An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[CreedIsChrist]

I'm sure everyone remembers the defunct bill that state lawmakers brought up in Connecticut to "regulate the Catholic Church under the state" not too long ago. The bill its essence tried to take away the authority from the Bishops to govern the Church and give it to the state to control. The bill didn't pass because public hearings where canceled.

Whats interesting is that the 2 lawmakers who proposed the bill, Andrew McDonald, and Mike Lawlor are (you guessed it) open homosexuals, and ardent activists and proponents of the gay movement. Does anyone just find this an easy coincidence? Or does it show the true colors of the gay community? Is the Church too much for they're consciences to bear that they must try to shut it down and give it to state control?

Bad move on their parts considering it shows to other christians the motives of the Gay agenda. It just shows how much they are a threat to religious freedom and unity.

http://catholicgop.blogspot.com/2009/03/chaput-warns-that-conn-bill-threatens.html

 

[Cabal]

Yup, because 2 people are representative of an entire group of people...?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Yup, because 2 people are representative of an entire group of people...?

I'm sure the gay community has they're pecking order with everyones hands in each others back-pockets.

considering the gay community makes a small portion of the US population its quite a coincidence that these TWO gay state lawmakers would all of a sudden come together to make this bill. Don't you?

However for some reason it seems quite "fitting" for them to do this. Howcome?

 

[Ectezus]

the motives of the Gay agenda.

Can you give me a detailed list of the 'motives of the gay agenda' according to you?

Because I can't think of anything other than wanting equal rights that everyone else already enjoys and being against discrimination that's based on sexual preference.

The only reason why these two points are in conflict with your religion is because your religion thinks its better than some other people and wants to limit their rights.

- Ectezus

 

[Andreusz]

I would certainly not support their actions. And, as I understand it, neither would the US constitution.

 

[b&wpac4]

I'm sure the gay community has they're pecking order also with everyones hands in each others back-pockets.

considering the gay community makes a small portion of the US population its quite a coincidence that these TWO gay state lawmakers would all of a sudden come together to make this bill. Don't you?

However for some reason it seems quite "fitting" for them to do this. Howcome?

A lot of people seem to be taking potshots at the Catholic Church due to the recent scandals and such. I saw the story about the rabbi saying he wanted the Pope to take his cross off before going to the Western Wall. Was the rabbi part of the evil gay community conspiracy too?

 

[Andreusz]

I'm sure the gay community has they're pecking order with everyones hands in each others back-pockets.

No.

 

[Cabal]

I'm sure the gay community has they're pecking order with everyones hands in each others back-pockets.

About as correct as shoving the word "agenda" on the end of something and calling it a conspiracy.

The only hands in each others back-pockets among gay people has nothing to with conspiracy theories, I strongly suspect

considering the gay community makes a small portion of the US population its quite a coincidence that these TWO gay state lawmakers would all of a sudden come together to make this bill. Don't you?

People with similar beliefs working towards the same ends? Unheard of! CONSPIRACY!

However for some reason it seems quite "fitting" for them to do this. Howcome?

Ok. And it wouldn't ever be passed, because it strikes me as being unconstitutional. Two extremists are not representative of the whole.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

A lot of people seem to be taking potshots at the Catholic Church due to the recent scandals and such. I saw the story about the rabbi saying he wanted the Pope to take his cross off before going to the Western Wall. Was the rabbi part of the evil gay community conspiracy too?

no, He might have some issues with Christianity though...

I'm not trying to attack anyone here. It just find it odd that the one bill that in itself is a direct attack on the Church and religious freedom happens to be promulgated by 2 ardent homosexual activists and proponents. People are gonna notice..

 

[brightmorningstar]

An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

Of course it does for anyone who believes God's Biblical testimony.

You may alos be interested that the bishop Gene Robinson wanted the atheist Sir Ian Mckellen to read his sermon in the UK because he was told not to preach.
He wants an atheist to deliver his sermon!
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8038
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/13/anglicanism.gayrights

Also
http://www.secularism.org.uk/bbbparty.html
Sir Ian went to the blasphemy party
http://www.pinktriangle.org.uk/glh/contributors.html

Indeed whilst one of the two National Secular Society's leaders is apparently gay both seem to contribute to gay advancement.

Would be good to read this...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2827402.ece
particularly I not the massive disproportionate represntation of the two organisations.
Indeed the much smaller one objects to the much larger one having any representation on the equality commission, on which someone from Sir Ian's gay rights Stonewall organisation is already represented.
"Gay- They dont want equality for the majority." how about that for a slogan?

 

[b&wpac4]

no, He might have some issues with Christianity though...

I'm not trying to attack anyone here. It just find it odd that the one bill that in itself is a direct attack on the Church and religious freedom happens to be promulgated by 2 ardent homosexual activists and proponents. People are gonna notice..

I think it is a pretty horrific bill. It goes against the First Amendment and really only seems to exist to attack a specific church. But, as other people have commented, these two people could hardly be said to be the leaders of any agenda, except maybe the "We don't want to be reelected" agenda.

 

[Jade Margery]

I'm sure everyone remembers the defunct bill that state lawmakers brought up in Connecticut to "regulate the Catholic Church under the state" not too long ago. The bill its essence tried to take away the authority from the Bishops to govern the Church and give it to the state to control. The bill didn't pass because public hearings where canceled.

Whats interesting is that the 2 lawmakers who proposed the bill, Andrew McDonald, and Mike Lawlor are (you guessed it) open homosexuals, and ardent activists and proponents of the gay movement. Does anyone just find this an easy coincidence? Or does it show the true colors of the gay community? Is the Church too much for they're consciences to bear that they must try to shut it down and give it to state control?

Bad move on their parts considering it shows to other christians the motives of the Gay agenda. It just shows how much they are a threat to religious freedom and unity.

http://catholicgop.blogspot.com/2009/03/chaput-warns-that-conn-bill-threatens.html

Okay children, all together now! CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSALITY!

I could as easily say that the actions of a few KKK members is proof that all Christians have a conspiracy to hurt black people and deny them of their rights. How, from your logic, can you argue against that? Clearly there is a Christian agenda at work, and these men are just in the right place in the pecking order. You should be ashamed of yourself! Your people are trying to undo the civil rights movement. You are obviously racist because you have something in common with KKK members.


Do you see why this does not make sense?

 

[sidhe]

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

That's the text of the bill. It's about the actions of any religious organization as a 501(c) non-profit and the way such should be set up to be legal. Pay particular attention to Section (h).

(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, restrict or derogate from any power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices.

...so, basically, it doesn't say what is being claimed. It doesn't restructure the religious hierarchy, applies to any religious group that functions as a corporation (not just the Catholic Church), and generally isn't an evil conspiracy.

Primary sources FTW.

 

[wanderingone]

This matter has nothing to do with the orientation of anyone involved. It also has nothing to do with religious freedom. This does not tell any church how to conduct religious business, it modifies existing corporate law in a way that specifically makes the religious activities of the church seperate from the corporate activities, allows the church to avoid accusations of misappropriation of funds and a clear line of responsibility for corporate decision making.

I don't particularly agree with secular law that is specific to one religious group, and would need to know more about existing state law before I would say this is appropriate but It's not anti Christian, and it's not delving into actual religious practice and teaching

(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, restrict or derogate from any power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices.

 

[Shane Roach]

I find it telling that people are trying to pretend there is no "agenda" or that they do not know what the "agenda" is even when shown a bill whose only purpose appears to be to open up the Catholic to near constant legal harassment concerning how they spend their money.

The bill also clearly reorganizes the church. I don't know how anyone reading the text could come away with the idea that it does not inappropriately cause the state to interfere in church government matters.

So what if it doesn't include the right to change church policy? You don't get to reach into a church organization and jumble around the organization's chain of command by a legal fiat. Period.

No Gay agenda? How about the agenda to obfuscate and deny the obvious so that they can destroy the church? Yeah, I think this thread is pretty much shaping up that way.

 

[b&wpac4]

No Gay agenda? How about the agenda to obfuscate and deny the obvious so that they can destroy the church? Yeah, I think this thread is pretty much shaping up that way.

I see an agenda, but why does it have to be a gay agenda? Maybe it's a male agenda, they are both guys after. Maybe it's a protestant agenda, as I'm going to assume they aren't Catholics. Perhaps they are both atheists, so it's an evil atheist agenda.

They are taking potshots at a church that has messed up in recent years. For whatever reason, they presented a bill that they pretty much knew couldn't stand up and wouldn't be passed.

 

[Shane Roach]

(b) The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote.

Not all church's have an archbishop. It may not be Catholic specific but it surely would not include Baptists.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yup, because 2 people are representative of an entire group of people...?

Are you also a representative?

 

[Shane Roach]

I see an agenda, but why does it have to be a gay agenda? Maybe it's a male agenda, they are both guys after. Maybe it's a protestant agenda, as I'm going to assume they aren't Catholics. Perhaps they are both atheists, so it's an evil atheist agenda.

They are taking potshots at a church that has messed up in recent years. For whatever reason, they presented a bill that they pretty much knew couldn't stand up and wouldn't be passed.

Because the same two people also introuced a bill with broad and far reaching goals for mainstreaming homosexuality. Please read the link in the original post.

Two gay guys attacking the church while simultaneously introducing legislation to further the gay agenda.

Two pages into this and we are still arguing about the plainly established facts because those supporting the gay agenda do not want people to know it's going on.

When accused, deny.
When confronted with witnesses, deny.

When confronted with pictures, deny deny deny!!!!

 

[brightmorningstar]

I think the thread shows the evidence, I dont expect any pro-gay supporters to believe or accept any evidence presented.