White Christianity is in big trouble. And it’s its own biggest threat.

[Au165]

(12-21-2017, 03:04 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: The majority? Did you even read what I wrote?  A private business isn't the majority of society its owned by an individual or a group people. In fact if they do discriminate there probably in the minority of the culture.

You said to let society, through their interest in doing dealings with the company, decide if their policy is acceptable. My point is simply because the "majority", or enough of people to keep the business afloat, says it's okay doesn't make it okay. We did all this in the 60's with Civil rights, you are actually proposing a system that literally sets our country back 70 years.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-21-2017, 03:14 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: Yes individual rights are the worst argument against your point. Yes let's have the government force private businesses to sell to anyone the government wants them to.



Are you talking about Jim Crow laws which the southern state governments led by Democrats forced business to make different rules for white and black people? Is that what your talking about because having the government force a private  businesses to do what the government wants them to do is wrong.

You can try to church up saying "denial of civil rights" all you'd like, it doesn't really make it sound any better.  Regulations aren't always bad just because they're regulations. Requiring businesses to not discriminate against race, religion, age, sex, veteran status, disability, and even sexual preference is a good thing.

And just a heads up for future reference.  Jim Crow laws may have been created by Democrats, but anyone that knows US political history knows that Democrats used to be the conservative party.  The swapping of liberal/conservative ideologies was still going on until about the mid 20th century, when Kennedy and Johnson pushed civil rights, so using the "Jim Crow laws which the southern state governments led by Democrats" line is pointless. Thankfully we had the Republican party (liberals) around back then.

Which of the two do we think would be in favor of laws like that now? Since that's what's actually relevant.  It seems like republicans are now usually the ones in favor of banning blacks from private businesses as long as that's what the business wants to do.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 03:57 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: You can try to church up saying "denial of civil rights" all you'd like, it doesn't really make it sound any better.  Regulations aren't always bad just because they're regulations. Requiring businesses to not discriminate against race, religion, age, sex, veteran status, disability, and even sexual preference is a good thing.

And just a heads up for future reference.  Jim Crow laws may have been created by Democrats, but anyone that knows US political history knows that Democrats used to be the conservative party.  The swapping of liberal/conservative ideologies was still going on until about the mid 20th century, when Kennedy and Johnson pushed civil rights, so using the "Jim Crow laws which the southern state governments led by Democrats" line is pointless. Thankfully we had the Republican party (liberals) around back then.

Which of the two do we think would be in favor of laws like that now? Since that's what's actually relevant.  It seems like republicans are now usually the ones in favor of banning blacks from private businesses as long as that's what the business wants to do.

1. I too think discrimination is a bad thing; however, I feel violating one's religion freedoms is as well. So we must weight whose rights/freedoms are more important. In a conflict such as this; I weigh in on the side of free market.

2. Ah, the whole "we switched sides" debate. That one never gets old. My family (not the immediate one) has been active in the Democratic Party for over 100 years. 

3. That's just a tired argument. Really, you're better than the race card. 

[*PhilHos*]

The article was too long for me to read, but I probably wasn't going to read it after it assumed that because many evangelicals voted for Moore that somehow means they were fine with him being a pedophile.

First off, while the evidence does seem rather credible and if you want my opinion he probably is one, Moore has not been proven to have been a pedophile (or whatever the correct word is).

Secondly, and more importantly, most people vote on more than one issue. Most people vote for a candidate even when that candidate sucks if they feel the other candidate is worse in some way.

Lastly, I may come back and re-read it, but I will say this: I've often said the biggest enemy to Christianity is Christians. I may not agree with the articles examples (based on what parts I did read), but there are A LOT of examples of where Christians do things that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. And not just the Westboro Baptist Church jackholes, either, but regular "normal" Christians.

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 06:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The article was too long for me to read, but I probably wasn't going to read it after it assumed that because many evangelicals voted for Moore that somehow means they were fine with him being a pedophile.

First off, while the evidence does seem rather credible and if you want my opinion he probably is one, Moore has not been proven to have been a pedophile (or whatever the correct word is).

Secondly, and more importantly, most people vote on more than one issue. Most people vote for a candidate even when that candidate sucks if they feel the other candidate is worse in some way.

I do not disagree with any of this at all.

(12-21-2017, 06:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Lastly, I may come back and re-read it, but I will say this: I've often said the biggest enemy to Christianity is Christians. I may not agree with the articles examples (based on what parts I did read), but there are A LOT of examples of where Christians do things that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. And not just the Westboro Baptist Church jackholes, either, but regular "normal" Christians.

Based on this, you would agree with the premise of the article overall. I think the issue with this article, and the reason it got so off track n this thread, is it used these recent events as a rhetorical device to approach this in a peripheral way. Most people aren't going to accept an argument with a systematic, fact and logic, based approach. They are much more willing to accept an appeal to emotions. The problem is that he framed the argument in such a way that it immediately puts someone on the defensive if read in a certain way. Insiders, the people that would likely need to hear the message of the article, are the ones most likely to get turned off by the opening framing of the article.

It's why trying to critique religions, even from an insider position as the author of the article is coming from, is difficult. Peripheral approaches are the most effective way to go for any argument, but it can so easily go wrong when it comes to religion.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-21-2017, 06:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. I too think discrimination is a bad thing; however, I feel violating one's religion freedoms is as well. So we must weight whose rights/freedoms are more important. In a conflict such as this; I weigh in on the side of free market.

2. Ah, the whole "we switched sides" debate. That one never gets old. My family (not the immediate one) has been active in the Democratic Party for over 100 years. 

3. That's just a tired argument. Really, you're better than the race card. 

1. I agree that violating one’s religious freedoms is a bad thing. I just believe that your freedoms end when they start infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others. You should have any freedom imaginable as long as you aren’t taking them from other people.

2. The “we switched sides” thing is a reality, not a debate. You’ll find very few liberals who would identify with late 19th, early 20th century democrat politics, and the opposite is true with conservatives. There is no debating that the parties each flipped to the opposite side of the political spectrum.

3. I don’t see this as “playing the race card”, I see it as a valid comparison. If you’re in support of businesses being able to discriminate based on their personal preference, then are you not in support of them declining service to black people if they want to? Would it make you feel better if I said denying service based on sex or religion? It shouldn’t make people uncomfortable to discuss their support for discrimination based on race when they freely throw out support for discrimination based on sexual orientation. It’s just 2 different pages in the same shitty book.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 11:29 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: 1. I agree that violating one’s religious freedoms is a bad thing. I just believe that your freedoms end when they start infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others. You should have any freedom imaginable as long as you aren’t taking them from other people.

2. The “we switched sides” thing is a reality, not a debate. You’ll find very few liberals who would identify with late 19th, early 20th century democrat politics, and the opposite is true with conservatives. There is no debating that the parties each flipped to the opposite side of the political spectrum.

3. I don’t see this as “playing the race card”, I see it as a valid comparison. If you’re in support of businesses being able to discriminate based on their personal preference, then are you not in support of them declining service to black people if they want to? Would it make you feel better if I said denying service based on sex or religion? It shouldn’t make people uncomfortable to discuss their support for discrimination based on race when they freely throw out support for discrimination based on sexual orientation. It’s just 2 different pages in the same shitty book.

1> So we shouldn't take one's religious freedoms?

2) Okey Doke, the switched sides thing is not debatable.

3> Of course it's playing the race card, but the liberal is not opposed to using the black folk the support their agenda. Relook #2.

[GMDino]

Everyone has the right to their own religion.

They do not have a right to force anyone else to abide by it.

I hate that this cake thing keeps rearing its ugly head.  But if two guys walk in and order a wedding cake for Kris and Pat the baker doesn't need to know if either is a man or a woman or both.

Bake the damn cake.

If they want a message that is discriminatory they can refuse because...discrimination is illegal.

End of discussion.

All the "good Christians" who use their "freedom of religion" to discriminate against ANYONE are just hypocrites.  Period.

If you don't like gay people, black people, transgender people, whatever...that's on you.  Not your religion.  And stop using your religion to justify your own prejudices.

Personally I can come up with a dozen reasons to not like someone that isn't based on any religion.  But I also won't dislike them purely because of the color or who they choose to fall in love with or have sex with.

So as to keep with the OP:  "Religion" is almost a hijacked term these days.  We've gone from the days of illiterates being told what to think by their better educated clergy to people who have all the world's knowledge at their fingertips willfully ignoring it because they "know" their religion.

It's a big country....plenty of room for all of us.  It's just sad, to me, that so many choose to keep hate in their hearts (I'm not talking those that hate the sin, love the sinner).  And that they use their god to justify it is even sadder.

After all these years the biggest argument I have when talking religion with my very religious friends is that I feel god love us.  He want's us to be nice to each other and take care of each other and understands we are not perfect.  My god is not an angry god.  He is not the jealous, punishing god of the OT.  My god might not even be the god of the bible, or any holy book.  But my god is based on the things I was taught and how I interpret them.  Just like the people who hate and blame it on their god.  I just wish everyone used their faith and religion to help others rather than disparage others and help themselves.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-22-2017, 12:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1> So we shouldn't take one's religious freedoms?

2) Okey Doke, the switched sides thing is not debatable.

3> Of course it's playing the race card, but the liberal is not opposed to using the black folk the support their agenda. Relook #2.

Should we take others' religious freedoms?  No.
Are their freedoms to discriminate more important than other human beings' civil rights?  No.
So when those two ideas clash, one is going to have to win.  Your "religious freedom" is no longer valid when you're using it to discriminate and deny people equal rights.

If you can explain to me why denying service to a homosexual is not similar to denying service to an African American, then I'll accept your 'silly liberals and their race card agendas' complaint.  


When one poster says they support a business' right to deny service based on personal preference, why is it incorrect to assume that that applies to black people as well as homosexuals?  Is it because people feel they need to be more closeted about their discrimination against black people, while discrimination against gays is still slightly acceptable? Keep in mind....I was responding to someone that stated that they supported this. This was not brought up from nothing.

[GMDino]

(12-22-2017, 10:53 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Should we take others' religious freedoms?  No.
Are their freedoms to discriminate more important than other human beings' civil rights?  No.
So when those two ideas clash, one is going to have to win.  Your "religious freedom" is no longer valid when you're using it to discriminate and deny people equal rights.

If you can explain to me why denying service to a homosexual is not similar to denying service to an African American, then I'll accept your 'silly liberals and their race card agendas' complaint.  


When one poster says they support a business' right to deny service based on personal preference, why is it incorrect to assume that that applies to black people as well as homosexuals?  Is it because people feel they need to be more closeted about their discrimination against black people, while discrimination against gays is still slightly acceptable? Keep in mind....I was responding to someone that stated that they supported this. This was not brought up from nothing.

One reason is that they may only hate the gay lifestyle and not hate black people...based on their religion.  Which is the point of this thread (I think).  People using their religion to explain their prejudices no matter what those prejudices are.

Many will forget/deny that in the south the bible was used as a valid reason for racism.  Some probably still try to do that.

[*bfine32*]

(12-22-2017, 10:53 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Should we take others' religious freedoms?  No.
Are their freedoms to discriminate more important than other human beings' civil rights?  No.
So when those two ideas clash, one is going to have to win.  Your "religious freedom" is no longer valid when you're using it to discriminate and deny people equal rights.

If you can explain to me why denying service to a homosexual is not similar to denying service to an African American, then I'll accept your 'silly liberals and their race card agendas' complaint.  


When one poster says they support a business' right to deny service based on personal preference, why is it incorrect to assume that that applies to black people as well as homosexuals?  Is it because people feel they need to be more closeted about their discrimination against black people, while discrimination against gays is still slightly acceptable? Keep in mind....I was responding to someone that stated that they supported this. This was not brought up from nothing.

Because the Bible doesn't consider being black a sin.

[GMDino]

(12-22-2017, 12:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because the Bible doesn't consider being black a sin.

I agree.  But folks have used it forever to justify one "race" being better than another.  Or just some "other" group.

https://www.salon.com/2015/06/13/the_bibles_racist_monstrosities_how_the_word_of_god_has_been_%E2%80%94_and_still_is_%E2%80%94_used_to_oppress/

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-22-2017, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: I agree.  But folks have used it forever to justify one "race" being better than another.  Or just some "other" group.

https://www.salon.com/2015/06/13/the_bibles_racist_monstrosities_how_the_word_of_god_has_been_%E2%80%94_and_still_is_%E2%80%94_used_to_oppress/

Those folks aren't Christians.  They're hypocrites.

I wish everyone had been at my church the weekend of the Charlottesville riot.  Our pastor took the time that is usually dedicated to music and gave a very moving speech on it.  I was moved to tears.  At the end, he said something to the effect of "First Baptist Church stands against what happened in Virginia.  If you don't this may not be the church for you."

That took guts in small town Kentucky, and he received a 5 minute standing ovation accordingly.  I don't know where this stuff comes from, but it isn't present in my view of Jesus Christ.  I was compelled to wait in line at the end of the service and offer my support for his message as he shook hands with the congregation and gave the man a hug.  It was a very moving scene.  THIS is why I go to church, and THESE are my people.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-22-2017, 12:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because the Bible doesn't consider being black a sin.

OK. Cool. That's your interpretation of the bible. What do we do when a more extreme religious extremist wants their views on who can and cannot be discriminated against enforced rather than yours? Do we bend to their religious demands as well, or do we draw the line at denying the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with the gays?

Here was the original post that I was responding to when you cried out "race card".  I'm still wondering whether this person (or anyone for that matter) feels like you should be able to discriminate against African Americans (or women, veterans, or the elderly....for our more sensitive posters whom you cannot mention race to).  Do you agree with him, or is the line drawn at a different arbitrary place?

Anyone can start a religion with as ****** up beliefs as they can think of.  It seems like a bad idea to let that be the deciding factor on civil rights issues.

(12-22-2017, 12:34 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: A private business has the right or should have the right to discriminate against anyone they want for any reason they want. It's up to society to show them that what there doing is wrong by not shopping at that store.

[*michaelsean*]

Why are evangelicals the basis by which Christians are judged?

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-29-2017, 10:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Why are evangelicals the basis by which Christians are judged?

Two thoughts....

For the same reason that terrorism is the basis by which Islam is judged.
Extremism in any belief is what will be used as an example by some people as representative of the whole.

Christianity as a whole may have an image problem caused by their evangelicals, but it's not like the evangelicals are the only ones freaking out about a make-believe war on Christmas, suggesting the denial of rights to people unlike them, and betraying their 'morality based lifestyle' with their voting habits. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-27-2017, 11:40 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: OK. Cool. That's your interpretation of the bible. What do we do when a more extreme religious extremist wants their views on who can and cannot be discriminated against enforced rather than yours? Do we bend to their religious demands as well, or do we draw the line at denying the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with the gays?

Here was the original post that I was responding to when you cried out "race card".  I'm still wondering whether this person (or anyone for that matter) feels like you should be able to discriminate against African Americans (or women, veterans, or the elderly....for our more sensitive posters whom you cannot mention race to).  Do you agree with him, or is the line drawn at a different arbitrary place?

Anyone can start a religion with as ***** up beliefs as they can think of.  It seems like a bad idea to let that be the deciding factor on civil rights issues.

I would ask anyone who thinks there is scripture in the bible that considers skin color a sin to show me the verse and then we can have a conversation on the matter.

Of course there are going to be zealots, but I prefer not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[GMDino]

(12-29-2017, 04:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would ask anyone who thinks there is scripture in the bible that considers skin color a sin to show me the verse and then we can have a conversation on the matter.

Of course there are going to be zealots, but I prefer not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I posted a link to the history of it earlier in the thread.

Here's another, more mainstream example of a "Christian" that uses the bible to justify racism.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/42354/what-are-the-biblical-justifications-for-racial-segregation

I not sure everyone would call Bob Jones and his University "zealots" but I am sure that the right loves going there to speak about how much they love god.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-29-2017, 04:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would ask anyone who thinks there is scripture in the bible that considers skin color a sin to show me the verse and then we can have a conversation on the matter.

Of course there are going to be zealots, but I prefer not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

As far as I know, there are no scriptures in the bible that consider skin color a sin.  A curse, maybe, but again....that all depends on whoever is interpreting the book.

Not that any of that matters or has anything to do with this. The Bible is not the only thing that people use to justify or explain a religious belief. A lot of times, people don't even try explaining it.

I knew a guy that got out of wearing long sleeves to cover up tattoos at his work because he found a religion online that stated that tattoos were their religious expression.  He got around the rules (justifiable or not) using religion. I personally have used my religion as a reason to not have to be scheduled on Sundays.  My boss knew he had to honor that even though he knew I was non-religious (he made me work every single goddamned Saturday, but at least I got to watch football).  My point is, people will use religion to further their own cause, regardless of whether they really believe it or not.  Do you want people using fake religions to discriminate against people because they know they can get away with it?

I'll stick with the idea that you should not be allowed to discriminate against protected classes (I know, but it should be) when running a business.  Religion should not trump one's civil rights.