Christianity Today calls for Trump's removal from office

[bekkilyn]

Ok, they deregistered them for following biblical principles

So were groups who decided their "biblical principles" were owning slaves.

 

[gym_class_hero]

We are, in fact, not ‘far-right’ evangelicals as characterized by the author," the letter states. "Rather, we are Bible-believing Christians and patriotic Americans who are simply grateful that our president has sought our advice as his administration has advanced policies that protect the unborn, promote religious freedom, reform our criminal justice system, contribute to strong working families through paid family leave, protect the freedom of conscience, prioritize parental rights, and ensure that our foreign policy aligns with our values while making our world safer, including through our support of the State of Israel.

It continues, "We are not theocrats and we recognize that our imperfect political system is a reflection of the fallen world within which we live, reliant upon the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is freely given to sinner and saint, alike.

“We are proud to be numbered among those in history who, like Jesus, have been pretentiously accused of having too much grace for tax collectors and sinners, and we take deeply our personal responsibility to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's — our public service."

They also denounced assertions Galli made in an essay published last year in the book Still Evangelical?, in which he derided the 76% of white self-identified evangelical voters who helped elect Trump in 2016. He described those individuals as "evangelicals [who] often haven’t finished college, and if they have jobs (and apparently most of them don’t), they are blue collar jobs or entry level work.” In the same piece, Galli referred to himself as belonging to a different group of evangelicals, the “elite” evangelicals.


Greg Laurie on Twitter

 

[gym_class_hero]

So were groups who decided their "biblical principles" were owning slaves.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26‭-‬27 NASB
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of | New American Standard Bible (NASB) | Download The Bible App Now
Romans 1:26 NASB
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural | New American Standard Bible (NASB) | Download The Bible App Now

 

[gym_class_hero]

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26‭-‬27 NASB
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of | New American Standard Bible (NASB) | Download The Bible App Now
Romans 1:26 NASB
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural | New American Standard Bible (NASB) | Download The Bible App Now

 

[hedrick]

No one was banned for limiting their leadership to people who aligned with their views.
For second time this year, judge says University of Iowa violated Christian group's rights

The judge accepted the statement that the University prevented Intervarsity from restricting leadership to people who followed their religion. But it was clear from other actions that the University didn't object to a religious group restricting membership based on religion. Rather, they violated University policies against discriminating against gays. The ruling basically considered this religious discrimination, on the grounds that conservative Christianity rejects homosexuality.

Interestingly, there is a Supreme Court case, Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez, that says an all-comers policy is constitutional, because it's viewpoint-neutral. (Generally court cases understand the first amendment as requiring "viewpoint-neutral" policies.) All-comers would mean that student organizations can't discriminate on any basis. However the court in this case found (correctly, it would appear) that this was not a neutral all-comers policy, but allowed some viewpoints and not others.

 

[bekkilyn]

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26‭-‬27 NASB
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of | New American Standard Bible (NASB) | Download The Bible App Now
Romans 1:26 NASB
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural | New American Standard Bible (NASB) | Download The Bible App Now

And don't you think that pro-slavery people can't also quote scripture to support their views of what "biblical principles" are? Does that mean a school has to go along with it simply because some Christian group decides it's in the bible, or has to support a man having 27 wives just because they claim that's a "biblical principle" too? Or what about if this Christian group wants to stone adulterers? Yep, that's also in the bible. Can they claim that the school is violating their rights if they can't pursue that "biblical principle"?

The fact is that the school wasn't in any way persecuting this group for being Christian or even for sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Just because a group is Christian or claims to be Christian doesn't mean a school has to go along with anything they want to do or not want to do simply because they believe they can find it in the bible somewhere. Now if the school was deregistering the students for *having* bibles, that would be different!

 

[hedrick]

The fact is that the school wasn't in any way persecuting this group for being Christian or even for sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Just because a group is Christian or claims to be Christian doesn't mean a school has to go along with anything they want to do or not want to do simply because they believe they can find it in the bible somewhere. Now if the school was deregistering the students for *having* bibles, that would be different!

I'm reasonably sure a school does have to go along with any viewpoint. At least if it's a State school. They do, however, have the option of adopting an all-comers policy, which would refuse organizations from restricting their membership at all. I believe there are some schools that do that. There are varying State laws on the subject.
{{meta.pageTitle}}
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth - Wikipedia
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-freedom-to-express-the-thought-that-we-hate/

Things have changed in the last couple of years, with a Republican Supreme Court. It's not clear to me that an all-comers policy would actually work today, despite an explicit Supreme Court decision on the subject.

 

[charsan]

I unsub from that liberal stuff.

 

[gym_class_hero]

And don't you think that pro-slavery people can't also quote scripture to support their views of what "biblical principles" are? Does that mean a school has to go along with it simply because some Christian group decides it's in the bible, or has to support a man having 27 wives just because they claim that's a "biblical principle" too? Or what about if this Christian group wants to stone adulterers? Yep, that's also in the bible. Can they claim that the school is violating their rights if they can't pursue that "biblical principle"?

The fact is that the school wasn't in any way persecuting this group for being Christian or even for sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Just because a group is Christian or claims to be Christian doesn't mean a school has to go along with anything they want to do or not want to do simply because they believe they can find it in the bible somewhere. Now if the school was deregistering the students for *having* bibles, that would be different!

if you have some argument against what I posted from Romans, I'd be happy to hear it. But on its face, it appears you are arguing based on your personal feelings.

 

[bekkilyn]

if you have some argument against what I posted from Romans, I'd be happy to hear it. But on its face, it appears you are arguing based on your personal feelings.

It's not me who is outraged and getting a persecution complex because a public school with principles of being inclusive to all students requires its campus student groups to also be inclusive. When they stop allowing students to have bibles, then come back and talk about being persecuted.

 

[gym_class_hero]

It's not me who is outraged and getting a persecution complex because a public school with principles of being inclusive to all students requires its campus student groups to also be inclusive. When they stop allowing students to have bibles, then come back and talk about being persecuted.

They didn’t sanction the Muslim groups for setting their membership standards. Different.

I’m not outraged at all. Just reporting the inconvenient facts

 

[bekkilyn]

They didn’t sanction the Muslim groups for setting their membership standards. Different.

I’m not outraged at all. Just reporting the inconvenient facts

Here is a list of 38 student groups they deregistered. At least one is Muslim and the NAACP is considered to be liberal as just two of the examples. They aren't just singling out Christians or even religious groups.

Here is a list of the deregistered student organizations at the University of Iowa, as of Thursday:

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Asian Pacific American Student Association (U of I)

Association of Nursing Students (UIANS)

Bass Fishing Team (Iowa)

Chinese Dance Club

Chinese in Iowa City

Christian Pharmacy Fellowship

Chinese Student Christian Fellowship

CMA EDU

Code the Change

Cookie Dokie

English Society

Financial Management Association

Geneva Campus Ministry

German Club

Hong Kong Student Association

Imam Mahdi Organization

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship

Iowa American Student Dental Association

Japanese Students and Scholars Club

J. Reuben Clark Law Society

Korean Conversation Group

Korean Uiowa Students Association

Latter-day Saint Student Association

Malaysian Student Society

MEDLIFE (Medicine, Education and Development for Low Income Families Everywhere)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (UI Chapter of NAACP)

Persatuan Mahasiswa Indonesia di Amerika Serikat (Indonesian Student Organization)

Phi Beta Lambda

Public Relations Student Society of America

Red Shamrock Student Organization

Revolution Dance Company

Sikh Awareness Club

Student Iowa School Counseling Association

Students for Human Rights

Wall-Breakers

Young Americans for Liberty

Young Life

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

While the University of Iowa may have decided to deregister the group due to disagreement over its stance on LGBTQ+, it did not at all deregister the group for being *Christian*.



That verse about Christians being hated is the typical verse cherry-picked out of scripture to justify terrible behavior. Christian acts like a jerk and gets called out on it, and then tries to counter with that verse, "Well of *course* we are hated..." when absolutely no real persecution is being done.

So taking God out of school, prayer...etc. Being told you have to accept worldly issues or get in trouble. Get singled out if you mention your a christian...etc is not persecution?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The editor of Christianity Today, Mark Galli, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that the magazine has lost subscribers due to the op-ed rebuking Trump, but also stated that there's a surge in subscriptions. They've gained three times as many new subscribers as they've lost. The criticism as well as the venom they've received was precisely what they expected, but they'd been determined to persevere. Theodore Roosevelt wrote that Dante had “reserved a special place of infamy” for neutral angels, those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. He also said that "patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”

They've also been inundated with gratitude. I give them mine. I feel like it was restorative in a way, an affirmation. Galli said Christians have told him that the op-ed articulated what they wanted to express.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The op-ed reminded me of this open letter published last year: An Open Letter to Trump’s Evangelical Defenders

 

[rambot]

First they came for the bass fishers but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a bass fisher.

Then they came for the Chinese fencers but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a chinese fencer.

Then they came for the Iowa American Student Dental Association but I didn't speak up because I wasn't from Iowa or a Dental Student.

Then they came for the Phi Beta Lambda but I didn't speak up because I don't know what that is and I wasn't one of them.

Then they came for other people but I didn't speak up because I no longer really cared because the university was using a rubric that did not target one particular group but ended up affecting the memberships of many student groups on campus.

 

[KarateCowboy]

It's not me who is outraged and getting a persecution complex because a public school with principles of being inclusive to all students requires its campus student groups to also be inclusive. When they stop allowing students to have bibles, then come back and talk about being persecuted.

The whole inclusion thing is stupid. It's a pretext for lowering standards and attacking social mores. It's not a virtue.

On top of that it's always exercised selectively, which shows it's a big fat farce.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's not surprising to know that Franklin Graham is continuing to compromise his moral convictions to support Trump. You can clearly see his blatant hypocrisy in the difference of his quotes below.

You assume his convictions were to morality and not to an amassing of personal power and status.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Not surprising CT got more people who added them after the article. All it shows me is just how many christians have a super hate-filled venom for Trump. I mean as much as I dislike him, I am not going to join a group who publishes an article that hates him. Ever more so when the article assumes guilt.

 

[bekkilyn]

So taking God out of school, prayer...etc. Being told you have to accept worldly issues or get in trouble. Get singled out if you mention your a christian...etc is not persecution?

Prayer is still in schools last I checked.

You don't have to accept that homosexuals, the disabled, black people, Hispanics, women, etc. are people, but being told you can't discriminate against them and treat them like subhumans isn't persecution against Christians. Especially not if your bible contains John 13:34. Mine does.

I'm often very public about my Christianity. I'll wear God/Jesus shirts, bracelets with "Thank you Jesus" on it, will participate in saying grace before meals in public restaurants, will talk about Christ with random people who express interest while in line, will have bibles, hymnals, etc. out on full display at the public library while working on something, etc. Not once have I ever been violently or vocally accosted, tossed out of a place for being Christian.

Christians, and particularly white Christians, are one of the least persecuted groups in this country if they're even remotely persecuted at all, which they aren't on the whole. Just because Christians may be required to actually play nice sometimes with others who may have differing beliefs does not persecution make.