What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Some updates and predictions on religious liberty in America

In the wake of the most recent SCOTUS lie against both law and nature, there have been calls from the left for stripping tax exempt status from all religious institutions, especially "bigoted" or "conservative" ones, including churches. This one is typical of the hostility and anti-religious bigotry of such pieces.

My own take is that such a move against churches per se will not be the very next move in the left's playbook. I think we can guess somewhat how that playbook will go before getting to churches by what is already happening.

I believe that Christian colleges and possibly bricks and mortar K-12 schools will be under attack quite soon. This attack will come first, as it already has come, from local anti-discrimination ordinances and accreditation board threats. Washington, D.C. is already attempting to outlaw all "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation," including by K-12 Christian and other private schools. As I reported at length already here at W4, Gordon College has been bullied by its regional accreditation board into being more "accepting" of "LGBT" students and continuing to be monitored in its acceptance, though officially Gordon has not dropped its formal disapproval of homosexual acts.

Expect all such efforts to continue and increase.

The next step after that will be calls for the IRS to use the "Bob Jones option" to strip tax-exempt status from colleges (specifically) that refuse to hire sexually active homosexuals and that forbid students from engaging in homosexual acts. I note here that the Bob Jones SCOTUS precedent expressly excluded churches and was directed toward colleges, so colleges will be first, with K-12 schools possibly to follow, if any are left defying the left on this issue by the time state and local non-discrimination ordinances are done with them.

The next step (I predict) will be to attack more popular religiously supported social services such as gospel missions, soup kitchens, and other social outreaches--again, if any are still "discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity." These are politically dicey targets, because they are generally extremely well-liked at the local level. I predict that the first attacks on them will therefore come at the federal level and filter down from there, first in the less conservative local areas. For example, a local gospel mission that is presently popular in a liberal city might first lose its federal tax-exempt status for being "bigoted" and that might well embolden local officials to try to strip its local tax-exempt status (if it won't cave), saying that they are just following the lead of the federal government. (The piece by Oppenheimer that I linked in the first paragraph moves directly toward this. He expresses contempt for the idea that churches are needed to run charitable efforts in this country, with the one possible exception of hospitals.)

At some point the left will realize that, if possible, it would be even more ruinous to strip local tax-exempt status from colleges, churches, etc., than federal, because the former will allow the levying of property taxes on college campuses and church buildings. That would spell the end for all such institutions. That will be carried out in a patchwork manner across the country and will vary greatly by locality.

Meanwhile, trends that have already begun--the prosecution and fining of marriage venues, bakers, photographers, florists, and on and on--will of course continue apace. Individuals will have little recourse, and my prediction is that if a First Amendment case (using incorporation) is appealed to the SCOTUS level, it will be decided against religious liberty. Either the Hobby Lobby precedent will be overturned or it will be so narrowly construed as to be rendered irrelevant to Barronelle Stutzman.

A front that is opening up widely right now is the persecution of those in the helping professions. A doctor, Dr. Paul Church, was recently fired from a Boston hospital for saying, as a medical professional, that homosexual actions are medically inadvisable. I note here that U.S. employment law and categories like "harassment" and "hostile environment" were used to fire Dr. Church if he would not shut up. He was allegedly forbidden to have any communication with anyone in the hospital in which he expressed his negative medical opinions about homosexual practice. Whether this included his own patients or only other employees of the hospital, the reports I have read thus far do not specify.

Church's firing comes at the same time as a religious (Jewish) therapy organization has been successfully sued for fraud. It's important to realize that this is very significant because the judge ruled ahead of time that it was fraud per se for the organization to say that homosexuality is a curable mental disorder. The judge also disallowed expert witnesses who argued that it is indeed a mental disorder. The deck was therefore stacked before the case ever went to trial. While news reports have often focused on the weirdness of the therapy involved, that was not the grounds of the suit. Rather, the grounds of the suit was that the therapy organization told clients that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that it can be changed or cured. Thus, the jury (as I understand it) simply had to rule on whether or not JONAH told clients this. JONAH's lawyer has previously said that he will argue that JONAH has a first amendment right to tell clients this as a religious matter, but whether such a borderline Averroistic defense ("even if we can't say it's a curable mental disorder as a scientific matter, we can say that as a religious matter") will be allowed to fly is (to my mind) highly dubious.

This use of fraud claims, combined with various draconian state laws against any attempt to help homosexuals with unwanted desires, will, I predict, successfully shut down all formal therapy, including by Christian, Jewish, or other religious organizations, to help homosexuals, even if the actual therapy activities are not bizarre or otherwise morally objectionable.

Parents need to know this: If you take your child to a therapist, even a Christian therapist, for help with unwanted homosexual desires, the therapist may say that those desires will be with your child for life, but he may be saying this because of a combination of brain-washing from his profession and laws that tell him he must say this. This will not be a professional opinion gained from his own experience and knowledge alone.

I predict that the only people who will be free to provide biblical and morally traditional counseling in this area will be pastors and other Christian ministers acting for free and solely in that role.

In this connection, I note that a psychology professor, Mark Yarhouse, at an allegedly conservative Christian college has called for churches to cooperate with the gender confusion of church members who think they are the opposite gender. I am planning to write more about Yarhouse's silliness and make some obvious rejoinders in a separate post. I note it here only because Yarhouse's professional connections within the psychiatry and counseling professions are probably playing a significant role in the etiology of his foolishness.

At this point, it should be obvious to those who have been watching all of this that Christians need to decentralize in various ways. I have already advised that Christians get out of all professions that involve celebrating weddings, commitment ceremonies, engagement, etc. Christian counselors who intend to tell the truth about homosexuality need to find protection through ministerial exemptions and should probably be prepared to give up for-profit status and work only through churches. Doctors and other medical professionals should give sane medical advice about homosexual acts only to patients, not to fellow employees of their practice or hospital (unless they are patients), and see how long that is allowed. Christian colleges need to be prepared to resist the "Gordon option" (which is also the Wheaton option and the Calvin option) and Christian and other religious college boards of trust need to make it clear that they will not permit their colleges to have LGBT clubs or in any other way to cooperate with the homosexual or transgender agenda. They should make it clear that they are already onto all the deceptive talk about "being accepting" and are going to shut it down, even if this means loss of accreditation and other, stronger persecutions of the colleges.

It is difficult to know how to counsel churches. (Except, of course, to stand fast and resist.) I do not anticipate widespread stripping of tax-exempt status from churches soon, though it may come later. Meanwhile, if your church is doing good work, it wouldn't make sense to sell or tear down the building, disincorporate, and tell your pastor to become a tent-maker in anticipation of the persecution to come. That would be willfully destructive. The most that you can do along those lines is discuss what your church would do or could do in various scenarios. (E.g. What if federal tax-exempt status were revoked but not local? Could your church survive? Etc.) I can say, however, that this is not (not not) the time to be starting a building campaign and especially not a new K-12 Christian school.

Finally, a note from Northern Ireland and the UK, apropos of another issue but indirectly relevant: A church in Ireland is being criminally charged because it streamed a sermon on the Internet in which Islam was said to be of the devil. The Irish informant who sent me the information states that this is a first in Ireland. Evidently the pastor could say this in a sermon within the walls of his own church but not on the Internet. This is a direct imposition of dhimmi status on the church, of course.

In the UK, new "extremism disruption orders" will certainly be used to stifle churches that do not toe the PC line on issues ranging from Islam to homosexuality. While this law bills itself as being aimed at "extremist mosques," in my opinion it is more likely to be used against churches that criticize Islam than against extremist mosques, and its provisions are not narrowly tailored against sedition per se but rather are deliberately broad to encompass houses of worship that engage in "hate speech," create a "risk of public disorder" or try to "overthrow democracy."

Yes, yes, we have a First Amendment in the U.S. But that is being continually whittled away by employment law, fraud law, and public accommodations anti-discrimination law, as I have discussed above in this entry and as numerous events in the U.S. attest. (To make it concrete in just one case: If you try not to discriminate and hire an openly homosexual employee, and another employee admits at the water cooler that he doesn't think the homosexual is really married and that he opposes the homosexual lifestyle, you as the employer will be pressured if not outright coerced to fire the employee who spoke out or else face a "hostile work environment" lawsuit. To say that this sort of government-coerced employer harassment of employees for their free speech is consistent with either the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment is a joke.)

The majority opinion in Obergefell carefully said only that religious people have the right to "advocate" their position, not a right to the "free exercise" of their religion. I admit that a day may never come in the U.S. where a pastor is directly prosecuted for the Internet streaming of a sermon calling Islam satanic or saying that homosexual acts are perverted. That precise thing might never happen. But let us make no mistake: That is something our elites would love to do. The First Amendment, insofar as it survives at all, is an annoyance to them. They wish to privatize religion altogether and to impose leftist-driven dhimmi status upon "bigoted" Christians and other religious groups within the United States. It is only a question of precisely how far they can go with it.

I believe that they can go very far. To the extent that we can, we need to circle the wagons, and our first and foremost plan must be not to submit and subvert our consciences.

Comments (65)

The most effective earthly tactic we can use will be black knighting the left. That's straight out of the Alinsky playbook and we've seen how effective that is. We must force the left to live up to their own ideals. For example, every time they try to carve out an unprincipled exception, we must be the first to mock it and tear it down. We must never let their "reasonableness" pass as having any authority.

Apparently, there was discussion about adding oral and anal sex to the mandatory sex ed curriculum in Virginia and Fairfax (one of the most liberal) counties rebelled. The counter-intuitive thing (for conservatives) but effective thing would have been to sue Fairfax County to get that overturned. Do not let the bourgeois liberal and moderate avert their eyes. Go full on Breitbart/O'Keefe so they can't hide from what they defend in the name of tolerance. They want to force us to teach kids it's ok? We'll see that and up them Fulsom St footage 24/7 where they can't get away from it.

This is why I said (think it was here) that conservatives should have welcomed the ruling with a bill to amend VAWA to add gay couples and drastically increased the penalties for failing to take seriously domestic violence in those relationships. Make the liberals suddenly have to justify why lesbians should not be prosecuted vigorously under VAWA-related laws for domestic violence and fun watching those rationalization hamsters die of cardiac arrest in their wheels.

"At some point the left will realize that, if possible, it would be even more ruinous to strip local tax-exempt status from colleges, churches, etc., than federal, because the former will allow the levying of property taxes on college campuses and church buildings. That would spell the end for all such institutions. That will be carried out in a patchwork manner across the country and will vary greatly by locality."

Not at some point. We're past that point. Time Magazine just released a screed arguing just for that. Expect the acceleration of cultural degeneracy to continue at an exponential rate.

http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/

Yes, I should have been clearer. That is the article I did link in the post, and it does include property taxes. I don't know if everybody (including that author) yet realizes that this would destroy many of the churches in question (given the cost of property taxes and the value of many such properties) and would be, if anything, _worse_ for the churches than withdrawal of federal status.

Mike T,

We need to be careful here. Acting as 'accessory' or 'facilitator' of ludicrously sinful activity in order to make a point, or directly helping along the consequences of a horrific legal outcome is definitely the wrong response.

Yes, to be clear, Martel, I just tend to ignore Mike T. when he says stuff like that. Please don't take my silence as consent. Far from it.

As an aside, what I'd really like to see is a respected psychiatrist write an overview of mental disorder, and then after analyzing all of those listed in the DSM, and determining the criteria for classifying them as such, ask why homosexuality isn't included in the list.

A sufficiently erudite outsider to the field of psychiatry could even undertake this task, and present his findings as a challenge to the official position of the APA. I mean, if 'stuttering' and OCD are disordered--and they are, per the DSM--how the hell is homosexuality not?

The important thing is to give the public a window onto the debate, so that a public discussion is generated, in social media and elsewhere. What is sorely needed is a significant and extensive investigation into the credibility of the APA.

For instance, look at the DSM-5's recent blurb pertaining to 'gender dysphoria':

"Part of removing stigma is about choosing the right words. Replacing 'disorder' with 'dysphoria' in the diagnostic label is not only more appropriate and consistent with familiar clinical sexology terminology, it also removes the connotation that the patient is 'disordered.'"

Wait, this is 'science'? Someone needs to take the APA argumentatively to task over this nonsense.

Roger, Lydia.

BTW, did you get a chance to read those articles I mentioned in the 'Out of the Heart' thread?

Also, I'm still trying to find a way to get you and Eve Tushnet to debate on the CHI question. Just today I emailed Eve and asked if she'd be willing to debate with you on the subject.

Acting as 'accessory' or 'facilitator' of ludicrously sinful activity in order to make a point

I didn't say anything about facilitating. In fact, I said that the goal should be to force them to bear witness to what they defend as good whilst averting their eyes because they know it's evil. The closest I got to "facilitating" anything was attacking their legal attempts to force it on us while excluding them and their kids. So question, do you think you are more likely to win by letting the left have its cake and eat it too or by relentlessly ensuring that bourgeois liberals and moderates are forced to face and feel the full measure of what they are championing?

or directly helping along the consequences of a horrific legal outcome is definitely the wrong response.

What I suggested was a tactical move to immediately bring some of the nastier aspects of marriage law to bear on the gay rights activists. There is nothing immoral or wrong about turning the left's own legal and cultural weapons on it.

Sometimes I swear conservatives are content to roll over and die before the Gramscian long march through the institutions because God forbid that our sworn enemies think we're mean.

My dad has been saying this all along based on what he saw in the Left back during his college days in the 1960s when he attended their meetings on campus out of curiosity. He noticed that they were bullies back then who could not tolerate dissent and nothing has changed. Being naturally a "glass half empty" kind of person, I had always hoped his analysis was more "chicken little" than true. I am beginning to believe him after this weekend. I have many left of center Facebook contacts, and the self-righteous, celebratory hubris littering my feed has been deeply discouraging. The vitriol aimed at anyone not celebrating is scary. They have been emboldened.

We've discussed this before, but I think even more than ever that we should stand our ground, but not fight. We should turn the other cheek. Public conscience is not so seared that it can't be awakened, is it? I may be wrong on this, but if we don't resist, they will be shown for the bullies that they are. I think the way they pull the hearts strings of the public is to call us bullies. We can't give them even a hint of material to bolster this lie. Perhaps, this is a situation to apply Jesus' teaching on resisting our enemies? Again, I am not saying to go along, but to stand firm, refuse to fight and allow their full vengeance for not caving to be applied. I don't think we should bother with the legal system - it has never really been our ally.

Of course, like you, my father says that they will go after our daughters' classical, university model school and all homeschooling, so, potentially I have skin in the game, too. Having my precious little Hobbits being forced to attend public school because theirs was shut down only to be subjected to leftist, sexually confusing, age-inappropriate indoctrination will be extremely tough. My inner mama bear wants to roar at the thought.

Whatever happens, the days ahead are going to require much of us. I hope the Body of Christ can unite to encourage and support each other in whatever way is required. It will be harder and harder to deny that we are strangers in this world. Being an incurable "glass half-full" kind of person, I hope this unity and deeper sense of other-worldliness will strengthen us to do Christ's work with even more resolve. I can't deny that it is going to be tough, though ... impossible, actually, without Help.

God bless you, Lydia. Thank you for your insight.

Yes, to be clear, Martel, I just tend to ignore Mike T. when he says stuff like that. Please don't take my silence as consent. Far from it.

I always thought Mike T. was pushing for turning up the heat fast enough that the frog would actually jump out of the pot.

Public conscience is not so seared that it can't be awakened, is it?

Yep, in many cases it definitely is.

I was "listening" to a couple of secular guys on someone else's FB wall sort of chatting about what conscience exemptions should be allowed to Christians, and they were tossing our religious liberties around like it was their ball to play with. Should military chaplains be "allowed" not to engage in pre-marital counseling for same-sex couples? They were seriously discussing this as an open question and leaning towards a "no" answer.

If some military chaplain refused, it would not matter how nice he was, their hearts would not be touched.

Trying to touch people's hearts by being nice makes not the slightest difference.

As for your girls, I would say home schooling is by far the best option, because there are a lot of legal precedents in place there. Yes, the left will "go after" it, but not first. They'll attack the bricks and mortar private schools first, _especially_ the ones that have accepted federal money.

You should agree to send your little Hobbits to public school only in the most extreme case where they are going to starve otherwise or be taken away from you. And becoming a member of the HSLDA can help to keep that extreme case at bay. Otherwise, keep them out. Your Mama Bear instinct is right.

Something I should have put in the main post.Morally traditional employers should seriously consider dropping spousal health insurance coverage lest they be required to recognize same-sex partners as "spouses." This will of course hurt many of their employees. The best thing they could do to offset that would be to take the resulting savings in insurance premiums and give everyone a raise.

Lydia: Just to clarify, I don't think "being nice" is what Jesus is calling for in His sermon on the Mount when He tells us to turn the other cheek. Granted, I am a niciy-nice type person by default, unfortunately, but this is not what I am saying.

I think that it is very well true that the leaders of the Left - those that are initiating the bullying- have highly seared consciences - probably charcoal conscience, actually. I am referring to the rest of the public, sitting on the side lines, that is just "going along to get along." Most of society is made up of these types, I think. It is their consciences that could be potentially awakened - as it was during the days of the persecution of early church. Of course, back then it didn't stop the persecuation immediately, so we need to be prepared to be in it for the long haul like they were.

I am not totally naive, though. This type of person was a bystander during the Holocaust, too. Interestingly, though, many of the eventual rescuers of Jews were also bystanders. What initiated the change in them was simply being directly and personally approached by persecuted Jews for help.

Anyway, though I admit to being "nice" to a fault at times, I'm not advocating refusing to fight for that reason. Does that make sense? I know I'm not the best at getting my point across ... working on that.

Love HSLDA, by the way. We do need to become members even though I tell people that I'm not really a homeschooling mom - I don't deserve that recognition since I only homeschool part-time. This is our sweet Hobbits school: coramdeoacademy.org

Apparently, there was discussion about adding oral and anal sex to the mandatory sex ed curriculum in Virginia and Fairfax (one of the most liberal) counties rebelled. The counter-intuitive thing (for conservatives) but effective thing would have been to sue Fairfax County to get that overturned. Do not let the bourgeois liberal and moderate avert their eyes. Go full on Breitbart/O'Keefe so they can't hide from what they defend in the name of tolerance. They want to force us to teach kids it's ok? We'll see that and up them Fulsom St footage 24/7 where they can't get away from it.

This sounds nice, but I can't imagine it doing anything but backfiring spectacularly.

You know what will happen if we do that?

1) We'll push through a precedent that you can sue in order to force government mandated sex education

2) We will be exposing hormonal teenagers in an already pro-sex culture to propaganda telling them that there are "safe" ways to engage in oral and anal sex.

If you think the left will avert their eyes, I submit that you're underestimating the depths of the depravity.

Couldn't the non-conforming establishments relocate to amenable jurisdictions?

I always thought Mike T. was pushing for turning up the heat fast enough that the frog would actually jump out of the pot.

More or less. Note that, for example, I didn't advocate that conservatives make adoption easier for gay couples. Rather, I advocated that they immediately bring the full nastiness of the SJW domestic abuse apparatus to bear on gay "married couples." Even a hardened liberal may abandon this nonsense if they feel the heat too.

Couldn't the non-conforming establishments relocate to amenable jurisdictions?

I don't see how, Bedarz.

Many of the things we are talking about are schools for a local community. There is a school near me started by a group of about 100 families. You can't relocate the school without relocating the community itself. Especially if the school is related to a church.

Same with soup kitchens and outreach missions. The whole point is that they are embedded in the community.

Furthermore, there will be simply no amenable jurisdictions with regard to federal persecution. Most of the lawsuits, on discrimination charges or fraud, will work equally well in all states.

Unless you mean some other country. But I can't think of a place that is more amenable, can you?

Bedarz, the only way in which that idea would be really helpful would be for colleges who haven't already set up a campus or perhaps churches considering buying property near a city, county, or state line that is relevant because of differing laws. Frankly, I think now is no time to be setting up a new Christian bricks and mortar establishment, but once it is set up, it's very hard to shift. In any event, for a church that is not near a relevant jurisdictional line, the people are part of what make up the mission of that particular church (as Tony points out), so what would be the point of shifting to, say, an entirely different and more amenable state? Just to have a new church in that other state? The priest and/or pastor is going to point out that he will still not be serving the flock he's been serving, so the harm will still be done, and that the question still arises: How to serve *that* flock, *those* people in *that* area. And as Tony points out, the same for K-12 schools, soup kitchens, etc.

Martel, for the record, I don't usually "do debates" with anybody. I do write blog posts, and if I write a blog post about someone (such as Eve Tushnet, of whom I have been sharply critical both here and at my personal blog) that person is usually free to come into the thread and give some whacks in return. But if it's a matter of "setting up a debate" in some third location, you're going to have trouble getting _me_ to go along with that. So I really don't see that there's any point in your wasting your time. Besides, I think Tushnet and I are so far apart that a debate is not going to bring us closer together. For the reasons why, I refer you and other readers to my various posts on the subject.

Lydia, good post. You make some interesting points. I think you are correct to think that colleges will be the first institutions to be attacked. I think the sad reality is that there simply isn't enough educated people out there who know how to combat these attacks. I know that I don't always have the answers to things whenever I'm confronted.

I notice you didn't mention any fallout in terms of marriage in the eyes of the law broadening. Have you heard about the man in Montana who filed for a marriage license with both his wives? He stated that if it was not granted he would file a civil suit of discrimination just as in the hodges case. I havn't finished reading this yet,

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

but so far it seems to me that the majority opinion leaves plenty of room for all sorts of other situations to be deemed "marriage" in the eyes of the law. I think that what has complicated this issue is the states giving out marriage benefits. Giving benefits to certain family situations, though justifiably in my view as those relationships are good for society, makes others feel discriminated against because they think their relationship is just as healthy and good as anybody elses. If the states did not give any benefits for being married then this wouldn't be as big of a deal. It seems the only solution at this point is to get the government out of the marriage licensing business all together. People have always been free to live and to love. Having the government handing out licenses has given a legitimacy to people, and now that the institution has been compromised by the government it is rendered meaningless essentially. What is marriage now anyway in the eyes of the law? I havn't seen anything in the majority opinion even attempting to define marriage. It seems its just contract law now that gets certain couples state benefits and tax cuts. While also providing legitimacy and societal approval.

It seems the only solution at this point is to get the government out of the marriage licensing business all together.

No, bad idea. We've discussed this here at W4 before, and I would prefer that this thread not get into a long discussion of that idea. The short answer is that it is *literally impossible* for this to happen, because there will always be children and disagreements about custody, there will always be property and intestacy and disagreements about property division, and so forth. Someone has to make these decisions, and abolishing civil marriage merely punts to the contract law judges, the family law judges, and the probate judges to make it up as they go along as to what arrangements they will recognize and how they will recognize them. This will amount in practice to reinventing civil marriage on a case-by-case basis. This too is government involvement, and if we do not live in a state of literal anarchy (e.g., if two people disagree about the custody of a baby one of them had when they break up, they each get their friends and weapons and have a gang war about it), the government has to decide what to enforce and what to recognize (e.g., obviously you don't enforce a "contract" that says that a baby will be traded around among ten different people, or a six-year-old must be forced to watch pornography, or any of an infinite number of other possible "family" contracts). The entire idea of "getting the government out of the marriage business" is misconceived and arises from a lack of information about these matters and their inevitability in human society.

Great insights, Lydia. It seems that it's an area of public policy that really isn't susceptible to compromise. Advocates of same sex marriage believe this is equivalent to racial discrimination. It's another civil rights movement. Not providing services of any kind to gays and lesbians (including all that's associated with weddings) is just like not providing those services to racial minorities. Assuming that this is indeed the case (which we know it isn't) then it stands to reason that you cannot allow institutions and business to "discriminate" against same sex couples just as you couldn't allow them to discriminate against racial minorities. I fear that Christians may have already lost the battle on this fundamental point, at least in terms of public opinion.

Don't know if anyone here's seen this but it's well worth a read.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/liberal-limitsand-our-opportunity

This has a good explanation for why churches are not taxed:
http://www.str.org/blog/why-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions-should-continue#.VZavk_lVhBc

The short story, the state simply does not have the authority to tax churches. Taxing churches would be akin to taxing foreign embassies. The tax exempt status for churches is not just because they do good things for their communities. Granted they do, and the tax exemption certainly helps them to do so. The court has already ruled years ago that a tax exemption is not a tax subsidy. I am no expert, but I think this would have to be overturned first in order to tax churches. Given that the arguments that churches that do not celebrate homosexual behavior should be taxed is based on a tax exemption being a subsidy or privilege (http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/).

I admit, I am still pessimistic that when the time comes (after the schools and other religious organizations are taken down) that the tax exemption for churches that do not celebrate homosexual behavior will stand. We had by far the better argument about marriage, what it is and why it is recognized, and look what happened there. I will go as far as saying their side did not even have an argument for those questions and would largely vilify anyone that raised them. I can only imagine it will be more of the same for anyone that dare suggest that churches lie outside the realm of government authority and thus outside the realm of taxation. Even more so when they will be holding Kennedy's Obergefell opinion and saying that these churches are trampling on fundamental rights and demeaning the dignity of gay people.

What are we seeing beginning here is nothing other than the end of any kind of church-state separation. Rather, what I should say is is that the terms of this separation are again open for negotiation and that negotiation is probably going to be happening in the courts and in the court of public opinion and less so in voting initiatives and in legislatures. For example, there is the proposed First Amendment Defense Act...but even if that passed the odds of it standing up in a post Obergefell court is about zero. As an aside, I do wonder if proposed laws like the FADA could end up accelerating all of these worse case scenarios becoming reality. If it does not ever get passed, does that not at least imply their really are no laws protecting anyone that continues holding marriage requires a man and woman? If it does, and as I suspect, goes to the Supreme Court and gets invalidated, does that not instantly bring about all the worst case scenarios it was meant to protect? I dont know, but I assume so. The settlement of this negotiation may happen much quicker than we expect. Maybe it is instead a few years process instead of a decades long one. Who knows.

I don't think that the precedent that tax exemption is not a subsidy would have to be overturned, since it was not overturned in the Bob Jones University case. What would have to be overturned would be the Bob Jones case's explicit statement that such a judgement did not apply to churches. The withdrawal of tax exemption would have to be ideologically targeted and not based upon the claim that the exemptions are a subsidy. (My guess is that the federal government's case in the Bob Jones ruling was not based on that argument, though I haven't read it.) Rather, the idea would just be that *in some manner* the government is not bound to give tax exemptions to entities that are opposed to "government policy." Also, it would have to be argued that stripping churches on such an ideological basis did not constitute a violation of the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty because...um...homophobia is bigoted and just like racism therefore...something. But again, since BJU was a religious school and claimed that its ban on interracial dating was based on its religious commitments, that ship has in a sense already sailed. Because racism was "just so bad." My guess is that the only reason the court didn't apply the Bob Jones case to churches (and in fact explicitly excluded them) was a sheerly political one, based on nothing but the majority's own feelings rather than any legal logic.

I'm going to bet that if, today, there were some racist church and the IRS stripped their tax status, it would be upheld.

Hence, it's just a matter of when and whether the IRS and SCOTUS get together to do the same to "homophobic" churches.

I support the FADA and was heartened to see it proposed. We should keep a list of names of Republicans who vote against it.

As for its possibly triggering a worse ruling, unfortunately you can say that about any good legislation in the present climate. In itself, this appears to be an excellent legislative proposal.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/23/council_of_conservative_citizens_informed_dylann_roof_is_tax_exempt_501c4.html

A call to end tax exemptions for racist groups would not surprise me. However, it may just be they are too small and too irrelevant to be a threat (which is implied in the linked article). The same cannot at all be said about churches with respect to the advance of so called gay rights. Churches are widely understood to be the main organized opposition to this advance and as such constitute the main threat to it.

It probably should not go without mentioning that even those do not really care about advancing so called gay rights may see dollar signs on the prospect of taxing religious organizations. I assume many towns would get a decent addition to their tax revenue if they did (that is if the churches survived..and if they dont, why do they care anyway? No taxes either way).

This issue does strike me as a fait accompli as it is said in that posted First Things article. I completely agree with and suppport FADA. It is needed even if the courts can simply invalidate it and bring about all worst case scenarios instantly. That may not happen after all.

Also, I missed that the Bob Jones case did not at all rely on whether or not a tax exemption is a subsidy. That only adds to the concern that this issue is indeed a fait accompli. Which I dont see in the sense of a conspiracy, but more in the sense that everyone recognizes it as an issue and there does not seem to be any way to stop it from happening.

Okay, this is interesting. A _different_ ruling, Regan v. Taxation with Representation, in 1983 held that tax exemptions _are_ subsidies. Yet this was not taken to overturn the earlier decision (Walz) which had said that church tax exemptions are _not_ subsidies.

I don't know why Regan was not understood to overturn Walz. See here.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/07/religious-nonprofits-plan-now-for-tax-exemption-battles/

Rebekah, if you happen to see this comment, I would encourage you to contact HSLDA and see whether your part-time set-up falls under the home schooling laws of your state and whether they would represent you if you were a member. That varies by state law. In our own state, it depends on whether the parent offers more than half of the education in the state-identified core subjects. If so, the child is considered home schooled, and HSLDA is useful to belong to and will offer advice to a member family and represent the family should legal problems arise. But that may be different in your state. So I would check it out. It's always better to have your legal standing clear and preferably your legal representation insured _before_ problems arise rather than figure it out _after_.

It was noted here that local exactions could be more injurious then the federal one. Plus the persecution might lead to movement of congregations themselves. A lot seems to depend on the friendliness of local authorities. Otherwise federalism is dead

Plus the persecution might lead to movement of congregations themselves.

It is impractical to think that the members of the congregation would be able to give up their jobs in one location and move to any great distance, obtain new jobs in a pre-selected new location, and maintain their cohesion as a congregation. Inevitably many if not most will be left behind in the original location, move to different places from each other, and the like. We need to be realistic here. Furthermore, where those served are not the congregation of a church but the destitute or unchurched of a particular locale, there is literally no such thing as moving *that* ministry. There is only giving up *that* ministry, which is defined in part by the locale, and starting a similar ministry serving different people elsewhere.

As for its possibly triggering a worse ruling, unfortunately you can say that about any good legislation in the present climate.

That's right. We can't worry too much about reverse effects, clawbacks, and reactionary pushes. That's all in God's hands. Moses and Gideon and David and Esther could not have achieved their victories if they had hamstrung their own efforts with "well, if we beat them here, that will only make them desperate and invigorate them in the future..." kind of thinking. Do the good insofar as you can see the good. Many times your efforts will fail anyway, and even when you succeed it might not turn out as well as you had planned do to other causes. Sure, we try to take into account foreseeable secondary causes, but there are so many that we have to recognize that we can only approach that kind of foresight with some trepidation, and just not worry about it too much. Except as God chooses to give us the gift of wisdom like that of Solomon (when he was going well), it's just not our role to be all-seeing.

The issue of tax exemption opens up an opportunity for us to hit them back even harder. The conservative argument should be that the only organizations worthy of tax exemption are religious organizations and those that provide bona fide charity where that is defined as relief to the poor (food, clothing, medicine, housing, legal aid, etc.) or are research institutions that provide all of their IP at fair and non-discriminatory licensing agreements.

I left out schools for a reason. The majority of the high profile targets there are left wing darlings. If we proactively strip schools of their tax exemption, it would do terrible damage to the Ivy League, Stanford, CMU, etc.

Other targets for revocation of tax exemption should include any advocacy group, political organizations, etc. There's no liberty lost in even making the major parties taxable entities.

(And if conservatives are not prepared to inflict serious harm via the law on institutions that are flamingly left wing and used as staging grounds to attack us in the culture war, then conservatives deserve to lose badly)

"(And if conservatives are not prepared to inflict serious harm via the law on institutions that are flamingly left wing and used as staging grounds to attack us in the culture war, then conservatives deserve to lose badly)"

...this sounds a lot like if they play dirty then lets also play dirty. I dont like where this suggestion leads.

First, my very limited understanding of the law involved is that when a church incorporates it loses some, but of course not all, of its First Amendment immunity. In other words if a church wishes to obtain the benefits of incorporation they are then subject to the rules governing non-profit corporations.

For the Walz decision, I'll simply copy and paste from Wikipedia:
The plaintiff, an owner of real estate, brought suit in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term, seeking to enjoin the New York City Tax Commission from granting these exemptions. The plaintiff contended that the exemptions indirectly required him to make a contribution to religious bodies and thereby violated the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

The Court held that there was no nexus between these tax exemptions and the establishment of religion, and that federal or state grants of tax exemption to churches did not violate the First Amendment:
(1) exemptions were granted to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which included hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, and scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups, and the legislative purpose was thus not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and
(2) the exemptions for religious organizations created only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less of an involvement than would be created by taxation of churches, and the effect of the exemptions was thus not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The grant of a tax exemption was not sponsorship of the organizations because the government did not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstained from demanding that the churches support the state. The exemption created a more minimal and remote involvement between church and state than did taxation because it restricted the fiscal relationship between church and state and reinforced the desired separation insulating one from the other.

Likewise the Wiki for Regan:
Plaintiffs challenged the prohibition against substantial lobbying as violative of the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and sought declaratory judgment that it qualified for the exemption granted by § 501(c)(3), claiming that § 501(c)(3)'s prohibition against substantial lobbying is unconstitutional under the First Amendment by imposing an "unconstitutional burden" on the receipt of tax-deductible contributions, and is also unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the Code permits taxpayers to deduct contributions to veterans' organizations that qualify for tax exemption under § 501(c)(19).

The Court held:
1. Section 501(c)(3) does not violate the First Amendment. Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498. pp. 545–546.

2. Nor does § 501(c)(3) violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The sections of the Code at issue do not employ any suspect classification. A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right and thus is not subject to strict scrutiny. It was not irrational for Congress to decide that tax-exempt organizations such as TWR should not further benefit at the expense of taxpayers at large by obtaining a further subsidy for lobbying. Nor was it irrational for Congress to decide that, even though it will not subsidize lobbying by charities generally, it will subsidize lobbying by veterans' organizations. pp. 546–551.

Step2, my understanding is that Walz definitely did rule that a tax exemption was not a subsidy:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/22967/Walz-v-Tax-Commission-Significance.html

This seems to be in direct conflict with the repeated statement in Regan that the withholding of a tax exemption was a "refusal to subsidize."

I am guessing (but only guessing) that Regan is considered binding precedent rather than Walz, as it is later, yet one still sees Walz cited on this very point. So it's confusing.

Certainly in taking 501c3 status (not incorporating per se but seeking non-profit status at the same time) a church subjects itself to the rules for non-profits. However, it has almost always been the case that these rules are supposed to be non-ideological in nature. For example, the prohibition on direct lobbying and "express advocacy" applies regardless of what side of an issue the non-profit might wish to lobby or advocate on. Obviously, the BJU decision was an exception to the non-ideological nature of such rules.

It would be a very significant change in policy for non-profit status to be tied to a particular position on the morality of homosexuality and homosexual practice. A very significant change indeed.

Lydia,
I guess I would say that Walz was, in context, much more about whether an individual is being forced to subsidize a religion rather than whether the State is indirectly doing so. The Court conceded that there is a remote and minimal involvement, so even if it had been called a subsidy it plainly wasn't intended to give an advantage to any particular non-profit organization. On the other hand, in Regan a tax exemption used for substantial lobbying purposes resembles a quid pro quo favoritism that does attempt to give a political advantage to particular non-profits. While it is confusing that they refer to all tax exemptions as a subsidy, it seems much less relevant than the claim that tax exemptions for the purpose of substantial lobbying are an unlawful subsidy.

It would be a very significant change in policy for non-profit status to be tied to a particular position on the morality of homosexuality and homosexual practice.

I agree, but since there still hasn't been any indication by the Court of what type of scrutiny is involved in these cases it is all speculation at this point.

On this July 4th, I can't help but reflect on the fact that few people understand that freedom has a purpose and it isn't simply to gratify our passions.

"Gal.5

[1] For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
[2] Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
[3] I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.
[4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
[5] For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness.
[6] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.
[7] You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
[8] This persuasion is not from him who calls you.
[9] A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
[10] I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.
[11] But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed.
[12] I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!
[13] For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.
[14] For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
[15] But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another.
[16] But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.
[17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.
[18] But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
[20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
[21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
[23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
[24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
[25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
[26] Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another."

The Chicken

Just as an aside,
Mark Oppenheimer consistently seems to me to be a true enemy of the church. I first noticed him during the whole Antony Flew cerfuffle in which he tried to (with the help of also terrible Richard Carrier) paint the whole story as Flee just being senile and not genuinely moves by the evidence. Ever since then, every single time his name comes up I can just see him work directly counter to the church, but in a way that looksalmost innocuous to the casual reader. In that way I take people like him, rather than a screaming Richard Dawkins type to be the real and true enemies of Christ in this world.
Has anyone else run into his writing before and had the same impression?

DR84,

"(And if conservatives are not prepared to inflict serious harm via the law on institutions that are flamingly left wing and used as staging grounds to attack us in the culture war, then conservatives deserve to lose badly)"

...this sounds a lot like if they play dirty then lets also play dirty. I dont like where this suggestion leads.

To be fair to Mike, I don't think he's advocating playing "dirty" in the sense you're thinking of.

Think of it this way: A (hypothetical) gentleman challenges somebody to a duel over some issue. The foe accepts, and goes to the agreed upon meeting place.

Since both sides have agreed to the arrangement, the gentleman is now obliged to submit to the terms of the duel: Ten paces, turn, fire one shot. Any breaking of these rules would be immoral - "cheating".

Now imagine that you challenge a man to a duel, and instead of accepting he punches you in the face on the spot and then goes to shoot you while you're dazed. Are you still obliged to back up ten paces before you fire your one and only shot?

Now what if he agrees to the duel, but somebody yells at you to duck because he's cheated? Should you finish walking ten paces before you turn and fire?

The situation we're in is far more similar to the second and third examples than the first. Why are we still concerned about the job prospects of people who have agreed to be a part of a vicious anti-religious agenda that goes out of its way to shut down small businesses?

Is it because we are supposed to be merciful? Well, sure, but first we need to be in a position where we can offer mercy. That is not the position we're in currently. We're in a position where we need to start winning battles in the culture war.

MA, since one of the proposals (as I understand it) was trying to force children to have to be taught about obscene sex acts in public schools (so as not to allow those danged liberals in a liberal county to opt out), I would say that definitely counts as playing dirty by any measure. No distinctions or analogies can really salvage the concept, when that's given as an example. Mike T's proposals tend to be, to put it mildly, a mixed bag, and that's all I have to say.

...this sounds a lot like if they play dirty then lets also play dirty. I dont like where this suggestion leads.

There's an old military maxim about being nice and fair in war. "If it's a fair fight, then you did something wrong."

There's nothing intrinsically immoral about playing dirty. It offends the honor sensibilities of many, but it generally doesn't cross into actual sin.

MA, since one of the proposals (as I understand it) was trying to force children to have to be taught about obscene sex acts in public schools (so as not to allow those danged liberals in a liberal county to opt out), I would say that definitely counts as playing dirty by any measure.

No, I never advocated for forcing them to be taught anything. What I advocated for was defeating them in court so that they and theirs cannot legally opt out of what might be forced on the rest of the state. As it turns out, looks like it was a social media hoax, but no matter. The principle is "no safe spaces" for the left. What is good for us, is totally awesome for them.

You should know by now that I actually have no qualms about a municipality telling the state to go to hell on such a matter. Rather, what I think should be done is to force them to an escalation that they are uncomfortable with or to submit to the very crap they want to force on us.

No distinctions or analogies can really salvage the concept, when that's given as an example.

One of a few examples, but hey, let's just pretend that the others don't exist.

Turns out it was not a hoax. Google and I must not be on good terms right now.

The point isn't to force people to do evil. Rather, the point is to make it so that if that is what they wish to do, they cannot isolate themselves from the consequences.

You should know by now that I actually have no qualms about a municipality telling the state to go to hell on such a matter. Rather, what I think should be done is to force them to an escalation that they are uncomfortable with or to submit to the very crap they want to force on us.

Right; I just think this would backfire spectacularly.

MarcAnthony, I suspect you are right. If we are going to push on something at the state level, why not push on defying the Supreme Court's completely unlawful diktat? Let's get the governors of 20 states to declare publicly that the diktat has nothing to do with law and won't be treated as law in their jurisdiction.

Sure, that too might backfire. But there are times when it makes sense to take a chance, even if the odds don't look great. Not too long ago, when 2 or 3 states made noise about legalizing pot, the feds said in pretty intimidating tones "what part of 'illegal under federal law' don't you understand?" They went ahead and did it anyway...and the feds caved. I don't pretend to know all of the critical factors that brought about that result, but then few of us ever do. I do know that if a state governor got together with a state attorney general and some other officials, and said "we're going to push the issue", you could have a lot more plausibility to the feds waiting a bit before jumping in feet first.

The point isn't to force people to do evil.

Except that the legal meaning of "no, you can't opt out" is precisely that in the case in question. Because if it's followed, their children go to the classes. This isn't rocket science.

Rather, the point is to make it so that if that is what they wish to do, they cannot isolate themselves from the consequences.

Which is a euphemism in this case for "they can't isolate their children from being taught about obscene sex acts."

Except that the legal meaning of "no, you can't opt out" is precisely that in the case in question. Because if it's followed, their children go to the classes. This isn't rocket science.

Regardless of what the court says, we are not the ones saying it. If the state court asserts the prerogatives of the state government against them, it is neither us nor our authority imposing that on anyone. That's the beauty of it. At the end of the day it becomes a case of "let's you and him fight." If Fairfax holds fast, then good on them. I doubt they would since they are also the jurisdiction in NoVA that flat out refuses to let students transfer from classes run by transgendered teachers. Because equality.

Which is a euphemism in this case for "they can't isolate their children from being taught about obscene sex acts."

In the greater scheme of things, they don't want to let conservatives isolate themselves from anything they consider obscene. Therefore I see no reason to extend to them an unprincipled exception to their own policies.

The goal isn't to force them to sin. It's to choose between living up to their own principles or abandoning them.

In the greater scheme of things, they don't want to let conservatives isolate themselves from anything they consider obscene. Therefore I see no reason to extend to them an unprincipled exception to their own policies.

Well, that's the difference between us. In this case, I do.

Another difference is that I'm tired of fighting on their turf, with their weapons and at a time of their choosing. It's time to stop letting them have their unprincipled exceptions and ram the contradictions of their ideology down their throat.

I think it's ironic, almost in the "God uses the foolish things of this world to mock the strong and wise" sense that video gamers have put more fear into the hearts of the SJWs than every conservative institution in this country aside from the Oathkeepers.

Lydia,
We need to be realistic here.
There is no persecution and nobody expects any.
Victims of religious persecutions move and no not cavil about ministry to the "unchurched". It is not even a novel thing. The country itself was founded by the victims of religious persecution.

Why is Constitution silent on marriage?
--------------------------------------------

CC Pecknold in NR:
One reason why marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution is that the Founders recognized that the institution of marriage was a common good of the society and prior to politics. Put differently: Constitutional silence on marriage indicates a commitment to limited government that has so far eluded our debates about marriage in this country…
------------------------------------------

Surely, the Constitution is silent because marriage was a truism then and remained a truism till 20 years ago. In no wise, the
Constitutional silence suggests a "commitment to limited government" or recognition of pre-political realities as outside of the proper domain of the Govt.

But there are times when it makes sense to take a chance, even if the odds don't look great.

Sure, but I really, really think that original plan will backfire. Backfire spectacularly, and help facilitate grave evil, in fact.

There's taking a chance, then there's doing something that is more likely to teach kids how to do "safe" oral than have any effect in halting the decline.

There's taking a chance, then there's doing something that is more likely to teach kids how to do "safe" oral than have any effect in halting the decline.

There's also doing what conservative done so far, which is act as useful idiots to the left in the best of times and doormats for them the rest of the time. The more I see conservatives here and elsewhere talk about dealing with the left, I'm convinced that the next Charles Martel or Don John of Austria is more likely playing Call of Duty on his couch than working as a typical conservative culture warrior. The average GamerGater has more testicular fortitude in dealing with the left than the entire Family Research Council.

There is no persecution and nobody expects any. Victims of religious persecutions move and no not cavil about ministry to the "unchurched". It is not even a novel thing. The country itself was founded by the victims of religious persecution.

Ministry to the unchurched is not a matter of caviling. It's called the Great Commission and is in the book of Matthew. Perhaps you've heard of it.

There is, actually, persecution. Ask the Kleins. Or are you asleep?

No, victims of persecution do not always move far away. That is not always a practical possibility. Sometimes they go underground in various ways. So please stop implying that people experiencing the persecution we anticipate are somehow to blame if they don't figure out how to move their communities and avoid starving when they all get to the new location with their babies.

Sometimes I wonder exactly why several of our commentators seem to be narrow extremists of various sorts. And they usually have a pet "solution" of one kind or another that the rest of us benighted conservatives are just too blind to embrace.

The most obvious problem with telling people to move is that the federal government is involved heavily in the social changes. Precisely where in the US are you going to go where that will cease to be an issue? The argument sounds similar to the Free State Project, and we saw how well that worked out (more people from Massachusetts moved to New Hampshire than did libertarians from across the country).

The best advice that could be given is to force them to persecute us. Become a hard target who does not meekly comply at the first wave of insults and veiled threats. In many cases, they'll back down. When they don't, they'll have to come back without many of the trappings of civility. Make them take the iron fist out of the velvet glove before hitting you. The more they can tell themselves they are good people, the easier it will be for many of them to support these things.

And of course it may in fact be necessary to give up Christian service to the needy, etc. That's obviously what the bigot Oppenheimer hopes for. He even says something like, "The government shouldn't need the church to operate soup kitchens." That's so backwards and messed up it leaves me gasping. Like the government is the prima facie Helper Of the Weak And Helpless and there is something icky about the church doing it.

But if we do get driven out of the various services that the churches offer to their communities, that will be a tragedy, and we shouldn't fool ourselves that they are somehow pulling up stakes and setting up shop elsewhere. If your local Gospel Mission is driven out of business and the director goes elsewhere, even if he's lucky enough to find a venue that lets him open a new Gospel Mission in a different state, he isn't setting up the same ministry but a different ministry of the same general type. And meanwhile, the people in the original city are not served. That's not caviling. That's stating tragic facts.

There's also doing what conservative done so far, which is act as useful idiots to the left in the best of times and doormats for them the rest of the time.

You really don't see ANY middle ground at all between "push through oral sex education on teenagers" and "Do nothing"?

Your question is built on a false premise. Conservatives have no political power in the executive in Virginia. By definition, they can't "push through" anything. The only power we have is the ability to escalate the tension by black knight tactics in the courts.

Oh, Mike T., do bag it. You're acting like you don't even know what we're saying or why we have a problem with your suggestion. But I think you do know, and we're not going to stop saying it, and that type of problem arises with some of your examples of so-called "black knight" tactics. Please, we're getting tired of repeating ourselves, and it's cluttering the thread.

You're acting like you don't even know what we're saying or why we have a problem with your suggestion.

Not only am I not doing that, I am saying that you and MA are flat out wrong. I can't be doing that and pretend to not know what you're saying, now can I?

Please, we're getting tired of repeating ourselves, and it's cluttering the thread.

Fine. Just don't pretend that I'm playing dumb. As usual, at least I have ideas. They may seem unsavory to you, but there are many ugly and mean things that are not sinful for us to do in defense of our society and culture.

A church has to survive first before it could offer services to the community. To say things like
"he isn't setting up the same ministry but a different ministry of the same general type."
is being very particular when one is faced with persecution.
Do you not think that isolated trad-cons are likely to be submerged and their children most likely to be indoctrinated into mainstream culture?
What is wrong in forming concentrations of trad-cons? And yet this is probably going to occur by itself when the persecution comes.

That may work sometimes. Lots of times it won't work. But let's not a) tell people they are obligated to do that and are wimps or stupid if they don't find a way or that their persecution is their own fault or something dumb like that b) underestimate the difficulties of a great many kinds, c) pretend it's "moving that church." It isn't. In most cases, it would be starting a new one.

As with the early Christians, they WILL find communities of like-minded people, but for the most part these communities will be interlaced within the same geo-physical space of the mainstream community. They will suffer persecution, and they will be effectively unable to flee because of a thousand different constraints - like the martyrs. Sometimes they will not flee because their primary duty will be to witness to the truth, like pastors. Sometimes they will stay in place because they are taking care of others facing persecution, like doctors and nurses taking care of plague victims. Sometimes they will be nailed in place by poor health, lack of wealth, and other limitations. Perhaps they will not flee because there is no plausible place to flee to away from the power of Satan. Or simply that they sense God leading them to stay right where they are and take what comes like a follower of Christ, who did not flee the soldiers when they came for him. Like Thomas More, who could readily have traveled to the Continent to avoid the state's tyrannical demands about a approving someone's marriage preferences, but he did not leave.

Which does not mean that I think good Christians should not form self-contained communities of sanity, when they can manage to do so. I think that is a great thing. It is, at the moment, rarely going to be possible. And the fact that they cannot achieve ideal communities made up entirely of like-minded people should not prevent them from forming such communities as can be made, within the limits that actually exist. These are good things. My point is simply that not all can expect to be able, and called, to do these things. In all eras, in all walks of life, God chooses to let some people just suffer in place, and these too can achieve His work.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.