Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[David Garner]

How would it harm the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is Lord?


I think what you mean is that it would harm the moral conviction of some conservative Christians. What one believes about homosexual relationships or civil rights, is not what makes someone a Christian.

What it sounds to me is that you are arrogating to yourself the right to define for everyone who claims the name Christian what is essential to the faith and what are mere personal convictions that can be denied without any affect on the Christian faith.


If the Equality Act somehow outlaws the moral conviction that homosexual sexual activity is contrary to God's will, or makes acting on that conviction illegal, well that does nothing against what is the genuine Christian faith so real religious freedom is not impinged upon. I am Christian, that doesn't bother my faith, so it should not yours either. Just get better moral convictions.

And if you want to know why Christians can vote for a man like Donald Trump in great numbers, this right here is at the heart of it.

Religious freedom means nothing if it means only the liberty to worship, but not live and believe and think, according to my own religious values and principles.  I don't need Pastor Stoffregen to tell me what is true and right.  I certainly don't need Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.  And I'll be voting in the Senate races here in Georgia primarily over the threat of court packing, which would threaten the Supreme Court's firewall against infringement of those liberties.

People who don't like Donald Trump like to point out how immoral he is.  But their answer to him, Joe Biden, has promised to continue suing nuns, who have won twice at the Supreme Court, because apparently it is too much to leave them alone.  Someone else's politics does not inform my religion, and thanks be to God we have a strong majority of the Supreme Court willing to say so.  9 members of the Court rebuked the last attempt, but 2 formed a special concurrence in the judgment only (Kagan, joined by Breyer).  2 more dissented, claiming the Little Sisters of the Poor enjoy no religious right to avoid paying for abortifacient medications.  1 of those was recently replaced by Amy Coney Barrett.  And that has Democrats hopping mad.  Not that they cannot forge policies to help women attain healthcare, because surely they can.  But rather that they cannot force nuns to pay for it, and if they try the Supreme Court won't let them.

I'll swallow a lot of manure from a bad Republican candidate to stop people like that.

[Brian Stoffregen]

How would it harm the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is Lord?


I think what you mean is that it would harm the moral conviction of some conservative Christians. What one believes about homosexual relationships or civil rights, is not what makes someone a Christian.

What it sounds to me is that you are arrogating to yourself the right to define for everyone who claims the name Christian what is essential to the faith and what are mere personal convictions that can be denied without any affect on the Christian faith.


If the Equality Act somehow outlaws the moral conviction that homosexual sexual activity is contrary to God's will, or makes acting on that conviction illegal, well that does nothing against what is the genuine Christian faith so real religious freedom is not impinged upon. I am Christian, that doesn't bother my faith, so it should not yours either. Just get better moral convictions.

And if you want to know why Christians can vote for a man like Donald Trump in great numbers, this right here is at the heart of it.

Religious freedom means nothing if it means only the liberty to worship, but not live and believe and think, according to my own religious values and principles.  I don't need Pastor Stoffregen to tell me what is true and right.  I certainly don't need Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.  And I'll be voting in the Senate races here in Georgia primarily over the threat of court packing, which would threaten the Supreme Court's firewall against infringement of those liberties.

I look at how the U.S. allows the Amish to live their beliefs and I have little fears that the government would force compliance, except where a business wants state money, or their practices are harmful to others.

[David Garner]

I look at how the U.S. allows the Amish to live their beliefs and I have little fears that the government would force compliance, except where a business wants state money, or their practices are harmful to others.

Well, as long as we have the strong "harmful to others (according to Pastor Stoffregen and people who agree with him)" standard, I guess we'll all be okay, huh?

Of course, the reality is it isn't that simple, and because the 1st Amendment protects my rights, I don't want it to be.  So I'll rest on the Supreme Court's wise counsel in these matters and vote against buffoons who would pack that court with like-minded ideologues who want to overturn the 1st Amendment, if not directly, certainly by judicial fiat.

[D. Engebretson]

I look at how the U.S. allows the Amish to live their beliefs and I have little fears that the government would force compliance, except where a business wants state money, or their practices are harmful to others.

So, I'm assuming you would be okay, then, with conservative Christian universities and colleges accepting federal aid given to students to pay their tuition? The "business" is not asking for that money, the student is.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I look at how the U.S. allows the Amish to live their beliefs and I have little fears that the government would force compliance, except where a business wants state money, or their practices are harmful to others.

Well, as long as we have the strong "harmful to others (according to Pastor Stoffregen and people who agree with him)" standard, I guess we'll all be okay, huh?

Of course, the reality is it isn't that simple, and because the 1st Amendment protects my rights, I don't want it to be.  So I'll rest on the Supreme Court's wise counsel in these matters and vote against buffoons who would pack that court with like-minded ideologues who want to overturn the 1st Amendment, if not directly, certainly by judicial fiat.

The 1st Amendment also protects the rights of your neighbor. If your neighbors do not want a church/synagogue/temple built in their neighborhood, that can (and have) kept the land from being zoned for a religious building. There are places where you are not allowed to have a Bible study in your home; not because they are studying the Bible, because the housing area and parking area are not zoned or equipped for such gatherings. The 1st Amendment doesn't allow people to do whatever they want to do under the umbrella of freedom of religion. There are limits.


While not universally true, the state allows the Amish to drive their horse-drawn carts on the road, but they are required to use the slow moving vehicle sign on them. Christian Scientists are allowed to let God heal the sick, but when their religion puts children in danger of death or a child dies, there can be legal repercussions as in this case: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/23/us/supreme-court-roundup-christian-scientists-rebuffed-in-ruling-by-supreme-court.html

[Charles Austin]

Some portions of the Amish community actually sued Pennsylvania contending that the bright orange triangle required for their buggies violated their moral objection to "decorations" or some such frippery. They lost.
As everyone here knows, the question of the aid going to the students or to the school is a multi-faceted, tough one not easy to sort. Personally, I don't think I have too much objection, but it's not an issue for which I am willing to mount the barricades on one side or another. I do worry about anything that would undercut support for public schools, which educate the vast majority of our young people.
And should a church - whether congregation, synod, district, diocese or denomination - desire to have a school run totally under whatever doctrinal provisions held by that entity, they are free to do so. If someone who does not subscribe to those doctrinal provisions applies for a job there, I have no objection to the school saying "you cannot work here unless...." OTOH, if federal or state money is somehow flowing into that school....
Just teaching that gay marriage is an abomination in the sight of God to be shunned by all faithful believers is not in itself "hate speech." But using state funds to in any way spread that teaching is another problem.
I hope that in considering the future of education, we do not get locked in, hung up, tightly-wrapped or breathless over the "religious freedom" thing. There are more critical issues in education and in the land that need our attention.

[Commencement2020]

Did a Michigan County Threaten to Demolish Amish Homes Unless They Were Upgraded? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michigan-county-amish-homes/

A little over 100 years ago, Hutterites Joseph and Michael Hofer died following their torture. Following this, their large extended family left for Canada. Since then some returned, but most still live in Canada.

https://www.goshen.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/75/2016/06/Apr11Stoltzfus.pdf Armed With Prayer in an Alcatraz Dungeon: The Wartime Experiences of Four Hutterite C.O.'s in Their Own Words

Prior to the Japanese Internment, there was a mass sweep where they arrested all the clergy and other community leaders--including Christian pastors who were ethnically Japanese.

During WWI, German Lutherans in a number of states were subject to laws preventing them from educating children or preaching in German. Extensive and harassing investigations were conducted by the FBI. Clergy were targeted--on the basis of hearsay, they seized pastor's personal stockpiles of old mail and went through it, looking for contacts.

It isn't just the Amish or Hutterites.

They lost their daycare over accusations deemed unfounded. Now they’ve lost their church, too
https://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article223613710.html

and

A subheading: "Case Manager Tells Family to Stop Attending Church"  https://medicalkidnap.com/2015/05/02/daughters-removed-from-home-because-of-their-parents-christian-faith/

The children were ordered to get 10 hours of sleep & evening services got in the way of that. Not everything on medicalkidnap.com is reliable, but this description appears to be honest.

[Charles Austin]

Thread drift. No, thread tsunami. WTH?

[Commencement2020]

I look at how the U.S. allows the Amish to live their beliefs and I have little fears

Some Amish as of at least the beginning of this year were threatened with having their homes bulldozed.

There are 35,010 Hutterites in Canada as of 2016. How many countries out there have 35k or more religious refugees? I suppose Israel, Iraq, Syria, etc. Not a list you want your country to join.

The other examples are to show it isn't just an isolated thing. The government has a spotted track record on freedom of religion.

[Dan Fienen]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

The confession, Jesus is Lord, was sufficient in biblical times.

[peter_speckhard]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

The confession, Jesus is Lord, was sufficient in biblical times.

And as long as the words don’t mean anything, they suffice for you today. And as long as they mean what orthodox doctrine says they mean, they suffice for me today.

[Dan Fienen]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

The confession, Jesus is Lord, was sufficient in biblical times.

Did Paul find it sufficient that nothing else was needed and no disagreements so long as that was agreed to?

[J. Thomas Shelley]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

The confession, Jesus is Lord, was sufficient in biblical times.

Quite sufficient as a ticket to the Executioner's block or to the Stadium.

[Charles Austin]

And nearly all of those executioners’ blocks were owned and operated by established regimes attempting to keep segments of the populace under control, suppress dissent and remove troublemakers who dared to challenge the established order.
   Christians indeed suffered and died. Then, when they came to power, Christians took ownership of the executioners’ blocks. The bloody tide of ideological oppression ebbed and flowed.
   There is no bloody tide reaching the beaches of our land. We have instead trivialized persecution and monetized flawed concepts of “freedom”.
   -Is my child’s teacher gay and married? Oh, no! My faith is under attack!
  -So I can’t strip-mine a mountain or operate a factory that kills and sickens workers and neighbors? Oh, no! My freedom is under attack!
  -You say I cannot refuse services to people of a different race or lifestyle? Oh, no! You won’t let me practice my religion!
  -You won’t force nonbelievers to have their taxes run my church schools and propagate my faith? Oh, no! That’s religious persecution!
Do we really think that acknowledging the marriage of that gay teacher, selling clothing or cakes to gay couples, accepting regulations to save our neighbor’s health and clean air and water or being denied public funds for parish schools is a loss of true freedom or is religious oppression marching us towards an executioners’ block?
  We should give the new administration a chance. We should have a serious discussion, not project the worst.