What people didn't realize in the past was that the Old Testament was the Law, which was superseded by Christ. They only realized that when arguing over which day was the Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday. The Bible says Saturday; so it's technically moot to even argue over "Sunday"?) But in every other way, they copied lock, stock and barrel the Old Covenant. It's all an outward "righteousness" of "works", and there's little grace.

And what we ended up with was the same thing Christ condemned his Old Testament contemporaries for. "Making clean the outside of the cup, and not the inside". Being "whitewashed sepulchres", full of dead men's bones inside. Man "looks out the outward appearance". They followed all the rituals and forms of "preparing themselves for God", and even added much more to it.
Christ wasn't adding some new teaching to be kept side by side with the old. He's telling us that that old way people cite wasn't working (hence "new wine in old wineskins"). Not because the Law was faulty, but became man was. As those people he was dealing with made clear. So Paul in Romans 7 and elsewhere shows that throwing more Law at us makes us more rebellious. You can suppress sin outwardly, but it still comes up in some other way.

So centuries later in like fashion, everyone dressed up for Church, for jobs, for planes, etc. Today we look back at that and compare (along with morality, respect, kids' behavior, music styles, etc), and everything looked so good then and so bad now.
But what about the black struggles, for instance? It was the same cultural Christianity that taught dressing up in church and the rest of the outward morality, that said blacks were inferior and should be enslaved or segregated (and also lynched and raped them). Black churches adopted the dress and other strictness, but they too were often too hard, and neurotic (especially when it comes to sexual morality, but then ironically the preacher would often be in the brothel after a sermon he terrorized the congregation with guilt through).

So about 50 years ago, all of this came to a head, and the entire generation, black and white rebelled against the whole thing. Then Christians and other "guardians" of society got into this push to go back to the past. But just like the Gospel says, all men have sinned, meaning all cultures, the same goes for all generations. We've simply traded one set of sins for another. (But at least this generation is trying to be authentic, and not hiding sin behind nice clothes; even if they may take things too far sometimes).

Should also point out, "dress vs casual" is not a solid definition of "respect"; it's a changing manmade system (they didn't have suits and ties in Biblical times, so that's not what "preparing for the Lord" meant), that again was often done even while much sin was in people's hearts.
A lot of people may continue to dress up at certain functions, but most are just doing it because it's the norm, likely because they have to. It does not indicate whether they truly respect something. That is such a shallow way to judge things.
To confuse this, and raise dressing up to a biblical mandate further relativizes the faith, more than what we complain others are doing morally

The solution is not to go back (Eccl. 7:10, Isaiah 43:18-21, Phil.3:13) it's to look and see what went wrong in what the modern generation is rebelling against and realize that there was just as much sin back then, and to show grace on those who are reacting out of the confusion, not to continue wagging fingers.

I've seen a bunch of these unmarked green cabs, and what they are is simply those who have painted the cars, and are waiting for the medallion and markup. Then, so see them weeks later marked up.

Yeah; very good and objective. This was a critique I so wanted to see 30 years ago. For decades, I hard conservative Christians beat up on nonChristians, liberals and evolution, and hardly anyone ever responded. When they did, (in recent decades, like around the Dover trial), it was a lot of invective attacking God and the Bible altogether.

That part about violence is striking (the villains are the “Global Community Peacekeepers”, while the ones resorting to doing all the killing are the heroes). It's pure "shadow projection" (projecting one's own sin at others, and justifying it in one's self). I'm surprised the article doesn't even mention the gun craze, which fundamentalists are a major driving force behind. They tell everyone else "trust God; don't cling to this world"; but they get to defend their lives and possessions. The article covered this and many other points well.

Overall, the problem with this group is they cannot admit the sins of the AngloAmerican world (namely the racism and colonialism it built itself up on, in addition to the economic injustice today), so they have to blame everyone else for all wrong, in defense of this "honor"; and God is basically just the mascot of the whole thing.

Why is the federal government spending money on this site anyway? (Both paying the guy the 6 million, plus the money to build on it). Norfolk isn't even a big federal government center, is it? (Besides the Navy presence). Just like in the last recession, and the govt. was building fancy new courthouses (In NYC). Everyone thinks all the deficit and the waste is going to 'programs", but don't seem to notice stuff like this!