Franklin Graham and "Religious Freedom"

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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."

Today the U.S. Supreme Court enacted a new law that adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the 1964 Civil Rights Act as “protected classes." As Justice Alito has pointed out, the majority went too far—he called it a “brazen abuse of our authority.” The Supreme Court exists to interpret the law, not to make new laws—making laws is the job of our Representatives in Congress, elected by the people.

I believe this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country. People of sincere faith who stand on God’s Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise their religious beliefs. Christian organizations should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry’s purpose and goals.

As a Bible-believing follower of Jesus Christ, my rights should be protected. Even if my sincerely held religious beliefs might be the minority, I still have a right to hold them. The same holds true for a Christian organization. These are the freedoms our nation was founded on.

The Supreme Court does not override and will never overturn the Word of God. One day we will all have to stand before God, the Righteous Judge, whose decisions are not based on politics or the whims of culture. His laws are true and are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

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.

 

[sun rise]

If Graham is right, then conservative Muslims can forbid women from riding unattended in Taxis or men from carrying alcohol and so forth.

What he's complaining about is what ISIS wants - the right for their version of their religion to determine right and wrong and to make their rigid fanaticism the law of the land.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

They can have at me as well. I say religion gets too much freedom here. Believe freely as you will, sure. But that doesn't give the right or a permission slip to behave as you will. Once it effects someone else you have no right to it (reasonable, of course. The mere presence of a church is not a negative effect upon others and involves no victims or potential of non-consensual participation of rituals). I would throw Yoder v Wisconsin out the window yesterday if given the chance.

 

[Valjean]

How often does the right object when the court makes a liberal ruling?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

I wonder what about religions that will sacrifice human children for their Country __________
I find the clergy of Christendom ( so-called Christian ) have often used the pulpit as a recruiting station so parents will sacrifice their young on the Altar of War as if that is the same thing as the Altar of God which it is not.

In Scripture God discriminates, so to speak, against the wicked. Only the wicked will be destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7
Christians are to be Not partial, but to tell everyone about the good news of God's kingdom of Daniel 2:44 just as Jesus instructed at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It sometimes interests me to more explicitly call out some of the unspoken messaging I see when reading things (although I'm usually just doing this to myself...lol).
Still, putting aside that I disagree with the general sentiment anyway, I've added a couple of bolded sentences to his words.

Christian organizations should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs (but are better qualified and able to do the job than other applicants) and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry’s purpose and goals (even if their lifestyle and beliefs have no impact on their ability to perform the job they were hired to do).

If anyone is actually suggesting Christian organisations will be forced to hire people where they are not qualified, I'd be interested in the details. But otherwise, what he's leaving out appears important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I know of no Bible passages that commands business owners to fire LGBTQ employees.

I do know a Bible passage - Deuteronomy 24:14-15 - that commands business owners to pay their employees for their work before sunset on the day they do the work. I've never heard of a "Christian" company that abides by this.

They're trying to pretend that their own personal prejudices were commanded by God. In doing so, they're taking God's name in vain... which I believe that the Bible also has a few things to say about.

 

[Heyo]

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Within his group, many would assume this would include any "regular" business that is owned by a Christian. Out of all I have read on these debates and discussions over the years, the one comment that still stands out to me was a Christian saying, because of his rights and beliefs, he should even have to work next to someone who lives a sinful lifestyle that he doesn't approve of. Some of them don't even want homosexuals to mention they are homosexual, including being prohibited from putting up any pictures of their spouse at work in their office in a manner that heterosexual employees would be allowed to do. Mike Pence, as governor of Indiana, allowed county clerks to refuse to sign marriage licenses after gay marriage was legalized. His RFRA would have extended the right to discriminate to "regular' businesses that are owned by a Christian (and Indiana is a very big Conservative Christian state).
Basically, a good number of them believe that ideally society would be a sort of theocracy that enforces their approach to Christianity. All of society brought under the heel of their dogma.

 

[Heyo]

Within his group, many would assume this would include any "regular" business that is owned by a Christian. Out of all I have read on these debates and discussions over the years, the one comment that still stands out to me was a Christian saying, because of his rights and beliefs, he should even have to work next to someone who lives a sinful lifestyle that he doesn't approve of. Some of them don't even want homosexuals to mention they are homosexual, including being prohibited from putting up any pictures of their spouse at work in their office in a manner that heterosexual employees would be allowed to do. Mike Pence, as governor of Indiana, allowed county clerks to refuse to sign marriage licenses after gay marriage was legalized. His RFRA would have extended the right to discriminate to "regular' businesses that are owned by a Christian (and Indiana is a very big Conservative Christian state).
Basically, a good number of them believe that ideally society would be a sort of theocracy that enforces their approach to Christianity. All of society brought under the heel of their dogma.

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.

 

[Piculet]

If Graham is right, then conservative Muslims can forbid women from riding unattended in Taxis or men from carrying alcohol and so forth.

Don't they?

 

[Piculet]

I don't know how them being part of "protected classes" stops a religious organisation from not accepting them into their organisation or putting them outside of it etc.?

If it really does, then I entirely agree.

It isn't discrimination, however, it's what the Americans like to call freedom.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Given his language, his claim that a new law was made, his belief it's compromising his faith, that he assumes it will intrude into private Christian organizations, that whole "if walks and quacks like a duck" thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know how them being part of "protected classes" stops a religious organisation from not accepting them into their organisation or putting them outside of it etc.?

If it really does, then I entirely agree.

It isn't discrimination, however, it's what the Americans like to call freedom.

It's a frequent form of hyperbole they use. Even in the argument against gay marriage they swore up and down they'd be forced to accept gays and wed them. That never actually happened. Graham is just using and old, tired, worn out, false and defeated argument.

 

[Piculet]

they swore up and down they'd be forced to accept gays and wed them.

That's a fair concern. I can only imagine quite a few employees of the church have had to find a new palce to work recently because someone did away with the Bible in their current church. It is a like a disease spreading from one place to the next.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's a fair concern. I can only imagine quite a few employees of the church have had to find a new palce to work recently because someone did away with the Bible in their current church. It is a like a disease spreading from one place to the next.

Nobody suggested it though. They took it upon themselves to assume and insist it would happen. Even with people saying it wouldn't, they are still saying it will.

 

[Piculet]

Nobody suggested it though. They took it upon themselves to assume and insist it would happen. Even with people saying it wouldn't, they are still saying it will.

And they're right to fear it. It is perfectly logical.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And they're right to fear it. It is perfectly logical.

It isn't logical because there is no threat or danger of that happening. No one suggested it, no one proposed it, and anyone taking the debate seriously wouldn't dare suggest it because then that would destroy the chances of LGBT equality. It wouldn't go over well, it would be overturned as unConstitutional, and most Americans don't care what people do in their own church and don't want the government involved more than what is absolutely necessary (many states even make exemptions that allow religous parents to neglect their child's health and fail to take them to a doctor).

 

[Piculet]

It isn't logical because there is no threat or danger of that happening. No one suggested it, no one proposed it, and anyone taking the debate seriously wouldn't dare suggest it because then that would destroy the chances of LGBT equality. It wouldn't go over well, it would be overturned as unConstitutional, and most Americans don't care what people do in their own church and don't want the government involved more than what is absolutely necessary (many states even make exemptions that allow religous parents to neglect their child's health and fail to take them to a doctor).

I am not referring to something directly forcing churches to wed same sex couples, but to the attitude and the ideas that spread that have made their way to several churches. It is unreasonable to expect it won't spread further. Therefore it is unreasonable to assume employees of the church shouldn't be worried about something that could, for all they know, be just around the corner.

 

[Heyo]

Given his language, his claim that a new law was made, his belief it's compromising his faith, that he assumes it will intrude into private Christian organizations, that whole "if walks and quacks like a duck" thing.

"SCOTUS made new law" isn't even his own language. He adopted that from Alito's minority opinion. (But by paraphrasing instead of citing he made that opinion his own.)
And now you made me look him up. He seems to be a real piece of work. Franklin Graham - Wikipedia.