Monday Meditation: Religious Liberty and Christian Nationalism

Why should it be privileged over other religious faiths or non faith positions? Participate on equal footing yes. Privileged or dominant…no. That doesn’t even belong in the same sentence with worshipping a crucified messiah.

Frank

3 Likes

No, I am giving the court’s decision side. You are giving the accusation side which did not win the case. But think about it. If you had been coercing your students to join you in prayer after the game do you really have the certainty to keep taking the case through all the higher courts to get to the supreme court? Not likely! Fortunately, the court ruled against the Progressives who felt that the potential for abuse is enough to fire someone. Much better to go with the reality, over what could have happened. Would you like to be fired for something you could have done but did not do?

I would agree. Why is that definition even used, that is the problem! Where is the footnote or reference to those saying it? It seems that accusations no matter what the reality is, is often more persuasive to the left. If they had the reality then show the examples cite the sources. This is not hard at all to do…unless they don’t exist, then they have to pretend they exist.

You are assuming that this country was with God to begin with. This isn’t, and never was a Christian nation. Most of the founding fathers that signed the declaration of independence were deists. That is quite well documented. They wanted to remove the tierany of the religious states of Europe from our new nation. Many of the European citizens of this country had fled here to get away from the governmental demanded religious practices of the countries they came from. I believe God was directing the founding fathers in the country’s formation because I believe that God, first and foremost, promotes freedom of choice above everything else. God blessed this country, not because it was a Christian nation but because it was a nation that allowed the freedom for its citizens to believe what they wished with respect to their moral and religious convictions. Governmentally mandated religious moral views will never make this country great again. Morality only happens within the heart of a changed individual. And wearing red hats proclaiming such will only instill the kind of distrust, division and hatred that has permeated our society in recent years. The simple fact is: YOU CAN’T LEGISLATE MORALITY.

4 Likes

Okay and what did Jesus teach?

War or peace?

Love everyone or despise religious hypocrites?

Are there two commandments or dozens?

Again, the definition says everything and nothing.

1 Like

Very well said Frank.

1 Like

Do you think those things, those complaints, and the repeated requests from the school district didn’t really happen? They did. They are a matter of public record. How the court majority interpreted all of that is the problem, I would venture. This court is now highly politicized and leans heavily right. It’s why conservative Christian pundits have been exulting over this outcome. They know what it could be signaling regarding prayer in public schools.

The coercion wasn’t overt. The complaint was that it was subtle, but enough to bring complaint. He was sermonizing in the locker room. As a public school employee, how is that even remotely in bounds regarding the wall of separation, especially in a religiously pluralistic school district?

The fact that the justice system has leaned heavily right due to so many Trump appointees to the bench could have played a part in the continued pursuit of this case by the coach. By the end, he had conservative politicians doing photo ops with him as he continued praying publicly on the fifty yard line. It turned into a huge political football from which he did not shy away. This makes the dissent even more on point. Someone engaged in a private, personal expression of faith would walk the other way from such political publicity and nonsense. He didn’t.

He was suspended and then didn’t have his contract renewed after repeated warnings. What did he have to lose? So, it’s altogether reasonable that he saw the legal avenue and its continued pursuit as his only shot.

Frank

3 Likes

Why? When someone gives you their book on what Jesus Teachings were and what they mean to them are you going to decide if they are right or wrong? If they are a Christian or not? God save us from the dystopian world of Progressives who want to redefine and misdefine our language!

Respectfully David, I disagree with your premise.

You suggest that failing economy, violence and perceived moral decline are reasons for this remedy (you suggest controls on commerce, travel and conscience are the remedy, although not sure that is the case as it relates to religious liberty).

In regards to issues of SCOTUS decisions regarding religious liberty I wouldn’t see that as tied to the things you mentioned. I would say that Republicans and their supporters, in general disagreed with Roe V. Wade and other decisions made SCOTUS in the 60’s and 70’s and have spent the last 45 years looking to reverse what they perceive as a liberal bias. They have finally found a Supreme Court who wants the same thing. This has been happening regardless of the economic conditions, violence, etc. It’s also been good politics for the GOP (just as having the opposite position has been good politics for the Democrats).

You say man on the street panics and demands gov’t to assume great prerogatives. I would disagree with that generalization. I do think the politics of extreme left and right are driving much of this. I do think gov’t and court wish to placate the loudest voices, but at the same time are also those loudest voices because it results in power, influence and money.

Time suggested in Great Controversy? Maybe. But wasn’t it that time in 1844? Or perhaps during the Civil War. Or perhaps during WW2, or perhaps during the Great Depression. My point being is that pick any time in history you want and it could be that time. I don’t see this point in time as being particularly worse than others. Think of the Black Plague or the Inquisition. Pretty horrible times. If you were member of an indigenous tribe in N. America between 1650 - 1870, pretty horrible times.

Lastly, you say we are seeing a return to God. Well perhaps, but polls show that fewer people in the US believe in God than at anytime in polling history. Instead I think it’s loud voices who wish to use religion for their personal agenda. Many do believe we need a return to God. But many are cynical manipulators of people, both on left and right.

Just my 2 cents.

5 Likes

God save us from those who want to impose their religious morality on the rest of us. It certainly isn’t anyone else’s business who we love, what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms, who we bow down to, what race or gender our partner in life is, what we do with our own bodies, even when we decide to end our existence. God didn’t appoint any of you to manage my life, my beliefs, my relationships, or anything that doesn’t effect anyone else’s quality of life. The notion that God will, somehow, punish a nation for the behavior of some of it’s citizens, is sickening at best and absurd at worst. And He will not bless any nation because they have forced their constituents to follow any rules, including His. God only cares about changes of the heart, not by enforcement of rules.

4 Likes

Ah yes, continue the fiction! Is there absolutely anything in what I have said to make you think I will force anything on you? Apparently, if you believe the myth of the horrible invisible monster in the corner that frightening Christian Nationalism that is all you need. Your fear, making you so much more superior to the monster you have created. Again I will say Progressivism is its own religion it has it’s own myths and its own god and all must bow the knee or feel the Progressive’s wrath!

When all else fails, call those who disagree with you, spreaders of fiction or calling them fearful or making a God of their beliefs!! Rather sad, don’t you think? Maybe try some compassion towards others, I believe that was the message of Christ.

1 Like

I love how people on the left have to rewrite everything for their view to look valid. First, it was subtle coercion. Then it becomes sermonizing in the locker room! But that was not the case at all as you can read in the summary: "Here, no one questions that Mr. Kennedy seeks to engage in a sincerely motivated religious exercise involving giving “thanks through prayer” briefly “on the playing field” at the conclusion of each game he coaches. App. 168, 171. The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students after three games in October 2015. In forbidding Mr. Kennedy’s brief prayer, the District’s challenged policies were neither neutral nor generally applicable. By its own admission, the District sought to restrict Mr. Kennedy’s actions at least in part because of their religious character. Prohibiting a religious practice was thus the District’s unquestioned “object.” KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

See this is just like the above from Lindy where if someone does something different from what you the good progressive would do paints them as wrong.

What did he have to lose? His reputation and money as lawsuits are not cheap. But since he is not in a position to do all the appeals he had to persuade the Alliance Defending Freedom to spend their money on the process. So yes I would say he was pretty certain he had not coerced anyone or even subtlely which is pretty much a laughable explanation.

Thank you Jaray, but I am used to having this kind of response from Mr. Corson…Like you said, it’s the way they respond, even on what is purported to be a “Christian” website.

2 Likes

You are free to help Lindy out and quote where I indicated in any way I or anyone else was going to enforce my beliefs on them. Sometimes people lie! Sometimes people create false stories and strawmen arguments. Sometimes those things are called out and I seriously don’t think that upsets God at all. By the way what “all else” occurred that it failed. I do think it is sad that there are people who have so little logic in their minds they can’t have a rational discussion!

Arguing with you isn’t worth my time. I don’t need to prove anything to you. I only post in the hope that you won’t mislead others.

3 Likes

You did not argue anything. You asserted that the word Christian had no meaning! So apparently your concern was that people might think Christian actually has a widely accepted meaning. Well, I guess I and Webster’s dictionary have been shown to mislead the masses…or not.

what The Great Controversy predicts is that calls for a return to god via false notions of religion will eventually usher in sunday laws, and bring the world to its final test…the real catalyst will be increasing natural disasters, which we can easily imagine in terms of worsening global warming crises (egw describes these in terms of satan’s increasing permitted activity as the HS withdraws from the world)…

i think it would be better for all of us if government had nothing to do whatsoever with religion…but this isn’t what’s predicted to happen…i think it’s ominous that SCOTUS now seems so eager to weigh in on religious and religion-related questions…

You’ve defined nothing and proved only that you’re not that good at grammar.

Tell us what you think is meant by “Jesus Teachings” and I’ll find at least 15,000 so-called “Christian” denominations who’ll say you’re wrong.

That is correct, I did not define anything (I will ignore the double negative in your sentence as you seem to be part of the grammar police.) I simply directed to the thing called a dictionary definition. Amazingly enough at this site, there are people that think they need to know what all of Jesus’ Teachings are before they can grant others to define themselves as Christians. Apparently, some here think they are the arbitrators of Jesus’ teachings and the interpretation and what it means to others. That did come as a surprise to me.

OK, I will take you up on that offer. Here is a teaching of Jesus and I look forward to the list of 15,000 denominations who’ll say I am wrong. “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” Matthew 6:33 NIV
That is a big job for you to document thousands of denomination objections. Not something I would have asked of anyone, but since you volunteered I can hardly wait.

I’ll get right on it and should have something “soon”.

I’m using the Christian definition, though, so it could take up to 2,000 years or more.