Here we go again. This side against that side. That side against this side. The liberal progressive Christians against socially conservative Christians. The socially conservative Christians against the liberal progressive Christians. Big family feud going on here. Makes you wonder if what the world sees is THIS feud and not the “problem” of Christians attempting to make a stand in the market place–the public square.
First off, I really don’t agree with the socially conservative christians that this is a free speech issue. Free speech, it seems, hinges on the question of GOVERNMENT CONTROL, NOT whether a company can limit the speech of it’s employees. So, it would have to be in their contract between each other as to what is allowed to be publicly stated. So, I would have to go with knowing the ins and outs–the details of that before I could reasonably say that A&E’s suspension of Robertson was justified or not. Sorry Matthew Paul Turner.
Second, I’m getting kinda tired of this pitting one moral issue against another as progressives seem to enjoy doing, ie., where were Christians (mostly the socially conservative ones again) anger against children dying of mal-nutrition? This is where I begin to have problems. Big ones.
It seems to me that the socially conservative Christians are simply over-reacting to being told what they can and cannot say in public (I use the term “over-reacting” because they say it’s a free speech issue which it really ISN’T. Listen, for sake of the argument, if it ISN’T a free speech issue, given that free speech is about GOVERNMENT regulation of speech, then this is over-reaction. Period.)
But a principled understanding of justice is or SHOULD be concerned about what can or cannot be said in the public square AND malnourish children. Now, believe it or not, Christian charity is being extend in the case of malnourished children and the homeless and the unborn (sorry, I really didn’t see THAT on your list Matthew) and single mothers. As a matter of fact, Catholic Charities helped in having children adopted but had to closed down due to their religious beliefs of not wanting to adopt children out to same-sex couples. In other words, not only shut up about adoption by same sex couples but they had to practice against their religiously based policies or face the penalities. They would rather close down than go against their religious beliefs which is what they did.
Now, if you are concerned about justice, why wouldn’t you seek lively, respectable discourse on what the “merits” (not the best term here) of homosexuality over against heterosexuality and vice versa or traditional marriage vs same-sex marriage and vice versa are? See, it works both ways. Hobby lobby or Chick-Fil-Eh (Canadian plug there) should have control over their employees speech just as Starbucks should have over theirs.
It’s just that one group of folks are getting quite tired of being told by another group of folks what they can and cannot say. So. Why would anyone criticize that?