3 ms·

> It's more that people are concerned that they will have to be closeted in polite society. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support that concern. See the

• humanrebar 9y ago
  Calling attention to political disagreement is fine. Using language if hatred is not. I presume, as a Christian, you would rather people learn to forgive and reconcile instead of judge and condemn. The concern of Christians is that the goal here isn't to get Chic-Fil-A to change its behavior or speech but to brand it and people in its tribe as an Enemy and as evil. It's mainstream Christianity to consider extramarital sex as sinful. Is that hatred? No. Does it make people defensive? Sure. How do we resolve that tension? Well, hating Christians and ostracising them won't solve the problem. Unless the problem is that there are too many "out" Christians.
  • croon 9y ago
    > Calling attention to political disagreement is fine. Using language if hatred is not. I presume, as a Christian, you would rather people learn to forgive and reconcile instead of judge and condemn. Absolutely, though forgiveness requires remorse, as per the bible. We rarely see that. > The concern of Christians is that the goal here isn't to get Chic-Fil-A to change its behavior or speech but to brand it and people in its tribe as an Enemy and as evil. Let's just say we disagree on this. > It's mainstream Christianity to consider extramarital sex as sinful. Is that hatred? No. Does it make people defensive? Sure. How do we resolve that tension? Well, hating Christians and ostracising them won't solve the problem. Unless the problem is that there are too many "out" Christians. We disagree on this as well. Has anyone been refused service because they had sex before (or outside) marriage? I think it's an outdated view, sure, but I've also never seen it bother anyone to a real effect. There's also a tremendous difference between the vocal "mainstream Christianity" and the non-vocal, actual, mainstream Christianity. The former being the religious propaganda arm of the christian/conservative voting block, with the Pat Robertssons, James Dobsons, etc. The latter being people holding Christian values regardless of politics, meaning it doesn't matter if it's Clintons or Trumps extramarital affairs when deciding support. Conjecture: imagine if Obama had five kids with three different wives, and multiple reports of sexual harassment/assault as well as prostitution. Anyone reacting differently to this should inform you whether they hold Christian values at anything closer than arms length, when it's favorable. It's very blurry in the states, because a lot of Televangelists are insane caricatures to anyone looking in from the outside, whether it be scandinavian protestants or the catholic pope. It's unclear how many people listen to those leaders, and how many don't.
    • humanrebar 9y ago
      > Has anyone been refused service because they had sex before (or outside) marriage? Historically, landlords reserved the right to refuse tenancy to sex workers and roommates of different genders. I'm sure laws against these things are on the books. I'm not sure whether they'd stand up in court. But you're mostly proving that Christians generally agree that it's not something to legislate. But that doesn't mean they've changed their values. It just means they have a vision of "sexually kosher" that they'd like to practice and teach to each other without fear of hate or legal repercussion. Is it hateful to teach that the Bible is against open marriages? If so, is the Bible hateful? If so, is it hate speech? California passed a law that is in front of the Supreme Court mandating that pro-life groups educate their clients on how to get abortions. They are also considering a bill that would outlaw certain kinds of speech about sexual morality and sexual orientation. Already, similar rules exist in corporate settings, teaching that religious belief is inappropriate in work settings but that it's insensitive to assume a man with a wedding ring has a wife and not a husband. And people do get fired for being unorthodox these days. See: Eich, Damore, and Williamson. I wouldn't say any of them committed actual crimes or in any way violated anyone. Each was let go for speech outside their actual day-to-day work. Finally, you say you're a Christian, but it doesn't sound like you talk to many Evangelical Christian Trump voters [1]. Maybe because most of them understand the tremendous personal backlash for even sharing how they voted (see Shania Twain and Kanye West in the news). There are a few vocal people with blind "team" loyalty on facebook, but by in large, Trump voters in the general election were against Clinton (and against another liberal judge on the Supreme Court) than they were for Trump. Keep in mind that Trump only really won a plurality in the Republican primary. Most of them would have been much happier voting for Rubio. But I suspect that we wouldn't be happy and forgiving evangelicals even if in an alternate dimension, Rubio got the nomination over Trump. And there are a lot of "Never Trump" pundits out there, for example Kevin Williamson. Anti-Trump conservatives are perhaps the majority of commentators in the National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Federalist, etc. I don't know why you'd assume none of them qualify as evangelical. Do you have to have tacky suits and claim the blood of Christ on bank accounts to represent evangelical views? > Anyone reacting differently to this should inform you whether they hold Christian values at anything closer than arms length, when it's favorable. I want to point out that these are instructions on how to judge Christians as good or bad. It's not the job of anybody [2] to judge Christians as good or bad, just like it's not the job of a Christian to judge atheists as good or bad parents or voters. Everyone should instead be learning how to be good neighbors. And they should be having real discussions about real issues, perhaps finding irreconcilable differences, but they should make detentes and compromises, not more political enemies. I don't see why a same sex couple in San Fransisco and a large Mormon family in Utah need to be enemies. On the contrary, it seems likely that they can leave each other alone, be colleagues, or even be friends. [1] Apparently I need this disclaimer everywhere, which is part of my point, but I didn't vote for Trump because he thrives by feeding the divisive culture I'm arguing against. Though that was true of Clinton as well (basket of deplorables, etc.), so I didn't vote for her either. [2] Well, it's God's job. And it's the job of a local church to correct sin in its congregation.