Why Don't Secularists Just be Honest and Outlaw Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vera_Ljuba said:
Nowadays it is. The point is that if you open a business for the public, you cannot refuse to serve a special segment of the public because of your religious conviction. If you don’t like it, open an exclusive club for people you want to do business with.
Click to expand...
The question has never been about refusing service to a particular segment of the public. The bakers, the photographers, etc. NEVER refused to bake a cake or make cookies or have someone sit for a portrait. In every case, the client asked them to use their art to express a message that the business person disagreed with.

An analogy is someone knocking on your door asking permission to put a pro-Trump sign on your property. You may hate Trump, you may love him, but for whatever reason you don’t want to have that sign put on your property. The person explains not to worry, you won’t have to maintain the sign, he just has to put the sign out front and he’ll be on his way. You still refuse. The person goes on to explain that the government has determined that these signs are important to develop and build national unity, and by not putting up a sign, you’re interfering with that national unity. You STILL refuse. The person then tells you that failure to post the sign will result in a $50,000 penalty, with an additional $10,000 per day for every day you don’t have the sign out front.

The legal term is “government-compelled speech”. In the past, the courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled that the government cannot compel speech – it cannot force you to make a speech or print a sign that expresses a view you don’t agree with. Suddenly, though, for some reason, the courts have determined that expressing approval or acceptance of homosexual behavior is so vital, so essential to our nation that the previous safeguards against “government-compelled speech” no longer apply. The government cannot force you to print a sign or decorate a cake supporting (for example) a particular political candidate or government policy, yet it CAN force you to print a sign or decorate a cake (i.e., using your art) to support and approve homosexual behavior.
 
Muzhik said:
The question has never been about refusing service to a particular segment of the public. The bakers, the photographers, etc. NEVER refused to bake a cake or make cookies or have someone sit for a portrait. In every case, the client asked them to use their art to express a message that the business person disagreed with.

An analogy is someone knocking on your door asking permission to put a pro-Trump sign on your property. You may hate Trump, you may love him, but for whatever reason you don’t want to have that sign put on your property. The person explains not to worry, you won’t have to maintain the sign, he just has to put the sign out front and he’ll be on his way. You still refuse. The person goes on to explain that the government has determined that these signs are important to develop and build national unity, and by not putting up a sign, you’re interfering with that national unity. You STILL refuse. The person then tells you that failure to post the sign will result in a $50,000 penalty, with an additional $10,000 per day for every day you don’t have the sign out front.

The legal term is “government-compelled speech”. In the past, the courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled that the government cannot compel speech – it cannot force you to make a speech or print a sign that expresses a view you don’t agree with. Suddenly, though, for some reason, the courts have determined that expressing approval or acceptance of homosexual behavior is so vital, so essential to our nation that the previous safeguards against “government-compelled speech” no longer apply. The government cannot force you to print a sign or decorate a cake supporting (for example) a particular political candidate or government policy, yet it CAN force you to print a sign or decorate a cake (i.e., using your art) to support and approve homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...
That analogy doesn’t really quite work. My house is private property, not open to the public. Businesses are, by definition, open to the entire public.
 
Indigo_Cardinal said:
That analogy doesn’t really quite work. My house is private property, not open to the public. Businesses are, by definition, open to the entire public.
Click to expand...
Unless your front lawn is totally fenced in (in which case, the sign can be posted on the outside), it’s part of the public environment. On the basis of it being a hazard or a public nuisance, the local government can order you to mow your lawn or get the broken-down cars off of it. It can do this because of the real hazard of vermin living in the tall grass, spreading disease and affecting public health; or the broken-down cars lowing the value of your neighbor’s houses. Even though your house (and associated yard) is private property, your activity (or lack thereof) affects the community.

Businesses may be open to the entire public, but it’s MY business and a reflection of MY values. Rather than having the people go to another bakery or photographer that would be happy for the business, the courts are forcing me to change MY values or to act in a way contrary to MY values. My not decorating a cake in a specified way, or not taking a ceremony’s photos does not adversely affect the community. It doesn’t lower anyone’s property value nor does it pose a public health hazard.
 
Does anyone have an up to date link of Christian-owned businesses? I’d like to patronize more. I boycott Target, love Chick-fil-A and In n Out Burger, but would like more…
 
I don’t want to outlaw Christianity. I would certainly like to abolish it through abolishing the material conditions that give rise to it, but I certainly don’t want to oppress any believer.
 
=Vera_Ljuba;14490586]Nowadays it is. The point is that if you open a business for the public, you cannot refuse to serve a special segment of the public because of your religious conviction. If you don’t like it, open an exclusive club for people you want to do business with.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s getting harder to do even that unless you want to exclude Jews or straight, white men.
If your free exercise includes discrimination, then you are in bad shape.
Click to expand...
Actually, people discriminate all of the time and should be able to for ANY reason. 👍
Almost everyone on this board, with a few exceptions. It is rather strange that people who believe that God gave us reason and thinking also assert that we must give up that reason in certain subjects. They say: “you must follow your conscience, as long as it is a well-formed conscience”. And if you ask, “what is a well-formed conscience?” The answer is: “your conscience is well-formed if it agrees exactly and precisely with what the church says”. Why worry about the conscience? They could just say: “follow what the church says, and stop thinking!”
Click to expand...
A well-informed conscience will be in tune with the Truth. :yup:

Sorry if that sounds old, boring and unsatisfying to the urges, but it is our humanity. 👍
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I don’t want to outlaw Christianity. I would certainly like to abolish it through abolishing the material conditions that give rise to it, but I certainly don’t want to oppress any believer.
Click to expand...
So then tolerance and diversity really isn’t the goal?

So noted. 👍
 
Faithdancer said:
Yes indeed. And millennials in general don’t get Orthodox Christianity because they’ve never given 100% commitment to anything in their lives, outside of their own selves.
Click to expand...
This is such a common talking point – but have you really engaged with more millennials who are like this than others? I know so many who violate the picture being painted here.
 
gracepoole said:
This is such a common talking point – but have you really engaged with more millennials who are like this than others? I know so many who violate the picture being painted here.
Click to expand...
I KNOW you’re talking me. :rotfl: Thanks for that! 🎉
 
SuperLuigi said:
So then tolerance and diversity really isn’t the goal?

So noted. 👍
Click to expand...
It is the goal, in a sense. I would like a society in which anyone can live however they want without it conflicting with other people or the collective needs of society. Such a society would be communism, and there would be no material basis for religion in that society. That doesn’t mean I want religious people to be forced to reject their faith or anything, only that people won’t “need” religion in such a society.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
It is the goal, in a sense. I would like a society in which anyone can live however they want without it conflicting with other people or the collective needs of society. Such a society would be communism, and there would be no material basis for religion in that society. That doesn’t mean I want religious people to be forced to reject their faith or anything, only that people won’t “need” religion in such a society.
Click to expand...
Oh boy 🍿
 
Regular_Atheist said:
It is the goal, in a sense. I would like a society in which anyone can live however they want without it conflicting with other people or the collective needs of society. Such a society would be communism, and there would be no material basis for religion in that society. That doesn’t mean I want religious people to be forced to reject their faith or anything, only that people won’t “need” religion in such a society.
Click to expand...
I would like…
Click to expand...
I detect an issue here, and the issue is that you expect a preference, or belief, of yours to be recognized.
And in the next breath claim that religion, or beliefs, are not necessary.

How do you reconcile those two ideas?
 
Regular_Atheist said:
It is the goal, in a sense. I would like a society in which anyone can live however they want without it conflicting with other people or the collective needs of society. Such a society would be communism, and there would be no material basis for religion in that society. That doesn’t mean I want religious people to be forced to reject their faith or anything, only that people won’t “need” religion in such a society.
Click to expand...
:doh2: :banghead:

Aaaannnd … you’re on a Catholic discussion board because … ?
 
adamhovey1988 said:
In parts of France, it seems they certainly tried. (The parts that were not under French rule in 1905 are exempt from the most extreme secularism rules).
Click to expand...
Adam, can you say a little more about the parenthetical part (enough so that I can form an effective Google search), or maybe provide a link to further reading? I have not heard of this and would like to read more about it.
 
Wampa said:
Adam, can you say a little more about the parenthetical part (enough so that I can form an effective Google search), or maybe provide a link to further reading? I have not heard of this and would like to read more about it.
Click to expand...
I know Wikipedia might not be the greatest but you can read about it here 1905_French_law_on_the_Separation_of_the_Churches_and_the_State
 
Muzhik said:
:doh2: :banghead:

Aaaannnd … you’re on a Catholic discussion board because … ?
Click to expand...
All I can figure is either
  1. They are seeking God, even if they’re not ready to admit it yet, or
  2. They’re lookiing to argue and cause trouble, because they’re bored with their own “non-belief system.” This may actually lead back to reason 1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top