Christian Cops Not Wanted

Neutrality in the public space doesn't exist and has never existed. This is a good lesson for Christians to learn.

I disagree with Rod Dreher on a number of things (including many of his ideas about gender and a lot of what he says in the article), but he makes one good point in his article: In the moment, when we're in the middle of a social change, it can be difficult to discern whether my side is right or my opponent's side is right. There is a place for mercy towards those disagree with us but who think they're doing the right thing. This doesn't mean that we change our minds about what needs reforming, but it can mean that we honor their intent to do what is right, even while fiercely disagreeing about what the right thing is.

PloverWing said:

I disagree with Rod Dreher on a number of things (including many of his ideas about gender and a lot of what he says in the article), but he makes one good point in his article: In the moment, when we're in the middle of a social change, it can be difficult to discern whether my side is right or my opponent's side is right. There is a place for mercy towards those disagree with us but who think they're doing the right thing. This doesn't mean that we change our minds about what needs reforming, but it can mean that we honor their intent to do what is right, even while fiercely disagreeing about what the right thing is.

Click to expand...

This is an ultimately untenable position. The pro-LGBT side is in no mood to tolerate the anti-LGBT side. They have made it clear that affirmation is the only way forward and those who do not participate in that affirmation will be cast to the margins of society. This is only natural and it cannot be avoided. We cannot tolerate what we find intolerable.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

This is an ultimately untenable position. The pro-LGBT side is in no mood to tolerate the anti-LGBT side. They have made it clear that affirmation is the only way forward and those who do not participate in that affirmation will be cast to the margins of society. This is only natural and it cannot be avoided. We cannot tolerate what we find intolerable.

Click to expand...

Problem is, people are getting fired for stating their opinion or belief, just because your thoughts are wrong for them, this sort of highlights over other stuff, it was not happening before, and its scary, whats next, jail for speaking your mind? if you don't realize this has gone bonkers you are part of the problem i think.

NBB said:

Problem is, people are getting fired for stating their opinion or belief, just because your thoughts are wrong for them, this sort of highlights over other stuff, it was not happening before, and its scary, whats next, jail for speaking your mind? if you don't realize this has gone bonkers you are part of the problem i think.

Click to expand...

I question the notion that this sort of stuff wasn't happening before. Go back long enough and it would have been thought impossible for a public servant to openly present as homosexual or some other identity that was considered bad or immoral. In that case the opposite standards were socially enforced. All societies have standards and all societies enforce them. We are just seeing the movement away from a Christian oriented society to something else.

Has the world gone bonkers? Only from a Christian point of view that wishes to return to an older standard. To the progressive this is quite good and it should only continue to go in this direction. There is no middle way that Dreher and other liberals seem to think is possible.

PloverWing said:

I disagree with Rod Dreher on a number of things (including many of his ideas about gender and a lot of what he says in the article), but he makes one good point in his article: In the moment, when we're in the middle of a social change, it can be difficult to discern whether my side is right or my opponent's side is right. There is a place for mercy towards those disagree with us but who think they're doing the right thing. This doesn't mean that we change our minds about what needs reforming, but it can mean that we honor their intent to do what is right, even while fiercely disagreeing about what the right thing is.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like mercy is exactly what this officer was afforded: his superiors saw the post as problematic, but didn't punish him beyond a warning that may not have even constituted an official reprimand. That he can't appreciate 1.) the difference between civil and religious qualifications for marriage; 2.) his role as a public servant within a secular, pluralistic society; and 3.) the difficult position those kinds of comments might put him or his department suggests that, at best, he's not yet mature enough or knowledgable enough to be a police officer. At 19, I'm not terribly surprised.

NBB said:

Problem is, people are getting fired for stating their opinion or belief, just because your thoughts are wrong for them, this sort of highlights over other stuff, it was not happening before, and its scary, whats next, jail for speaking your mind? if you don't realize this has gone bonkers you are part of the problem i think.

Click to expand...

He wasn't fired. He got a cautionary warning and decided to quit because he didn't like being told what to do.

iluvatar5150 said:

It sounds to me like mercy is exactly what this officer was afforded: his superiors saw the post as problematic, but didn't punish him beyond a warning that may not have even constituted an official reprimand. That he can't appreciate 1.) the difference between civil and religious qualifications for marriage; 2.) his role as a public servant within a secular, pluralistic society; and 3.) the difficult position those kinds of comments might put him or his department suggests that, at best, he's not yet mature enough or knowledgable enough to be a police officer. At 19, I'm not terribly surprised.

Click to expand...

Only pluralist when it comes to certain ideas, opinions and peoples.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Only pluralist when it comes to certain ideas, opinions and peoples.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that's what the preacher on the radio said.

iluvatar5150 said:

I'm sure that's what the preacher on the radio said.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? My point was that the pluralistic secular society you talk about is only so pluralist. Certain people shouldn't participate fully within said society, no? Specifically conservative Christians who hold the traditional view on marriage.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

What are you talking about? My point was that the pluralistic secular society you talk about is only so pluralist. Certain people shouldn't participate fully within said society, no? Specifically conservative Christians who hold the traditional view on marriage.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about your subscribing to a persecution complex that's long been hocked by radio preachers. Conservative Christians who hold a traditional view on marriage - including this officer - are perfectly able to fully participating within society. That a police officer is expected to refrain from saying or doing certain things that might erode the public's trust in his impartiality does not contradict that. There are all kinds of topics - many having nothing to do with religion - that an officer should refrain from publicly opining on for the same reason.

iluvatar5150 said:

I'm talking about your subscribing to a persecution complex that's long been hocked by radio preachers. Conservative Christians who hold a traditional view on marriage - including this officer - are perfectly able to fully participating within society. That a police officer is expected to refrain from saying or doing certain things that might erode the public's trust in his impartiality does not contradict that. There are all kinds of topics - many having nothing to do with religion - that an officer should refrain from publicly opining on for the same reason.

Click to expand...

It's not a persecution complex, rather it's a recognition of the necessary marginalization of traditional Christian views in public. Something I assume you as a believer in liberal secular modernity would be all for. People with these opinions regarding traditional marriage, have no legitimate place in the system if they voice their opinion. It's shameful and goes against the spirit of the society that you want to build up, one that is post Christian and affirms what traditional Christians are against.

It's not like a cop couldn't come out and proclaim themselves as proudly pro LGBT. You and the police in this instance, would be fine with that.

Such is the case with any society. You cannot have neutrality. This is why Dreher and other classical liberals are wrong. The side that pushes the hardest for their ideas in the public space will win out in the end. Your side is winning mind you but I think if we are going to acknowledge the dominance of your preferred system, Christians have only two options. Either we infiltrate the system or we separate from it. Both are fine in my view and both have their negatives and positives.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

It's not a persecution complex, rather it's a recognition of the necessary marginalization of traditional Christian views in public. Something I assume you as a believer in liberal secular modernity would be all for.

Click to expand...

I don't agree that "traditional Christian views" have been marginalized. What I believe is that they've lost their privileged status and that many Christians seem incapable of adopting a live-and-let-live attitude that recognizes that, in a secular pluralistic society, it was improper to foist their particular religious mores on others.

What we're witnessing is not a marginalization of "traditional Christian views," but a backlash to the abhorrent behavior that many Christians have displayed over the last several decades. I think Christians would have been fine if they'd merely reverted to holding for themselves the opinion that homosexual marriage is wrong (the way many do for inter-faith marriages and post-divorce marriages) rather than conjuring up decades worth of hysteria and hatred towards homosexuals.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

People with these opinions regarding traditional marriage, have no legitimate place in the system if they voice their opinion. It's shameful and goes against the spirit of the society that you want to build up, one that is post Christian and affirms what traditional Christians are against.

It's not like a cop couldn't come out and proclaim themselves as proudly pro LGBT. You and the police in this instance, would be fine with that.

Click to expand...

Proclaiming a pro-LGBT stance is an affirmation of a certain set of rights. It does not communicate to anybody the loss or threatening of rights in the way that decrying gay marriage does. In the case of the officer, his anti-gay marriage statement could reasonably cause someone in the LGBT community to lose faith in his duty to protect them. This is compounded by the fact that his statement was factually untrue as it regards the law - he denied the existence of a right provided by the law that he swore to uphold. If, instead, he'd said that there was no right to bear arms, gun owners would have been right to suspect his duty to respect their rights.

People should probably just stop being on Facebook or Twitter or whatever. What good ever comes out of them? It seems like they just get people into trouble or make everyone angry with each other.

iluvatar5150 said:

I don't agree that "traditional Christian views" have been marginalized. What I believe is that they've lost their privileged status and that many Christians seem incapable of adopting a live-and-let-live attitude that recognizes that, in a secular pluralistic society, it was improper to foist their particular religious mores on others.

Click to expand...

There is no difference between losing privledge and being marginalized. Nor do we have to accept secularist, atheistic and liberal ideas as the standard. If you are going to advocate a pluralistic society, be pluralistic and accept all voices. Don't carve out exceptions for groups you personally like. LGBT okay, Christian not okay. It just demonstrates your favoritism and what side you're actually on.

iluvatar5150 said:

What we're witnessing is not a marginalization of "traditional Christian views," but a backlash to the abhorrent behavior that many Christians have displayed over the last several decades. I think Christians would have been fine if they'd merely reverted to holding for themselves the opinion that homosexual marriage is wrong (the way many do for inter-faith marriages and post-divorce marriages) rather than conjuring up decades worth of hysteria and hatred towards homosexuals.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt there is a reaction but that's the case in all societies. I simply want to acknowledge the actual affects of this on society and that Christians are no longer permitted to be open participants of society. You might say we can participate if only we keep our mouths shut, in proper deference to progressivism. But as a Christian I don't feel like I need to bend the knee to you or your progressive ilk.

iluvatar5150 said:

Proclaiming a pro-LGBT stance is an affirmation of a certain set of rights. It does not communicate to anybody the loss or threatening of rights in the way that decrying gay marriage does. In the case of the officer, his anti-gay marriage statement could reasonably cause someone in the LGBT community to lose faith in his duty to protect them. This is compounded by the fact that his statement was factually untrue as it regards the law - he denied the existence of a right provided by the law that he swore to uphold. If, instead, he'd said that there was no right to bear arms, gun owners would have been right to suspect his duty to respect their rights.

Click to expand...

I get this is the argument you as a progressive believe in. But it's not a pluralistic society you're upholding here, it's a progressive one. I don't agree with the rights regime, I don't agree Homosexuals get the right to marry someone of the same sex. If that offends you, if that hurts your feelings then so be it. Christianity takes precedence and the Christian view of marriage is not to be subordinated your view of marriage as a purely secular institution devoid of the sacred. It has affects on society and if Christians don't have the ability to contribute to society fully while having their voice, then we should act as Christians for Christians. Not as Christians for the progressive society you value. Therein is the path of Liberal Dhimmitude.

Michie said:

"there's no such thing" as gay marriage said he felt pressured to resign after he was told he could be fired for sharing his beliefs.

Click to expand...

So gay marriage people have freedom of speech but people who oppose them don't? I miss the WW2 vets that were willing to die so people could have free speech if they agreed with them or not.

Michie said:

Georgia cop, 19, resigns after suspension for religious post on gay marriage: 'Dangerous precedent'

Former police officer Jacob Kersey said he was effectively forced to resign from the Port Wentworth Police Department after controversy erupted for a Facebook post about marriage.

www.foxnews.com

Sign of the times: smalltown Georgia police force pushes traditional Christian out for wrongthink about marriage

A former Georgia police officer who was investigated for a religious social media post that claimed "there's no such thing" as gay marriage said he felt pressured to resign after he was told he could be fired for sharing his beliefs.

Jacob Kersey, 19, who quit the Port Wentworth Police Department earlier this month, told Fox News Digital that he was placed on paid administrative leave Jan. 4 after he refused to remove the Facebook post he made regarding his Christian belief about marriage.

Continued below.

Christian Cops Not Wanted

Sign of the times: smalltown Georgia police force pushes traditional Christian out for wrongthink about marriage

www.theamericanconservative.com

Click to expand...

How do you become a police officer at 19?


The same thing would have happened if he had posted that about interracial marriage or made any other attack on a minority.

Just because he attacked a minority you choose to hate doesn't make him right or a victim.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

This is an ultimately untenable position. The pro-LGBT side is in no mood to tolerate the anti-LGBT side. They have made it clear that affirmation is the only way forward and those who do not participate in that affirmation will be cast to the margins of society. This is only natural and it cannot be avoided. We cannot tolerate what we find intolerable.

Click to expand...

My best friend is gay and he once said that he doesn't care about affirmation from anyone he just wants to be able to send his kids to school without worrrying that there is a 'fundy with a few guns" out there eager to do what he thinks God wants

SilverBear said:

My best friend is gay and he once said that he doesn't care about affirmation from anyone he just wants to be able to send his kids to school without worrrying that there is a 'fundy with a few guns" out there eager to do what he thinks God wants

Click to expand...

So your friend wants Christians to affirm and accept them. In the process, Christian convictions against his desire have no legitimate place in society.

Your best friend's desire is not good grounds for abandoning Christian convictions or surrendering politically.