Bigotry, Gay Marriage, Michael Sam & Tony Dungy

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

To get any shot at understanding you're probably going to have to separate MY biggest objection with that of the large majority of those who have an objection.

For me, it's the tragic/comic absurdity of the repurposing of the word. Genuinely, honestly, sincerely ... calling such a union a "marriage" might be the single most utterly asinine thing I've encountered in 47 years. Opposing it, even being offended beyond description by it, is entirely consistent with my steadfast opposition to things at are ... y'know, there isn't a single polite* way I can come up with to phrase it. "So completely and utterly insane as to make me question the fitness of humanity to remain on the planet" is about as close as I can get.

* "Polite" doesn't really enter into the equation for me all that often, in this case it does because -- for better or worse -- I'm treating your comment as an indication of a genuine attempt to understand the point of view. I'm purposefully trying to avoid having that effort complicated by what might appear to be hyperbole.



I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority of the opposition in terms of what I find MOST objectionable. But I've also tried to cover most of that point of view in my previous comments in this thread too. Maybe adding something about we're all "directly affected" by things that are wholly inappropriate / society is diminished by such acceptance (something I often end up covering with the phrase "excusing the inexcusable") could shed a little more light.

Cheers for trying to explain it: the question was genuine - I deliberately used the third person in the question although I needed to quote your post to highlight what i was asking.

I'll be honest, still don't really get it as I don't have a strong religious belief to be offended in the same way, but it has cast a little light on it.

FWIW to completely clarify the genuine nature of the question, my views on religion are that although I don't buy into the whole God, heaven/hell aspect, the basis of the ten Commandments in particular, or at least those that apply to modern life, and the general attitude of Jesus' teachings in the Bible (which I take as "be a decent person and be considerate to others") provide an excellent moral code on which to live life.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Autumn

How come you don't hear as much upset over heterosexual anal sex as you do over homosexual sex? As i understand it, a Christian objection to homosexuality is that sex is naturally procreative and that it is deviance from this that is wrong. Isn't it just as wrong for a man and woman to have anal sex? If two men love each other but never have sex is that objectionable? I know this is apart from the particular issue of marriage, but every time I see homosexuality described as sinful I wonder how people make these distinctions. There are a thousand varieties of sexuality, from sadomasochism, to feet fetish, to anal sex. Are all of these sinful? If not, why homosexual sex?

Because that is something that they might want to do someday. It's the same reason you don't hear a ton of uproar over premarital sex. Or getting divorced. Or having pre-marital sex. Or eating bacon and shellfish. Or wearing gold.

If I like something, that part of the Bible doesn't count.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't necessarily want to get into the rest of it here (y'all know my position anyways), but one thing I MUST address: THE SABBATH IS ON SATURDAY! SUNDAY IS THE LORD'S DAY, NOT THE SABBATH.

Jeez Louise, why people get this so wrong is beyond me. The Lord's Day is the 8th Day, the New Creation. The Sabbath was on the 7th Day.

I read quite a well stated premise (by N.T. Wright) that the Sabbath was a signpost - a taste and forward look to the time when God comes to be with His people. Kind of like how the Temple is a taste and forward look to the place of God when he comes to live with His people. When Jesus comes, the forward look is complete - the Temple is everywhere, in believer's hearts (or whatnot). In the same manner, the Sabbath, the day of rest and peace is all over Creation - the peace in the hearts of believers. Jesus indicated He was the Lord of the Sabbath for that very reason. Not only did Jesus do work on that day (and got himself in trouble by other Jews), but He did the ultimate work and rose from the dead on it.

Y'all can say all the other nonsense you want (it's in every religion thread anyways), but lets get the Sabbath stuff right, ok?

[stevew]

OK Walter

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

OK, I stand corrected on that, and apologize for asking a question/making an accusation that was just way too broad. My issue is just with how you respond to my posts individually, I really have no concept of how you relate to anyone else. So it could just be me.

No, it's not just you. You very often use the fallacy of false equivalence, and I often call you out on it. I don't do it specifically to persecute you, I do it because it annoys the fuck out of me. But I have no other animus towards you and generally enjoy your posts on other subjects.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's not an assumption, it's pure fact as far as I'm concerned. What I find indefensible, just bluntly, is anyone supporting it that then claims they're anything other than pro-sin.

It's not a sin, to me, mainly because I don't believe in the concept of sin.

But you know this, and I know that in your worldview most of my beliefs are objectively wrong.


Which brings up an interesting point. If one has a worldview with certain absolutes (such as, say, "being gay is wrong") then creeping tolerance for the counter to that absolute ("being gay is fine") represents an active, not a passive, encroachment on the worldview of that person, and even their perceived rights. Put more specifically, if your religion tells you gay marriage is wrong (because being gay is wrong), then the legalization of gay marriage isn't some thing you must put up with, it's a direct assault on the views you hold dear.

I say this not to excuse it, but to indicate that it goes some way to explaining the level of vitriol among certain people with strongly-held views when this kind of thing happens.

Originally Posted by Arles

The irony in all this is that the person who does work on Sunday, eat meat on Friday, drink a beer, is OK with interracial marriage and not agree that stoning is a great punishment is doing exactly what the anti-religion side should want.

Well, no. Because you're conflating the anti-religious with general progressives. By definition the "anti-religion side" would still not be OK with the person you describe.

A general progressive, on the other hand, would be fine (generally) with said person, and if any animus existed towards the religious person from the progressive, it would be in proportion to the religious person's efforts to restrict the progressively-defined rights of others (such as basic civil rights for everyone regardless of race, sexual preference, etc...).

And it's the general progressives, not the anti-religious fringe (i.e. the hardcore atheists) who drive the legislation in question. Mainly because the atheists are too busy yelling that god is dead.

Originally Posted by molson

That reminds me of how the hobby lobby was criticized for giving their employees the option to purchase mutual funds that contain stocks for contraceptive companies, rather than restricting them to the more fee-laden funds that didn't have them. And the scrutiny in breaking down the 16 contraceptives they were willing to purchase v. the 4 they weren't, and how consistent that line was. If you're not "all in", some will see you as a hypocrite. But there's an infinite number of ways to find value in religion or spirituality and its your right to define that individually.

No.

Given that Hobby Lobby won the case in part because its views were "strongly held", those examples were provided to indicate that in fact Hobby Lobby's actions related to this matter were not particularly coherent, and one would expect a "strongly held" belief to be supported by coherent and consistent actions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No, it's not just you. You very often use the fallacy of false equivalence, and I often call you out on it. I don't do it specifically to persecute you, I do it because it annoys the fuck out of me. But I have no other animus towards you and generally enjoy your posts on other subjects.

Why is it OK for you to attack me for points I never made (I actually said the opposite)? Why are you above this thing you complain about?

[flere-imsaho]

1. If you want to view me attacking your arguments because they're full of false equivalence as me attacking you, then that's your call.

2. If you don't understand, by now, what false equivalence is, and how your arguments are riddled with its usage (whether knowingly or not), then I really can't help you.

Edit:

3. I'm above what? Do I use false equivalences and am unaware of it?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No.

Given that Hobby Lobby won the case in part because its views were "strongly held", those examples were provided to indicate that in fact Hobby Lobby's actions related to this matter were not particularly coherent, and one would expect a "strongly held" belief to be supported by coherent and consistent actions.

The government didn't even contest that the beliefs were sincere.

I don't think there's anything inconsistent between not wanting to pay for a particular kind of contraception to terminate an actual pregnancy, but being OK with employees using their own wages to invest in a mutual fund that invests in a company that manufactures those drugs, among other things. Especially when it's a better financially for the employees to use those funds.

And I don't think there's anything inconsistent with drawing the line between contraception that blocks fertilization, and contraception that destroys a fertilized egg.

You can think those things are all the same and that's fine, but ultimately its an individual or the group that gets to determine the parameters of their beliefs. That's the whole point of religious freedom.

But you're making Arles' point very well. In order for Hobby Lobby to be free of this criticism, and consistent, and in this case, even to deserving of this statutory protection, they have to be all-in. They have to be more stringent, they have to give their employees a worse retirement benefit, and they have to cut off ALL access to contraception. Isn't the way they do it better? Why do you want to encourage those with religious convictions to be more extreme? Is this how you want radical tea partiers to win regional elections just because it's better for you political team?

I'm not all-in. I don't have any problem with gay marriage or Christianity. Am I just as bad as Hobby Lobby?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

1. If you want to view me attacking your arguments because they're full of false equivalence as me attacking you, then that's your call.

2. If you don't understand, by now, what false equivalence is, and how your arguments are riddled with its usage (whether knowingly or not), then I really can't help you.

Edit:

3. I'm above what? Do I use false equivalences and am unaware of it?

I'm not sure if you understand the concept of false equivalences, but I think you do like to use it as a way to invalidate others' opinions or feelings that you have a problem with. Someone stating that they perceive religious bias being expressed in this thread, or that they believe it exists in society has nothing to do with false equivalences, that doesn't even make sense.

I was referring to your attacks claiming that I've said that religious intolerance that I and others feel exists is as bad as getting physically attacked because of one's sexual orientation. Nobody has argued that.

Edit: Every comparison or metaphor you disagree with is not necessarily a false equivalence. You just might disagree, and feel that the two examples can be distinguished. Someone else may think the similarities are enough to overcome those distinctions. Reasonable minds can disagree.

[molson]

Dola, for example, the Hobby Lobby thing. You seem to be arguing, if they think this, they must also do that. I could yell false equivalency at you, because I think that those activities are entirely consistent. But I don't think your argument is invalid. I just disagree, and ultimately think that it's the hobby lobby's call to make, under the words of the statute, at least when it's that close. I responded to the substance of your point instead of just name-calling and trying to undercut the validity.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The government didn't even contest that the beliefs were sincere.

And yet it features prominently in Alito's decision.

I don't think there's anything inconsistent between not wanting to pay for a particular kind of contraception to terminate an actual pregnancy, but being OK with employees using their own wages to invest in a mutual fund that invests in a company that manufactures those drugs, among other things. Especially when it's a better financially for the employees to use those funds.

It's not just the mutual fund thing. The mutual fund thing is just indicative of a pattern of inconsistency. Also:

Before the ACA became law, Hobby Lobby actually had provided coverage for all 20 FDA-approved contraceptive procedures required under the law. But once it became a mandate, the owners decided to object to four on religious grounds: Two “morning after” emergency contraceptive pills, Plan B and ella, and hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs).

And I don't think there's anything inconsistent with drawing the line between contraception that blocks fertilization, and contraception that destroys a fertilized egg.

Except that's not the line they drew by including IUDs in their ban. IUDs method of action is to make it very difficult for sperm to fertilize an egg.

But you're making Arles' point very well. In order for Hobby Lobby to be free of this criticism, and consistent, and in this case, even to deserving of this statutory protection, they have to be all-in.

No, on two counts.

1. There's a level of inconsistency here that's simply hard to fathom. If you can get by the above inconsistency, then you really have to ask how it's OK to invest in companies that make "morning after" pills, but do not provide coverage for their employees to buy them. Both actions result in the creation of the pills and enable their usage. These shouldn't be the kind of inconsistencies that are handwaved away.

2. There already existed a method (for religious non-profits) to not pay for contraceptives, but still have them covered under the plans. I still contend that would have been the least harm route, and in fact generous to Hobby Lobby given their lack of attention / consistency to their "strongly held" belief.

Why do you want to encourage those with religious convictions to be more extreme?

Ah, this again. If I am to be accommodating to those who attack my beliefs in the implied hope that by letting them be they'll eventually become more moderate, where should I draw the line if that doesn't happen?

And specifically in the HL case, they took action. Action was not forced upon them. By your logic I should be OK with this. Allow them to trample one of my own convictions because I don't want them to become more radical, right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And specifically in the HL case, they took action. Action was not forced upon them. By your logic I should be OK with this. Allow them to trample one of my own convictions because I don't want them to become more radical, right?

False equivalence! False equivalence!

Just kidding, I just wanted to see what that felt like. I feel dirty.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure if you understand the concept of false equivalences,

Um, OK.

but I think you do like to use it as a way to invalidate others' opinions or feelings that you have a problem with.

I use it to disprove others' assertions. There's a difference.

Someone stating that they perceive religious bias being expressed in this thread, or that they believe it exists in society has nothing to do with false equivalences, that doesn't even make sense.

You're right. That wouldn't make sense. But no one made that statement in that vacuum. They made that statement as a converse to things like civil rights.

Edit: Every comparison or metaphor you disagree with is not necessarily a false equivalence.

The use of metaphor can be a different fallacy and would it would be challenging to use a metaphor to construct a false equivalence fallacy. I don't normally attack metaphors mainly because my experience is that such attacks (on metaphors) lead to tangential discussion over the veracity of the metaphor, which accomplishes nothing but unintentional hilarity.

I certainly haven't attacked every comparison as a false equivalence. Is that what you're asserting?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Just kidding, I just wanted to see what that felt like. I feel dirty.

My work here is done.

[molson]

And no, of course you can be reasonably annoyed and disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, and the legal opinion that upheld it. I just don't understand why you'd be upset with them giving their employees better retirement options, or being willing to pay for a wide range of contraceptives, if not all of them. I think that's one of the redeeming things about Hobby Lobby. If you're willing to enter that whole cult-like thing, if you're on board with the prayer at meetings and all that, and especially if you share those values, it's a much better place to work than comparable big national chains. The fact that you get some freedom to make choices in spending your 401(k) money consistent with whatever your own values are, and the fact that many contraceptives are available to you are a nice perk, not a bad thing, I think.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that's one of the redeeming things about Hobby Lobby. If you're willing to enter that whole cult-like thing, if you're on board with the prayer at meetings and all that, and especially if you share those values, it's a much better place to work than comparable big national chains.

I would agree that that is great.

And no, of course you can be reasonably annoyed and disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, and the legal opinion that upheld it. I just don't understand why you'd be upset with them giving their employees better retirement options, or being willing to pay for a wide range of contraceptives, if not all of them.

You still don't get this, do you?

Prior to the ACA, HL paid for any type of contraception. Once the ACA was passed, they made a stink. One can reasonably assume that paying for all types of contraception previously was an oversight. But if you have "strongly held" beliefs in this area, how do you make that oversight? Wouldn't you be looking at any and all benefits your health insurance provided to make sure none went against your "strongly held" beliefs?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Prior to the ACA, HL paid for any type of contraception. Once the ACA was passed, they made a stink. One can reasonably assume that paying for all types of contraception previously was an oversight. But if you have "strongly held" beliefs in this area, how do you make that oversight? Wouldn't you be looking at any and all benefits your health insurance provided to make sure none went against your "strongly held" beliefs?

So, essentially, if you were a CEO who was a big supporter of cancer research and donated the max allowed by your company to get a tax deduction (say, $10K). You do this for 4-5 years. Then, in year 6, a new CFO comes in and says "Hey, three years ago they changed the max deduction to $20K - why are we still doing $10K?". According to you, that CEO has to say "Well, we agreed to do $10K and even though donating to cancer research is high on my beliefs, changing now when I could have 3 years ago as well would just be inconsistent. I think we have to keep it at $10K or Flere will yell at us for not being consistent with our "strongly held" belief!

Maybe hobby lobby didn't investigate this until the ACA changed things. Maybe they didn't follow the rabbit hole on money for contraceptives until they were forced to relook at their policy by the gov't changes. There are a million reasons why they decided to look at it that are legit (and why they didn't look at it before the ACA). Either way, once they found out - they stuck to their "all in" guns. You should be proud for them for being consistent with their religion and not being a hypocrite once they found out. That's what you want, right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I would agree that that is great.

You still don't get this, do you?

Prior to the ACA, HL paid for any type of contraception. Once the ACA was passed, they made a stink. One can reasonably assume that paying for all types of contraception previously was an oversight. But if you have "strongly held" beliefs in this area, how do you make that oversight? Wouldn't you be looking at any and all benefits your health insurance provided to make sure none went against your "strongly held" beliefs?

It would have been pretty hilarious if the government argued that a company forfeits its statutory rights under RFRA if the government can identify an oversight or arguable inconsistency in the company's religious expression. But they have better lawyers than that. They would have lost 9-0 if they relied on that. It's contrary to the whole concept of freedom for the government to get to define those parameters. I've argued and written briefs on the government side on similar issues. Attacking the sincerity of the belief is a huge uphill battle and you never do it unless the insincerity is obvious. Evidence of some "oversight" isn't going to get you there. And I don't even think you really believe that this Christian thing is just a Hobby Lobby scam to save money. They could save more money by not paying their employees so well. Edit: So, attacking the inconsistency really wouldn't help the legal argument, and I don't even think you're saying that their expressed beliefs are a sham. So I don't get the angst over this. I hope though, that they don't respond to the criticisms by trying to be more "consistent" in other peoples' eyes and clamp down.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, essentially, if you were a CEO who was a big supporter of cancer research and donated the max allowed by your company to get a tax deduction (say, $10K). You do this for 4-5 years. Then, in year 6, a new CFO comes in and says "Hey, three years ago they changed the max deduction to $20K - why are we still doing $10K?". According to you, that CEO has to say "Well, we agreed to do $10K and even though donating to cancer research is high on my beliefs, changing now when I could have 3 years ago as well would just be inconsistent. I think we have to keep it at $10K or Flere will yell at us for not being consistent with our "strongly held" belief!

That's not even remotely equivalent, and you know it.

Maybe hobby lobby didn't investigate this until the ACA changed things. Maybe they didn't follow the rabbit hole on money for contraceptives until they were forced to relook at their policy by the gov't changes. There are a million reasons why they decided to look at it that are legit (and why they didn't look at it before the ACA). Either way, once they found out - they stuck to their "all in" guns. You should be proud for them for being consistent with their religion and not being a hypocrite once they found out. That's what you want, right?

No, I'm using Occam's Razor. And the most likely explanation is that it wasn't a big deal to them until they decided to make a political point about ACA.

[flere-imsaho]

FWIW, I concede that in this case, and in light of RFRA and the fact that the legal definition of "person" includes corporations, SCOTUS ruled correctly.

I mainly take issue with the view that Hobby Lobby's actions here were somehow innocent of political goals. I also think that corporations shouldn't be included in the definition of "person" per U.S. code. And lastly I don't believe any employers should be allowed to place these kind of restrictions on employer-provided health insurance (but RFRA would need to be overturned, at the very least, or revised, as well as the concept of corporate personhood, to make this happen).

[Noop]

I find religious people and pro-gay people to be equally out of touch and stupid.

:|

[miked]

Originally Posted by molson

And no, of course you can be reasonably annoyed and disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, and the legal opinion that upheld it. I just don't understand why you'd be upset with them giving their employees better retirement options, or being willing to pay for a wide range of contraceptives, if not all of them. I think that's one of the redeeming things about Hobby Lobby. If you're willing to enter that whole cult-like thing, if you're on board with the prayer at meetings and all that, and especially if you share those values, it's a much better place to work than comparable big national chains. The fact that you get some freedom to make choices in spending your 401(k) money consistent with whatever your own values are, and the fact that many contraceptives are available to you are a nice perk, not a bad thing, I think.

Can we be reasonably annoyed that you seem fairly intelligent but keep saying these drugs terminate existing pregnancies?

A pregnancy requires a fertilized egg and implantation. Given that implantation rates even with drugs are around 50%, and the goal of these drugs (and devices such as IUDs) are to prevent both fertilization and/or implantation, can't we agree that the goal is to avoid being pregnant and not terminate what is already growing?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's not even remotely equivalent, and you know it.

It is if you don't go with the black helicopter/tin foil conspiracy theory. If you assume they both people just found out in both cases, your logic is the same.

No, I'm using Occam's Razor. And the most likely explanation is that it wasn't a big deal to them until they decided to make a political point about ACA.

Occam's Razor is not the "grassy knoll" conspiracy theory. When faced with these two options:
1. A company doesn't realize they are somewhat paying for contraceptions until a law changes and forces them to look at their policy. Upon finding they were doing it all along, they decide to contest it on the grounds that it is against their religion.

2. That same company actually finds out about this 5-6 years ago but instead of contesting it at that point, they decide to allow it even though it's against their religion. Because they think in 5-7 years, a new law will come out they will disagree with and contesting then will get them more political capitol. So, they just bite their lip each year and watch employees buy contraception on their dime waiting for the big pounce they can make half a decade later.

Most reasonable people would probably say that situation one is more likely. We can keep going back and forth forever, but I just can't get past the tendency of certain critics of religion to focus on how a certain religion isn't radical enough - instead of pointing out why their view on one issue isn't the best one for society. Take contraception. There's a very strong argument that restricting access to birth control (esp for younger people) is very bad for society. It puts a bigger burden on our tax system to pay for young moms with kids out of wedlock and (more importantly), you end up with more kids born in poverty. Make that point and even most religious people would probably agree.

Instead, some critics get mad because the company against paying for contraception just aren't "all-in" enough in their religious beliefs. If they went ahead and stoned their employees for being late and called on a pack of locusts to attack their competitors - THEN I would be OK with their stance on contraception. But, because they aren't all-in, I just can't support their stance because they are hypocrites.

Let these people have their individual religious beliefs, just argue why their belief is worse for society and hope that they will alter their beliefs slightly over time as more things because universally accepted. This "going after religious people for being hypocrites" actually undermines the very good case often sitting right in front of everyone on issues of contraception, gay marriage rights and other social issues. Let everyone keep their religion as they see fit, argue the merits and see where that takes you. You'll find many religious people may not be as radical as you expect and might actually agree sometimes.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

We can keep going back and forth forever, but I just can't get past the tendency of certain critics of religion to focus on how a certain religion isn't radical enough - instead of pointing out why their view on one issue isn't the best one for society. Take contraception. There's a very strong argument that restricting access to birth control (esp for younger people) is very bad for society. It puts a bigger burden on our tax system to pay for young moms with kids out of wedlock and (more importantly), you end up with more kids born in poverty. Make that point and even most religious people would probably agree.

And yet we have situations where the role of contraception in curbing teenage pregnancy is clear and well-supported, yet GOP leaders from George W. Bush to Rick Perry do everything they can to push abstinence-only sex education.

You and molson continue to make the contention that if we only provide facts in a reasonable manner to religious people who shape legislative policy, they'll see the light and be reasonable. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Instead, some critics get mad because the company against paying for contraception just aren't "all-in" enough in their religious beliefs. If they went ahead and stoned their employees for being late and called on a pack of locusts to attack their competitors - THEN I would be OK with their stance on contraception. But, because they aren't all-in, I just can't support their stance because they are hypocrites.

I'm not entirely sure of your point, as neither stoning employees for being late, nor using locusts as a part of corporate competition seem to be found in the bible.

Again, the problem here is that from a precedent standpoint the bar for "strongly held beliefs" is set very low based on Hobby Lobby's actions. If HL had always, and consistently, restricted choice in their plans, that would be one thing. But based on their actions, "strongly held beliefs" basically means "whatever I say right now". And yes, I have a problem with that, because it means withholding a proven public health "good" (in both senses of the word) on the basis of belief alone.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

It is if you don't go with the black helicopter/tin foil conspiracy theory. If you assume they both people just found out in both cases, your logic is the same.

Are you seriously contending there's an equivalence between donating money to cancer research and withholding a proven public health item?

That's like saying there's no material difference between a pinch hitter and a relief pitcher. They're both used as a temporary advantage. What they actually do is immaterial.

Occam's Razor is not the "grassy knoll" conspiracy theory. When faced with these two options:
1. A company doesn't realize they are somewhat paying for contraceptions until a law changes and forces them to look at their policy. Upon finding they were doing it all along, they decide to contest it on the grounds that it is against their religion.

2. That same company actually finds out about this 5-6 years ago but instead of contesting it at that point, they decide to allow it even though it's against their religion. Because they think in 5-7 years, a new law will come out they will disagree with and contesting then will get them more political capitol. So, they just bite their lip each year and watch employees buy contraception on their dime waiting for the big pounce they can make half a decade later.

If Hobby Lobby didn't do a comprehensive review of what was offered by their health insurance plan prior to ACA (and I think that's likely, a.k.a. your Option 1), then quite simply I don't think their opposition to the provision of contraception meets the bar for definition as a "strongly held belief".

To me, if it was a "strongly held belief", such a review would always have been in place. And happily, there are examples. Many religious non-profits operate in exactly this manner, because they do have "strongly held beliefs".

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I do wonder why Christians are so against gay marriage though?

Generally most religious people I find are dead 100% set against the 'sins' in the bible which they aren't likely to commit themselves.

As such many devout heterosexual men and women of God will often be found railing against homosexuality.

Similarly the majority of those railing against unmarried sex or contraception, abortion and suchlike are either married (and thus likely to want/have kids) or past their childbearing years.

The sins they're more likely to commit - lying and suchlike ... well everyone does those so they're not as important ... is those other sins which count honest

[Noop]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

You really haven't answered my questions, at all. But that's your right.

I do wonder why Christians are so against gay marriage though? The marriage we're talking about is defined by the State not by the Bible. Are you afraid you might have an inkling to take on some husky bear because you see two guys next door that are married and having fun?

Because they are closeted.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Let these people have their individual religious beliefs, just argue why their belief is worse for society and hope that they will alter their beliefs slightly over time as more things because universally accepted. This "going after religious people for being hypocrites" actually undermines the very good case often sitting right in front of everyone on issues of contraception, gay marriage rights and other social issues. Let everyone keep their religion as they see fit, argue the merits and see where that takes you. You'll find many religious people may not be as radical as you expect and might actually agree sometimes.

Based on the evidence in this thread I'd contend that "arguing why their belief is worse for society" is considered "going after religious people for being hypocrites".

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You and molson continue to make the contention that if we only provide facts in a reasonable manner to religious people who shape legislative policy, they'll see the light and be reasonable. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

So, the religious people have "won" on issues like abortion, gay marriage and other contraception? My wife gets free contraception paid by my health care plan every month. I know of many people who have had abortions when they were younger by accredited professional doctors in a safe environment without fear of being arrested/attacked. There some states that already recognize gay marriage and more on the way.

Seems like the reasonable side is doing pretty well without needing to play some kind of muddled "hypocrite" card and focusing on why certain policies/stances are better for society. We are moving in the right direction socially and will continue to do so at a quick pace if we stick to the facts and stop taking pot shots at religious people who oppose it.

Again, the problem here is that from a precedent standpoint the bar for "strongly held beliefs" is set very low based on Hobby Lobby's actions. If HL had always, and consistently, restricted choice in their plans, that would be one thing. But based on their actions, "strongly held beliefs" basically means "whatever I say right now". And yes, I have a problem with that, because it means withholding a proven public health "good" (in both senses of the word) on the basis of belief alone.

OK, so it means "whatever I say now" - let's take the worst case (which I don't think is likely as I doubt they were just OK with it before the ACA). So a few companies like Hobby Lobby don't pay for birth control. What's the big deal - people know that going in and can decide if the other benefits they get (higher pay, good 401K, better other health benefits) are worth losing the $50-$70 a month on birth control. Where's the harm in that? It's not like Hobby Lobby is saying if you use any kind of birth control you can't work there. The job market is a changing environment and there may come a time whether other work places have the same pay/benefits, but cover birth control and some people choose to leave Hobby Lobby for that reason. I just don't see the "victims" here. If you make $300 more a month in pay/benefits working at Hobby Lobby over Target, but have to pay $50 for birth control - how are you worse off? If you are in a situation where it is more expensive, then you can easily find another company that covers it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Based on the evidence in this thread I'd contend that "arguing why their belief is worse for society" is considered "going after religious people for being hypocrites".

No, they are completely different:

1. Hobby Lobby are hypocrites because they don't completely follow the Bible and didn't have a problem with paying for contraception before the ACA.

2. A major company not covering contraception in their health care policy is not a good thing for society. Most people that work hourly wages are younger (maybe even still in high school) and can't afford to support a child at this point in their life. Covering birth control makes it almost free for them to use and can help them avoid having kids out of wedlock and reduce the burden on society while also ensuring fewer kids are born into poverty.

Now, argument #1 may make self-righteous anti-religion people feel better about what they think is a "gotcha" moment. Still , argument #2 is much more persuasive and doesn't put religious people who may be conflicted about the issue on the defense. I'm just glad that people who really do argue for social policy change tend to use argument number 2 instead of Flere's approach in number 1 or we may not have all these progressive changes in this country that we currently enjoy.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Logan

FTR Jon, feel free to respond and I'll make no judgment on you with your answer. I'll be thinking back to a couple PMs we have exchanged fairly recently and absolutely no hard feelings, as I expressed then.

Honestly wasn't trying to cause any strife here. Just curious if everything that falls outside Jon's prescribed version of marriage is now not a marriage.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Now, argument #1 may make self-righteous anti-religion people feel better about what they think is a "gotcha" moment. Still , argument #2 is much more persuasive and doesn't put religious people who may be conflicted about the issue on the defense. I'm just glad that people who really do argue for social policy change tend to use argument number 2 instead of Flere's approach in number 1 or we may not have all these progressive changes in this country that we currently enjoy.

It's fun to make a caricature of me, but in general I promote more even-handed approaches. For instance, from 2008:

Tangent: Politically, this is the problem. I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

In addition, I'm on record as saying single-payer would be a preferable system in part because it would completely remove the possibility of strongly held religious beliefs being compromised, which seems, to me, to be a relatively even-handed proposal.

Edit: In addition (x2), also when we previously discussed this, I think I said (though maybe I'm just saying it now), that it would have been preferable to use the religious non-profit solution, which is to have the contraceptives provided, but paid for by the insurance companies (which, btw, the insurance companies support as it saves them money in the long run). That's an easily-implemented and, seems to me, pretty fair solution.

[Arles]

I didn't check your entire resume of posts, I'm going on your arguments in this thread. Which, primarily, have been trying to portray Hobby Lobby and other religious people as hypocrites. If you don't want to be perceived as using this kind of argument, my advice is not to use it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Cheers for trying to explain it: the question was genuine - I deliberately used the third person in the question although I needed to quote your post to highlight what i was asking.

I'll be honest, still don't really get it as I don't have a strong religious belief to be offended in the same way, but it has cast a little light on it.

Then I've at least accomplished something

I don't know if I've ever once posted anything here looking to "convert" anybody to anything. If that happens, hey, great & all but it's never really my goal. I do, however, occasionally try to actually explain some p.o.v. as best I can (sometimes not even my own but rather one that I believe I have some understanding of). Nice to know that at least once in a while I manage to succeed

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There's a level of inconsistency here that's simply hard to fathom. If you can get by the above inconsistency, then you really have to ask how it's OK to invest in companies that make "morning after" pills, but do not provide coverage for their employees to buy them. Both actions result in the creation of the pills and enable their usage. These shouldn't be the kind of inconsistencies that are handwaved away.

As I've said, I don't think that's relevant to the legal issues at all, and that's why the government didn't even try to make that argument, but as a total aside, from the non-legal and just being consistent standpoint, do you invest in any mutual funds, and do make sure that all of companies that are part of those funds don't do anything you object to? At least in terms of the values you "strongly hold"? I think I admire people or businesses that would go that far, but I've never thought to do it. I'm sure there's companies all over my investments that pollute the earth, but I don't think that makes my opinions and values regarding the environment fraudulent or hypocritical. (And that's my own personal investments, as opposed to just an option I provide employees as a benefit.) I'm definitely not making as big a difference as I could, but that's true of many things I care about.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

As I've said, I don't think that's relevant to the legal issues at all, and that's why the government didn't even try to make that argument,

Again, I agree.

but as a total aside, from the non-legal and just being consistent standpoint, do you invest in any mutual funds, and do make sure that all of companies that are part of those funds don't do anything you object to? At least in terms of the values you "strongly hold"?

No, but:

1. There's an order of magnitude difference between the amount I have to invest and the amount Hobby Lobby invests.

2. I'm not seeking an accommodation for my "strongly held beliefs" at the Supreme Court.

See? I can do grey areas!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

As I've said, I don't think that's relevant to the legal issues at all, and that's why the government didn't even try to make that argument, but as a total aside, from the non-legal and just being consistent standpoint, do you invest in any mutual funds, and do make sure that all of companies that are part of those funds don't do anything you object to? At least in terms of the values you "strongly hold"? I think I admire people or businesses that would go that far, but I've never thought to do it. I'm sure there's companies all over my investments that pollute the earth, but I don't think that makes my opinions and values regarding the environment fraudulent or hypocritical. (And that's my own personal investments, as opposed to just an option I provide employees as a benefit.) I'm definitely not making as big a difference as I could, but that's true of many things I care about.

FWIW, I think of that sort of thing but it's incredibly difficult to 100% completely avoid stuff short of applying isolationism.

Look no further than my frequent trips to WDW for how values/reality find themselves in conflict.

It's a whole lot easier for me to avoid Burger King from now on than to deny
your kid their favorite place on the planet.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Honestly wasn't trying to cause any strife here. Just curious if everything that falls outside Jon's prescribed version of marriage is now not a marriage.

Yep and I just wanted to be clear that if Jon, or anyone else for that matter, feels like my marriage is a sham, it's okay. I'm genuinely curious to the answer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Yep and I just wanted to be clear that if Jon, or anyone else for that matter, feels like my marriage is a sham, it's okay. I'm genuinely curious to the answer.

Apparently I've missed a question / post(s) somewhere. Lemme scroll through & see what's what here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay, NOW I found the post in question. I totally missed this one at the time (and you're not even on ignore ), didn't mean not to respond.

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Genuinely curious...

Do you think Logan and his wife are married? As he described above, he did not have a "Christian" wedding.

What about couples- one man, one woman - who forgo a church wedding, but are wed by a JP? Married or no?

Or my parents - dad was raised Catholic, mom Jewish. Converted before marriage. Are they married?

In each & every instance you cite, there's a joining of a man & a woman by "the powers vested in officiant X" (okay, I'm assuming that Logan isn't gay & I've just totally missed that until now). That's "marriage".

I suspect the confusion here is that you've assumed ('cause I don't believe I've said such) more emphasis on the Christian ritual aspect of marriage than I actually apply to the situation.

Would I prefer that Logan, his wife, your Mom, 4 hypothetical atheists, 2 Hindus and a dozen Buddhists were all Christians instead? Yeah.

Does that have anything to do with whether I consider them legally/legitimately married? Nope.

Sidebar 1: my sister & b-in-law were married by a JP.
Sidebar 2: My wife & I married in Vegas by a presumably Christian minister of a fairly indeterminate brand name
Sidebar 3: I've been to a joint Catholic/Jewish wedding, a priest & a rabbi (they start out by saying that they are not part of any jokes) worked it as a tag-team. One of the most interesting weddings I've ever seen. Those two guys were like a well-oiled machine as they swapped back & forth tending to the various parts of the service.

And although nobody asked, there's a certain consistency I apply here. The other side of this question would seem to be the impact of weddings on how I view those officiating them. Bluntly, because I'm doing about 4 things at once while writing this: any individual church (as some denominations allow a local decision on the marriage topic) and/or any organized religion (such as the recent Presbyterian vote) that recognizes gay marriage as legitimate is one that I no longer recognize as having any legitimate claim to being "Christian".

[bhlloy]

Genuine question here (and one you may have answered before, if so apologies) - do you consider a church that accepts divorce or divorcees any less Christian?

That's my major hang up when I hear Christians reject gay marriage, I tend to think you have the right to practice and believe whatever the hell you want but that particular double standard does get me going a bit

[cartman]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Genuine question here (and one you may have answered before, if so apologies) - do you consider a church that accepts divorce or divorcees any less Christian?

That's my major hang up when I hear Christians reject gay marriage, I tend to think you have the right to practice and believe whatever the hell you want but that particular double standard does get me going a bit

That's why I had to chuckle a bit when the Church of England came out against same sex marriage because it 'redefined the definition of marriage'. I guess Henry VIII wasn't wanting to redefine marriage when he named himself head of the Church as much as he was just tweaking the settings.

[Umbrella]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Like I said before, not working on the Sabbath is suppose to come from God himself. He wrote it down and passed it onto us for some reason? Put it in the same text as murder and adultery. Seemed like it was mighty important to him.

Of course, we know the almighty dollar is far more important than most of the ten commandments.

I'm hesitant to get into this because it never seems to do any good. Yet against my better judgment...

I think Mark 2:23-38 and Matthew 12:9-13 references what you are talking about. My take on it is that God wants us to set aside time to work on our relationship with Him. However, I think the passages listed shows there are exceptions to this. If you need to work on the Sabbath to support your family, or help support the community, it is OK. But it is still important to take time out of your schedule to build your relationship.

Is it as important as murder and adultery? To us, that seems a bit absurd. But we're not God, so who knows? My feeling is that building a strong relationship with God will help with the other things that even non-believers would say are important.

On the topic of homosexuality, I believe it is a sin. I also believe that lust is a sin, yet it is a sin I am guilty of. Is my sin worse than the sin of homosexuality in the eyes of God? I have no idea. That is why you won't find me protesting gay marriage. Even non-believers know "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I have my own issues that I need to improve on, and I'm not worthy to judge the sins of others.

I'm not an expert theologian by any stretch. But these are the types of topics I enjoy bringing up during bible studies.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Genuine question here (and one you may have answered before, if so apologies) - do you consider a church that accepts divorce or divorcees any less Christian?

That's my major hang up when I hear Christians reject gay marriage, I tend to think you have the right to practice and believe whatever the hell you want but that particular double standard does get me going a bit

Honestly not sure whether I've commented on this much or not, but it's a fair enough question.

First it seems worth noting that my own particular specific church background (i.e. my regional version of Baptist, NOT (in big ALL CAPS) Southern Baptist in the national brand name sense) does not accept divorced & remarried persons for membership. Not only that but any divorced member that remarries is basically kicked out in terms of membership. (I believe the official phrase is "the church withdraws fellowship", the common phrasing in my neck of the woods is "turned out"). For those unfamiliar with this, in our practice it doesn't mean they'll call the sheriff if you show up again, it means that you cannot participate in certain ritual aspects, such as communion.

Now, with that background, I have a slight disagreement with our brand's application of Matthew 5:31-32. I think I sort of have to quote scripture here, not for the purpose of converting anybody but simply so that I can point out the disagreement I have with what we do.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

In short, my brand ignores the underlined part. I've always had an issue with the unwillingness to allow what I'll call some sort of "show cause" hearing, instead they avoid that unpleasantness & just bounce anybody who remarries.

My own personal belief is that if you're the wronged party (and give ample opportunity for reconciliation that is rejected) then you're in the clear on the remarriage issue. For the record, I did a good bit of reading & prayerful consideration on this subject many years ago when I was quite involved in church life as it played very heavily in the life of a friend. It's not as though it's something I've never considered nor watched play out first hand.

Okay, that's my personal take. How do I apply that to the bigger picture, both spiritually & practically?

Honestly, I'd have no problem with divorce being exceptionally difficult to legally obtain at best. It's far overused in contemporary society, it's a last resort not a first option afaic or at least should be.

Spiritually, I don't have as much issue with divorce as I do with remarriage after divorce. See the scripture above, that's where you get on some shaky ground with that. But by the same token I don't know (generally speaking) what led you there, I don't know the measures you've taken to attempt to save the marriage, I don't know whether you're covered under that particular exception.

I don't spend much time at all in obsessing over the subject spiritually one way or another because there are things in your situation I'm not privvy to ... but if you dumped wife #1 so you could marry up with way hotter wife #2, spiritually I think you're on enormously shaky ground & to be honest, we ain't likely to be sitting on the same pew each Sunday.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Okay, NOW I found the post in question. I totally missed this one at the time (and you're not even on ignore ), didn't mean not to respond.

Must...try...harder...

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In each & every instance you cite, there's a joining of a man & a woman by "the powers vested in officiant X" (okay, I'm assuming that Logan isn't gay & I've just totally missed that until now). That's "marriage".

I suspect the confusion here is that you've assumed ('cause I don't believe I've said such) more emphasis on the Christian ritual aspect of marriage than I actually apply to the situation.

Would I prefer that Logan, his wife, your Mom, 4 hypothetical atheists, 2 Hindus and a dozen Buddhists were all Christians instead? Yeah.

Does that have anything to do with whether I consider them legally/legitimately married? Nope.

Sidebar 1: my sister & b-in-law were married by a JP.
Sidebar 2: My wife & I married in Vegas by a presumably Christian minister of a fairly indeterminate brand name
Sidebar 3: I've been to a joint Catholic/Jewish wedding, a priest & a rabbi (they start out by saying that they are not part of any jokes) worked it as a tag-team. One of the most interesting weddings I've ever seen. Those two guys were like a well-oiled machine as they swapped back & forth tending to the various parts of the service.

And although nobody asked, there's a certain consistency I apply here. The other side of this question would seem to be the impact of weddings on how I view those officiating them. Bluntly, because I'm doing about 4 things at once while writing this: any individual church (as some denominations allow a local decision on the marriage topic) and/or any organized religion (such as the recent Presbyterian vote) that recognizes gay marriage as legitimate is one that I no longer recognize as having any legitimate claim to being "Christian".

I think...no I know you are an intelligent guy. So while I'm getting why you personally don't believe in it, I don't think you've answered why it should not be allowed. I don't think people should smoke cigarettes. Ever. But as long as it's not directly affecting me, not sure my feelings have any merit.

So my followup is...what if they don't care to be "Christian"? Why does a couple who doesn't care if their marriage is viewed as legit by the Christian church care what Christians have to say?

What if BleepBloop says any two people who are in love can marry? And two men practice BleepBloop and want to spend their lives together. Why can't they be married by whatever official presides over a BleepBloopian wedding?

Hell...BleepBloop might already exist and I don't know. I do know, those two being married in the BleepBloop church doesn't change my Christian marriage, so why do I care? I don't

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In each & every instance you cite, there's a joining of a man & a woman by "the powers vested in officiant X" (okay, I'm assuming that Logan isn't gay & I've just totally missed that until now). That's "marriage".

...

Sidebar 1: my sister & b-in-law were married by a JP.

Sorry to get nitpicky, but I'm really trying to follow your thoughts...since you used that word, you do consider your sister and your brother in law to have a "marriage", correct? I believe you're saying that a government official is an officiant but just want to be sure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I don't think people should smoke cigarettes. Ever. But as long as it's not directly affecting me, not sure my feelings have any merit.

And yet we see actions of that sort enforced routinely.

So my followup is...what if they don't care to be "Christian"?

Then I'll pray for 'em (generally if not specifically, I mean, I can't literally know everybody

Why does a couple who doesn't care if their marriage is viewed as legit by the Christian church care what Christians have to say?

{shrug} Maybe they don't ... doesn't prevent me from believing they should.
And doesn't make me any less concerned by the attempt to legitimize sin.

It's probably worthwhile to remember that this IS me you're talking to. The only thing that prevents me from openly advocating a theocracy is the minor niggle that I don't have the power (yet) to define what the precise tenets of the ruling faith are.

I'm an authoritarian, and specifically one that cares naught about concepts like "rights of the majority vs rights of the minority". I care about the triumph of good over evil (or even over "not good") & ultimately the sole Earthly arbiter of which is which is me (within the confines of my interpretation of God's definition of same).

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And yet we see actions of that sort enforced routinely.

Not, to my knowledge, in their own home.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then I'll pray for 'em (generally if not specifically, I mean, I can't literally know everybody



{shrug} Maybe they don't ... doesn't prevent me from believing they should.
And doesn't make me any less concerned by the attempt to legitimize sin.

It's probably worthwhile to remember that this IS me you're talking to. The only thing that prevents me from openly advocating a theocracy is the minor niggle that I don't have the power (yet) to define what the precise tenets of the ruling faith are.

I'm an authoritarian, and specifically one that cares naught about concepts like "rights of the majority vs rights of the minority". I care about the triumph of good over evil (or even over "not good") & ultimately the sole Earthly arbiter of which is which is me (within the confines of my interpretation of God's definition of same).

Bolded is still my sticking point. And this is coming from a (maybe poorly?) practicing Catholic.

If the two people in question don't believe in your God, and therefore don't believe in your definition of sin, they frankly don't care what you think.

While I understand the desire to have everything "your way", you also have to be able to understand that's never going to happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Not, to my knowledge, in their own home

I was thinking publicly there.

If the two people in question don't believe in your God, and therefore don't believe in your definition of sin, they frankly don't care what you think.

But I don't care that they don't care, if you follow me here. Again, the only thing that prevents me from being a full-on theocracist (maybe not a word but you know what I mean) is details, not concept.

While I understand the desire to have everything "your way", you also have to be able to understand that's never going to happen.

Doesn't make it less of a worthy goal however. I'll never be perfect, never manage to live even a full day without some sin, some error somewhere. Doesn't mean I shouldn't try to come as close as possible. Heck, remove the spiritual aspect entirely, same principle. Because a pitcher is highly unlikely to throw a perfect game every time out, do we expect him to just lob the ball to the plate without a care?

While not quite an epiphany (since I already knew it) this actually reminds me of a workplace incident many years ago. I'm a young supervisor, dealing with an even younger employee

Him: You expect us to be perfect.
Me: No, I expect you to want to be.

That really sums up a really big part of my entire philosophy on life.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Because that is something that they might want to do someday. It's the same reason you don't hear a ton of uproar over premarital sex. Or getting divorced. Or having pre-marital sex. Or eating bacon and shellfish. Or wearing gold.

If I like something, that part of the Bible doesn't count.

This is the kind of argument all too often made by people who(usually) don't really know the Bible much at all. Not that a non-Christian should required to be a biblical theologian of course, but it would be a nice step in the direction of civility if a basic effort to understand the core beliefs of one's rhetorical opponents were to be engaged in. In this case, some of the ceremonial OT laws were specifically rendered obsolete in the NT by Jesus himself, so it's not necessarily -- though certainly it can be for individuals -- a case of cherrypicking, self-justification, or cafeteria Christianity to not concern oneself with them anymore. The 'bacon and
shellfish' example is specifically on point here.

Originally Posted by Arles

Not everyone who is part of a specific religion needs to accept 100% of the history of that religion to not be a hypocrite. That's my biggest beef in all this.

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it's on the individual as to what aspects of the Bible they can "massage" and still be consistent with that religion's message.

Originally Posted by Molson

A lot of Christians are a lot more inspired by the Jesus and the Gospels and not so much the old jewish law which includes a ton of stuff beyond the Commandments.

There are other examples in the thread, but I really don't get the above lines of thinking. Based on what can individuals defining their beliefs in such situations be defined as 'Christian'? It seems to me to be a tortured and twisted definition of the term such that 'Christian' need not be associated with what the man known in the Bible as Jesus the Christ actually taught. I could with equal credibility in my mind call myself an orangutan. Regardless of how convinced I might be of it, it would most certainly not be true .

Inasmuch as Jesus specifically validated all of the OT(and did so at the beginning of his most well-known address, in the most unambiguous terms possible), someone who isn't really interested in 'the old jewish law' isn't really interested in Jesus either, by definition. Furthermore, Jesus was rather repeatedly emphatic that those who love and follow him are those who obey him, so if someone is willing to 'massage' his teachings to fit modern culture/sensibilities or they simply have found the hard teachings therein incompatible with their desire to live in convenience, well, Jesus rather specifically addressed that as well and his words for that idea and concept were not welcoming, to put it mildly.

Such people may be things that many consider noble. They might be religious, spiritual, great neighbors and family men, moral in many ways, but it's an absurd bastardization of the term to refer to them as 'Christian' -- and a great distortion of and insult to Jesus to do so as well.