Today is a sad day

[Texas Lynn]

When my grandparents were coming up, nobody locked their door when they left the house. You never heard of suicide rampages. People seemed to feel a lot safer too.

They were white, right? In America, minorities sure didn't "feel safer". These are folkways, not evidence. Perhaps the Clutter family should have been more vigilant.

In ancient times the right-handed handshake became the custom because it involved letting one's guard down, because a stranger was a potential danger and to let one's guard down only for a moment to shake hands was an act of trust.

Prior to the modern nation states emergence after the First World War, most mass murder and serial killing was committed by governments and churches. They pretty much cut out individual entraprenneurs in that area. Oh, there were exceptions like the Ludlow, Colorado massacre of miners in 1914, committed by a private army of Pinkerton Agents acting on behalf of John D. Rockefeller.

 

[aaronchall]

I think the issue should be decided by answering the question: Do we want religion to inform public policy?

Marriage is a religious institution, and government enforced. If religion defines it one way, and a bunch of other people want to define it another way, how does government decide?

Does it say religion doesn't get its way, or the other people don't have their way, or can it create a middle ground that makes most everyone happy?

I'm undecided because I know what religion says. Should government always enforce religion's policy?

 

[Celticflower]

One that is routinely ignored.

The Scottish surname "MacVicar" means "bastard son of the Anglican vicar (clergyman)" and there were a lot of 'em.

I can't find that particular meaning. Mac or Mc in a surname generally means "son of" with no connotation of which side of the sheet the son is from.

 

[Ohioprof]

I think the issue should be decided by answering the question: Do we want religion to inform public policy?

Marriage is a religious institution, and government enforced. If religion defines it one way, and a bunch of other people want to define it another way, how does government decide?

Does it say religion doesn't get its way, or the other people don't have their way, or can it create a middle ground that makes most everyone happy?

I'm undecided because I know what religion says. Should government always enforce religion's policy?

You frame the issue well here. It's actually not a simple set of questions. On the one hand, we want to protect the liberty of everyone to be involved in the political process and to work for the passage of laws that they believe in. And when people act politically, they are going to draw on their religious beliefs, which inform their sense of morality and justice. On the other hand, we want to keep religious expression free for everyone by not imposing on everyone through civil laws the religious beliefs or moral requirements of any particular religious faith. We are not a theocracy, and the principle of separation of church and state is intended to preserve people's freedom to practice their religion by not imposing religious doctrines on the people through the state.


So what happens if a majority holds to certain religious beliefs and enacts laws based on those religious beliefs, which then govern all the people. Is this an abridgement of the freedom of religion of those who do not subscribe to the religious beliefs of the majority? The answer is it depends on several factors. The U.S. Supreme Court has tried to answer this question by developing a test to determine when a law violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. The test has three prongs, according to the late Justice Warren Burger, who wrote,

• "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'"

The Supreme Court has thus tried to carve out a distinction between the secular and the religious. A law must have a secular purpose, not just a religious purpose. However, many laws have both. There is often an overlap between the secular and the religious when it comes to the purposes behind laws. In cases of such overlap, the law will probably be ruled constitutional, because it has a secular purpose.

But what is a secular purpose, exactly? It's not entirely clear. What is an excessive government entanglement with religion? Again it's not entirely clear. There is ambiguity in this particular Supreme Court test to determine when a law may violate the establishment clause.

In sum, I think that religion can certainly inform public policy, but public policy must not be based purely on religious doctrine. Public policy must have a secular or non-religious purpose.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I think the issue should be decided by answering the question: Do we want religion to inform public policy?

Marriage is a religious institution, and government enforced. If religion defines it one way, and a bunch of other people want to define it another way, how does government decide?

Does it say religion doesn't get its way, or the other people don't have their way, or can it create a middle ground that makes most everyone happy?

I'm undecided because I know what religion says. Should government always enforce religion's policy?

If a church, synagouge, mosque, ashram, or whatever decides to not perform same gender marriage it is certainly their right.

But marriage is a civil status which should not be denied merely due to prejudice.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I can't find that particular meaning. Mac or Mc in a surname generally means "son of" with no connotation of which side of the sheet the son is from.

We participate in EFM (Education for Ministry) a 4-year Bible Study of the Episcopal Church and the explanation the surname originated due to the first ones being conceived out of wedlock by a Vicar-parent was in our textbook.

 

[Zecryphon]

You are right that we are trying to change the hearts and minds of people whose faith traditions either do not support same-sex marriage or whose faith traditions are deeply divided over the question.

Why? Why can't they live their faith as they see fit? Why do you have to try and change their minds? So you can get what you want? That to me, sounds like forcing your views down their throats and forcing them to believe something they don't believe is right.

 

[Zecryphon]

Duplicate post.

 

[MercyBurst]

First Baptist Church of Atlanta?
tulc(to name one)

Well here are the bylaws for first Baptist Churfh in Atlanta:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stanley_(radio_evangelist)#Family

According to church bylaws, Dr. Stanley will remain eligible to be pastor of First Baptist Church of Atlanta as long as he does not remarry. Dr. Charles Stanley's son, Andy Stanley, is pastor at a nearby church, North Point Community Church, in nearby Alpharetta, Georgia.

Stanley can remain pastor as long as he does not marry another woman. There is always the possibility that he and the first wife could marry again.

In addition, the divorce was his wife's idea. He has no control over her decision:

Stanley's wife of over 40 years, Anna J. Stanley, originally filed for divorce on 6/22/93 following their separation in the spring of 1992, but the two agreed Anna would amend the lawsuit to seek a legal separation instead ("separate maintenance"), while seeking reconciliation. She again filed for divorce on 3/20/95.

Nice try Tulc, but you will have to do better than this.

The orginal point made by Texas Lynn said that honoring marriage vows is an ideal rather than a reality. I said it is a reality in the fundamentalist pastorate. Perhaps to eliminate confusion, I should say no divorced and remarried pastor is in the fundamentalist pastorate, because fundamentalists consider this to be adultery even as Jesus said. Stanley hasn't crossed that line.

Technically Stanley has "forsaken all others until death do us part." He did not choose to divorce his wife, rather she chose to divorce him. If he chooses to have another partner he becomes an adulterer and he is no longer fit to serve in the pastorate.

 

[Zecryphon]

Such as? You, always say the same thing over and over, about all this violence and death that is foisted upon the homosexual community, but for all your rhetoric you have presented no proof that shows the reality of the situation is anywhere close to as bad as you say it is.
​

You can do research at your leisure. I'm sure GLAAD, NGLTF, GLSEN etc. have stuff.

In other words, you can't be bothered to support your own statements. I'm not here to do your homework for you. As it stands, your statements about violence towards homosexuals are unsupported and will be ignored from now on.

You can try to pretend it doesn't exist; most of your faction do.

Until you prove your own statements, I have no reason to believe it does exist on the grand scale you claim. Just what is my faction?

Would that lead people who are currently opposed to gay marriage to suddenly have compassion and sympathy for homosexuals? No, it wouldn't.
​

​

​

​

The fervor and the interest at all indicates otherwise. Look at it this way: people who don't care about NASCAR don't enter arcane conversations about NASCAR rules and procedures. So it is with those who memorize the supposedly antigay Bible verses. They have made a conscious decision to oppress others; it is for them so much more than a mere Coke versus Pepsi thing.

Christians will respond fervently when they think the teachings of the Bible are being misrepresented, and that's not just limited to homosexuality but other debates as well. The Trinity and Universalism debates get quite heated as well and, in the case of Universalism, the debates are more heated than they are with this issue.
​

 

[Zecryphon]

A large part of your schtick appears to be to deny others' feelings and experiences and ridicule them.

Oh no, ridiculing others is strictly your domain. You constantly accuse people of being fundamentalists and part of a murderous faction. You don't see that kind of hatred and personal attack coming from me. That's ALL you. Own it.

Yeah, cuz heterosexual kids are never ever sent to Bible camp and told they're going to hell for masturbating and/or having sex.
​

Nice use of irony but the level of personal attack is not quite the same.

Sure it is. Your example stated that it's only the homosexuals who are hauled off to camp and told they're going to hell for being who they are. My example showed you that heterosexual kids are told the same things for being who they are. In other words, there's nothing special about homosexual adolescents in this regard. Heterosexual kids receive the same treatment.

 

[tulc]

Well here are the bylaws for first Baptist Churfh in Atlanta:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stanley_(radio_evangelist)#Family



Stanley can remain pastor as long as he does not marry another woman. There is always the possibility that he and the first wife could marry again.

In addition, the divorce was his wife's idea. He has no control over her decision:



Nice try Tulc, but you will have to do better than this.

The orginal point made by Texas Lynn said that honoring marriage vows is an ideal rather than a reality. I said it is a reality in the fundamentalist pastorate. Perhaps to eliminate confusion, I should say no divorced and remarried pastor is in the fundamentalist pulpit, because fundamentalists consider this to be adultery even as Jesus said.

You'll also notice there aren't any female pastors for the fundie churches. This is the rule, not the exception.

uhmmm you asked a question, the answer I gave answered that question. He's divorced right? Just because you now feel the need to move the goal posts doesn't change anything. Why not just admit you were wrong and move on?
tulc(seems easy enough)

 

[Zecryphon]

Graham Norton makes his career out of being outrageous and facetious.
He is not a spokesman for the whole LGBT community.

Out of interest- were you being facetious when you refered to his comment?

The smiley at the end didn't tip you off?

 

[Zecryphon]

I would suppose it would be to proclaim oneself a Christian. Perhaps in your megachurch they do it by changing their voter registration to Republican.

Which mega-church would that be? And what makes you think I'm a Republican? Ya know with a couple clicks of the mouse you could find out what church I actually do attend, but then you'd have to post truthful statements about me and we all know that's not what you do.

 

[Ohioprof]

Why? Why can't they live their faith as they see fit? Why do you have to try and change their minds? So you can get what you want? That to me, sounds like forcing your views down their throats and forcing them to believe something they don't believe is right.

Persuasion, debate, presentation of evidence, and dialogue do not involve the use of force. No one is forcing anyone to change his or her mind on anything.

Some folks have argued that the will of the majority should determine whether we gay people can marry our spouses legally or not. If that is going to be true; if the will of the majority is to determine whether we have equal treatment under the law, then of course we must seek to change people's hearts and minds on this issue. Because then people are not merely practicing their faith in private or in their churches; they are actually going to be voting on what rights other people can have. It's a longstanding American tradition to try to sway public opinion when it comes to voting. Once people take their beliefs to the voting booth, they they are fair game for efforts at persuasion, because how they vote affects other people's lives.

What I want is for gay people, and all people, to be treated equally under the law. If it takes changing hearts and minds to achieve that, which I think it will, then yes, I will try to change hearts and minds on the subject of gay people. You don't change hearts and minds by force; you do it by presenting people's real life stories, and by presenting evidence, and by speaking the truth of gay people's lives.

The point of discussion forums is, it seems to me, for all of us to listen to and think about different viewpoints, to consider the arguments and the evidence, and to rethink our previously held assumptions in light of new evidence and arguments. That's how we grow in our thinking.

 

[Zecryphon]

I believe I have stated to you directly previously that I am not a fundamentalist. Therefore whether or not such exists is of no concern to me.

So it's only Fundamentalists, who have need of scriptural support for their statements? Fundamentalism, was a movement within Christianity in the early 20th century. Not every Christian is a Fundamentalist.

These sort of inquisitorial questions appear to border on badgering.

This is a Christian Theology forum. Asking for scriptural support for statements made in here is not badgering. But hey if you think you have a case, report me. You are the one who badgers people around here, with your constant accusations that people belong to factions and are hell-bent on killing LGBT's, simply because they disagree with you.

Please understand not all Christians are fundamentalists and move on. Thank you.

I'm still waiting for you to understand it and get a grip. You think I'm a Fundamentalist, which shows how little you know about Fundamentalism.

 

[tulc]

Nice try Tulc, but you will have to do better than this.

How about Pastor Peter Ruckman? Founded Pensacola Bible Institute, pastors an Independent Baptist Church, twice divorced, married three times.
tulc(could use some more coffee)

 

[Ohioprof]

Why? Why can't they live their faith as they see fit? Why do you have to get them to believe something that goes against their faith? If you truly want separation of church and state, then you should leave these people alone and focus on getting the state to recognize same-sex marriages. Leave the religious people alone.

This seems to be a slightly different version of the post of yours to which I just responded. You have added some new elements here.

It strikes me that particular religious groups, a subset of "religious people," have been actively working to amend the constitution of the state of California to try to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. These religious groups have been actively working in the public arena to influence voters on this issue and to change hearts and minds in favor of writing discrimination against gay people into the California constitution. These religious folks are involving themselves in the political arena. They are not simply "religious people" quietly practicing their faith in private; they are actively working to persuade people to vote a particular way. And they are well-funded.

It's not fair for you to demand that gay people and those who support equality for gay people be silent in the face of this attempt to take away a human right from us. Gay people have not gone out and tried to deny religious people any rights. Many of us gay folks ARE religious people. But when particular religious groups introduce a ballot measure that would amend a state constitution to take away one of our fundamental human rights, the right to marry our spouses, then the only response one can expect is for us to work to influence people to vote against that.

You are suggesting here that it's okay for religious people who seek to take away a human right to be politically active in the public arena, but that it's not okay for those who support human rights to challenge those efforts in the public arena. Many of us who support equal rights for gay people are just as religious as are the people who oppose equal rights for gay people. I would suggest that those who oppose equal rights for gay people abandon their effort and leave gay people alone, to marry whom we choose under civil law and to be happy.

 

[Ohioprof]

uhmmm you asked a question, the answer I gave answered that question. He's divorced right? Just because you now feel the need to move the goal posts doesn't change anything. Why not just admit you were wrong and move on?
tulc(seems easy enough)

Mercyburst was wrong, and he did try to move the goal posts instead of admitting he was wrong. You did correctly name a fundamentalist Christian church that has a divorced minister, and one who is quite famous to boot.

Whether he can still be a minister there if he remarries is a different question from the one originally raised in this discussion.

 

[MercyBurst]

How about Pastor Peter Ruckman? Founded Pensacola Bible Institute, pastors an Independent Baptist Church, twice divorced, married three times.
tulc(could use some more coffee)

One can assume that they are not a fundamentalist church then. Just because they have "Baptist" in their name doesn't mean anything.

Fundamentalists take the Bible literally when it says divorce and remarriage is adultery. Jesus and Paul both said it. Paul said a pastor must be "the husband of one wife." If a church does not follow the Bible, then we can conclude it is not fundamentalist -- no women in the pastorate, and no divorce/remarriages in the pastorate period end of sentence.