Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Stand in Iowa
I suppose we could at least say “We told you so,” though I fear the phrase has lost the sense of smug, self-satisfaction it had when we were younger. Now, I once again see myself empathizing with Jeremiah, who had to constantly tell the people of Jerusalem how bad things would get while competing with many false prophets, even as things went exactly as Jeremiah predicted.
If anything, the current situation in Iowa only confirms what had been long predicted: The government — through bureaucracy and extralegal panels — has moved to compel religious organizations (including churches) to comply with the new progressive political morality. The religious concession supposedly in the laws isn’t even that, as a government hostile to religion and religious thought is now in the business of deciding what constitutes a legitimate religion. The more vocal and aggressive wing of the LGBT movement controls both that movement as well as the media. They will suffer no opposition, and require endorsement. Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
The [Iowa Civil Rights Commission] is interpreting a state law to ban churches from expressing their views on human sexuality if they would “directly or indirectly” make “persons of any particular…gender identity” feel “unwelcome” in conjunction with church services, events, and other religious activities. The speech ban could be used to gag churches from making any public comments—including from the pulpit—that could be viewed as unwelcome to persons who do not identify with their biological sex. This is because the commission says the law applies to churches during any activity that the commission deems to not have a “bona fide religious purpose.” Examples the commission gave are “a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public,” which encompasses most events that churches hold.
The live-and-let-live crowd was either dangerously naïve or dishonest from the get-go. The progressives had no intention of allowing anyone to think other than how they required. When progressives hold power, they are the sole arbiters of what is right and wrong, of who is innocent and who is guilty. The fact that the church yields to an authority greater than Man is unacceptable. First, society must yield to progressive moral pressure, then the schools, and now the church. Soon, the family will follow, losing any rights before an ever-expanding progressive state.
Religious liberty is now where we stand, and the progressives are acting the aggressors.Published in Law
” Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).” (Italics not in original.)”
Oh wait… maybe they’re really targeting Mosques?
By its very nature, a church service is always open to the public. Exactly! And here we have it, an organization apathetic towards religion at best telling churches what can and can’t be called a part of their religion.
What? Wait, are you telling me that all of those warnings against SSM really being a slippery slope were right?
After all is said and done, isn’t this going to come down to two options? Knuckle under or practice civil disobedience with attendant consequences. Are the churches prepared for the latter course?
I’ll be impressed when they force mosques to comply. and force them to allow women in their men-only worship services. Move that rug over, Omar! Here we come.
Good point, and what has been interesting is that when push comes to shove, the Progressives have shown more deference to Islam than to LGBT activists. Though many think they are just going after easy targets, I tend to think that Progressives tend to favor coercive governments and find more in common with Islam and Islamic states that they do with Christians and Christian liberty.
Yep. And I’d like to find a Muslim bakery that would bake a SSM wedding cake. See if they get a 6-figure fine and have their names smeared on the news.
I have to be a genius simply because of all the things I’ve called correctly over the last few years. The only other explanation is that I can see the future.
I have a question about the next NFL season. Nothing serious, just a few numbers…
It’s always risky running with a single-source outrage, and as soon as I saw the underlying material was from “Alliance Defending Freedom”, I was skeptical. I give them the trust I’d give an opposing group called “Dancing Men in Their Underwear”, no more, no less.
So go past ADF’s page to the source. It looks to me that this officious civil rights commission is guilty of misusing the word “service”, simple as that. Read it. It’s not referring to a Mass or “religious service”, it’s referring to “services” provided to the public of a non-religious nature. Naturally it never occurred to the drafters that other people might read “service” as prayer.
It’s badly written, no doubt about it. But until the anti-SSM crowd comes up with something real, stories like this have to go into the file with “We never landed on the Moon”.
Yea, who would have thunk it right? Hate to say I told you so but…….
I appreciate the thoughts, but since SSM has become codified the movement has been strongly for coercion and much less towards liberty. The Transgender phase has, in just the last year, exploded and politicians from all three branches of government plus the bureaucracy have vastly favored codification of acceptance and endorsement.
If this was an isolated event, I would watch is suspiciously, but such poorly worded documents are being used as a bludgeon by the more aggressive of activists.
In the grand scope of history, I think it’s going to turn out that the tax-exempt status was a strategic mistake.
The church has been at war with the world, the church will always be at war with the world ’till kingdom come.
I’m re-reading your survivalist posts even now…
Tax-exempt status has been something stirring in Progressive circles lately. I’ve frequently said that they are going to be sorely surprised when they finally do get rid of it. For decades the government has essentially bought the church’s silence with tax exempt status, and once that is gone they may find said organizations far more vocal and active than they think they are now.
The sad thing is that tax exempt status allowed for the Church to carry on one of its most important callings other than creating new disciples, and that is caring for those in need. Removing that status will hurt those at the bottom the most. Once again, Progressives will discover things will not go as they expect. For years, church assistance has allowed them to believe their insanity actually works …
Just a suggestion: copper wire makes a handy tool for sculpting false idols.
That’s right these people don’t exist, neither do these people. This never happened, or this. These people never had a problem, nor this, nor this, nor this. I could keep going but what is the point. A tread is happening and that is the fear. This is not an isolated incident. It is an indication that they are now going after religious ceremonies not just vendors or facilities.
A year ago I read here that churches will be forced to marry gay couples. I went out on a limb: no, they won’t. Not this year, not next year, not ever. That was the issue in question. I haven’t seen anything on “LifeSite News” that changes my mind.
I wish I had your optimism where the left is concerned.
They don’t really have to force them. What they want is to silence the opposition and practice of religion in daily life which is happening with increasing regularity. For many right now, the Church can be a safe haven from the perceived insanity and coercive nature of Social Progressivism. But if the government can now say, “Well, since your church’s day care isn’t a bona fide religious function you must accomodate transgenders in their bathroom choices,” that haven is gone. Social Progressivism can’t tolerate it. It wants to dismantle or nullify the Church.
From the documentary “Apocalypse Hitler:”
“Anti-Semitism had contaminated the universities. Nazism is perverting people’s minds, turning them against modern culture, imposing on them an intolerant, sectarian ideology …”
Not ever? Many a society throughout history has been surprised to witness happening what it was sure would never occur within it.
In other words, I wouldn’t be so quick to say churches never will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Rank and file gay couples probably don’t care one way or the other on the subject – especially since they now have the right to be married in the eyes of the state. For many, that’s all they really wanted. They couldn’t care less whether a church will perform a marriage ceremony for them or not. But the activists? They’re another story. They seem to live to forge things the way they want them to be, and they won’t stop until they’ve succeeded – or keeled over dead in the process.
Twenty years ago we would have said the same thing about gay marriage itself.
Ten years ago we would have said the same thing about all the examples Mate De listed.
The “It’ll never happen,” argument doesn’t work anymore. It is a proven lie; we don’t believe it, and that you apparently do causes us to question your judgment.
Rod Dreher’s Law of Merited Impossibility: It will never happen, and when it does you bigots will deserve it.
Mr. Dreher is not a serene guy-
Geez, Umbra, it’s not a proven lie, you don’t believe it but I do, and you’re always free to question my judgment. That’s the kind of site it is. I’ll have to accept the consequences, but I always do.
Weeping, you have a point. When I say “never”, I do mean to leave myself no weaseling room, but I’m also being hyperbolic, since I truly don’t know what the North American Confederation of 2176 or the Six-State Compact of 2201 is going to do. I mean something closer to a more modest forever of “the lifetime of anybody on Ricochet today, or their children.”
You’re quite uninformed on this point Gary. Gay activist groups have already sued churches for not performing “weddings”, both in the states and in the UK.
Oh goody. I was just thinking what all this Trump drama needs to lighten it up is another drag-out SSM thread.
Can we accept Gary’s challenge and let him alone for now? We’ll reconvene to argue the question once we’ve got an example of a church either A) being forced to perform such a wedding or B) being forced to close it’s doors in lieu of same.