Posted on Apr 4, 2019
Evidence of Christianity Is Not Evidence of Bias against Gay Americans | National Review
555
17
15
2
2
0
A good article which I never would have believed needed to be written. Christian beliefs: love, compassion, humility...amazing that we have to defend those things today.
Evidence of Christianity Is Not Evidence of Bias against Gay Americans | National Review
Posted from nationalreview.com
Christianity
1st Amendment
Constitution
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Going into the article, I agree with much of what it says, I think one difference comes from it's assertion that Christian-schools are unfairly attacked for not hiring non-Christian teachers. The catch here is that many of those Christian schools that are only hiring Christian teachers are also receiving Federal Funding. Once a school accepts or continues to accept Federal $, it must abide by employment non-discrimination laws - one of which is you can't just hire those within your faith. Private Christian schools that are completely funded through tuition and donations aren't seeing the backlash when they don't hire non-Christians - it's only when a school received taxpayer dollars AND is only hiring within it's faith that there is an issue. The same can be said for ANY faith-based school of ANY religion.
As for his other point - that somehow Christianity is considered a disqualifier for public office - I think that the 80+% of people in office, who claim to be Christian, would refute that as an issue.
Christianity is fine. Islam is fine. Religion is general is fine - as long as it remains a personal system and not one that is used to regulate or manage people who are not of that religion. Just as we wouldn't allow for a Muslim lawmaker to impose Sharia-like laws on a US population, neither should we allow for Christian lawmakers to impose Christian-specific laws on a US population. Your religion is yours, it should be kept that way.
As for his other point - that somehow Christianity is considered a disqualifier for public office - I think that the 80+% of people in office, who claim to be Christian, would refute that as an issue.
Christianity is fine. Islam is fine. Religion is general is fine - as long as it remains a personal system and not one that is used to regulate or manage people who are not of that religion. Just as we wouldn't allow for a Muslim lawmaker to impose Sharia-like laws on a US population, neither should we allow for Christian lawmakers to impose Christian-specific laws on a US population. Your religion is yours, it should be kept that way.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - I think I agree with everything you said. I guess what I'm missing here is where any Christian feels that being Christian somehow is a barrier to public service. 90+% of those IN elected public service positions claim to be Christian. I guess I'm not seeing how that could now be considered a barrier.
(1)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Here's two potential areas of concern; military chaplains and county clerks. Let's say I'm a chaplain whose faith community teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore, cannot conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony. Should I be allowed to serve, or not? What If I'm already serving when a policy change comes about? Let's say I'm a county clerk with the same beliefs... what do I do if asked to sign-off on a marriage license? I think the answers are simple; there's almost always going to be an alternate if the primary abstains for religious reasons. One can/should be courteous when doing so...and gracious when being asked to honor the abstention. Things aren't usually that simple however, and some Christians may feel it's just "safer" to stay away from public service rather than face potential firing, fines, or worse.
I could take things to the extreme, and suggest that if we truly honored the 1st Amendment, there'd be no "official" chaplains, nor "marriage" licenses... but I'm not really in "favor" of that radical of an interpretation; I don't believe the Founding Fathers were trying to alienate religion... just maintain it as a matter of individual liberty.
I could take things to the extreme, and suggest that if we truly honored the 1st Amendment, there'd be no "official" chaplains, nor "marriage" licenses... but I'm not really in "favor" of that radical of an interpretation; I don't believe the Founding Fathers were trying to alienate religion... just maintain it as a matter of individual liberty.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - I agree that it should be a simple process to pass the responsibility of executing duties to someone else if you cannot or will not execute them yourself. However, if you deny services from a public position based on personal faith, I think it would be time to step down from that position because you are no longer willing or capable of executing the required functions equally. Public service is not a right, but providing equal services to all citizens IS their right.
I know we're talking Christians here, but this really applies to anyone of any faith - which is why I still don't see how being Christian is any barrier to public service.
I agree with you that the Founding Fathers weren't trying to alienate religion, and that they did want to keep it as an individual liberty. I also agree with the idea of taking religious elements back from government altogether. There is no point in having the government approve or disapprove of a marriage - that's a personal thing.
I know we're talking Christians here, but this really applies to anyone of any faith - which is why I still don't see how being Christian is any barrier to public service.
I agree with you that the Founding Fathers weren't trying to alienate religion, and that they did want to keep it as an individual liberty. I also agree with the idea of taking religious elements back from government altogether. There is no point in having the government approve or disapprove of a marriage - that's a personal thing.
(2)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
I personally would not want to serve as a government Chaplain (were that a desire/option), nor would I seek the office of County Clerk. That isn't because I don't think someone with my beliefs "should", but because I'm unwilling to face the ramifications of the inherent conflicts they present. However, any way we want to view this, it means that a pretty large segment of the American population "feels" they don't have a "place" in certain functions of government any longer. That's not overwhelmingly positive... nor an adequate long-term solution. No disrespect intended to anyone, anywhere, but I "think" there's an assumption being carried that the "faith-based" opposition will eventually "fade out"... and that's probably incorrect. Neither am I convinced that everyone desiring the measures that represent the conflict are arguing for an "equal" space... I do believe there is some percentage of that faction that desires nothing less than the outlawing of "faith" in favor of absolute fealty to the state. Here again, it's about personal liberty over consensus; let alone consensus enforced by law. What I like about the OP article is that it's clarifying what should be obvious-just because some religious people disagree doesn't mean that disagreement is by it's nature a threat. On this, and many other points, we seem to agree.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It is the other way around. Christians hold to a world view that is not accepted by most of humanity. Because, the world system follows relativism. Whatever feels good. Christianty is 180 degree turn from that. Therefore, it is not of this world system.
Christianty will be hated. The world system will love Gays and Muslims. But hate Christians.
In America, all Americans have the same rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those who are Gay have the same rights as those who are not Gay. Those who are Gay will argue that is not true. But it is true. What has happened is less than 3% of the population is telling the majority of America how to believe, or what to believe and setting themselves up as a protected class.
I support my fellow American's right to believe and hang out with whomever they wish. You want to worship a fence post? Go ahead. I will help protect your right to do so. Just make sure you are ready to lay down a base of fire to help protect my right to worship G-d the Father, the Word made flesh and the Holy Spirit as one all knowing all powerful G-d that created everything and gave humans a way to approach eternal life.
Don't be a hater just because I believe in a G-d that died and rose from the dead for all of us.
Peace.
Christianty will be hated. The world system will love Gays and Muslims. But hate Christians.
In America, all Americans have the same rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those who are Gay have the same rights as those who are not Gay. Those who are Gay will argue that is not true. But it is true. What has happened is less than 3% of the population is telling the majority of America how to believe, or what to believe and setting themselves up as a protected class.
I support my fellow American's right to believe and hang out with whomever they wish. You want to worship a fence post? Go ahead. I will help protect your right to do so. Just make sure you are ready to lay down a base of fire to help protect my right to worship G-d the Father, the Word made flesh and the Holy Spirit as one all knowing all powerful G-d that created everything and gave humans a way to approach eternal life.
Don't be a hater just because I believe in a G-d that died and rose from the dead for all of us.
Peace.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm not really seeing anywhere that love, compassion and humility are being maligned. Where is that happening?
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
You separated the list from the colon, and exchanged "need to be defended" for "Maligned". Christian beliefs need to be defended. Hence the article I didn't think would be necessary.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Col Joseph Lenertz - I guess my understanding was that things would need to be defended if they were under attack. The way that things like love, compassion, and humility are attacked is by maligning them - that was the train of thought I had on that one.
I don't think that love, compassion, and humility are necessarily Christian-exclusive beliefs - so equating them that way doesn't make sense. Love, compassion, and humility are cornerstones of MANY faiths.
I don't think that love, compassion, and humility are necessarily Christian-exclusive beliefs - so equating them that way doesn't make sense. Love, compassion, and humility are cornerstones of MANY faiths.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google