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
But we all have to practice THEIR religion in public places.
Do you prevent Gays from joining your church?
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that within five years at least some states will deny priests, ministers, etc., the authority to issue marriage licenses if they refuse to marry homosexuals. That will have a decidedly chilling effect on religion.
A question for the Gay movement and those who are intent upon the destruction of the religious freedoms that this Country was founded upon ….
Who Made Your Rainbow ….?
I totally agree that this is the goal – or at the very least, it will be an outcome of the current trajectory we seem to be on.
Thanks for taking the time to round up those examples. I was aware of some of them, but not all.
I am not ‘against’ gay or trans- people. They’re just trying to live their lives on their own terms. And I don’t want them to be unhappy. But, if their happiness depends on being able to force other people to think and act in a way that is different from those peoples’ beliefs, then they’re going to have to cope with the inevitable disappointment we all feel with the world at some point or another. Because their rights end where mine begin. And, yes, I have rights too, and they’re not subordinate to the rights of the LGBT activists’ rights.
It’s much worse. They won’t stop at any boundary, which means that our homes and churches aren’t out of bounds to them either …
City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons
Exactly. Christians would be happy to accept a “Coexist” situation. Unfortunately, the LGBT…XYZ extremists have the same concept of coexistence as does another “religion” in the news these days ….
When, I wonder, was this not the case? Surely not at any time in North America since the 60s.
CBS news (which I rarely watch and try not to) before I could change the channel this morning was in the news attacking a group for building Noah’s ark as a tourist attraction near society. Although set out as a news story the narrative was disapproving and they had the great Bill Nye the science guy and some LGBT activist who was sure the Ark was built by people who thought Gays were icky. The point of the story was to generate ridicule for people who have a different understanding of the Bible than they do and would express that understanding publicly and publicly advocate for such and understanding. The Ark Facsimile has nothing to do with LGBT but CBS knows where to find reliable Christian bashers.
There are plenty of LGBT church and synagogue members who have had to go to the bathroom throughout history – I don’t think anyone noticed or cared when using the facilities in these dwellings. Changing and forcing new rules are to me, another chink in the belt to silence the Message – God’s message and his messengers (hospitals, clinics, private organizations, some Christian specific businesses like Christian Mingles, even military chaplains have to walk on egg shells).
All of these things are causing strain on Freedom of Religion and Speech – it’s ramped up dramatically in the last 10 years – it is financially, emotionally, physically, and spiritually draining – It’s also causing confusion among our youngest population at ages when they are most vulnerable – regarding gender, morality, everything is being turned on its head – I don’t think the goal is always obvious – but it’s underneath the turmoil.
I think that those people were fully ‘presenting’ as their new gender, and were not likely noticed. Part of the problem here is that government is allowing men (all men, in fact) to choose for themselves, on the spot, if they’d “feel’ like using the ladies bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms and showers. Women have lost the right to even confront men in the ladies rooms to ascertain what the man’s intent is. The assumption will now be that the men have the right to be there unless you catch them in the act of some sexual perversion. And the feeling, the rights, the safety and personal dignity of the women are being thrown to the curb as if they are irrelevant.
Also, they’ve created more laws for lawyer to exploit, and for activists to weaponize for the purpose of breaking down other peoples’ rights.
Have they won?
Conservative Silence On Religious Liberty
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/conservative-silence-on-religious-liberty/
“…a senior local school official in one of the most liberal, hostile states to religious liberty. He is on the verge of resignation, because the law there now compels him and every orthodox Christian in the school district to violate their consciences, in part by teaching and implementing gender ideology. If he remains and fights, he has been advised by lawyers that he opens himself up to personal lawsuits, and that the school system won’t defend bigots like him. He worries about losing everything to fight for the right of conscience…….”
I told the theologian who shared this story with me that the man ought to resign, because the state will grind him down, and LGBT activists will find a way to use the courts to take every penny he has and destroy his reputation. But what he should do is resign with a detailed public letter saying exactly what has happened there, and what the stakes are for religious liberty and coercion in this country. Because people — especially Christian people — don’t know, and, I fear, don’t want to know, because they don’t want to disturb their own peace and complacency.
As I said at the time during the SSM debates this is where libertarians must stand shoulder to shoulder with their SoCon allies and fight government intrusion and over reach. Regardless, of if this is a simply “misinterpretation” as Gary suggests or whether actual harm has yet been caused, we must fight this tooth and nail so that the specter of this kind of governmental discrimination into people’s private spiritual lives is cast into the dustbin of history.
You will find no greater ally in this fight than this particular SSM supporter – where do I sign up?
Exactly, Leftism is a religion and we need to treat it as such. These types of reactions are reactions of true believers to heresy.
Exactly Jamie, lovers of freedom and limited government need to unite against using the power of the government to suppress religious liberty. Although some on the left are waking up to this tryanny.
Jamie, this is why I love you. Not because we always agree — you are prickly and sensitive sometimes, or so it seems to my distorted vision — but you are a true fighter. I remember you saying this some time ago, and I am warmed to hear you repeating it.
(I love Gary too, to be clear!)
Here’s the best piece I’ve read on religious freedom recently. Mr. Pete Spialikos over at First things.
Except that it’s too late now because the key assumptions are now constitutional givens. We Christians and religious of all stripes better gird our loins for the trials ahead of us. Hopefully the worst we’ll face is cultural marginalization and loss of tax status, but my gut is more and more troubled in ways I thought impossible to be troubled just a few short years ago. I think I’ll start counseling a more serious attitude at the Knights of Columbus meetings for the inside and outside guards and a more organized approach to evangelization. Let the community know us us by our love in ways we haven’t seen in decades as we’ve grown fat and happy resting on our laurels.
Well, yeah, but I can still love a fighter in a hopeless cause, can’t I?
MJBubba:
I think all the examples you gave fall under the scope of public accommodation law which has been the law of the land for quite some time. I don’t like it but it is, unfortunately, the world we live in.
That said, I share Jamie’s sentiment regarding overreach in this area. I’ve made this point before but I think churches that want to remain insulated from government intrusion shouldn’t apply for tax exempt status. With government money comes government control. Don’t want that then don’t take the money.
Point of order: tax-exempt status does not mean you are getting government money, it means they aren’t getting yours.
People really need to stop thinking about tax dollars as belonging to the government by right.
The problem, as stated above, is not the tax-exempt status, it is that churches and their organizations, like Catholic Charities, are getting government money through government programs meant to help the poor, homeless, orphans, undocumented, etc.
Catholic Charities should never have gotten in bed with the government.
Not bad for a left-libertarian if I do say so myself.
It always helps to remember were on the same side more often than not.
True, but everyone has to pay taxes. So the issue isn’t who’s money it is but whether or not you’re getting special treatment. I will concede that it’s not the government’s money but they’re getting a special favor. Same principle applies.
And thank you for not commenting that for someone calling you prickly, I have been known to be prickly myself…
Sure, but it’ll take me a little longer for the gall to subside enough to enable me to welcome this alliance. I know it’s unChristain of me but this grudge will be difficult to dislodge.
This was entirely predictable, and was in fact predicted to jeers of derision by advocates of same sex marriage.
Marriage as traditionally understood as a conjugal union between a man and a woman was a bearing wall of civilization.
Removing that wall made the whole structure unstable. We are now beginning to see it crack up.
Those who advocated for redefining marriage were advocating for removing that bearing wall.
Those advocates now own a share of the responsibility for the crack up, even though they personally may not have advocated that the structure collapse.
“But I didn’t mean for that to happen” is no defense.
The advocates for legalizing same sex marriage own a piece of the responsibility for this whether they advocated for or intended this specific result or not.
I’d probably use a stronger word than prickly to describe myself.