Will homosexuals silence America's Christians?

[Shana A]

Will homosexuals silence America's Christians?
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/1/2008 5:30:00 AM

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=335084

With Brazil's government caving in to homosexual activism, many fear America is not far behind.

Brazilian activists have launched several lawsuits to silence Christian opposition of homosexuality, and a Christian author has been both censored and fined over comments in his book. Mat Barber, with Liberty Counsel, believes America will likely follow suit.

"It's really chilling, and people need to be aware that this is not a threat that is isolated to Brazil or Europe or Canada," he contends. "It's coming to our shores (America) as well."

[lady amarant]

*Exaggerated rolling of the eyes*

So they should be allowed to spread hate speech and misinformation about us? To sweep up sentiment against us, promoting ignorance and fear and hate, and finally violence?!

->-bleeped-<-ers.

(Damn. Seem to be using that word alot today. I think I might be a bit aggro...)

~Simone.

[Suzy]

Homosexuals will never silence Christians.  Christians will never silence homosexuals.  In the first place, these are not, as has been assumed in this discussion, mutually exclusive groups.  Some of us Christians are quite loving and caring.  I just think there is a lot of meanness on both sides and the bullies need to call it quits.

I know I get flamed every time I say this, but I support everyone's right to believe what they wish, even if it is nothing at all.  So long as no violence is done to another person, I do not think we should try to silence one another.  America was founded on this principle, and if we want it, we have to allow it for those we do not agree with.  There is no other option.  Else, we leave it up to the state to decide what we can believe and what we can say.  That idea makes me incredibly nervous.

Every law on every level is based on a moral judgment.  Like it or not, these things are based upon our own moral framework, including our religious perspective.  It is impossible not to legislate morality.  Those who claim to be doing so are ludicrous.  It is just time we come clean about this, and pick those whose moral framework matches best with what we hope to accomplish in society.

Kristi

[tekla]

They obviously never saw the Castro District at Xmas, it's AbFab.

[NicholeW.]

My problem is that about 87% of the USA populace is claiming, at least some of them claim, that they are going to be "silenced" by about 5% of the population when the rules, laws, economic supports and social interactions in said country are all geared to favor the 87%?

That's simply ludicrous on the face of it, regardless how we legislate civil morality.

I'm sorry, the very notion that xtians are persecuted in USA is extraordinary! We don't even tax the assets (land, buildings, incomes) of "ministries" here. WTF! But we as a nation are gonna start repressing them?

Sorry, this BS is on the order of blacks oppressing whites if they got legal civil rights and of women oppressing men after second-wave feminism started raising consciousness.

What this sort of thing is is another way for "ministries" to do what they do: raise money. The appeals to grandma to mail $20 to "Reverend Ike" so he can "save America from the homosexuals and othe perverts" is the real goal here. Cynical buzzards!

Christians here always get persecution complexes when they are in fear of not being able to totally repress others. They like to hark back to a kind of Donatist appeal to martyrdom a la the 1st-3rd cento xtians. It's ridiculous!

But, Reverend Ike never went broke underestimating the intelligence and persicacity of the American public. In fact, Reverend Ike manages a rather nice material existence to enfold him while he awaits the Final Judgement.

Nichole

[tekla]

Reverend Ike, to quote him, don't want "his pie in the sky by and by when you die."  He's eating his cake on earth.

[NicholeW.]

Reverend Ike, to quote him, don't want "his pie in the sky by and by when you die."  He's eating his cake on earth.

Yes, Ike and his co-conspirators never appear to be under-fed, under-served or under-economically well-off. O for persecution like that for all Americans!

N~

[tekla]

Hey Jebus would wear a Rolex and have a private jet, perhaps even Apostle Brand logo wear.

[Shana A]

Homosexuals will never silence Christians.  Christians will never silence homosexuals.  In the first place, these are not, as has been assumed in this discussion, mutually exclusive groups.  Some of us Christians are quite loving and caring.  I just think there is a lot of meanness on both sides and the bullies need to call it quits.

I know I get flamed every time I say this, but I support everyone's right to believe what they wish, even if it is nothing at all.  So long as no violence is done to another person, I do not think we should try to silence one another.  America was founded on this principle, and if we want it, we have to allow it for those we do not agree with.  There is no other option.  Else, we leave it up to the state to decide what we can believe and what we can say.  That idea makes me incredibly nervous.

I agree we cannot make blanket statements on either side. And, there are plenty of LBGTIQ people who are also Christians (or other religions).

America was founded on the principals of separation of church and state. It was a good idea then, and it's a good one now. My problem is with those who wish to erase that.

Z

[Suzy]

Please, I'm literally begging here, give me an argument that says we should write discrimination into our constitution against the LGBT community that ISN'T "because the Bible tells me so."  To date, though I've asked repeatedly for one, I've only gotten the Christian ideology thrown back at me.  Therefore, I stand by my original post.

As I predicted.

I gave you no Biblical warrants for anything.  And I don't think it would be helpful because I do not believe the Bible teaches any such thing.  Let's be fair, most Christian clergy live very simple lives, are paid wages far below the going salaries of almost any other profession, despite having at least one advanced degree.  Most of their days are spent helping other people, those who are sick, in poverty, tending the dying, counseling, and much more.  Being a minister is always rated among the most stressful jobs to have.  Most of them would never endorse the kinds of things you seem to think all Christians believe.  And no, 99.9%+ of them don't have Rolexes or private jets.  If you dispute this, you simply haven't met many Christian clergy.  I do know that the media ignores the vast majority of Christians, and loves to show off the fringe element.  (The same way TG people are made to look like freaks)  Most Christinas know that Ike is nothing but a charlatan.

It is fine to want to try to silence a group of people when you see the pendulum of public opinion going your way.  But please look at history.  It will surely swing back.  Do you really want to be on the other end of this?  For me, we have gained too much ground to get haughty and ruin it.

The truth is, we have a system designed to protect the rights and free speech of minorities as well as majorities.   We have a system designed to eliminate state interference in what people believe and how they worship.  We do not have a system that makes it permissible to carry out violence or hate crimes.  Yes, there are pitfalls, and the system is not perfect.  Yes, some have crossed the line and need to be dealt with.  However, I would never ever want to settle for the alternative.  You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't.  I, for one, would like for us all to retain this right.  I support the rights of groups I totally disagree with because the surest way to destroy this fundamental right is to silence even one part of society.  If, however, that is the world you wish for, good luck.  I will always stand in opposition to oppression.

Peace,
Kristi

[NicholeW.]

And that is that. I love it when our Kristi puts down her lil ole size 2s and says "enough."

And, TBH, my problem has never been xtianity itself. Just the way some of the more vocal and politically inclined do seem to want to tuen the USA into even a more theocratic state than we've already had.

But, I'll vouch for my friend. She is NOT one of those Christians. So let's be nice to her and to ourselves and distinguish where we should.

Nichole

[tekla]

I've always tried to walk a very fine line between nothing being a monolith and the feeling that you have to dance with who brought you too.  So, of course those people, the Rolex preachers, those who would seek to use a religious cover for political action, and those who are just out and out preaching hate and more hate are not only kind of Christians, but I'll take them at their world that they are Christians.  And at that, they might well be a minority of their faith, but for sure, they are garnering about 95% of the press, and that's by design also.

[Suzy]

And at that, they might well be a minority of their faith, but for sure, they are garnering about 95% of the press, and that's by design also.

I agree, this is by design.  But whose design do you think it is?  No doubt, the charlatans revel in it.  Plus, most of what Christians do just is not newsworthy.  In fact, according to the faith, many believe that their good deeds should be done in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves.  Instead, life is is to be lived in such a way that the quality speaks for itself.  I personally have problems with those who act otherwise.

All I said was this is not a theocracy and we should not be rewriting the Constitution or creating new laws based solely on one groups religious beliefs.  We shouldn't outlaw eating beef because the Hindu religion views them as sacred.  Women shouldn't need to be covered from head to toe because Muslim religion demands it.  I used Christians as the example because it was handy, but I'm not going to be forbidden to eat anything because one group's religious texts say no.  I'm not going to dress according to one group's dress code simply because their texts say it's how I should dress.  So no, I'm not going to chalk it up to free speech when one group wants the right to determine who I can or cannot marry and IF I can have the same rights as everyone else.  That's not free speech.  You're free to say whatever beliefs you have until you push those beliefs into legislation that impacts my life.  That's going too far.  I don't agree with a lot of people floating around this world, but I'll be the first one to defend their right to say it.

Actually, most Christians would agree with much of what you have said.

The marriage issue is quite complex.  It is an institution that has religious origins and deep secular consequences.  As a nation, we still have not figured out which realm it belongs in.  In America, the state recognizes the right of religious organizations (via their clergy) to perform marriages.  But at the same time, a marriage done by a JP is just as legal and just as binding.  Religions decide which kinds of marriages they will bless and perform.  Yet, no religion is allowed to go beyond the boundaries set by the state.  This is confusing at best, and the crux of the problem.  But maybe it is the only system of checks and balances that will work.

Peace,

[NicholeW.]

The marriage issue is quite complex.&nbsp; It is an institution that has religious origins and deep secular consequences.&nbsp; As a nation, we still have not figured out which realm it belongs in.&nbsp; In America, the state recognizes the right of religious organizations (via their clergy) to perform marriages.&nbsp; But at the same time, a marriage done by a JP is just as legal and just as binding.&nbsp; Religions decide which kinds of marriages they will bless and perform.&nbsp; Yet, no religion is allowed to go beyond the boundaries set by the state.&nbsp; This is confusing at best, and the crux of the problem.&nbsp; But maybe it is the only system of checks and balances that will work.

Peace,

The answer is civil marriage, referred to as civil union or some such thing wherein there is no precher, priest or other religious figure associated with a state-sanctioned union.

Religious ceremonies would be available, as they are, for anyone wishing to have their union blessed by one or another religious group.

A separation of church and state with a firm wall demands no less: ministers, priests, rabbis, imams should not have any state authority to do a darned thing, unless they happen to be duly-sworn governmental officials. At which point they'd need to do exactly what their employer requires.

Nichole

[Suzy]

The answer is civil marriage, referred to as civil union or some such thing wherein there is no precher, priest or other religious figure associated with a state-sanctioned union.

Religious ceremonies would be available, as they are, for anyone wishing to have their union blessed by one or another religious group.

A separation of church and state with a firm wall demands no less: ministers, priests, rabbis, imams should not have any state authority to do a darned thing, unless they happen to be duly-sworn governmental officials. At which point they'd need to do exactly what their employer requires.
Nichole

If only it were that simple.  Some see marriage as a civil institution.  Others see it as a religious one, subsequently endorsed by the state.   Some would see this move as a great infringement on the free exercise of religion.  I don't think it would ever go through.  The constitutional challenges to the state, essentially, dictating doctrine to the church by controlling its clergy would likely be insurmountable.  There is no way that clergy would ever consent to working for the state, especially after Hitler's attempts to nationalize them.  If you are interested in this concept, you might want to check out the Barmen Declaration and the history surrounding it, along with Dietrich Bonhoeffer. 



Fixed the quote for you, Kristi  =K

[NicholeW.]

The beauty is the State wouldn't "control" the clergy. The clergy, like the rest of the citizens would have to control themselves. All they'd have to do is if they're authorized to conduct civil unions for anyone, they'd have to conduct them for anyone, at all. As long of the people met the state requirements.

They could always refuse to allow a gay, a wiccan or even a marriage anong their own flock if they wanted to.

It wouldn't be a matter of "forcing" anyone. Instead, merely granting them the right to do as they saw fit. If they couldn't "in good conscience" wed two men -- then don't apply to an ability to wed people. Fairly simple and would maintain, actually separate for good this church/state thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Kris, but isn't there some bit in the Bible about "giving the state what's the state's and the diety what's the deity's?" Twould be simply  matter of re-establishing what was established before Theodocius made xtianity a state-religion and things were never again the same in xtianity.

They could preform whatever they wished or not within the precincts of their temples or churches.

Nichole

[Kaitlyn]

Another answer is to get the state out of marriage altogether.  Mention that to someone and you'll get to see their real motivations in the marriage debate.

Any takers? 

[NicholeW.]

My proposal would, state out of marriage and religion outta the state. Someone wants to get "married" go to church, but the tax-exemptions would only be available with a civil union. "Marriage" would be a strictly religious state, a sacrament.

The state remains free of religious taint. 

Wonder how many of the religious would accept that?

[Kaitlyn]

Another answer is to get the state out of marriage altogether.  Mention that to someone and you'll get to see their real motivations in the marriage debate.

So then you'd deny atheists and agnostics the right to marry instead?  What would your alternative be, if not a legal contract?

I wouldn't be denying anyone anything.  In the eyes of the state, marriage would be just what you said, and nothing more - a legal contract.  Not a political football, not a tool for social engineering, and not an intrusion of a religious sacrament into a secular government.  There wouldn't be a special category of law for marriage.  People would be free to define what marriage is for themselves, within the limits of existing contract law.

[tekla]

Its a civil contract, enforced as such.  No matter how many preachers and churches you got round you at the beginning, the end is lawyers, judges and courtrooms.