Laws in the US that restrict the rights of Christians

I'm not sure that this counts in the spirit of the OP.The pressure on the Mormon Church to conform to mainstream standards was pretty much due to mainstream Christian's prejudice against Mormon beliefs and practices, not a policy in the interests of a secular society.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

A couple of years ago, I started a thread on this very idea. It degenerated in several people (including myself) just arguing about stuff. But if you're interested, it could be resurrected.I think that some countries do this very thing -- for some reason, France comes to mind, but I may be wrong -- to be legally valid, the partners must enter into a state sanctioned "civil union", and if the couple wants religious recognition they must then have a separate religious "marriage" ceremony.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Huh. And in my job as a math instructor, I'd like to take a day off from talking about how to find the relative maxima and minima of a function and talk about my favorite hobbies.Except I would be fired.Like military chaplains, I have a job that requires special duties, and it is not a violation of free speech if my employer makes it clear that some absurd view of "free speech" does not over ride my obligations to do my job properly. In my case, my job requires me to use my time to teach mathematics; in the case of a chaplain, his job requires him to minister to people of different faiths and different denominations, where praying in Jesus' name might be seen as overly sectarian.I thought all of this was already explained to you in another thread, Phat? Why are you bringing up this bogus chaplain "controversy"?

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Quite right. I suspect that what upsets the evangelical Protestants isn't issues of free speech or exercise of relgion (hell, when have evangelical Protestants ever been supportive of speech or religion they were opposed to?); it is that evangelical Protestant chaplains cannot use their official capacity to proselytize.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

And they are allowed to. Chaplains are not prevented from "praying in Jesus' name" with these particular Christians. Unless they are part of a group of mixed affiliations being ministered to at once.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Oops. I missed this bit: I found a chart of the religous faith of enlisted personnel in the U.S. armed forces, based on 2002 data. The relevant chart is at the bottom of the page.Now I notice that Roman Catholics, who do not tend to include "praying in Jesus' name" in their prayers, outnumber Baptists. I don't know whether Lutherans or Methodists pray "in Jesus' name", but if they do, then Protestants who "pray in Jesus' name" are barely a majority. Almost half are people of faith who do not include "in Jesus' name" as a formulaic part of their prayers and would, in fact, be offended by its inclusion since "praying in Jesus name" is associated mainly with evangelical Protestant denominations.Added by edit:The site to which I linked is to an "anti-cult" evangelical organization which seems to include any non-Christian relgion as a cult. If that bothers people, then I found another source; it is a PDF file -- see p. 25. Note that Protestant and Other Christian make less than half of the expressed religious preference of armed forces personel, which supports my point. According to this information, evangelical Protestants who explicitly "pray in Jesus' name" are not a majority.Added by further edit:And to underscore my argument, here is a link to an article from the Washington Post last year: "House Injects Prayer Into Defense Bill":

quote:

---

The House passed a $513 billion defense authorization bill yesterday that includes language intended to allow chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus at public military ceremonies, undercutting new Air Force and Navy guidelines on religion.
....
Among the provision's opponents is the chief of Navy chaplains, Rear Adm. Louis V. Iasiello, a Roman Catholic priest.

​

"The language ignores and negates the primary duties of the chaplain to support the religious needs of the entire crew" and "will, in the end, marginalize chaplains and degrade their use and effectiveness," Iasiello wrote in a letter to a committee member.

---

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

As I've stated in my previous several-times-edited message, it is certain Christians who are asking for special privileges.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Actually, John 14:13, 14 says:

quote:

---

I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask for anything, I will do it. (NRSV)

---

Because of this, many evangelical groups will end their prayer with, "In Jesus' name, we pray. Amen."

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Now that this chaplain business has been taken care of, I have to ask for an update for this thread. Has any kind of systematic attack on the rights of Christians in the U.S. been documented yet?I am kind of surprised. Me, I would have thought that in a nation as large as the U.S., with all the different bureaucracies, agencies, and local governmental bodies, there would be at least a few instances of discrimination or restrictions on the rights of Christians.I can think of a few attempts, but, ironically, the ones that come to mind were defeated with secular organizations like the ACLU taking the lead.But is there any systematic attacks against the rights of Christians?

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Maybe. But I've been in favor of removing the state's role in marriage and replacing it with civil unions long before gay marriage became an issue. For precisely this reason: marriage has always been, even before the gay marriage issue, a religious institution, and the state has no business entangling itself in religious issues.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)