Franklin Graham and "Religious Freedom"

Piculet · Jun 17, 2020

9-10ths_Penguin said:
You understand a concern about something with what you say will have no consequences?

Consequences was in reference to how people pick whom they hire. The concern is about limiting the freedom of religious groups.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 17, 2020

Heyo said:
If you just take what he wrote, not what he meant (and you think he wrote), he only demands the right to discriminate for Christian organizations. With that I somehow agree. A club that is only open to members (and isn't subsidized by the government) has the right to only employ members and it has the right to terminate membership, and with that employment.
Anyone working for those clubs should know that and start work there at their own risk. If you lay with wolves, don't complain about the flees.

So, which "Christian organizations" do you think he means, that are not subsidized (or receive tax breaks) from the government? Graham's own organization is tax-subsidized, after all. Donations to his organization are treated as tax-deductible, which encourages donors to give him more money.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 17, 2020

Heyo said:
I agree generally, many evangelicals are dominionists. I don't know about Graham, but just from the text, you can't accuse him of being one. Just pointing out the importance of applying reading comprehension - which often gets dumped when the subject gets emotional or ideological, producing straw men.

If you're referring to my reading comprehension, trust me, it's quite fine.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 17, 2020

BilliardsBall said:
That's inconsistent with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. I have the right to shout my faith aloud in the US, as surely as someone has the right to hold a Pride parade.

Surely you don't think I meant that you can't tell me what you believe? Certainly you can. But what I meant was that you CANNOT insist that I do anything as a consequence of your belief.

I believe in freedom of speech as much as anyone, and have even posted on these forums that I've never had any objection to religious symbols in public places.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 17, 2020

Piculet said:
It is not a right of a potential worker to be hired.

But many people who have been hired have subsequently been fired -- not for "cause" but merely because they have been found to be gay. I don't care that the hiring body wasn't aware of their orientation when they hired the person. Once hired, the labour laws apply.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 17, 2020

Piculet said:
Thirdly, everyone knows rulings like this are impossible to actually apply properly and to guarantee people abide by them. In fact, it is guaranteed by default that not all people are going to abide by them and the consequences will largely be nothing.

And that's why we have courts and tribunals...

Messianic Israelite · Jun 17, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
On his Facebook page, Franklin Graham has the following to say about the Supreme Court's ruling that sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under the 1964 Civil RIghts Act as "protected classes."

I would like to point out that precisely the same argument can be made for religions that would like to sacrifice human children to their God! People who have sincere faith that their God requires such sacrifices should never be forced by government to compromise their religious belief! Those are Graham's words, and he should be willing to stand by them.

Of course, in standing by them, he would have to admit that there are people who have faiths other than his, who are just as sincere as he is.

I say, "rubbish!" You can do whatever the heck you like with your faith -- except involve people other than yourself, in any way, shape or form. Your right to exercise your faith, like your fist, stops BEFORE it reaches me.

Okay, Christians and Muslims -- have at me. Tell me why your God gives you the right to discriminate.

Hi Evangelicalhumanist. Good afternoon.
You ask why Yahweh gives us the right to discriminate. You would be lying if you said you have never discriminated. Take this virus for an example. If you saw someone coughing and sneezing, and looking like they have a fever, would you act like nothing was the matter and carry on your business? No, you would get away from that person as you wouldn't want to risk, potentially catching what they have, possibly the virus. In the same way, we should avoid sinful people because 'evil companionships corrupt good morals' 1 Corinthians 15:33.

I have no idea how this gender identity and gender reassignment has taken such an upswing in recent years except Satan is the one behind it. It's appalling. And so many who reassign regret attempting to change their gender as we read in articles such as this one: Hundreds of trans people regret changing their gender, says trans activist. It should be considered a mental health problem and if you disagree, read the comments of those who are lamenting that they ever went for gender reassignment. NHS facilities in the UK have started to offer guidance on gender transition to children as young as 3 or 4 years old and participation in gender transition programs has skyrocketed. It's horrendous. Do you think they'll be gender reassignment in the Kingdom of Yahweh? No. There won't be.

Reassignment doesn’t work. It’s impossible to “reassign” someone’s sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially. Here’s how The Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility: "[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service], concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time."

It's confusion. Yahweh isn't the author of confusion. He is the author of order and peace as we read in 1 Corinthians 14:33. Why should confusion be protected by Law? Leviticus 19:19 is adequate proof that Yahweh does not approve of gender reassignment. It can be applied to this and this is Torah. Horrible. I'm certainly not going to stand for it.

QuestioningMind · Jun 17, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
On his Facebook page, Franklin Graham has the following to say about the Supreme Court's ruling that sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under the 1964 Civil RIghts Act as "protected classes."

I would like to point out that precisely the same argument can be made for religions that would like to sacrifice human children to their God! People who have sincere faith that their God requires such sacrifices should never be forced by government to compromise their religious belief! Those are Graham's words, and he should be willing to stand by them.

Of course, in standing by them, he would have to admit that there are people who have faiths other than his, who are just as sincere as he is.

I say, "rubbish!" You can do whatever the heck you like with your faith -- except involve people other than yourself, in any way, shape or form. Your right to exercise your faith, like your fist, stops BEFORE it reaches me.

Okay, Christians and Muslims -- have at me. Tell me why your God gives you the right to discriminate.

As soon as Graham stands up and insists that the man who is being charged with murder for beheading his unfaithful wife is not guilty of breaking the law because he was simply exercising his freedom to practice his religion, then I won't consider him to be a complete and total hypocrite.

sun rise · Jun 17, 2020

Piculet said:
Don't they?

Not in the USA. Religious rules take a back seat sometimes and should take a back seat more often to society norms.

Piculet · Jun 17, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
And that's why we have courts and tribunals...

For the 0.001% of the cases that go there?

Heyo · Jun 17, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
If you're referring to my reading comprehension, trust me, it's quite fine.

No, I didn't refer to your reading comprehension. 1.) That was an answer to @Shadow Wolf. 2.) It was a general statement, not directed at anyone special. (But inspired by several posts, just not yours.)
OTOH, you having to ask lets some suspicion arise that wasn't there before. (JK, I recognize you as being very proficient in the English language.)

Heyo · Jun 17, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
So, which "Christian organizations" do you think he means, that are not subsidized (or receive tax breaks) from the government? Graham's own organization is tax-subsidized, after all. Donations to his organization are treated as tax-deductible, which encourages donors to give him more money.

I don't speculate what he means. I mean anything that is strictly ministry (even if it gets the usual tax break every church gets). Any service that isn't directed at the public but only for members of his club. If he has a stage crew for his sermons and decides to pay them, he can demand they hold to the principles of his church, even when they are discriminatory. The Catholic church is allowed to discriminate by sex when hiring priests, so he can discriminate when hiring a stage crew.
If he has a business like Ken Hams Arc Encounter, he should not be allowed to discriminate (though Ham currently is, but that may change).

stvdv · Jun 17, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Okay, Christians and Muslims -- have at me. Tell me why your God gives you the right to discriminate.

Someone claiming I want the freedom to impose my faith on others is plain arrogant and belittling others. I call them the "Anti-Christ", as even the Bible clearly tells Christians not to be arrogant and belittle others' faith

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 17, 2020

Messianic Israelite said:
Hi Evangelicalhumanist. Good afternoon.
You ask why Yahweh gives us the right to discriminate. You would be lying if you said you have never discriminated. Take this virus for an example. If you saw someone coughing and sneezing, and looking like they have a fever, would you act like nothing was the matter and carry on your business? No, you would get away from that person as you wouldn't want to risk, potentially catching what they have, possibly the virus. In the same way, we should avoid sinful people because 'evil companionships corrupt good morals' 1 Corinthians 15:33.

I have no idea how this gender identity and gender reassignment has taken such an upswing in recent years except Satan is the one behind it. It's appalling. And so many who reassign regret attempting to change their gender as we read in articles such as this one: Hundreds of trans people regret changing their gender, says trans activist. It should be considered a mental health problem and if you disagree, read the comments of those who are lamenting that they ever went for gender reassignment. NHS facilities in the UK have started to offer guidance on gender transition to children as young as 3 or 4 years old and participation in gender transition programs has skyrocketed. It's horrendous. Do you think they'll be gender reassignment in the Kingdom of Yahweh? No. There won't be.

Reassignment doesn’t work. It’s impossible to “reassign” someone’s sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially. Here’s how The Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility: "[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service], concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time."

It's confusion. Yahweh isn't the author of confusion. He is the author of order and peace as we read in 1 Corinthians 14:33. Why should confusion be protected by Law? Leviticus 19:19 is adequate proof that Yahweh does not approve of gender reassignment. It can be applied to this and this is Torah. Horrible. I'm certainly not going to stand for it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in what the Bible has to say about the subject. That book has a remarkably poor understanding of most psychological issues.

However, I can't help but notice that you talk about "sinful people" and at the very same time say it "should be treated as a mental health issue." So I take it that you think people who are mentally ill are evil, and ought to be shunned?

I have to say, that is precisely the attitude I expect from people who try to stuff their scripture down my throat.

Now, why is gender reassignment happening more than it used to? Because it's possible now, and it wasn't before. As one of your articles said, "you just lived with it." Oh, living with it was very hard -- and lots of people took the other option -- suicide -- but I don't suppose that's as bad as trying to confront what is for some people a difficult problem (one I certainly don't understand), and dealing with it.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 17, 2020

Piculet said:
For the 0.001% of the cases that go there?

And you are sure about that number, are you? I can assure you that it is certainly NOT the case in Canada, where I live.

BilliardsBall · Jun 18, 2020

9-10ths_Penguin said:
It's strange to me that Christians who think that they're being persecuted would want to undermine this law.

The law in question doesn't just imply that you can't fire someone for being gay or trans; it also implies you can't fire someone for being Christian.

If you ir @BilliardsBall really do think Christians are under attack, you should be supporting this law.

I agree! That's why Christian groups have supported the rights of Hare Krishnas to share their religion in public spaces, even up to SCOTUS. Good point!

Kenny · Jun 18, 2020

Evangelicalhumanist said:
I would like to point out that precisely the same argument can be made for religions that would like to sacrifice human children to their God! People who have sincere faith that their God requires such sacrifices should never be forced by government to compromise their religious belief!

On that basis, then the other side of that coin would be "since sexual orientation should be protected" so should NAMLA's wanting children to be able to experience sex with adults and should be approved by the government."

GardenLady · Jun 18, 2020

One of the issues here is drawing the line as to what constitutes a religious employer. A church, synagogue, or other house of worship, and associated diocese or synod? Sure. A seminary? Okay. What about a college or university—Graham’s bailiwick? Hospitals—Catholic hospitals are probably the largest in number, but there are other denominations that own hospitals, what about those? A religious book publisher? A religious newspaper? Did the Founders consider all of these to be included in freedom of religion? Should we consider them so when it comes to employment?

GardenLady · Jun 19, 2020

@KenS, regarding your NAMBLA-related comment, there is ample case law that children cannot give consent for sexual activity, and therefore sexual activity with a child is a crime. There is no reasonable argument for employment protection for such criminals.

Heyo · Jun 19, 2020

GardenLady said:
One of the issues here is drawing the line as to what constitutes a religious employer. A church, synagogue, or other house of worship, and associated diocese or synod? Sure. A seminary? Okay. What about a college or university—Graham’s bailiwick? Hospitals—Catholic hospitals are probably the largest in number, but there are other denominations that own hospitals, what about those? A religious book publisher? A religious newspaper? Did the Founders consider all if these to be included in freedom of religion? Should we consider them so when it comes to employment.

That's also my position and my answer to the question if something is strictly religious is: Is it available to the public?
E.g. does a religious book publisher sell to public book stores? If yes, he's not a religious organisation.
Is the university open to non confessional students? Not a religious organisation. Can you acquire a title that is anything worth outside of your club? - Not a religious organisation. (And not taking non confessional students would be discrimination.)

Franklin Graham and "Religious Freedom"

Active Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

"Truth" isn't a thing...

"Truth" isn't a thing...

"Truth" isn't a thing...

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The world is on fire

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

"Truth" isn't a thing...

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Veteran Member

Face to face with my Father

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member