Pew report shows American Christian numbers in decline

[A New Dawn]

The Methodists were not being compelled to perform gay marriages, they were told that since the facilities were rented to non-Christians they could not discriminate in leasing the facility to gays. I'm not sure this decision wouldn't be overturned on appeal given the Tabor ruling, but since the claimants weren't awarded any monetary damages, I doubt if the church will bother. The United Methodists, in any case, are pretty divided on the issue of gay marriages.

I don't believe a minister should be required to marry anybody they choose not to, but if you rent public space you cannot discriminate against a protected class. It would be unacceptable for a space to put up a sign that says "No Irish". It just would. I see these as fundamentally different services being offered. I also view businesses as different than private citizens, although I'm losing that battle since the Supreme Court seems to want to grant them full citizenship.

As far as the government being out of marriage, that's fine with me but the genie is out of the bottle. Your solution is basically unworkable.

The whole point of his post was that the government is overstepping it's bounds and forcing private people and their businesses (businesses that do not take money from the government) to have to abide by restrictions and allowances that binds the government. The government should not be forcing private citizens to do this. Private is private. That is the whole purpose of being private, it is your house and you can invite whom you want. The government was not created to run, or ruin, people's lives (as the case may be.)

 

[bhsmte]

The whole point of his post was that the government is overstepping it's bounds and forcing private people and their businesses (businesses that do not take money from the government) to have to abide by restrictions and allowances that binds the government. The government should not be forcing private citizens to do this. Private is private. That is the whole purpose of being private, it is your house and you can invite whom you want. The government was not created to run, or ruin, people's lives (as the case may be.)

You have a slight problem.

These businesses are not private, they are PUBLICALLY accommodating businesses. They may be owned privately, but they have voluntarily chosen to open their doors to the public.

If a business wants to be truly private, they can do so, by taking memberships and only serving those they have chosen to accept memberships from. Similar to how private country clubs work, private schools and even churches, they are free to accept members according to their guidelines.

 

[LoAmmi]

The whole point of his post was that the government is overstepping it's bounds and forcing private people and their businesses (businesses that do not take money from the government) to have to abide by restrictions and allowances that binds the government. The government should not be forcing private citizens to do this. Private is private. That is the whole purpose of being private, it is your house and you can invite whom you want. The government was not created to run, or ruin, people's lives (as the case may be.)

A business that is open to the public, no matter how nicely you dress it up, is not someone's house.

 

[A New Dawn]

Define "public space"? Is this space owned and controled by the Government or by Private Citizens? So many people nowadays do not know the difference.

This is the whole crux of the situation, and many people don't seem to understand the difference between them.

Private businesses are those that are not owed by the government, nor take money from the government. They are wholly private. Public businesses are those owned and run by the government.
http://www.privacysense.net/difference-between-private-public-sector/

Private businesses may be open to the general public (the masses, not the government), but that does not mean that they are "public". The government has no right to require private businesses to conform to any specific standard. Public opinion might drive one that is very restrictive to be closed by means of protest, boycotting, etc., and that is the right of the people. In fact, that is how things should work. Most people don't want to lose business, so they conform to the will of the people. Some stand by convictions they hold, and understand it might mean they could go under. That is their choice, too.

This is one of the problems with big government. They think they need to have their tentacles in everyone's business, whether they have the right to or not.

 

[Supreme]

I think what you cannot forget is that America is still a ferociously religious nation- especially in parts like the South, and Texas. However, the shifting global focus of the Church has been happening for some time now, and will continue to happen. The future of the Church isn't North America and Western Europe, but Africa, Asia and Latin America. It's kind of sad how the place that the Church did so well in- Western Europe- is moving further from it, but we see religious changes and shifts throughout history, and shouldn't expect peoples to always remain the same.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think what you cannot forget is that America is still a ferociously religious nation- especially in parts like the South, and Texas. However, the shifting global focus of the Church has been happening for some time now, and will continue to happen. The future of the Church isn't North America and Western Europe, but Africa, Asia and Latin America. It's kind of sad how the place that the Church did so well in- Western Europe- is moving further from it, but we see religious changes and shifts throughout history, and shouldn't expect peoples to always remain the same.

“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless."

Rabbi Heschel

 

[A New Dawn]

You have a slight problem.

These businesses are not private, they are PUBLICALLY accommodating businesses. They may be owned privately, but they have voluntarily chosen to open their doors to the public.

If a business wants to be truly private, they can do so, by taking memberships and only serving those they have chosen to accept memberships from. Similar to how private country clubs work, private schools and even churches, they are free to accept members according to their guidelines.

Actually, I don't have a problem. Read my later post. There is a difference between Public and Private. The difference has to do with where the money comes from, not who populates it.

 

[A New Dawn]

A business that is open to the public, no matter how nicely you dress it up, is not someone's house.

It is. Just like this website is someone's house and we are invited here to discuss or visit or play games however we want, as long as we follow the rules of the owner of this house. So, yes, private is private.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, I don't have a problem. Read my later post. There is a difference between Public and Private. The difference has to do with where the money comes from, not who populates it.

You are wrong and the law disagrees with you.

When a business voluntarily opens their doors to the public and welcomes them in, they are a publically accommodating business.

All owners of publically accommodating businesses, are held to the same laws to protect the public from discrimination, whether they are; Christians, atheists, muslims, hindus or whatever else. All business owners are treated equally.

Of course, as I already mentioned, if a certain business owner wants to be able to discriminate, they can make their business a non-publically accommodating business by making it private and taking memberships.

 

[LoAmmi]

It is. Just like this website is someone's house and we are invited here to discuss or visit or play games however we want, as long as we follow the rules of the owner of this house. So, yes, private is private.

Well, I don't know what to say except you are wrong per the laws of the United States. This website is not a public accommodation and is more similar to a private club. Were there a ChristianForums store in the mall, and they decided that they refused to serve Jews, they would be in violation of the laws of the United States. Laws that have held up in the Supreme Court, so they are Constitutional. You are welcome to your opinion but that's not the reality of our nation.

 

[A New Dawn]

Well, I don't know what to say except you are wrong per the laws of the United States. This website is not a public accommodation and is more similar to a private club. Were there a ChristianForums store in the mall, and they decided that they refused to serve Jews, they would be in violation of the laws of the United States. Laws that have held up in the Supreme Court, so they are Constitutional. You are welcome to your opinion but that's not the reality of our nation.

Only because the government has overstepped it's bounds. As has been my claim. I'm hoping that someone will come along and restore us to the ideals of the founding fathers and the Constitution and we will become a Constitutional Republic again. This socialist-leaning democracy will drive the government into the ground and bankrupt us all in a very short time.

 

[LoAmmi]

Only because the government has overstepped it's bounds. As has been my claim. I'm hoping that someone will come along and restore us to the ideals of the founding fathers and the Constitution and we will become a Constitutional Republic again. This socialist-leaning democracy will drive the government into the ground and bankrupt us all in a very short time.

You are welcome to your (wrong) opinion.

The idea that businesses should be able to discriminate based upon skin color or religious belief lost. It should remain lost. People who fight for it either are bigots or don't realize they are fighting for bigotry.

 

[bhsmte]

Only because the government has overstepped it's bounds. As has been my claim. I'm hoping that someone will come along and restore us to the ideals of the founding fathers and the Constitution and we will become a Constitutional Republic again. This socialist-leaning democracy will drive the government into the ground and bankrupt us all in a very short time.

Then those who disagree with laws protecting the public against discrimination, are free to file a legal challenge to these laws and making their case that the government is overstepping their bounds. Good luck with that.

 

[smaneck]

My solution to this whole mess is surprising to most. I agree that homosexuals such be able to get married. However I believe that the government should have no part in any wedding. Leave that to private citizens and their individual mores. Government can therefore require everyone to fill out partnership agreements, therefore making everyone equal under the law.
If a gay couple can find a Christian Church to perform the wedding... Go for it.
On the same note, if a citizen desires to have a specific business which is advertised as a Christain wedding service, then who are you to say they have to go beyond their expertise and beliefs?

We are already seeing the freedom limiting effects of this new law before it even takes effect.
There are Christian dating websites being sued because they don't have a gay section.
There are wedding chapels who advertise traditional Christian wedding services which are being sued because they are being told they have to offer non traditional wedding services as well.

I'm not sure that the wedding chapel in question had specified "Christian" wedding services, just weddings. But I would agree with you that perhaps the state should get out of the marriage business period. Partnership agreements should be sufficient legally.

 

[awitch]

Only because the government has overstepped it's bounds. As has been my claim. I'm hoping that someone will come along and restore us to the ideals of the founding fathers and the Constitution and we will become a Constitutional Republic again. This socialist-leaning democracy will drive the government into the ground and bankrupt us all in a very short time.

Ah the founding fathers. Shall we revoke women's right to vote and own property, and treat African Americans as 3/5 of a person before reinstating slavery?

 

[swilson1]

Since it is God who adds to the church, those who leave were never truly saved. There are lots of tares amongst the wheat.

Hey Hammster, hope you are doing well this fine day.

A lot of people leave church because they are not being fulfilled. It is the people who make up the church. People come with their brokenness and their problems to be healed,saved and delivered. For myself, I don't really go to church because my spirit was not being fed. There is a lot of judgement, passivity,neutrality,denial, greed and a great many other bondages that the American church has right now.

When I go to church I WANT TO BE SET FREE. I want to seek God and God alone. The church is the Body of Christ, and if one part in the body is lacking or has an ailment, we all have a problem. This is so with the church. The brokenness is ever prevalent. People especially those people my age, want more. We want to see the real Jesus who fed the poor and the needy. We want to see and know the miracles that are talked about all throughout the Bible.

We want to be whole again. People are having real problems and they are coming to the church to get real solutions, but are leaving disillusioned and more broken than before because the church is stuck in its ways with its automated responses to our problems. So I am posting this because I so desperately need you and others to receive that. I need you to have genuine conversations and relationships with the least of these so that they will be the least no more. I need you to understand them, because they are suffering and need to know the REAL Jesus. So we must show it in every facet of our lives because you are church. I am church. We are all church. Our bodies are temples for the Lord to reside in us. And since we are in the business of setting people free, we must house the Christ within us and maintain upkeep with our selves by renewing our minds daily and setting our minds on things above because we have to help the broken and the lost because that is what we once were.

 

[LoAmmi]

Ah the founding fathers. Shall we revoke women's right to vote and own property, and treat African Americans as 3/5 of a person before reinstating slavery?

I've often wondered when the Founding Fathers received their official status as Prophets. In my opinion they were men with very good ideas but we should not look at their views from the late 1700s and assume that they are the best views for today. Maybe they would have opposed discrimination laws, but they also accepted slavery and owned slaves which are views we don't think are good today.

 

[smaneck]

Define "public space"? Is this space owned and controled by the Government or by Private Citizens? So many people nowadays do not know the difference. <snip> But before that States found that their different laws on marrage contradicted each other so they all agreed that a marriage is one state will be held to be legal in another state. This has now come to a head as one state has ruled gay marrage to be unconstitutional while another had ruled it legal. This caused the States themselves to go against their own agreement in recognizing marrage from one state to the next. <snip>
The government, (local, State, and Federal, needs to step back and absolve themselves of being in the marrage business altogether.

"Public space" in this case refers to private businesses that operate in the public sphere. It is not entirely the case that a marriage permissible in one state is recognized in the rest. First cousin marriages, for instance, are not recognized in all states even if they were performed in a state where it was legal. However, if they looked too closely at their immigrant population that might see a problem because cousin marriages are quite common among Muslims. However, I suspect that the Supreme Court, if it doesn't rule that marriage is a Constitutional right will rule that the contracts of one state must be upheld in the others. Quite frankly, those side that opposes gay marriages did not present a very good case legally speaking.
But I would agree that getting government out of the marriage business entirely may be the ultimate solution.

 

[smaneck]

This has gotten worse since Reaganomics became fashionable and politically correct. This even though David Stockman (the architect of Reaganomics) admitted this is nothing more than welfare for the rich. People who call themselves Christian but who vote Republican should read the Book of Amos to learn what God does to a society that enriches the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

I'm beginning to think that moving the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses over here was not such a bad idea. Some new and interesting people are starting to show up.
In regards to the Book of Amos, when I was teaching at a regional state university in Kentucky I asked my students to write an essay on a primary source in antiquity. Someone asked if they could do the Bible. I told them they couldn't do the whole Bible because the Bible was a lot of different books written at different times. But they could do a particular book in the Bible. So this student picked the Book of Amos. Unfortunately all she got out of it was that that Christians (!) shouldn't get drunk or divorced. I don't know where she got 'divorce' out of that book, but the reference to drunkneness was the rich getting drunk off of the misery of the poor.
My point is, it doesn't matter if they read the Book of Amos. They still won't 'get' it.

 

[smaneck]

The Orthodox Jews kill people for what they consider crimes within their faith? I think not.

TBH, I am not going to spend my time searching for newspaper articles that are several years old just to satisfy your lack of being UTD on what is happening in the world. There have been several killings in NYC that were sharia in nature.

When legalities have been violated, it no longer is a place for civil court action. If someone has harmed someone else in a non-legal way, then they should totally try to fix it the way their religion dictates, as long as those reparations are within the law, but many of these cases (child custody, etc.) are based on state and local laws, that is not for sharia courts to handle.

If you can't substantiate what you say about killings in NYC being shariah based then there is no reason for us to believe what you say it true. Acts of terrorism are not shariah-based. Honor killings likewise are not shariah-based. Shariah courts in the West are used solely for the purpose of arbitration just as are courts for Orthodox Jews. They do not carry out hudud punishments. Paul, as a Muslim in the British Isles has already attested to this.

As for my being up-to-date on these matters, I believe the fact that my PhD in which my major field was Islamic history gives me more credentials in these matters than someone who refuses to back up their personal prejudices with evidence.