Growing Hostility towards Evangelical Christians on Atlas

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

In recent weeks, I've noticed a lot of hostility towards evangelical Christianity on this forum.  While most of these posts haven't necessarily been reportable individually, they are currently collectively making it very difficult for evangelicals to post candidly and boldly about our faith.

In particular, recently, the belief that Christianity is the only path to Salvation has been roundly mocked on this forum in recent weeks.  For Christians who take the Bible as the literal and inerrant Word of God, that is a central belief that informs how we interact with the world- because we love everyone and want everyone to have eternal life.

I have also seen mischaracterizations about Christian views on sexuality, suggesting that they are hateful, rather than a commandment from God that applies to all sex- including heterosexual sex- outside a Biblical marriage.  I try to share Biblical Truth as lovingly as I know how (on both of the issues referenced in this post).  I fully acknowledge that I'm certainly not perfect at that, though.

The hostility of many on this forum to evangelical Christianity would never fly if similar comments were said about literally any other religious tradition.  And, before you say that it's because we are "advantaged", I would push back on that.  Evangelicals see very little representation in entertainment, for example (and, when we are represented, it's usually a cartoonish portrayal).

We are certainly not "advantaged" worldwide. 

We are not advantaged in Sudan.  We are not advantaged in India.  We are not advantaged in China.  Indeed, when one goes outside the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church we are not advantaged in Mexico or Russia (although some of the most intense revivals are occurring in South and Central America). 

We are certainly not advantaged in the Arab World.  We are certainly not advantaged in Indonesia.

I will leave it to the reader to decide how advantaged we are in the poorer parts of Appalachia. 

As CELTICEMPIRE has pointed out in past posts, Evangelical Christianity isn't a political strategy to win the religious right to the GOP.  Indeed, if the GOP abandoned its support for issues we consider to be of importance (abortion, religious liberty, to name two) we'd abandon them without thinking twice.  At this moment in time, a "Biblical Checklist" of issue positions and a measuring of partisan attitudes toward Evangelical Christians would certainly come out in favor of the GOP.  (Democrats are overtly hostile to Evangelical Christians, and I have more respect for those that admit that then those that deny that, btw.)  This state of affairs is one of the here and now, and it is also relative.  God does not need the GOP to accomplish His Will on Earth.  Christians do, however, have a need to conform their own beliefs and actions to the Will of God in order to please Him and because we love Him.

CELTICEMPIRE has also posted in the past that we Evangelical Christians have been in the world long before the GOP was even an idea, and we'll be here long after the GOP ceases to exist, should Jesus tarry.

ExtremeRepublican is right; there IS increasing hostility toward Evangelical Christians on this site.  And it's tolerated because of people's unwillingness to be fair.  There would be (and has been) far more hostility shown toward the stupidity of, say, Jerry Falwell, Jr. than there has been toward the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan, and Linda Sarsour is received uncritically, whereas a Christian who would actually agree with Linda Sarsour about the role of women in society would be utterly pilloried.  Let those who disagree with me explicitly condemn the others. 

The reason this happens is the leftist principle of "allyship".  It's a 21st century example of the enemy of one's enemy being one's friend, in which case, adherence to principle, no matter how important or relevant, is flushed down the toilet.  "Allyship" implies "enemies".  I know where I stand in the eyes of some.  That's OK, too; one's enemies are a testament to one's character as much as one's friends are at times.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

What I find interesting is that in a forum that's 40%+ LGBTQ+ (and has been for a decade of more) as well as overwhelming accepting of such traits, this forum could easily have set rules for itself, based on protecting it's membership, that excluded or outright banned conservative Christians completely for expressing contrary views.

It hasn't. If anything it's been tolerant of such views, even in appointing mods.

A strongly 'queer' space has been far more open and respectful of difference than most online or in person conservative Christian spaces.

If anything, it's been overly tolerant.  Many of the evangelical viewpoints and statements made on controversial topics here would get someone fired from a private sector job for promoting discriminatory views among other things.  Here they are pretty much allowed to say whatever they want under the guise of "free expression," liability be damned.   

That those views would "get someone fired from a private sector job" may be true, but that doesn't make it right. 

It is one thing to discriminate in employment or harangue people at work to the point where it impacts job performance and rises to the level of a hostile work environment.  That's not right; while people don't have the right to be affirmed by others in their own choices in the workplace, they DO have the right to be left alone and to not be subject to overt appeals (in the workplace) that they have clearly rejected.  It is another thing to hold beliefs and express them in the Public Square (and that includes "online") as to what God sanctions in terms of marriage, sexual activity, and even who is going to Heaven or Hell and why?  The First Amendment provides for free expression of religious beliefs.  Why it should be permissible to fire someone for religious beliefs and the expression of same in the public square is beyond me.  That you don't like my religious beliefs is fine and good.  I don't like your religious beliefs.  Truthfully, I don't like anything about you and I find you an HP, but the fact of the Whole World finding you an HP does not infringe on your Constitutional Rights one bit.  Constitutional Rights are for HPs, and especially for HPs.  When everyone thinks you're an FF you don't NEED the Constitution.  It's when everyone thinks you're an HP that you need it.

That's the thing that galls me:  When I was younger I found all sorts of folks to be Massive HPs, ranging from the Far Right whack jobs of all stripes to Leftist Anarchists who would destroy America for turds and giggles.  But I supported their right to express themselves, however awful that expression may be.  And I grew up in an era where the vast majority of Americans would consider it HP behavior to advocate for SSM and SSM couples adopting.  Everyone, I believed (and still believe) has the right to freely express themselves, so long as they are not explicitly encouraging harm to others.  Indeed, I believe that most of what people consider "Hate Speech" is protected under the First Amendment.  (I am a Free Speech advocate with some recognition of the idea that speech can become conduct, but a believer that this principle ought to be minimally used.)  A decent amount of what is posted about Evangelical Christians here is "Hate Speech", but the haters never own that. That doesn't mean that I advocate utilizing Hate Speech in people's rhetorical tool boxes, and it doesn't mean that this Forum should not have rules regarding this (rules that aren't always enforced equally, but that's another matter), but it does mean that people have the right to express ideas that are outside the Overton Window.  And I believe that people have these rights to the extent that they cannot be fired for them, any more than someone in a non-political or non-religious occupation can be fired for openly espousing ideas running counter to the organization that hired them when their JOB involves showing congruence between a belief system and the life of the person working there.

When I am Weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

How many people on this Forum fit the description of the above Frank Herbert quote?  More people fit that quote than are willing to admit.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

How does any of that square with;

What if that highlighted part results in Religious Schools being mandated to hire openly gay teachers who reject Scriptural teachings on Marriage and Family?

You're not 'live and let live'. Except for your own views, because you believe your religious views require the greatest of protection. What's the point of the First Amendment if it gives religion carte blanche protection to do almost anything but doesn't afford this to other ideologies or inherent traits?

I missed something.  What other "ideologies" or "inherent traits" do I deny First Amendment protections to?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

What I find interesting is that in a forum that's 40%+ LGBTQ+ (and has been for a decade of more) as well as overwhelming accepting of such traits, this forum could easily have set rules for itself, based on protecting it's membership, that excluded or outright banned conservative Christians completely for expressing contrary views.

It hasn't. If anything it's been tolerant of such views, even in appointing mods.

A strongly 'queer' space has been far more open and respectful of difference than most online or in person conservative Christian spaces.

If anything, it's been overly tolerant.  Many of the evangelical viewpoints and statements made on controversial topics here would get someone fired from a private sector job for promoting discriminatory views among other things.  Here they are pretty much allowed to say whatever they want under the guise of "free expression," liability be damned.   

That those views would "get someone fired from a private sector job" may be true, but that doesn't make it right. 

It is one thing to discriminate in employment or harangue people at work to the point where it impacts job performance and rises to the level of a hostile work environment.  That's not right; while people don't have the right to be affirmed by others in their own choices in the workplace, they DO have the right to be left alone and to not be subject to overt appeals (in the workplace) that they have clearly rejected.  It is another thing to hold beliefs and express them in the Public Square (and that includes "online") as to what God sanctions in terms of marriage, sexual activity, and even who is going to Heaven or Hell and why?  The First Amendment provides for free expression of religious beliefs.  Why it should be permissible to fire someone for religious beliefs and the expression of same in the public square is beyond me.  That you don't like my religious beliefs is fine and good.  I don't like your religious beliefs.  Truthfully, I don't like anything about you and I find you an HP, but the fact of the Whole World finding you an HP does not infringe on your Constitutional Rights one bit.  Constitutional Rights are for HPs, and especially for HPs.  When everyone thinks you're an FF you don't NEED the Constitution.  It's when everyone thinks you're an HP that you need it.

That's the thing that galls me:  When I was younger I found all sorts of folks to be Massive HPs, ranging from the Far Right whack jobs of all stripes to Leftist Anarchists who would destroy America for turds and giggles.  But I supported their right to express themselves, however awful that expression may be.  And I grew up in an era where the vast majority of Americans would consider it HP behavior to advocate for SSM and SSM couples adopting.  Everyone, I believed (and still believe) has the right to freely express themselves, so long as they are not explicitly encouraging harm to others.  Indeed, I believe that most of what people consider "Hate Speech" is protected under the First Amendment.  (I am a Free Speech advocate with some recognition of the idea that speech can become conduct, but a believer that this principle ought to be minimally used.)  A decent amount of what is posted about Evangelical Christians here is "Hate Speech", but the haters never own that. That doesn't mean that I advocate utilizing Hate Speech in people's rhetorical tool boxes, and it doesn't mean that this Forum should not have rules regarding this (rules that aren't always enforced equally, but that's another matter), but it does mean that people have the right to express ideas that are outside the Overton Window.  And I believe that people have these rights to the extent that they cannot be fired for them, any more than someone in a non-political or non-religious occupation can be fired for openly espousing ideas running counter to the organization that hired them when their JOB involves showing congruence between a belief system and the life of the person working there.

When I am Weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

How many people on this Forum fit the description of the above Frank Herbert quote?  More people fit that quote than are willing to admit.

Yes it absolutely does make it right.  Society has spoken on this issue.  The Evangelical right lost.  As it should have.

In other words, it's OK to do it because you CAN do it.

In other words, if "Society" should speak differently in the future and reverse itself, the opposite is OK.

I thank God you are not in Public Office.  You are a person who would be fine allowing the enumerated Constitutional Rights of others to be disposed of.  Not yours, of course; you're part of the Woke Cognoscenti.  

Our right to speak Biblical Truth is the same as your right to claim that Gay Sex and SSM are acceptable practices and institutions are OK.  Once upon a time one would lose their jobs for just BEING gay, let alone engaging in open activism on the issue.  Society said that was OK.  Was it?  After all, Society DID say so?

Constitutional Rights, on the other hand, aren't what Society says.  They are enumerated in the Constitution, which means they don't eminate from whole cloth; you can point to where they come from in Law.  They exist to protect those who would dissent from Society, and are not subject to mere plebescite or up/down vote of Congress.  They are not mere Legislated Rights which the government can give and take away at its pleasure or by a vote of a legislature and the signature of an Executive.

I hope the whole of this forum reads your post and thinks about its implications.  

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

What I find interesting is that in a forum that's 40%+ LGBTQ+ (and has been for a decade of more) as well as overwhelming accepting of such traits, this forum could easily have set rules for itself, based on protecting it's membership, that excluded or outright banned conservative Christians completely for expressing contrary views.

It hasn't. If anything it's been tolerant of such views, even in appointing mods.

A strongly 'queer' space has been far more open and respectful of difference than most online or in person conservative Christian spaces.

If anything, it's been overly tolerant.  Many of the evangelical viewpoints and statements made on controversial topics here would get someone fired from a private sector job for promoting discriminatory views among other things.  Here they are pretty much allowed to say whatever they want under the guise of "free expression," liability be damned.   

That those views would "get someone fired from a private sector job" may be true, but that doesn't make it right. 

It is one thing to discriminate in employment or harangue people at work to the point where it impacts job performance and rises to the level of a hostile work environment.  That's not right; while people don't have the right to be affirmed by others in their own choices in the workplace, they DO have the right to be left alone and to not be subject to overt appeals (in the workplace) that they have clearly rejected.  It is another thing to hold beliefs and express them in the Public Square (and that includes "online") as to what God sanctions in terms of marriage, sexual activity, and even who is going to Heaven or Hell and why?  The First Amendment provides for free expression of religious beliefs.  Why it should be permissible to fire someone for religious beliefs and the expression of same in the public square is beyond me.  That you don't like my religious beliefs is fine and good.  I don't like your religious beliefs.  Truthfully, I don't like anything about you and I find you an HP, but the fact of the Whole World finding you an HP does not infringe on your Constitutional Rights one bit.  Constitutional Rights are for HPs, and especially for HPs.  When everyone thinks you're an FF you don't NEED the Constitution.  It's when everyone thinks you're an HP that you need it.

That's the thing that galls me:  When I was younger I found all sorts of folks to be Massive HPs, ranging from the Far Right whack jobs of all stripes to Leftist Anarchists who would destroy America for turds and giggles.  But I supported their right to express themselves, however awful that expression may be.  And I grew up in an era where the vast majority of Americans would consider it HP behavior to advocate for SSM and SSM couples adopting.  Everyone, I believed (and still believe) has the right to freely express themselves, so long as they are not explicitly encouraging harm to others.  Indeed, I believe that most of what people consider "Hate Speech" is protected under the First Amendment.  (I am a Free Speech advocate with some recognition of the idea that speech can become conduct, but a believer that this principle ought to be minimally used.)  A decent amount of what is posted about Evangelical Christians here is "Hate Speech", but the haters never own that. That doesn't mean that I advocate utilizing Hate Speech in people's rhetorical tool boxes, and it doesn't mean that this Forum should not have rules regarding this (rules that aren't always enforced equally, but that's another matter), but it does mean that people have the right to express ideas that are outside the Overton Window.  And I believe that people have these rights to the extent that they cannot be fired for them, any more than someone in a non-political or non-religious occupation can be fired for openly espousing ideas running counter to the organization that hired them when their JOB involves showing congruence between a belief system and the life of the person working there.

When I am Weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

How many people on this Forum fit the description of the above Frank Herbert quote?  More people fit that quote than are willing to admit.

Yes it absolutely does make it right.  Society has spoken on this issue.  The Evangelical right lost.  As it should have.

In other words, it's OK to do it because you CAN do it.

In other words, if "Society" should speak differently in the future and reverse itself, the opposite is OK.

I thank God you are not in Public Office.  You are a person who would be fine allowing the enumerated Constitutional Rights of others to be disposed of.  Not yours, of course; you're part of the Woke Cognoscenti.  

Our right to speak Biblical Truth is the same as your right to claim that Gay Sex and SSM are acceptable practices and institutions are OK.  Once upon a time one would lose their jobs for just BEING gay, let alone engaging in open activism on the issue.  Society said that was OK.  Was it?  After all, Society DID say so?

Constitutional Rights, on the other hand, aren't what Society says.  They are enumerated in the Constitution, which means they don't eminate from whole cloth; you can point to where they come from in Law.  They exist to protect those who would dissent from Society, and are not subject to mere plebescite or up/down vote of Congress.  They are not mere Legislated Rights which the government can give and take away at its pleasure or by a vote of a legislature and the signature of an Executive.

I hope the whole of this forum reads your post and thinks about its implications.  

Yes, it's ok for society to put an end to evangelicals discriminating against everyone, starting wars based on religious bias, justifying atrocities based on the Bible, etc.  Yes indeed. 

You have a scary world view.  I thank God you're not holding public office of any kind.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Ironic statement.  I think it's safe to say that your world view is far far far outside of the mainstream in 2021.  And probably far to the right of mainstream 1985.

I can't imagine you have any idea what the mainstream was in 1985.