What would i do?

Remember how Jesus chose to let himself be carried off to face the government of the day and be judged innocent by the Overlord only to be taken up by the religious ‘right’ who then crucified His Body with the assistance of the government flunkies.

They did what they thought was the ultimate expression of their right to follow God’s Word as they believed it to be, while Jesus then showed them what REAL power was and WHO wields it.

Can we do as He did? Each in our own way? And according to His understanding which is far greater than is our own?

Let us both hope so and work towards.

it matters not what so called ‘leaders’ of mankind do to us – it matters what we do and in whom we believe.

The Lord is the only being we should fear. Scripture tells us we should obey the Law, be it of man or of God.

if enough people in a democracy feel a law is wrong then they have the right to elect those, or convince those already elected, that such is not in accord with their will and alter the law of man accordingly.

No-one has the right to alter the law of God, but so few of us ever see it from His point of view but choose to see it in such a way as to believe that we are in the right while those who do not see things our way are in the wrong.

<B

Of course, I would never be one of those people.

Though, as Jesus said, “When hard times come, the love of most will grow cold.” (Can’t remember verse, but it’s a NLT quote.)

And I have met some cold Christians…

My time on this computer is up.

I think we can find a better balance, but it will never be perfect. More individuals, and groups, have greater freedom of expression now, but you are right some groups are starting to finding theirs restricted.

I have faith in that our democracy will protect the freedom of religion, and speech, of it’s citizens. However discrimination is unlikely to ever go away. We must be consistently vigilant about these freedoms our forefathers have fought for.

You and Mike have helped me to understand better why you are concerned. You both make valid points. I see the present as being better than the past, so I have more confidence that when groups are discriminated against our democracy will find a way guarantee everyone’s freedom.

I looking at all three case I can understand why Churches are becoming more alarmed about what they perceive as a trend towards anti-religious laws. The issue to me is should a church, or it’s members, be exempt from anti-discrimination laws when they operate as a public business, or when they get a license from a government agency. Being an Atheist I have an anti-church bias. I can’t think of a good work around at this time, but I agree we do need to find one.

In the NJ case you cited I agree with you that a church should have the right to not permit practises on it’s property that violate it’s tenants, such as a same-sex marriage. The church has sued the State of NJ over their ruling so we will have to see how this winds up, perhaps in the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/nyregion/30ocean.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

“A lesbian couple from New Jersey who were barred from holding a civil union ceremony last year at a beachfront pavilion owned by a church group won a legal victory on Monday.”

The case of the NM photographer is a little different because he is operating a business. Public business can’t legally refuse a customer on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. I don’t know how the photographer can get around discrimination laws. A 2008 article about the case states the Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund plans to appeal the ruling.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

In the case of the Catholic Family Services being required compile with Mass state adoption laws, and their choosing instead to not renew their license, I think the State of Mass. is legally correct. If you can refuse a gay couple from adopting then you can refuse a black couple, or an Atheist couple. Maybe some work around can be figured out by some one smarter than me.

A 2006 article about this case:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/01/romney_shifts_on_adoption_by_gays/

I could not find anything about the Episcopal minister in Connecticut, so I can’t comment on it.

Yes, being gay, being a minority, having a different viewpoint are more acceptable than in days past.

But there are more restrictions on speaking of things of faith, especially against Christians. A photographer in New Mexico tells someone “No thanks, I don’t want to photograph your same-sex ceremony, here’s a couple of photographers who will.” and she gets sued and fined by the state.

A church in New Jersey gets sued because it will not allow same-sex weddings on it’s property.

Catholic Family Services in Massachettes has to stop doing adoptions because it goes against their belief to place a child with a same-sex couple.

An Episcopal minister in Connecticut gets arrested because he keeps his children home during the week they teach about same-sex marriages in school.

Tell me, where are these people’s freedoms?

I completely agree that we’ve hit a highpoint in our freedom of speech – in an age where people can speak their minds. You’ve seen this more than I have. You’ve experienced generations in our country that I haven’t experienced. I was born into this reality. It’s all I know. Maybe that’s why I’m not as focused on where we are, but on where we may be heading. I see a growing trend to this freedom of speech – namely, that someone can freely say: “That offends me” and, right then and there, we are to remove the “that” from our vocabulary or practice or whatever.

Example:
I cringe when I hear someone mention “cowboys and Indians” because I know a large segment of the Native American population will take offense to that phrase. It represents the Native American as the enemy, the savage, the uneducated, the hostile, the bad guy. (And I don’t blame them. If ANY slice of the American population has a right to be defensive, it’s that people group.) Now, with today’s Freedom of speech in place, the Native American has been liberated to say: “This phrase offends me.” And we, as is reasonable and right and good, have removed this particular representation of the Native American from the bulk of our culture.

(Ed, I would like to use another example of the potential that this shift can cause. And I’m not at all choosing this example because of our faith differences. I know you know me and you know that’s not why I’m picking this. I’m confident that you won’t take offense to the following example, I just want to make sure I say it for the rest of those reading our dialogue. And the reality that I’ve even considered adding this parenthetical disclaimer is, indeed, a case in point.)

In the same manner, as this better fits my dream, I can one day see the phrase “I believe in Jesus” to be offensive to others who may not believe in Jesus. The implication of that phrase is that Christians are right and the rest are wrong – bad – uneducated – etc. This is the logical conclusion of such a declaration: If someone believes X, then they will also most likely believe that Y and Z are untrue. How does this play out in the not-too-distant future? Somebody could one day say that “holding up a John 3:16 sign while wearing a rainbow wig” offends them, and boom – just like that – Rainbow Man can’t do that anymore.

Our Freedom of Speech, while at the pinnacle of its existence, may one day be taken over by a very subtle but significant clause: As long as it doesn’t offend anyone else.

When I look back at the era I grew up, in the fear of making public statements that would offend someone was also true. Back then it was the fear of offending those in power, and the views of the main stream public.

It was the minorites, ethnic, religious and racial, that would suffer the consequencs for speaking out.

Overall, I think a greater segment of the population has the freedom to say what then believe, than in the past.

I see more freedom of speech, not less.

I always love what Ed brings to faith discussions. We need to be challenged by those we’re trying to reach, right.

The UK is seeing this come more quickly than the US I think, with Australia somewhere on the tracks as well (with our vilification laws in some states).

As we head back over to a place where oppression for religion is a (past?) national sport, all of this is very much in our minds.