When Is Religion Not Politically Correct

I'm not interested in discussing evolution, Yvonne. My post was a clumsy attempt to say that fair treatment under the law should be for everyone and doesn't really have anything to do with religion.

 

In an update on the Folau saga.. the former rugby international has today (June 6) launched legal proceedings against the Australian and NSW Rugby Unions for breach of contract.

Folau's lawyers argue that under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act it was unlawful to terminate employment on the basis of religion.

In a statement, Folau said: "No Australian of any faith should be fired for practising their religion."

 

We had a high school coach a few years ago who was in the news. After every football game, no matter if his team won or lost, he would go to center field and take a knee and thank God for protecting all the players who played. It was something he had done for years but when someone objected to him doing that he was told either to quit praying after a game or he’d get fired. He got fired.

Now, what harm could the coach possibly do especially since his actions were directly after a game? Nope. He was staff and any show of a religious attitude (especially Christian) was forbidden.

 

Craig & Bobby, your examples and points are hot button issues all right, especially for those few us who recognize or care about the war on Christianity. Last year I found and downloaded a free copy of a lengthy report titled: UNDENIABLE - the Survey of Hostility to Religion in America, 2016, by Liberty Press. The report summarizes 1400 religious cases that have been brought before the courts in the past decade. The cases against Christians exercising their freedom of religion comprise the vast majority of summaries. It's an interesting but infuriating read I'd recommend. I think everyone should recognize the two largest, most effective organizations leading the lawsuits against Christians: The American Civil Liberties Union and Freedom From Religion Foundation. These two powerful groups are doing the Devil's work by helping to successfully change America from a Christian nation to a secular nation - a nation with freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion. While Atheists may understandably support this trend, no Christian should be supporting these efforts with financial support to these organizations.

Beth, now that you and Yvonne have made peace, I'd like to respond to a few points you made.

First, don't judge the truth of Christianity by the actions of its followers. I know this sounds questionable, but there's a logical case to be made for this statement. Even if your neighbor's a proven asshole who you don't like or respect, that doesn't determine the reality of whether he was born in Chicago, worked as a doctor for 30 years, and saved a little girl's life last week. Really, the Christian faith and Bible's authority are based upon documented historical accounts - and evidenced with other scientific, prophetic, and textual criticisms - not by the flawed individuals who attempt to follow the faith. Your charge is a common one that I've heard many times - essentially that Christians are hypocrites, therefore the religion is not worth following. My own mom used that as her primary excuse for being an Atheist. The first flaw with that line of reasoning is thinking that Christians should be perfect in behavior, which obviously isn't the case. The second flaw is judging the reliability of 1500 years of historical writings based upon the actions of those living 2000 years after those writings. Such an assumption is not logical. I hope this makes you reconsider why and what you decide to believe in.

Your belief that we all need to be accepting of others is claimed by both sides, liberals and conservatives, while both sides fail to do so. Liberals are great at accepting others with socially liberal values (like pro-choice, gun control, gay rights, open immigration, separation of church and state), but often show serious intolerance to conservatives opposing those values. At the same time, conservatives preach love and acceptance, while often denouncing the liberals who oppose their traditional values. I recognize both positions and see no easy solution. However, I personally don't think acceptance is the realistic or even correct goal to forming one's values. In other words, I'm not going to forgo my Christian values in order to accommodate ever changing cultural values that God declares to be morally wrong. I recognize that the country's moral values are declining and new laws facilitate that trend, protecting certain beliefs and actions I oppose. As a responsible citizen, I'm expected to respect the laws giving equal rights to everyone, and as a Christian I'm expected to show love to everyone. But, neither requires me to accept the inappropriate values or actions being forced upon the nation. In other words, I needn't participate, support, or even be politically correct silent on such important issues. The golden rule doesn't really solve this problem, since I could show love and kindness to you while actively fighting against a behavior which you support. In fact, I do this frequently with the many friends I have who don't share my beliefs and values. I'd suggest that tolerance is a more appropriate and reasonable goal, given our wide, passionate opposing beliefs and values these days. It's a balancing act, fighting to retain one's own values while having to live with those whom you oppose. That doesn't equate though to what I would define as acceptance.

I understand your desire for equal rights, since it initially sounds good. Many will disagree though, based upon the long history of societies wanting to maintain peace and order (thus reasons for restricting alcohol, drugs, gambling, and prostitution) and to control their community behavior (thus reason to promote religion and morality). The result is that all practices are not supported and all rights are not equal. Our Founding Fathers recognized this well when they established a nation of united states with a very limited federal government, thus allowing the various state populations to have differing values. Unfortunately, numerous Supreme Court decisions have entirely negated this principle, forcing the entire country to come under the control of Washington D.C. This has been a primary cause of the secularization of the country, with the resulting battle over Christian virtue and moral values now becoming so relevant and decisive. I understand non-Christians and liberals like the trend, but I fear that God's blessings won't remain on a Godless nation that promotes the same sins that caused him to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Equal rights for everyone, in reality, doesn't mean freedom for everyone to do whatever they please. The local community (or state laws) inevitably regulate many of our rights. And those rights, like it or not, are often based upon Christian values. I think we can agree though that the laws of the land and rights of the people should be fairly and equally enforced.

 

Brilliantly stated, @Joseph Carl. I agree with almost every word. Tolerance, not acceptance is the key. Neither side of an argument needs to accepted the views of another, but they should both accept the opposing views, as long as they don't represent physical or mental harm to another.

 

It's like all the people who wear the "co-exist" t shirt and have the bumper sticker, but yet if you say your a Christian, they look at you as tho you are an idiot from Mars.