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

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-21-2017, 10:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well there you have it: problem solved.

I wonder why some would sue because they couldn't get a cake.

Some people are against discrimination based on mythological preferences and feel that it is an infringement upon their rights.

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I had no idea that the "thesis statement" of the article was a minute detail. To me it was the genesis of the article. It used both to show the hypocrisy of the white Christian and belittled the conviction that anyone may have about the sanctity of marriage and put them in the same basket of deplorables as those in AL who would overlook pedophilia.

You overlook the next line after what you see as the thesis statement, which states that the issue is a more foundational one than just pastries and pedophiles. Those two issues are being used as a rhetorical device, though not in the way you are inferring.

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2017, 10:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The shame is in the generalization.

What generalization? Polling shows that only 28% of evangelical christians support gay marriage and that 80% of evangelical christians voted for Roy Moore?

[BmorePat87]

To be clear, if anything is the "thesis statement", it's "the main threat to Christianity in America comes from American Christians themselves."

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 10:55 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Some people are against discrimination based on mythological preferences and feel that it is an infringement upon their rights.

So the cake doesn't mean as much to them as the right to have it?

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 10:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You overlook the next line after what you see as the thesis statement, which states that the issue is a more foundational one than just pastries and pedophiles. Those two issues are being used as a rhetorical device, though not in the way you are inferring.

I did not overlook it. I pointed to my displeasure in the author's attempt to trivialize a wedding cake as a "pastry" in my original response.

I thought the purpose of this was to give our opinion on the article. My opinion is that the article tries to through all white Christians in the same bucket. Apparently I am alone in this opinion. I feel some here would be equally as disagreeable if other religions were grouped as such.

"Muslim's, especially brown ones, are to blame for their own state of affairs from committing acts of terror to wearing hijabs in public......."

IMO the author makes a faulty comparison and should be called out on it.

[BmorePat87]

More important is these lines following the example of excusing the excusing of the moral lapses of evangelical leaders

"our failures are wider and deeper and more foundational than that. We’re remarkably ignorant of the history and the current state of the world we inhabit, and no better with scientific knowledge either. We don’t believe the media, but we’ll believe the most incredible Twitter rumor or Facebook post, curated for us by Vladimir Putin. We are surprisingly ignorant about religion, not only other people’s, but even our own.

But perhaps most importantly, white Christians seem unwilling to be guided by the plain truth of our shared faith. Instead of forming judgments about how to live our lives based on how our religious convictions interact with real-life circumstances, we pass off irascible reactions as theological principles."

The author argues that Christianity is more harmed by the belief that passing judgment on others is more important than passing judgement on themselves. There's an emphasis on building up a culture rather than a personal relationship with god, and in doing so they betray the fundamental teachings of their religion.

[*Nately120*]

(12-21-2017, 10:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If he knew it was to be used as the centerpiece of the celebration of their union then I would still appreciate the baker's conviction; although, I must say my convictions may not be the same. But short answer to your question is YES. If a gay couple walked in and asked for some cupcakes and a baker refused then I feel it is grounds for discrimination.

I have no sympathy for bakers.  They knew when they were learning how to make cake that they'd eventually be required to sanctify, honor, and celebrate abhorrent unions.  They knew what they were getting into. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I did not overlook it. I pointed to my displeasure in the author's attempt to trivialize a wedding cake as a "pastry" in my original response.

I thought the purpose of this was to give our opinion on the article. My opinion is that the article tries to through all white Christians in the same bucket. Apparently I am alone in this opinion. I feel some here would be equally as disagreeable if other religions were grouped as such.

"Muslim's, especially brown ones, are to blame for their own state of affairs from committing acts of terror to wearing hijabs in public......."

IMO the author makes a faulty comparison and should be called out on it.

I don't see a faulty comparison. I see it as pointing out the hypocrisy in the discrimination and the siding with an ephebophile. These things both seem contrary to the teachings of Christ in his messages for how Christians should show compassion for everyone. You've had a defensive, emotional response to the article and that is coloring your inferences from it. This illustrates the difficulty in having these conversations in any context, because it is always difficult to present a critique of religion when so many insiders will have that same response.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 12:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't see a faulty comparison. I see it as pointing out the hypocrisy in the discrimination and the siding with an ephebophile. These things both seem contrary to the teachings of Christ in his messages for how Christians should show compassion for everyone. You've had a defensive, emotional response to the article and that is coloring your inferences from it. This illustrates the difficulty in having these conversations in any context, because it is always difficult to present a critique of religion when so many insiders will have that same response.

Is this just a condescending way of saying: "You should have agreed with the article?'.

I've pointed out my faults with the article and it starts at the very beginning when the author tries to draw correlation between the 2 incidences he cited. Unsure how that is a "defensive emotional' response. it is simply my opinion that the article has many faults and aids to stereotyping.

It is no different than if I said Brown Muslims are to blame for their own state of affairs because they get upset when they are asked to remove a hajabs in public and they do not publically denounce ji-had in the form of terror.

I am saddened that you consider these emotional responses; perhaps you are just misusing the word contrary.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-21-2017, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So the cake doesn't mean as much to them as the right to have it?

I can't really tell you exactly how they feel about it.  I know that for the most part, the people that fought the decision to not serve people based on their sexual preference were more concerned about the denial of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than they were about whether they had a cake or not.

I think most would have the same concern if businesses were denying people service based on criteria that would effect you.  For instance, if you were denied service based on the fact that you were a Christian, a veteran, or a white man, people would fight for your right to have a cake.....not because it's a cake, but because discrimination is shitty.

Fortunately, those three criteria that effect you are unlawful to discriminate against.  The real fight is putting sexual preference on that same level.

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this just a condescending way of saying: "You should have agreed with the article?'.

Nope.

(12-21-2017, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've pointed out my faults with the article and it starts at the very beginning when the author tries to draw correlation between the 2 incidences he cited. Unsure how that is a "defensive emotional' response. it is simply my opinion that the article has many faults and aids to stereotyping.

You are perfectly entitled to my opinion, as I am when I explain the use of the rhetorical device and how focusing so much on that is missing the forest for the trees.

(12-21-2017, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is no different than if I said Brown Muslims are to blame for their own state of affairs because they get upset when they are asked to remove a hajabs in public and they do not publically denounce ji-had in the form of terror.

It is different for the key fact that this article is a critique from someone that is a white American Christian critiquing white American Christianity. You would have to be a "brown" Muslim to make your comparison more apt.

(12-21-2017, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am saddened that you consider these emotional responses; perhaps you are just misusing the word contrary.

My use of the word contrary is accurate.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 01:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope.


You are perfectly entitled to my opinion, as I am when I explain the use of the rhetorical device and how focusing so much on that is missing the forest for the trees.


It is different for the key fact that this article is a critique from someone that is a white American Christian critiquing white American Christianity. You would have to be a "brown" Muslim to make your comparison more apt.


My use of the word contrary is accurate.

Perhaps it is you that is missing the finer point of the discussion by writing off a POV that differs from yours as "defensive emotional", but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and your assumption that I am missing the forest. perhaps I feel more so that this article does not lead one to the true forest; just a clump of trees.

Ah, so I did not split every minute hair when drawing the comparison. I must have glossed over the part where the author professes to be Christian. The comparison is fine' as indicated by your "more apt" qualifier. I stand by the assertion that if a Brown Muslim had written an article such as I described there would be those that took issue with the premise; of course those that disagreed with it would most likely just be emotional.

[J24]

(12-21-2017, 01:07 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I can't really tell you exactly how they feel about it.  I know that for the most part, the people that fought the decision to not serve people based on their sexual preference were more concerned about the denial of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than they were about whether they had a cake or not.

I think most would have the same concern if businesses were denying people service based on criteria that would effect you.  For instance, if you were denied service based on the fact that you were a Christian, a veteran, or a white man, people would fight for your right to have a cake.....not because it's a cake, but because discrimination is shitty.

Fortunately, those three criteria that effect you are unlawful to discriminate against.  The real fight is putting sexual preference on that same level.

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.

[J24]

There is no such thing as white Christianity. Christ doesn't see color never has and never will.

[Au165]

(12-21-2017, 01:42 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.

Wait, what? No, they don't have that right as they shouldn't. Discrimination doesn't just become acceptable because the majority decides it's cool now. You are literally arguing that people shouldn't be guaranteed civil rights.

[*Nately120*]

(12-21-2017, 01:42 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.

Agreed.  I also point out that I'm a straight, mostly-white male when I state this belief, though.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(12-21-2017, 01:42 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.

This is the worst argument that conservatives have concocted in response to this issue.

Let’s go back to the days when we could have “no colored people allowed” signs on the front door. Terrible idea.

[J24]

(12-21-2017, 01:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: Wait, what? No, they don't have that right as they shouldn't. Discrimination doesn't just become acceptable because the majority decides it's cool now. You are literally arguing that people shouldn't be guaranteed civil rights.

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.

[J24]

(12-21-2017, 02:50 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: This is the worst argument that conservatives have concocted in response to this issue.

Let’s go back to the days when we could have “no colored people allowed” signs on the front door. Terrible idea.

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.