Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
This is the law that was passed in Indiana last week. Take a minute and read it over.
Now look at the response to it in the media. Look at all the people going ape-shit crazy over this.
Religious freedom = the right to discriminate against gays!
Last month I published an article titled A Case of New Tolerance and Ignorance. In it, I quote The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English on the definition of tolerance:
“showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”
And then I shared the definition that most people today believe to mean tolerance:
“showing willingness to accept opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”
A subtle difference, but a significant one. We have shifted the term from meaning that one allows the existence of differing opinions and behavior to meaning that one accepts differing opinions or behavior.
Along with this shift, the word “bigot,” which is directly tied in definition to the word “tolerance,” has also been changed. So instead of a bigot being a person not allowing alternative views and lifestyles— like the Muslims that are throwing gays off rooftops— a bigot is instead a person that doesn’t accept and embrace the gay lifestyle.
Defining the terms is always important in a debate.
This is a huge change. While Christians have always been considered to be tolerant, we are now being singled out as the most intolerant. Even though Muslims are throwing gays off rooftops. Muslims are throwing gays off rooftops and the media is practically ignoring them, but a bakery chooses not to provide their service for a gay wedding and they are swarmed with media attention calling them the worst things allowed in civilized society.
Now, you are a smart person. How do I know this? Because you’ve held your cool to this point in this article. “[L]et every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.” We should really live by that verse more. Even if you are not a believer in Jesus, doesn’t it just make sense. The American media in the last couple decades have become quick to speak, quick to anger, and very seldom do they wish to hear opposing views. A wise person listens first. A wise person responds with calculated words.
Even if you do not agree with me. Even if you adamantly disagree with me. Don’t you really want us to be closer to that original definition of tolerance than the latter? Forcing a person to agree with you by lawsuit proves nothing. It’s like nuking another country. You haven’t proven who’s right, but who’s left. Accept that other opinions exist and that this is a good thing. If everyone agreed on everything, I don’t think life would be much fun. Imagine that the only restaurant around is Taco Bell. We can agree to disagree. I’m okay with this. Are you?
America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business. 1
I must ask, Mr. Cook, does Apple discriminate in any way? Or have you narrowed your definition of discrimination to fit the needs of your view? Last I checked, Apple Stores have an age limit of 18 to hiring employees.2 Apple doesn’t allow certain common practices in their Asian factories3, such as hiring young people and working long hours. Apple, at the launch of many products, restricts the number of purchases per person and sometimes has avoided sales to obvious foreigners because of the resale markets.
There are many forms of discrimination. Mr. Cook is right on this. But not all forms are bad. In fact, many forms are really good and help grow business. While not hiring 16 year olds prevents many from getting a job at an excellent employer, it also allows Apple to start their wage rates at a much higher number, far above minimum wage. While not allowing foreigners to buy their products in bulk might rub some wrong, it allows for those that want to buy their product from the business the chance to do so.
Businesses discriminate in many ways and must to survive.
That said, there are some forms of discrimination that are clearly wrong. Not hiring someone because of the color of their skin: wrong. Not serving someone because they are gay: wrong. But that isn’t what these religious freedom laws are seeking to allow. The law passed in Indiana is to allow religious conviction to play a role in providing services. Could it be used in a malicious way? Maybe, as many laws could. But the problem is the many bakeries and photographers that have been sued out of business because of refusing to provide certain services, namely gay weddings.
This is what seems to be difficult for many to understand. As a web developer, I cannot in good faith take a lot of different jobs. I left my last job because of the sexual harassment of a female coworker and the lack of response of my managers to it. I almost left the job before that because my boss was considering taking on a website for a strip club. Would I take on a project from a gay client? That isn’t the question to ask for me. It depends on the type of project more than the orientation of the client.
Anyone in the creative business has faced these issues. If you haven’t yet, you will. We must choose what clients we wish to take on.
But the media is saying that this could be used by a Christian restaurant owner to deny service to a gay person. Could it? I doubt it. The law states that action “may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion.”4 A restaurant providing food for a gay person does not “burden” a Christian. In fact, it’s what Jesus would have done.5 Does making a cake “burden” a Christian baker? Yes, because they are participating in something they consider wrong. 6
There are many things that Apple considers wrong that they discriminate against. Look at how selective they are on their factories and the restrictions they put on their business decisions. The things that Apple opposes in these factories are standard practice in these cultures. Most other tech companies don’t require the same rules be met.
For the Christian, it is the same. Many of the lawsuits coming against bakers are coming from customers that have been coming to the bakery for years, if not decades. These bakers haven’t discriminated against their clients unilaterally. They have time and again served these homosexuals without issue. But the bakers say they don’t make cakes for this one event and then they get sued. They are not discriminating against the homosexual, but the event. Just like many bakeries do not do weddings, these bakeries do not do this type of event.
Ultimately, it is a business choice. As Mr. Cook says, “America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business.” If it is bad for business, those businesses wouldn’t get clientele. They would be shunned by the community. But instead of that being good enough, some homosexuals have taken it upon themselves to sue them for tens of thousands of dollars. Because they won’t make a cake. Where I grew up, that was called a tantrum. And just like the lady that sued McDonald’s for serving hot coffee, the courts are giving them what they want. So now the pendulum is swinging the other direction and protection is being added to prevent this from happening to more businesses. If you don’t like how I run my business, take your business elsewhere.
This teaching is admittedly unpopular in our late modern times. Yet Scripture shows no interest in being popular or relevant—that is, in being adapted, revised, or censored to align with ever-shifting times. We must remain countercultural wherever the culture and the truth are at odds. It is this posture that makes Christians truly relevant in the culture.
I don’t know much about Terry Pratchett and I don’t read much science fiction outside of comics, but this quote is great on many levels. While, yes, on a completely narrow level of Earth, we live within specific bubbles without realizing what is just outside of our small world, also on a spiritual level, in Christ we are awoken to the reality beyond reality. The shear size of our world, our existence, cannot be seen when we stumble around in the darkness, but when God puts His holy light in us, gives us the power to see in the darkness, we see more than we can imagine. Often times, this new sight allows us to see things we wish not to see— suffering, pain, sorrow, and anguish— that we don’t understand or know not how to fix, but it also allows us to see so much that we could have never imagined before— the perfection of creation, the joys of life, the victory in death of believers.
We are born in darkness, unable to see very far, unable to know very much. But in Christ our vision explodes as we start to see beyond and beyond the beyond.
In response to letters from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group that clearly hasn’t read the Constitution that says we have a “freedom of religion,” a Texas Superintendent wrote the following:
Recently, I have been contacted by two concerned residents of White Oak ISD and legal counsel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation concerning the use of scripture in the “Thought for the Day” at the high school.
The residents were offended at the use of scripture, demanding that it be stopped and calling for disciplinary action against Mr. Noll. I am fully aware of the practice at the high school and will not pursue any action against our High School Principal or any other member of our faculty/staff concerning this issue.
The letter from the FFRF is not the first received by the district. They contacted us in the fall with concerns about the practices at our football games. I have responded in accordance with their stated concerns and we have moved on.
Let me be clear, this is an attempt to draw us into a contest of words for the sole purpose of giving the FFRF a large amount of free press/recognition that they and their very few members (1,200 in Texas) do not deserve. This group and others like it, are wanting us to provide them with negative quotes to use in the promotion of their agenda. We can and will make the adjustments needed to ensure our students experience a morally sound, positive character based education. There are a multitude of options to provide our students, faculty and staff the opportunity to express their First Amendment Rights as provided for in the United States Constitution. Let me also be clear that we have not (in my opinion) violated anyone’s rights and/or subjected anyone to undue stress. Bible studies and scriptures are allowed in schools. The requirement is that the material be presented in a neutral manner. It is my position that we met that standard with the morning announcements.
My recommended response to the FFRF is, “I’m sorry you feel that way. I will be praying for you and your staff daily.”
Finally, as a Christian Brother, it will not promote the values we hold so dear to assail those that disagree with the Gospel. We will state our case. We will make sure our rights are just as protected as anyone else that lives in this great country. We will continue to provide for all the needs of our students and we will do so while traveling the High Road. Don’t get drawn into a game of words that has no “winner”.
Please do not waste your time and effort on these few detractors.
Instead of pansying away like many schools have when threated in similar manners across our nation by the religious anti-religion group, this man stood his ground. Thank you, Superintendent Michael Gilbert. You make me want to move to Texas.
Rapper, tech entrepreneur, and human URL Will.i.am says the world will need new "codes and morals" to deal with the ethical implications of 3D-printed humans. "If you can print a liver or a kidney, god dang it, you're going to be able to print a whole freaking person," said the Black Eyed Peas founder in an interview with Dezeen. "Now we're getting into a whole new territory. Moses comes down with the 10 commandments and says 'Thou shalt not.' He didn't say shit about 3D printing. So new morals, new laws and new codes are going to have to be implemented."
Will.i.am says he believes that the technology to 3D print humans will be available in "our lifetime," adding: "I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying what's fact based on plausible growth in technology and Moore's law."
Um. Not the same here. We’re talking about cells and tissue, which is infinitely more complex than any computer that we’ve ever built. We’re talking nerves, organs, vains, and much more that computer chips. 3D printing is pretty awesome, Will.i.am, but the likelihood of us printing humans, full humans, in our lifetime is slim to none. Now androids, yes. But we don’t even know what makes life, well, life at this point. What we will see is transplant organs printed, which we’re already seeing. Though, they don’t look like real hearts, real stomachs. No, they are mechanical. Which is fine, as they work. But this, just like normal transplants, creates no issues with the Mosaic laws.
There is no need to rewrite the 10 Commandments. No one pay attention to the crazy rapper with a weird name throwing out random, science-fictiony ideas and trying to usurp religious morality.
Is Facebook stifling your prayer life? Great article from Desiring God.
For creatures like us, created to adore glory, we must find an object worthy of our worship. The cure for boredom is not diversion or distraction, but substantive enthrallment, says John Piper. We must encounter God, “to be intellectually and emotionally staggered by the infinite, everlasting, unchanging supremacy of Christ in all things.”
Which means that trying to silence our boredom with the compulsive habit of pulling the lever on the slot machine called Facebook is a habit that can be broken. But that will only happen if our compelling vision of God is grand enough to see him as beautiful and “infinitely creative,” so creative, that for those who worship him, Piper says, “there will be no boredom for the next trillion ages of millenniums.”
I don’t think I could have said it better myself. A Christian’s very basis of understanding humanity and sexuality is rooted in God. This goes back to the formation of our rebel band of lovers 2,000 years ago.
The story Christians have been telling for 2,000 years goes something like this: The God who made the Universe is also, by his very nature, Love, and he made human beings with a very lofty vocation. Humans are meant to reflect His glory in the world; to be like God, that is to say, to be lovers and creators. Everything in the Universe has been put here to be used by God's children to reflect his loving glory — and to teach them about God's love. This is particularly true, or so the story goes, of the unique sexual complementarity between men and women. The sexual act is meant to reflect God's love by fostering a union at once bodily and spiritual — and creates new life. The complementarity of the persons in a marriage reflects the complementarity of the Persons of the Trinity, and the bliss of marital union is an inkling of the bliss of the union of the Persons of the Trinity. The fruitfulness of the marriage act reflects that God is a creator and has charged man to be an agent of his ongoing work of creation. And, finally, if God's love means total self-giving unto death on a Cross, then man and wife must give themselves to each other totally — no pettiness, no adultery, no polygamy, no divorce, and no nonmarital sexual acts. According to the story that Christianity has been telling for 2,000 years, Christianity's view of sexuality isn't some encrusted holdover from a socially conditioned patriarchal era on its way out, but is instead deeply connected to its understanding of who God is and what human beings exist for.
Have I mentioned my love for Adam4d? That phrase you hear too often, “God helps those who help themselves”? That’s not in the Bible. You cannot help yourself. The sooner you admit it, the sooner you’ll find a peace that only exists under the blood of Christ.
