First Amendment Under Attack

[willowtreewren]

Hemodoc, you said:

I don't agree with what he stated about black people, but I do support his right to state his views publicly. People are free to criticize him as well. However, for the average person, the threat of losing their job is all it takes to silence people and put fear into their hearts about speaking their mind in public. So, yes, the article is quite wrong. This type of coercive power is enough to silence first amendment freedoms.

This is absolutely correct. For over 35 years I have had to keep my "religious" views to myself for fear of losing my business. The knife cuts both ways. BUT, I do not consider it an abridgment of my first amendment rights. It is a reflection of society. I have the right to state my views. I choose not to do so for practical reasons. I do look forward to the day that I no longer need to keep silent for fear of losing my business. I imagine people will be quite surprised to learn that the good person they have admired and turned to for advice on life and living is an atheist.

[Hemodoc]

See how your are?  You want to post your opinion and/or beliefs, yet when others answer, you ignore them.  I offered facts and you dismissed the post.  Your previous declaration that the Tea Party has no organization yet takes many political actions, seems to have grown into your personality; neither they or you take responsibility.  Words have consequences.

Try debating the issues instead of resorting to one-way communication.

Gerald, am I going to convince you of my views if I were to go into long diatribe on the history of the Bible, the historical Jesus and the God of the OT and the NT are the same God, just different dispensations of justice and grace and the Christian foundation of America which goes far beyond a few politicians in the late 1700's?  Secular Humanism is a belief system and in such is a form of religion yet it is a religion solidified by the rule of law. Little by little, the first amendment freedoms slip away. That is not only a danger to Christians but all in this nation.

If you wish to debate those off topic issues start a new thread. The topic we are discussing here is first amendment rights.

[G.Lively]

Interesting!  Rerun says this is not a debate and I thought it was.  As I said earlier, words have consequences.  So does failure to respond.  I intend to ignore your posts since it is fruitless to expect explanations from you.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom, looks like Gerald took his ball and went home so this will be to you for now.  Keeping to the issue of first amendment rights, a couple of interesting commentaries point out what the whole Duck Dynasty controversy is all about.

A nation founded by pilgrims who came here to worship the God of the Bible freely without interference and persecution from ruling elites and those opposed to Christianity's influence on the culture, has now come to the proverbial fork in the road. After years of attempting to balance traditional Americana with political correctness, those pushing the new "my way or the highway" definition of "tolerance" have decided accommodating our differences of opinion is defeat. . .

Back to that proverbial fork in the road. One sign says "liberty." The other sign says "political correctness." Every individual American and every American institution will have to choose one or the other. We can no longer have both, and the truth is we really never could. It was always going to end this way, we just didn't want to believe it.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/19/duck-dynasty-bible-religion-palin-robertson-column/4124181/

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom,

Here is another article that spells out the concrete loss of income vs. silencing religious views. In the land of religious freedom, it appears that we are returning to state sanctioned religious intolerance.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/12/20/penalizing-hold-biblical-views-marriage/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Now, all of this is sadly expected as a Christian. Bible prophecy spoke of this a long time ago that the days of the end will be as the days of Lot. Lot was persecuted by the entire town for his beliefs. The entire Duck Dynasty controversy follows on the heals of Chick Fil A and so many other businesses simply stating publicly their continued belief in traditional marriage. As more and more states declare bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, churches will not be exempt soon enough. That is the entire issue of concern for where these things are headed.

[Rerun]

Interesting!  Rerun says this is not a debate and I thought it was.  As I said earlier, words have consequences.  So does failure to respond.  I intend to ignore your posts since it is fruitless to expect explanations from you.

PTL   

[Hemodoc]

Yes Gerald, it looks like there are consequences to suppressing the right for fundamental Christians publicly expressing their beliefs. Cracker Barrel Restaurants pulled Duck Dynasty merchandise after Phil was suspended. After a "swift" and vocal response against this action, Cracker Barrel reversed it's decision and apologized which is quite remarkable in today's politically correct culture.

“We were flat out wrong."

That’s the message Cracker Barrel is sending to enraged customers after the restaurant chain removed Duck Dynasty items from its stores over fears it might offend people.

“Our intent was to avoid offending but that’s just what we’ve done,” Cracker Barrel said in a statement posted on its Facebook page. “You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/22/cracker-barrel-screwed-up-big-time/

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

https://www.facebook.com/CrackerBarrel

[Zach]

And all this time I thought Duck Dynasty was about Donald Duck and his family history.
 

[MooseMom]

Hi, Hemodoc!  Apologies for not having gotten back to you sooner, but I seem to have spend the last three days shoveling snow.  Ugh.

I don't have a lot of time as it is late and the next few days will be filled with Christmas preparations, but I have been thinking about this issue and wanted to offer a few of my thoughts because if I don't, they will stay inside my brain and will not let me sleep.

One, Cracker Barrel must not know who their customers are.  I was frankly shocked that they took down all of their Duck Dynasty merchandise.  As usual, money talks.  Cracker Barrel will replace the DD merchandise, their customers will be appeased and CB will continue to make money.  I've been to countless Cracker Barrels, and while I know this is a sweeping generality, I personally have never seen non-white customers.  (I hope CB customers have health insurance because whenever they CB describes the items on their menus, they use terms like "home cooking" or "southern cooking" which is code for "seasoning with salt pork, ham hocks or bacon drippings.  It's a cardiac infarction just waiting to happen!  LOL!)

Phil Robertson will not lose his job.  A&E and Phil Robertson have played everyone.  A&E conveniently "suspended" Mr. Robertson despite the fact that the upcoming season has already been taped and will begin showing in January.  Ratings will be even higher, more merchandise will be sold, and Phil will return if he wants.  If he decides not to return, he will still be a rich man.  I don't think we should pity him.

I regularly read the online editions of various British broadsheets, and I found this fascinating link to a story in The Telegraph that looks at this whole idea of how the practice of religious liberty can clash with other societal norms seen within the majority community, and I couldn't help be reminded of some of the stories to which you have provided links.

There is a vernerable department store in the UK called Marks and Spencers.  Now, keep in mind that the UK is probably the most multicultural place on earth, particularly East London, so you can imagine the cultural and religious clashes that can ensue.  It seems that M&S have decided to allow their Muslim employees to refrain from handling and selling alcholol and pork to customer, instead leading said customers to sales people who do not mind selling these goods.  The Muslim employees say that that their religious liberties are being trampled upon because they were being forced to handle products that are taboo in their religion and culture.  Here is a link to the story; you may find the comments to be of interest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

(Tesco's and Sainsbury's are two nationwide grocery chains.)

I'd be very interested to hear your comments on this story.  If you went into a grocery story and bought some nice pork chops to accompany a zingy Rioja but were asked to go to another checkout line because the checkout person was Muslim and felt like s/he couldn't handle these products in good faith because she valued her religious liberty, would you be OK with that?

Lastly, I can't help draw parallels between the persecution Christians must now be feeling with that felt by negroes, gays and other minorities in the past.  I worry that since "national security" became the all-emcompassing rationalization to invade our privacy, "religious liberty and freedom" is in real danger of becoming code for smug intolerance.  We all want to be secure, so we are duped into giving up privacy and freedom so that some shadowy corporations will make even bigger bucks.  I fear that crying "religious liberty" will make people think they can say anything they want, even if what they say is cruel and unkind.  Would Jesus really have looked askance and a humble baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple?  Could not the baker show some kindness to the couple and then ask God for forgiveness?  I'm sure God would have seen inside the baker's heart and known that he was a good man and would have forgiven him if he had repented.  Let God do the judging.  He has bigger shoulders and much more time.

The two dangers to the religious right are the profit motive and the democratic process.

Cracker Barrel just want to make money and don't want to offend their best customers.  If CB had any backbone at all, they would have stuck to their original plan.  But the fear of losing money/profit made them do a 180.

While I understand your concern that "The Government" is stealing your right to religious liberty and free speech, remember that you and I ARE the government.  Through the democratic process, people are able to form policies they believe will be for the greater good and will benefit their state.  States' Rights and all that.  If Colorado refuses to allow a bakery to refuse selling a wedding cake to a gay couple, it's because the people of that state have democratically decided that this is the road down which they want their state to travel and will not tolerate discrimination, even if it is being sold as an infringement upon religious liberty.

I'm not entirely sure why you feel that churches will soon be forced to perform gay marriages against their will.  Perhaps you can explain this further.

I know there is a lot in your posts I have not yet been able to closely examine, and I'll get to those sometime later.

Again, I worry that our puppet strings are being pulled by those really in power, that we are being manipulated into these sorts of discussion while most of us are being distracted by the few people who are content to rob us blind.  I worry that we are concerned about the wrong things.  I worry that there is a cabal who is chortling over how easy it is to make us look over there while they steal our power and our money whilst we are looking in the opposite direction.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and your wife.  I hope you get to spend some time with your precious grandpunkin.

[Hemodoc]

Dear MM,

Last first. Yes, I absolutely believe there are people fostering the polarization of America FOR THEIR purposes. Yes, I believe that there are people pulling the strings. I believe it is their desire to prevent real dialogue, only shouting matches and increased anger and frustration between opposing viewpoints. That is one of the rules for radicals.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

We have always had divergent ideas on political issues, but only of recent times here in the US anyway have we been unable to discuss pragmatic solutions to these diverse problems.

I believe the "End game" is control over the churches. The foundation of this is coming to fruition in the state cases of note recently. I will throw it back up to the level of your last statement. I believe that there are people telegraphing openly their intentions. We have all I would imagine heard of the The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would put forth many of the recent state judgements on gay marriage in a Federal mandate. That does have great implications for churches since MOST American churches are incorporated. I disagree with incorporating a church since that puts its creation as a state created entity under control by the state. I don't believe churches should be founded legally by the state which means they have given up their first amendment protections by becoming a state corporation subject to all the laws of that state. In any case, all corporations must adhere to all state laws including those on non-discrimination.

If ENDA passes which it nearly did recently, then American churches would be under increased scrutiny of the Feds to enact all non-discrimination laws including those on gay marriage and employment in ministry positions. If that includes gay marriage as a civil right, yes, that is where it is headed. Europe and Canada placed restrictions through hate speech legislation against preaching scripture that prohibits homosexuality. It appears Canada recently backed off on this a bit, but people have been prosecuted in Canada and Europe over these laws.

I believe that ENDA may actually broadcast their intentions openly, once again this is speculation on my part but the coincidences are too evident when you read it as The END Act. Sorry, am I reading too much into that? Perhaps, but ENDA will have a chilling effect on American churches if passed which becomes more likely every year. I can't separate the acronym from it's potential implications.

Yes, A&E and the Ducks will profit from this controversy. Have they duped us all? Perhaps but that is not the testimony of the Duck folks. Are there so called Christians who make merchandise of unsuspecting people? Yes, unfortunately.  Is this such a case? I don't think so, but time may tell.

I also saw the religious tolerance story in England which is perhaps where religious tolerance should be even though I am bothered by the Islamization of Europe that is rampant today supplanting traditional European cultures by in part taking advantage of marginalized ethnic immigrants in these nations. They noted that Christians were granted days off on Sunday, Jews on Saturday and Muslims on Friday which should be recognized for people of religious beliefs. The issue I would worry about is placing Sharia law at the level of civil and common law precedents in England especially since that is already happening there.  Should the customers be hindered and inconvenienced? No, I believe that is problematic but people can vote with their pocketbooks and not get into the line of someone known to be muslim, but I am not sure that this will help their cause in the long run by engendering more bigotry against them due to the inconvenience it causes.  Should they have the right to refuse to handle liquor and pork? Yes.  Should a restaurant in San francisco close after Muslims complained of the smell of bacon served near residential areas? No, but that is what has happened in England as well. So why do we see the Democrats bending over backwards to accommodate Islamic religious convictions yet opposing the expression of Christianity? I don't get the alliance myself, but it is there and is that what tolerance is all about?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bacon-bacon-bacon-restaurant-smells-like-bacon/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322435/Cafe-owner-ordered-remove-extractor-fan-case-smell-frying-bacon-offends-passing-Muslims.html

Do we take into consideration the goals of Islam which does call for infidels to submit to sharia law such as the smell of bacon near homes? Should their religious goals be allowed to trample the rights of other people who are not Islamic? No. Should the bakers in Oregon and Colorado have to bake the cake for the gay couples who petitioned the courts? No. Will that engender hatred against Christians? Yes, just as it will denying sales of pork and liquor in England, but yes, I believe they should have the right to refuse service if it compromises their beliefs. Why is it here in America that is bending over backwards as Europe and other nations do that we see toleration of Islamic religious preferences yet Christians are forced to adhere to the standards of secular humanism? 

There is a clear dichotomy between how requests of religious liberty for Muslims and Christians are handled here in the US and in Europe. So, should Muslims have to serve pork? No. Should Christians have to bake cakes for homosexual weddings? No, but that is NOT what the courts now say in at least two states very recently. Is that religious tolerance? I don't think so. Gay rights will soon supplant first amendment religious protections, but that applied selectively against Christianity but not so for Muslims. That is what is shaping up in Europe and to a smaller extent here in the US supported in large part by an alliance with muslims and democrats making for strange bedfellows for sure.

The goals of islam and Christianity are quite divergent and not comparable. Jesus says if people reject the gospel to move on and let them be. That is not what the Koran states. A theocracy is not the goal of evangelical Christianity. Free expression of our faith as provided by the first amendment is what is expected and desired.

Lastly, would Jesus condone homosexuality? No. Is the recent tolerance movement tolerant of Christianity? It appears more and more that the answer to that is no. Is that surprising to me? No, that is the expected turn of events since the Lord stated it would be as the days of Lot. Look what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah attempted to do to him for sitting at the city gate judging them. I believe that is where this is all headed.