Growing Hostility towards Evangelical Christians on Atlas

[Fuzzy Bear]

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?

[vitoNova]

I'm not into that religious cult stuff, but if I was a believer, I would wear that "hostility" toward my faith as a badge of honor.

[RINO Tom]

Someday you will see the emperor has no clothes.

As someone who doesn’t necessarily agree with the OP … I’ve never found it a good look when atheists (or Christians) act like they “know” anything about the nature of the Universe that none of us could.  You are not further along in some intellectual journey, you’re just taking a different guess.

[Non Swing Voter]

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.

[Chips]

I'm cool with Evangelicals as long as they're not throwing their ideas in my face as a non-religious person if that helps a little.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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?

Furthermore, the First American protects freedom OF religion. The Establishment Clause is very clearly concerned with State control of religion ie. the Church of England or a Catholic  regime—very real concerns for 18th century descendants of European colonists.

It takes a very liberal reading of the First Amendment to think that it explicitly protects the lack of religious belief, especially compared to its explicit protections of religious faith, and such a reading is fine—assuming you’re a liberal…

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'm cool with Evangelicals as long as they're not throwing their ideas in my face as a non-religious person if that helps a little.

Well, evangelicals can reasonably be expected to evangelize. It’s in the name.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.  

[Non Swing Voter]

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. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

Hey now, NSV just wants to force us to be free.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Also, anyone trying to explain their controversial views toward Constitutionally-protected rights with  “society should do x” isn’t making a serious argument.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

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).

Just some thoughts because I have made posts recently expressing my anger quite bluntly towards the religious right (I use that word, I never say "evangelical Christians" because I'm not talking about "evangelical Christians", I'm talking about right-wing conservative antigay evangelical Christians, and there's a lot of evangelicals who are not antigay or conservative).

1. You are always free to express your views... this is, however, not a purely religious forum.  And it always seems to me that it's always got to be about gays or abortion... it's never anything else - it's never poverty, or child hunger, or the need for caring for the poor, the sick, the downtrodden.  It is almost always partisan (We love Republicans, Democrats are evil) and extremely ideological (Jesus Christ was a conservative and a right-winger and a very patriotic American who supported the Pledge of Allegiance).

2. I will say that I am sometimes very sarcastic to subvert what I feel is an outrageously offensive view coming from the right of the evangelical Christian spectrum in regards to Rainbow peeps/LGBTQ.  I feel it should be subverted because it's outlandish to think that just because you interpret the Bible one way (i.e., gays should not be able to marry each other with civil marriage licenses), that means that we all have to interpret it the way you do.  It's a fallacy that Christians are monolithic people.  In fact, never in history have Christians ever really been a monolithic people... so when you say "The evangelical Christians can't post things on Atlas because of the persecution and the vitriol against them", you're feeling attacked yourself, but why are your views being criticized?  Maybe, did you ever think, that your views are extremely cruel to many people?  That what you profess to be Christ-like compassion is in reality damnation of Mother Nature, and an ideological crusade against gays, trans, queers...

3. I want to make it clear to you and to everyone on this forum.  I have absolutely NO PROBLEM whatsoever with any of your religious beliefs being expressed on here, but I DO have a BIG PROBLEM with you using those religious beliefs to judge LGBTQ.  What if a young boy was reading your attacks on Obergefell or Lawrence vs. Texas?  What if he really had just had a horrible day being bullied, and this forum was a place where he felt he could be himself and talk about politics, but if he comes on here and reads terrible things about him and other boys like him that are drenched in religious bigotry .... no, that's not acceptable.
No matter how hard you try to justify it or wrap it in that "love the gay, hate the gay" stuff... it's not acceptable, and won't be tolerated, and won't go without being confronted.

[Non Swing Voter]

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.

Hey now, NSV just wants to force us to be free.

I think it's clear which side is trying to force their fairy tale views down everyone's throats.  You aren't much of a "realist."

[Non Swing Voter]

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.

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Non Swing Voter]

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.

I have a pretty good sense.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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?

Furthermore, the First American protects freedom OF religion. The Establishment Clause is very clearly concerned with State control of religion ie. the Church of England or a Catholic  regime—very real concerns for 18th century descendants of European colonists.

It takes a very liberal reading of the First Amendment to think that it explicitly protects the lack of religious belief, especially compared to its explicit protections of religious faith, and such a reading is fine—assuming you’re a liberal…

Establishment clause protects lack of specific religious adherence, whether or not there is another religious adherence instead.

Free exercise applies to religious observance.

[Continential]

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.

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.

In 2008, a gay marriage ban was passed in Fing California even as Obama won the state 61-37.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

Yep. And as a reward for this tolerance, trans posters here have to read grossly transphobic views all the time.

[Badger]

As a Christian, who cares? No religion (or lack thereof) is exempt from being mocked. If you don't like it, either deal with it or turn off your computer monitor.

[Badger]

I have been on this forum for one year and three months and the hostility towards Evangelical Christians I have noticed in recent weeks is not really anomalous compared to all the rest of my time here. While I dislike said hostility, I am not sure this post - which honestly sounds like you have a short memory - helps your case.

On another note, I cannot look at your "belief that Christianity is the only path to Salvation" without getting reminded of your history of equivocating as to whether Catholics - like myself - are Christian.

The answer is yes.

But the problem is that Jesus is clouded by all that other stuff in the church, a lot of which is actively harmful. Like how many LGBT people have been turned off to Christ by being raised Catholic? It's like if you're packing for a flight in a hurry but you don't need to carry a lot...but you pack a ton anyway, making it possible to overlook and more difficult to find the important thing you're trying to pack. Or as I heard one pastor put it "Catholicism is Jesus + works, we believe in Jesus + nothing."

A lot of the same criticisms could be applied to various Protestant sects, though, where LGBT people have been denounced in arguably much more vocal ways.

I mean check out jesus-is-savior. This is not a Catholic website. (I haven't taken the time to figure out what brand of fundie the author is, nor do I very much care to.) It's an extreme example for sure, but I doubt you would be happier in what ever church this guy belongs to than the Catholic Church, which even takes a wink and a nod to LGBT issues in some parishes.

Yes I'm aware. They too should be condemned. My church offers a sanctuary for LGBT people from both them and Catholicism!

The bizarre mindset on this forum though is that it only should for the conservative Protestant sects. That it's totally finally for people from conservative Protestantism to convert to liberal Protestantism, but it's never OK for Catholics to convert to any type of Protestant because "that's not how things are supposed to work" or whatever but it is OK for them to become atheist, so basically the mindset is people raised Protestant can be whatever they want but people raised Catholic have only a binary choice of Catholic or nothing. It's a truly perplexing mindset that I can not understand in the slightest.

(Raises hand)

[Badger]

Large portions of the world, including most of the Atlas Forum hate you and always will. If they don't, you are probably doing something wrong. That's simply a result of standing for something. Truth is inherently divisive. Never change your beliefs from pressure.

They will hate you and you have to love them anyway. And until that is something an outsider sees from the Christians they know and not from everyone else, it's going to keep getting darker outside.

 Yeah, I think avenged all right wing christians would be getting a lot less flag if the the ramantra about supposedly hating the sin but loving the sinner didn't in practice culminate in a in a nonstop decades long effort to  Is legally, politically, and socially marginalized  Is such people to the fringes of society or, if at all possible come back into the closet.

Speaking as an ally of the LGBTQ community, let's just say we haven't exactly been feeling any of that so called love. At all.

[Badger]

     While Atlas hostility towards Evangelicals is very bad, the response from the left to this thread make it clear that this hostility is largely based in a secular liberal conviction that everything is political and that Evangelicals merely have the wrong politics. If that hostility is growing (which I am unsure of given my long-term experience on the forum), it is primarily because hostility in society as a whole is growing and a drive to be charitable to your opponents is decreasing.

 When it comes to the religious right, everything is political. They've ended they've endeavored to make it so for over 40 years now.

Evangelists have gone out of their way to to make sure that their own personal religious beliefs that life begins at conception, homosexuality homosexuality and gay marriage are sinful for, et cetera et cetera et cetera are enforced in every church that doesn't believe this as a matter of state or national law. Progressives On the other hand have notSought to have conservative evangelical and CatholicCongregations be forced to marry gay partners or stop preaching to their own adherence not to have an abortion.You really can't both sides this issue.

[Badger]

     While Atlas hostility towards Evangelicals is very bad, the response from the left to this thread make it clear that this hostility is largely based in a secular liberal conviction that everything is political and that Evangelicals merely have the wrong politics. If that hostility is growing (which I am unsure of given my long-term experience on the forum), it is primarily because hostility in society as a whole is growing and a drive to be charitable to your opponents is decreasing.

Because “attacks on my religious freedom” like OP is going on about when pressed upon comes down to the political issues of gay rights and abortion. Whenever people in this country complain about Christianity and in particular evangelicals being under attack they aren’t talking about the right to go to church or worship god, they are talking about their perceived god given right to discriminate against gay people

     Funny how I remember being denied the ability to go to church for an extended period last year and Atlas lefties assuring me that I didn't really need to be there anyway. Guess that never happened.

Oh god grief PIT it was a public health crisis and evens churches were encouraging people not to physically come in over streaming.

     Good grief, indeed. We did not close our doors until the governor forced us to. Two months in, when the restrictions were first loosened ever so slightly, my parish re-opened while negotiating the various rules put into place, because my priest understood that nothing is more important for the faithful than being in church and receiving the Eucharist. When that happened, new people started attending from other parts of the Bay Area, where the local authorities were ensuring that churches remained closed for public health reasons, so they could also worship and partake of the Eucharist.

     Point being, our right to go to church was very much under attack last year. That it was justified in your eyes does not change the fact that millions of Christians understood it as a threat to our free exercise of religion. If anything, it merely proves my point that secular leftists attack Christian conservatives from a place of misunderstanding. If you don't wish to understand, that's your business. You certainly are not alone in that regard.

 I will see your 2 months of admitted overreach in one state, albeit the largest, for a period of 2 months  Where there was At least the highly unusual circumstance of the worst contagion  the country had seen in at least a century,
 versus a nonstop zealot campaign by the religious right for over 40 years straight.