Gay Patriot Header Image

Leftist Panel Bashes Christianity, Reiterates Hackneyed Cliches

A panel of left-wing groups (including the Human Rights Campaign) meeting in Washington DC declared that religious liberty is a threat to the leftist social agenda, and must be stopped at all costs.

The audience received a similar narrative of religious beliefs functioning as a Trojan horse for discrimination from ACLU senior counsel Eunice Rho, who denounced attempts to pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in various states.

“These are very dangerous because they can allow religion to be used to harm others,” Rho said.

You see, religion, like all else in a progressive, secular society, exists only to serve the needs of the State.

And, of course, what left-wing panel would be complete without the hackneyed recitation of grievances and tiresome cliches.

“People [are] using the term ‘liberty’ when they really mean ‘my liberty, your slavery,’” the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said during the discussion. Gaddy compared Christian florists who don’t want to provide service for gay weddings to employers who posted “whites only” signs in their windows.

Yeah, the Jim Crow persecution of blacks is precisely and equally identical to gays having to go across the street to a different baker to get a wedding cake because… feelings!

And if you open a business, you give up your Constitutional Rights to Free Speech, Free Association, and the Free Exercise of Religion. So sayeth the left.

Share

20 Comments

  1. link?

    Comment by alanstorm — December 13, 2013 @ 11:12 am - December 13, 2013

  2. The problem with the the left is they are interpreting the opening sentence of the First Amendment in today´s language, It is a problem of semantics. The Founding Fathers, the concept of a divided Christianity was not expressed as ¨denominations.¨ Therefore if written with that knowledge, the Amendment would read Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a denomination nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In those days, except for Georgia (a penal colony), every colony had an official denomination; Rhode Island, Baptist, Massachusetts, Puritan and later Congregationalist, Connecticut also Congregationalist, New York, Dutch Reformed, Pennsylvania, Quaker, Virginia and the Carolinas, Anglican; New Jersey by tan agreement between Berkley and Carteret, divided the colony, one half officially Presbyterian the other Anglican. Maryland was a Roman Catholic colony.

    At present, I live in El Salvador, where its Constitution establishes the Roman Catholic Church as the official religion of the country while other denominations are free to practice their faith. I would love to bring the ACLU done here, they would go nuts! Religious expression is openly practiced, Super Markets have a statue of a saint over its entrance, postal employees have religious cards of Jesus and saints posted on the wall. This time of the year Nativity Scenes abound in public places and private. A large life size Nativity is on display in a major depatment store.

    Comment by Roberto — December 13, 2013 @ 11:14 am - December 13, 2013

  3. I honestly think a big factor of the conflict between Christianity and radical atheism is a kind of religious conflict. I think, just as Protestant is a branch of Christianity that decided that it didn’t need the “decorations” and hierarchy of Catholicism to have the essence of Christianity: equality, free will, and universal brotherhood, so radical atheism has decided it can dispense with the supernatural aspects of Christianity altogether and keep its social concepts. The reason radical atheists do not attack, say, Judaism, is the same reason Protestants did not really attack Judaism.

    When the French Revolution succeeded, Notre Dame was rechristened the “Temple of Reason” for the atheistic Cult of Reason (look it up, it was real) and Maximilian Robespierre replaced it with the Cult of the Supreme Being, a cult to a rationalistic supreme deity with Robespierre himself as high priest. Humans will always seek a religion. Even if we have to make non-religion a religion.

    Comment by Sean — December 13, 2013 @ 11:27 am - December 13, 2013

  4. There’s a big difference between “I don’t believe in God,” and “I believe that God doesn’t exist.” The first is opinion, the second is Dogma.

    More and more, atheism is less about not believing in God, and evermore about hating Christianity.

    Comment by V the K — December 13, 2013 @ 11:43 am - December 13, 2013

  5. Bingo, V the K.

    The easy way to show it: these hate panels rarely, if ever, attack Judaism and would never in a million years presume to say a word about Islam.

    Why? Because the former would be condemned in the media and the latter would result in them losing their heads.

    They’re merely anti-Christian bigots.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2013 @ 12:34 pm - December 13, 2013

  6. “People [are] using the term ‘liberty’ when they really mean ‘my liberty, your slavery,’” the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said during the discussion. Gaddy compared Christian florists who don’t want to provide service for gay weddings to employers who posted “whites only” signs in their windows.

    And forcing a Christian (or any other) business to perform a service is slavery. Freedom includes the right to not associate, the freedom to decline to engage in a transaction, the right not to participate in the celebration (via providing a service) of a ceremony that is against religious teaching.

    And another thing, I dislike the logistical argument that establishes that no harm is done if a business declines a transaction because another nearby business will undoubtedly accept it. No law could long withstand such a presumption and the right of a private citizen to choose to decline to associate with a potential customer has nothing to do with whether another such citizen will choose otherwise. Private decisions represented by private capital should be inviolate. Much has been made about the constitutionality re. forcing someone to purchase a product, i.e. Obamacare. Just as important is the constitutionality re. whether a business is required to sell.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 13, 2013 @ 1:25 pm - December 13, 2013

  7. I have contact, both in real life and on the internet, with very reasonable atheists. When I bring up the Richard Dawkins activist types, they role their eyes as mutter “anti-theists” or “atheist-cultists.” Atheists who are genuinely motivated by their own logic, i.e. their own experience has not convinced them that there is a supreme being, or it has convinced them that there is not a supreme being, take a very dim view of the radical atheists, calling them “religious fundamentalists with a non-religion.”

    As one atheist I talked to said, “Religion is like a particular hobby: you do it or you don’t. You can’t say that you have a hobby of not having a certain hobby. But going around telling people who do that hobby that they’re stupid and should give up that hobby? You better believe that’s a hobby!”

    Comment by Sean — December 13, 2013 @ 2:04 pm - December 13, 2013

  8. All the considered thoughts and opinions above have very important points and very valid conclusions – and I agree. But, I feel/see something much more sinister in the left’s war on religion and Christianity. I think what we see from the left is a western version of and a desire for what in Russia was called “gosateizm.” I believe it is this that we are seeing unfold:

    “When the Soviet Union was established by the Bolsheviks in 1922, it was the constitutional organisation which took over from the Russian Empire. At the time of the 1917 Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was deeply integrated into the autocratic state enjoying official status. This was a significant factor that contributed to the Bolshevik attitude to religion and the steps they took to control it.[1] Thus the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[2] and its replacement with universal atheism.[3][4] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[5] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.

    The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. “Science” was counterposed to “religious superstition” in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes.[citation needed]

    State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm,[2] and was based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. “Religion In The Soviet Union, Wikipedia.”

    When one reads what was done in the years following 1922, it reads like what we have experienced these past decades, and has only been sped up by the communist in the White House. I only see it getting worse, and in the future a full blown attempt at “gosateizm” by the democrat/liberal/progressive/communist American leadership in power at that time. I also think it will get very ugly and violent as well since there are many Americans that have a “Free Will” and have a “Free Spirit,” unlike the population of Russia of 1922, which was largely born and raised in serfdom.

    Comment by mixitup — December 13, 2013 @ 2:08 pm - December 13, 2013

  9. And forcing a Christian (or any other) business to perform a service is slavery.

    I think it might be important to distinguish between “performing a basic-level or standard service” and “entering into a contract for a customized service”. Is it “slavery” if a Christian-owned business is forced by law to sell an unadorned iced sheetcake or a “standard” bouquet of roses to a gay couple? I would say no — the sales transaction of such items does not significantly impose on the Christian’s time.

    Furthermore, the fact that the Christian business may someday require the services of (e.g.) police officers or firefighters who are either gay or strongly gay-supportive implies, to me, that the business has a moral obligation to avoid broad discrimination against gay customers. I would say that “you must be willing to serve those who would willingly serve you” is part of the civilized social contract, and provides a moral argument against discrimination even if there were no anti-discrimination laws on the books.

    In short, Christian bakers must sell “off-the-rack” cakes to gay couples who plan to serve them at wedding receptions, just as gay florists must sell “off-the-rack” bouquets to Christians who need table centerpieces for their Stop Same-Sex Marriage benefit luncheon.

    But any business that engages in “custom work” by special contract should be free to turn down clients for any reason whatsoever.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 13, 2013 @ 5:04 pm - December 13, 2013

  10. I think it’s just simpler to simply allow businesses to exercise their own freedom to engage in commerce without Government interference. A little discrimination here can be corrected by the free market, and in any case is preferable to an all-oppressive Government everywhere.

    Comment by V the K — December 13, 2013 @ 5:25 pm - December 13, 2013

  11. Is it “slavery” if a Christian-owned business is forced by law to sell an unadorned iced sheetcake or a “standard” bouquet of roses to a gay couple? I would say no — the sales transaction of such items does not significantly impose on the Christian’s time.

    What an odd standard. So if a forced activity doesn’t “impose significantly” upon someone else’s time, it can’t be slavery?

    Furthermore, the fact that the Christian business may someday require the services of (e.g.) police officers or firefighters who are either gay or strongly gay-supportive implies, to me, that the business has a moral obligation to avoid broad discrimination against gay customers.

    Police and firefighters are publicly funded through taxation and are required to perform services to those who presumably pay for them. This bears no logical comparison to situations involving private enterprise except to remark on how very different they are.

    As for ‘moral obligation’, Christianity is meaningless without it. You’re attempting to cloak obligation (i.e. slavery) in the context of a broader social morality that takes precedence over a personal conviction. I disagree. In fact, that’s the point of my comments. Also, there is a difference between discrimination against gay customers and refusing to be an economic participant in the celebration of gay marriage. This is, unfortunately, a point lost on many.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 13, 2013 @ 5:31 pm - December 13, 2013

  12. Also, there is a difference between discrimination against gay customers and refusing to be an economic participant in the celebration of gay marriage. This is, unfortunately, a point lost on many.

    It’s not lost on me, and I’m happy that you pointed out the very clear difference.

    No doubt the bakery owner in Colorado has no problem selling his goods to anyone and everyone; what he is being compelled (by threat of force) to do is to engage in a service that makes him, to some degree, a participant in an event that he does not wish to take part in because of his religious beliefs.
    One is not the same as the other, and we’ve seen this recently with photographers and florists as well.
    I’m with those that say that he doesn’t have to sell his goods to anyone in particular for whatever reason, whether I support that reason or not.

    I would, however , make very limited exceptions for items that I consider to be necessities (which flowers, photos and cakes certainly aren’t):
    - people need to eat to survive. So while a restaurant or bar/lounge could engage in these ‘serve/don’t serve whomever you please’ practices, a grocery store could not.
    - gas/fuel sellers could not.
    - in cases of critical emergencies, hospitals could not.
    No ‘carve outs’ for housing; there’s a ton of it available, and no one has a right to live in a particular home, nor in a particular location.

    Comment by Jman1961 — December 13, 2013 @ 6:21 pm - December 13, 2013

  13. hey…if you’re refused service at one lunch counter, there’s always another one down the street…right ? …and nobody NEEDS to use a particular water fountain since there’s a perfectly usable one next to it reserved for ‘your kind’…right ? i mean why shouldn’t non-discrimination laws and business regulations go right out the window when we’re talking about serving those icky, sinful gay people ?…am i right ??

    Comment by el polacko — December 14, 2013 @ 12:43 am - December 14, 2013

  14. Atheist activists are every bit the obnoxious proselytizers they accuse Christians (and only Christians) of being.

    I’m waiting to see what happens when some loathsome Fred Phelps type demands that a gay florist provide flowers to one of their rituals under pain of legal action.

    And, I’ve asked before, don’t these actions mean that states have the power to compel drug companies to provide lethal drugs for executions regardless of company ownership’s moral objections to capital punishment?

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 14, 2013 @ 10:55 am - December 14, 2013

  15. El Polako. You seem to forget that the discrimination of the Jim Crow laws were just that. Laws promulgated by the Federal Government against blacks, not actions by private individuals. That’s what made them truly vile.

    Comment by Juan — December 14, 2013 @ 11:19 am - December 14, 2013

  16. Police and firefighters are publicly funded through taxation and are required to perform services to those who presumably pay for them.

    This does not exclude the possibility that a Christian baker who refuses to sell basic cupcakes to a gay customer (OR a gay baker who wouldn’t sell cupcakes to a “homophobe”) is essentially being “parasitic on the system.”

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 14, 2013 @ 4:58 pm - December 14, 2013

  17. How is a Christian baker who lessens his profits by not engaging in transactions involving the celebration of same-sex marriage a parasite?

    Comment by Ignatius — December 14, 2013 @ 10:31 pm - December 14, 2013

  18. “. . . they can allow religion to be used to harm others,”

    Unlike, say, Islamic doctrine.

    Comment by Blair Ivey — December 15, 2013 @ 12:15 am - December 15, 2013

  19. Would a black owned business be free to refuse service to whites? Not allowed now, but leftists seem to think discrimination is good as long as they practice it.

    Comment by davinci — December 15, 2013 @ 10:27 am - December 15, 2013

  20. Would the Government be equally within its purview to require, on pain of legal penalties, that consumers use minority-victim-class run businesses?

    Comment by V the K — December 15, 2013 @ 1:34 pm - December 15, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.