Comments on: Are Religious Freedoms Steadily Eroding? http://www.rethinkmonthly.com/2009/10/are-religious-freedoms-steadily-eroding/ rethinking God in today's culture Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:49:37 +0000 hourly 1 By: JRI http://www.rethinkmonthly.com/2009/10/are-religious-freedoms-steadily-eroding/comment-page-1/#comment-125 JRI Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:05:15 +0000 http://rethinkmonthly.com/?p=1289#comment-125 Seriously? What on earth was wrong with the statement made by a leader of the Synod to the members thereof? The article fully acknowledged that there was likely no need to be worried about this bill in particular, but noted that it may lead to later legislation. That is simply stating a fact. Why are NOW and Planned Parenthood so very much ... Read Moreagainst what should be "common sense" legislation preventing abortions in the third trimester? It's not because they actually (by and large) believe that these should be done but because they understand the logical (and legal) ramifications. If a a baby in the third trimester is "human", then it is only a matter of time until it is the second, and finally the first. Both sides understand what is going on. The same is true here. Ignoring the fact that if just one case is successfully tried by stretching the terms of this legislation to the limits, a precedent can be set for further (more restrictive) legislation is simply being intellectually dishonest. A leader was simply making his followers aware of what may happen and preparing them. That is not hateful or reactionary. It is responsible and it is his job. Seriously? What on earth was wrong with the statement made by a leader of the Synod to the members thereof? The article fully acknowledged that there was likely no need to be worried about this bill in particular, but noted that it may lead to later legislation. That is simply stating a fact.

Why are NOW and Planned Parenthood so very much … Read Moreagainst what should be "common sense" legislation preventing abortions in the third trimester? It's not because they actually (by and large) believe that these should be done but because they understand the logical (and legal) ramifications. If a a baby in the third trimester is "human", then it is only a matter of time until it is the second, and finally the first. Both sides understand what is going on.

The same is true here. Ignoring the fact that if just one case is successfully tried by stretching the terms of this legislation to the limits, a precedent can be set for further (more restrictive) legislation is simply being intellectually dishonest. A leader was simply making his followers aware of what may happen and preparing them. That is not hateful or reactionary. It is responsible and it is his job.

]]> By: CJL http://www.rethinkmonthly.com/2009/10/are-religious-freedoms-steadily-eroding/comment-page-1/#comment-124 CJL Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:18 +0000 http://rethinkmonthly.com/?p=1289#comment-124 What is the concern for Christians not advocating hate in their churches? Certainly if a school teacher preached hate to children that provoked or "incited" crimes, whether they be classified as "hate crimes" or not, I think that most people, including believers, would want justice to be served by punishing the teacher. This seems like a reasonable bill to me that in no way oversteps the bounds in regards to the type of hate speech JDI refers to in his comments. It is entirely appropriate to put a stop to the spread of hate and make a special classification for such crimes. We often hear people reference the most heinous perpetrators of crime as if there is "a special place for them in hell," which I know is not Biblical, but if our laws reflect the same sentiment, I am not troubled in the slightest and neither should you. Let's focus on the real issues here. What is the concern for Christians not advocating hate in their churches? Certainly if a school teacher preached hate to children that provoked or "incited" crimes, whether they be classified as "hate crimes" or not, I think that most people, including believers, would want justice to be served by punishing the teacher. This seems like a reasonable bill to me that in no way oversteps the bounds in regards to the type of hate speech JDI refers to in his comments. It is entirely appropriate to put a stop to the spread of hate and make a special classification for such crimes. We often hear people reference the most heinous perpetrators of crime as if there is "a special place for them in hell," which I know is not Biblical, but if our laws reflect the same sentiment, I am not troubled in the slightest and neither should you. Let's focus on the real issues here.

]]> By: JDI http://www.rethinkmonthly.com/2009/10/are-religious-freedoms-steadily-eroding/comment-page-1/#comment-123 JDI Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:29:38 +0000 http://rethinkmonthly.com/?p=1289#comment-123 The language of the new "additions" to Hate Crimes Legislation (because "hate crimes" are NOT new and have been applied to crimes based on nationality, race, age, and religious affiliation - such as, oh, "attacks on people simply because they are Christian") goes out of its way to specify the rights of people to share their opinions openly. Try reading the bill before becoming alarmist. The new language also includes attacks on people because of their gender and because of their physical disability... The only so-called "religious" persons who should be worried about this are people like Fred Phelps who intentionally tries to incite harm toward homosexuals - that is intolerable. No one would tolerate a church that preached "the only good African American (or whatever race you choose) is a dead one" because that is hateful and meant to cause harm; so why should a church that preaches a similar message about homosexuals not be similarly scorned? Certainly the First Amendment gives persons the right to be as bigoted as they like, but when that turns into a call for open violence, well, then there IS a problem and people need to be protected. As for your claim that Matthew Shepard was a drug dealer, I imagine you get this from some source that somehow did not come up during the trial following his murder. Because, were this the case, certainly his assailants would not be serving out life sentences - which were probably going to be death penalty sentences if not for the kind of 'true grace' shown by Judy Shepard in not pursuing the death penalty... And while you are checking your facts on Shepard (and even Byrd Jr.'s deaths), be sure to read up on the perverse nature of each of these crimes - they were not "accidental' but completely pre-planned and targeted towards individuals based primarily on their sexual orientation. If you are "scared" can you imagine how homosexuals must feel? And what does the church, by and large, show to the homosexual community? No grace. No emulation of Jesus with the sinners and the tax collectors. No compassion for the families of people, like Judy Shepard, who lose their children to such heinous acts. No, the church, in general, reverts to a hollier than thou Pharisee attitude, "Here comes this Jesus fellow talking to people about grace and making us think we are NO BETTER than everyone else... that we are ALL sinners and needing of God's love and grace." How dare He. How dare we be held to a higher standard as his people. How dare the United States be held to a higher standard on basic human rights. How dare legislation be passed to attempt to stop a string of violence against any group. I'm scared, too... of Christians like you. The language of the new "additions" to Hate Crimes Legislation (because "hate crimes" are NOT new and have been applied to crimes based on nationality, race, age, and religious affiliation – such as, oh, "attacks on people simply because they are Christian") goes out of its way to specify the rights of people to share their opinions openly. Try reading the bill before becoming alarmist.
The new language also includes attacks on people because of their gender and because of their physical disability…
The only so-called "religious" persons who should be worried about this are people like Fred Phelps who intentionally tries to incite harm toward homosexuals – that is intolerable. No one would tolerate a church that preached "the only good African American (or whatever race you choose) is a dead one" because that is hateful and meant to cause harm; so why should a church that preaches a similar message about homosexuals not be similarly scorned?
Certainly the First Amendment gives persons the right to be as bigoted as they like, but when that turns into a call for open violence, well, then there IS a problem and people need to be protected.
As for your claim that Matthew Shepard was a drug dealer, I imagine you get this from some source that somehow did not come up during the trial following his murder. Because, were this the case, certainly his assailants would not be serving out life sentences – which were probably going to be death penalty sentences if not for the kind of 'true grace' shown by Judy Shepard in not pursuing the death penalty…
And while you are checking your facts on Shepard (and even Byrd Jr.'s deaths), be sure to read up on the perverse nature of each of these crimes – they were not "accidental' but completely pre-planned and targeted towards individuals based primarily on their sexual orientation. If you are "scared" can you imagine how homosexuals must feel? And what does the church, by and large, show to the homosexual community?
No grace. No emulation of Jesus with the sinners and the tax collectors. No compassion for the families of people, like Judy Shepard, who lose their children to such heinous acts.
No, the church, in general, reverts to a hollier than thou Pharisee attitude, "Here comes this Jesus fellow talking to people about grace and making us think we are NO BETTER than everyone else… that we are ALL sinners and needing of God's love and grace."
How dare He.
How dare we be held to a higher standard as his people.
How dare the United States be held to a higher standard on basic human rights.
How dare legislation be passed to attempt to stop a string of violence against any group.
I'm scared, too… of Christians like you.

]]> By: Alex http://www.rethinkmonthly.com/2009/10/are-religious-freedoms-steadily-eroding/comment-page-1/#comment-122 Alex Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:10:42 +0000 http://rethinkmonthly.com/?p=1289#comment-122 From the article: “The bill is named after Matthew Shepard, a homosexual 21-year-old college student who was killed in 1998 in Laramie, Wyo., reportedly because of his sexual orientation” That is lie! Yes, this guy was homosexual; but he also was a drug dealer, and he was killed only because of drugs. They use any catch to show the world how badly discriminated they are, but what about us christians? From the article: “The bill is named after Matthew Shepard, a homosexual 21-year-old college student who was killed in 1998 in Laramie, Wyo., reportedly because of his sexual orientation”

That is lie! Yes, this guy was homosexual; but he also was a drug dealer, and he was killed only because of drugs. They use any catch to show the world how badly discriminated they are, but what about us christians?

]]> By: Alex http://www.rethinkmonthly.com/2009/10/are-religious-freedoms-steadily-eroding/comment-page-1/#comment-120 Alex Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:57:56 +0000 http://rethinkmonthly.com/?p=1289#comment-120 If two armies are fighting and one of them takes only defensive positions and never attacks its enemy, this army will be defeated. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is going on with Christianity in the US. If two armies are fighting and one of them takes only defensive positions and never attacks its enemy, this army will be defeated. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is going on with Christianity in the US.

]]>