A placard placed by an atheist group near a Nativity scene and a “holiday tree” (all privately sponsored) in a Washington state government building has generated plenty of reaction from Christians across the United States. The sign, which reads in part, “Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds,” and reportedly celebrates the winter solstice, was placed in a display area in the state’s legislative building by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
I have written on previous occasions, including in my most recent book, The Divided States of America, that perhaps the best solution for public religious displays in a very religiously pluralistic society is to have the government maximally accommodate the sharing of those public spaces by various religious groups.
For example, Christians could pay for a Nativity scene, and the government could accommodate their wish to have it displayed on a courthouse lawn or at the state Capitol during the Christmas season with the government providing security protection. Jewish and Islamic groups could similarly request that a symbol of their faith be displayed at a time of their choosing, perhaps Hanukkah and Ramadan.
The current travesty in Washington state, with an atheist group’s extremely hostile statement attacking religion in general and Christianity in particular (under the ruse of honoring the winter solstice) in immediate proximity to the Christmas display, is both denigrating and disrespectful to the Christian faith. One does not honor pluralism by disrespecting other people’s faiths in such hostile ways.
An appropriate symbol of the winter solstice (one can hardly imagine what that would be), placed in the public space to honor those who observe the winter solstice, does nothing to either denigrate or promote Christianity. The current display is hostile and disrespectful. In accommodating peoples’ wish to have their faith acknowledged in the public square, one must understand that such displays must not attack other faiths.
Dr. Richard Land is president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's official entity assigned to address social, moral, and ethical concerns, with particular attention to their impact on American families and their faith.
RSS
This incident with the atheist sign at the nativity had nothing to do with winter solstice or "excercising their freedom of religion." It has everything to do with hate speech. And they should be banned and fined for hate speech.
"The original arguement was that the crime rate was lower."
I would say they are, despite that they have no affinity to a celestial dictatorship.
"Our court system backs things up so much that criminals are let back out even before the trial."
I think you're projecting a little. Criminals who are sentenced, serve time, & get out tend to be repeat offenders. I agree the system needs work, but this doesn't jive with the high religiosity especially with blacks who are the largest portion of the prison populace. For whatever reason, the fear of God didn't stop them.
I think you meant that, & not that the trials overwhelmingly are thrown out, b/c they're not. This simply isn't possible with incarceration rates at a very high rate nationally, something like 1-2%. Last I recall something like 60% of those who get out are back within a year. It's like a revolving door, and some are in there simply for small drug possession & not violent crimes.
"Also, when it comes to drug distribution in the states there is quite a bit of crime associated with it."
It's I think b/c some, & I stress some, like only the Netherlands, have decriminalized marijuana & they have done so particularly b/c it's not a violent crime. It's still illegal in virtually all the West Europe. It's like when we had a prohibition on alcohol & boot legers & speak easies & related crime went up due to the black market supplying the need. It wasn't a violent crime, but legislation was passed anyways. Same reason used for asinine laws against bubblegum in Singapore.
Still, in Japan & other countries where such drugs are illegal the crime rate is much lower, so it's not tied directly with having a great faith. For some, the fear of hell might help to keep them in check, but it appears others who don't have this to fall back on make do, so it's more complicated it would seem.
"Please show me where in the constitution employees of the government cannot have things in their personal work space.
I don't think it specifies on this, & like many other things it must be addressed as per how the judges interpret the law as need be. Generally, they are more leiniant with allowing people expressing their faiths on govt. property.
If they want to put a christmas tree up in their cubical, I guess it's fine, but they can't really complain then if other religions project their faith or non faith equally, that is after all the articles disagreement is here. For some reason, it's okay to have religious symbols in govt. lands, but if another faiths or non faiths exercise that same freedom then it's not correct. It's a double standard.
"There is no law which says "Each fire station shall have a nativity scene"."
Yeah, so?
"The constitution says the government shall make NO LAW. This is all it says."
Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution states as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
"One would think not enforcing the laws would result in MORE crime"
The original arguement was that the crime rate was lower. Our court system backs things up so much that criminals are let back out even before the trial. News stories about people getting killed by someone who was out awaiting trial always draw attention. The real world is where people do what they want, when the want, how they want, and don't care about how it affects anyone else.
Also, when it comes to drug distribution in the states there is quite a bit of crime associated with it. Over there, when stuff is available and the law is not enforced it lowers the gun fire and such involved. You don't have 'drug deals gone bad' when you can just go down to the local coffee shop and smoke it there.
" I'm sorry DP, but you're stretching it just a tad here."
I do know a few people who live over there. We have a family who are missionaries with children who talk about having to be careful where they take their kids because they will be exposed to things that are illegal here in the US. They are illegal there but they are not inforced.
I have friends who are there telling me what is going on. I think you are stretching things abit trying to overlook the well known and documented social problems in the land of the Euro.
"Oh nonsense. In the US we have the Bill of Rights,"
Nonsense. The Bill of Rights is useless if it is not enforced. Case and point:
Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
No where does it give the courts the right to review cases of religious freedom and make rulings. The court can only enforce laws and not make them. Any judge which does so commits treason.
It is the job of the Congress to hold judges accountable. The problem is the only way to remove a judge from the bench is to find them guilty of treason which requires the death penalty. Our founding fathers took the bench that seriously. Today it's a free for all where judges dictate around the constitutional freedoms of Christians. After all, why couldn't a photographer in AZ turn down a job for religious reasons. Would the outcome have been the same if he turned down a job photographing a strip joint?
Dp,
"Having laws and enforcing them are two different things."
Now you're saying that they don't enforce the laws over there? So theft, murder, embezzlement, & such aren't enforced in such places. And this statement by you is backed up by what? I'm sorry DP, but you're stretching it just a tad here. If they don't enforce the laws, like you say, why does Sweden for instance have a lower blood alcohol level for intoxication standards than US states & consequently a lower drunk driving fatality rate?
One would think not enforcing the laws would result in MORE crime, as criminals would think they could get away with anything, but that isn't the case in such places. They enforce the laws against murder in Japan, yet they have a very low rate of homicide.
"Most parents with special needs children in the public schools will tell you the law isn't followed in most states and they have to fight to get their children the services they need."
I am talking about generally speaking violent crimes, ya know, the type that the US Census.Gov actually tracks and monitors as part of the crime index. Not insubordinate laws, or petty crimes like not paying for parking tickets. You're conflating the issue again.
"The 'different rules' were setup to ensure that the govt. organized bodies couldn't establish a theocracy. Without this, they could overtly promote a particular religion."
Interesting. Please show me where in the constitution employees of the government cannot have things in their personal work space. There is no law which says "Each fire station shall have a nativity scene". The constitution says the government shall make NO LAW. This is all it says. Please show me the text of the constitution and not some treason by a liberal judge.
"Ah C'mon, this is rubbish, their laws are virtually identical to ours"
Having laws and enforcing them are two different things. Your arguement rests on the enforcement of the laws which simply doesn't really happen in many countries.
Here in the US we have IDEA laws which 'protect' children with special needs. Most parents with special needs children in the public schools will tell you the law isn't followed in most states and they have to fight to get their children the services they need.
When laws are lip service then the bad numbers are low because they are not enforced.
"Your arguement is based on the fact that government property belongs to the government."
The lands are still govt lands though, as are the bodies which adjudicate them. It's like you're asking for non-govt rules for govt lands, entirely contradictory.
"However, the US government is not the courts, or elected officials. The US goverment is each of us as individuals being represented."
Just WHO do you think represents us in the govt, but the elected individuals? The elected officials are not above the laws of the Constitution, federal or state laws or other laws passed by the govt., it's not a Kingdom.
"When a court tells a bunch of firemen that they cannot have a nativity seen at their work when others in other jobs can"
DP, the distinction here is the difference not of jobs, but how & by whom the jobs are financed, organized & what laws they must abide by. As a firemen, they aren't a private company, it's a govt. financed & organized one, & as such it can't legally (based on the constitutions laws) align itself with any particular religion above all others.
"then they are creating a 2nd class of people called 'government people' who have to play by different rules."
The 'different rules' were setup to ensure that the govt. organized bodies couldn't establish a theocracy. Without this, they could overtly promote a particular religion.
"This is called 'communism'. You don't have to look beyond Cuba or China to see that."
Oh nonsense. In the US we have the Bill of Rights, we have the ability to privately own land & run a company & hang nativity decor all over it. In China & Cuba the notion of 'privately owned' hardly exists, they couldn't express themselves even privately as there the govt controls all lands.
"The government isn't neutral. That's the problem. They are not to do anything that interferes with the 'free exercise thereof'."
They are also not allowed to support ANY particular faith (theological belief) above all others, & by having such things on Govt. property it is a violation of this. This is where they would be in violation.
If people want to freely celebrate their faith by erecting idols & such, by all means do so, but do so on their own Private lands & not using the Govt. lands and culpability into erecting a state religion. It's really that simple. You can have your religion, but you can't have the govt be used to enforce that religion onto others.
"If that means that a bunch of firemen who are Christians want to put up a nativity seen then it is wrong of the government to interfer with their free exercise thereof."
Govt. property is Govt. property, there isn't much ambiguity there. If Christian firemen want to host a Christmas tree, fine. Then they can't cry if some Jewish firemen put up a Menorah, or if non-believers put up a sign mocking faith. Equal protection under the law means something.
DP
"When you have a social free for all then there isn't much that is a crime."
Ah C'mon, this is rubbish, their laws are virtually identical to ours, save for many have abolished the death penalty, & yet the crime rate is lower, and this is contrary to conventional wisdom which suggests the death penalty works as a deterrent.
It's still illegal to kill, rape, steal & so on over there you know. Talk about conflating issue.
"When you have laws against selling and using weed yet it's available in most coffee shops (in places) and that's OK then the crime rate is low while the actual rate of crime isn't."
But the actual crime rate there is lower, & this is despite a few countries which have lowered the legality over particular (not all) drugs. The distinction here is ingesting drugs, regardless if it's Rush Limbaugh doing Codiene, or a kid smoking a joint is a non violent crime, this is why such countries over there address it in this manner.
Not all countries in Western Europe have decriminalized Marijuana, & marijuna is a drug, just like cigarettes & alcohol.
"(well, basically all of western Europe.)"
That's simple enough. When you have a social free for all then there isn't much that is a crime. When you have laws against selling and using weed yet it's available in most coffee shops (in places) and that's OK then the crime rate is low while the actual rate of crime isn't.
The government isn't neutral. That's the problem. They are not to do anything that interferes with the 'free exercise thereof'. If that means that a bunch of firemen who are Christians want to put up a nativity seen then it is wrong of the government to interfer with their free exercise thereof.
Your arguement is based on the fact that government property belongs to the government. However, the US government is not the courts, or elected officials. The US goverment is each of us as individuals being represented. When a court tells a bunch of firemen that they cannot have a nativity seen at their work when others in other jobs can then they are creating a 2nd class of people called 'government people' who have to play by different rules. This is called 'communism'. You don't have to look beyond Cuba or China to see that.
DP,
"That's where the problem comes in. Many people get their moral compass from their faith."
While others get their moral compass from other faiths or no faith at all. Why should any particular faith be overtly respected above all others by our government?
"The government should be be supportive of the concept of faith without backing one in particular."
They should be respectful of personal beliefs, & allow people to worship on their own or not. It shouldn't take sides in supporting christian or atheist, etc. signs. It should be neutral.
"The very concept of disrespecting religion in general is an athiestic approach to government and quite frankly it is communism."
C'mon DP, lets call a spade a spade here. The sign says what you already know most non Christians think of your diety as it is, simply stating in the public square is no more offensive than a billboard. Besides, Christians & others routinely offer up the holier than thou art rhetoric signs while screaming that non-Christians are going to burn in their hell. Telling someone that they're going to burn in hell is just a tad hostile. & compared to the rhetoric on the atheist sign mocking theist beliefs as being childish, it's par for the course. Again, neither have a place on govt. steps.
"Here's the problem...since the courts started to attack religion the crime rate has jumped"
Where do you get your stats from, seriously? It's been dropping since the earlier 90's & going down since. The overall crime rate index is at a 30 year low.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/13/nation/na-briefs13.1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
"You MUST have the concept of higher authority if you want to have law and order."
Well, then some explaining needs to be done as there are many countries which have far lower crime rates then the US & they don't affirm christian beliefs & some have no beliefs at all. Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Iceland (well, basically all of western Europe.)
"His distinction is in how govt should not play any supportive role."
That's where the problem comes in. Many people get their moral compass from their faith. The government should be be supportive of the concept of faith without backing one in particular.
The very concept of disrespecting religion in general is an athiestic approach to government and quite frankly it is communism. The government is to respect religion with making for itself a church.
Here's the problem...since the courts started to attack religion the crime rate has jumped and so has our prison population. They go hand in hand. After all, if there is no higher authority then who does the government think they are trying to tell someone what to do? You MUST have the concept of higher authority if you want to have law and order.
vsedriver, from what it appears on their earlier dialog, ICthelight isn't against ones own personal freedom in expressing their own beliefs or non-beliefs. His distinction is in how govt should not play any supportive role.
ICthelight, if you don't believe in God why do you care if someone else does? Why do you care if someone celebrates a custom in the public square? Why do you feel it is OK to poke fun or say hurtful things to the people who celebrate the custom?
Only in America would that offensive sign be put up in any government office. I wonder why is that American atheist have to be so hostile, disrespectful and denigrating, hey we can see that in jail everyday. I thought politeness and respect show education level. Hmm
Well, I submitted a detailed comment but the Christian Post seems to have a problem with posting my comments or losing them.
IC wrote: "I'm sure that what you refer to as "God" didn't create stars because I know that all deities are contradictions of observable reality."
How is God a contradiction to observable reality?
Quoting Forgivensinner:
"IC,The Creation account does recount God making the stars. Are you so sure God did not create matter for it's purpose? I lean toward understanding how God created stars to continue to form. God says He made light and the sun, moon and stars to eluminate and reflect that light."
I'm sure that what you refer to as "God" didn't create stars because I know that all deities are contradictions of observable reality. Astrophysicists can explain how stars form from the simple accretion of matter under gravitational force.
I think you meant illuminate not eluminate. Also, I'm conversant on bible lore.
IC,
The Creation account does recount God making the stars. Are you so sure God did not create matter for it's purpose? I lean toward understanding how God created stars to continue to form. God says He made light and the sun, moon and stars to eluminate and reflect that light.
Forgivensinner, you asked: "IC, where was matter made? God of the Bible does say He made the stars."
Matter is eternal: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared: E=mc^2. Matter is not made but it is transformable into energy and back again. It is matter that is eternal and uncreated not deities. Do you have any evidence that bibledeity created stars? Stars form when enough matter under the immense pressure of gravity causes a thermonuclear reaction. Deities have nothing to do with it.
Cal,
Are you really curious to whether I believe Christians have a right to impede "scientific progress"?
I see. "Some things Mankind Just Isn't Meant To Know". We're created in his image - but not too much like Him. The last guy who thought he was as good as God is still paying for his mistake.
Just out of curiosity - who gets to decide what is not meant to be known?
Cal,
Well, actually I love what science can prove and has. I believe science has helped us tremendously to understand how things work and work together among other things, medical and the like. But, I also believe God will only allow us to go so far, but how far only God knows, in the mean time we can enjoy the new discoveries of how God created His Creation.
Okay, I guess I don't understand your point then. Do you not think that we can ever discover how matter is made (and therefore make it ourselves) or do you believe that scientific investigation will eventually lead to a definite test of God, (with a positive proof)?
Cal wrote: "Physicists have some pretty good ideas about that. Virtual particles are a fascinating subject - as is a "zero energy universe". It will be interesting to see if their ideas can be tested.
Or, we can forget about investigating and say that "God Did It". By saying that, you agree that further investigation is pointless.
If our ancestors thought that way, we'd still blame thunder on "the Gods". But we know better now."
Quite Contrary, Cal! Science is fascinating! Although, I will agree that science only gives better insight into how God created His Creation.
"where was matter made? "
Physicists have some pretty good ideas about that. Virtual particles are a fascinating subject - as is a "zero energy universe". It will be interesting to see if their ideas can be tested.
Or, we can forget about investigating and say that "God Did It". By saying that, you agree that further investigation is pointless.
If our ancestors thought that way, we'd still blame thunder on "the Gods". But we know better now.
IC, where was matter made? God of the Bible does say He made the stars.
PS. For understandings sake, I really am simply trying to have a meaningful conversation. I realize others think diferently than I do and I am truly curious to those beliefs. Thanks for the conversation.
Quoting forgivensinner: "IC, except there are many that aren't sure as you and would like to hear what God has to say.
Do you proscribe to the theory we just appeared from nothing? Personally this was the clincher for me."
Most of these comments border on the absurd. I have no idea what you mean by "God." The deity of the bible has a name. Jahweh or Jehovah or Elohim are some of the ones I remember. But "he" never speaks-outside of accounts in the bible. I don't know of a theory that we appeared from nothing...wait, isn't that what your bible says? Or was there something in the void? Einstein's E=mc^2 has been proven therefore matter is eternal and transformable into energy. We are star stuff.
Quoting Blacksho89:
"I'd say that spam posting atheist screeds on a Christian news site is a hostile act. And yet...we respond by asking you to feel the love of Jesus Christ, who died for you, that you may have life eternal!"
Spam? Hostile act? I commented on this article. It isn't spam. It hasn't been mass mailed to millions of people. It wasn't unsolicited-this site allows people to comment. How could commenting be considered hostile? And of course, I don't believe that there was a Jesus, so the rest is meaningless.
I'd say that spam posting atheist screeds on a Christian news site is a hostile act. And yet...we respond by asking you to feel the love of Jesus Christ, who died for you, that you may have life eternal!
Although, in fact, you will have life eternal whether you love Jesus or not. Your decision is whether to have life eternal in His love and light, or in the heat and darkness of the lake.
"If you were sleeping in a burning building and someone told you to wake up and flee the fire, would you call that "hostile"? "
===========
If you couldn't prove it was burning - if none of my neighbors could prove that it was burning - then yes. It's hostile. Or crazy. Take your pick.
IC, except there are many that aren't sure as you and would like to hear what God has to say.
Do you proscribe to the theory we just appeared from nothing? Personally this was the clincher for me.
"Real things don't need arguments to convince us they exist. No one doubts that all of the artifacts of the real world exist...here's the fountain I dropped my glasses in, the water has cleared the lenses, the water is 28 degrees Celsius. The fountain, the glasses, the water and it's temperature present themselves to all who care to look and need no arguments to convince those who do not believe in them because there are no such people. The same does not apply for deities, heaven, hell, angels, demons, sin and the rest of the supernatural milieu."
"ICtheLight"? What an ironic name.
John 1:4 - "In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
2 Corinthians 4:6 - "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
Dear sinner, you are simply wrong. You do not see the light. You are spiritually blind and sick and empty. Jesus came to heal the blind and the sick. He loves you, and because of His grace, I love you. The Aaron of two years ago didn't love you; he couldn't have cared less. By God's amazing grace I have had my eyes opened, and because of Him I have to tell you all of this. Jesus and John the Baptist began their ministries with "repent!" on their lips, and I will follow suite. Dear sinner, your future is at stake, and once you have seen God in His glory on judgment day, the pain of having rejected Him will be with you for eternity. The worm dieth not. The fire is never quenched. The only possible way on earth to ever have God's mercy and grace are through faith in His Son.
What you are purporting, in all of your well written posts, is unoriginal and fruitless. Christ will never fail or disappear. But one day soon the Church will. And you might be left standing there, frozen in your unbelief.
"That's not going to work. We know your stories, we were raised in your churches, we went to bible studies. We didn't believe that Christianity was consistent with reality. We concluded that there are no deities, that there is no afterlife, that life in the real world is a struggle and that the only way to make it better is to strive to do so ourselves and that the best way to do that is to assiduously pursue the truth and always align ourselves with it, then to fight against those who want to censor it. "
These kinds of attacks make me chuckle. I'm not laughing at you, but at the ridiculousness of this kind of absolute statement from a post-modernist.
It doesn't matter what you've "concluded." People have been "concluding" that for centuries!
Matthew 13:24-30, 36-40 - "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn... Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."
The interesting thing about "tares," is, according to Vines, they are almost identical to the wheat, until thy bloom...
Quoting jbforgy: "If you were sleeping in a burning building and someone told you to wake up and flee the fire, would you call that 'hostile'?"
I would if that someone had started the fire.
Quoting forgivensinner: "I have a simply solution ~ share your faith, invite folks to church or a bible study."
That's not going to work. We know your stories, we were raised in your churches, we went to bible studies. We didn't believe that Christianity was consistent with reality. We concluded that there are no deities, that there is no afterlife, that life in the real world is a struggle and that the only way to make it better is to strive to do so ourselves and that the best way to do that is to assiduously pursue the truth and always align ourselves with it, then to fight against those who want to censor it. Real things don't need arguments to convince us they exist. No one doubts that all of the artifacts of the real world exist...here's the fountain I dropped my glasses in, the water has cleared the lenses, the water is 28 degrees Celsius. The fountain, the glasses, the water and it's temperature present themselves to all who care to look and need no arguments to convince those who do not believe in them because there are no such people. The same does not apply for deities, heaven, hell, angels, demons, sin and the rest of the supernatural milieu.
The answer for all of you is to cease and desist from insinuating your religious symbols into the "public square," any place that is shared equally by the citizens of the community.
So, if Christians want to install creches or if Jews want to install menorahs then some atheists will oppose them and they have the right and obligation to do so. Shouldn't atheists follow the dictates of their consciences?
Quoting typique1: "It isn't a bunch of misdirected "do gooders" just wanting inclusion. These people are specifically and systematically purposing to drive Christianity out of America and its history. Swaying public opinion by using popular media to spread their propaganda is exactly what they're doing."
Why is it that so often I see this opinion expressed by Christians that assume that only Christian viewpoints should be permitted to be expressed? Christians use the popular media to spread their propaganda don't they? In fact Christians do it millions of times more frequently than atheists are able to. I could go on and on about how frequently and pervasively the Christian message is presented in our society but unless you aren't paying attention, the argument is moot. We aren't "misdirected do gooders" because we have what is right on our side. We have the right to free speech. We have the right to criticize the intrusion of religious symbols (in the U.S.A., they are almost always Judeo-Christian symbols) into the public square. So atheists will use the same rights that Christians claim for themselves and will put up their Solstice sign and if Christians find the message disrespectful or hateful or offensive then they will getting a dose of how atheists feel about Christianity and it's message. In regards to your paranoia about "driv[ing] Christianity out of America," atheists support the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, we support the rights of Christians to worship in any manner they choose in their homes and their churches, where I believe they are biblically compelled. Just be glad that atheists aren't trying to supplant Christianity by "doing unto others" the way Christians did to supplant pagan religions. We aren't under any divine command to destroy your temples and kill you, your children, your wives, yea, even your cattle but save your virgin girls for ourselves. No we just want to gently nudge all religion into the dustbins of history. It is inevitable and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop it. Jesus ain't ever gonna come back.
...And like all Christians, the author of this piece seems to feel quite naturally that anything which attacks or insults his religion deserves to be banned.
And you wonder why we say religion enslaves the mind.
There is one more thing I wanted to mention:
Christ also said that He was equal to God; one with God; etc... The Bible speaks of Jesus' eternal existence and His role in the creation of the natural world. How is it possible that someone could come onto the scene of world history for an extremely brief period of time, call Himself God, die, and then have countless millions of people from every culture and walk of life testify that Jesus Himself was still alive and has forgiven them, some of those millions even giving their lives by death and torture in Jesus' name?
What does this have to do with the article in question? I don't know... my rabbit trail seems to have lead down the path to an apologetic. Please forgive me for getting off topic. Can't help it some times...
Christians, can we really be surprised? Should we faint at the slightest disrespect or persecution? Absolutely not. Will this growing intolerance decline, or even level out? I don't believe so. I'm not going to concordance you to death, but come on! It's all in there!
Hostile? Only those fools who "profess to know God" would ever use hostility to contend or evangelize. We may be outspoken, forthright, even loud - but always tempered in love. The Word of God IS a sword... and it WILL divide asunder. The gospel of Jesus Christ IS scandalous, IS insanity - to those whose hearts are yet hardened. Why would anyone in their "right mind" pick up their cross (die) and follow a savior (obey) who was only visible for 33 years - and 2000 years ago at that? He was God incarnate, He lived, He performed uncountable miracles, He fulfilled every prophesy about Him to the minutest detail, He was humiliated and beaten, He was crucified, He died that none of us would ever have to taste the sting of death, he arose from the dead, he lives on... Sound scandalous? Of course. It was so even in Paul's time. It was a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks. BUT: HAS IT EVER FADED AWAY? HAS IT EVER DISAPPEARED? NO! NOT EVEN UNDER (ahem... I'm yelling now)... not even under the worst persecution. Why? WE ARE GOD'S PEOPLE. GOD. G-O-D. Holy, sovereign, self-existent GOD. Amen?
Calladus: "Every knee will bend", "If you are not saved, you are going to Hell"
Now THAT is hostile!
========================
If you were sleeping in a burning building and someone told you to wake up and flee the fire, would you call that "hostile"?
This is part of the Political Correctness (cultural marxism) agenda brought to us by the Marxists of the Frankfurt School:
a new Communist man has to be created before any political revolution was possible. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the societys institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals. The Christian soul has to be marginalized!
"Every knee will bend", "If you are not saved, you are going to Hell"
Now THAT is hostile!
tp,
Talk to anyone privately and some publicly and they understand full well what is going on here. Many feel helpless. The question comes down to what to do about it. And just as many truly are unsure what to do.
I have a simply solution ~ share your faith, invite folks to church or a bible study.
The more practicing Christians (at home and in our communities) there are across America the more Christian values will reemerge into society.
Why is it we still don't get it? This display, movies attacking Christianity, judges legislating from the bench, the assault on the family and marriage - all of this is orchestrated.
It isn't a bunch of misdirected "do gooders" just wanting inclusion. These people are specifically and systematically purposing to drive Christianity out of America and its history. Swaying public opinion by using popular media to spread their propaganda is exactly what they're doing.
We keep focusing on a dumb sign and crying "Wahhh, they disrespected us." But the fight is much deeper and a lot more directed than that. It's high time we start to understand that.