ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Norman Teigen on May 26, 2020, 09:07:14 AM

Title: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 26, 2020, 09:07:14 AM
Recommended reading.  "Unholy:  Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump". by Sarah Posner. Random House, 2020.  Available at the iTunes Store. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on May 26, 2020, 09:41:27 AM
Pass.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on May 26, 2020, 09:57:56 AM
Right up there with Paul the Progressive which my church is studying to make excuses for St. Paul’s clear writings.

Pass and pass.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 26, 2020, 10:03:10 AM
Can you give your reason for wanting us to read this book? 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 26, 2020, 10:20:59 AM
 I will read it and similar bookS because I remain puzzled as to why people who stand for high morals, integrity, veracity, Care for others, and people living a Christian life, support a politician who does none of these things.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 26, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
The Trump-evangelical alliance believes that the government, unfettered, would take Christians' freedom, and only a strong hand like Trump's could save the country. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on May 26, 2020, 10:48:02 AM
I'm not part of the Trump-Evangelical alliance but I do keep a wary eye on government.  I do think they are interested in restricting rights and advocating for those things they are in favor of- replacing Freedom of Religion with Freedom of Worship being one, keeping a lid on charter schools and school choice (even ending it) and funneling children into public schools being another. 

Why would anyone need to read this book when the legacy media gives all these points every day every broadcast?

Jeremy
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on May 26, 2020, 11:10:59 AM
I will read it and similar bookS because I remain puzzled as to why people who stand for high morals, integrity, veracity, Care for others, and people living a Christian life, support a politician who does none of these things.
Since you are supporting Former VP Biden, perhaps you can answer your own question ... but then there is no standard for living a Christian life .. as some ‘Christians’ see no problem with brutal killing of the unborn as an acceptable aspect of ‘living a Christian life.’
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dave Benke on May 26, 2020, 11:15:44 AM
I'm not part of the Trump-Evangelical alliance but I do keep a wary eye on government.  I do think they are interested in restricting rights and advocating for those things they are in favor of- replacing Freedom of Religion with Freedom of Worship being one, keeping a lid on charter schools and school choice (even ending it) and funneling children into public schools being another. 

Why would anyone need to read this book when the legacy media gives all these points every day every broadcast?

Jeremy

What is meant by the "legacy media?"  That's a new term for me. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on May 26, 2020, 11:20:36 AM
I'm not part of the Trump-Evangelical alliance but I do keep a wary eye on government.  I do think they are interested in restricting rights and advocating for those things they are in favor of- replacing Freedom of Religion with Freedom of Worship being one, keeping a lid on charter schools and school choice (even ending it) and funneling children into public schools being another. 

Why would anyone need to read this book when the legacy media gives all these points every day every broadcast?

Jeremy

What is meant by the "legacy media?"  That's a new term for me. 

Dave Benke


For the most part, the "legacy media" comprises the pre-internet news outlets -- mostly newspapers, broadcast television networks
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on May 26, 2020, 11:22:30 AM
I'm not part of the Trump-Evangelical alliance but I do keep a wary eye on government.  I do think they are interested in restricting rights and advocating for those things they are in favor of- replacing Freedom of Religion with Freedom of Worship being one, keeping a lid on charter schools and school choice (even ending it) and funneling children into public schools being another. 

Why would anyone need to read this book when the legacy media gives all these points every day every broadcast?

Jeremy

Bingo.

I don't operate in an echo chamber, but I have no need to consume rank propaganda either.  I'd sooner read The Nation or Mother Jones (which I actually do) and get the other side honestly than listen to someone wax eloquent on why my side is ever so awful and hypocritical.  We can trade hypocrites all day long, witness the media and Democrat treatment of Tara Reade versus Christine Blasey Ford.  I'm more interested in hearing what interesting people think about their own ideas.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on May 26, 2020, 12:10:55 PM
I'm not part of the Trump-Evangelical alliance but I do keep a wary eye on government.  I do think they are interested in restricting rights and advocating for those things they are in favor of- replacing Freedom of Religion with Freedom of Worship being one, keeping a lid on charter schools and school choice (even ending it) and funneling children into public schools being another. 

Why would anyone need to read this book when the legacy media gives all these points every day every broadcast?

Jeremy

What is meant by the "legacy media?"  That's a new term for me. 

Dave Benke


For the most part, the "legacy media" comprises the pre-internet news outlets -- mostly newspapers, broadcast television networks

James did a good job of explaining the term.  I have gravitated toward it, and think it is akin to "mainstream media" (though I do think that the mainstream is getting broader and broader.)  The legacy media rely on their legacies.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: The Yak on May 26, 2020, 12:14:05 PM
I'm not part of the Trump-Evangelical alliance but I do keep a wary eye on government.  I do think they are interested in restricting rights and advocating for those things they are in favor of- replacing Freedom of Religion with Freedom of Worship being one, keeping a lid on charter schools and school choice (even ending it) and funneling children into public schools being another. 

Why would anyone need to read this book when the legacy media gives all these points every day every broadcast?

Jeremy

What is meant by the "legacy media?"  That's a new term for me. 

Dave Benke


For the most part, the "legacy media" comprises the pre-internet news outlets -- mostly newspapers, broadcast television networks

Another term that sounds pejorative but is meant to be descriptive is the "party press" (though this isn't restricted to the legacy media) referring back to the era when publications openly endorsed political parties (https://www.britannica.com/topic/party-press-era).  That is essentially what we have now, and it would be nice if the media were just up front about it (which was Sauter's point in the article shared on another thread).
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 26, 2020, 12:19:44 PM
The Trump-evangelical alliance believes that the government, unfettered, would take Christians' freedom, and only a strong hand like Trump's could save the country.

Is that from the book or from your own pen?

You are wrong on two counts:  One - that alliance does not believe that at all as a rule, and Two - history has shown that unfettered governments take away ALL individual freedom from it's citizens, and this is precisely the great divide between orthodox and progressive in our country.  Trump is not the only one (and not even that strong of a hand) but was (and is) the lesser of two evils in the past two POTUS election cycles.  Just look at the ongoing debate, largely along political lines, regarding the state's ability to force churches to not gather because of Covid-19.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: DCharlton on May 26, 2020, 12:25:24 PM
Recommended reading.  "Unholy:  Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump". by Sarah Posner. Random House, 2020.  Available at the iTunes Store.

If you can figure out why white progressives have worshiped at the altar of Marx for the last 50 years, understanding why white evangelicals would worship at the altar of Trump will be a piece of cake.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 26, 2020, 12:26:03 PM
I would much rather read David French. But Norman must have his windmills at which to tilt.

Seriously though- When do we get the book that explicates the may Mainline Protestantism (including the ELCA) have mindlessly sold out to the Progressive/Liberal political apparatus. Send me all the tmes that the ELCA condemned any policy of the Obama administration. Please. Even whe they decided to beat up on the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Yeah, I guess this is a tu quoque argument, but I am just so damned over the resolute blindness to the worship of Moloch that is part and parcel of the Religious Left's embrace of "Progress."

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: RandyBosch on May 26, 2020, 12:50:05 PM
Recommended reading.  "Unholy:  Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump". by Sarah Posner. Random House, 2020.  Available at the iTunes Store.

The Penguin Random House Publishing site states that this book was released (published) on May 26, 2020.
Oh, that's TODAY!!!

How wonderful that you were granted a preview edition pre-publication date to read and recommend.
Or did you just read the pre-publication reviews and fall for the hype?

If not, please provide YOUR review after finishing reading the book so that we have a known and trusted source.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on May 26, 2020, 01:18:55 PM
Recommended reading.  "Unholy:  Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump". by Sarah Posner. Random House, 2020.  Available at the iTunes Store.

Let's take a look at the publisher's description, shall we?

Fueled by an antidemocratic impulse, and united by this narrative of reverse victimization, the religious right and the alt-right support a common agenda–and are actively using the erosion of democratic norms to roll back civil rights advances, stock the judiciary with hard-right judges, defang and deregulate federal agencies, and undermine the credibility of the free press.

"religious right and alt right" These are two very different things. By conflating them, she has already made a huge error.

"erosion of democratic norms" In her preface, she uses the example of a Baptist pastor saying Mitt Romney is a member of a cult, because he is LDS. Fair enough. Joe Biden told a black audience that Romney will "put y'all in chains." Is accusing the presidential candidate of the other party of wanting to reinstitute slavery an example of upholding democratic norms? What norms is she talking about?

Can you get any more pejorative? How does on define a judge as "hard right"? And why do I get the idea that she would never refer to RBG as "hard left"?

"Defang and deregulate federal agencies"? Considering that a federal agency can now make a law (a legislative function) and put you in front of an administrative trial judge who can fine and/or imprison you (a judicial function); yes, they need to be deregulated and defanged. Anyone who lived through the AHERA mess in the 80s would know that much. Just recently, there was a situation here in Massachusetts in which a company was getting fined by two different Federal agencies, because their regulations conflicted with each other. In order to understand this better, I suggest you read Neil Gorsuch "A Republic if You Can Keep It."

"undermine the credibility of the free press" Does she mean the same free press that kept putting Trump front and center in 2015/16? (The NY Times estimated the value at $2 billion; thestreet.com estimated it at $5 billion.) Does she mean the free press that kept interviewing Michael Avenatti? Does she mean the free press that has Andrew Cuomo's brother interviewing him and failing to ask why his administration required nursing homes to accept patients infected with COVID-19 leading to death of thousands? Personally, I think the free press is doing a perfectly good job of undermining its credibility all on its own.

I think I'll pass.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 26, 2020, 01:31:47 PM
Randy Bosch:  You may be happy to learn that one may buy a book online without actually going into a book store. Online sellers provide information to prospective customers with appropriate reasons to buy a book.  This information might be thought of as pre-publication information. Sarah Posner's work is widely known and available.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 26, 2020, 02:29:42 PM
The Trump-evangelical alliance believes that the government, unfettered, would take Christians' freedom, and only a strong hand like Trump's could save the country.

I'll assume this is an answer my question as to why we should read the book.

But it begs more questions.  Do you want me to read it so that I do not support Trump or vote for him? Should I read it so that I am alarmed, as this author appears to be, by the "Trump-evangelical alliance" and share that concern with others?  I assume that by recommending a provocative book such as this you are hoping that those who might think positively about Trump would change their mind, or those who are neutral would show greater concern?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 26, 2020, 02:54:41 PM
Read the book for the argument.  Make your own  conclusions as you would for any work.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: mj4 on May 26, 2020, 02:55:11 PM
The title alone suggests that this book will disappoint. It sounds more like an arrogant unnuanced diatribe meant to make a quick buck before a more competent authority does a serious analysis of our current political landscape. I’ll pass.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 26, 2020, 03:04:00 PM
Defang federal agencies? I guess it is a step in the right direction to acknowledge they have fangs.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on May 26, 2020, 03:09:28 PM
Read the book for the argument.
Unless you have completed the book yourself,  please follow your own advice. 8)
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on May 26, 2020, 05:00:20 PM
I wonder if there is a way to vote for Trump and note "Norman Teigen convinced me to do it."

Probably not.  I guess I'm back to thinking for myself.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 26, 2020, 06:14:09 PM
I am not good for much in the persuasion  business.  I ran for Hopkins City Council about ten years ago and got ten per cent of the vote.  My nickname is now: "Ten Percent Teigen."  I encourage everyone to make up their own minds about anything without relying on Norman Teigen for advice.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 26, 2020, 06:16:35 PM
I am not good for much in the persuasion  business.  I ran for Hopkins City Council about ten years ago and got ten per cent of the vote.  My nickname is now: "Ten Percent Teigen."  I encourage everyone to make up their own minds about anything without relying on Norman Teigen for advice.
Why not “Tithin’ Teigen”?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 26, 2020, 06:19:01 PM
Read the book for the argument.  Make your own  conclusions as you would for any work.

I could read the book, and I am capable of making my own conclusions.  But usually with a recommendation for a book comes some kind of endorsement and a reason why it would be good for a person to take the time to read the recommended book.

About 6 days ago I recommended the book Why Johnny Can't Preach by T. David Gordan
(http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7406.msg478025#msg478025), and then later that day I offered additional insights from the book (http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7406.msg478076#msg478076).  I think from reading my posts you can get an idea why I think the book is worth the time to read, at least for those who preach.

In the same vein I am wondering from you why I should invest myself in this book. It appears that you may not have read it yet, so do you have a recommendation of the author or others who have endorsed the book?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 26, 2020, 07:09:29 PM
No. A recommendation of a book does not have to come with an endorsement of the book. Sometimes the description of a book just says that it might be an interesting book to read.
We attend a book discussion group that reads nonfiction books, and rarely has anyone in our group actually read the book. We just pick one which looks interesting to read.
There should be no pre-judging of the book one way or another until you’ve actually read it. To say “well it sounds like a…“, Just doesn’t seem very bright.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Michael Slusser on May 26, 2020, 07:28:27 PM
No. A recommendation of a book does not have to come with an endorsement of the book. Sometimes the description of a book just says that it might be an interesting book to read.
We attend a book discussion group that reads nonfiction books, and rarely has anyone in our group actually read the book. We just pick one which looks interesting to read.
There should be no pre-judging of the book one way or another until you’ve actually read it. To say “well it sounds like a…“, Just doesn’t seem very bright.
A recommendation should at least include why I should read this rather than all the other books available: why might it be important for me?

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 26, 2020, 07:41:56 PM
You see a catalog with 100 new books listed. You recommend one of them. The reason you’re recommending that book and not every book in the catalog should be part of your recommendation. You have to do some serious discerning of what is worth reading before you read everything. There is no other option.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 26, 2020, 08:30:15 PM
No. A recommendation of a book does not have to come with an endorsement of the book. Sometimes the description of a book just says that it might be an interesting book to read.
We attend a book discussion group that reads nonfiction books, and rarely has anyone in our group actually read the book. We just pick one which looks interesting to read.
There should be no pre-judging of the book one way or another until you’ve actually read it. To say “well it sounds like a…“, Just doesn’t seem very bright.
A recommendation should at least include why I should read this rather than all the other books available: why might it be important for me?

Peace,
Michael

Father- It is important to read because it will confirm every single one of Norman's prejudices. Because conservative Evangelical Protestants are just so stupid and mean. I know this because my Progressive Christian friends tell me so.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 26, 2020, 08:37:20 PM
I recommend the book because it deals with current events.  I cannot persuade any one other than to suggest it be considered for reading.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 26, 2020, 08:44:11 PM
No. A recommendation of a book does not have to come with an endorsement of the book. Sometimes the description of a book just says that it might be an interesting book to read.
We attend a book discussion group that reads nonfiction books, and rarely has anyone in our group actually read the book. We just pick one which looks interesting to read.
There should be no pre-judging of the book one way or another until you’ve actually read it. To say “well it sounds like a…“, Just doesn’t seem very bright.

I realize that one might decide to read a book because it appears interesting.  I have read a number of books on my own for that reason.  However, this book is obviously by design a provocative book aimed at a particular group of people.  Entitled "Unholy," it already gives it a pretty judgmental tone.  It would be hard not to have some "pre-judgment" with a title like that.  In fact, a Trump supporter or one even sympathetic to his views would struggle to read it realizing its judgment before he even begins to read.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 26, 2020, 08:52:22 PM
I recommend the book because it deals with current events.  I cannot persuade any one other than to suggest it be considered for reading.

Okay.  But if it's just about "current events," I know a number of other books might be read to cover the same territory.  But based on the brief description of the book and its title alone I realize that this book is not just about "current events," as in a reporting of events happening in current time, but it is an assessment of a particular group of people and their views.  Since you began this thread as a recommendation of the book, I figured you might want to tell us why it was worth recommending.  Right now I'm working through any number of books.  Why should I log onto Amazon and order it and read it over my other choices?  Is the author an outstanding expert in this field?  Is it particularly well researched with excellent citations?  Does the author make a compelling argument against those he does not agree with?  Is it a book I simply must read because of a compelling danger facing us as a nation?  Certainly there is something to sell me on buying and reading the book.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on May 26, 2020, 09:13:45 PM
No. A recommendation of a book does not have to come with an endorsement of the book. Sometimes the description of a book just says that it might be an interesting book to read.

I've come to the conclusion that ELCA-speak is some weird language that has no relation to English.

in ELCA-speak, "we think" means "I think" and "socialism" means "being nice to other people."

Now, a former reporter for the New York Times and a host of other publications tell us that "recommend" means "I think this looks interesting, but I don't really recommend it."


We attend a book discussion group that reads nonfiction books, and rarely has anyone in our group actually read the book. We just pick one which looks interesting to read.

IN which case, its a suggestion, not a recommendation.

There should be no pre-judging of the book one way or another until you’ve actually read it. To say “well it sounds like a…“, Just doesn’t seem very bright.

Seriously? How about the book "In Trump We Trust"? Something tells me that you would have no problem prejudging that book without having "actually read it." In fact, I would hazard to guess that you would decide its not worth your time or your money. In fact, I would guess you would say, "well, that sounds like a..." I certainly would. But, according to your logic, that wouldn't be "very bright" while I would consider it time and money not wasted.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: mj4 on May 26, 2020, 10:17:45 PM
No. A recommendation of a book does not have to come with an endorsement of the book. Sometimes the description of a book just says that it might be an interesting book to read.
We attend a book discussion group that reads nonfiction books, and rarely has anyone in our group actually read the book. We just pick one which looks interesting to read.
There should be no pre-judging of the book one way or another until you’ve actually read it. To say “well it sounds like a…“, Just doesn’t seem very bright.

So if I recommended a book titled Unhinged: Why Religious Virtue Signalling White So-Called Progressives Suck Up to the Democratic Party Elites you'd say, "Oh that sounds interesting! It deals with current events. I'll recommend it on an internet forum."
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 26, 2020, 11:39:31 PM
Mj4
So if I recommended a book titled Unhinged: Why Religious Virtue Signalling White So-Called Progressives Suck Up to the Democratic Party Elites you'd say, "Oh that sounds interesting! It deals with current events. I'll recommend it on an internet forum."

Me:
Actually, I would. But I do not understand all this furor over what a “recommendation” really means! Is it because Norman recommended the book and I said something nice about the recommendation?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 27, 2020, 09:27:06 PM
On the other side of the coin: https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2019/09/05/is_political_activism_responsible_for_the_decline_of_the_episcopal_church_110232.html?fbclid=IwAR1Drcd_yMI05R_qu1Uv36oddC2ytzZ514KfGM5wcQ8zwOpc0Nj1xw7SYCc
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 28, 2020, 10:40:14 AM
So, since you don't seem to want to answer my question, Norman, I'll ask it again:

Is this from the book or from your own pen?

The Trump-evangelical alliance believes that the government, unfettered, would take Christians' freedom, and only a strong hand like Trump's could save the country.

Is that from the book or from your own pen?

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 28, 2020, 11:36:48 AM
Matt Hummel: your post about the Episcopal church demonstrates the pain which churches have suffered.The book which I have recommended does not deal with specific denominational troubles.   Her book deals with a wider scope of concerns, that of the relationship between the incumbent President and many churches.   She doesn't put it in these terms, but, I as a Lutheran do, that there are two areas of interest:  the secular and the sacred.  I think that might be a starting point, the concept of the two realms.  Many persons think that Christianity is, and has been, under attack from many sides. Trump is seen as a heroic defender of religious freedom.  Posner thinks that there is  an unholy alliance between some  churches and the President.  There is much to consider here and I hope that the readers will consider whether her concepts are true or not.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 28, 2020, 11:46:33 AM
The point is, the Mainline churches forged that unholy alliance with the Left. See how it pays out?

The evangelicals, and even sone Catholics seem to want a similar alliance with the Trump. I suspect that it will, as time goes on yield similar fruit to that of the Mainline project.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 28, 2020, 01:21:00 PM
Matt Hummel: your post about the Episcopal church demonstrates the pain which churches have suffered.The book which I have recommended does not deal with specific denominational troubles.   Her book deals with a wider scope of concerns, that of the relationship between the incumbent President and many churches.   She doesn't put it in these terms, but, I as a Lutheran do, that there are two areas of interest:  the secular and the sacred.  I think that might be a starting point, the concept of the two realms.  Many persons think that Christianity is, and has been, under attack from many sides. Trump is seen as a heroic defender of religious freedom.  Posner thinks that there is  an unholy alliance between some  churches and the President.  There is much to consider here and I hope that the readers will consider whether her concepts are true or not.

First of all, thank you.  I may not buy or read the book, but this at least lets us know why you think that the book is important for others to read.  That was my main original point. 

That said, it seems to focus predominantly on the Evangelical community, some of which have historically wedded their religious and ethical concerns to a particular political leader.  I don't see that as much in my corner of Lutheranism.  Yes, we have our concerns and causes, such as protecting the life of the unborn, and we recognize that some leaders will be more supportive than others.  I certainly don't see any Democratic leaders who appear to support pro-life concerns. 

The author may indeed have some valid concerns.  But do you think that they are concerns that translated into most Lutheran communities?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: mj4 on May 28, 2020, 01:31:05 PM
Pastor Engebretson’s comments upstream are reasoned, well expressed, and in a tone that is temperate and respectful. They are a far cry from my comments which were impulsive and overly snarky. I won’t delete my comments, though, because they express my visceral reaction to the whole genre of books and articles that purport to know all about the “Evangelicals” and their alliance with the Republican Party and now Trump. In my experience, and I suspect most of you are old enough to have the same experience, the evangelical Christian next door, or the evangelical pastor up the street is every bit as nonplussed by the Trump phenomena as you or I. He or she wants to vote responsibly and wants to feel good about their vote. Unfortunately, though, we were not presented with good options in 2016, and it looks like we’re going to have just as poor options this year. So, if we are going to vote at all, we have to choose what in some ways compromises our conscience. I chose not to vote at the top of the ballot in 2016. Sad, but I can live with it.

My take is that these authors pay way too much attention to pastors and other leaders on the fringes of the evangelical movement, especially if the pastor is on TV (i.e. Paula White or Jerry Falwell Jr.). In fact, I’m not really sold on calling these pastors evangelicals. Many of them “minister” within a self-made Pentecostal or Independent Baptist bubble and have no real connection to traditional evangelical denominations or institutions. They are their own movement.

So, my apologies, Norman Teigen, if I run across this book, I promise I’ll at least thumb through it.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Steven W Bohler on May 28, 2020, 02:43:42 PM
Pastor Engebretson’s comments upstream are reasoned, well expressed, and in a tone that is temperate and respectful. They are a far cry from my comments which were impulsive and overly snarky. I won’t delete my comments, though, because they express my visceral reaction to the whole genre of books and articles that purport to know all about the “Evangelicals” and their alliance with the Republican Party and now Trump. In my experience, and I suspect most of you are old enough to have the same experience, the evangelical Christian next door, or the evangelical pastor up the street is every bit as nonplussed by the Trump phenomena as you or I. He or she wants to vote responsibly and wants to feel good about their vote. Unfortunately, though, we were not presented with good options in 2016, and it looks like we’re going to have just as poor options this year. So, if we are going to vote at all, we have to choose what in some ways compromises our conscience. I chose not to vote at the top of the ballot in 2016. Sad, but I can live with it.

My take is that these authors pay way too much attention to pastors and other leaders on the fringes of the evangelical movement, especially if the pastor is on TV (i.e. Paula White or Jerry Falwell Jr.). In fact, I’m not really sold on calling these pastors evangelicals. Many of them “minister” within a self-made Pentecostal or Independent Baptist bubble and have no real connection to traditional evangelical denominations or institutions. They are their own movement.

So, my apologies, Norman Teigen, if I run across this book, I promise I’ll at least thumb through it.

If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: mj4 on May 28, 2020, 03:39:16 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Steven W Bohler on May 28, 2020, 04:01:36 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.

Thank you.  Is that enough for you to say that he is not a "good option"?  That is, is that one issue a make-or-break thing with you as a voter?  There are some issues which fall into that category for me (for instance, a pro-abortion candidate could agree with my preferences on everything else but it would not matter -- I could not vote for that person).
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: mj4 on May 28, 2020, 05:43:18 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.

Thank you.  Is that enough for you to say that he is not a "good option"?  That is, is that one issue a make-or-break thing with you as a voter?  There are some issues which fall into that category for me (for instance, a pro-abortion candidate could agree with my preferences on everything else but it would not matter -- I could not vote for that person).

I suppose maybe it is a make-or-break issue for me since I have seen refugee resettlement work firsthand. This was a longstanding successful program that he dismantled for political gain. He confounded the program with immigration problems at the southern border in the popular imagination, pitched it as a threat to the nation, then gutted it.

But there are other issues on which he lacks credibility. Have the renegotiated trade deals brought back manufacturing jobs? What happened to the replace part of “repeal and replace”? Are we safer now without a nuclear agreement with Iran? What progress are we making on protecting the environment now that we’re out of the Paris Climate Agreement? Has he shown any capacity to help heal the nation’s racial divide? The working-class people of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania gave him the edge in 2016. Are their lives any better? Or is it just the traders on Wall Street that stand to benefit from his administration?

So, you see, we haven’t even touched on the “personality” issues, and the list is growing quite long.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 28, 2020, 05:49:53 PM
Matt Hummel: your post about the Episcopal church demonstrates the pain which churches have suffered.The book which I have recommended does not deal with specific denominational troubles.   Her book deals with a wider scope of concerns, that of the relationship between the incumbent President and many churches.   She doesn't put it in these terms, but, I as a Lutheran do, that there are two areas of interest:  the secular and the sacred.  I think that might be a starting point, the concept of the two realms.  Many persons think that Christianity is, and has been, under attack from many sides. Trump is seen as a heroic defender of religious freedom.  Posner thinks that there is  an unholy alliance between some  churches and the President.  There is much to consider here and I hope that the readers will consider whether her concepts are true or not.


There can be a difference between "Christian freedom" and "Religious freedom." I'm not sure that Muslims see Trump supporting their religious freedom - especially back when he tried to prohibit Muslims from entering our country.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 28, 2020, 05:52:45 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.

Thank you.  Is that enough for you to say that he is not a "good option"?  That is, is that one issue a make-or-break thing with you as a voter?  There are some issues which fall into that category for me (for instance, a pro-abortion candidate could agree with my preferences on everything else but it would not matter -- I could not vote for that person).


I don't believe I've ever heard a candidate be pro-abortion. They might be pro-choice; but that doesn't mean that the always agree with the decision to have abortions. That certainly isn't a term used by any pro-choice people I know; nor the position of the ELCA and our Statement.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 28, 2020, 06:06:56 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.

Thank you.  Is that enough for you to say that he is not a "good option"?  That is, is that one issue a make-or-break thing with you as a voter?  There are some issues which fall into that category for me (for instance, a pro-abortion candidate could agree with my preferences on everything else but it would not matter -- I could not vote for that person).


I don't believe I've ever heard a candidate be pro-abortion. They might be pro-choice; but that doesn't mean that the always agree with the decision to have abortions. That certainly isn't a term used by any pro-choice people I know; nor the position of the ELCA and our Statement.

Lie to yourself if you must. But please do not lie to us. There is no single person in the Democrat leadership who does not support abortion for any reason at any time. They have dispensed with “and rare,” they do not give a damn about safe, they just care about legal. Your speciousness is nausea inducing. Name one restriction on abortion- one that Pelosi, Schumer, or Biden support.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 28, 2020, 06:12:30 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.

Thank you.  Is that enough for you to say that he is not a "good option"?  That is, is that one issue a make-or-break thing with you as a voter?  There are some issues which fall into that category for me (for instance, a pro-abortion candidate could agree with my preferences on everything else but it would not matter -- I could not vote for that person).


I don't believe I've ever heard a candidate be pro-abortion. They might be pro-choice; but that doesn't mean that the always agree with the decision to have abortions. That certainly isn't a term used by any pro-choice people I know; nor the position of the ELCA and our Statement.

Lie to yourself if you must. But please do not lie to us. There is no single person in the Democrat leadership who does not support abortion for any reason at any time. They have dispensed with “and rare,” they do not give a damn about safe, they just care about legal. Your speciousness is nausea inducing. Name one restriction on abortion- one that Pelosi, Schumer, or Biden support.


I'm absolutely certain that they support a woman's decision not to have an abortion. I cannot imagine any of them would tell a young pregnant woman, "You must abort your child. We don't care if you want your baby; abortion is your right and you must use it."
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Steven W Bohler on May 28, 2020, 08:43:08 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.

Thank you.  Is that enough for you to say that he is not a "good option"?  That is, is that one issue a make-or-break thing with you as a voter?  There are some issues which fall into that category for me (for instance, a pro-abortion candidate could agree with my preferences on everything else but it would not matter -- I could not vote for that person).

I suppose maybe it is a make-or-break issue for me since I have seen refugee resettlement work firsthand. This was a longstanding successful program that he dismantled for political gain. He confounded the program with immigration problems at the southern border in the popular imagination, pitched it as a threat to the nation, then gutted it.

But there are other issues on which he lacks credibility. Have the renegotiated trade deals brought back manufacturing jobs? What happened to the replace part of “repeal and replace”? Are we safer now without a nuclear agreement with Iran? What progress are we making on protecting the environment now that we’re out of the Paris Climate Agreement? Has he shown any capacity to help heal the nation’s racial divide? The working-class people of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania gave him the edge in 2016. Are their lives any better? Or is it just the traders on Wall Street that stand to benefit from his administration?

So, you see, we haven’t even touched on the “personality” issues, and the list is growing quite long.

The economy under Trump was going amazingly well until the past couple of months.  I assume that included manufacturing jobs.  At least it was so in my area: all (and I mean ALL) of the plants had signs and ads that they were hiring.  With better starting wages than I receive after nearly 30 years in the ministry.  He cannot repeal and replace on his own; Congress has been a stumbling block there.  Yes, we are safer in regards to Iran as they do not see the US as a patsy any more.  The Paris Climate Agreement was a joke and it is a blessing we are out.  The racial divide?  His rating with minorities is higher than any other Republican president in recent history.  My family is in Wisconsin, and they tell me things are going as well there as they are here in Minnesota (and I just said how things were here).  The Wall Street traders have been more supportive of Democrats than Republicans lately.

That's my take on the issues you mentioned.  Of course, I am sure not everyone agrees.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: mj4 on May 28, 2020, 09:00:37 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.

Thank you.  Is that enough for you to say that he is not a "good option"?  That is, is that one issue a make-or-break thing with you as a voter?  There are some issues which fall into that category for me (for instance, a pro-abortion candidate could agree with my preferences on everything else but it would not matter -- I could not vote for that person).

I suppose maybe it is a make-or-break issue for me since I have seen refugee resettlement work firsthand. This was a longstanding successful program that he dismantled for political gain. He confounded the program with immigration problems at the southern border in the popular imagination, pitched it as a threat to the nation, then gutted it.

But there are other issues on which he lacks credibility. Have the renegotiated trade deals brought back manufacturing jobs? What happened to the replace part of “repeal and replace”? Are we safer now without a nuclear agreement with Iran? What progress are we making on protecting the environment now that we’re out of the Paris Climate Agreement? Has he shown any capacity to help heal the nation’s racial divide? The working-class people of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania gave him the edge in 2016. Are their lives any better? Or is it just the traders on Wall Street that stand to benefit from his administration?

So, you see, we haven’t even touched on the “personality” issues, and the list is growing quite long.

The economy under Trump was going amazingly well until the past couple of months.  I assume that included manufacturing jobs.  At least it was so in my area: all (and I mean ALL) of the plants had signs and ads that they were hiring.  With better starting wages than I receive after nearly 30 years in the ministry.  He cannot repeal and replace on his own; Congress has been a stumbling block there.  Yes, we are safer in regards to Iran as they do not see the US as a patsy any more.  The Paris Climate Agreement was a joke and it is a blessing we are out.  The racial divide?  His rating with minorities is higher than any other Republican president in recent history.  My family is in Wisconsin, and they tell me things are going as well there as they are here in Minnesota (and I just said how things were here).  The Wall Street traders have been more supportive of Democrats than Republicans lately.

That's my take on the issues you mentioned.  Of course, I am sure not everyone agrees.

If it is as you say, Trump will win re-election. The Democrats have put up another disturbingly weak candidate.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 28, 2020, 09:19:59 PM
But of course, “it” is not as Pastor Bohler says.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 28, 2020, 11:26:10 PM
If one can separate personality from policy, to what exactly do you object in the Trump administration?

If I can separate personality from policy, which is not easy in his case, I would say that I find his dismantling of refugee resettlement to be the most objectionable policy. I've posted on this many times.

Thank you.  Is that enough for you to say that he is not a "good option"?  That is, is that one issue a make-or-break thing with you as a voter?  There are some issues which fall into that category for me (for instance, a pro-abortion candidate could agree with my preferences on everything else but it would not matter -- I could not vote for that person).


I don't believe I've ever heard a candidate be pro-abortion. They might be pro-choice; but that doesn't mean that the always agree with the decision to have abortions. That certainly isn't a term used by any pro-choice people I know; nor the position of the ELCA and our Statement.

Lie to yourself if you must. But please do not lie to us. There is no single person in the Democrat leadership who does not support abortion for any reason at any time. They have dispensed with “and rare,” they do not give a damn about safe, they just care about legal. Your speciousness is nausea inducing. Name one restriction on abortion- one that Pelosi, Schumer, or Biden support.


I'm absolutely certain that they support a woman's decision not to have an abortion. I cannot imagine any of them would tell a young pregnant woman, "You must abort your child. We don't care if you want your baby; abortion is your right and you must use it."

The Democrat Governor of NY had the Empire State building lit up in CELEBRATION of Abortion liberalization in NY under his watch.

And you still have not named any legislation or program that key Democrats on a national level have supported that is not simple support of abortion up to, if not beyond, the moment of birth.

So I get it, you would never personally own slaves, or gas Jews, but it's the law of the land.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on May 29, 2020, 02:21:18 AM
I don't believe I've ever heard a candidate be pro-abortion. They might be pro-choice; but that doesn't mean that the always agree with the decision to have abortions. That certainly isn't a term used by any pro-choice people I know; nor the position of the ELCA and our Statement.
Can't believe the spin. 🤕😢
Neither term rejects the murder of unborn children.  But carry on with your diatribe about somehow it isn't murder to stop a beating heart ... when your non death condemning screed is produced, make sure a 'no kill' animal center approves of the murderous tone of your screed.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 29, 2020, 02:44:48 AM
I don't believe I've ever heard a candidate be pro-abortion. They might be pro-choice; but that doesn't mean that the always agree with the decision to have abortions. That certainly isn't a term used by any pro-choice people I know; nor the position of the ELCA and our Statement.
Can't believe the spin. 🤕😢
Neither term rejects the murder of unborn children.  But carry on with your diatribe about somehow it isn't murder to stop a beating heart ... when your non death condemning screed is produced, make sure a 'no kill' animal center approves of the murderous tone of your screed.


I have never claimed that abortion does not kill a human being. Don't accuse me of making arguments I don't make.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 29, 2020, 06:17:44 AM
And the thread drifts, no, crashes into favorite topic-rant #2.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 29, 2020, 11:46:24 AM
I don't believe I've ever heard a candidate be pro-abortion. They might be pro-choice; but that doesn't mean that the always agree with the decision to have abortions. That certainly isn't a term used by any pro-choice people I know; nor the position of the ELCA and our Statement.
Can't believe the spin. 🤕😢
Neither term rejects the murder of unborn children.  But carry on with your diatribe about somehow it isn't murder to stop a beating heart ... when your non death condemning screed is produced, make sure a 'no kill' animal center approves of the murderous tone of your screed.


I have never claimed that abortion does not kill a human being. Don't accuse me of making arguments I don't make.
Still waiting for the answer. Spoiler alert: there is none since the Democrat party is the party in favor of killing people. Unless they are convicted felons who have committed heinous offenses. They need to be spared. Unborn children? They can be sold by the ounce at  the local Klanned Parenthood chop shop.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on May 29, 2020, 12:05:57 PM
And the thread drifts, no, crashes into favorite topic-rant #2.

I encourage you again: Go start your own board.

You can have your own rules:

No anonymous posts.

No thread drifts to topics not approved by the owner/moderator.

When I get tired of a topic, it can never be brought up again.

Seriously, go for it. Get that board going!
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 29, 2020, 12:37:36 PM
I don't believe I've ever heard a candidate be pro-abortion. They might be pro-choice; but that doesn't mean that the always agree with the decision to have abortions. That certainly isn't a term used by any pro-choice people I know; nor the position of the ELCA and our Statement.
Can't believe the spin. 🤕😢
Neither term rejects the murder of unborn children.  But carry on with your diatribe about somehow it isn't murder to stop a beating heart ... when your non death condemning screed is produced, make sure a 'no kill' animal center approves of the murderous tone of your screed.


I have never claimed that abortion does not kill a human being. Don't accuse me of making arguments I don't make.
Still waiting for the answer. Spoiler alert: there is none since the Democrat party is the party in favor of killing people. Unless they are convicted felons who have committed heinous offenses. They need to be spared. Unborn children? They can be sold by the ounce at  the local Klanned Parenthood chop shop.


To the boldface. You didn't ask a question


I checked the actual 2016 Democratic Platform. (They haven't yet revised it for 2020.) It includes the following.


Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment. We condemn and will combat any acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We will defend the ACA, which extends affordable preventive health care to women, including no-cost contraception, and prohibits discrimination in health care based on gender.

We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexuality, race, income, disability, and other factors. We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

And we strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child, including by ensuring a safe and healthy pregnancy and childbirth, and by providing services during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including adoption and social support services, as well as protections for women against pregnancy discrimination. We are committed to creating a society where children are safe and can thrive physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually. We recognize and support the importance of civil structures that are essential to creating this for every child.

Is there anything about this platform that you agree with?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 29, 2020, 01:31:26 PM
I asked one, however:  Twice now of Mr. Teigen, and have yet to receive a response.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 29, 2020, 02:05:24 PM
If we wish to be critical of a perceived unholy alliance between Donald Trump and Evangelicals, what about the unholy alliance between progressives and progressive mainline denominations who claim to support and defend women against assault and claim #MeToo and the Clintons, Joe Biden and the less prominent Democrats who have been accused of sexual assault and harassment? The #MeToo mantra of "Believe the woman" it turns out is more nuanced than that. It ends up as "Believe the woman (unless it is a prominent Democrat who pays lip service to supporting women)." Bill Clinton is not only a philanderer but used his position to sexually harass and exploit women under his authority, not to mention the Oval Office as his hunting ground. Are those who profess such shock over Donald Trump's sexual adventurism and distaste that who claim a higher morality could still support him, equally shocked that those who profess such a high regard for women's rights and their freedom from assault equally shocked at the support for Clinton. Hillary became his accomplice as she lead the assault on the women who (as it turns out correctly) accused Bill. "Believe the women?" not when her political future was on the line. And what about handsy Biden who enjoys sniffing women's hair? When he was accused of assault, was it "Believe the women?" or was it ignore it and it'll go away? I don't know whether the accusation is correct or not, or whether that will ever be effectively investigated. What I do know is the way those accusations have been handled in contrast to the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. What I can see is an unholy alliance between those who have based a major part of their political career on supporting the interests of women and powerful men who claim to and promise to support the cause of women and whose own sexual mores have been either less than sterling or who have used their position to attempt to quash allegations.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 29, 2020, 03:59:10 PM
Brian-

I am asking and have asked what common sense restrictions the Democrat party has put in place, either with respect to a woman's health and safety, or abortion as a means of gendercide. Nothing. Because the Modern Democrats follow in the footsteps of their forefathers in supporting their peculiar institution.

I have asked what the ELCA has actually done to live into its Social Statement. Nothing, but then given the fact that every one of your full communion partners is vehemently pro-abortion, no surprise. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on May 29, 2020, 04:27:38 PM
And the thread drifts, no, crashes into favorite topic-rant #2.

I encourage you again: Go start your own board.

You can have your own rules:

No anonymous posts.

No thread drifts to topics not approved by the owner/moderator.

When I get tired of a topic, it can never be brought up again.

Seriously, go for it. Get that board going!
Adding to the above list, ... unnecessarily having conversation with ones self to inflate thread count.😷😷
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 29, 2020, 06:25:55 PM
Brian-

I am asking and have asked what common sense restrictions the Democrat party has put in place, either with respect to a woman's health and safety, or abortion as a means of gendercide. Nothing. Because the Modern Democrats follow in the footsteps of their forefathers in supporting their peculiar institution.

I have asked what the ELCA has actually done to live into its Social Statement. Nothing, but then given the fact that every one of your full communion partners is vehemently pro-abortion, no surprise. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.


And because you use "pro-abortion," you do not understand the ELCA's position, nor, I believe, the position of our full communion partners. None are "pro-abortion." I know that our statement clearly discourages abortions. We are not in favor of women having abortions. However, we also acknowledge there are certain circumstances when they may be a responsible choice. Outside of those three circumstances, one should not choose abortion. That is not "pro-abortion." That is not even encouraging abortions.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 29, 2020, 08:11:38 PM
Brian-

I am asking and have asked what common sense restrictions the Democrat party has put in place, either with respect to a woman's health and safety, or abortion as a means of gendercide. Nothing. Because the Modern Democrats follow in the footsteps of their forefathers in supporting their peculiar institution.

I have asked what the ELCA has actually done to live into its Social Statement. Nothing, but then given the fact that every one of your full communion partners is vehemently pro-abortion, no surprise. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.


And because you use "pro-abortion," you do not understand the ELCA's position, nor, I believe, the position of our full communion partners. None are "pro-abortion." I know that our statement clearly discourages abortions. We are not in favor of women having abortions. However, we also acknowledge there are certain circumstances when they may be a responsible choice. Outside of those three circumstances, one should not choose abortion. That is not "pro-abortion." That is not even encouraging abortions.
Brian- I understand only too well the ELCA "nuance." Those who support that lie disgust me. I would rather deal with a straight up pro-abort than a mealy mouthed coward whose words are low grade organic fertilizer. So- AGAIN- Name one damned thing the ELCA has done to address horrors like gendercide here in the US. When the ELCA leadership had the opportunity to do something positive, they refused. Richard Johnson has seen the paper trail  on this, and can vouch for me. I have nothing but contempt for the "leadership" of people like Chilstrom and Hanson. As to your current leader, I wish her well.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: pearson on May 29, 2020, 08:30:42 PM

And because you use "pro-abortion," you do not understand the ELCA's position, nor, I believe, the position of our full communion partners. None are "pro-abortion." I know that our statement clearly discourages abortions. We are not in favor of women having abortions. However, we also acknowledge there are certain circumstances when they may be a responsible choice. Outside of those three circumstances, one should not choose abortion. That is not "pro-abortion." That is not even encouraging abortions.


Are there any clearly specified criteria in our ELCA social statement on abortion that determine when those "certain circumstances" occur?  Do we establish firm boundaries in that statement around what may be properly considered as "a responsible choice," and at what point it may be exercised?

As you have reminded us many times here, Pr. Stoffregen, it is not enough simply to recite the words of a particular text.  The real work is done at the level of "interpretation," where the meaning of the text is discerned.  How does our social statement guide us to the appropriate meaning regarding the "certain circumstances," and that "responsible choice"?  Thanks.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 30, 2020, 02:16:46 AM

And because you use "pro-abortion," you do not understand the ELCA's position, nor, I believe, the position of our full communion partners. None are "pro-abortion." I know that our statement clearly discourages abortions. We are not in favor of women having abortions. However, we also acknowledge there are certain circumstances when they may be a responsible choice. Outside of those three circumstances, one should not choose abortion. That is not "pro-abortion." That is not even encouraging abortions.


Are there any clearly specified criteria in our ELCA social statement on abortion that determine when those "certain circumstances" occur?  Do we establish firm boundaries in that statement around what may be properly considered as "a responsible choice," and at what point it may be exercised?

As you have reminded us many times here, Pr. Stoffregen, it is not enough simply to recite the words of a particular text.  The real work is done at the level of "interpretation," where the meaning of the text is discerned.  How does our social statement guide us to the appropriate meaning regarding the "certain circumstances," and that "responsible choice"?  Thanks.


The following is the section on "Ending a Pregnancy". I think that it's pretty clear about the certain circumstances. I added the boldface.

This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion. The following provides guidance for those considering such a decision. We recognize that conscientious decisions need to be made in relation to difficult circumstances that vary greatly. What is determined to be a morally responsible decision in one situation may not be in another.

In reflecting ethically on what should be done in the case of an unintended pregnancy, consideration should be given to the status and condition of the life in the womb. We also need to consider the conditions under which the pregnancy occurred and the implications of the pregnancy for the woman’s life.


An abortion is morally responsible in those cases in which continuation of a pregnancy presents a clear threat to the physical life of the woman.


A woman should not be morally obligated to carry the resulting pregnancy to term if the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse.1 This is especially true in cases of rape and incest. This can also be the case in some situations in which women are so dominated and oppressed that they have no choice regarding sexual intercourse and little access to contraceptives. Some conceptions occur under dehumanizing conditions that are contrary to God’s purposes.

There are circumstances of extreme fetal abnormality, which will result in severe suffering and very early death of an infant. In such cases, after competent medical consultations, the parent(s) may responsibly choose to terminate the pregnancy. Whether they choose to continue or to end such pregnancies, this church supports the parent(s) with compassion, recognizing the struggle involved in the decision.

Although abortion raises significant moral issues at any stage of fetal development, the closer the life in the womb comes to full term the more serious such issues become.2 When a child can survive outside a womb, it becomes possible for other people, and not only the mother, to nourish and care for the child. This church opposes ending intrauterine life when a fetus is developed enough to live outside a uterus with the aid of reasonable and necessary technology. If a pregnancy needs to be interrupted after this point, every reasonable and necessary effort should be made to support this life, unless there are lethal fetal abnormalities indicating that the prospective newborn will die very soon.

Our biblical and confessional commitments provide the basis for us to continue deliberating together on the moral issues related to these decisions. We have the responsibility to make the best possible decisions in light of the information available to us and our sense of accountability to God, neighbor, and self. In these decisions, we must ultimately rely on the grace of God.

1 The following amendment received significant support at the Churchwide Assembly, but not enough votes for approval: “A woman should not be morally obligated to carry the resulting pregnancy to term if the pregnancy occurs in cases of rape and incest.”

2 The following amendment received significant support at the Churchwide Assembly, but not enough votes for approval: “Abortion is not acceptable later than the first trimester.”
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 30, 2020, 06:55:10 AM
Shocked by earthquake events in Minnesota this week.  Will get back to the topic later.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 30, 2020, 09:00:47 AM
I've long agreed that the ELCA social statement on abortion is pretty good although I would have a few disagreements on details. Officially the ELCA does not support abortion on demand for any and every reason. However its overarching commitment to being pro choice means that they are committed to not lifting a finger to protect the life of an unborn unjustly targeted for abortion and would advocate against anyone else doing so.


To me that seems the moral equivalent of stating one's personal objection to and rejection of racism but maintaining a respect for everyone's right to choose for themselves to be and act racist. Freedom of choice is paramount and is not to be restricted.


If the ELCA can articulate situations under which abortion may be morally acceptable surely we as a society may write into laws protecting the unborn such exceptions.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on May 30, 2020, 10:43:25 AM
Has the ELCA ever officially spoken out against the wholesale abortion mentally prevalent in society today.

They have a proclivity to clearly and forcefully address other social issues,  but where are their bold words publicly  expressing the position Rev Stoffregen attempts to portray.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 30, 2020, 11:21:38 AM
Has the ELCA ever officially spoken out against the wholesale abortion mentally prevalent in society today.

They have a proclivity to clearly and forcefully address other social issues,  but where are their bold words publicly  expressing the position Rev Stoffregen attempts to portray.

Nope. Nada. Nyet.

Instead the embrace their ecumenical relationship with groups like TEC who has in it's leadership and among those forming clergy those who refer to abortion as a blessing and proudly tell of how abortion "enabled" her to become a member of the TEC clergy.

Maybe the reason the ELCA has failed so absolutely miserably in it's attempt to be "more inclusive" is there stony silence at the murder of hundred of thousands of potential members.

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 30, 2020, 01:14:46 PM
Has the ELCA ever officially spoken out against the wholesale abortion mentally prevalent in society today.

They have a proclivity to clearly and forcefully address other social issues,  but where are their bold words publicly  expressing the position Rev Stoffregen attempts to portray.


From the Statement. It's likely that you might agree with some of these statements and disagree with others.

C. The Regulation of Abortion

Members of this church hold different opinions about the role and extent of public law and regulation in relation to abortion. The spectrum of disagreement ranges from those who believe all abortions should be prohibited by law, except to save the life of the mother, to those who oppose any law seeking to regulate abortion, except to protect the health and safety of the woman. For some, the question of pregnancy and abortion is not a matter for governmental interference, but a matter of religious liberty and freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment. For others, the law’s function in protecting life needs to include the life in the womb. Some stress the limited ability of law to stop abortions, and contend that there is increased danger to women if abortions are made illegal. They maintain that regulation takes away a woman’s freedom to choose abortion as well as her freedom to affirm life by choosing to bear the child. Still others see the need to work for laws that both protect life in the womb to a greater degree and protect women’s freedom to choose abortion in certain circumstances.

The position of this church is that government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion. A major challenge is to formulate policy regarding abortion that will have sufficient consensus to be enforceable. Furthermore, any proposed regulation should contribute toward the intended goals without generating problems worse than those it seeks to address.

In the case of abortion, public policy has a double challenge. One is to be effective in protecting prenatal life. The other is to protect the dignity of women and their freedom to make responsible decisions in difficult situations. Pursuing those ends is particularly formidable because our society is so divided on this issue, and because women, people of color, and those of low income are so under-represented in legislative and judicial processes. In its advocacy regarding these issues, this church should exert every effort to see that the needs of those most directly affected, particularly the pregnant woman and the life in her womb, are seriously considered in the political process.

Laws should be enacted and enforced justly for the preservation and enhancement of life, and should avoid unduly encumbering or endangering the lives of women.

Because of our conviction that both the life of the woman and the life in her womb must be respected by law, this church opposes:
• the total lack of regulation of abortion;
• legislation that would outlaw abortion in all circumstances;
• laws that prevent access to information about all options available to women faced with unintended pregnancies;
• laws that deny access to safe and affordable services for morally justifiable abortions;
• mandatory or coerced abortion or sterilization;
• laws that prevent couples from practicing contraception;
• laws that are primarily intended to harass those contemplating or deciding for an abortion.

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.

Beyond these situations, this church neither supports nor opposes laws prohibiting abortion.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 30, 2020, 01:33:00 PM
Has the ELCA ever officially spoken out against the wholesale abortion mentally prevalent in society today.

They have a proclivity to clearly and forcefully address other social issues,  but where are their bold words publicly  expressing the position Rev Stoffregen attempts to portray.


From the Statement. It's likely that you might agree with some of these statements and disagree with others.

C. The Regulation of Abortion

Members of this church hold different opinions about the role and extent of public law and regulation in relation to abortion. The spectrum of disagreement ranges from those who believe all abortions should be prohibited by law, except to save the life of the mother, to those who oppose any law seeking to regulate abortion, except to protect the health and safety of the woman. For some, the question of pregnancy and abortion is not a matter for governmental interference, but a matter of religious liberty and freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment. For others, the law’s function in protecting life needs to include the life in the womb. Some stress the limited ability of law to stop abortions, and contend that there is increased danger to women if abortions are made illegal. They maintain that regulation takes away a woman’s freedom to choose abortion as well as her freedom to affirm life by choosing to bear the child. Still others see the need to work for laws that both protect life in the womb to a greater degree and protect women’s freedom to choose abortion in certain circumstances.

The position of this church is that government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion. A major challenge is to formulate policy regarding abortion that will have sufficient consensus to be enforceable. Furthermore, any proposed regulation should contribute toward the intended goals without generating problems worse than those it seeks to address.

In the case of abortion, public policy has a double challenge. One is to be effective in protecting prenatal life. The other is to protect the dignity of women and their freedom to make responsible decisions in difficult situations. Pursuing those ends is particularly formidable because our society is so divided on this issue, and because women, people of color, and those of low income are so under-represented in legislative and judicial processes. In its advocacy regarding these issues, this church should exert every effort to see that the needs of those most directly affected, particularly the pregnant woman and the life in her womb, are seriously considered in the political process.

Laws should be enacted and enforced justly for the preservation and enhancement of life, and should avoid unduly encumbering or endangering the lives of women.

Because of our conviction that both the life of the woman and the life in her womb must be respected by law, this church opposes:
• the total lack of regulation of abortion;
• legislation that would outlaw abortion in all circumstances;
• laws that prevent access to information about all options available to women faced with unintended pregnancies;
• laws that deny access to safe and affordable services for morally justifiable abortions;
• mandatory or coerced abortion or sterilization;
• laws that prevent couples from practicing contraception;
• laws that are primarily intended to harass those contemplating or deciding for an abortion.

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.

Beyond these situations, this church neither supports nor opposes laws prohibiting abortion.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. They have had the opportunity to make a difference and they resolutely ignored it. But 20 years of CCM and the likes of Katherine Ragsdale. Go ELCA! Go CCM!

https://prochoice.org/reverend-katherine-hancock-ragsdale-named-president-ceo-naf/

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Robert Johnson on May 30, 2020, 01:44:36 PM
But there are other issues on which he lacks credibility. Have the renegotiated trade deals brought back manufacturing jobs? What happened to the replace part of “repeal and replace”? Are we safer now without a nuclear agreement with Iran?

You expect instantaneous results to long term issues?

Quote
What progress are we making on protecting the environment now that we’re out of the Paris Climate Agreement?

Quite a lot; the pivot to natural gas from fracking gave us the best environmental outcome of any industrial nation.

Quote
Has he shown any capacity to help heal the nation’s racial divide?

His economic policies made black unemployment the lowest it has been.  Pre-virus, of course.  The blue state governors are trying to erase those gains.

Quote
The working-class people of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania gave him the edge in 2016. Are their lives any better?

Can’t speak for the others, but Pennsylvania workers lives got better over this term.

Quote
Or is it just the traders on Wall Street that stand to benefit from his administration?

Trump’s reduction in bureaucratic regulations helped Main Street not Wall Street.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2020, 01:48:45 PM
Mr. Hummel, is it possible for you to make your “pro life” case simply by making your case rather than beating up on everybody who disagrees with you? You spend more words beating up on other people than you do stating your case in a way that might make us think you have something worthwhile to say.
We in the ELCA know you think we are terrible. You’ve said that many times.
You hardly said anything to make us even want to listen to your “side” of the issue.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 30, 2020, 03:15:40 PM
Mr. Hummel, is it possible for you to make your “pro life” case simply by making your case rather than beating up on everybody who disagrees with you? You spend more words beating up on other people than you do stating your case in a way that might make us think you have something worthwhile to say.
We in the ELCA know you think we are terrible. You’ve said that many times.
You hardly said anything to make us even want to listen to your “side” of the issue.

Mr. Austin- the bottom line is this: The ELCA can't even live up to its weak tea Social Statement.

Mark Hanson could not keep his mouth shut on any au courant social issue. I remember before him the 1992 mailing on Columbus and the eeevvvvuuullz of all he unleashed. But when I ask for one specific example of something that an organization that is pro-choice but anti-abortion you are speechless.

Does the National Church have any programming for parents experiencing a poor pre-natal diagnosis? Does any Synod?
Or do you leave them to the tender pastoral care of folks like Brian, and his "**** it, it's defective anyway" ethic?

And when the same sex attraction gene is found what is going to happen to the Church that says homosexuals can be ordained, married, and killed?



Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on May 30, 2020, 03:57:21 PM
Mr. Hummel, is it possible for you to make your “pro life” case simply by making your case rather than beating up on everybody who disagrees with you? You spend more words beating up on other people than you do stating your case in a way that might make us think you have something worthwhile to say.
We in the ELCA know you think we are terrible. You’ve said that many times.
You hardly said anything to make us even want to listen to your “side” of the issue.
NO .. NO. NO!! It is not the ELCA that is terrible! That is your attempt to victimize yourself

It is clearly apparent that there are ELCA member forum participants who do not share your apparent reluctance to unequivocally condemn the wholesale slaughter of innocent souls loved by God.

What IS terrible is attempting to make abortion a church issue rather than what it really is ... a life and death issue.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2020, 05:20:46 PM
Mr. Hummel, I dare say that I believe your life would be better if you would let go of the resentment you have and the hatred you have for the ELCA. Whatever happened to you within the ELCA, it’s gone now. It’s no longer your church body. We don’t have to answer to you for What a presiding bishop said or something that happened more than 20 years ago.
You live in your new part of the church. Do so. Your words are not likely to make any difference in what we do in our part of the church.
I think you know that. So I’m wondering why you keep speechifying towards us In such a bitter hostile way.
I have no interest in railing at you about the errors in your church body over the last 30 or 40 years.
What do you get by continually yelling at us?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on May 30, 2020, 06:32:18 PM
Mr. Austin-

Your cluelessness on several key issues is actually kind of sad. For someone who has prided himself on getting things right, you are slipping.

As for my Church and what Fr. Neuhaus of blessed memory called The Long Lent, do you think I or any other faithful Catholic does not feel anger at the malefactors. But I have actually read the John Jay report, so l say good luck to folks who are embracing openly what was done surreptitiously by the RCC. And the difference between the Catholic Church and me, and the ELCA and you, is we have acknowledged and repented of the sin and  have put in place all manner of checks to keep that from happening.

But the ELCA- crickets. When I ask for examples, I am treated to meaningless quotes from Social Statements that are all icing and no cake, or bellicose directives to shut up.

So again I ask you Mr. Austin, you and your pro-choice but anti-abortion friends in the ELCA what have you ACTUALLY done to live into your words. And once more, the self condemnatory  silence will descend.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on May 30, 2020, 07:03:43 PM
Mr. Hummel, is it possible for you to make your “pro life” case simply by making your case rather than beating up on everybody who disagrees with you? You spend more words beating up on other people than you do stating your case in a way that might make us think you have something worthwhile to say.
We in the ELCA know you think we are terrible. You’ve said that many times.
You hardly said anything to make us even want to listen to your “side” of the issue.

Perhaps, brother Austin, the Rev. Mr. Hummel wouldn't be so hard on us if someone "defending" the ELCA would do something more than quote here a document that brother Stoffregen trots out here often, but knows better than to do so in an ELCA-only setting, where the response would be venomous spewing of anger from a host of our fellow (or is that word too gendered?) rostered leaders.  Well, they might give Brian a pass and act as if he hadn't posted a thing, but if I were to quote from it -- well, BTDT. 

In the many, many years that Matt has asked this sort of question on this forum (he may have still been an ELCA pastor the first time he asked, or at least it wasn't long after his resignation), I'm the only one who's actually bothered to offer a response by passing on information from staff from a local agency within Lutheran Social Services or our ELCA lobbyists (who, at least early in this century, were actually acting in congruence with the Social Statement on Abortion, something the ELCA Church Council -- though a document prepared largely by the chief author of the Social Teaching Statement itself -- very specifically directed the Board of Pensions not to do on the grounds that a Social Teaching Statement ought not determine ELCA policy), while Brian mouths the effectively-meaningless Social Statement, and you throw a hissy fit doing precisely what you accuse Deacon Hummel of doing while steadfastly refusing to address the actual topic.  The last being par for the course for lo! these 11,000 posts since your re-appearance on this forum nearly 6 years ago -- and the latter part of your first life on ALPB Forum Online.

Meanwhile, the ELCA parish I serve does this (https://advantagenews.com/features/religion/church-dinner-provides-support-for-thrive/) and was supporting this (https://secure.ministrysync.com/ministrysync/event/website/home/?e=20177) long before I came here. 

Fraternally, Tibbetts+
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on May 30, 2020, 07:06:08 PM

Mr. Hummel, I dare say that I believe your life would be better if you would let go of the resentment you have and the hatred you have for the ELCA. Whatever happened to you within the ELCA, it’s gone now. It’s no longer your church body. We don’t have to answer to you for What a presiding bishop said or something that happened more than 20 years ago.
You live in your new part of the church. Do so. Your words are not likely to make any difference in what we do in our part of the church.
I think you know that. So I’m wondering why you keep speechifying towards us In such a bitter hostile way.
I have no interest in railing at you about the errors in your church body over the last 30 or 40 years.
What do you get by continually yelling at us?
Rev Austin ... Your continual hammering of Deacon Hummel, not to mention your failure to properly address him while victimizing yourself is laughable.  Deacon Hummel’s  difference is not  ... repeat not with the ELCA ... but with the apparent confession some of the ELCA.   

It is indeed laughable for you to insinuate that Deacon Hummel is hostile .. he is simply ‘contending for the faith that was once for all delivered (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Once+delivered&version=ESV&resultspp=25) to the saints (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Once+delivered&version=ESV&resultspp=25). You on the other hand apparently are uncomfortable attempting having to defend a non Biblical concept Biblically.

Your effort to victimize yourself and those sharing your confession is wearing thinner and thinner ... please stop embarrassing yourself further.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2020, 07:37:42 PM
My apologies to Deacon Hummel, the Rev. Mr. Hummel. I had truly not taken proper note of his clerical status. I shall not forget that again.
I still ponder his continued and open hostility towards the ELCA.
But carry on.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on May 30, 2020, 08:01:05 PM
My apologies to Deacon Hummel, the Rev. Mr. Hummel. I had truly not taken proper note of his clerical status. I shall not forget that again.
I still ponder his continued and open hostility towards the ELCA.
But carry on.
OK ... you ignore victim theology .... then how in the world does one disagree without being hostile?  You seem fearful of defending your point of view ... or is there another reason for your victim/hostile mentality?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 30, 2020, 08:06:39 PM
I’m tired of people who don’t care what Charles thinks asking Charles about his views. It detracts from the discussion. If you suspect that you might be numbered among “the usual suspects” when it comes to personal sniping, please stop responding to the outrageous things other people post.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 31, 2020, 07:42:21 AM
Last night was troubling again in Minneapolis but the result was not as devastating as previous nights.  Clean-up volunteers will assemble at 9 am.  Meanwhile back to the topic. Sarah  Posner has selected for  title:  "Unholy  Why White Evangelicals Worship At the Altar of Donald Trump".  As I started to read this book I wondered if there had ever been  such a thing as a "Holy Alliance." The answer is yes there was a treaty from 1815 signed by Austria, Prussia, and Russian in response to France and Napoleon.  The English did not sign the treaty while Pope Pius VII didn't want to be allied with Protestant princes.  The treaty never did fly and made no real impact on events of the 19th century.   The words of the Treaty stated that the signers would "take the precepts...of that Holy Religion...(to) have an immediate influence on the councils of Princes, and guide all their steps."  The participants agree to conform "to the words of the Holy Scriptures, which command all men to consider each other as brethren."  That "they will lead them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice." That they "consider themselves all as members of one and the same Christian nation...confessing  that the Christian world, of which they and their people form a part...(and act) in the principles of the duties which the Divine Savior has taught to mankind."  Of course Posner's title is ironic as she contends that the alliance Of the President and the churches is unholy.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on June 05, 2020, 10:38:41 AM
The protests here in Minnesota and elsewhere were much greater than I could have imagined.  Protests and reactions fit into the scope of Sarah Posner's book. Today's NY Times ran a long story by Jeremy Peters with the headline. "Drop in Evangelical ApprovaL,  but Perhaps Not in Votes." Peters writes that "The killing of Mr. Floyd by a Minnesota police officer has stirred up complex and often conflicting emotions among some of the president's most stalwart supporters, who have expressed anguish over the officers' conduct but have been less willing to acknowledge the pervasive racism that contributes to police brutality."..."Thirty-one percent of [white evangelicals] said he (i.e. the President) still wouldn't turn their backs on him."    The story includes the information that in March nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals said they approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing....But by the end of May, with the country convulsed by racial discord...(his) favorability among white evangelicals had fallen  15 percentage points to 62 per cent."  One writer on this Forum scoffed at persons who opposed Trump as suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Another meaning for TDS could be Trump Deification Syndrome.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: RDPreus on June 05, 2020, 11:28:43 AM
Norman, I run into many people who support Donald Trump in the sense that they agree with his policies and plan to vote for him.  They almost always qualify their support for Trump by criticizing his braggadocio, hyperbole, rudeness, etc.  I've never met anyone who "worships at the altar" of Donald Trump.  The title of that book sounds at least as demagogic as Trump does.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on June 05, 2020, 12:09:25 PM
Norman, I run into many people who support Donald Trump in the sense that they agree with his policies and plan to vote for him.  They almost always qualify their support for Trump by criticizing his braggadocio, hyperbole, rudeness, etc.  I've never met anyone who "worships at the altar" of Donald Trump.  The title of that book sounds at least as demagogic as Trump does.
Mr. Teigen apparently missed or has forgotten that many ‘Trump supporters’ are support Trump   because they believe he is the lesser of the evils.  Trump was not my first choice ... but he was ... and continues to be the best of the candidates on the ballot.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on June 05, 2020, 03:09:21 PM
The protests here in Minnesota and elsewhere were much greater than I could have imagined.  Protests and reactions fit into the scope of Sarah Posner's book. Today's NY Times ran a long story by Jeremy Peters with the headline. "Drop in Evangelical ApprovaL,  but Perhaps Not in Votes." Peters writes that "The killing of Mr. Floyd by a Minnesota police officer has stirred up complex and often conflicting emotions among some of the president's most stalwart supporters, who have expressed anguish over the officers' conduct but have been less willing to acknowledge the pervasive racism that contributes to police brutality."..."Thirty-one percent of [white evangelicals] said he (i.e. the President) still wouldn't turn their backs on him."    The story includes the information that in March nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals said they approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing....But by the end of May, with the country convulsed by racial discord...(his) favorability among white evangelicals had fallen  15 percentage points to 62 per cent."  One writer on this Forum scoffed at persons who opposed Trump as suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Another meaning for TDS could be Trump Deification Syndrome.

The Michael Brown shooting and marches took place during the Obama administration as did the Baltimore killing of Freddy Gray. During the Obama administration a white officer in Cambridge, MA arrested a black Harvard professor, resulting in a "beer summit" at the White House. Eric Garner was killed by cops in New York (the original "I can't breathe"). I can stretch back further. So why is this all about Donald Trump? Do you honestly believe it would be different under another president?

Mr. Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. The mayor of Minneapolis is a Democrat. The entire city council is made of Democrats. This has been true for decades. The governor of Minnesota is a Democrat. The AG of MN is a Democrat. The former county prosecutor, who neglected to file charges against the officer in 17 different complaints of brutality previous to this one, is a Democrat. So why is this all about Donald Trump?

Maybe, instead of worrying about what all this has to do with Evangelicals and Trump, Mr. Peters would do better to try find out why the Democratic administrations in all of these cities have not managed to root out racism and brutality in their departments even though they've been in charge for decades. That is where the responsibility lies, not with Trump.

This is not a defense of Trump. This is a defense of accountability. POTUS--of whatever party--does not run the states or the cities. The people in those cities need to hold the people in power accountable. But more often than not, they reelect them--or someone from the same party. (Witness Baltimore where (Democrat) Shiela Dixon will be reelected mayor--after she's been convicted of embezzling funds meant for the the poor.)

But you just keep blaming the Donald. Vote for whoever as POTUS. We'll see this movie again soon enough. Because it's not about POTUS; it's about the state and city.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Weedon on June 05, 2020, 03:35:39 PM
Now, Jim, you know what is inconvenient cannot be true when there is a scapegoat at hand.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 05, 2020, 03:58:19 PM
Now, Jim, you know what is inconvenient cannot be true when there is a scapegoat at hand.
Minnesota, though, is part of the Deep North and therefore caught up in the cynical "Northern Strategy" employed by the DNC to acquire political power.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 05, 2020, 04:58:24 PM
Now, Jim, you know what is inconvenient cannot be true when there is a scapegoat at hand.
Minnesota, though, is part of the Deep North and therefore caught up in the cynical "Northern Strategy" employed by the DNC to acquire political power.

Unfortunately, what you wrote as satire ( and very funny to boot) comes off far to close to Poe’s Law.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 05, 2020, 05:02:19 PM
The protests here in Minnesota and elsewhere were much greater than I could have imagined.  Protests and reactions fit into the scope of Sarah Posner's book. Today's NY Times ran a long story by Jeremy Peters with the headline. "Drop in Evangelical ApprovaL,  but Perhaps Not in Votes." Peters writes that "The killing of Mr. Floyd by a Minnesota police officer has stirred up complex and often conflicting emotions among some of the president's most stalwart supporters, who have expressed anguish over the officers' conduct but have been less willing to acknowledge the pervasive racism that contributes to police brutality."..."Thirty-one percent of [ white evangelicals] said he (i.e. the President) still wouldn't turn their backs on him."    The story includes the information that in March nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals said they approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing....But by the end of May, with the country convulsed by racial discord...(his) favorability among white evangelicals had fallen  15 percentage points to 62 per cent."  One writer on this Forum scoffed at persons who opposed Trump as suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Another meaning for TDS could be Trump Deification Syndrome.

The Michael Brown shooting and marches took place during the Obama administration as did the Baltimore killing of Freddy Gray. During the Obama administration a white officer in Cambridge, MA arrested a black Harvard professor, resulting in a "beer summit" at the White House. Eric Garner was killed by cops in New York (the original "I can't breathe"). I can stretch back further. So why is this all about Donald Trump? Do you honestly believe it would be different under another president?

Mr. Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. The mayor of Minneapolis is a Democrat. The entire city council is made of Democrats. This has been true for decades. The governor of Minnesota is a Democrat. The AG of MN is a Democrat. The former county prosecutor, who neglected to file charges against the officer in 17 different complaints of brutality previous to this one, is a Democrat. So why is this all about Donald Trump?

Maybe, instead of worrying about what all this has to do with Evangelicals and Trump, Mr. Peters would do better to try find out why the Democratic administrations in all of these cities have not managed to root out racism and brutality in their departments even though they've been in charge for decades. That is where the responsibility lies, not with Trump.

This is not a defense of Trump. This is a defense of accountability. POTUS--of whatever party--does not run the states or the cities. The people in those cities need to hold the people in power accountable. But more often than not, they reelect them--or someone from the same party. (Witness Baltimore where (Democrat) Shiela Dixon will be reelected mayor--after she's been convicted of embezzling funds meant for the the poor.)

But you just keep blaming the Donald. Vote for whoever as POTUS. We'll see this movie again soon enough. Because it's not about POTUS; it's about the state and city.


Donald Trump gets blamed for what he does or doesn't do; for the words he says and tweets. Not for what governors and mayors or local law enforcement have done or don't do.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on June 05, 2020, 05:04:56 PM
The protests here in Minnesota and elsewhere were much greater than I could have imagined.  Protests and reactions fit into the scope of Sarah Posner's book. Today's NY Times ran a long story by Jeremy Peters with the headline. "Drop in Evangelical ApprovaL,  but Perhaps Not in Votes." Peters writes that "The killing of Mr. Floyd by a Minnesota police officer has stirred up complex and often conflicting emotions among some of the president's most stalwart supporters, who have expressed anguish over the officers' conduct but have been less willing to acknowledge the pervasive racism that contributes to police brutality."..."Thirty-one percent of [white evangelicals] said he (i.e. the President) still wouldn't turn their backs on him."    The story includes the information that in March nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals said they approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing....But by the end of May, with the country convulsed by racial discord...(his) favorability among white evangelicals had fallen  15 percentage points to 62 per cent."  One writer on this Forum scoffed at persons who opposed Trump as suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Another meaning for TDS could be Trump Deification Syndrome.

The Michael Brown shooting and marches took place during the Obama administration as did the Baltimore killing of Freddy Gray. During the Obama administration a white officer in Cambridge, MA arrested a black Harvard professor, resulting in a "beer summit" at the White House. Eric Garner was killed by cops in New York (the original "I can't breathe"). I can stretch back further. So why is this all about Donald Trump? Do you honestly believe it would be different under another president?

Mr. Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. The mayor of Minneapolis is a Democrat. The entire city council is made of Democrats. This has been true for decades. The governor of Minnesota is a Democrat. The AG of MN is a Democrat. The former county prosecutor, who neglected to file charges against the officer in 17 different complaints of brutality previous to this one, is a Democrat. So why is this all about Donald Trump?

Maybe, instead of worrying about what all this has to do with Evangelicals and Trump, Mr. Peters would do better to try find out why the Democratic administrations in all of these cities have not managed to root out racism and brutality in their departments even though they've been in charge for decades. That is where the responsibility lies, not with Trump.

This is not a defense of Trump. This is a defense of accountability. POTUS--of whatever party--does not run the states or the cities. The people in those cities need to hold the people in power accountable. But more often than not, they reelect them--or someone from the same party. (Witness Baltimore where (Democrat) Shiela Dixon will be reelected mayor--after she's been convicted of embezzling funds meant for the the poor.)

But you just keep blaming the Donald. Vote for whoever as POTUS. We'll see this movie again soon enough. Because it's not about POTUS; it's about the state and city.

Hey Norman, who said this?

Democrats, from top to bottom, are running the cities with the worst police brutality in America right now.


Evangelical Trump supporter?
Right wing maniac?
Rush Limbaugh?


How about...Shaun King? He ended by lamenting "We voted for them."
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 05, 2020, 05:05:42 PM
What could he have done to earn your praise in all this?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on June 05, 2020, 05:15:53 PM
The protests here in Minnesota and elsewhere were much greater than I could have imagined.  Protests and reactions fit into the scope of Sarah Posner's book. Today's NY Times ran a long story by Jeremy Peters with the headline. "Drop in Evangelical ApprovaL,  but Perhaps Not in Votes." Peters writes that "The killing of Mr. Floyd by a Minnesota police officer has stirred up complex and often conflicting emotions among some of the president's most stalwart supporters, who have expressed anguish over the officers' conduct but have been less willing to acknowledge the pervasive racism that contributes to police brutality."..."Thirty-one percent of [white evangelicals] said he (i.e. the President) still wouldn't turn their backs on him."    The story includes the information that in March nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals said they approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing....But by the end of May, with the country convulsed by racial discord...(his) favorability among white evangelicals had fallen  15 percentage points to 62 per cent."  One writer on this Forum scoffed at persons who opposed Trump as suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Another meaning for TDS could be Trump Deification Syndrome.
[/color]
[white evangelicals]

The Michael Brown shooting and marches took place during the Obama administration as did the Baltimore killing of Freddy Gray. During the Obama administration a white officer in Cambridge, MA arrested a black Harvard professor, resulting in a "beer summit" at the White House. Eric Garner was killed by cops in New York (the original "I can't breathe"). I can stretch back further. So why is this all about Donald Trump? Do you honestly believe it would be different under another president?

Mr. Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. The mayor of Minneapolis is a Democrat. The entire city council is made of Democrats. This has been true for decades. The governor of Minnesota is a Democrat. The AG of MN is a Democrat. The former county prosecutor, who neglected to file charges against the officer in 17 different complaints of brutality previous to this one, is a Democrat. So why is this all about Donald Trump?

Maybe, instead of worrying about what all this has to do with Evangelicals and Trump, Mr. Peters would do better to try find out why the Democratic administrations in all of these cities have not managed to root out racism and brutality in their departments even though they've been in charge for decades. That is where the responsibility lies, not with Trump.

This is not a defense of Trump. This is a defense of accountability. POTUS--of whatever party--does not run the states or the cities. The people in those cities need to hold the people in power accountable. But more often than not, they reelect them--or someone from the same party. (Witness Baltimore where (Democrat) Shiela Dixon will be reelected mayor--after she's been convicted of embezzling funds meant for the the poor.)

But you just keep blaming the Donald. Vote for whoever as POTUS. We'll see this movie again soon enough. Because it's not about POTUS; it's about the state and city.
[/color]
[white evangelicals]


Donald Trump gets blamed for what he does or doesn't do; for the words he says and tweets. Not for what governors and mayors or local law enforcement have done or don't do. [/color]

Jorge Aguilar, Executive Director, of @TeamPelosi today tweeted, "Trump failed seniors during the #coronavirus pandemic. Now, he’s jeopardizing their lives while they peacefully protest. It’s no wonder seniors aren’t supporting him." (Emphasis mine. In response to video of two Buffalo, NY police officers pushing a 75 year old man to the ground and leaving him there.)

I don't know about you, but it sure looks to me like he just "blamed" Donald Trump for the actions of "law enforcement."

But you do you, Brian.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Robert Johnson on June 05, 2020, 07:31:03 PM
The protests here in Minnesota and elsewhere were much greater than I could have imagined.  Protests and reactions fit into the scope of Sarah Posner's book. Today's NY Times ran a long story by Jeremy Peters with the headline. "Drop in Evangelical ApprovaL,  but Perhaps Not in Votes." Peters writes that "The killing of Mr. Floyd by a Minnesota police officer has stirred up complex and often conflicting emotions among some of the president's most stalwart supporters, who have expressed anguish over the officers' conduct but have been less willing to acknowledge the pervasive racism that contributes to police brutality."..."Thirty-one percent of [white evangelicals] said he (i.e. the President) still wouldn't turn their backs on him."    The story includes the information that in March nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals said they approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing....But by the end of May, with the country convulsed by racial discord...(his) favorability among white evangelicals had fallen  15 percentage points to 62 per cent."  One writer on this Forum scoffed at persons who opposed Trump as suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Another meaning for TDS could be Trump Deification Syndrome.

The Michael Brown shooting and marches took place during the Obama administration as did the Baltimore killing of Freddy Gray. During the Obama administration a white officer in Cambridge, MA arrested a black Harvard professor, resulting in a "beer summit" at the White House. Eric Garner was killed by cops in New York (the original "I can't breathe"). I can stretch back further. So why is this all about Donald Trump? Do you honestly believe it would be different under another president?

Mr. Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. The mayor of Minneapolis is a Democrat. The entire city council is made of Democrats. This has been true for decades. The governor of Minnesota is a Democrat. The AG of MN is a Democrat. The former county prosecutor, who neglected to file charges against the officer in 17 different complaints of brutality previous to this one, is a Democrat. So why is this all about Donald Trump?

Maybe, instead of worrying about what all this has to do with Evangelicals and Trump, Mr. Peters would do better to try find out why the Democratic administrations in all of these cities have not managed to root out racism and brutality in their departments even though they've been in charge for decades. That is where the responsibility lies, not with Trump.

This is not a defense of Trump. This is a defense of accountability. POTUS--of whatever party--does not run the states or the cities. The people in those cities need to hold the people in power accountable. But more often than not, they reelect them--or someone from the same party. (Witness Baltimore where (Democrat) Shiela Dixon will be reelected mayor--after she's been convicted of embezzling funds meant for the the poor.)

But you just keep blaming the Donald. Vote for whoever as POTUS. We'll see this movie again soon enough. Because it's not about POTUS; it's about the state and city.

Upvote.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Norman Teigen on June 16, 2020, 10:02:55 AM
Alarm bells must be ringing in church organizations this morning.  The Supreme Court announced yesterday that gay and transgender workers are protected from termination on the basis of sex. The NY Times reports that "many faith-based organizations, like schools or nonprofits, do not allow L.G.B.T. people to work there, citing religious beliefs that sex should only be between a man and a woman who are married." Southern Baptist Russell Moore said that the ruling "would have  'seismic implications' for religious organizations." Justice Gorsuch said that "religious liberty" cases will be up for question in the future. Rachel Laser, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that "inclusive faith communities must come together to make clear that religious freedom is a shield that protects, not a sword that licenses discrimination." How will Lutherans respond?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 16, 2020, 10:09:34 AM
It will depend on how this ruling plays out. Many states already had incorporated LGBTQ into their anti-discrimination laws, so this may not have that great an effect. It will depend on whether this ruling will be used as a shield against unfair discrimination or a sword to cut down religious freedom.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 16, 2020, 10:18:06 AM
No alarm bells here, really. A bad decision, but one that won’t affect our situation.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 16, 2020, 10:29:36 AM
No alarm bells here, really. A bad decision, but one that won’t affect our situation.

There is some speculation, speculation I agree with I think, that Roberts was not really on board with that decision, but he went with the majority so Gorsuch could write the opinion instead of Ginsberg.  If that is the case, it was a very solid move, because it got all the language in there about religious liberty that Ginsberg would have given zero thought to had she written the opinion.

Also, there were no concurrences or concur with the judgement opinions.  So the case as written is the law.  That does nothing for religious liberty, but importantly, it does nothing to harm religious liberty either.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 16, 2020, 11:00:02 AM
Alarm bells must be ringing in church organizations this morning.  The Supreme Court announced yesterday that gay and transgender workers are protected from termination on the basis of sex. The NY Times reports that "many faith-based organizations, like schools or nonprofits, do not allow L.G.B.T. people to work there, citing religious beliefs that sex should only be between a man and a woman who are married." Southern Baptist Russell Moore said that the ruling "would have  'seismic implications' for religious organizations." Justice Gorsuch said that "religious liberty" cases will be up for question in the future. Rachel Laser, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that "inclusive faith communities must come together to make clear that religious freedom is a shield that protects, not a sword that licenses discrimination." How will Lutherans respond?


Anyone who thinks that Congress would not have made this change soon is delusional.  The decision's real impact on the evolution of federal anti-discrimination law therefore is not seismic, but rather is de minimus; it sped things up by perhaps a year or two.


The real harm caused by the decision has nothing much to do with its substance.  Rather, it is the continued erosion of a proper understanding of the scope and limits of both judicial and legislative authority.  The Supreme Court decision yet again completely redefines language adopted by Congress to reach a result that Congress could not possibly have intended.  In other words, the Court has usurped Congress's exclusive authority by legislating.  This should be extremely troublesome to all Americans irrespective of their views on whether federal law should prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 16, 2020, 11:14:46 AM
No alarm bells here, really. A bad decision, but one that won’t affect our situation.

There is some speculation, speculation I agree with I think, that Roberts was not really on board with that decision, but he went with the majority so Gorsuch could write the opinion instead of Ginsberg.  If that is the case, it was a very solid move, because it got all the language in there about religious liberty that Ginsberg would have given zero thought to had she written the opinion.

Also, there were no concurrences or concur with the judgement opinions.  So the case as written is the law.  That does nothing for religious liberty, but importantly, it does nothing to harm religious liberty either.


I had not heard or read this, but it is interesting speculation.  And certainly within the realm of possibility. 


CJ Roberts often seems to base his vote at least in part on trying to strike what he thinks is a politically wise balance for the Court.  It's hard not to see at least a little of that in his opinion in the ACA case, for example.  In his heart, I think that CJ Roberts is a judicial conservative and a textualist.  But I think that he sees the CJ's role as requiring an institutionalist perspective not necessarily required of associate justices.  Could that be at play here?  Or was he trying to protect what he views as important religious liberties?  I'm not sure. 


As an aside, I happened to be in the courtroom that day as Roberts delivered a summary of his decision and Justice Kennedy followed by summarizing his dissent.  I was in the second row of the gallery in the section reserved for Supreme Court bar members.  Senator Lee was sitting directly behind me.  In any event, as I recall, the Court announced one other decision first.  Then CJ Roberts began.  He started with a lengthy explanation for why the mandate could not stand under Commerce Clause analysis.  But you could just feel that a twist was coming.  And sure enough, CJ Roberts obviously found a way (defining the mandate as a lawful tax) to uphold the mandate.  What I found interesting was just how angry Justice Kennedy was.  To paraphrase, Kennedy eviscerated the CJ for characterizing as a tax something that Congress, the President, and the SJ all had expressly and firmly stated was not a tax.  It frankly was jarring to see such a critique come from Kennedy, of all people.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 16, 2020, 11:54:37 AM
What I found interesting in this decision was what it revealed about the Supreme Court nominees of President Trump. His appointees have been roundly criticized for being ideologues who would not consider cases on their merits but according to their ideological commitments which were far outside the mainstream of American thought. Also that they would simply echo each other and vote not independently but dependably as members of their ultra conservative block.


In this decision, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted differently and Gorsuch not only sided with the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court but wrote the decision for the majority.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Terry W Culler on June 16, 2020, 01:24:02 PM
What I found interesting in this decision was what it revealed about the Supreme Court nominees of President Trump. His appointees have been roundly criticized for being ideologues who would not consider cases on their merits but according to their ideological commitments which were far outside the mainstream of American thought. Also that they would simply echo each other and vote not independently but dependably as members of their ultra conservative block.


In this decision, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted differently and Gorsuch not only sided with the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court but wrote the decision for the majority.


It often happens that the CJ will assign someone who is more "moderate" in their views to write a court opinion.  CJ Rehnquist would sometimes assign himself to write something he largely disagreed with to keep it from going too far in one direction.   
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Voelker on June 16, 2020, 01:49:33 PM
What I found interesting in this decision was what it revealed about the Supreme Court nominees of President Trump. His appointees have been roundly criticized for being ideologues who would not consider cases on their merits but according to their ideological commitments which were far outside the mainstream of American thought. Also that they would simply echo each other and vote not independently but dependably as members of their ultra conservative block.


In this decision, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted differently and Gorsuch not only sided with the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court but wrote the decision for the majority.
It does make a body wonder at why it is that Democrats lose their minds every time a Republican gets to appoint someone to the court. We've known for decades that the majority of Republican appointees turn out to be Democrats in conservative vesture.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 16, 2020, 02:21:48 PM
I think it depends on what plays into and informs the conservatism of a justice. If it is truly “the law” and “the constitution,” we might find that a justice such as Gorsuch could agree to a decision like the one we read this week. This is because they see the possibility of some flexibility and even change in the understanding of the law and the constitution.
If that justice is a person of faith, they do not see that Faith is the primary force for their conservatism.
But if their conservatism is heavily informed and driven by religious faith, They May be less likely to see the possibility for flexibility and/or change. When you believe you have the absolute sure word of God, discussion about nuance or compromise or change isn’t always possible.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 16, 2020, 02:45:13 PM
I think it depends on what plays into and informs the conservatism of a justice. If it is truly “the law” and “the constitution,” we might find that a justice such as Gorsuch could agree to a decision like the one we read this week. This is because they see the possibility of some flexibility and even change in the understanding of the law and the constitution.
If that justice is a person of faith, they do not see that Faith is the primary force for their conservatism.
But if their conservatism is heavily informed and driven by religious faith, They May be less likely to see the possibility for flexibility and/or change. When you believe you have the absolute sure word of God, discussion about nuance or compromise or change isn’t always possible.


Judicial conservatism as understood today is not about policy choices.  It's about applying the law as written, irrespective of the law's substance.  Justice Gorsuch argued that this is what he was doing; that he was not changing the law, but applying it as written.  I think that his argument is demonstrably wrong, but that is neither here nor there.  In any event, a judicial conservative neither favors nor opposes changes in the law.  However, he or she believes that the political branches--not the courts--must make those changes.  A court's role, after all, is to interpret codified law, not to revise it.


Judicial liberals today tend to believe that they may legitimately change a law's meaning to fit the times.  I disagree with them.  But like it or not, their view is now solidly part of the mainstream.


Your reference to the Word of God strikes me as entirely irrelevant in this context.  I don't think that any of the current Supreme Court justices are influenced much in their judging by their religious faith.  (As Justice Scalia famously said when pushed on the effect of his faith on his judicial role, "I don't think there's any such thing as a Catholic judge.  The only article in faith that plays any part in my judging is the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Lie.'") 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 02:56:27 PM
Alarm bells must be ringing in church organizations this morning.  The Supreme Court announced yesterday that gay and transgender workers are protected from termination on the basis of sex. The NY Times reports that "many faith-based organizations, like schools or nonprofits, do not allow L.G.B.T. people to work there, citing religious beliefs that sex should only be between a man and a woman who are married." Southern Baptist Russell Moore said that the ruling "would have  'seismic implications' for religious organizations." Justice Gorsuch said that "religious liberty" cases will be up for question in the future. Rachel Laser, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that "inclusive faith communities must come together to make clear that religious freedom is a shield that protects, not a sword that licenses discrimination." How will Lutherans respond?

So when a Catholic High School hires a Math teacher, or Fren afterch teacher, who experiences same sex attraction, and after several years of keeping a private matter private, decides to "get married." And decides to make it a rather public matter. Can a Catholic School, which asks that its teachers teach and live in accordance to the Magisterium be allowed to dismiss that teacher for violating the agreement under which s/he agreed to employment?

Or similarly, if a teacher has developed the delusion that s/he is actually a member of the opposite sex, and wants to publicly "transform," does the school have the right to uphold the authority of the Magisterium?

Afterall, no one is saying, "You may not be a teacher." They are simply saying, ""If here, then you need to follow our rules."
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 16, 2020, 03:17:19 PM
No alarm bells here, really. A bad decision, but one that won’t affect our situation.

There is some speculation, speculation I agree with I think, that Roberts was not really on board with that decision, but he went with the majority so Gorsuch could write the opinion instead of Ginsberg.  If that is the case, it was a very solid move, because it got all the language in there about religious liberty that Ginsberg would have given zero thought to had she written the opinion.

Also, there were no concurrences or concur with the judgement opinions.  So the case as written is the law.  That does nothing for religious liberty, but importantly, it does nothing to harm religious liberty either.


I had not heard or read this, but it is interesting speculation.  And certainly within the realm of possibility. 


CJ Roberts often seems to base his vote at least in part on trying to strike what he thinks is a politically wise balance for the Court.  It's hard not to see at least a little of that in his opinion in the ACA case, for example.  In his heart, I think that CJ Roberts is a judicial conservative and a textualist.  But I think that he sees the CJ's role as requiring an institutionalist perspective not necessarily required of associate justices.  Could that be at play here?  Or was he trying to protect what he views as important religious liberties?  I'm not sure. 


As an aside, I happened to be in the courtroom that day as Roberts delivered a summary of his decision and Justice Kennedy followed by summarizing his dissent.  I was in the second row of the gallery in the section reserved for Supreme Court bar members.  Senator Lee was sitting directly behind me.  In any event, as I recall, the Court announced one other decision first.  Then CJ Roberts began.  He started with a lengthy explanation for why the mandate could not stand under Commerce Clause analysis.  But you could just feel that a twist was coming.  And sure enough, CJ Roberts obviously found a way (defining the mandate as a lawful tax) to uphold the mandate.  What I found interesting was just how angry Justice Kennedy was.  To paraphrase, Kennedy eviscerated the CJ for characterizing as a tax something that Congress, the President, and the SJ all had expressly and firmly stated was not a tax.  It frankly was jarring to see such a critique come from Kennedy, of all people.

I think Kennedy is among the very worst justices of the past few decades.  His only guiding principle was that whatever he thought was right should control the case.  Scalia pegged him exactly in the dissent in Obergfell.

"It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):

'[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.

[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.'

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because '[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ' One would think that sentence would continue: '. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,' or perhaps '. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.' But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: 'and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.' The 'we,' needless to say, is the nine of us."
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 16, 2020, 03:27:18 PM
I think it depends on what plays into and informs the conservatism of a justice. If it is truly “the law” and “the constitution,” we might find that a justice such as Gorsuch could agree to a decision like the one we read this week. This is because they see the possibility of some flexibility and even change in the understanding of the law and the constitution.
If that justice is a person of faith, they do not see that Faith is the primary force for their conservatism.
But if their conservatism is heavily informed and driven by religious faith, They May be less likely to see the possibility for flexibility and/or change. When you believe you have the absolute sure word of God, discussion about nuance or compromise or change isn’t always possible.
It sounds like you are suggesting that holding a strong personal faith would be a bad thing for a Supreme Court Justice, perhaps for any judge. That we should look for judges that are more casual and nominal about their faith.


Would you oppose a devout ELCA member judge who believes that his faith encourages what could now be termed a more liberal outlook on legal and social issues should be disqualified from the Supreme Court since he would allow his faith to influence his thinking?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 16, 2020, 03:53:12 PM
I think it depends on what plays into and informs the conservatism of a justice. If it is truly “the law” and “the constitution,” we might find that a justice such as Gorsuch could agree to a decision like the one we read this week. This is because they see the possibility of some flexibility and even change in the understanding of the law and the constitution.
If that justice is a person of faith, they do not see that Faith is the primary force for their conservatism.
But if their conservatism is heavily informed and driven by religious faith, They May be less likely to see the possibility for flexibility and/or change. When you believe you have the absolute sure word of God, discussion about nuance or compromise or change isn’t always possible.
It sounds like you are suggesting that holding a strong personal faith would be a bad thing for a Supreme Court Justice, perhaps for any judge. That we should look for judges that are more casual and nominal about their faith.


Would you oppose a devout ELCA member judge who believes that his faith encourages what could now be termed a more liberal outlook on legal and social issues should be disqualified from the Supreme Court since he would allow his faith to influence his thinking?


Would you want Orthodox Jewish judges to decide that pork, shrimp, and other Torah-forbidden foods should be outlawed in the U.S.? Or Roman Catholic judges to ban all contraceptives? One would hope and expect that they would separate their personal faith and practices from what is legal and good for all citizens of the U.S.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 16, 2020, 03:56:46 PM
I think it depends on what plays into and informs the conservatism of a justice. If it is truly “the law” and “the constitution,” we might find that a justice such as Gorsuch could agree to a decision like the one we read this week. This is because they see the possibility of some flexibility and even change in the understanding of the law and the constitution.
If that justice is a person of faith, they do not see that Faith is the primary force for their conservatism.
But if their conservatism is heavily informed and driven by religious faith, They May be less likely to see the possibility for flexibility and/or change. When you believe you have the absolute sure word of God, discussion about nuance or compromise or change isn’t always possible.
It sounds like you are suggesting that holding a strong personal faith would be a bad thing for a Supreme Court Justice, perhaps for any judge. That we should look for judges that are more casual and nominal about their faith.


Would you oppose a devout ELCA member judge who believes that his faith encourages what could now be termed a more liberal outlook on legal and social issues should be disqualified from the Supreme Court since he would allow his faith to influence his thinking?


Would you want Orthodox Jewish judges to decide that pork, shrimp, and other Torah-forbidden foods should be outlawed in the U.S.? Or Roman Catholic judges to ban all contraceptives? One would hope and expect that they would separate their personal faith and practices from what is legal and good for all citizens of the U.S.
But Brian, that is not what Charles said. He suggested that a person of (presumably) strong conservative faith would not be able to separate the particular tenets of their faith from public policy in general.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 16, 2020, 03:56:53 PM
I think it depends on what plays into and informs the conservatism of a justice. If it is truly “the law” and “the constitution,” we might find that a justice such as Gorsuch could agree to a decision like the one we read this week. This is because they see the possibility of some flexibility and even change in the understanding of the law and the constitution.
If that justice is a person of faith, they do not see that Faith is the primary force for their conservatism.
But if their conservatism is heavily informed and driven by religious faith, They May be less likely to see the possibility for flexibility and/or change. When you believe you have the absolute sure word of God, discussion about nuance or compromise or change isn’t always possible.
It sounds like you are suggesting that holding a strong personal faith would be a bad thing for a Supreme Court Justice, perhaps for any judge. That we should look for judges that are more casual and nominal about their faith.


Would you oppose a devout ELCA member judge who believes that his faith encourages what could now be termed a more liberal outlook on legal and social issues should be disqualified from the Supreme Court since he would allow his faith to influence his thinking?


Would you want Orthodox Jewish judges to decide that pork, shrimp, and other Torah-forbidden foods should be outlawed in the U.S.? Or Roman Catholic judges to ban all contraceptives? One would hope and expect that they would separate their personal faith and practices from what is legal and good for all citizens of the U.S.
Of course not. That's why we don't ask judges to make such laws, we vote for representatives to do it. I'd be happy to have an Orthodox Jew who understands how language works determine if a vote of congress had outlawed some food or not.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 16, 2020, 04:20:01 PM
I’m saying that a justice who believes that same-sex marriage is against the law of God, might, not will, but might have a hard time interpreting legislation Dealing with same-sex marriage.
Does law and Constitution rise higher than The law of God in the mind of this justice? If so, they might well serve.
Or do they rigidly apply what they believe to be the law of God to their judicial decisions? There, I would see a problem.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 16, 2020, 04:25:21 PM
I’m saying that a justice who believes that same-sex marriage is against the law of God, might, not will, but might have a hard time interpreting legislation Dealing with same-sex marriage.
Does law and Constitution rise higher than The law of God in the mind of this justice? If so, they might well serve.
Or do they rigidly apply what they believe to be the law of God to their judicial decisions? There, I would see a problem.
What of a judge who has rigid beliefs that marriage should be between any two or more consenting adults who wish to enter into such an arrangement. Might such a judge have a hard time not rigidly applying his beliefs concerning marriage to legislation passed by a state or by Congress? Should he interpret the law as produced by the legislature according to his own Liberal beliefs concerning marriage?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 16, 2020, 04:30:22 PM
I think it depends on what plays into and informs the conservatism of a justice. If it is truly “the law” and “the constitution,” we might find that a justice such as Gorsuch could agree to a decision like the one we read this week. This is because they see the possibility of some flexibility and even change in the understanding of the law and the constitution.
If that justice is a person of faith, they do not see that Faith is the primary force for their conservatism.
But if their conservatism is heavily informed and driven by religious faith, They May be less likely to see the possibility for flexibility and/or change. When you believe you have the absolute sure word of God, discussion about nuance or compromise or change isn’t always possible.
It sounds like you are suggesting that holding a strong personal faith would be a bad thing for a Supreme Court Justice, perhaps for any judge. That we should look for judges that are more casual and nominal about their faith.


Would you oppose a devout ELCA member judge who believes that his faith encourages what could now be termed a more liberal outlook on legal and social issues should be disqualified from the Supreme Court since he would allow his faith to influence his thinking?


Would you want Orthodox Jewish judges to decide that pork, shrimp, and other Torah-forbidden foods should be outlawed in the U.S.? Or Roman Catholic judges to ban all contraceptives? One would hope and expect that they would separate their personal faith and practices from what is legal and good for all citizens of the U.S.
Of course not. That's why we don't ask judges to make such laws, we vote for representatives to do it. I'd be happy to have an Orthodox Jew who understands how language works determine if a vote of congress had outlawed some food or not.


Ah, but judges may have to make such decisions. Should the federal and/or state governments provide special diets or peyote or wine for soldiers or prisoners based on religious practices? There was a case before the supreme court concerning the religious use of peyote by Native Americans. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872). As I recall when this was being discussed was whether the State could prohibit congregations from serving wine to minors in communion.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 16, 2020, 04:32:16 PM
I think it depends on what plays into and informs the conservatism of a justice. If it is truly “the law” and “the constitution,” we might find that a justice such as Gorsuch could agree to a decision like the one we read this week. This is because they see the possibility of some flexibility and even change in the understanding of the law and the constitution.
If that justice is a person of faith, they do not see that Faith is the primary force for their conservatism.
But if their conservatism is heavily informed and driven by religious faith, They May be less likely to see the possibility for flexibility and/or change. When you believe you have the absolute sure word of God, discussion about nuance or compromise or change isn’t always possible.
It sounds like you are suggesting that holding a strong personal faith would be a bad thing for a Supreme Court Justice, perhaps for any judge. That we should look for judges that are more casual and nominal about their faith.


Would you oppose a devout ELCA member judge who believes that his faith encourages what could now be termed a more liberal outlook on legal and social issues should be disqualified from the Supreme Court since he would allow his faith to influence his thinking?


Would you want Orthodox Jewish judges to decide that pork, shrimp, and other Torah-forbidden foods should be outlawed in the U.S.? Or Roman Catholic judges to ban all contraceptives? One would hope and expect that they would separate their personal faith and practices from what is legal and good for all citizens of the U.S.
Of course not. That's why we don't ask judges to make such laws, we vote for representatives to do it. I'd be happy to have an Orthodox Jew who understands how language works determine if a vote of congress had outlawed some food or not.


Ah, but judges may have to make such decisions. Should the federal and/or state governments provide special diets or peyote or wine for soldiers or prisoners based on religious practices? There was a case before the supreme court concerning the religious use of peyote by Native Americans. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872). As I recall when this was being discussed was whether the State could prohibit congregations from serving wine to minors in communion.
That not even close to the same thing as a judge outlawing pork.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 04:39:14 PM
The issue was never judges outlawing pork.

The issue going forward will be whether the Catholic Church and others will be able to teach the faith once received, or whether I will be led out in cuffs from the classroom for daring to teach that marriage is a lifelong covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman open to the gift of life. You know, hate speech.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 16, 2020, 04:58:07 PM
The issue was never judges outlawing pork.

The issue going forward will be whether the Catholic Church and others will be able to teach the faith once received, or whether I will be led out in cuffs from the classroom for daring to teach that marriage is a lifelong covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman open to the gift of life. You know, hate speech.


It will depend if you express hatred towards those who have a different conviction than you. Respecting the bound convictions of others is something we've been trying to teach in the ELCA. We've had limited success.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 16, 2020, 05:02:52 PM
I’m saying that a justice who believes that same-sex marriage is against the law of God, might, not will, but might have a hard time interpreting legislation Dealing with same-sex marriage.
Does law and Constitution rise higher than The law of God in the mind of this justice? If so, they might well serve.
Or do they rigidly apply what they believe to be the law of God to their judicial decisions? There, I would see a problem.


Every judge has a foundational set of beliefs.  No judge is permitted to impose those beliefs from the bench.  You seem to be grasping to find a problem where none exists. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 05:32:44 PM
The issue was never judges outlawing pork.

The issue going forward will be whether the Catholic Church and others will be able to teach the faith once received, or whether I will be led out in cuffs from the classroom for daring to teach that marriage is a lifelong covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman open to the gift of life. You know, hate speech.


It will depend if you express hatred towards those who have a different conviction than you. Respecting the bound convictions of others is something we've been trying to teach in the ELCA. We've had limited success.

Are you that obtuse? Merely holding that idea in one’s head is a thoughtcrime. Saying it out loud is “Hate.”

I work in a Democrat city whose mayor thought it more important to tank the city foster care program by kicking out Catholic Charities because they would only place with married couples. Same sex individuals were given the names of agencies who would work with them.

And I have to call bs on the ELCA’s respecting of bound conscience.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 16, 2020, 05:44:57 PM
Deacon Hummel, I would go to the protest with you if a parish, a self-supporting Catholic school or any self-supporting Catholic institution were forced to hire people who did not conform to the teachings of that institution. You can discriminate against gays, trans-gender or whatever sexuality you find contrary to Catholic teaching. (You already discriminate against women by denying them full participation in the life of the church. But that's ok, I understand, and you get a pass on that these days.)
But if that school or any other Catholic institution was using public funds in a way where those public funds (my money  ;) ) was being used to discriminate against gays or lesbians or sexual or racial minorities, I would not support your protest.
If Catholic Charities would prohibit single-parent or same-gender marriages from adopting children, that's ok. But just don't use state or federal funds in your operations.
But we have said that before, have we not?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: RDPreus on June 16, 2020, 05:55:41 PM
Deacon Hummel, I would go to the protest with you if a parish, a self-supporting Catholic school or any self-supporting Catholic institution were forced to hire people who did not conform to the teachings of that institution. You can discriminate against gays, trans-gender or whatever sexuality you find contrary to Catholic teaching. (You already discriminate against women by denying them full participation in the life of the church. But that's ok, I understand, and you get a pass on that these days.)
But if that school or any other Catholic institution was using public funds in a way where those public funds (my money  ;) ) was being used to discriminate against gays or lesbians or sexual or racial minorities, I would not support your protest.
If Catholic Charities would prohibit single-parent or same-gender marriages from adopting children, that's ok. But just don't use state or federal funds in your operations.
But we have said that before, have we not?

I know you've said that before, and I understand your argument, but I would argue that it is unfair for the government to subsidize this group because their teaching agrees with the morality du jour while refusing to subsidize that group because their teaching doesn't.  Perhaps the fairest solution would be to get rid of all government subsidies of any charitable organization regardless of what it teaches about sex, marriage, and other controversial topics.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 16, 2020, 06:02:36 PM
tPastor Preus:
I would argue that it is unfair for the government to subsidize this group because their teaching agrees with the morality du jour while refusing to subsidize that group because their teaching doesn't 
Me:
You  have the reasons wrong. We have decided that it is for the public good that there not be discrimination against certain groups, and we intend to use public funds to support that decision. It is not the teaching that drives a decision, but how that teaching is carried out in the operations of an organization.
If an organization cannot use public funds in a non-discriminatory way, they don’t get those public funds.
Catholic social services could get funds for adoptions. But they may not discriminate against certain kinds of parents.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 16, 2020, 06:05:18 PM
Deacon Hummel, I would go to the protest with you if a parish, a self-supporting Catholic school or any self-supporting Catholic institution were forced to hire people who did not conform to the teachings of that institution. You can discriminate against gays, trans-gender or whatever sexuality you find contrary to Catholic teaching. (You already discriminate against women by denying them full participation in the life of the church. But that's ok, I understand, and you get a pass on that these days.)
But if that school or any other Catholic institution was using public funds in a way where those public funds (my money  ;) ) was being used to discriminate against gays or lesbians or sexual or racial minorities, I would not support your protest.
If Catholic Charities would prohibit single-parent or same-gender marriages from adopting children, that's ok. But just don't use state or federal funds in your operations.
But we have said that before, have we not?


I assume, then, that you also oppose the use by Planned Parenthood of taxpayer funds.  After all, PP discriminates against women (mothers do seek abortion as a method for sex selection) and actively reduces the number of black people in America as a percentage of the total population.  Oh, and it kills the most vulnerable among us of both sexes and all races. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 16, 2020, 06:07:37 PM
tPastor Preus:
I would argue that it is unfair for the government to subsidize this group because their teaching agrees with the morality du jour while refusing to subsidize that group because their teaching doesn't 
Me:
You  have the reasons wrong. We have decided that it is for the public good that there not be discrimination against certain groups, and we intend to use public funds to support that decision. It is not the teaching that drives a decision, but how that teaching is carried out in the operations of an organization.
If an organization cannot use public funds in a non-discriminatory way, they don’t get those public funds.
Catholic social services could get funds for adoptions. But they may not discriminate against certain kinds of parents.


States routinely permit adoption agencies to discriminate against prospective parents on the basis of race.  This should also be completely out of bounds, no?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 06:35:03 PM
Deacon Hummel, I would go to the protest with you if a parish, a self-supporting Catholic school or any self-supporting Catholic institution were forced to hire people who did not conform to the teachings of that institution. You can discriminate against gays, trans-gender or whatever sexuality you find contrary to Catholic teaching. (You already discriminate against women by denying them full participation in the life of the church. But that's ok, I understand, and you get a pass on that these days.)
But if that school or any other Catholic institution was using public funds in a way where those public funds (my money  ;) ) was being used to discriminate against gays or lesbians or sexual or racial minorities, I would not support your protest.
If Catholic Charities would prohibit single-parent or same-gender marriages from adopting children, that's ok. But just don't use state or federal funds in your operations.
But we have said that before, have we not?
Charles- Here's the thing. Catholic Charities and the PA Catholic Conference have not said certain may not foster/ adopt. They have have simply said, "that agency would be a better fit." They have not pushed for legislation that restricts who may foster. They simply said Catholic Charities will reflect Catholic teaching. And so now we have foster kids stacked up like cordwood. But hizzoner gets points with the Gayborhood (a real term and not a slur). And is near as I can see, that works for him. Because residents of the Gayborhood have discretionary income, and foster kids in this city are by and large poor and black. And the Democrats can continue their policy here, as in most of their cities, of treating Blacks like dirt until it's time for them to vote.

It is obvious that the Gay friendly agencies and the number of same-sex "couples" actually interested in caring is pitifully inadequate.  But I get it- the same monied special interest group that strong armed the ELCA and TEC is doing the same in Democrat controlled cities. Money talks.

Do you think it is mere coincidence that the ELCA is the single most whitest denomination in the US despite over 30 years of "commitment" to inclusivity? How many clergy of color? How many homosexual clergy? I bet I can guess which is larger, and if I am wrong, I am guessing that I will be right within a short while.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 16, 2020, 07:08:42 PM
You avoid completely, Deacon Hummel, my comments about the use of public money. Why is that? I believe many of your folks would favor restricting using public money for abortions or distributing contraception devices.

You write:
Do you think it is mere coincidence that the ELCA is the single most whitest denomination in the US despite over 30 years of "commitment" to inclusivity? How many clergy of color? How many homosexual clergy? I bet I can guess which is larger, and if I am wrong, I am guessing that I will be right within a short while.
I comment:
Nice dodge, and more of your bang-bang you're-a-phony diatribe against the denomination you left. OK, I sense the psychic ambiguity and unsettled pain/guilt/sadness/whatever. Let it go. Move on. Be happy where you are, not knicker-twisted about how things are in the home you left.
Some of the goals and aspirations of the LCA, the ALC, the LC-MS, and the ELCA were unrealistic or lacked a grasp on all kinds of realities. I always thought the LCA and ELCA were silly to say how inclusive we were going to be and that we would reach that nirvana (which has little to do with Gospel mandates or faithfulness)  before suppertime.
P.S. If "money talks," then the rich and super-rich Catholics need to open their mouths (and bank accounts) to support the Church and its efforts. Public money talks the language of the whole public, not just a small segment of it.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 16, 2020, 07:16:25 PM
You avoid completely, Deacon Hummel, my comments about the use of public money. Why is that? I believe many of your folks would favor restricting using public money for abortions or distributing contraception devices.

You write:
Do you think it is mere coincidence that the ELCA is the single most whitest denomination in the US despite over 30 years of "commitment" to inclusivity? How many clergy of color? How many homosexual clergy? I bet I can guess which is larger, and if I am wrong, I am guessing that I will be right within a short while.
I comment:
Nice dodge, and more of your bang-bang you're-a-phony diatribe against the denomination you left. OK, I sense the psychic ambiguity and unsettled pain/guilt/sadness/whatever. Let it go. Move on. Be happy where you are, not knicker-twisted about how things are in the home you left.
Some of the goals and aspirations of the LCA, the ALC, the LC-MS, and the ELCA were unrealistic or lacked a grasp on all kinds of realities. I always thought the LCA and ELCA were silly to say how inclusive we were going to be and that we would reach that nirvana (which has little to do with Gospel mandates or faithfulness)  before suppertime.
P.S. If "money talks," then the rich and super-rich Catholics need to open their mouths (and bank accounts) to support the Church and its efforts. Public money talks the language of the whole public, not just a small segment of it.


So you support defunding Planned Parenthood, which obviously does not talk the "language of the whole public"? 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on June 16, 2020, 07:44:37 PM
It will depend if you express hatred towards those who have a different conviction than you. Respecting the bound convictions of others is something we've been trying to teach in the ELCA. We've had limited success. <Emphasis added>

Or glaring failure as is evidenced by the very short tenure of the first United Lutheran Seminary President. 😲
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Pastor Ken Kimball on June 16, 2020, 08:02:59 PM
The issue was never judges outlawing pork.

The issue going forward will be whether the Catholic Church and others will be able to teach the faith once received, or whether I will be led out in cuffs from the classroom for daring to teach that marriage is a lifelong covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman open to the gift of life. You know, hate speech.


It will depend if you express hatred towards those who have a different conviction than you. Respecting the bound convictions of others is something we've been trying to teach in the ELCA. We've had limited success.
1.  Regarding your first sentence: How do you define "express hatred"?  Is it simply stating one's disagreement with the "different convictions of others", i.e. that one thinks those convictions are wrong and that one opposes them and offering reasons for that opposition, e.g. on the basis of Scripture and historical teaching of the Church [and I will here acknowledge that others may defend their different convictions by appeal to Scripture et al. ]  If so, the illiberalism of the "new liberalism" abrogates freedom of speech, seeking to silence speech that does not fall in line with the present "wokeness". 
2.  Regarding your second and third sentence, your (the ELCA's) limited success is due to the traditionalists who have left or have been purged. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 08:06:46 PM
You avoid completely, Deacon Hummel, my comments about the use of public money. Why is that? I believe many of your folks would favor restricting using public money for abortions or distributing contraception devices.

You write:
Do you think it is mere coincidence that the ELCA is the single most whitest denomination in the US despite over 30 years of "commitment" to inclusivity? How many clergy of color? How many homosexual clergy? I bet I can guess which is larger, and if I am wrong, I am guessing that I will be right within a short while.
I comment:
Nice dodge, and more of your bang-bang you're-a-phony diatribe against the denomination you left. OK, I sense the psychic ambiguity and unsettled pain/guilt/sadness/whatever. Let it go. Move on. Be happy where you are, not knicker-twisted about how things are in the home you left.
Some of the goals and aspirations of the LCA, the ALC, the LC-MS, and the ELCA were unrealistic or lacked a grasp on all kinds of realities. I always thought the LCA and ELCA were silly to say how inclusive we were going to be and that we would reach that nirvana (which has little to do with Gospel mandates or faithfulness)  before suppertime.
P.S. If "money talks," then the rich and super-rich Catholics need to open their mouths (and bank accounts) to support the Church and its efforts. Public money talks the language of the whole public, not just a small segment of it.


So you support defunding Planned Parenthood, which obviously does not talk the "language of the whole public"?

Nope.  Klanned Parenthood takes the money it gets and turns it around in donations to Democrats. We had a legislative hearing on some common sense limitations on abortion here in DE. The type of stuff that folks like Charles and Brian claim to support being, as they are, "Pro-Choice, but Anti-Abortion" (some jokes just never get old!) There were literally hundreds of people lined up to speak. Hundreds. My wife was one of them. Two members of that hite Supremacist organization showed up. They spoke. The vote was cast and you get to kill babies in DE with no restrictions. Piercing Pagoda (another PP) has to conform to more stringent health regulations.  But they don't fund Democrat politicians with my money.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 08:20:52 PM
I was not avoiding it. Public Money, like all money is fungible. You cannot drain a corner of the pool.

My first task as a Program Manager for Eastern Shore Social Services for Catholic Charities was the closing down of the Adoption program. Because MD said "all or nothing." And thee thing is, it's not likely the morally enlightened progressives on matters of sexuality step up to the plate and offer alternatives. If a pro-gay adoption agency wanted a piece of the public pie, if they are up to the laws on the books, I say let them. Birth mothers should have choices.

I love the fact that for you the common good is best seen in same sex couples feeling good about themselves. For me the common good is best seen in placing children into safe, stable environments with a mother and a father. Because I have spent the last 5 years dealing with what happens in our inner cities when they don't have that.

And my experience in the ELCA and work for Catholic Charities and the restrictions placed upon them lead me to the conclusion money does indeed talk.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 16, 2020, 08:23:27 PM
Then you’re a slow learner, Deacon Hummel. I think I learned that money talked when I was about 13.  ;) ;)
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 08:59:20 PM
Then you’re a slow learner, Deacon Hummel. I think I learned that money talked when I was about 13.  ;) ;)

I guess I was not as disillusioned by the Lutheran Church or Democratic Politics as you were.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on June 16, 2020, 09:09:49 PM
Then you’re a slow learner, Deacon Hummel. I think I learned that money talked when I was about 13.  ;) ;)

Charles,

Must you be so rude and demeaning? Try to have a civil conversation.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 09:37:38 PM
Then you’re a slow learner, Deacon Hummel. I think I learned that money talked when I was about 13.  ;) ;)

Charles,

Must you be so rude and demeaning? Try to have a civil conversation.

Don- Thanks. But it's ok. He hits like a girl.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 16, 2020, 09:41:06 PM
It was a joke, for heaven’s sake! Lighten up. Everything ain’t ponderous solemnity.
And I thought the deacon would get it, but I guess I was wrong. Apparently when you are saving the world, it’s hard to smile.
(That too, is a joke, so don;t start.)
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 16, 2020, 09:46:21 PM
It was a joke, for heaven’s sake! Lighten up. Everything ain’t ponderous solemnity.
And I thought the deacon would get it, but I guess I was wrong. Apparently when you are saving the world, it’s hard to smile.
(That too, is a joke, so don;t start.)

As I would say to one of my boys, “No Charles. It was not a joke. It was like a joke, but different. Because jokes are funny.”
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 16, 2020, 10:18:45 PM
One of the last refuges  of bullies to to try to pass their bullying as a joke. They also are,usually very sensitive to slights and can't take jokes.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: DCharlton on June 17, 2020, 12:09:57 AM
It will depend if you express hatred towards those who have a different conviction than you. Respecting the bound convictions of others is something we've been trying to teach in the ELCA. We've had limited success.

I believe that you have tried to teach it, Brian.  In my experience, however, "bound conscience" is never invoked until a congregation starts thinking about leaving the ELCA.   In the past 11 years, I have heard repeated denunciations of congregations and people who don't believe that same-sex marriage is Biblical.  I have heard repeated declarations that "this church" has fully endorsed same-sex marriage.  I never once heard "bound conscience" affirmed until a few members of my congregation wanted to leave the ELCA.  I wish it wasn't so.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 02:28:56 AM
Deacon Hummel, I would go to the protest with you if a parish, a self-supporting Catholic school or any self-supporting Catholic institution were forced to hire people who did not conform to the teachings of that institution. You can discriminate against gays, trans-gender or whatever sexuality you find contrary to Catholic teaching. (You already discriminate against women by denying them full participation in the life of the church. But that's ok, I understand, and you get a pass on that these days.)
But if that school or any other Catholic institution was using public funds in a way where those public funds (my money  ;) ) was being used to discriminate against gays or lesbians or sexual or racial minorities, I would not support your protest.
If Catholic Charities would prohibit single-parent or same-gender marriages from adopting children, that's ok. But just don't use state or federal funds in your operations.
But we have said that before, have we not?

I know you've said that before, and I understand your argument, but I would argue that it is unfair for the government to subsidize this group because their teaching agrees with the morality du jour while refusing to subsidize that group because their teaching doesn't.  Perhaps the fairest solution would be to get rid of all government subsidies of any charitable organization regardless of what it teaches about sex, marriage, and other controversial topics.


Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 02:49:47 AM
It will depend if you express hatred towards those who have a different conviction than you. Respecting the bound convictions of others is something we've been trying to teach in the ELCA. We've had limited success.

I believe that you have tried to teach it, Brian.  In my experience, however, "bound conscience" is never invoked until a congregation starts thinking about leaving the ELCA.   In the past 11 years, I have heard repeated denunciations of congregations and people who don't believe that same-sex marriage is Biblical.  I have heard repeated declarations that "this church" has fully endorsed same-sex marriage.  I never once heard "bound conscience" affirmed until a few members of my congregation wanted to leave the ELCA.  I wish it wasn't so.


I have complained about those who (mis)use "bound conscience" as a weapon against those who disagree with them. The phrase is "respect the bound conscience of others." Although it was before the 2009 vote, I had a congregation that discussed the first draft of The Church and Human Sexuality that came out in 1993. That draft included the following section with three different responses:

This love which "does no wrong to a neighbor" and fulfills all the commandments is pivotal for evaluating homosexual activity. Through Jesus Christ, the heart of the Law is revealed as love of God and love of neighbor. Gay and lesbian persons are indeed among the neighbors we are called by Christ to love. But what that love entails, and the implications for church policy, evoke different responses among us.

Among members of our church, three responses are common:

RESPONSE 1: To love our neighbor who is homosexual means to love the sinner but to hate the sin. The church should be loving and accepting of persons who are homosexual, welcoming them as members, but clearly oppose their being sexually active. All such activity is contrary to God's Law. Negative moral judgments should be upheld and homosexual persons expected to abstain from sexual activity. Repentance should be expected from those who do not abstain, trusting that out of divine grace God will forgive them, as God does all repentant sinners.

Those who hold this position tend to view homosexuality as a disease or a serious distortion resulting from the Fall. Because of this disease or distortion, such persons cannot responsibly live out their Christian freedom through sexual activity, even in a committed relationship. Some believe that homosexual persons can be changed in their sexual orientation, so that the loving response is to encourage and help them to change. Others believe that a homosexual orientation is basically given, that change is unlikely, and that lifelong abstinence is the only moral option.

RESPONSE 2: To love our neighbor means to be compassionate toward gay and lesbian persons and understanding of the dilemma facing those who do not have the gift of celibacy. It is unloving to insist upon lifelong abstinence for all persons whose homosexual orientation is an integrated aspect of who they are. To tell them they will never be able o live out who they are as sexual beings is cruel, not loving. Thus, the loving response is to tolerate, perhaps even support mutually loving, committed gay and lesbian relationships.

Those who hold this position tend to view homosexuality as an imperfection or example of brokenness in God's creation. Although homosexuality may not reflect what God intends for our sexuality, in an imperfect world we must respond realistically to the situations in which people find themselves and promote what will be less harmful to individuals and communities. It is more in keeping with God's intentions to live out one's homosexuality in a loving, committed relationship than through loneliness or casual sexual activity. This is somewhat analogous to how remarriage following divorce is viewed today: as a necessary accommodation in a broken world.

RESPONSE 3: To love our neighbor means open affirmation of gay and lesbian persons and their mutually loving, just, committed relationships of fidelity. Such relationships are the context for sexual activity that can be expressive of love for one another. Prohibiting this expression of love is incompatible with the love of God we know through Jesus Christ, who challenged religious rules that hindered love for the neighbor. God's redemptive and sanctifying activity empowers gay and lesbian Christians to live lives of responsible freedom, including through faithful, committed sexual relationships. It is untenable to maintain that those who are gay or lesbian should have to live lives of secrecy, deception, or loneliness, alienated from self, others, and God.

Those holding this position tend to view homosexuality as another expression of what God has created. Homosexuality should be lived out with ethical qualities, boundaries, and structures consistent with those that apply to heterosexual persons. The church should move toward a practice of blessing committed same-sex unions.

Within our smallish adult Sunday school class, there were people who expressed all three of these responses. Not a single one of them left the congregation because other people had different convictions than they.

In the congregation I last served, no one left after the 2009 vote. However, even before I got there in 2007, one man had left because a gay couple was attending the congregation and were allowed to help with vacation Bible school. He felt it was wrong to put them in any leadership position. Another couple also told me that they were leaving over that issue. I continued to see the woman nearly every week since she was active in our sewing group (and I went for the snacks). Some of our snow birds asked how we kept the congregation together after the 2009 vote. I didn't make it an issue. I preached one sermon on it after the vote where I stated that I believe it shouldn't be an issue that divides us. (The gay couple who was attending when I came, broke up and left the area.)

The man who left before I came, and later his wife left after she completed her term on council; but they would show up at worship when their daughters were home from college. They didn't agree with him and we were still their congregation even if it wasn't their parent's. They were all warmly greeted by the members. They were often the last ones to leave the building because folks wanted to visit with them. The parents followed their new congregation's teaching and did not come forward for communion. They were allowed to have their convictions; and they were respected by us.

Perhaps my experiences are unique, but I have seen different convictions respected in our congregations.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 04:47:19 AM
Brian:
Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.
Me:
Or stop using government money to do works of service and charity. (I am not in favor of this.)
I only note that when we contract with the government to provide a service. . .  .
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 17, 2020, 06:33:45 AM
Deacon Hummel, I would go to the protest with you if a parish, a self-supporting Catholic school or any self-supporting Catholic institution were forced to hire people who did not conform to the teachings of that institution. You can discriminate against gays, trans-gender or whatever sexuality you find contrary to Catholic teaching. (You already discriminate against women by denying them full participation in the life of the church. But that's ok, I understand, and you get a pass on that these days.)
But if that school or any other Catholic institution was using public funds in a way where those public funds (my money  ;) ) was being used to discriminate against gays or lesbians or sexual or racial minorities, I would not support your protest.
If Catholic Charities would prohibit single-parent or same-gender marriages from adopting children, that's ok. But just don't use state or federal funds in your operations.
But we have said that before, have we not?

I know you've said that before, and I understand your argument, but I would argue that it is unfair for the government to subsidize this group because their teaching agrees with the morality du jour while refusing to subsidize that group because their teaching doesn't.  Perhaps the fairest solution would be to get rid of all government subsidies of any charitable organization regardless of what it teaches about sex, marriage, and other controversial topics.


Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.

This is just more of the same “freedom of worship not freedom of religion” Marxist claptrap your fellow travelers in leftist politics are trying to push. It’s nonsense.

The sad thing is they will eat you last. But eat you they will. You are a male praying mantis. You are in bed with the very people who will eventually kill you. And you think they’re your friends.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 17, 2020, 07:47:29 AM
Brian:
Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.
Me:
Or stop using government money to do works of service and charity. (I am not in favor of this.)
I only note that when we contract with the government to provide a service. . .  .

So Brian wants to impose the Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms on all non-Lutherans. Nice...

As for Papists spending your money Charles, you do know the history, right?  Groups like Catholic Charities, and all the Catholic Hospitals were out minding their own business with regards to the various corporal works of mercy and the Government in its Progressive wisdom decided to impose "order."

The Feds changed the rules.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 08:14:00 AM
Government money-government order. Government money-government rules.
You don’t like the order, the rules? Then don’t ask for the money.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 08:39:45 AM
Government money is supposed to come from a government that has no opinion in religious matters. The government needs orphans given homes. It is wiling to spend taxpayer money to make it happen. If an orphanage teaches them Mormonism or only places then in Jewish homes or whatever, the government should not care one way or the other. As long as other groups have access to the same system to do things their way, all the government needs to know is that taxpayer money is making sure orphans are cared for.

 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 17, 2020, 08:46:10 AM
Government money-government order. Government money-government rules.
You don’t like the order, the rules? Then don’t ask for the money.

Or get better government.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 17, 2020, 09:18:58 AM
Government money-government order. Government money-government rules.
You don’t like the order, the rules? Then don’t ask for the money.

Did you miss the historical point? There was a time when that was the case. But then the Government imposed the rules and regulations on those already doing the work. I would actually agree with the idea that an organization that was just getting into the situation should know that the G is the only game in town. Their ball; their rules. But what about folks who were busy doing good long before the G stuck its nose into things?

I would also argue market forces. Surely most Americans would see things your way, and take their business, so to speak, to more enlightened and inclusive agencies. And folks like Catholic Charities would be left with nothing one to aid, and then when they close, all those wonderful progressive secularist organizations can get their share of the money.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 09:22:59 AM
Peter writes:
As long as other groups have access to the same system to do things their way, all the government needs to know is that taxpayer money is making sure orphans are cared for.
I comment:
No, the government also needs to know that those involved in caring for children are treated fairly. That means prospective adoptive parents, it means parents who are receiving aid for their children. If you say “I’m only placing children in certain kinds of homes”, then you are discriminating against those other kinds of homes.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Steven W Bohler on June 17, 2020, 09:23:52 AM
Brian:
Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.
Me:
Or stop using government money to do works of service and charity. (I am not in favor of this.)
I only note that when we contract with the government to provide a service. . .  .

You want to eliminate welfare and Social Security and Medicaid?  Really?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 09:27:47 AM
Mr. Hummel:
Did you miss the historical point? There was a time when that was the case. But then the Government imposed the rules and regulations on those already doing the work. I would actually agree with the idea that an organization that was just getting into the situation should know that the G is the only game in town. Their ball; their rules. But what about folks who were busy doing good long before the G stuck its nose into things?
Me:
So how far back in history do you want to go? 1789? 1853? 1920?
Back when children could only be placed in homes of the religion doing the placing?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 09:41:57 AM
Pastor Bohler:
You want to eliminate welfare and Social Security and Medicaid?  Really?
Me:
I wish you would Think carefully before you grab for a knee-jerk instant response. Of course I was referring to the churches doing works of charity with government money. And one might ask whether it is a work of charity if you’re doing it with other people’s money.
BTW Social Security is hardly “charity.”
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 10:02:21 AM
Peter writes:
As long as other groups have access to the same system to do things their way, all the government needs to know is that taxpayer money is making sure orphans are cared for.
I comment:
No, the government also needs to know that those involved in caring for children are treated fairly. That means prospective adoptive parents, it means parents who are receiving aid for their children. If you say “I’m only placing children in certain kinds of homes”, then you are discriminating against those other kinds of homes.
We have to do 20 hours of training every year to maintain our foster home license. Yesterday it was about LGBTQ+ issues. We covered all kinds of things, like what to do about cross-dressing and so forth. It was led by a married gay man with adopted children. The presentation was awash in rainbows. He began lauding the recent SCOTUS ruling. He presented as established dogma that sex, gender, and identity were entirely separate things. We were advised to make sure our home feature books or rainbow stickers, etc. that made clear it is an LGBTQ+ affirming place. My wife and I duly sat there, asking a few questions for clarification. But frankly, it was like being in a reeducation camp; resistance was futile. Though he was thoughtful, nice, and passionate about his topic, I thought much of what he said was simply not true. In our case, it isn't an applicable issue.

But suppose someone wanted to be a foster home and wanted to raise children according to traditional sexual mores as approved by the conservative one of the four positions on that matter within the ELCA. Should that couple have a foster license? Or would it be better for kids to have no family than to have a family that raise them according to ELCA-approved standards? 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Voelker on June 17, 2020, 10:07:03 AM
Pastor Bohler:
You want to eliminate welfare and Social Security and Medicaid?  Really?
Me:
I wish you would Think carefully before you grab for a knee-jerk instant response. Of course I was referring to the churches doing works of charity with government money. And one might ask whether it is a work of charity if you’re doing it with other people’s money.
BTW Social Security is hardly “charity.”
That depends on which age bracket you're speaking from. Those of us Gen-X & younger can only see it as charity for the older set, as the likelihood that we'll see it ourselves dwindles daily. An observation, not a complaint.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Steven W Bohler on June 17, 2020, 10:18:31 AM
Pastor Bohler:
You want to eliminate welfare and Social Security and Medicaid?  Really?
Me:
I wish you would Think carefully before you grab for a knee-jerk instant response. Of course I was referring to the churches doing works of charity with government money. And one might ask whether it is a work of charity if you’re doing it with other people’s money.
BTW Social Security is hardly “charity.”

1. Well, that may be what you meant, but that is not what you wrote.

2. Churches are out, but other non-profits are in?  How would you decide where the line is drawn?  What if it were not a church but an organization that believed children were best served by placement in a traditional husband-wife home?

3. If liberals did not give away other people's money, they would have little to no charity.  Study after study shows liberals typically see government assistance as the appropriate way of helping those in need, and so do not give to charities.  Churchly or secular.

4. I have been paying into Social Security for 45 years now, with 27 of them as "self-employed" clergy paying both ends.  I am still probably 10+ years from retirement.  I doubt I will ever see what I put into Social Security.  My grandmother, on the other hand, never worked out of the home a day in her life.  She was widowed in her late 50's and died in her mid 90's.  She collected a LOT of Social Security in those 30-35 years.  Charity. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 17, 2020, 10:37:52 AM
Government money-government order. Government money-government rules.
You don’t like the order, the rules? Then don’t ask for the money.


This most assuredly is an accurate--mostly accurate, at least--description of reality.  We can debate the propriety of different rules.  But the government can attach almost any strings it chooses to the money it makes available to private actors.  That's why, for example, Hillsdale College chooses not to accept any government funds, even indirectly in the form of financial assistance for students. 


There are a few limitations on the government's strings, of course.  The government may not violate the Constitution in distinguishing between who qualifies for government funds and who does not, for example.  That said, the decision to begin accepting government funds may come with Faustian consequences; an organization may become so dependent for survival on government funds that it will sell its principles bit by bit to keep those funds coming.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on June 17, 2020, 10:54:35 AM
This most assuredly is an accurate--mostly accurate, at least--description of reality.  We can debate the propriety of different rules.  But the government can attach almost any strings it chooses to the money it makes available to private actors.  That's why, for example, Hillsdale College chooses not to accept any government funds, even indirectly in the form of financial assistance for students.
Interesting that although the financial aid is to assist the student, it is the college that has the strings attached ... thus the government is influencing the students decision on where to be educated. 



It is quite different than if the government provided a grant to the school in order for it to develop programs to entice prospective students ... placing strings on government student financial aid seems a bit heavy handed, but since it furthers the agenda of certain constituencies, it apparently has been accepted.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 10:59:55 AM
Peter:
Or would it be better for kids to have no family than to have a family that raise them according to ELCA-approved standards?
Me:
Those aren’t the only alternatives.
So I ask you; would it be better for a child to be reared in a family with two mothers rather than have no family?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 11:16:58 AM
Peter:
Or would it be better for kids to have no family than to have a family that raise them according to ELCA-approved standards?
Me:
Those aren’t the only alternatives.
So I ask you; would it be better for a child to be reared in a family with two mothers rather than have no family?
That is a complete changing of the subject. We were in training with a gay couple when we first got our license. It is pretty common. The argument in favor of it was precisely your point-- better to be in a same-gender (or single parent-- lots of single-parent foster households, too) home than an institution. The reputation of orphanages as terrible places may or may not be deserved, but for the time being the goal is to get children into family settings.

The question is whether you return the favor with the same argumentation-- better x than an orphanage, if x= traditional, conservative family structure and sexual morality and expectations. Or do I have to go along with your views functionally (while having the right to think privately whatever I want) if I still want to participate in the system?

This is the whole nose of the camel phenomenon of progressivism. If you say gay parenting is okay because people have differing views, in short order saying anything else will not be okay and no differing views will be allowed. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 17, 2020, 11:21:10 AM
Peter:
Or would it be better for kids to have no family than to have a family that raise them according to ELCA-approved standards?
Me:
Those aren’t the only alternatives.
So I ask you; would it be better for a child to be reared in a family with two mothers rather than have no family?
Charles- I am assuming that this is an honest question, so I will give you an honest answer. I am not sure. But the major study usually cited on how well adjusted kids are that grow up in same sex parent households was a survey of the parents asking them if their kids were ok. Basically asking the foxes to take the hen house census.

And I have actually known people who were raised in orphanages. Granted, they were religious institutions, but they all talked about them and their experience in a positive light. No Dickens or Bronte.

And we are just are at the point were real data on children of same-sex households will be available. So yeah, I am on the bubble on this.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 11:49:14 AM
Peter:
Or would it be better for kids to have no family than to have a family that raise them according to ELCA-approved standards?
Me:
Those aren’t the only alternatives.
So I ask you; would it be better for a child to be reared in a family with two mothers rather than have no family?
That is a complete changing of the subject. We were in training with a gay couple when we first got our license. It is pretty common. The argument in favor of it was precisely your point-- better to be in a same-gender (or single parent-- lots of single-parent foster households, too) home than an institution. The reputation of orphanages as terrible places may or may not be deserved, but for the time being the goal is to get children into family settings.

The question is whether you return the favor with the same argumentation-- better x than an orphanage, if x= traditional, conservative family structure and sexual morality and expectations. Or do I have to go along with your views functionally (while having the right to think privately whatever I want) if I still want to participate in the system?

This is the whole nose of the camel phenomenon of progressivism. If you say gay parenting is okay because people have differing views, in short order saying anything else will not be okay and no differing views will be allowed.

Why can't you answer the question?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 12:21:12 PM
Because you make it sound as if I oppose placing children in “traditional” families. I don’t.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on June 17, 2020, 12:36:17 PM
Because you make it sound as if I oppose placing children in “traditional” families. I don’t.

The you should stop being so gleeful everytime the government shuts down adoption/fostering agencies that only place children in families with a mother and father.

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 01:08:34 PM
Because you make it sound as if I oppose placing children in “traditional” families. I don’t.
That wasn’t the question.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 01:48:08 PM
Deacon Hummel, I would go to the protest with you if a parish, a self-supporting Catholic school or any self-supporting Catholic institution were forced to hire people who did not conform to the teachings of that institution. You can discriminate against gays, trans-gender or whatever sexuality you find contrary to Catholic teaching. (You already discriminate against women by denying them full participation in the life of the church. But that's ok, I understand, and you get a pass on that these days.)
But if that school or any other Catholic institution was using public funds in a way where those public funds (my money  ;) ) was being used to discriminate against gays or lesbians or sexual or racial minorities, I would not support your protest.
If Catholic Charities would prohibit single-parent or same-gender marriages from adopting children, that's ok. But just don't use state or federal funds in your operations.
But we have said that before, have we not?

I know you've said that before, and I understand your argument, but I would argue that it is unfair for the government to subsidize this group because their teaching agrees with the morality du jour while refusing to subsidize that group because their teaching doesn't.  Perhaps the fairest solution would be to get rid of all government subsidies of any charitable organization regardless of what it teaches about sex, marriage, and other controversial topics.


Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.

This is just more of the same “freedom of worship not freedom of religion” Marxist claptrap your fellow travelers in leftist politics are trying to push. It’s nonsense.

The sad thing is they will eat you last. But eat you they will. You are a male praying mantis. You are in bed with the very people who will eventually kill you. And you think they’re your friends.


How do you distinguish between what is "religious" and what is "secular"? Is adopting a child a religious or secular act? What about marriage? Is that a secular or religious institution? A lawyer friend was authorized to officiate at weddings, but she could not do a "religious" service, it had to be a secular one. If a couple wanted a religious service, they had to go to a priest or pastor or rabbi, etc.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 01:50:22 PM
Brian:
Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.
Me:
Or stop using government money to do works of service and charity. (I am not in favor of this.)
I only note that when we contract with the government to provide a service. . .  .

So Brian wants to impose the Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms on all non-Lutherans. Nice...

As for Papists spending your money Charles, you do know the history, right?  Groups like Catholic Charities, and all the Catholic Hospitals were out minding their own business with regards to the various corporal works of mercy and the Government in its Progressive wisdom decided to impose "order."

The Feds changed the rules.


I think our nation already did that with the separation of church and state - something Luther promoted.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Brian:
Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.
Me:
Or stop using government money to do works of service and charity. (I am not in favor of this.)
I only note that when we contract with the government to provide a service. . .  .

So Brian wants to impose the Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms on all non-Lutherans. Nice...

As for Papists spending your money Charles, you do know the history, right?  Groups like Catholic Charities, and all the Catholic Hospitals were out minding their own business with regards to the various corporal works of mercy and the Government in its Progressive wisdom decided to impose "order."

The Feds changed the rules.


What you call "order," others might see as "accountability".
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 17, 2020, 01:58:25 PM
I thought that it was a good thing for churches to not just do word and sacrament ministry but to care for all the needs of our neighbors. That we would be derelict in our duties if we just stuck to spiritual things. I guess that only counts only if you conduct care for neighbors according to proper Liberal beliefs and practices. If you are traditional Christian, stay in your church and don't stick your traditional nose out in public.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 02:01:20 PM
Pastor Bohler:
You want to eliminate welfare and Social Security and Medicaid?  Really?
Me:
I wish you would Think carefully before you grab for a knee-jerk instant response. Of course I was referring to the churches doing works of charity with government money. And one might ask whether it is a work of charity if you’re doing it with other people’s money.
BTW Social Security is hardly “charity.”
That depends on which age bracket you're speaking from. Those of us Gen-X & younger can only see it as charity for the older set, as the likelihood that we'll see it ourselves dwindles daily. An observation, not a complaint.


That thought is not new. When I began ordained ministry in 1976 it was thought that Social Security would be gone when it came to to collect it. They were wrong. However, we are waiting until my wife turns 70 next year so that we can get the maximum amount.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 02:06:39 PM
I thought that it was a good thing for churches to not just do word and sacrament ministry but to care for all the needs of our neighbors. That we would be derelict in our duties if we just stuck to spiritual things. I guess that only counts only if you conduct care for neighbors according to proper Liberal beliefs and practices. If you are traditional Christian, stay in your church and don't stick your traditional nose out in public.


Ah, but what I believe Charles is saying, if the church is going to engage in social ministries outside of its doors, then the church should finance those ministries rather than go looking for funds that will have strings attached to them.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 02:08:02 PM
You are doing it again, Pastor Fienen. Overreaction. Victimization. Silly hyperbole.
Care for one’s neighbor is neither liberal nor  conservative in its emphasis, but how you do it may have some social ramifications.
Again, for the 10,000th time. You can care for your neighbor whatever way you want to do it, but if you were doing it with public funds, you might be subject to some restriction as to how you may operate or how those funds should be used.
If your adoption agency receives public funds and you say “we will never plays a child in a home where there is a same-sex marriage”  then the government has a right to say, on behalf of all of us, you may not receive government funds. You are free to run your agency, subject to normal licensing and other professional qualifications. But you may not use government money to discriminate against same-sexCouples who want to adopt.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 17, 2020, 02:36:32 PM
You are doing it again, Pastor Fienen. Overreaction. Victimization. Silly hyperbole.
Care for one’s neighbor is neither liberal nor  conservative in its emphasis, but how you do it may have some social ramifications.
Again, for the 10,000th time. You can care for your neighbor whatever way you want to do it, but if you were doing it with public funds, you might be subject to some restriction as to how you may operate or how those funds should be used.
If your adoption agency receives public funds and you say “we will never plays a child in a home where there is a same-sex marriage”  then the government has a right to say, on behalf of all of us, you may not receive government funds. You are free to run your agency, subject to normal licensing and other professional qualifications. But you may not use government money to discriminate against same-sexCouples who want to adopt.


It seems to me that any discussion of adoption should focus first, last, and always on the best interests of children.  You go in a different direction, seeming primarily concerned with giving rights to those "who want to adopt."  Children are not a commodity and ought never be treated as pawns in service of a political agenda.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on June 17, 2020, 02:43:14 PM
You are doing it again, Pastor Fienen. Overreaction. Victimization. Silly hyperbole.
Care for one’s neighbor is neither liberal nor  conservative in its emphasis, but how you do it may have some social ramifications.
Again, for the 10,000th time. You can care for your neighbor whatever way you want to do it, but if you were doing it with public funds, you might be subject to some restriction as to how you may operate or how those funds should be used.
If your adoption agency receives public funds and you say “we will never plays a child in a home where there is a same-sex marriage”  then the government has a right to say, on behalf of all of us, you may not receive government funds. You are free to run your agency, subject to normal licensing and other professional qualifications. But you may not use government money to discriminate against same-sexCouples who want to adopt.


It seems to me that any discussion of adoption should focus first, last, and always on the best interests of children.  You go in a different direction, seeming primarily concerned with giving rights to those "who want to adopt."  Children are not a commodity and ought never be treated as pawns in service of a political agenda.
Tragically for some ... everything is a political agenda. :'(
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 02:52:27 PM
The real solution-- get the public money out of the charitable works business-- always gets received as lack of compassion for the poor when all that really inspires it is desire to care for the poor according to one's conscience rather than the secular state's dictates.

Foster parents in Indiana are legally required to feed, clothe, and provide 24/7 supervision for a child on less an $1/hr. from the state. It isn't a profitable venture. My question is whether people who reject the progressive take on sexuality should be allowed by the state to serve as foster parents if they are in all other respects willing and able, or, if willingness to go along with progressive views on sexuality should be considered a precondition for being licensed.     
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 02:58:49 PM
Mr. Gale:
It seems to me that any discussion of adoption should focus first, last, and always on the best interests of children.  You go in a different direction, seeming primarily concerned with giving rights to those "who want to adopt
Me:
You are wrong. I did not say the primary concern should be those who want to adopt. But neither can their rights to fair treatment be ignored.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 03:07:17 PM
Mr. Gale:
It seems to me that any discussion of adoption should focus first, last, and always on the best interests of children.  You go in a different direction, seeming primarily concerned with giving rights to those "who want to adopt
Me:
You are wrong. I did not say the primary concern should be those who want to adopt. But neither can their rights to fair treatment be ignored.
Yet you ignore my question on the rights and fair treatment of people who live and teach according to traditional sexual morality.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 17, 2020, 03:14:14 PM
Mr. Gale:
It seems to me that any discussion of adoption should focus first, last, and always on the best interests of children.  You go in a different direction, seeming primarily concerned with giving rights to those "who want to adopt
Me:
You are wrong. I did not say the primary concern should be those who want to adopt. But neither can their rights to fair treatment be ignored.


But in this context, fairness should be driven by the best interests of children.  Nobody should have a "right" to adopt.  Nobody.


Now, I think that you could argue that the placement of a particular child with a particular same-sex couple or particular single person is in that child's best interests.  But that is not the approach you take.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 17, 2020, 03:16:28 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 03:24:06 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.
Why do you keep posting the same non-answer that doesn’t address the question? Everyone already knew that you think gay couples have a right to adopt. Nobody asked about that.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on June 17, 2020, 03:36:14 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.


This question-begging response gets us back to your willingness to subordinate the interests of children to a political agenda.  I frankly have no idea whether or how the nature of one's partnered or single life affects parenting outcomes.  You refuse even to consider the matter.  And that is telling.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 17, 2020, 03:45:44 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 17, 2020, 04:22:05 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.

And that sort of gives away the game, doesn't it?  It isn't about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.  It is about forcing Christian charity groups to actively participate in such adoptions.

It is not about children.  It is about compulsion against conscience.  As Erick Erickson has said, you will be made to care.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 08:09:12 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.


This question-begging response gets us back to your willingness to subordinate the interests of children to a political agenda.  I frankly have no idea whether or how the nature of one's partnered or single life affects parenting outcomes.  You refuse even to consider the matter.  And that is telling.


So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 08:14:56 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.


Would you argue the same way if a hospital told someone in the emergency room, "We can't help you, these people can. Go see them."

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 08:21:08 PM
Right up there with Paul the Progressive which my church is studying to make excuses for St. Paul’s clear writings.

Pass and pass.


According to the description on Amazon, the author is: "telling the story of a Paul who challenged the norms of his day, broke down barriers of gender and ethnicity, and re-imagined God's plan for the world in terms of radical inclusion and salvation available to everyone."


You don't believe Paul's writings do that? Perhaps you agree with what Paul seeks, but don't want to call it "progressive" or "liberal," because you don't want to be one of them.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 17, 2020, 08:22:59 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.

Would you argue the same way if a hospital told someone in the emergency room, "We can't help you, these people can. Go see them."

Very nice false equivalency. Especially given the fact that the majority of hospital beds in this country are Catholic.

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 17, 2020, 08:27:02 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.

Would you argue the same way if a hospital told someone in the emergency room, "We can't help you, these people can. Go see them."

Very nice false equivalency. Especially given the fact that the majority of hospital beds in this country are Catholic.


Not according to the information that I read.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: DeHall1 on June 17, 2020, 08:35:28 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.

Would you argue the same way if a hospital told someone in the emergency room, "We can't help you, these people can. Go see them."

Very nice false equivalency. Especially given the fact that the majority of hospital beds in this country are Catholic.


Not according to the information that I read.

Does the information you read tell you that ER’s can transfer patients out without treating them?  Because according to EMTALA, they can if, for example, the hospital doesn’t have the appropriate resources to treat the patient.  In essence saying “We can’t help you. These people can...”
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 17, 2020, 08:48:54 PM
And of course like going to an ER with a medical emergency when seeking an adoption extra minutes could be fatal.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 17, 2020, 09:25:37 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.


This question-begging response gets us back to your willingness to subordinate the interests of children to a political agenda.  I frankly have no idea whether or how the nature of one's partnered or single life affects parenting outcomes.  You refuse even to consider the matter.  And that is telling.


So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?
Nobody is talking about reasons for removal. That’s a totally different subject.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Richard Johnson on June 17, 2020, 10:41:12 PM
Brian:
Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.
Me:
Or stop using government money to do works of service and charity. (I am not in favor of this.)
I only note that when we contract with the government to provide a service. . .  .

So Brian wants to impose the Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms on all non-Lutherans. Nice...

As for Papists spending your money Charles, you do know the history, right?  Groups like Catholic Charities, and all the Catholic Hospitals were out minding their own business with regards to the various corporal works of mercy and the Government in its Progressive wisdom decided to impose "order."

The Feds changed the rules.


I think our nation already did that with the separation of church and state - something Luther promoted.

 ::)
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on June 18, 2020, 12:42:19 AM

So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?

The LBW/BCP daily lectionary is in the midst of 2 weeks of reading from the book of Proverbs, where Solomon contrasts the wise from the foolish.  Your posts to this forum keep coming to my mind during Matins.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 18, 2020, 02:28:26 AM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.

Would you argue the same way if a hospital told someone in the emergency room, "We can't help you, these people can. Go see them."

Very nice false equivalency. Especially given the fact that the majority of hospital beds in this country are Catholic.


Not according to the information that I read.

Does the information you read tell you that ER’s can transfer patients out without treating them?  Because according to EMTALA, they can if, for example, the hospital doesn’t have the appropriate resources to treat the patient.  In essence saying “We can’t help you. These people can...”


Of course. Our hospital does it all the time. We don't have a neurosurgeon. They have a helicopter at the hospital that will transport patients to Phoenix where they have the proper doctors. We are also transferring patients out so that our ER will not get overcrowded with COVID patients and not have room for other emergencies.


The point is: they are not not helping these people because of some prejudice against the person: you're Black, Native, Latino, homosexual, so we can't help you. They also don't tell them, drive yourself to the next hospital. Rather, "We will see that you get the help that you need even if we can't provide it."
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 18, 2020, 02:32:07 AM

So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?

The LBW/BCP daily lectionary is in the midst of 2 weeks of reading from the book of Proverbs, where Solomon contrasts the wise from the foolish.  Your posts to this forum keep coming to my mind during Matins.


And I've been studying Matthew 10 where it says: 25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you’ve hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have shown them to babies. 26 Indeed, Father, this brings you happiness. (CEB)


Perhaps being wise is not as beneficial as Proverbs claims it is.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: DeHall1 on June 18, 2020, 08:47:51 AM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.

Would you argue the same way if a hospital told someone in the emergency room, "We can't help you, these people can. Go see them."

Very nice false equivalency. Especially given the fact that the majority of hospital beds in this country are Catholic.


Not according to the information that I read.

Does the information you read tell you that ER’s can transfer patients out without treating them?  Because according to EMTALA, they can if, for example, the hospital doesn’t have the appropriate resources to treat the patient.  In essence saying “We can’t help you. These people can...”


Of course. Our hospital does it all the time. We don't have a neurosurgeon. They have a helicopter at the hospital that will transport patients to Phoenix where they have the proper doctors. We are also transferring patients out so that our ER will not get overcrowded with COVID patients and not have room for other emergencies.


The point is: they are not not helping these people because of some prejudice against the person: you're Black, Native, Latino, homosexual, so we can't help you. They also don't tell them, drive yourself to the next hospital. Rather, "We will see that you get the help that you need even if we can't provide it."

So you agree with me....Hospitals can (and do) tell patients “We can’t help you.  These people can...” quite often. 

So...why’d you use this as an example?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 18, 2020, 12:29:43 PM
First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of religion is not a Constitutional myth, or something dreamed up by racists or homophobes as an excuse for discrimination. It is the first of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment, even before freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly.
 
It is no secret that some of the rights and freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been annoyances and hindrances to people in authority. Police would like to be able to find out who provided information to journalists, and would like to be able to search at will for evidence and use whatever evidence to convict. Many Progressives would like to eliminate the Second Amendment and simply ban everybody from having guns. So it should not be a surprise that some would like to gut freedom of religion when it gets in the way of imposing their ideas of social progress on the public at large. Constitutionally recognized rights should not be allowed to get in the way of imposing their conception of a more perfect society on everybody. Of course there are those who feel that the Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, self incrimination, or the right to due process hampers law enforcement. But rights are not there to make the imposition of authority easier, but to protect people from the over reach of authority.

Consider the First Amendment considerations of the case of a Colorado baker. A prospective customer ordered a custom cake from the baker and the baker declined to bake the cake because he disagreed with the message on the cake to be made. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld the rights of the baker (as well as a couple of other bakers who had refused to bake the cake) to refuse on basis that the baker found the message to be placed on the cake offensive. The person ordering the cake was William Jake and the message was to be "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22." Was the Commission wrong in upholding the rights of the baker not to be coerced into baking a cake with a message that he found offensive? This case came up in the litigation concerning the refusal of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips' refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.

The suit and penalties against Jack Phillips was eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court. A major basis for the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was the hostility shown by the Commission to the religious beliefs of Mr. Phillips. That animus was illustrated by the prior case of the right of a baker to refuse a cake order that he found to be offensive being upheld by the Commission and the hostile language used by the Commission in describing the religious beliefs of Mr. Phillips.

It should be noted that Mr. Phillips did not refuse to sell baked goods to the same sex couple. What he refused to do on religious grounds was to create a cake celebrating what he felt was immoral and contrary to his religion, and also not legal in Colorado at the time. The ruling was narrow in scope and left a number of the larger issues unaddressed. But it did show that freedom of religion is not a right that can simply be brushed aside because those with authority dislike the religion in question.

The First and subsequent Amendments enumerate certain rights. Traditional Christians included have a right to not only hold but to exercise their religion. No where does the amendment specify that that freedom holds only within the church building or is limited to a time of worship. It is not only religious people who have been granted rights under the Constitution. Recently it has been construed that same sex couples have the right to marry. That right also needs to be upheld. Thus, for example, the Kentucky County Clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples citing religious beliefs was in the wrong. after Obergefell v. Hodges such couples have the right to be legally married in any jurisdiction in the United States and obtaining a license from the county clerk is essential to exercise that right in Kentucky and should not be denied.

So what should happen in the United States when the rights of individuals compete with each other and that of the state? Accommodations need to be sought that promote maximal respect for everybody's rights and infringe minimally on other's rights. So, to use the County Clerk example, the religious right to not issue a marriage license that offended the clerk's beliefs if upheld would have prevent the same sex couple for exercising their right to marry completely. Clearly the right of the couple to exercise their right at all took priority over the clerk's rights. Another solution to the conflict needed to be found other than denying same sex couples the ability to be married in that county.

By refusing to bake a wedding cake for the same sex couple, Masterpiece Cakeshop did not hinder much less prevent the couple from becoming married, it did not even greatly hindered them obtaining a custom wedding cake for the occasion.

More generally, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 provides a framework for settling cases where a law or legal policy or procedure infringes on a person's free exercise of their religion. Under the act, laws or procedures that may impinge on free exercise are subject to strict scrutiny and must meet certain tests. The law must be pursuant of a compelling state interest. (There is considerable legal precedent for determining compelling interest.) And it must be the least intrusive method to achieve the compelling state interest.

Should religious rights simply always trump other rights? No. But neither should other rights, such as the rights of LGBTQ people, always simply trump religious rights.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 18, 2020, 01:08:07 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.

Would you argue the same way if a hospital told someone in the emergency room, "We can't help you, these people can. Go see them."

Very nice false equivalency. Especially given the fact that the majority of hospital beds in this country are Catholic.


Not according to the information that I read.

Does the information you read tell you that ER’s can transfer patients out without treating them?  Because according to EMTALA, they can if, for example, the hospital doesn’t have the appropriate resources to treat the patient.  In essence saying “We can’t help you. These people can...”


Of course. Our hospital does it all the time. We don't have a neurosurgeon. They have a helicopter at the hospital that will transport patients to Phoenix where they have the proper doctors. We are also transferring patients out so that our ER will not get overcrowded with COVID patients and not have room for other emergencies.


The point is: they are not not helping these people because of some prejudice against the person: you're Black, Native, Latino, homosexual, so we can't help you. They also don't tell them, drive yourself to the next hospital. Rather, "We will see that you get the help that you need even if we can't provide it."

So you agree with me....Hospitals can (and do) tell patients “We can’t help you.  These people can...” quite often. 

So...why’d you use this as an example?


Because there were many instances in the past where Black people would not be admitted to a hospital just because they were Black - not because the hospital didn't have the right doctors or equipment. In 1941 when the Nation was asking for blood donors, they didn't allow Blacks to give blood. That changed in 1942, but the blood was segregated. The Red Cross changed its policy in 1950, but some southern states didn't until around 1970. See an article here (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/desegregating-blood-a-civil-rights-struggle-to-remember).


This seems to me to be a clear example of systemic racism.


Perhaps the hospital's response would be better stated: "We won't help you." They could help, but they won't. It's not because they don't have the staff and equipment; it's because they don't wan't to. Actually, that's also closer to your example. The agencies could help. They have the staff and knowledge to, but they just don't want to do it for some people.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: DeHall1 on June 18, 2020, 01:46:21 PM
Sigh. Neither should a family be prevented from adopting a child because they are a same-sex marriage.

Who has said that should be the case. Even in those instances when Catholic Charities or similar organizations have said, "We are not able to assist you," they have shown people where they could go. How in anyway is that preventing same sex couples from adopting? "We can't help you, these people can." Quel horreur! O the huge manatee! God forbid a same sex couple might have to make a SECOND phone call in adopting a child.

Would you argue the same way if a hospital told someone in the emergency room, "We can't help you, these people can. Go see them."

Very nice false equivalency. Especially given the fact that the majority of hospital beds in this country are Catholic.


Not according to the information that I read.

Does the information you read tell you that ER’s can transfer patients out without treating them?  Because according to EMTALA, they can if, for example, the hospital doesn’t have the appropriate resources to treat the patient.  In essence saying “We can’t help you. These people can...”


Of course. Our hospital does it all the time. We don't have a neurosurgeon. They have a helicopter at the hospital that will transport patients to Phoenix where they have the proper doctors. We are also transferring patients out so that our ER will not get overcrowded with COVID patients and not have room for other emergencies.


The point is: they are not not helping these people because of some prejudice against the person: you're Black, Native, Latino, homosexual, so we can't help you. They also don't tell them, drive yourself to the next hospital. Rather, "We will see that you get the help that you need even if we can't provide it."

So you agree with me....Hospitals can (and do) tell patients “We can’t help you.  These people can...” quite often. 

So...why’d you use this as an example?


Because there were many instances in the past where Black people would not be admitted to a hospital just because they were Black - not because the hospital didn't have the right doctors or equipment. In 1941 when the Nation was asking for blood donors, they didn't allow Blacks to give blood. That changed in 1942, but the blood was segregated. The Red Cross changed its policy in 1950, but some southern states didn't until around 1970. See an article here (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/desegregating-blood-a-civil-rights-struggle-to-remember).


This seems to me to be a clear example of systemic racism.


Perhaps the hospital's response would be better stated: "We won't help you." They could help, but they won't. It's not because they don't have the staff and equipment; it's because they don't wan't to. Actually, that's also closer to your example. The agencies could help. They have the staff and knowledge to, but they just don't want to do it for some people.

My example of what?   My only posts on this topic have been  to point out to you that hospitals do, in fact tell patients ""We can't help you, these people can...".

A fact you readily agreed with and were apparently well aware of even as you used it for whatever virtue signalling point you were attempting to make.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dave Benke on June 18, 2020, 07:27:03 PM
Brian:
Or maybe we need to get churches out of businesses that aren't centered on Word and Sacrament.
Me:
Or stop using government money to do works of service and charity. (I am not in favor of this.)
I only note that when we contract with the government to provide a service. . .  .

So Brian wants to impose the Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms on all non-Lutherans. Nice...

As for Papists spending your money Charles, you do know the history, right?  Groups like Catholic Charities, and all the Catholic Hospitals were out minding their own business with regards to the various corporal works of mercy and the Government in its Progressive wisdom decided to impose "order."

The Feds changed the rules.

Something from a long-ago post learned at a congregational anniversary - the church is St. Matthew's in Manhattan, where the anniversary-celebrating Marie Meyer went to church and school.  On one of their anniversaries they received a letter of congratulations from James Madison.  In the letter he complimented them on being Lutheran specifically because of the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms which was important, as Madison indicated, in developing the founding documents of the United States.  We Lutherans really had game back in the day.  So if you're a United States citizen, you are a follower in important ways of the two realms doctrine.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 18, 2020, 07:29:15 PM
Pretty gutsy call talking up an association with a Founding Father. Stay safe.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Richard Johnson on June 18, 2020, 08:28:10 PM

So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?

The LBW/BCP daily lectionary is in the midst of 2 weeks of reading from the book of Proverbs, where Solomon contrasts the wise from the foolish.  Your posts to this forum keep coming to my mind during Matins.

Actually, I believe the daily lectionary in the BCP differs from that in the LBW. In the BCP, we left Proverbs behind a couple of weeks ago and are now in Numbers.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: mj4 on June 18, 2020, 10:46:04 PM

So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?

The LBW/BCP daily lectionary is in the midst of 2 weeks of reading from the book of Proverbs, where Solomon contrasts the wise from the foolish.  Your posts to this forum keep coming to my mind during Matins.

Actually, I believe the daily lectionary in the BCP differs from that in the LBW. In the BCP, we left Proverbs behind a couple of weeks ago and are now in Numbers.

Maybe same Psalter, slightly different readings.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on June 19, 2020, 12:17:36 AM
Something from a long-ago post learned at a congregational anniversary - the church is St. Matthew's in Manhattan, where the anniversary-celebrating Marie Meyer went to church and school.  On one of their anniversaries they received a letter of congratulations from James Madison.  In the letter he complimented them on being Lutheran specifically because of the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms which was important, as Madison indicated, in developing the founding documents of the United States.  We Lutherans really had game back in the day.  So if you're a United States citizen, you are a follower in important ways of the two realms doctrine.

Dave Benke
For once the forum search functioned well enough to locate the long ago post (http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7137.msg455391#msg455391) Rev Benke is referencing,
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Richard Johnson on June 19, 2020, 04:19:44 PM

So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?

The LBW/BCP daily lectionary is in the midst of 2 weeks of reading from the book of Proverbs, where Solomon contrasts the wise from the foolish.  Your posts to this forum keep coming to my mind during Matins.

Actually, I believe the daily lectionary in the BCP differs from that in the LBW. In the BCP, we left Proverbs behind a couple of weeks ago and are now in Numbers.

Maybe same Psalter, slightly different readings.

Actually the Psalter is quite different. The other readings are mostly the same, but whereas LBW's daily lectionary is based on "Weeks after Pentecost" and starts at the beginning, then stops whenever Advent begins, the BCP daily lectionary is based on "Propers" and lops off unneeded weeks at the beginning, so that it always ends in the same place just before Advent. In the BCP lectionary (as in Pfatteicher's Daily Prayer) the readings are designated according to the date of the Sunday (e.g., "readings for the week after the Sunday closest to June 21").
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: mj4 on June 19, 2020, 04:54:33 PM
Actually, I believe the daily lectionary in the BCP differs from that in the LBW. In the BCP, we left Proverbs behind a couple of weeks ago and are now in Numbers.

Maybe same Psalter, slightly different readings.

Actually the Psalter is quite different. The other readings are mostly the same, but whereas LBW's daily lectionary is based on "Weeks after Pentecost" and starts at the beginning, then stops whenever Advent begins, the BCP daily lectionary is based on "Propers" and lops off unneeded weeks at the beginning, so that it always ends in the same place just before Advent. In the BCP lectionary (as in Pfatteicher's Daily Prayer) the readings are designated according to the date of the Sunday (e.g., "readings for the week after the Sunday closest to June 21").

Okay, that makes sense. After years of service in the Lutheran Church it must be interesting to experience Episcopal worship that is so similar but different in some ways.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 19, 2020, 05:54:41 PM

So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?

The LBW/BCP daily lectionary is in the midst of 2 weeks of reading from the book of Proverbs, where Solomon contrasts the wise from the foolish.  Your posts to this forum keep coming to my mind during Matins.

Actually, I believe the daily lectionary in the BCP differs from that in the LBW. In the BCP, we left Proverbs behind a couple of weeks ago and are now in Numbers.

Maybe same Psalter, slightly different readings.

Actually the Psalter is quite different. The other readings are mostly the same, but whereas LBW's daily lectionary is based on "Weeks after Pentecost" and starts at the beginning, then stops whenever Advent begins, the BCP daily lectionary is based on "Propers" and lops off unneeded weeks at the beginning, so that it always ends in the same place just before Advent. In the BCP lectionary (as in Pfatteicher's Daily Prayer) the readings are designated according to the date of the Sunday (e.g., "readings for the week after the Sunday closest to June 21").
The LSB also handles the Sundays after Pentecost according to the propers assigned to the Sunday. Each proper is assigned to the Sunday that falls within a set date range.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 30, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
This is just more of the same “freedom of worship not freedom of religion” Marxist claptrap your fellow travelers in leftist politics are trying to push. It’s nonsense.

The sad thing is they will eat you last. But eat you they will. You are a male praying mantis. You are in bed with the very people who will eventually kill you. And you think they’re your friends.

Fortunately, for Pastor Stoffregen and the rest of us, we have at least a few Supreme Court justices who understand the nature of the problem well.  From this morning's opinion:

"Often, governments lack effective ways to control what lies in a person’s heart or mind. But they can bring to bear enormous power over what people say and do. The right to be religious without the right to do religious things would hardly amount to a right at all."

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Weedon on June 30, 2020, 12:28:19 PM
Dan.

But not in the one year LSB lectionary. An important caveat. Also our daily lectionary runs in calendar dates save from Ash Wed thru Trinity Sunday. Truly an odd mis!
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 30, 2020, 01:04:07 PM
This is just more of the same “freedom of worship not freedom of religion” Marxist claptrap your fellow travelers in leftist politics are trying to push. It’s nonsense.

The sad thing is they will eat you last. But eat you they will. You are a male praying mantis. You are in bed with the very people who will eventually kill you. And you think they’re your friends.

Fortunately, for Pastor Stoffregen and the rest of us, we have at least a few Supreme Court justices who understand the nature of the problem well.  From this morning's opinion:

"Often, governments lack effective ways to control what lies in a person’s heart or mind. But they can bring to bear enormous power over what people say and do. The right to be religious without the right to do religious things would hardly amount to a right at all."

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).


From James 1

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (ESV)


Do you think that these are the "religious things" that he is talking about?

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 30, 2020, 01:25:36 PM
This is just more of the same “freedom of worship not freedom of religion” Marxist claptrap your fellow travelers in leftist politics are trying to push. It’s nonsense.

The sad thing is they will eat you last. But eat you they will. You are a male praying mantis. You are in bed with the very people who will eventually kill you. And you think they’re your friends.

Fortunately, for Pastor Stoffregen and the rest of us, we have at least a few Supreme Court justices who understand the nature of the problem well.  From this morning's opinion:

"Often, governments lack effective ways to control what lies in a person’s heart or mind. But they can bring to bear enormous power over what people say and do. The right to be religious without the right to do religious things would hardly amount to a right at all."

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).


From James 1

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (ESV)


Do you think that these are the "religious things" that he is talking about?
Are the examples that James gives here the only things that should be considered "religious things" the doing of which is protected under the Constitution? (And should the Constitution be construed to only protect the religious rights of people to do these Christian things? The "religious things" of other religions are out of luck?)


James includes keeping oneself unstained from the world. What exactly does that mean? Some Christians have understood keeping oneself unstained from the world to include not participating in same sex weddings by using their God given talents and abilities to create things to celebrate such worldly and unholy events. To use their talents to help celebrate what they believe is contrary to God's will would be to be stained by the world. Since you suggest that this passage from James 1 illustrates what should be considered "religious things" that we do, does that mean that you support as a First Amendment right for craftsmen to refuse to craft items for same sex weddings?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 30, 2020, 01:41:21 PM
For heaven sake, again, Pastor Fienen! Is everything, and I mean everything in any discussion related to that damned wedding cake? Maybe you could find another example of how you think you and your people are so victimized and oppressed.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 30, 2020, 01:50:43 PM
This is just more of the same “freedom of worship not freedom of religion” Marxist claptrap your fellow travelers in leftist politics are trying to push. It’s nonsense.

The sad thing is they will eat you last. But eat you they will. You are a male praying mantis. You are in bed with the very people who will eventually kill you. And you think they’re your friends.

Fortunately, for Pastor Stoffregen and the rest of us, we have at least a few Supreme Court justices who understand the nature of the problem well.  From this morning's opinion:

"Often, governments lack effective ways to control what lies in a person’s heart or mind. But they can bring to bear enormous power over what people say and do. The right to be religious without the right to do religious things would hardly amount to a right at all."

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).


From James 1

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (ESV)


Do you think that these are the "religious things" that he is talking about?

Yes, in part (but certainly not exclusively, for Gorsuch reads the Free Exercise clause liberally and not in a wooden way to achieve political ends).  Here is a large portion of what precedes the quote I gave you earlier.  I won't spend time editing, so if it's too cumbersome to read in this format, you can also feel free to look at pp. 4-6 of the opinion for yourself:

"Our cases have long recognized the importance of protect- ing religious actions, not just religious status. In its very first decision applying the Free Exercise Clause to the States, the Court explained that the First Amendment pro- tects the “freedom to act” as well as the “freedom to believe.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940). The Court then reversed a criminal conviction against Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah’s Witnesses who were pros- ecuted not because of who they were but because of what they did—proselytize door-to-door without a license. See id., at 300–301, 307, 311. In fact, this Court has already recognized that parents’ decisions about the education of their children—the very conduct at issue here—can consti- tute protected religious activity. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972), the Court held that Amish parents could not be compelled to send their children to a public high school if doing so would conflict with the dictates of their faith. See id., at 214–215, 220, 234–235.

Even cases that seemingly focus on religious status do so with equal respect for religious actions. In McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978) (plurality opinion), for example, a State had barred the clergy from serving in the state leg- islature or at the state constitutional convention. See id., at 620–622. Some have described the discrimination there as focused on religious “ ‘ status.’ ” Trinity Lutheran, 582
Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 5 GORSUCH, J., concurring U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7) (quoting McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 627) (emphasis deleted). But no one can question that con- duct lurked just beneath the surface. After all, the State identified clergy based on their “conduct and activity,” and the plurality opinion concluded that the State’s prohibition was based on “status, acts, and conduct.” 435 U. S., at 627; see also id., at 630–633 (Brennan, J., concurring in judg- ment); Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520 (1993).

Consistently, too, we have recognized the First Amend- ment’s protection for religious conduct in public benefits cases. When the government chooses to offer scholarships, unemployment benefits, or other affirmative assistance to its citizens, those benefits necessarily affect the “baseline against which burdens on religion are measured.” Locke v. Davey, 540 U. S. 712, 726 (2004) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (cit- ing Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 16 (1947)). So, as we have long explained, the government “penalize religious activity” whenever it denies to religious persons an “equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges en- joyed by other citizens.” Lyng v. Northwest Indian Ceme- tery Protective Assn., 485 U. S. 439, 449 (1988). What ben- efits the government decides to give, whether meager or munificent, it must give without discrimination against re- ligious conduct.
Our cases illustrate the point. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963), for example, a State denied unemploy- ment benefits to Adell Sherbert not because she was a Sev- enth Day Adventist but because she had put her faith into practice by refusing to labor on the day she believed God had set aside for rest. See id., at 399–401. Recognizing her right to exercise her religion freely, the Court held that Ms. Sherbert was entitled to benefits. See id., at 410. Similarly, in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707 (1981), the Court held that Eddie Thomas had the right to resign from his job and still collect an unem- ployment check after he decided he could not assemble mil- itary tank turrets consistent with the teachings of his faith. See id., at 709–712, 720. In terms that speak equally to our case, the Court explained that the government tests the Free Exercise Clause whenever it “conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or . . . denies such a benefit because of conduct man- dated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pres- sure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Id., at 717–718.
The First Amendment protects religious uses and actions for good reason. What point is it to tell a person that he is free to be Muslim but he may be subject to discrimination for doing what his religion commands, attending Friday prayers, living his daily life in harmony with the teaching of his faith, and educating his children in its ways? What does it mean to tell an Orthodox Jew that she may have her religion but may be targeted for observing her religious cal- endar? "
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 30, 2020, 02:23:02 PM
This is just more of the same “freedom of worship not freedom of religion” Marxist claptrap your fellow travelers in leftist politics are trying to push. It’s nonsense.

The sad thing is they will eat you last. But eat you they will. You are a male praying mantis. You are in bed with the very people who will eventually kill you. And you think they’re your friends.

Fortunately, for Pastor Stoffregen and the rest of us, we have at least a few Supreme Court justices who understand the nature of the problem well.  From this morning's opinion:

"Often, governments lack effective ways to control what lies in a person’s heart or mind. But they can bring to bear enormous power over what people say and do. The right to be religious without the right to do religious things would hardly amount to a right at all."

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).


From James 1

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (ESV)


Do you think that these are the "religious things" that he is talking about?
Are the examples that James gives here the only things that should be considered "religious things" the doing of which is protected under the Constitution? (And should the Constitution be construed to only protect the religious rights of people to do these Christian things? The "religious things" of other religions are out of luck?)


James includes keeping oneself unstained from the world. What exactly does that mean? Some Christians have understood keeping oneself unstained from the world to include not participating in same sex weddings by using their God given talents and abilities to create things to celebrate such worldly and unholy events. To use their talents to help celebrate what they believe is contrary to God's will would be to be stained by the world. Since you suggest that this passage from James 1 illustrates what should be considered "religious things" that we do, does that mean that you support as a First Amendment right for craftsmen to refuse to craft items for same sex weddings?


I don't consider baking a cake to be a religious activity.


One could become like the Amish or Essenes of old, or enter a monastery and try to separate one's self from the world.


It's more likely that James gives us a hint of what he meant by "unstained from the world" when he uses a related word in 3:6: "And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell." We stain ourselves by the words we speak; not by avoiding the world.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 30, 2020, 02:41:17 PM
This is just more of the same “freedom of worship not freedom of religion” Marxist claptrap your fellow travelers in leftist politics are trying to push. It’s nonsense.

The sad thing is they will eat you last. But eat you they will. You are a male praying mantis. You are in bed with the very people who will eventually kill you. And you think they’re your friends.

Fortunately, for Pastor Stoffregen and the rest of us, we have at least a few Supreme Court justices who understand the nature of the problem well.  From this morning's opinion:

"Often, governments lack effective ways to control what lies in a person’s heart or mind. But they can bring to bear enormous power over what people say and do. The right to be religious without the right to do religious things would hardly amount to a right at all."

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).


From James 1

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (ESV)


Do you think that these are the "religious things" that he is talking about?

Yes, in part (but certainly not exclusively, for Gorsuch reads the Free Exercise clause liberally and not in a wooden way to achieve political ends).  Here is a large portion of what precedes the quote I gave you earlier.  I won't spend time editing, so if it's too cumbersome to read in this format, you can also feel free to look at pp. 4-6 of the opinion for yourself:

"Our cases have long recognized the importance of protect- ing religious actions, not just religious status. In its very first decision applying the Free Exercise Clause to the States, the Court explained that the First Amendment pro- tects the “freedom to act” as well as the “freedom to believe.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940). The Court then reversed a criminal conviction against Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah’s Witnesses who were pros- ecuted not because of who they were but because of what they did—proselytize door-to-door without a license. See id., at 300–301, 307, 311. In fact, this Court has already recognized that parents’ decisions about the education of their children—the very conduct at issue here—can consti- tute protected religious activity. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972), the Court held that Amish parents could not be compelled to send their children to a public high school if doing so would conflict with the dictates of their faith. See id., at 214–215, 220, 234–235.

Even cases that seemingly focus on religious status do so with equal respect for religious actions. In McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978) (plurality opinion), for example, a State had barred the clergy from serving in the state leg- islature or at the state constitutional convention. See id., at 620–622. Some have described the discrimination there as focused on religious “ ‘ status.’ ” Trinity Lutheran, 582
Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 5 GORSUCH, J., concurring U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7) (quoting McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 627) (emphasis deleted). But no one can question that con- duct lurked just beneath the surface. After all, the State identified clergy based on their “conduct and activity,” and the plurality opinion concluded that the State’s prohibition was based on “status, acts, and conduct.” 435 U. S., at 627; see also id., at 630–633 (Brennan, J., concurring in judg- ment); Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520 (1993).

Consistently, too, we have recognized the First Amend- ment’s protection for religious conduct in public benefits cases. When the government chooses to offer scholarships, unemployment benefits, or other affirmative assistance to its citizens, those benefits necessarily affect the “baseline against which burdens on religion are measured.” Locke v. Davey, 540 U. S. 712, 726 (2004) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (cit- ing Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 16 (1947)). So, as we have long explained, the government “penalize religious activity” whenever it denies to religious persons an “equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges en- joyed by other citizens.” Lyng v. Northwest Indian Ceme- tery Protective Assn., 485 U. S. 439, 449 (1988). What ben- efits the government decides to give, whether meager or munificent, it must give without discrimination against re- ligious conduct.
Our cases illustrate the point. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963), for example, a State denied unemploy- ment benefits to Adell Sherbert not because she was a Sev- enth Day Adventist but because she had put her faith into practice by refusing to labor on the day she believed God had set aside for rest. See id., at 399–401. Recognizing her right to exercise her religion freely, the Court held that Ms. Sherbert was entitled to benefits. See id., at 410. Similarly, in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707 (1981), the Court held that Eddie Thomas had the right to resign from his job and still collect an unem- ployment check after he decided he could not assemble mil- itary tank turrets consistent with the teachings of his faith. See id., at 709–712, 720. In terms that speak equally to our case, the Court explained that the government tests the Free Exercise Clause whenever it “conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or . . . denies such a benefit because of conduct man- dated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pres- sure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Id., at 717–718.
The First Amendment protects religious uses and actions for good reason. What point is it to tell a person that he is free to be Muslim but he may be subject to discrimination for doing what his religion commands, attending Friday prayers, living his daily life in harmony with the teaching of his faith, and educating his children in its ways? What does it mean to tell an Orthodox Jew that she may have her religion but may be targeted for observing her religious cal- endar? "

Who gets to decide if an action is religious or not? Carrying a knife is part of the Sikh religion. Wiki presents it this way: "The kirpan is a sword or a dagger of any size and shape, carried by Sikhs. It is also part of a religious commandment given by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699, in which he gave an option to the Sikhs, if they accepted they must wear the five articles of faith (the five Ks) at all times, the kirpan being one of five Ks." (More can be found here (https://www.sikhcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/kirpan-factsheet-aug2018.pdf).)

Should they be allowed to carry a knife on an airplane? Especially, since another religious command is long hair under a turban. Could that freak out other passengers? (The answer is, Yes. They are allowed to carry a kirpan on an airplane, but the government has stated the size it must be.)

If a Sikh can join the military and not cut his hair or beard, because of religious reasons, why not all the other recruits, too?

Where can Christians show that their religious commands state that they cannot bake a cake, like Sikhs can do for their hair and knife?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 30, 2020, 03:50:02 PM
Who gets to decide if an action is religious or not? Carrying a knife is part of the Sikh religion. Wiki presents it this way: "The kirpan is a sword or a dagger of any size and shape, carried by Sikhs. It is also part of a religious commandment given by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699, in which he gave an option to the Sikhs, if they accepted they must wear the five articles of faith (the five Ks) at all times, the kirpan being one of five Ks." (More can be found here (https://www.sikhcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/kirpan-factsheet-aug2018.pdf).)

Should they be allowed to carry a knife on an airplane? Especially, since another religious command is long hair under a turban. Could that freak out other passengers? (The answer is, Yes. They are allowed to carry a kirpan on an airplane, but the government has stated the size it must be.)

If a Sikh can join the military and not cut his hair or beard, because of religious reasons, why not all the other recruits, too?

Where can Christians show that their religious commands state that they cannot bake a cake, like Sikhs can do for their hair and knife?

The question is not whether one's religious exercise in all instances controls.  It obviously does not.  The question is whether government can single out religious believers because they act in accordance with their religion, as they did with Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.  The Court held explicitly it cannot.  There is a difference between saying "no one can bring a knife on an airplane" and saying "Sikh believers cannot bring knives on airplanes."  As you know, both from the decision and from numerous conversations on this board leading up to the decision, the issue was not "bak[ing] a cake."  Rather, it was whether the government could compel Jack Phillips to use his artistic talents to design a custom cake that expressed a message antithetical to his religious views.

For my part, I've said over and over, I'd have baked the cake.  But neither me nor you gets to tell Jack Phillips what his religious conscience dictates.  Thank God.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 30, 2020, 04:25:44 PM
If a Sikh can join the military and not cut his hair or beard, because of religious reasons, why not all the other recruits, too?
Hair preference is not a Constitutionally protected right, practicing ones religion, even if it involves ones state of hair, is.

Where can Christians show that their religious commands state that they cannot bake a cake, like Sikhs can do for their hair and knife?
That is exactly the wrong question. For one thing, I have already shown you how.

James includes keeping oneself unstained from the world. What exactly does that mean? Some Christians have understood keeping oneself unstained from the world to include not participating in same sex weddings by using their God given talents and abilities to create things to celebrate such worldly and unholy events. To use their talents to help celebrate what they believe is contrary to God's will would be to be stained by the world. Since you suggest that this passage from James 1 illustrates what should be considered "religious things" that we do, does that mean that you support as a First Amendment right for craftsmen to refuse to craft items for same sex weddings?
Now, I totally understand that you disagree with that interpretation of James and with that understanding of what God commands us to do. Some Christians do not see it your way and that is their understanding of God's commands. The discussion of which interpretation is the correct Christian interpretation is a good discussion for us Christians to have among ourselves as we decide for ourselves what our faith means and would have us to do. It is exactly not a discussion that the Government should have and decide for us. Yet that is what you think should happen. You argue that refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding is not a command God makes to us, and thus it should not be considered as a "religious thing" protected under the Free Exercise Clause.


We have not had an ecumenical body that could claim to speak authoritatively for all Christians for what a thousand years? Do you claim to have that authority to speak to what all Christian everywhere, or even all Christians in the United States must believe and how they must act in order to be Christian in the eyes of the State?


There is only one way in which the validity of a belief should be challenged by the state. That is if there is reason to suspect fraud, that it is not a religious belief, but something fraudulent going on. And that could be very hard to prove.


Guys, you're going about this the wrong way. You seem to want to be able to tell everybody and the government what is a valid Christian belief. You really can only do that in your own church body, and that has proven problematic. People decide for themselves what they believe. If freedom of religion means anything at all, it means that.


The crucial question that needs to be asked in any dispute about the free exercise of religion and actions that might if not religious be illegal is: Is there a compelling state interest to be furthered by restricting the action claimed as religious, and is that restriction the least burdensome way to further that interest? Claims of religious freedom do not automatically supersede all other law, regulations, or rights. But any law or regulation that burdens the free exercise of religion needs to be subject to strict scrutiny. It is not a question of whether the majority approve of the "religious thing" or not.


I wish you would realize that your claim that refusal to bake a cake for a same sex wedding isn't and shouldn't be a part of our Christian religion, doesn't make a fig leaf of difference. That is not the question. The question is whether there is a compelling state interest in forcing the baker to bake. That case you could try to but have not made.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on June 30, 2020, 04:26:46 PM


Where can Christians show that their religious commands state that they cannot bake a cake, like Sikhs can do for their hair and knife?


They did not ask Jack Philiphs to "bake a cake." He would have sold them any cake sitting on his shelf.

But they wanted him to design a cake for their wedding. Designing is artistic expression. Cake designs can even be copyrighted. That means they wanted the cake to give a specific message.

Whether you agree or not, he believes that designing and creating a wedding cake for a same sex couple would be stating that he agrees and approves of same sex marriage. He also will not design a cake to celebrate a divorce or even for something as innocuous as Halloween.

The simple fact is that his artistic skills should not be coerced into communicating a message that he disagrees with. No one should. As I've mentioned earlier, several dress designers stated that they would never design and make Melanie Trump's gown for the Trump inauguration. But, according to your argument, the Trumps should have been able to force them to do so; after all, they're just making a dress.

Your argument would also require a black Christian graphic artist to design and create posters and banners for a white supremacist rally. After all, it's just a sign and there's nothing in the Bible against making signs.

Your position would also require a gay Christian cake artist to "bake a cake" for an anti-gay celebration. After all, Christians can't show that they can't bake a cake.

But if that's the world you want to live in, go for it.

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 30, 2020, 04:48:39 PM
This current discussion also illustrates why I tend to distrust Democrats whenever they go near the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. I suspect that both Pr. Stoffregen and Pr. Austin are if not Democrats, at least very sympathetic to their causes. There is a tendency for the effect of the actions of Democrats to want the government (at least when Democrats are in charge of the government) to be able to tell people what are and what are not important religious commands that believers may put into practice in their lives.


A believer believes that his God commands him not to bake a cake. The government for various reasons thinks that he should. How can it be decided whether the government should be able to compel him to bake the cake or face punishment for failure to comply? My impression of what Democrats want to do is decide whether or not that belief is one that a person should be able to live out in their life as a member of the greater community. If the government decides that they do not like that belief about conduct, the person needs to change their belief.


There is another way to approach this impasse, one that is already in law. That is strict scrutiny of the governments claim of compelling state interest. See the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: MaddogLutheran on June 30, 2020, 05:23:50 PM
Where can Christians show that their religious commands state that they cannot bake a cake, like Sikhs can do for their hair and knife?
This is the fundamental aspect of the First Amendment freedom of religion guarantee you fail to grasp:  no Christian has to show that, because government is specifically prohibited from adjudicating whether that is a "correct" Christian belief.  Neither you nor the government can decide for the purposes of the First Amendment whether I am rightly christianing, and thereby whether my beliefs deserve protecting.

But I suspect this won't be the last time you attempt this is relevant, as it's certainly not first.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 30, 2020, 05:46:45 PM
Maybe you have to get into another line of work. As I have said 1000 times, if your faith would Not allow you to rent a hotel room to a gay couple on their honeymoon, And if the law has decided that you may not discriminate that way, then you do not have an absolute constitutional right to run a hotel.
Supposing a pacifist wanted to become a police officer but not carry a weapon. Lawsuit? I wouldn’t support that. There’s no constitutional right to become a police officer.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 30, 2020, 06:01:19 PM
Where can Christians show that their religious commands state that they cannot bake a cake, like Sikhs can do for their hair and knife?
This is the fundamental aspect of the First Amendment freedom of religion guarantee you fail to grasp:  no Christian has to show that, because government is specifically prohibited from adjudicating whether that is a "correct" Christian belief.  Neither you nor the government can decide for the purposes of the First Amendment whether I am rightly christianing, and thereby whether my beliefs deserve protecting.

But I suspect this won't be the last time you attempt this is relevant, as it's certainly not first.

Precisely.  It isn't the government's job to determine what is and what is not proper Christian belief.  They want the establishment clause, only without what Justice Roberts refers to as the "play in the joints" between it and the free exercise clause.  The free exercise clause, so goes the reasoning, is rendered essentially meaningless.

Which is why Justice Gorsuch's little line I quoted above is so very important.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on June 30, 2020, 06:03:55 PM
Maybe you have to get into another line of work. As I have said 1000 times, if your faith would Not allow you to rent a hotel room to a gay couple on their honeymoon, And if the law has decided that you may not discriminate that way, then you do not have an absolute constitutional right to run a hotel.
Supposing a pacifist wanted to become a police officer but not carry a weapon. Lawsuit? I wouldn’t support that. There’s no constitutional right to become a police officer.

"The law" which you tout so freely, and yet about which you know so precious little, makes an explicit distinction between a large corporate entity and a smaller, closely held corporation.  So the president of Hilton Hotels may not be able to refuse to rent to a gay couple.  And the owners of a small basement apartment or bed and breakfast might be able to.  And there is a gulf of gray area in between those two positions, where the Court is still making law.

What you wish the law to be and what it is are two different things.  It would be wise at this point for you to read the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby stores decision.  And probably Masterpiece Cakeshop as well.  And not only the dissents, which posit your view, but the majority holdings, which are "the law."
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on June 30, 2020, 06:38:56 PM
Maybe you have to get into another line of work. As I have said 1000 times, if your faith would Not allow you to rent a hotel room to a gay couple on their honeymoon, And if the law has decided that you may not discriminate that way, then you do not have an absolute constitutional right to run a hotel.
Supposing a pacifist wanted to become a police officer but not carry a weapon. Lawsuit? I wouldn’t support that. There’s no constitutional right to become a police officer.

Maybe you're correct.

In which case dress designers need to get into another line of work.

So do graphic designers.

So do speech writers, poets, and other artists. After all, if they do commissions, then anyone can force them to write whatever they ask.

Of course, some people did just that. They went to gay cake artists in Colorado to ask them to design cakes that expressed a message that they disagreed with. Of course, they turned down those requests.

When they were brought before the Colorado Commission on Human Rights, the Commission sided with them. On what basis? That this was "hate speech." In whose view? Why, the CCHR of course!

So now you have the government telling private enterprises what kind of speech they must endorse and what they do not have to endorse. Do you really want the government to have that kind of power? I don't.

BTW, your analogy is faulty. Renting a hotel room, or an apartment, would be analogous to the couple buying a cake off of the shelf. One cannot refuse to rent a room to a gay couple. One can also not refuse to rent a room to a man with a KKK robe draped over one arm. But one can refuse to design a cake depicting a burning cross. One can also refuse to design a cake celebrating a same sex marriage. In the first, one simply provides essentially a service which is the same no matter who you are. The second is something created specially for the occasion.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jim Butler on June 30, 2020, 06:41:49 PM
Maybe you have to get into another line of work. As I have said 1000 times,

Just because you've said it 1000 times doesn't make it so.

Indeed, I've been amazed that you've been wrong that many times. I'd like to think that you've learned by now.

Now you've been wrong for 1001 times. Maybe we'll have better luck with 1002. But I doubt it.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 30, 2020, 07:10:28 PM
Who gets to decide if an action is religious or not? Carrying a knife is part of the Sikh religion. Wiki presents it this way: "The kirpan is a sword or a dagger of any size and shape, carried by Sikhs. It is also part of a religious commandment given by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699, in which he gave an option to the Sikhs, if they accepted they must wear the five articles of faith (the five Ks) at all times, the kirpan being one of five Ks." (More can be found here (https://www.sikhcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/kirpan-factsheet-aug2018.pdf).)

Should they be allowed to carry a knife on an airplane? Especially, since another religious command is long hair under a turban. Could that freak out other passengers? (The answer is, Yes. They are allowed to carry a kirpan on an airplane, but the government has stated the size it must be.)

If a Sikh can join the military and not cut his hair or beard, because of religious reasons, why not all the other recruits, too?

Where can Christians show that their religious commands state that they cannot bake a cake, like Sikhs can do for their hair and knife?

The question is not whether one's religious exercise in all instances controls.  It obviously does not.  The question is whether government can single out religious believers because they act in accordance with their religion, as they did with Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.  The Court held explicitly it cannot.  There is a difference between saying "no one can bring a knife on an airplane" and saying "Sikh believers cannot bring knives on airplanes."  As you know, both from the decision and from numerous conversations on this board leading up to the decision, the issue was not "bak[ing] a cake."  Rather, it was whether the government could compel Jack Phillips to use his artistic talents to design a custom cake that expressed a message antithetical to his religious views.

For my part, I've said over and over, I'd have baked the cake.  But neither me nor you gets to tell Jack Phillips what his religious conscience dictates.  Thank God.


Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."


If Rev. Joe Blow's religious conscience says that he deflowers all the young girls in his flock, wouldn't you want the government to override his conscience? His "religious" acts are illegal. Calling it a religious act (and using a nice euphemism) doesn't suddenly make it legal.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: pearson on June 30, 2020, 07:11:52 PM

Maybe you have to get into another line of work. As I have said 1000 times, if your faith would Not allow you to rent a hotel room to a gay couple on their honeymoon, And if the law has decided that you may not discriminate that way, then you do not have an absolute constitutional right to run a hotel.


Of course, no gay couple has an absolute constitutional right to a particular hotel room, either.

And, as you you have also said 1000 times:  But we digress.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 30, 2020, 07:30:52 PM
Who gets to decide if an action is religious or not? Carrying a knife is part of the Sikh religion. Wiki presents it this way: "The kirpan is a sword or a dagger of any size and shape, carried by Sikhs. It is also part of a religious commandment given by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699, in which he gave an option to the Sikhs, if they accepted they must wear the five articles of faith (the five Ks) at all times, the kirpan being one of five Ks." (More can be found here (https://www.sikhcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/kirpan-factsheet-aug2018.pdf).)

Should they be allowed to carry a knife on an airplane? Especially, since another religious command is long hair under a turban. Could that freak out other passengers? (The answer is, Yes. They are allowed to carry a kirpan on an airplane, but the government has stated the size it must be.)

If a Sikh can join the military and not cut his hair or beard, because of religious reasons, why not all the other recruits, too?

Where can Christians show that their religious commands state that they cannot bake a cake, like Sikhs can do for their hair and knife?

The question is not whether one's religious exercise in all instances controls.  It obviously does not.  The question is whether government can single out religious believers because they act in accordance with their religion, as they did with Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.  The Court held explicitly it cannot.  There is a difference between saying "no one can bring a knife on an airplane" and saying "Sikh believers cannot bring knives on airplanes."  As you know, both from the decision and from numerous conversations on this board leading up to the decision, the issue was not "bak[ing] a cake."  Rather, it was whether the government could compel Jack Phillips to use his artistic talents to design a custom cake that expressed a message antithetical to his religious views.

For my part, I've said over and over, I'd have baked the cake.  But neither me nor you gets to tell Jack Phillips what his religious conscience dictates.  Thank God.


Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."


If Joe Blow's religious conscience says that he deflowers all the young girls in my flock, wouldn't you want the government to override his conscience? His "religious" acts are illegal. Calling it a religious act (and using a nice euphemism) doesn't suddenly make it legal.
I should give up, you pretend that either religious people should have no rights that cannot be denied by a simple law, or the alternative is that religious people can do anything and everything to anyone and be exempt from any consequences by claiming religious freedom. The reality is quite different as I have posted repeatedly, but obviously since that actual law is inconvenient to your narrative of religious rights will run amuck unless they are easily squashed, you ignore a pretend that those who do not follow your beliefs are irresponsible threats to humanity.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 30, 2020, 07:42:28 PM
Maybe you have to get into another line of work. As I have said 1000 times, if your faith would Not allow you to rent a hotel room to a gay couple on their honeymoon, And if the law has decided that you may not discriminate that way, then you do not have an absolute constitutional right to run a hotel.
Supposing a pacifist wanted to become a police officer but not carry a weapon. Lawsuit? I wouldn’t support that. There’s no constitutional right to become a police officer.
Great Caesar's Ghost (to quote the editor of a great metropolitan newspaper). Sooner or later any discussion of religious rights ends up with you blathering on about renting hotel rooms to a same sex couple for their honeymoon. What does that have to do with this? The circumstances of a hotel rental is much different.


Should a baker be allowed to refuse to sell a cake off the shelf to a gay customer because of religious scruples? (The closest your scenario comes to the Masterpiece Cakeshop situation.) I don't know, that hasn't been adjudicated. In the case of the Christian baker, he offered to sell the couple any premade, standard cake in his shop. He only refused to custom create a cake for their occasion.


When was the last time that a case came to attention of the press, much less the courts, of a hotelier refusing to rent a room to a same sex couple on religious grounds? I can't remember one, can you? Much less having such a case being referred to the Supreme Court and being decided in favor of the one accused of illegal discrimination?


Charles, did anyone ever tell you that life is messy and complicated? You want to lump all situations into one simple situation. Details matter, especially in complicated situations with competing rights being claimed. But I understand, you don't want it messy, you want it uncomplicated. When it is traditionally minded Christians, they should just buckle under and conform or allow themselves to be pushed to the margins of society, rarely seen and never heard.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on June 30, 2020, 08:58:36 PM
Pastor Fienen:
When it is traditionally minded Christians, they should just buckle under and conform or allow themselves to be pushed to the margins of society, rarely seen and never heard.
Me:
No, not all of them.
Just some of them. (Do you want a list?"  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  )
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 01, 2020, 08:03:52 AM
For heaven sake, again, Pastor Fienen! Is everything, and I mean everything in any discussion related to that damned wedding cake? Maybe you could find another example of how you think you and your people are so victimized and oppressed.

Well, it's not "me and my people who are so victimized and oppressed," but does 63 million dead children, a disproportionate number of whom are Black count?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on July 01, 2020, 08:13:39 AM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights.  And let's be honest, literally nobody wants that in any even-handed way.  You don't want the government passing a law requiring "non-discrimination" in public statements, and then coming into your church and telling you that you must preach on the evils of female pastors and open communion, or the virtue of Trump administration policies on immigration, or whatever.  And of course, you would grant (for yourself) that this would violate the free exercise clause if they tried.  You don't want black bakery owners being forced to create Confederate flag cakes or Klan cakes, you don't want gay bakery owners forced to create traditional marriage cakes, etc.  In fact, that latter instance was key to the Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop:

"Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection."

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___; 138 S. Ct. 1719 (slip op. at 14-15) (2018).

The difference, of course, is that so far as I have seen here, no Christians are endorsing the idea that gay bakers or black bakers should just "bake the cake, bigot," and be ruined by the government if they refuse.  Everyone I've seen here agrees that you should not be forced to endorse messages you find appalling.  So yes, there may be, and in fact have been, cases where someone's legitimate religious objection is insufficient to get past a neutral law of general application. But the government does not have the authority to decide whose religious objections are legitimate, nor whose offense is righteous and whose is disapproved.  In fact, the Court expressly said as much:

"A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as 'no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,'  The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs."

Id.
at 16.

And also.....

There is another problem with sliding up the generality scale: it risks denying constitutional protection to religious beliefs that draw distinctions more specific than the government’s preferred level of description. To some, all wedding cakes may appear indistinguishable. But to Mr. Phillips that is not the case—his faith teaches him otherwise. And his religious beliefs are entitled to no less respectful treatment than the bakers’ secular beliefs in Mr. Jack’s case. This Court has explained these same points 'repeatedly and in many different contexts' over many years. For example, in Thomas a faithful Jehovah’s Witness and steel mill worker agreed to help manufacture sheet steel he knew might find its way into armaments, but he was unwilling to work on a fabrication line producing tank turrets. Of course, the line Mr. Thomas drew wasn’t the same many others would draw and it wasn’t even the same line many other members of the same faith would draw. Even so, the Court didn’t try to suggest that making steel is just making steel. Or that to offend his religion the steel needed to be of a particular kind or shape. Instead, it recognized that Mr. Thomas alone was entitled to define the nature of his religious commitments—and that those commitments, as defined by the faithful adherent, not a bureaucrat or judge, are entitled to protection under the First Amendment. It is no more appropriate for the United States Supreme Court to tell Mr. Phillips that a wedding cake is just like any other—without regard to the religious significance his faith may attach to it—than it would be for the Court to suggest that for all persons sacramental bread is just bread or a kippah is just a cap."

Id.
at 11-12 (Gorsuch, J., concurring, citations omitted).

And, of course, the Court also specifically noted that:

"This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti- discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation."

Id.
at 14.

So there is a balance not only Constitutionally, but in fact in the very same law being applied in this case, which protects both gay people and religious believers, presumably equally.  Nonetheless, as noted above, the Court found explicitly the CCRC did not protect both equally.  In fact, it put its thumb on the scale.  It cannot do this.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, the government is 1) not allowed to determine whose religious beliefs are "legitimate," 2) required to apply the law generally and neutrally, and 3) forbidden from discriminating against religious believers in favor of other groups, including the group du jour, which today is gay people, but tomorrow might be someone else, opposed to gay people.

The Court is not simply protecting Jack Phillips here.  It is protecting all of us.

Quote
If Rev. Joe Blow's religious conscience says that he deflowers all the young girls in his flock, wouldn't you want the government to override his conscience? His "religious" acts are illegal. Calling it a religious act (and using a nice euphemism) doesn't suddenly make it legal.

No.  For the reasons I outline above.  What the government is required to be is neutral and what laws are required to be is generally applicable.  Neither was true in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on July 01, 2020, 09:16:28 AM
Well, considering the most recent Scotus decision, I am among those, probably a minority, who contend that the government should not be giving any money to private schools whether they are religious or not.
If you want to run a private school for a certain kind of student, or offer certain special things for certain families, fine, you can do that. But don’t ask me to help you pay for it.
If you want to create a certain set of standards or type of curriculum or type of “social” education, you are free to do so. With your own money. My concern is for the population as a whole, for education for all. Free public education is practically a hallmark of our country. To undercut it by providing funds for private schools, again, no matter what their religious standing, it’s not a good idea.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 01, 2020, 09:31:30 AM
Well, considering the most recent Scotus decision, I am among those, probably a minority, who contend that the government should not be giving any money to private schools whether they are religious or not.
If you want to run a private school for a certain kind of student, or offer certain special things for certain families, fine, you can do that. But don’t ask me to help you pay for it.
If you want to create a certain set of standards or type of curriculum or type of “social” education, you are free to do so. With your own money. My concern is for the population as a whole, for education for all. Free public education is practically a hallmark of our country. To undercut it by providing funds for private schools, again, no matter what their religious standing, it’s not a good idea.
Why should I be expected to pay for schools who teach things I disapprove of? If we want to fund education, we must do it without preference for creed. Or we can stop funding education and let all parents do what you’re expecting religious parents to do. But we can’t say we all must chip in to pay to educate children in way that is acceptable to atheists, but nobody must be forced to chip in for someone to learn in a way that acceptable to believers. The problem is that you wield the power of the majority selectively. If a teacher wants to lead his largely Christian class in prayer, too bad, that would be the tyranny of the majority. If someone wants to absent their children from LGBTQ indoctrination, too bad, the majority has determined what shall be taught and will brook no dissent.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 01, 2020, 09:36:32 AM
For heaven sake, again, Pastor Fienen! Is everything, and I mean everything in any discussion related to that damned wedding cake? Maybe you could find another example of how you think you and your people are so victimized and oppressed.

Well, it's not "me and my people who are so victimized and oppressed," but does 63 million dead children, a disproportionate number of whom are Black count?

Still waiting, patiently and respectfully for an answer...
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on July 01, 2020, 09:41:51 AM
Peter:
Why should I be expected to pay for schools who teach things I disapprove of?
Me:
Well, Peter, unfortunately you live in a country that offers free public education, paid for with taxpayer funds. You get a chance to vote for your local school board. You get a chance to vote for your local state and federal representative. They get to make the laws and policies about such things.
Do you want to start a tax revolt over the matter? Go for it.
We have been through decades, literally decades of discussion about these matters. And you were acting as if it is 1948 and nothing has been said.
If you don’t like what’s being taught in the public schools, then Work to get it changed, or send your kids to private schools.  On your own dimes. You don’t get to take dimes and dollars away from the public education supportEd by the vast majority of our citizenry.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on July 01, 2020, 09:42:58 AM
P. S. And we do allow homeschooling. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but we allow it. There you are.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James_Gale on July 01, 2020, 10:08:32 AM
Well, considering the most recent Scotus decision, I am among those, probably a minority, who contend that the government should not be giving any money to private schools whether they are religious or not.
If you want to run a private school for a certain kind of student, or offer certain special things for certain families, fine, you can do that. But don’t ask me to help you pay for it.
If you want to create a certain set of standards or type of curriculum or type of “social” education, you are free to do so. With your own money. My concern is for the population as a whole, for education for all. Free public education is practically a hallmark of our country. To undercut it by providing funds for private schools, again, no matter what their religious standing, it’s not a good idea.


Why would you favor a system that preserves private schools for the affluent but forces the poor--including many children from minority-majority communities--to attend what often are among our country's worst schools?  School-choice policies (vouchers, opportunity scholarships, etc.) enjoy wide support among African Americans precisely because they provide opportunities otherwise not available to get a good education. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 01, 2020, 10:09:15 AM
Peter:
Why should I be expected to pay for schools who teach things I disapprove of?
Me:
Well, Peter, unfortunately you live in a country that offers free public education, paid for with taxpayer funds. You get a chance to vote for your local school board. You get a chance to vote for your local state and federal representative. They get to make the laws and policies about such things.
Do you want to start a tax revolt over the matter? Go for it.
We have been through decades, literally decades of discussion about these matters. And you were acting as if it is 1948 and nothing has been said.
If you don’t like what’s being taught in the public schools, then Work to get it changed, or send your kids to private schools.  On your own dimes. You don’t get to take dimes and dollars away from the public education supportEd by the vast majority of our citizenry.
That's my point. Precisely because I live in a country that offers free public education, paid for taxpayer funds, I must insist that it not discriminate for or against my religious views or anyone else's. In the state of Indiana we as the majority of voters have determined that the voucher system works best for students and parents and should include any and all schools without respect to creed. That should be the end of the matter. But your side insists on taking it to court on the grounds that you should never be forced to pay for children to learn what I might teach them, but I should be forced to pay for children to learn what you might teach them. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Voelker on July 01, 2020, 10:09:50 AM
you live in a country that offers free public education, paid for with taxpayer funds.
Hmmmm.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 01, 2020, 10:15:12 AM
Well, considering the most recent Scotus decision, I am among those, probably a minority, who contend that the government should not be giving any money to private schools whether they are religious or not.
If you want to run a private school for a certain kind of student, or offer certain special things for certain families, fine, you can do that. But don’t ask me to help you pay for it.
If you want to create a certain set of standards or type of curriculum or type of “social” education, you are free to do so. With your own money. My concern is for the population as a whole, for education for all. Free public education is practically a hallmark of our country. To undercut it by providing funds for private schools, again, no matter what their religious standing, it’s not a good idea.


Why would you favor a system that preserves private schools for the affluent but forces the poor--including many children from minority-majority communities--to attend what often are among our country's worst schools?  School-choice policies (vouchers, opportunity scholarships, etc.) enjoy wide support among African Americans precisely because they provide opportunities otherwise not available to get a good education.
We've seen a major increase in voucher students this year. I should note that many of the voucher students are also church members. The income threshold to qualify is quite high. But slightly less than half the students this fall will be in the voucher program. The main beneficiaries are students from Hammond, East Chicago, and Gary, all of which have truly failing school districts where ethnic minorities are in the majority. It is amazing that some people construe it such that a policy that gives poor people in failing school districts access to the same education as everyone else is somehow bad.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on July 01, 2020, 10:18:56 AM
Well, it's not "me and my people who are so victimized and oppressed," but does 63 million dead children, a disproportionate number of whom are Black count?
Deacon Hummel  ... you hit the nail on the head ... it's really Some Black Lives Matter  ... or Black Lives Matter ... when politically expedient.


Together with my Pastor,  I believe that ALL lives matter to Christ  ... and that is what REALLY counts.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 01, 2020, 10:49:36 AM
We've see a major increase in voucher students this year. I should note that many of the voucher students are also church members. The income threshold to qualify is quite high. But slightly less than half the students this fall will be in the voucher program. The main beneficiaries are students from Hammond, East Chicago, and Gary, all of which has truly failing school districts where ethnic minorities are in the majority. It is amazing that some people construe it such that a policy that gives poor people in failing school districts access to the same education as everyone else is somehow bad.
Thank you for highlighting this.  I was hoping we might get to this in Pr. Morris' Areas of opportunity in racial conflict (http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7524.0) thread.  It's what I was getting out with how money is being wasted from doing things wrong.  Education is certainly one of them, and more money is not a panacea.

What I find frustrating is the prevailing initial assumption that we cannot improve the lives of some minorities unless we can improve it for all of them.  It's unrealistic to think we can improve all failing school systems any time soon.  Why do we not have more upward mobility among minorities?  Not enough get a decent education to make them employable in higher skilled jobs.  How about we "save" the ones we can, which will eventually create greater candidate pools in the job market.  Like I said in the other thread, in my engineering world we don't racially discriminate in hiring; we see effectively zero minimally qualified minority candidates.

But no, we can't have vouchers or charter schools.  The national teacher unions are against it, because it will "hurt" public education.  Actually, I think public education in certain places is doing a great deal of harm without any help from vouchers.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on July 01, 2020, 11:41:30 AM
Apparently, in this thread and in that other thread, something has happened to throw chum in the waters. The sharks smelled it and the feeding frenzy is underway. The sharks want to feed and chew on the bloody flesh; they are not interested in discussion.
I think I’ll row my small dinghy to calmer waters hoping that fish more friendly will show up. Got no hooks, so we’ll talk rather than seeK one another’s demise.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 01, 2020, 11:45:59 AM
Are you sure you're responding to the correct thread?  The recent discussion on this one has only been about school vouchers and charter schools.  Is that troubling, unlike sexist comments that make you smile?  "Republicans pounce!"

It's good to know you are the one reasonable person here.  The rest of us are just crazed partisans obviously.  Your signal of virtue is hereby noted.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 01, 2020, 12:38:18 PM
For heaven sake, again, Pastor Fienen! Is everything, and I mean everything in any discussion related to that damned wedding cake? Maybe you could find another example of how you think you and your people are so victimized and oppressed.

Well, it's not "me and my people who are so victimized and oppressed," but does 63 million dead children, a disproportionate number of whom are Black count?

Still waiting, patiently and respectfully for an answer...

<crickets...>

all the while the humble correspondent ignores accusations against him of sexism bias and posts on "all" black lives that matter...  I'm not surprised.  Neither am I amused.  I didn't even "smile" just a bit.

Apparently, in this thread and in that other thread, something has happened to throw chum in the waters. The sharks smelled it and the feeding frenzy is underway. The sharks want to feed and chew on the bloody flesh; they are not interested in discussion.
I think I’ll row my small dinghy to calmer waters hoping that fish more friendly will show up. Got no hooks, so we’ll talk rather than seeK one another’s demise.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 01, 2020, 12:43:13 PM
Apparently, in this thread and in that other thread, something has happened to throw chum in the waters. The sharks smelled it and the feeding frenzy is underway. The sharks want to feed and chew on the bloody flesh; they are not interested in discussion.
I think I’ll row my small dinghy to calmer waters hoping that fish more friendly will show up. Got no hooks, so we’ll talk rather than seeK one another’s demise.
What are you talking about? You posted something about not wanting any public funds used to send kids to schools like ours. I responded. Who is chumming the waters?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 01, 2020, 12:46:01 PM
P. S. And we do allow homeschooling. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but we allow it. There you are.

Is that the royal "we?" What gives you the right to pass judgement on homeschooling? What do you actually know about it? When I was a Lutheran and surrounded by clergy like you, who would also say they didn't know homeschooling families, I would smile and think of the families from our homeschool co-op who were in ther parishes, but knew to keep their mouth shut because they knew their pastor was as narrow minded and judgemental as you.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 01, 2020, 12:51:15 PM
P. S. And we do allow homeschooling. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but we allow it. There you are.

Is that the royal "we?" What gives you the right to pass judgement on homeschooling? What do you actually know about it? When I was a Lutheran and surrounded by clergy like you, who would also say they didn't know homeschooling families, I would smile and think of the families from our homeschool co-op who were in ther parishes, but knew to keep their mouth shut because they knew their pastor was as narrow minded and judgemental as you.
What is breathtaking is how raising one's own children is now something one does by the benevolent leave of the government. Really? You'll let me educate my children as long as I pay for the school they aren't using? That's really big of you. 
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 01, 2020, 12:53:32 PM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 


From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on July 01, 2020, 01:08:56 PM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 


From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 01, 2020, 01:11:09 PM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 


From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.


You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on July 01, 2020, 01:12:38 PM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 


From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.


You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Can you give me a citation?  Where in the opinion can I find the "message written on the cake" finding?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on July 01, 2020, 01:22:02 PM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 


From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.


You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Can you give me a citation?  Where in the opinion can I find the "message written on the cake" finding?

Perhaps, Brian, you saw that ruling in a western, not in the opinion.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 01, 2020, 01:29:01 PM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 


From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.


You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf)

Can you give me a citation?  Where in the opinion can I find the "message written on the cake" finding?



State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. (p. 2)

Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.” Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned.

Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.” Ibid. The couple left the shop without further discussion. (p. 4)

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 01, 2020, 01:36:57 PM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 


From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

Brian, Brian, you are being so far behind the times and woodenly literalistic to boot. In current jurisprudence, just about any expressive action can be considered Constitutionally protected "speech." That also includes words that are uttered, written, typed, dictated, broadcast, transmitted, recorded, or videoed, but it certainly is not limited to verbal speech. For many years, probably decades the burning of an American Flag has been considered to be legally protected speech. Flag burning may include the use of words, but it need not in order to be Constitutionally protected speech. Whether or not there are actual words formed of letters strung together placed amidst the decorations of a cake, confecting a cake for a specific occasion for specific people is an expression of some sort. Cake designs, whether they include words or not, can be copyrighted. A wedding cake, especially a custom crafted cake, is by its very nature and expression of celebration, congratulation, and commendation of the (two, usually for now, tomorrow, who knows?) persons being joined in marriage. That is expressive, hence speech, even if the expression is not spelled out in letters gathered into words. If the cake were not expressing meant to be an expression of something about the occasion, but merely a sweet treat after the wedding meal, no need for a special cake, a cake or cakes off the baker's rack would do the same.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on July 01, 2020, 01:51:00 PM
Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 


From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.

What you've read apparently doesn't include the actual Supreme Court opinion.  Which says absolutely nothing remotely like what you espouse here.


You're mistaken. That's exactly what I gathered from reading the actual Supreme Court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf)

Can you give me a citation?  Where in the opinion can I find the "message written on the cake" finding?



State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. (p. 2)

Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.” Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned.

Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.” Ibid. The couple left the shop without further discussion. (p. 4)

Okay, that is the factual recitation of the case, not the holding of the Court.  Further, if you read that first paragraph you cite carefully, you'll note Justice Kennedy is rebuking the CCRC for not considering Phillips' case in the same light as prior cases involving gay bakers.

The holding, which I have cited for you upstream, says something completely different than your enumerated (a) sentence says.  Completely different.  As I noted above, it does not turn on whether cakes can convey messages, and certainly not on whether they contain writing, which you still have not cited a single sentence to support.  Obviously, I think they can convey messages without regard to what is written on them.  I doubt Jack Phillips would make a cake shaped like a phallus either, for example.  Rather, the holding of the Court turns on the disparate treatment of Phillips versus the gay bakers who refused to created custom cakes for Christian customers who requested them.  The Court, in essence, held that Colorado may find that baked goods convey no message (and thus force gay bakers to "bake the cake, bigot"), or that they convey messages (and thus allow the gay bakers to refuse to bake the cake).  But whatever Colorado does with regard to the gay bakers, Jack Phillips must be fed from the same spoon.  Since he wasn't, Colorado violated his First Amendment rights.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 02, 2020, 01:34:15 AM
For heaven sake, again, Pastor Fienen! Is everything, and I mean everything in any discussion related to that damned wedding cake? Maybe you could find another example of how you think you and your people are so victimized and oppressed.

Well, it's not "me and my people who are so victimized and oppressed," but does 63 million dead children, a disproportionate number of whom are Black count?

Still waiting, patiently and respectfully for an answer...

Still waiting... And I might add, I am curious about your exercise of Progressive privilege in castigating homeschooling.

I am being patient and respectful. But I notice a pattern. When someone challenges your bullying, you pick up the ball and go home.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on July 02, 2020, 05:08:20 AM
Mr. Hummel:
Still waiting... And I might add, I am curious about your exercise of Progressive privilege in castigating homeschooling.
I am being patient and respectful. But I notice a pattern. When someone challenges your bullying, you pick up the ball and go home.

Me:
No, you are not “curious.” You do not care about my opinion and you may not demand that I give one.I have consistently refrained from being drawn into the set where you get to define all the words and smugly splatter your favorite slogans and “data” on the wall. I am not trying to change your opinion and I don’t care what you think of mine. That’s not bullying; if I were a bully, I would not find you a target worth the effort. It is just ignoring you and the “pattern” I notice in your reactions.
But guess what? We progressives do have privilege (and so do you whatever you want to call yourselves). 
We get to say “Don’t care for homeschooling. Think it’s a bad idea. But it’s legal, so do it of you wish.”
It would be better for the forum if you ignored me. It is better for the forum that I not respond to your questions.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 02, 2020, 11:50:39 AM

It would be better for the forum if you ignored me. It is better for the forum that I not respond to your questions.

Charles:  an observation and a comment.  First, you "threaten" to ignore/not comment all the time, and then you repeatedly do that which you threaten not to.

Second, it's fascinating that in all the warnings Pr. Speckhard has given over the past few days, there is one common thread between them all, and it is you.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 02, 2020, 02:11:23 PM

It would be better for the forum if you ignored me. It is better for the forum that I not respond to your questions.

Charles:  an observation and a comment.  First, you "threaten" to ignore/not comment all the time, and then you repeatedly do that which you threaten not to.

Second, it's fascinating that in all the warnings Pr. Speckhard has given over the past few days, there is one common thread between them all, and it is you.


You don't think that those who goad Charles into responding is not a common thread?
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 02, 2020, 03:07:29 PM
You don't think that those who goad Charles into responding is not a common thread?

Oh yes, thanks for the correction.  Our collective ignorance is what makes Pr. Austin insult everyone he interacts with here.  We definitely deserve it.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 02, 2020, 06:48:17 PM
Mr. Hummel:
Still waiting... And I might add, I am curious about your exercise of Progressive privilege in castigating homeschooling.
I am being patient and respectful. But I notice a pattern. When someone challenges your bullying, you pick up the ball and go home.

Me:
No, you are not “curious.” You do not care about my opinion and you may not demand that I give one.I have consistently refrained from being drawn into the set where you get to define all the words and smugly splatter your favorite slogans and “data” on the wall. I am not trying to change your opinion and I don’t care what you think of mine. That’s not bullying; if I were a bully, I would not find you a target worth the effort. It is just ignoring you and the “pattern” I notice in your reactions.
But guess what? We progressives do have privilege (and so do you whatever you want to call yourselves). 
We get to say “Don’t care for homeschooling. Think it’s a bad idea. But it’s legal, so do it of you wish.”
It would be better for the forum if you ignored me. It is better for the forum that I not respond to your questions.

Charles- Well golly. I am taken aback. You have chastised others, myself, included, for reading motive into other people's words, and yet here you are doing it.

You have chastised others, myself included, for not exercising Luther's admonition with regard to the Eighth Commandment. And yet here you are doing it.

So what do you call someone who imposes demands on others that he sees no need to follow himself. [Besides "President Trump." Beat you to it.  ;)]?

Why do you get to say "homeschooling is a bad idea? On what grounds do you make your claims. This is the Progressive Privileging about which I wrote. I saw it consistently in the ELCA. There are any number of unchallenged assumptions that, when one asks, "Why?," one is met with reprimand. As for issues of the sanctity of human life, ask yourself why is ok that we have to take time out to listen to the message that [born] Black Lives Matter but it is so tiringly churlish for mouthbreathers such as myself to bring up the topic of abortion? You cannot have it both ways.

Oh- and one final matter. Since you do not follow the practice here of using given names as a sign of fraternal relationship (or sorroral, in certain instances), I am going to have to politely ask you to use the correct form of address in describing me. If you would please use the proper form of address, it would be appreciated. As a Priest of Jesus Christ ordained in the Catholic Church, I am best addressed as Father Hummel, though, where appropriate, please feel free to use the abbreviation Fr.

Have a blessed day! :)




Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 03, 2020, 02:34:46 AM
You don't think that those who goad Charles into responding is not a common thread?

Oh yes, thanks for the correction.  Our collective ignorance is what makes Pr. Austin insult everyone he interacts with here.  We definitely deserve it.


As the saying goes: It takes two to tango.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on July 03, 2020, 12:44:37 PM
Oh- and one final matter. Since you do not follow the practice here of using given names as a sign of fraternal relationship (or sorroral, in certain instances), I am going to have to politely ask you to use the correct form of address in describing me. If you would please use the proper form of address, it would be appreciated. As a Priest of Jesus Christ ordained in the Catholic Church, I am best addressed as Father Hummel, though, where appropriate, please feel free to use the abbreviation Fr.

Have a blessed day! :)

For some reason, I never knew you were a priest.  My apologies for those, likely numerous, times I failed to address you as such.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: John_Hannah on July 03, 2020, 01:18:46 PM
I would surmise that Matt Hummel was recently ordained. A few months ago he was Deacon Hummel, and now he is Father Hummel.

Congratulations! I do not encourage Lutherans to leave for Rome (or Constantinople) but do not resent those who do. I am grateful for their contributions while Lutheran and pray for their continued friendship and good will.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Jeremy_Loesch on July 03, 2020, 01:45:41 PM
Oh- and one final matter. Since you do not follow the practice here of using given names as a sign of fraternal relationship (or sorroral, in certain instances), I am going to have to politely ask you to use the correct form of address in describing me. If you would please use the proper form of address, it would be appreciated. As a Priest of Jesus Christ ordained in the Catholic Church, I am best addressed as Father Hummel, though, where appropriate, please feel free to use the abbreviation Fr.

Have a blessed day! :)

For some reason, I never knew you were a priest.  My apologies for those, likely numerous, times I failed to address you as such.

Don't feel bad. He was ordained this past Monday on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, so it has been less than a week. He's Fadduh Hummel to me. Or Matt.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Charles Austin on July 03, 2020, 02:09:41 PM
So his snippy comment to me was his way of announcing that he had been ordained in the Roman catholic church? Curious, but I get it.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: readselerttoo on July 03, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
So his snippy comment to me was his way of announcing that he had been ordained in the Roman catholic church? Curious, but I get it.

It is good and proper to clarify:  not Catholic Church but Roman Catholic Church.  There are other catholic churches.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 03, 2020, 04:54:47 PM
Oh- and one final matter. Since you do not follow the practice here of using given names as a sign of fraternal relationship (or sorroral, in certain instances), I am going to have to politely ask you to use the correct form of address in describing me. If you would please use the proper form of address, it would be appreciated. As a Priest of Jesus Christ ordained in the Catholic Church, I am best addressed as Father Hummel, though, where appropriate, please feel free to use the abbreviation Fr.

Have a blessed day! :)

For some reason, I never knew you were a priest.  My apologies for those, likely numerous, times I failed to address you as such.

David- It is a relatively new thing. My ordination to the transitional diaconate was last November. My ordination to the presbyterate was earlier this week.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 03, 2020, 05:03:28 PM
I would surmise that Matt Hummel was recently ordained. A few months ago he was Deacon Hummel, and now he is Father Hummel.

Congratulations! I do not encourage Lutherans to leave for Rome (or Constantinople) but do not resent those who do. I am grateful for their contributions while Lutheran and pray for their continued friendship and good will.

Peace, JOHN

John- Thank you for your gracious words. I understand, I think, your concerns, and, FWIW, the journey for me began with some excellent Lutheran formators in my first year of Seminary. It has been more a "going to" than a "leaving from." One companion on the journey was the organist at a former parish who was gay. We talked about coming out as Catholic.


Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: James J Eivan on July 03, 2020, 05:07:28 PM
So his snippy comment to me was his way of announcing that he had been ordained in the Roman catholic church? Curious, but I get it.
It is good and proper to clarify:  not Catholic Church but Roman Catholic Church.  There are other catholic churches.
Thank you for your clarification ... from confirmation days last century I was taught that there is  big difference between catholic and Catholic .. especially when it comes to the Lutheran Confessions.
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 03, 2020, 05:15:05 PM
So his snippy comment to me was his way of announcing that he had been ordained in the Roman catholic church? Curious, but I get it.

Wait- I thought you were going to ignore me.

And, if I am snippy, it's because for over a decade have sat at the feet of the Master. Thank you for all the lessons

As for getting it, I too get it. The consistent use of "Mr." Please don't aver that it is about etiquette. Just own the schadenfreude of one talking down to one drummed out of the regiment.

Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: David Garner on July 03, 2020, 06:17:44 PM
Oh- and one final matter. Since you do not follow the practice here of using given names as a sign of fraternal relationship (or sorroral, in certain instances), I am going to have to politely ask you to use the correct form of address in describing me. If you would please use the proper form of address, it would be appreciated. As a Priest of Jesus Christ ordained in the Catholic Church, I am best addressed as Father Hummel, though, where appropriate, please feel free to use the abbreviation Fr.

Have a blessed day! :)

For some reason, I never knew you were a priest.  My apologies for those, likely numerous, times I failed to address you as such.

David- It is a relatively new thing. My ordination to the transitional diaconate was last November. My ordination to the presbyterate was earlier this week.

Congratulations! Axios!
Title: Re: Unholy
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 03, 2020, 06:24:33 PM
Oh- and one final matter. Since you do not follow the practice here of using given names as a sign of fraternal relationship (or sorroral, in certain instances), I am going to have to politely ask you to use the correct form of address in describing me. If you would please use the proper form of address, it would be appreciated. As a Priest of Jesus Christ ordained in the Catholic Church, I am best addressed as Father Hummel, though, where appropriate, please feel free to use the abbreviation Fr.

Have a blessed day! :)

For some reason, I never knew you were a priest.  My apologies for those, likely numerous, times I failed to address you as such.

David- It is a relatively new thing. My ordination to the transitional diaconate was last November. My ordination to the presbyterate was earlier this week.

Congratulations! Axios!


Thank you. I have a number of Byzantine Catholic friends, so I appreciate the Axios!