There is all this talk about the new Pope needing to be a “reformer”. What would he reform?
I think a way to describe the conservative Church’s problems, in general, is that it does not focus on problems the average person identifies with. Let’s look at secular nonprofits and how they present themselves.
How many have seen the pictures of starving babies with large looking heads and almost no bodies? Most people would understand starvation is something we need to solve.
There are stories of homeless families. Homelessness is a social problem easily understood by the average person.
There was a day when churches were looked to for these problems. What the Catholic Church and conservative Protestant denominations talk about most passionately today are other things. One is a bureaucratic problem of being required to add something to their health insurance plans they do not want to add. Church hierarchies have assigned a name not easily understood, “religious liberty”.
Or, what about a preacher/priest complaining they may be required to marry two people you will never know and could care less about? First of all, it is a potential, not real time, problem. Second, it is not your problem.
“Religious liberty” does not tug at the heart string or leave one feeling guilty about not doing anything. A picture of a starving child or homeless family does both.
We saw the Pope lift off in a private helicopter. The kind of concerns people understand were left behind.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/342964
Visitors are welcome at the Freethinkers Potluck, 1 PM, Fargo Public Library, Fercho Room.
Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper that included the phrase “It’s been my experience those who are most concerned about religious liberty seem to be the least tolerant of belief systems other than theirs.”
Maybe they mean ‘religious liberty’ as the unrestricted liberty to force their point of view on everyone.
Mac 11:47 Great turn of phrase.
Liberty is an interesting thing, some people think it is a substance with a finite quantity. That there is only so much to go around. That if I allow some liberties to you that somehow detracts from my own liberties. This limiting of liberty demonstrates a limited mindset. I say limiting liberty in two senses quantity and quality.
Taking Macs letter to the editor, People that make the most noise for their own religious liberty often have this strange view of it:
a). by allowing someone else the liberty of a different belief system it somehow limits the liberty I have for my belief system. As if there was only a limited quantity of belief available in the universe and they had to get their share or miss out. Unfortunately there are too many like the WBC that think that they should have all the belief available for themselves.
b). by allowing someone else a different kind liberty it somehow reduces the value of their liberty. This is a frequent argument against gay marriage, it somehow degrades “normal” marriage. (somehow this extends to gay not being normal in all senses, leading from not normal to not truly human to being restricted in their access to the “human” world, in extreme thought it means being restricted to a 6 x 4 piece of the world. Witness Nazi Germany and the Jews, slow and steady denigration and degradation leading to extermination.
A slippery slope indeed.
What you must realise is that when you try to restrict the liberty of “the other” you are effectively limiting your own liberty. Worse, and more dangerous, you are opening the door for a stronger “other” to enter, one that thinks of you as “the other” and deserving to be suppressed.
I really needed a different word from “religious liberty” because I did not mean it be aimed at religion in particular, the same can and does happen in economic and ideological fields and many more that I can’t think of examples for.
The homosexual agenda is actively forcing their point of view on us. Homosexual marriage and other odd things of theirs are thrust in our face on a daily basis. Children (less than age 12) have to listen to the drivel of Jonny having two mommies or two daddies or whatever. What was deviance is now presented as normal all because political activists were loud and flawed research was accepted and is the crumbly basis of this normalization.
Yes they may be a little loud in self defense, defense against the overt hatred and bigotry such as you demonstrate.
The “new Atheists” have been attacked in a similar manner, why are they so strident, so aggressive forcing their views on us every day.
I say that this is also self defense, you don’t need to look far in Australia to find Christian groups that would impose their ideas on every aspect of life, America from what I read (hearsay evidence so not any more reliable than your scriptures) it is even more extreme.
Interesting that in your very personal definition of “atheism” you included hate, I would contend that that is projecting your own feelings of hatred and attributing them to ‘the other’, your hatred of any one that does not agree with you is palpable. Love your neighbour – what a joke.
en: “I would contend”
Your contention falls flat.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.
Your rejection is rejected.
Your opinion.
Not up to your usual standard, difficult to add innuendo to a single word I suppose.
Just saying the same thing is a bit circular though, but that is just my opinion
Thinking about it, it is almost as circular as the arguments for a Biblical God.
You are not even making any sense. Perhaps you should go back to bed.
Not my problem if you can’t see that simply repeating something is not a valid argument.
Your rambling is not relevant.
More relevant than your homophobic diatribe that started this thread.
Not phobic in the least. I am quite comfortable in challenging the sacred cow of homosexuality.
With phobia being described as an illogical fear then there is no way your challenges could be called phobic we have to agree on that. There is no need to frightened of being virulently anti gay, you would be part of a very verbal group, minority or majority group I don’t know.
But virulently anti gay I would suggest is a reasonable description going by the way you pick up on it at the slightest excuse, even bending things to make your point, and going to extremes to defend other against charges of hatred, what did you say once (rhetorical, I couldn’t forget anything so obvious) a gay murder wasn’t a hate crime as described but a “robbery gone wrong”, you do give yourself away on occasion.
It is a bit surprising really because if you read your Bible the way you read the papers homosexuality is not disapproved of in the story of David and Jonathan; David’s lamentation on the death of Saul and Jonathon
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been very pleasant to me;
Your love to me was wonderful,
Surpassing the love of women.
Not surprising Saul kept trying to kill David, and,
And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
1 Samuel 20:41
I can well imagine your interpretation of these words in any other context, but I am sure you can explain this in a different light just as you can any other potential or actual inconsistencies.
Perhaps David is not a good example being very flexible in his morality, although he always walked in the ways of the Lord.
entech: ” a gay murder wasn’t a hate crime as described but a “robbery gone wrong”, you do give yourself away on occasion.”
With that logic, there are many “hate crimes” against heterosexuals, many more, but here is evidence where the homosexuals want special rights.
As far as David and Jon, you see anal sex (homosexuality) in the relationship. I simply see very good friends in a different culture where men kissed. You are twisting this passage to suit your agenda.
As far as the main characters of the Bible having good morality, don’t count on that. The Bible presents them with all their warts. What makes them righteous is Jesus.
This was a particular case, it was in court even the girlfriends of the nice young men testified against them, testifying that they had spoken of going out with full intent.
I didn’t see anything in the relationship between David and Jonathon, actually in context they were “just good friends” and the reason for the tears was the attempted murder of David by Saul (Saul another righteous one chosen by the Lord, sure can pick ‘em that Lord). What I said was that if YOU read that the way you seem to read everything else then YOU would have to interpret it that way.
Once again you demonstrate an exceptional knowledge of the subject, I never mentioned anal sex (or any other kind) and I certainly did not know that it was an essential part of homosexuality, your use of parenthesis seems to suggest that you think they are synonymous. I really must consult a couple of lesbians that I know see what they have to say about that. If I was twisting I do apologise, I was just utilising techniques that I have learned from you.
Presuming King David was a main character, an ancestor of Jesus they say, David had a few moments when he was less than righteous, the sorry saga with Bathsheba, for example, fathering a child through fornication (or was it adultery, you have so many fine lines) and then murdering the husband so that he could polygamously marry her. Several instances of mass murder and mindless slaughter of cattle. Now David was a good religious Jew and it would be most unlikely that he would accept Yeshua as the messiah. Further being his predecessor in the fabled House of David he would never have heard of him as he was born many generations later. So who would make him righteous Yeshua the Rabbi or Jesus the Christ, the traditional Jew or the invention of Paul.
entech: “I really must consult a couple of lesbians”
We were talking about David and Jon. I knew your mind would wander off somewhere.
entech: “So who would make him righteous”
Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior.
entech: “I didn’t see anything in the relationship between David and Jonathon”
You’ve advised us on this before:
http://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2012/06/20/southern-baptist-convention-shows-the-future-to-anti-gay-breakaways/#comment-46190
Henry @ 1:57pm Again I learn something new from the one who knows all about such things. I though a homosexual was a person attracted to people of the same gender. This would I presume included females, usually referred to as lesbians. You indicate otherwise. Actually my mind is right on track yours is so blinded by the need to defend the indefensible that desperation is setting in. It is not an issue for me because I remain unconvinced about any creator or creation of the human race, you on the other have to explain to yourself (not to me I have read it and rejected it as being valid) how a perfect creator could have made such awful mistakes that resulted in abominations, could at least applied a little intelligence to the design of the body so that such things could not happen and to the mind so that such things weren’t imaginable (imagine makes factual check with Anselm and others if in doubt). How he could have come to regret creation, so much so that he decided to drown the evil from the world, look around big fail evil is still here.
@ 1:58 pm My mind is wandering look at it 2 minutes between posts because you can’t think of it in more than one sentence at a time. I presume from your reply you mean he was made righteous by the Pauline version not the Jewish version, I understand the Jews are still waiting for their saviour while you are waiting for yours to come back and finish the job.
@ 2:06 pm You are very quick only 4 minutes to check your database of possible entries for future point scoring.
The Bible can be and has been used to justify all kinds of contradictory things. As it is held that all people are descended from Adam then it is clear that the only race is the human race.
To justify homosexuality as acceptable people quote from 2 Samuel and the story of David and Jonathan, …
My words from that previous post, again I am not saying anything about what I think or believe personally, just what happens, how many times do we need to say I have extreme doubts that any of it is valid so cannot really express an opinion. The best I can do is compare the way I would interpret the words IF I assumed they were valid, compare to your interpretations base on a your certainty the they are true, valid and without error.
Much assumption by enny with not much accuracy.
Henry 1:47 “Much assumption by entech with not much accuracy.”
What you need is an answer to this question, “If God made the universe through intelligent design, why are some people attracted to the same sex and why can women have abortions?”
I can help you with an answer. God saw that his Godly people would always be in need of some group to hate, demonize and look down on. He taught his people this in the Bible. The groups hated have not always been the same, except for women. In the U. S. it was black people for hundreds of years. When this became unpopular, it shifted to women who have abortions and gays.
First, he could have designed the human brain so being attracted to the same sex would immediately result in death. No more gays. For women, an option the God had in his intelligent design was to make the female anatomy so it would be impossible for women to have abortions. This would have been easy. He could have simply linked the fetus to some part of the body or brain so that removing it would have resulted in death to the mother. Gazamm!! No abortions.
But, the god in his wisdom, knew his people needed to hate women who have abortions and gays, so he made it available.
This is what intelligent design is all about, everything has a purpose.
Jon; Your paragraph ; ” Or what about a preacher/priest complaining they may be required to marry two people you will never know and could care less about? First of all, it is a potential, not real time, problem. Second, it is not your problem.” — Three sentences. Can you clearly and thoroughly explain each sentence in order, as to what you mean to say please?
Jon?
Jon; Where are you? Are you trying to avoid my 1:01?
Wanna 5:28 I’m on my way out the door–can’t remember that one. Sorry.
Jon; That’s fine. I’ll be here when you get back.
Wanna 5:48 I looked back and see you did not understand what I wrote about preachers who are complaining about the potential that if anti gay marriage legistlation were found unconstitutional, they might have to perform these marriage ceremonies and they don’t want to.
What I tried to write, perhaps unsuccessfully, was that this is a problem many in the pews are not worrying about because is does not affect them. They probably will not know the couple, it is a potential problem, not one that we know will happen and it is not really their problem. In general, they don’t feel they have responsibility, unlike how many would feel seeing a picture of a starving child with the caption, “Send $20 and save this child’s life.”
Jon; You did not indicate any gay related issues. I was thinking when you said “require to marry two people you (Who is you?) will never know” , etc. as a church required to marry anyone not subscribing to the doctrinal statements of that church. For instance; a non believer requesting to be married in a particular church because it has beautiful ambiance and accoustics for the soloist. More of a set/location for an occasion. That has been done, and several times the “set” was denied access, as was the pastor. Are you suggesting those non-members/non-believers/be able to force these services be made available by law? Now that you bring up the gay issue, you are not sugesting that a church/denomination/pastor that rejects gay marriage must comply by law are you? Your reply was still fuzzy in being specific, and could easily be understood different ways.
Wanna 8:31 I guess I’m reading too many Christian news items on Chrisitan sites and thinking others are as well. Pastors/priests have been complaining they might be forced to perform gay wedding against their will. There is no reason to believe there is any possibility this would be the case, but they are saying it nevertheless.
I’m pointing out this is not the kind of issue people in the pews are concerned about. It is the clergy worrying about themselves instead of the issues the church was once preoccupied with, the less fortunate.
Jon; I have not heard one word from my denomination or any of our pastors voicing concern of the state intruding into our practices. We don’t intrude, and neither should they. We strongly reject “politizing” from the pulpit, or fellowship hall. Members are free to become involved in the party of their choice.
As for the unfed masses, the mission of the church is not a social service sercvice organization. Members are free and strongly encouraged to become involved in these matters along with organizations such as the Red Cross, etc. We have and will continue to be involved with delivery of services at times of crisis, to the point of making facilities and food available for disaster victims. Here, and over seas, our church missions are involved in facilating non-church solutions for needs of many kinds. Most often with outside organizations, sometimes in conjunction with churches of other denominations for the common good.
Jon; Here in the States, the Federal and State social services are established to do in a much more fair, and equetable manner what needs to be done, including food shelf, counseling, family abuse, money management training, recovery analysis , and yes observation of abuse and fraud of the systems. Plus many other client specific needs. My wife was a social worker at the county level. Sometimes law enforcement has to be called in. No church is appropriate or objectively prepared to deal in such matters. Nor is social services prepared or qualified to deal in spiritual matters. Again here is seperation of church and state.
On a related matter; Re. food shelf; The county social services manages it, but from time to time when the shelves are low, they put out a plea to the churches to put a note in the bulletins that there are needs. Next week the corner is full of donations of food and money, which social services picks up for distribution. Then there is meals on wheels, which is prepared at the nursing home. Many of our members participate in the delivery without blowing their own horn.
Wanna 10:58 re: food shelf, etc.
That’s a rational approach–it just isn’t shared by, for example, Catholics. Stan often brings up the social services started by Catholics, though the Catholic hierarchy seems not so interested these days.
Jon; The Catholic Church here is involved here just as much as we are in the food shelf, etc.
Jon, Catholic Charities is usually the first stop here in St Cloud. A lot less paperwork and an immediate response.
That you have a tough time understanding that the Catholic Church does so many thing at one time that just because YOUR causes isn’t getting the attention YOU expect it to doesn’t mean work isn’t being done.
Think we need some help? Come and join us, we won’t throw you out if you stick to the work at hand. But your job seems to to bitch and moan.
How is that program for prisoners by atheists doing? Have an outline yet?
Stan 12:05 “How is that program for prisoners by atheists doing?”
A bit of snarkyness by my friend, here. I gave a couple of books on entry level secularism to a friend here who runs an Interfaith nonprofit. He provides programs and promotes dialogue among different faith perspectives to local groups, like hospitals and nursing homes. I’ve been on a couple of panal discussiongs.
His current project is to have a few books that cover various faith perspectives for inmates in our local jail library. Later, he hopes to hold self-help sessions for inmates based on interfaith.
It’s been several weeks, no approval of even the library books. The Chaplain, a nice fellow I understand, is from a Pentacostal background.
Sorry, was that faith based books? if he wants to look at a program that works please give him my email. We added one jail last year and are starting a program for families of prisoners. Willing to hep anyone.
Yeah a bit of snark not like it doesn’t happen in the blog by you or others on the unbeliever side. I really don’t think you can come up with an atheist based program for prisons and jails that would work.
Stan 12:26 “I really don’t think you can come up with an atheist based program for prisons and jails that would work.”
That may, or may not, be true. The thing is, our local jail has an Assembly of God Chaplain and a nonprofit that supports him, they haul prisoners to Sunday church and the Sheriff says they are great. I’m predicting we will never get a chance to try a program.
Have him offer books straight from the vendors or publishers shipped to the jail direct. They would prefer not to get a book from outside which may have PCP or LSD soaked into its cover. Even with our long history the Bibles are inspected.
Henry, we’ve had this conversation before, but here we go again: Gay people are not forcing you to be gay. We are not deciding who you should marry. We are not telling you your lifestyle is bad. We are not implying that if you made some changes we would then approve of you.
No one is forcing the gay lifestyle on you. Don’t like gay sex? Don’t sleep with men. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a guy.
Next.
Mac, if you want to practice the deviancy you are so interested in, you can legally do that now. You could also legally practice that deviancy in 1950. No one is stopping you.
Henry, 4:04 a.m.
Correct. Gay people want the protection of laws that have been on the books for years that apply to couples that sign a state sanctioned piece of paper.
We don’t have right at this time.
However, I’m really glad that in 2013 I don’t risk jail time for sharing them same bedroom as Ricky.
Why are gays fighting the idea of civil unions if they provide all of the legal rights marriage does? Especially if we take the word marriage out of the government books and make it soley a religious thing.
Civil unions are not the legal or societal equivalent of marriage. And marriage is not the sole property of religion. When interracial marriage was finally the law of the land in 1967, it was still “marriage.” The same would be true now. There is no need to change the legal terms just because they now in some cases apply to gay and lesbian couples as well.
Stan 4:42 “take the word marriage out of the government boods and make it solely a religious thing.”
Why can’t we accomplish the same thing now? Make the marriage license available to both gays and straights. Then, label the church marriage with some adjective that such folks might like. It could be called “Blessed Marriage” or “Devine Approved Marriage”.
The political opposition to civil union comes from, among other groups, religous people who actually wants the government’s license to also be under their control. At least that’s how I interpret them.
Did you read through that too fast Bob. As far as the government goes, no more marriage. Everyone, gay, straight and ambiguous would be in a civil union. All would have the same rights as a current marriage including the right to spend $10,000 on a dissolution of contract if it doesn’t work out. In fact people could make it a one year renewable contract, an exclusive or non-exclusive contract or heaven forbid lifetime. See what you can do she you get the word “marriage” out of the way?
Marriage would then become the preview of the Church. Each church decides who they marry. There are some who marry gays so it would no longer be a problem.
But there seems to be something magical, even spiritual about the word married.
That yearly thing is a good idea Stan, show a real commitment that way.
Your right married is just a word.
It is the commitment to each other that makes it real. I once tried to explain to a trainee ships officer from the Pacific Islands, brainwashed by the London Missionary Society, that we were together because were friends not simply because we were married. He couldn’t understand that there was no ownership involved only mutual love, respect and commitment. If ANY couple want that recognized as “marriage” why not, all I see a need for is a legal recognition of the commitment.
historically, marriage has been a social contract an or a political strategy. check it out yourself. broke my wrist and have no patience to type references.
henry, read your own posts……..you sound like a petulant child.
I apologize if my arguments do not meet the academic rigor of your namecalling.
P.S. I am sorry to hear of the condition of your wrist. Moving in combination with slippery, hard ice makes for treacherous moving (assuming that is the cause).
Mac 3.56….You make a complex issue pretty simple and a very weak argument with Henry. “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a gay guy. Next.” In your next post, responding to Henry, you yourself specify the “next.” Gay people want protection of laws. Ahhhhh…….so you’re asking Henry for a little more than just don’t be gay. As a taxpayer, you want Henry to say its OK to use his tax contributions to the government, to recognize you and your partner just as any heterosexual couple? Maybe not so simple as just telling Henry not to be gay.
What about legalizing meth? Hey Henry….if you don’t like getting high, just don’t use it. Next.
Pretty weak Mac. We get it. Just don’t agree with it.
Ed, 8:49 a.m. meth laws apply equally to all citizens. Laws providing legal benefits to couples apply only to certain couples. Again I say . . .
Next.
Mac: “Laws providing legal benefits to couples apply only to certain couples.”
People can choose not to partake in a legal marriage at the Cass County Courthouse. You have chosen not exercise that right. The right to marry is offered to all.
Just like when the right to marry was granted to everyone as long as they married someone of the same race. No discrimination going on there, right?
I didn’t know Cass County made that requirement. Do you have access to records saying such?
Henry I recall your favorite technique in arguing against gay marriage is that gays can already marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex–thus, you conclude, allowing two people of the same sex to marry is givning them special status.
You, in arguing this way, deny there is such a thing as same sex attraction. This is absurd in modern thinking. Your thinking is the same as that of Senator Portman R., OH., until he found out his son was gay.
In fact, I know people of mixed race going back quite a few years in ND. They were not disallowed to marry. In fact, mixed race people were an early component of ND history, the Métis. I don’t think you know what you are talking about, and are likely using the exception of some backwater county in Louisiana.
Remaining laws against interracial marriage were not struck down until 1967. It was argued that those laws were not discriminatory because they applied to everyone equally. You used that exact same logic to justify denying the right to marry to same-sex couples. Bad logic then, bad logic now.
I think you are grasping onto the exception very strongly. This wasn’t an issue around here. Inter-racial marriage has a long history in this area. Homosexual “marriage” doesn’t, in fact, no history. You are comparing apples to a 6V92 screamin demon.
Henry is reviving the classic “we’ve always done it this way” argument that people use when they have no rational arguments for their position.
Bob: “have no rational arguments”
Your argument and logic is certainly not rational. From what I have gleaned from your comments, you want no discrimination and the rejection of historical methods and laws. By extension, using your logic, we should allow polygamists and incestialists to marry.
Jon: “in arguing this way, deny there is such a thing as same sex attraction.”
Not at all. If a someone wants to pursue a deviancy and become a homosexual, the opportunity is there. It was there in 1950. Go for it. You can be on the depends crew.
Henry 5:16 “If someone wants to pursue a deviancy and become a homosexual..”
Deviants are such a problem. If you are a student, a member of the majority who are right handed, it’s so annoying they made some fold up writing surfaces for left handers. Why aren’t they just required to right with their right hand? Special interests, that’s why.
There are people born with one brown eye and one blue. So distracting if you happen to notice.
The good thing about gay marriage is it would not affect you, or anyone else, one bit. Except, you lose the power of taking away or holding back some right from a group you, apparently, do not write.
Jon: “There are people born”
They haven’t found the “gay” gene even though they act like they have. You are equating homosexuality to a genetic variance.
Your conspiracy theory about retaining power a as reason to hold over on the poor, defenseless gay guy doesn’t wash either.
What Henry and others are actually saying is, “In this great country of ours, where freedom and equality reign, you have the freedom to be just like everyone else.”
Hardly. Mac can practice his deviancy freely.
Back to Jon’s original point.
Abortion and gay marriage have become almost exclusively all the conservative churches focus on anymore. They will gladly allow people to starve to death and go homeless for the sake of winning their war on women and gays, and their lockstep discipleship to today’s Republican party is proof of that.
Brad; I’m glad you said “almost”. The church I am in attendance virtually every day of worship uses the lectionary (daily readings), as the the basis of sermons and liturgical content. Consequently, abortion and gay marriage is NOT–NOT the focus whatsoever. You are invited to come with me to observe for yourself. You might then temper your hyperbole.
Brad; I must also add that political alegiance or emphasis (on either side),is also a non-issue, as it is divisive and not the true mission of the church. If a member wants to be a Republican or Democrat, they are free to do so. We have both in our membership.
Wanna: ” I must also add that political alegiance or emphasis (on either side),is also a non-issue”
Come to think of it, that is true. We pray equally for Obamba as we did for Bush.
Brad: “Abortion and gay marriage have become almost exclusively all the conservative churches focus on anymore.”
Not so. I haven’t heard anything in a sermon against homosexuality for quite some time. It was just recently I heard in a study on Lot and Sodom and Gommorah. I don’t know that any time was spent on the homosexuality aspect. I know some denominations have spent a lot of time discussing homosexuality. The PCUSA discussed it at length. The result was they became homosexually oriented in whitewashing it. Now, they are severely declining and splintering.
Henry 2:26 “I know some denominations have spent a lot of time discussing homosexuality.”
The two largest, Catholics and Southern Baptish Convention. The Pope discussed it in prime time, his Christmas Eve message. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention blogs about it a lot.
I guess I am out of the loop with those denominations. I would hardly think that was their focus, if so, that is a problem.
Poor debating tactics as usual. First off using comments like most and exclusively means that it happens in at least 50% of all comments, or in the case of exclusively in 100%. Both are easily proven wrong.
You used to be Catholic, are you still Christian? If you are still Christian do you attend services outside your denomination? Where is this knowledge that “Abortion and gay marriage have become almost exclusively all the conservative churches focus on anymore.” actually come from, your own imagination?
Funny that you think that a faith containing close to a third of the worlds inhabitants can’t multitask. Maybe you ignore the other work just to advance your agenda.
The statement I made is based on the fact that the right wing churches are conducting an ongoing war on gays and women with their anti-gay and anti-choice agenda. It’s their involvement in politics that makes it fairly evident, or at least this is what their primary message is in the national media.
Whenever election time comes around, this is when it is abundantly clear. The single issue Christian voters are out in full force. You don’t see the same urgency over homelessness or starvation that you see in the anti-gay, anti-choice agenda. And the Republican party exploits that as much as they can, and they have also successfully branded anyone who tries to help poor people as “communists” or “socialists” or “Marxists”, and I don’t see any of these churches disagree with that.
Brad: ““communists” or “socialists” or “Marxists”, and I don’t see any of these churches disagree with that.”
Now you want churches to be involved in politics. Please make up your mind.
I agree Henry, he has no defense for the most and exclusively comments does he? Unless he spends some time in churches everything he has is guesses and lies. Remember the media only prints what they want him to hear.
Mac 2:12……there are all kinds of laws that don’t apply to every citizen. Some apply once you are 18, 21, or 65. Some only apply if you are married to the opposite sex. Some are applied to you based on your actions. If you’re going to argue for gay rights, do it without the blinders just because you are gay. Your argument that gays are gays, who cares, and we want equal rights doesn’t hold water with everyone. If it did, this wouldn’t be an issue. Your responses and arguments show a lack of understanding and acceptance of the real issues surrounding your desire to be treated equally. Personal jabs from you, entech and others like Henry who disagree , only set your cause back further.
All Ed is able to offer is that he and some other Americans don’t think the promise of equality applies to everyone. All he offers is “we want equal rights doesn’t hold water with everyone.” No rational justification, just “we don’t think so.”
Ed 3:06 Mac 2:12……there are all kinds of laws that don’t apply to every citizen. Some apply once you are 18, 21, or 65
Ah, but they do apply equally to all 18, 21 and 65 year olds.
“Your argument that gays are gays, who cares, and we want equal rights doesn’t hold water with everyone.”
Which is precisely why I work toward allowing existing laws to apply to all citizens, gay or straight.
People like Ed are all in favor of freedom and equality, as long as certain groups they don’t like are less free and less equal.
Bobbie…..”People like Ed are all in favor of freedom and equality, as long as certain groups they don’t like are less free and less equal.”
As a society, I believe we need laws. I don’t think sex offenders should enjoy the same freedoms as others. I don’t think it should be legal for men to have sex with animals – although it certainly doesn’t hurt me. I don’t think child porn is OK – although it doesn’t hurt me. I don’t think gay marriage should be treated equally as heterosexual marriage – although it doesn’t hurt me. If it was normal – you’d be able to reproduce just like every other creature on earth. Be gay – you don’t offend me. Do drugs – you won’t offend me. I don’t dislike gays nor guy who smoke pot. But because you make that choice doesn’t mean everyone else needs to support it and laws need to be changed to accomodate what everyone wants to be equal. Our society doesn’t work that way.
Ed 6:15. It appears we’ve gone way off track on Jon’s post. But it’s interesting discussion, so there we are.
Bestiality and pedophilia and all those things are great detractors that get people worked up. And then there’s the ‘ick’ factor of two guys together. (curiously I have NEVER heard of an ‘ick’ factor regarding two women together, probably because straight guys think that’s hot)
When we clear away all those red herring, there really isn’t any viable excuse for disallowing equal protection of existing laws to all couples. Or individuals for that matter.
A while back I used to offer a million dollars cash to anyone who could give me an example of how my marriage to Ricky in 2006 at the UCC church in Winnipeg has harmed them. It’s been nearly 7 years, the devastation to Fargo-Moorhead must be significant.
I’ve never had a taker. Which is good, because I’m about $998,942 short of being able to cover that obligation.
“We saw the Pope lift off in a private helicopter. The kind of concerns people understand were left behind.”
And Obama Flies a 747(AFI) to Chicago to Tout His Fuel-Saving Plan
Both are out of touch with reality.
Although when Francis was in Argentina he rode the bus to work. Maybe he will try to be in touch with ordinary people.
After mass today in a little side chapel Pope Francis stood at the door and shook hands like your neighborhood pastor. I like how Jon and others expect so much in three days.
Stan Did you happen to watch 60 Minutes this evening? There was a story about disciplining the nuns. It was a terrible story for the Catholic hierarchy, I thought.
No longer have a TV Jon, the “reality” shows were the final nail in the coffin. I haven’t watched network news programs since Dateline started blowing up pickup trucks just to match their agenda. Now it is even worse.
I am sure on your mind it was fair and balanced but then you have biases also.
Seems you are doing something Entech accuses me of. Deflection. What does 60 minutes have to do with the Popes mass today?
You want a Pope closer to the people but you have given him all of three days to change the world. Pope Francis never campaigned on Hope and Change.
Stan 2:07 I agree with you about reality shows. I never watch them. Your post about the new Pope reminded me of the 60 Minutes because it alluded briefly to the new Pope. The piece featured a lot of interview footage with a clergy named by the last Pope to discipline the nuns. He was so condecsending, “The Pope is discipling the nuns because he loves them so much.”
To me, the Vatican’s obcession with control will cost the church a lot of members.
Are these the nuns who are doing pagan worship rituals and earth circles?
Stan 2:12 “Are these the nuns who are doing pagan worship rituals and earth circles?”
I gathered they had had speakers, or a speaker, the Vatican did not like. I think is was about women and the church. Now, the Vatican’s enforcer will approve any speaker at their conferences. The nun said there is not a confortable place now within the church to discuss new ideas.
Really? That’s the kind of comparison you are going to make? What do you expect the president (any president) to do? Drive from Washington to Chicago in a Chevy Volt?
No, I suppose not. Its just that everything government does is wasteful.
No, but in a time of sequester I would hope that going to Chicago for another campaign speech on our overuse of oil, he wouldn’t have burned 5 gallons of fuel per hour to do it. In WW2 they had a question to ask “is this trip necissary?”
Bleh, why are we arguing this? I don’t know of anything in the bible that says flat out that homosexuality is evil? In fact, I’ll restate a point I made earlier. Though it actually throws off this entire arguement completely, and well, takes away the soap box for Homosexuality. The human race was designed to be both. We all have some gay tendancies that we wouldn’t completely hate if we were open to the idea. We all have hetero tendancies that well, we wouldn’t hate if we were open to the idea.. we were created to be capable of adapting to our situations.. If there’s women lacking in a certain society, then, hetero people need to be a little gay to get their needs met…
It may take some getting used to at first. Maybe there’s just enough male to females in another culture. That stealing any way to be gay would be detrimental to that culture, so gay people were hetero to support their own needs and their own culture.
I’m so tired of the homosexuality parade. It makes me want to start organizing hetero parades… I’m hetero and deserve some acknowledgement from the government that heterosexuality is o.k. Imagine that parade.
Secondly, I feel that marriage should be abolished all together.. for Heteros and gays.. I don’t know of any scripture that says humans must be married. Why does marriage exist, for what purpose?
A lot of the political issues could be solved by abolishing marriage and making all marriage illegal. Go mate, pick your sexual “preference”, and be happy together.
Why does anyone need the government to say it’s o.k. for you to be together? does the government say if it’s o.k. who I should be friends with? Maybe we should have government offices for legalizing who can be friends? I mean seriously, why is government involved at all?
I guess I feel it’s an invasion of my rights that the government knows anything about my private life. It’s no business of theirs whether I’m hetero, gay, or both. (based on earlier supposition all humans are both, so that last sentence was strictly to be politically correct, based on any form of scientific accuracy.)
Wolfy32 “I feel marriage should be abolished all together..for Heteros and gays..Why does marriage exist, for what purpose?”
I think marriage came into being for business and political purposes. Tribes sent a girl to a neighboring tribe so both tribes would have an excuse not to fight. That still goes on today to some extent. Sadam, who operated Iraq on a tribal system, had his sons marrying into other tribes stratigically to unify against enemies. In our country, we have all kinds of tax laws based on marriage. Hospitals decide who can visit a sick patient based on marriage. Schools even have rules about who can pick up kids or see school records.
It seems like we could function fine making marriage,or, “coupling off”, absolutely a private arrangement. But, we would have change thousands of related laws.
I think marriage was/is an arrangement to insure the wife and children are cared for through the earliest portion of the children’s lives, at a minimum.
You don’t hear of many single moms not of the wealthy class being able to do that in almost any historical time period. Just saw an article today which said that 70% of children of single moms have serious contact with the police. I am not knocking the moms, but multiple children from multiple fathers, these fathers not supporting the mom/kids be wise they have 2 or more others with kids fathered by them………