wedding was held.
It is a question of Truth. The left sees themselves as the protector of Truth, and feel it is their solemn and sacred duty to enforce that worldview on everyone in order to “save” them.
In other words, they are very serious about their religion. It is we Christians who are, it seems, not.
Christianity is offensive because it implicitly states that nothing you do will of your own will is ever be good enough to ensure your salvation.
The natural/autonomous man cannot abide this assertion.
Another way to look at it is
what facet of creation is exempt from the authority of the One Who created it?
Yes, churches have a great ability to organize and protect themselves and their members.
Still, the legislation and lawsuits should go forward because more is at stake than just weddings. As one astute poster reminded us that the Soviets drove Christians into their homes and harassed them if they should show any trace of their Christianity in public or in the workplace.
In the meantime it is a good strategy to ‘close the loop’ while fighting the broader battle for religious freedom.
Iron Jack— The Christians public life may partially be separated from his religious life—i.e. Rev.John Witherspoon ,as President of the College of New Jersey—and later as member of the Continental Congress. But No Christian ought allow the Government lay down the rules for what is legal Morally. “Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people,it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” President John Adams Oct.11,1798.Read the Fast Day Sermon preached by the President of the College of New Jersey ,John Witherspoon “The Dominion of Providence over the passions of Men “ p.529 Vol 1 Political Sermons of the American Founding Era ,1730-1805 Ellis Sandoz Editor Liberty Fund 1998.Or the Sermon Preached by Samuel West ,an Election Day Sermon ,1776 Note;Samuel west went on to serve as delegate to the Mass. Ratifying convention,1788.As proven by the life of Benedict Arnold who desperately wanted his public life as National Hero exploited but his private affairs as Traitor kept hidden. One cannot serve two masters. Whatever one is when no one else is looking is who they are when they serve in public office.
What is funny is my pastor is demanding we do the opposite in order not to offend others.
He hasn’t been the same since his brain injury
Absolutely.
Jesus to His disciples, in Matthew 5:
14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
15 Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
If we take lumps for acting on our faith, SO BE IT!!!!!
Anyone who insists that you violate your religeous beliefs for their benefit is an anti-religeous bigot. When they accuse you of discrimination, accuse them of religeous bigotry.
Anyone who insists you perform your labor for their benefit without your concurrence, and uses the power of the state to enforce their edicts, believes in slavery. Call them a slaver.
Take their money as a deposit, and return it the day before the event, telling them that you are too busy to do their job.
I think it’s important to draw the distinction between one’s MORAL life and one’ RELIGIOUS life. Where one’s religion is an integral part of himself and not just some ritualistic trapping, it informs his morality to the degree that the two are inseparable. But religion is about more than morals; it encompasses dogma, ritual, and liturgical practices. The latter can be compartmentalized for public officials; it is not valid to insist that your particular religious rituals be imposed on the general populace, for example. But it is undeniable — and desirable — that your moral values not be left behind at the statehouse door. If that happens, you become Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy, professing a religion that you practice only as an occasional photo op, backdrop, or disguise.
Well put—and I think we can agree.
As I loo over this again hours later my stupid fingers yet again typed nonsense...
it should say ATTRACTION not attrition......at least it makes more sense that way
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.