The Grand Rapids Press has this story about a Christian student on trial for advertising for a Christian roommate. (H/T Mary, ECM)
Excerpt:
GRAND RAPIDS — The 31-year-old nursing student was looking to keep her expenses down when she decided to invite someone to share her home.
But when she posted an advertisement for a Christian roommate on her local church’s bulletin board, the Grand Rapids woman landed in the middle of a civil rights debate that has her facing a complaint of alleged illegal housing discrimination.
The advertisement contained the sentence, “I am looking for a Christian roommate,” said Joel Oster, senior litigation counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the woman.
Someone saw the ad over the summer and anonymously filed a civil rights complaint with the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan. The complaint was then filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the woman was notified at the end of September.
“I think it’s a clear violation on its face,” said Nancy L. Haynes, executive director of the local Fair Housing Center. “It’s an advertisement that clearly violates the Fair Housing Act.”
Although the woman might choose a roommate based on religion, say, after interviewing the person over coffee, she cannot publish an ad with that intent, Haynes said.
“She can choose to rent to a Christian, that’s her prerogative,” she said. “It’s a separate violation to make a discriminatory statement, to publish a discriminatory statement.”
There is a lot more to the story in the original post, and the Alliance Defense Fund is involved in the case.
This is a useful reminder about how far those on the left are willing to go to limit your fundamental human rights (freedom of association) so that they don’t have to read anything that makes them feel “discriminated” against. You can be sure that if a person posted an advertisement for a gay roommate that this would never have caught anyone’s eye. Christians aren’t as intolerant as people on the left. When things like this happen, we need to fight back hard to keep our basic human rights. And it’s important to never vote for people on the left who favor anti-Christian bigotry like what is happening to this woman.
Non-religious people are always interested in preventing the free expression and practice of Christianity in public. They don’t want to be reminded about the moral values of others – it makes them feel bad about their own selfishness and immorality. That’s what’s driving this censorship – they don’t want to be confronted with the idea that there are rules that they should live by, and that some people exist who take that seriously. They wish everyone was in rebellion against moral standards like they are – because if everyone were doing it, there would be no one left to judge them.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
What’s Wrong with the World pointed out why this came up at all:
The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan might ask for an initial reimbursement of $300 for time spent on the issue and training for the woman, in addition to pulling down the ad, Haynes said.
Just like all the “veterans advocate” groups that were beating down my door to “help” me when I got out. (Help defined as getting me to take their classes, which they could then charge the Navy for, or see their counselors, which they could then charge the Navy for, or buy into their job-search group, which… well, you get the idea.)
LikeLike
OK, so there is sort of a perverse incentive here to find discrimination, etc. everywhere in order to get more public funds. This is how limited government plays in with liberty. As long as there are people out there working for the government to deal with social pathologies, they will want to exaggerate and facilitate social pathology. Criminalizing everything is an excellent way to provide them with job security.
This reminds me of how divorce lawyers deliberately break up families in order to generate more revenue. Government has an interest in making work for the government.
LikeLike
Next thing, they will interfere with dating websites:
Christian looking for a fellow Christian to marry? Discrimination on the basis of religion.
A woman looking for a man? Discrimination on the basis of gender.
A 34-year-old man looking for a woman 34 or younger? Age discrimination.
LikeLike
That’s old news. The eHarmony dating service has a “gay” section precisely because of these sorts of lawsuits.
LikeLike
True, but they are prosecuting the 31-y.o. nursing student, and they are not yet prosecuting the individual e-harmony customers- the woman advertising for a man to date, or the Christian wanting a Christian.
LikeLike
Ah! I misunderstood your precise point.
Yes, they’re *not yet* going after the individuals who express a discrimination/preference for “this” rather than “that.”
LikeLike
Have we any rights left at all!?!?!??!?!
The world gets more upside down every day.
LikeLike
You had me until the final paragraph. What an ugly way to end such a thoughtful argument.
“…they don’t want to be confronted with the idea that there are rules that they should live by… They wish everyone was in rebellion against moral standards like they are – because if everyone were doing it, there would be no one left to judge them.”
I’m sorry you feel you are compelled to judge others who will not share in your belief. I sincerely appreciate you bringing this issue to my attention and I hope, for your sake, that you do not truly burden yourself with judging others against the moral scale you have found through your beliefs.
“There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? ” James 4:12
LikeLike
Hey MisterMustard. Are you saying that I am wrong? If not, then you agree with me. But if so, then you are judging me. If judging is bad, like you say it is, then why are you judging me?
LikeLike
I’m not making a right/wrong decision. I appreciate that you’ve brought this issue to scrutiny. I appreciate the majority of your editorial. The bulletin she posted was in a church, seeking those of the same faith. I don’t believe any reasonable person would enter a church outside of their faith and expect to be tiptoed around.
I make no judgment of WK, and I would defy anyone to find the point where I did so. WK is certainly welcome to their (very well-spoken) opinion. I simply wished to express regret that any individual should feel the need to assume the role of society’s judge. I am in no position to say whether I represent the “right” or the “wrong” opinion. WK’s urges could be borne out of genuine desire save every last soul, and I would tip every hat I owned to someone with that moxie.
LikeLike
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matt. 7:1-5)
Judging is not inherently wrong; judging others by a measure harder than you use yourself is condemned.
Good thing, or you judging WK’s comment on the motivation as judging those who are acting would be judgmental, and that’s kinda head-hurting….
LikeLike
Wintery Knight: … they [non-religious people] don’t want to be confronted with the idea that there are rules that they should live by, and that some people exist who take that seriously.
.
Bit ironic, considering the advertisement was a violation of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, albeit a technical one.
While I question whether any time or effort should be utilized pursuing such a violation, this statement would indicate otherwise—apparently this Christian student ( just like us non-religious folks *grin*) needs to “be confronted with the idea there are rules they should live by, and some people exist who take that seriously.”
This entry appears to start off opposed to the enforcement action, but ends arguing rules should be enforced.
Seems its not just “non-religious people” who are in rebellion to moral standards
LikeLike
You can’t be serious… She doesn’t own the housing establishment. She’s choosing a roommate! You’re conveniently ignoring this…
So if you ask for a male roommate, can I sue you for sexist discrimination? Can smokers sue you if you ask for a non-smoker?
LikeLike
This from the FRC e-mail letter:
This woman “is not a landlord. She does not own a management company. She does not run an apartment complex,” said ADF attorney Joel Oster, who is representing the woman free of charge. “She is a single person seeking to have a roommate live with her in her house. She is not prohibited by either federal law or state law from seeking a Christian roommate…”
She has a right to determine who lives in her house with her.
LikeLike
I forgot – the advertisement was posted in her church!
LikeLike
Mary,
Yes. I am serious. According to the information I found, the student actually does own the housing establishment. From here. It is her house.
Whether she is choosing a roommate…I see the term “roommate” being utilized as a talking point, not describing the reality.
The 31-year-old owns the house, and is charging money to have another person stay there. (Even if the money is being used toward utilities—it would still be considered rent.) This nursing student has all the rights, privileges and…yes…duties of a landlord. While it makes for instigating rhetoric to call them a “roommate”—under the law this person would be a tenant. You can call them “roommate,” “houseguest,” or “star-bellied sneetch”—the law treats this as a landlord/tenant situation.
As to your questions:
1) If a male tenant, the Fair Housing Act law gives an exemption for gender when there is shared living space. As to a roommate (co-tenants), the Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply.
2) The Fair Housing Act only provides for certain protected classes. “Smoking” is not one of them—therefore the Act wouldn’t apply to either tenancy OR roommate.
LikeLike
Odd that you found all that out, but didn’t find out about the “mom and pop” exemptions– owner occupied housing is specifically mentioned.
http://rhol.org/fairhousing/
down at the very bottom.
LikeLike
Foxfier, thank you again for your helpful comment.
LikeLike
Glenn E. Chatfield,
The woman owns the home, and is charging money for someone else to live there. If the relationship breaks down, the owner must go through the legal steps of eviction to remove the other person.
I understand her lawyer (who is not licensed to practice in Michigan, by the way) would like the world to think his client is not a landlord, and therefore absolved from the obligations of the Fair Housing Act. Johnny Cochrane kept telling the world his client didn’t kill Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Doesn’t make it so.
As to the posting at a church–I am unaware there is any exception under the Fair Housing Act regarding “private” compared to “public” advertising, so the fact it was at a church appears moot.
LikeLike
So you are saying then, that no one is free choose who to associate with in their own home? It is not a rental house – she is just looking for someone to share expenses. If the law does not allow her to choose who she can have live in her house (this is not an apartment complex), then, as the guy in Oliver Twist, says, “the law is an ass!”
Do we have any freedoms any more that the left won’t find a way to deny us?
LikeLike
How do you know “the left” passed the regulation in question, G? Do you know the party affiliation/attitude of those involved?
LikeLike
Because that is the ideology of the left and not the right. The right’s ideology is freedom of association and little government intervention, while the ideology of the left is total socialisim
LikeLike
Rather than guess, we can look at the History of Fair Housing Act. (PDF) Ironically (again!) written by the Republican who constantly pushed for its passage.
LikeLike
There are (at minimum) two things to keep in mind here:
1) this moral outrage is the Inevitable Result of the mindset which asserts (or acquiesces to the assertion) that “the government” has the moral and legal authority to dictate the associations people may enter into or decline to enter into.
Once you acquiesce to the assertion that “the government” has the moral and legal authority to dictate how that fellow over there may run his lunch-counter and how that fellow over there may run his property rental business, then you really have acquiesced to the assertion that “the government” has the moral and legal authority to dictate the criteria by which you may decide whether to share your living quarters with some person.
2) in this thread, we see “liberals” obfuscating about this moral outrage.
LikeLike
Glenn E. Chatfield (and this ought to address your concern as well, Foxfier),
The Fair Housing Act allows an exemption for a person with three or less rentals to rent to whomever they want, but they can’t advertise in a discriminatory manner.
So yes, this woman could even interview people, asking “Are you a Christian?” and if they say, “No,” refuse to rent to them. Or refuse to rent to a black person, a Jew, etc. But the Act still prohibits a person from advertising with such a limitation.
To some extent, I would agree with you, Glenn E. Chatfield, it does make the law an ass. (Although I am a bit confused with your comment about “the left.” This law was enacted in 1968, and is still on the books. We’ve had right, left, crooks and everything else in the past 40 years.)
All that being said, I would go back to my original comment. Now you all know the law: you can’t advertise for rental (again, different than “roommate co-tenant”) in a discriminatory manner, although if you fit the 3 or less rental number, you can still discriminate in your choice.
Is it still just the “non-religious people” who don’t want to be “confronted with the idea there are rules they should live by and some people exist who take that seriously”? Should Christians, now knowing the law, recognize they are bound by it, even though it is a technical violation?
Should this student say, “O.K., I screwed up. I violated the law; I’ll pay my penalty and move on”? Or do you all still argue there is some justification (beyond the fact it is a stupid law, and a waste of resources—both of which I agree) that gives this student some higher right to breach the law?
LikeLike
You are making the assumption that a liberal would make – that advertising for a Christian room-mate is “discriminatory.” Hey, every single decision we ever make is discriminatory – discrimination is only seen as something wrong by liberals. We discriminate between right and wrong all the time. If she wants to discriminate as to who she wants as a room-mate, there should be no legal reason not to do so. However, I think that someone who wants to punish every Christian is the only type who would see this as an illegal discriminatory advertisement. It is foolish in the nth degree to call that advertisement a “discriminatory” advertisement for legal purposes. You make it illegal to ask for a room-mate with whom you want to associate. I don’t believe that is the intent of the law.
LikeLike
Glenn E. Chatfield,
Sorry for any confusion. I use the term “discriminatory” in its legal sense. You might want to look at theFair Housing Act Advertising Guideline PDF especially section 109.20(b)(3) as an “overt or tacit discriminatory preference or limitation.” The word “Christian” is specifically listed.
Now, I don’t know if a liberal or conservative or libertarian or Rastafarian or progressive or introvert or extrovert wrote that guideline to be honest with you. All I know is what the law says. And “Christian” is considered overt or tacit discriminatory preference.
Again, you continue to use the term “roommate” (which is fine) but understand under the law a person paying money in exchange for a place to live is a “tenant.” And the person owning the property, receiving the money, is a “landlord.” Those terms carry legal significance–legal rights, duties and privileges. You can call them a “roommate;” but the law considers them a tenant.
O.K….you didn’t want to answer my question, let me try it another way. The blog entry indicates non-religious people do not want to be confronted with the idea there are “rules they should live by.”
What rule, in this instance, is the non-religious person not wanting to live by?
Or, if you prefer, what rule is the religious person living by?
LikeLike
DagoodS,
Okay, play the legal definition game, and call her a landlord because she wants the person to pay some of the expenses. The point is, it is an unjust system which no one can win at if you aren’t allowed to advertise for someone to live with you. The person is not living in a separate apartment – she wants the person to share her house! As in live in the same place with her. So you are saying the law is so specific as to deny her choice of who she wants to live with just because she owns the home!!!!! And do you agree that is right and proper? So she can’t advertise for a room-mate (which it is no matter how you want to play legalese) of her choice because that would be illegal, but if she didn’t note restrictions she could then deny any applicant that she didn’t like and that would be okay? It isn’t okay to discriminate in the advertisement but it is okay to discriminate in the actual choosing???????
The State can indeed abuse its authority, and this is one abuse I would take to the mat.
LikeLike
Some thoughts:
1) If this is what this law says, surely it’s unconstitutional? It should be struck down on those grounds alone.
2) How idiotic is it that she can restrict her choice to Christians, but just can’t advertise it?? That means she must waste the time of non-christians who see her message as well as her own time. How does that help ANYONE?
3) Whoever filed the complaint has some serious issues…
LikeLike
I think you overlooked the fact that she posted this advertisement at her church, so it was (most likely) another churchgoer that filed this complaint.
LikeLike
Jerry: Pure conjecture on your part. :) Churches hire out their halls for community meetings, dance classes, etc. And anyway, some non-christians go to church too, for social reasons. If only Christians saw the notice she wouldn’t have to stipulate “Christian”, now would she? ;-) Whoever it was has serious issues.
LikeLike
Glenn E. Chatfield,
If we are talking about applying laws to circumstances then yes…I will use legal definitions.
No, I am not saying the law denies this student the ability to choose a tenant or roommate. Quite the opposite—she is free to interview, ask specific questions and then rent to a Christian, non-Christian, black, white, etc. Because she is letting three or less rentals.
Yes, the law states she cannot advertise in a discriminatory manner (“Whites Only.” “Christian Tenants.”) yet she is free to rent in a discriminatory manner.
Your apparent objection to “legalese” and the “legal definition game” is fascinating. Have you thought about how this story came to the media? No reporter is hanging around the Fair Housing or Civil Rights department waiting for a hot news flash to break!
My suspicion is this person looked up a lawyer. (“Christian legal defense team” in google generates ADF as the first hit. The same lawyers she eventually used. Hmmmm…..) Now the lawyer realizes “LANDLORD BREACHES LEGAL TECHNICALITY” is not exactly an eye-catching headline; but “CHRISTIAN NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE CHRISTIAN ROOMMATE” is far more likely to stir up some action. And anything generating bad publicity for the other side makes your position stronger. Inundating one’s opponent with negative public opinion is effective. Have ‘em buried in 1,000’s of hate mail and e-mails and phone calls, etc.
Make them concede by attrition.
So ADF releases a press release, it is picked up by the righteously indignant, and voila—the world’s attention is captured by this alleged persecution of a Christian.
Here you seem unhappy with the law, or legal terms, yet I suspect you are being manipulated by a lawyer, trying to win his case for his client! (Not that there is anything wrong with a lawyer doing this…the tacit irony amuses me.)
Leading me back to my (so far) unanswered questions:
1) In this situation, what rule is the “non religious person” saying they don’t want to live by? or
2) In this situation, what rule is the religious person living by?
LikeLike
The point is whether a law is right, whether it is Constitutional. If it is not, which to me it is clearly a violation of individual rights, then we in the USA have the right to challenge any such law.
My question still remains, DaGoodS, do you think the law is right in not allowing her to choose who she wants to live with? Do you think it is logical to not be able to advertise what you want but at the same time you can eliminate all applicants who don’t meet your criteria?
LikeLike
Just because a guy is a Republican, that doesn’t mean is isn’t a liberal! The way I see it, the Republican party is really the new Democratic party, while the old Democratic party is now the Socialist Party! Many Republikans vote just like demokrats and are just as liberal. So I maintain only a liberal would have that world view
LikeLike
Glenn E. Chatfield
Perhaps I have been unclear due to avoiding double negatives.
1) The Fair Housing Act allows this person to choose, and even question in an interview or application, to live with any person they desire. Including Christians only.
OR, if one prefers double negatives:
2) The Act does not prohibit this person from choosing whomever she desires as a tenant or roommate.
I hope that clears up any confusion caused on my part. This way you may understand why I cannot coherently answer this question:
Glenn E. Chatfield: …do you think the law is right in not allowing her to choose who she wants to live with?
.
Since that is NOT what the law is, I don’t bother considering whether it is right or wrong.
To analogize, I feel like I have said over and over, “There is no pot at the end of the rainbow. There is no pot at the end of the rainbow.” And then I am asked, “Why do you think the pot at the end of the rainbow doesn’t tip over?” Because there isn’t one!
In the same way, there isn’t a law that doesn’t “allow her to choose who she wants to live with” and therefore asking me whether I think “the law is right” makes no sense. There isn’t such a law.
Glenn E. Chatfield: Do you think it is logical to not be able to advertise what you want but at the same time you can eliminate all applicants who don’t meet your criteria?
.
It breaches no logical rule that I know of; commits no logical fallacy. So technically, yes it is logical. Do I find it reasonable? Certainly not—it makes common sense to me that one should be able to advertise if one could discriminate.
However, there are plenty of laws I consider violate common sense. Yet they are still the law.
Are Christians obligated to follow the laws of their government regarding landlord/tenancy? Even the ones that make no sense?
Bringing us back to my questions, that I have asked three times, and no one chooses to answer. I am beginning to suspect it is because the answer is obvious….*grin*
What rule, in this instance, is the non-religious person not wanting to live by?
Or, if you prefer, what rule is the religious person living by?
LikeLike
The Christian is obligated to obey the law of the land unless the law conflicts with God’s law. This law, as stupid and asinine as it is, does not conflict with God’s law.
The question is, did she know she was violating an unfair law by advertising for a Christian? I don’t think so – nothing in the report says that. Does she have a right to protest unfair laws? Yes she does. So she inadvertently violated a law which some liberal baby cried about (had to be a liberal – who else would complain?) and now she’s in trouble.
And I submit is certainly IS illogical to say you can’t advertise for a certain type person but you can choose that person when they apply. If it is discrimination in one event, then it is discrimination in the other.
I still am not convinced that the intent of the law was to cover such situations.
LikeLike
Glenn has expressed it very well. This woman wouldn’t have known about this idiotic law. Why should she be punished for unintentionally violating an unconstitutional, counterintuitive law? The whole point of the law is supposed to be justice, which is not being served by punishing an innocent person such as this. If we lose sight of justice in the legal system, then we’re in a bad way. If the court rules against her, she should pay, even though it’s unfair, because Christians are to obey the law, however stupid, provided it doesn’t conflict with God’s law. But that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have right to protest unjust laws and appeal to the courts for sensible, just treatment.
LikeLike
so you’re claiming ignorance is a good defense? If a muslim moves to a non-sharia law country he should be allowed to strike/rape a woman because he wouldn’t know about the (from his point of sharia view) idiotic laws that protect her?
LikeLike
What we’re saying is that this is an inane law that would be hard to even know existed unless you’re a lawyer or someone looking to cause trouble. No harm cam to anyone as a result, and the intent of the law was most likely not to be applied in such a scenario, so punishment should be negligible if anything other than a warning. To compare such a breach of such an asinine law to a breach of a law that protects people from harm is totally ludicrous. And I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut than any Muslim knows that only in countries with Sharia law can they abuse women that way legally.
LikeLike
DagoodS, I also want to address your question about what laws the non-christian doesn’t adhere to, that the Christian does. I’m going to be a little picky about WK’S wording, because Christians live firstly by the Spirit (of God) rather than by the law. That said, the Spirit prompts us to live in accordance with God’s moral law. Non-christians don’t have the Spirit of God and they don’t have Jesus as Lord of their lives. Their moral point of reference is usually personal preference. So while not all non-christians behave immorally, they certainly aren’t operating according to God’s standard. So, if a Christian wants to keep themselves from the possibility of being implicated in the sin of non-christians (and yes, I know there are hypocrites who call themselves Christian), it is prudent to share living space with fellow Christians. That way you don’t have to deal with your roommate bringing home a one night stand or hosting drunken parties. Those non-christians who resent Christians having these standards, because it implicates them, are the sort that lodge complaints against them for advertising for a Christian roommate.
LikeLike
Mary,
I was done with my last comment (I fear I’ve monopolized and protracted this entry enough!), but you raise some points you (or lurkers) may be interested in a response. Or maybe not…who knows?
First, I am unaware how one could possible argue the Fair Housing Act is unconstitutional. A cursory review indicates the US Supreme Court has referred to and utilized the Act on a few occasions, and has never remotely questioned its constitutionality. It has been presumed. In appellate courts, a common axiom is that claimants cannot merely assert and leave it up to the court to make the arguments for them. The person has to prove their case.
I cannot conceive how one would go about arguing this is unconstitutional, beyond merely asserting it with no legal basis. Are you aware of a case or article arguing the Act is not constitutional? I would be interested in that.
Second, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Not just a pithy statement—the problem is, if we allowed it as an excuse, EVERY defendant would claim, “I didn’t know” and we would have to add an extra step in every legal proceeding to “prove” the defendant knew the law. It has long been held people are imputed with knowledge of the law; even though we recognize the reality they sometimes don’t. (Depending on the law, and the harm caused, ignorance will certainly weigh when it comes to penalties.)
Although that is a side issue at this point, since it appears all of us agree this person violated the Act. The point of the blog entry (as I understood it) was that some people, specifically non-religious people, don’t want to be confronted with rules to live by; they wish everyone was in moral rebellion. Turns out, it is the religious person who was in “moral rebellion” and doesn’t want to be confronted with rules to live by! She wants to lawyer up.
Third (what really grabbed my attention) was your statement regarding Christians living first by the “Spirit of God.” Just so you know, I was a Christian for 32 years, I am well-versed (pun intended) in the Bible. For example, I understand Romans 13:1-2 states Christians should subject themselves to governmental authorities, and not resist them. Of course, this is reiterated in 1 Peter 2:13-17. And yes, I am also aware how Acts 5:29 says, “We ought to obey God rather than man.”
I don’t think Acts 5 applies here, unless someone can show me God’s direction regarding advertising for tenants?
It seems to me, and I would have claimed this when I was a Christian as well, if one holds the “Spirit of God” is reflected in the Bible, then one has a moral mandate to follow this law.
Please understand, I also believe (and did as a Christian) she would have a moral right to defend herself as the law allows, including indicating she didn’t know the law, it was inadvertent, etc. And she has the moral right to inform others, and make efforts to change the law.
Again, I am NOT saying Christians must meekly accept punishment against any charge. They can defend, within the legal parameters of the system set up by the governing authority, and still fully comply with Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2.
But that’s not what I am seeing here. If I had read, “Hey, turns out this Christian violated a technicality in the law. Seems to be a silly law. She acknowledges she is wrong, but is abiding by the dictates of Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2, and will perform whatever corrections are necessary. Let’s write to our representatives to make them known of this conflict, and work within the purview of the law to change it” I would have been impressed. Stunned, actually.
Instead what I see are cries of liberals persecuting Christians [by making them abide by the law—gasp!] and “unconstitutional” and “unjust” and “unfair” and “the left.”
You may whisper Christian morals are bound by the Spirit of God; it is drowned out by the cacophony of complaints all focusing on morals being determined by one’s political perspective. I don’t see a God here; I see conservative Americanism utilizing persecution complex.
Therein is a deep irony. (As you can tell, I deliciously love irony.) For some bizarre reason, I run across many Christians who think statements about abiding by the law (even though it seems unreasonable) and trying to change the law makes them appear weak. That somehow, they will become bullied by the world. Instead the exact opposite is true. A Christian who actually stood up and said, “I’m going to abide by God’s word, even though it costs me personally” would cause our heads to snap back in surprise.
When you whine and complain…just like us…using the same political justifications…just like us…it is hard to see how your belief is any different than ours. You have a God—the creator of the universe!—on your side, but you act like your only modicum of relief is through the human court system and the American Constitution. That your God is not….quite…..big…..enough….
We don’t resent Christian standards; we quietly chuckle at how similar those standards are to ours. Christians just don’t realize it.
LikeLike
Thanks for your response, DagoodS.
Re constitutionality:
I’m not an American and I’m certainly not an expert in American constitutional law. But I should hope this sort of idiotic law would be unconstitutional in the “land of the free and the home of the brave”. :)
I agree that the case needs to be proven.
“Depending on the law, and the harm caused, ignorance will certainly weigh when it comes to penalties.”
My point exactly. Ridiculous law + no harm done at all = little or no penalty, I should hope…
“Turns out, it is the religious person who was in “moral rebellion” and doesn’t want to be confronted with rules to live by! She wants to lawyer up.”
No, she was not in moral rebellion. If you were a Christian for so long you should know that moral rebellion is a matter of the heart. If you don’t know something is illegal and you do the illegal thing, then your heart is free from sin in that instance.
“It seems to me, and I would have claimed this when I was a Christian as well, if one holds the “Spirit of God” is reflected in the Bible, then one has a moral mandate to follow this law.”
And I agree with you as a Christian. But you can’t follow a law you don’t know exists. Think about it. I agree with you that Christians should submit themselves to governmental authority. That’s why I said that if the court decides that she has to pay a fine, then she should – even though it’s a stupid law.
“If I had read, “Hey, turns out this Christian violated a technicality in the law. Seems to be a silly law. She acknowledges she is wrong, but is abiding by the dictates of Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2, and will perform whatever corrections are necessary. Let’s write to our representatives to make them known of this conflict, and work within the purview of the law to change it” I would have been impressed. Stunned, actually.”
I agree with what you wrote above with the exception of “she acknowledges she is wrong”. No, she wasn’t wrong. She was in violation of the law (unwittingly), but not wrong. She didn’t do anything wrong. Man’s laws are not a moral code – even if far too many people use them that way.
“Instead what I see are cries of liberals persecuting Christians [by making them abide by the law—gasp!] and “unconstitutional” and “unjust” and “unfair” and “the left.””
No, the persecution is not making someone abide by the law. It’s a) the fact of the unfair law (which yes, bears the marks of typical liberalism), b) the mean-spirited, resentful spirit that makes someone go and complain about such an advert. Would you have filed such a complaint?
“You may whisper Christian morals are bound by the Spirit of God; it is drowned out by the cacophony of complaints all focusing on morals being determined by one’s political perspective. I don’t see a God here; I see conservative Americanism utilizing persecution complex.”
I’m not an American. I don’t even live on the same continent. So Americanism and American politics have nothing to do with my views on the matter.
“For some bizarre reason, I run across many Christians who think statements about abiding by the law (even though it seems unreasonable) and trying to change the law makes them appear weak.”
Er, well that’s not my view. I agree with what you propose in this statement.
I certainly don’t place my primary trust in the political system. See my comment on WK’s post regarding Mark Driscoll to see what I’m saying.
“We don’t resent Christian standards; we quietly chuckle at how similar those standards are to ours. Christians just don’t realize it.”
Well, whoever lodged this complaint and whoever made the silly law sure had issues with Christian standards…
LikeLike
Mary, thank you for the reply. I appreciate you perceived my comment in the manner intended.
No, I would not have filed such a complaint.
LikeLike
Part of the problem is that there have been many laws passed, and many more being passed (Obamacare) which have no Constitutional basis – they are not things permitted by the Government. But out activists judges over the years keep finding these laws in Constitutional “penumbras.” Sort of how cults read the Bible. So yes, it is unconstitutional for a law to restrict a person from advertising for a Christian to rent – find that restriction of rights in the Constitution. YOu’ll find it right next to the right to have an abortion. It ain’t there!
LikeLike
A postscript for those interested. HUD dropped the case.
Yeah for lawyers effectively representing their clients!
LikeLike
Thanks for the update, DagoodS! Good to hear that sanity prevailed. :)
LikeLike