In what sense is the contemporary progressive the faithful heir of Jim Crow? https://t.co/5lSLWGAR0B
— Justin Taylor (@between2worlds) December 2, 2016
Perhaps progressives hope and expect that, under the heavy weight of the law, traditionalists will abandon their religious conviction that sexual relations should be confined to marriage between a man and a woman. If that is the expectation, then the project would appear to be one in suppression or elimination: disagreements about marriage and sexuality should be eliminated by using law to make one side disappear.
More commonly, though, what we hear from the progressive side is that the Christian florist and photographer and marriage counselor are still free to retain their private religious convictions about marriage. They simply cannot act on those convictions while carrying on the business of florist or photographer or counselor. Such religious commitments should be left behind when the believer enters the public square. If a believer is unwilling or unable to make that sacrifice, then she should stay at home or find some other line of work.
This position is overtly segregationist in its strategy for dealing with religious diversity. Those who take this view are analogous to the 1960s segregationist who said, “Of course there’s a place for you: it just isn’t here (in this school, or this section of the bus, or this end of the lunch counter).” In that respect, it is the contemporary progressive, not the Christian florist or photographer, who is the faithful heir of Jim Crow.
Read it all from Professor Steven Smith at PD.
“…the Christian florist and photographer and marriage counselor are still free to retain their private religious convictions about marriage. They simply cannot act on those convictions while carrying on the business…”
I have heard some “progressives” argue this. However, I do not think it is an accurate/honest description. One need only observe the attacks on Brendan Eich of Mozilla, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, or more currently, the campaign against the Gaines of “Fixer Upper.” In each of these examples, it was never a case of a private belief intruding into public business.
To coin an overused term, the progressive movement is nothing less than eliminationism.
I respectfully submit that these social engineers intent upon up-ending morality should not be given the positive-sounding appellation “progressive,” but rather referred to as immoral, leftist, or socialist.
#2 I concur generally, and most frequently use the second of your list – as vague as it might be.
In the end, the only thing that will change this, in all western countries, is the establishment of many soundly based congregations throughout the country.