Freedom of Religion? Not on MY Watch

Yeah, I don't know why any self-respecting homosexual would want to have anything to do with your killer god at all. 

I really like Takei.  But not in this case.  But I saw it happening.  California is already trying to force Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions.  Talk about killers.

It is one thing to ask us to respect the rights of homosexuals to exist, to live and work freely amongst us without fear. That is a humanitarian request, plain and simple. It is quite another thing to ask us to discard the very foundation of our faith in favor of liberal interpretations of scripture that have no historical basis in fact in the faith of the Christian church.

I agree. I think that, while I can accept people as having different belief systems than I do, that doesn't mean that I have to change my doctrine to please them. It does me no harm to believe the way that I do, and I afford the same priveledge to them.
This would be as if a christian group went to a hindu university to try and force them to accept Jesus as their lord and saviour. Doesn't fly in my book, no matter how you cut it. It's a private school, any complaints can be shoved in your ear.

Yes, things will be MUCH better if the homosexuals HIDE the fact that they are homosexual in order to gain admission to the university. Being a liar is far superior to being a homosexual, no?

Bottom line, they're going to get in anyway. It isn't as if you can eradicate the faults (sins) of all people entering such a university, so why should homosexuality (taken as a sin by said places and for argument here) be the sole brand that keeps one out? People that covet get in. People that take the lords name in vain get in. People that commit adultery get in. People that bear false witness get in. In fact, for this latter, some people are FORCED to bear false witness to get in.

Of course people don't tend to fear bearing false witness. And they only fear adultery if it's their possession - I mean their spouse - that might be committing it OR if they fear getting caught themselves. And they rarely fear coveting, either - as is indicated by the continual need of other's approval of their belief anytime someone suggests their religion might be more full of holes than a swiss cheese - the genuine value of their faith is evident in every story like this one, and sorry Gid, but in every blog like this one, too.

It's just my opinion, but I hold it strongly, that these "doctrines" that everyone holds so high, which many seem quite willing to have at the expense of their other doctrines of "forgiveness" and "compassion," aren't rooted in faith, but in fear.

The way I understand good and evil, this is just like your 'Satan' would want it. But then you'd have to work out the math yourselves to see how hoodwinked you've become. Powers of evil, whether they be archetypes like Satan or real people, don't always extort their power by dividing and conquering. They often do it by unifying and controlling. So do you support control in this situation? Think about what that means to the religion you're defending the doctrine of.

Sorry for double post, please delete this one.

*laughs at ockhamsrazor*

Maybe you should direct your ire toward whoever is making openly gay kids go to an assemblies of god sponsered school. This is facetious bullshit, and you know it. It's like me demanding to be admitted into the Miss Black American pageant just out of spite. I'm betting there isn't a soul on GT's bus that would be caught dead with a sheepskin from any of those schools on their wall.

Oh come now Baker, don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure you'd be a lovely black Miss America.

an attempt to force those universities to change their admissions policies regarding homosexuals

to discuss the issues of faith and gay rights with the administrators of these colleges.

So which one is it? Forcing (private) universities that offer a faith-based ethos to change their admission policies is wrong (providing that they're not getting a penny of state funding), but wanting to discuss issues of faith and gay rights sounds reasonable to me.

The majority of Christians, even the conservatives amongst us, accept the presence of homosexuals among us, even if we don't accept the practice.

Frankly, unless you want to start stoking the ovens, you don't have a lot of choice in the matter.

It is quite another thing to ask us to discard the very foundation of our faith in favor of liberal interpretations of scripture that have no historical basis in fact in the faith of the Christian church.

Liberal christians would disagree, but I'll let you slug that out amongst yourselves.

With palms together, Just a question, unless people ask for change in policy, how does it happen? Be Well.

forcing private institutions to accept o0penly gay members= good

forcing openly gay people to ABIDE BY COMMON PRACTICES=BAD

Liberal christians would disagree, but I'll let you slug that out amongst yourselves.

lol. Thanks. I'll save my comments on liberal Christians for another thread, then...

Frankly, unless you want to start stoking the ovens, you don't have a lot of choice in the matter.

Well, yes, and no. What I'm talking about when I say "accepting" that they are a part of our society is the fact that most conservative Christians have abandoned the out and out persecution that used to be more common.

So which one is it? Forcing (private) universities that offer a faith-based ethos to change their admission policies is wrong (providing that they're not getting a penny of state funding), but wanting to discuss issues of faith and gay rights sounds reasonable to me.

The liberal idea of "discussing" IS an attempt to force others to change their policies. It's what has made Jesse Jackson the world's most prolific extortionist. He never goes in to "force" anyone to change their policies, only to "discuss" them...and then walks away with a wad of cash.

 

With palms together, Just a question, unless people ask for change in policy, how does it happen? Be Well.

Unless you want to erase a good portion of the bible (yes, even the NT), there's not going to BE such a policy change. We have as much right to our faith as you have to yours.

Yeah, I don't know why any self-respecting homosexual would want to have anything to do with your killer god at all.

Sometimes you amuse me, myrr. You make me want to go out and buy me a liberal antitheist parrot.

 

 

 

 

So a Gay Christian can not go to a Christian School.

That is as bad as saying a Black student can not go to a white school.
Where does it even say "NO HOMO'S" in the bible? But then again the whole book is open for any interpretation. But seriously where does it say this? Is it one of the ten commandments? "Thou shall not allow allow gay coeds to school with thine offspring..."

This is why Christianity is falling apart.
I think it is time for a rewrite.

So a Gay Christian can not go to a Christian School. That is as bad as saying a Black student can not go to a white school. Where does it even say "NO HOMO'S" in the bible? But then again the whole book is open for any interpretation. But seriously where does it say this? Is it one of the ten commandments? "Though shall not allow allow gay coeds to school with your offspring..." This is why Christianity is falling apart. I think it is time for a rewrite.

No, this is not a civil rights issue, sushi.

While I disagree with their theology, there ARE Christian denominations that allow homosexuality. The Assemblies of God is not one of them. Both those that do and those that don't will stand before their Maker and give account for what they did/did not do. To force a college affiliated with a church that does not condone homosexuality to accept openly homosexual students is in open defiance with the First Amendment.

Your suggested "rewrite" is in itself a denial of the first amendment, for what you are saying is that ONLY religions that conform to YOUR standards should be granted protection under the First Amendment. Shameful, sushi, especially as you rail on the President for what you perceive to be violations of the Constitution.

If a PRIVATE organization does not want to include a certain group, they should not be forced to, by you or anyone else.

Oh, and, for the record, Christianity is NOT falling apart, sushi. It is still an integral part of my life, as well as that of many of my friends.

Where does it even say "NO HOMO'S" in the bible? But then again the whole book is open for any interpretation. But seriously where does it say this?

The word HOMO is not found in the Hebrew and Greek dictionary that I know of. But here is the answer for your consideration.

"For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise the men leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"....Romans 1:26-27


"You sahll not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Lev 18:22

There's more but you can get the idea here that it's not pleasing to God.

But we don;t know for sure if God said those words.
Weren't those words written by men?

Any time something is transcribed is it not open to personal interpretation and manipulation? Seriously why would God care who does what as long as you aren't Killing, raping, stealing, etc... This is where that book needs a fresh rewrite, it is so out of touch.

Gid I do see what you are saying with a Private Org deciding who can join, but even those boundaries are being shattered. Wasn't there a Female golfer a year or so back that finally made it into the Boys club? I think you are fighting Loosing battle when you are trying to exclude certain groups.

If you had a book club for non-fiction and someone wanted to join but for whatever reson overtly stated they liked fiction.

1) Could you legally keep them out based soley on this fact?
2) Why would you want to keep them out? They share the same general interest you do.
3) It shows fear in change and acceptance.

Any gay JU users out there that want to pipe in with their 2 cents on this issue?!

Any time something is transcribed is it not open to personal interpretation and manipulation? Seriously why would God care who does what as long as you aren't Killing, raping, stealing, etc... This is where that book needs a fresh rewrite, it is so out of touch.

sushi,

While I realize you believe religion to be an invention of man, the fact is, there are many of us who don't believe as you do. The Bible doesn't need a fresh rewrite, it needs to be read in context.

Using your logic, sushi, private property ceases to exist. Taking your logic to its furthest extent, if someone shows up at my door, I MUST allow them entry to my home simply because they wish it to be so. That's not logical, that's stupidity.

In the cases cited, the reason minorities were admitted was because FEDERAL funds were involved. This is why Augusta National still doesn't admit women; it is a PRIVATE organization.

You and I are in agreement on one thing, though, sushi: where federal funds (or even federal tax consideration) are concerned, discrimination should not exist. This is why I believe churches should begin shunning tax exempt status; they are selling out their principles to make a buck. And in the case of the colleges, federal financial aid should not be granted to a university that practices discrimination. But I DON'T believe open homosexuality should be a "protected" class against discrimination any more than my sexual preferences should be protected against discrimination.

If you had a book club for non-fiction and someone wanted to join but for whatever reson overtly stated they liked fiction. 1) Could you legally keep them out based soley on this fact? 2) Why would you want to keep them out? They share the same general interest you do. 3) It shows fear in change and acceptance.

1) Yes. It's a PRIVATE group, for crying out loud. If I'm playing basketball and you show up with a football demanding we play YOUR game, you're not going to get your way just bacause you wanted to!

2) See above. It's OUR group. I can keep you out because I don't like raw fish, for goodness sake

3) Personal preferences show fear in change and acceptance? Give me a break. If I start a Mariners fan club, sushi, and you show up with a Derek Jeter jersey on, you're getting tossed. Anyway, this isn't about personal preference, it's about deeply held belief.

1) Yes. It's a PRIVATE group, for crying out loud. If I'm playing basketball and you show up with a football demanding we play YOUR game, you're not going to get your way just bacause you wanted to! 2) See above. It's OUR group. I can keep you out because I don't like raw fish, for goodness sake 3) Personal preferences show fear in change and acceptance? Give me a break. If I start a Mariners fan club, sushi, and you show up with a Derek Jeter jersey on, you're getting tossed. Anyway, this isn't about personal preference, it's about deeply held belief.

But all these analogies are wrong.
Gays are not coming in to the school saying "Great we're in, not stop praying to God"
The believe the same thing you do! That is why they would want to go to a Christian school most conceivably. They have the same belief in what you do.

Yes darn you, your logic is right, you can exclude people for any reason when it is a Private closed group. But if they pray to the same God you do but you deam them lesser than you because of the kind of people they love?

Exclusion just seems a very funny tactic for a Religion to take.
Now that seems against God

Exclusion just seems a very funny tactic for a Religion to take. Now that seems against God

Why would God DEFINE sin if he didn't want us to take a less than affirming approach towards it?

The believe the same thing you do! That is why they would want to go to a Christian school most conceivably. They have the same belief in what you do.

But they DON'T believe the same thing these schools believe. KFC pointed out just two verses from the Bible addressing homosexuality; there are more. While I cannot speak for all denominations these groups are targetting, I can state affirmatively that the Assemblies of God teach that homosexuality is a sin, and they will not ordain a practicing homosexual, just as they would not ordain a practicing heterosexual that was clearly engaged in premarital/extramarital sexual activities.

The fact is, there ARE Christian denominations that will ordain these individuals; they are only shut out of denominations that do not condone their practices. What they are attempting to do is to force those denominations to change their entire doctrine, which is wrong.

My analogies are ALL as accurate as your "book club" analogy.

 

My analogies are ALL as accurate as your "book club" analogy.

LOL yes my analogies are weak!
The analogy with Jeter doesn't work cause he's an arshole and no one would wear his shirt.

Fine, go be exclusionary in your religious practices, I will leave it that is does more harm than good and leave it at that..
And I will save my thoughts on Christiantity as a dieing religion for another day.

"Exclusionary" should be based upon the will of the people. If we deem to add sexual preference to the unending list of things that we are forced to tolerate, fine. I'm annoyed with the fact that these kinds of things come either as judicial mandates or executive orders, and most rarely as a process of the popular will.

You see, when the Clinton administrations works like a dog to shove sexual preference into our definition of things we can't 'discriminate' against, that's advocacy. If President Bush decided to work the other way, that's being a tyrant. What if that is the will of the people, though?

Quasi-Liberals in the US want it both ways. Clinton can make a sweeping executive order about gays in the military and it is something to be lauded. If Bush acts on the wishes of HIS constituants and reverses it, outrage. So, "progress" only goes one way, right?

Wrong. We reversed prohibition. We reversed many policies of previous generations. The ones that are set in stone are the supposedly "right" ones. That's why more needs to be in the hands of the legislative branch, and frankly much, much more needs to be in the hands of the states, and local referendum. "Right" shouldn't be left to a handful of people to impose on almost 300 million.

The fact is, if these schools accept federal money, I don't see how they can really bar a homosexual student, given the addition of sexual orientation to the list of things you can't discriminate about. If they don't, GT's efforts to shame people out of their personal beliefs isn't much less bigoted.

This is why I believe churches should begin shunning tax exempt status; they are selling out their principles to make a buck

I wonder WHEN this will happen. It's only a matter of time. I'm not sure about "selling out to make a buck" tho. In our church we don't charge anyone for anything. We put on huge dinners and dinner theaters for free along with many other activities. We believe it's God's money, it belongs to HIM and it goes back to HIM.

But I do believe there will come a day, when the government will be knocking on our door to dictate who and what is allowed inside our doors. It's already happening in other parts of the world.

Exclusion just seems a very funny tactic for a Religion to take. Now that seems against God

Well Sushik God said His ways are not our ways. Have you ever thought of that? God is a God of order. He set things up a certain way and to deviate from that order he calls it sin. Do you want us Christians to make you feel better about your sin instead of telling you that it's not what God wants for you? Then you find out later and realize we were not a very good friend to you after all. Is that what you want?

God wants us to be a light. We as light are to shed light on the dark places and reveal God to them. What you are saying is for us to shut off the light so you can stay in the dark. So be it.

Christianity is both inclusive and exclusive. You decide for yourself.