quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If there is anti-Christian prejudice in LGBT communities, it is likely very much a reaction to the prejudice felt from Christian communities.
Whilst the prejudice has emanated from more directions than this, it might be especially hurtful from those who claim to be followers of a loving being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starbug:
Last year, the general secretary of my union made a speech at conference about the 'bigots' who oppose gay marriage. I am not opposed to gay marriage myself, but I do find it rather difficult to be automatically labelled a bigot because of my faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If there is anti-Christian prejudice in LGBT communities, it is likely very much a reaction to the prejudice felt from Christian communities.
Whilst the prejudice has emanated from more directions than this, it might be especially hurtful from those who claim to be followers of a loving being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starbug:
I'm straight, but I come into contact with a lot of LGBT people in my trade union role. I find some of the discussions difficult sometimes, as there appears to be an under-current of anti-Christian or anti-religious feeling. Last year, the general secretary of my union made a speech at conference about the 'bigots' who oppose gay marriage. I am not opposed to gay marriage myself, but I do find it rather difficult to be automatically labelled a bigot because of my faith. While he was speaking, I felt like an outsider in my own union.

---

quote:

---

Sometimes I feel that, no matter how open-minded and inclusive I've become over the years (as a result of my union work), there are those who might not be so open-minded towards me if they knew I was a Christian. And I find this very sad, as I genuinely mean them no harm and want to work with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
When gay people put together an organised campaign to prevent Christians marrying the people they love then we can start to say that gay people are more anti-Christian than Christians are anti-gay. Until then, a large proportion of one group (including most of the major leaders) is campaigning to prevent the other having rights - and the other doesn't like that group because of it.

I'm shocked, shocked to discover that people take campaigns to deny them their rights personally.

---

Incidentally, I'm glad that this thread has returned the original track established in the OP. It certainly was strange to see the thread veering for a while to the sounds of "you think you have it hard? We Christians have it even harder."

There are apparently still people, even on Ship of Fools, who think in terms of a disconnect between "gay" and "Christian." This, on a Board which has so many professed gay Christian members. And, in a world in which "gay" as well as "Christian" are umbrella terms reflecting a very complex, varied reality.
 

---

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:

It is not surprising that many GLBT's learn to mistrust organized Christianity and become skeptical of and even antagonistic to it. This is probably strongest among those who have grown up in -- or aspired to be part of -- Roman Catholic and Protestant fundamentalist and conservative evangelical churches. Mainstream churches, which often adopt a version of "don't-ask-don't-tell," send a a more equivocal message that conveys its own form of contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:

I've been amazed at the reactions when I come out as someone who reads Ship of Fools, because many otherwise intelligent people don't believe there is an inclusive, compassionate, sane side to Christianity based on all the counter examples displayed so prominently in the news. And I'd likely hold the same beliefs if I weren't exposed to the wide range of views on the Ship.

I don't blame the LGBT community for thinking that all Christians are bigoted jerks, because those are the ones who get publicity. If other Christians don't like that, then they will have to work harder at making inclusive churches and attitudes more visible. It's unfortunate, of course, but that's what Christianity looks like from the outside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Why does the LGBT community think Christians are anti-gay? Because the whole world, and far too many christians, tells them that CHristians are anti-gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
And ... the other side of the coin ... because relatively few Christian leaders and organizations speak to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
One of my biggest gripes as a lesbian in the church was not with the overt anti-gay members, but the woolly types who assure you of their support in private but then put "unity" ahead of the support they promised in private when it comes to voting.

I know where I stand with the overt anti brigade. I can have some respect for their commitment, even if I don't agree with it.

The most damaging homophobia I have experienced came from the flip floppers. They're what made me leave in the end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:

There are apparently still people, even on Ship of Fools, who think in terms of a disconnect between "gay" and "Christian." This, on a Board which has so many professed gay Christian members.

---

quote:

---

posted by Justinian
The problem is that you belong to an organisation which, from your own words, does mean either the people you work with or some of their friends harm. You yourself identify the organisation you are a member of with bigotry. And if you yourself make this identification when you are a member why shouldn't outsiders?

The identification of the church with bigotry doesn't just come from the outside. And it is sad and needs fixing. But the way to fix it isn't to complain that you feel out of place whenever people decry bigotry because you identify your organisation with bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Now, we in Canada already have same-sex marriage, and there are no legal or public battles I know of left to be fought. So although Arabella is right, marching in the parade and supporting my friends at the blessing of their marriage is the best I can do, and the most many of us "straight but not narrow" folks can do.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But surely the anti-Christian and anti-religious sentiments which are heard widely today, are not just the result of anti-gay or anti-women stuff in the churches. I mean that there has been a tidal movement against religion as a worldview, and there is plenty of scorn for it amongst various intelligentsia, comedians, newspapers, and other liberal organs.

You could say that it's an inevitable and perhaps even desirable shift in the history of ideas, as the 'melancholy, long, withdrawing roar' goes on.

At the same time, there are other indications that spiritual and religious interest is taking other forms, such as paganism, New Age stuff, Eastern religions and so on.

I don't know whether Christians just need to keep their heads down, hoping that better times will come, or need to go out there, actively and even aggressively taking up the fight, but not in an anti-gay or anti-women direction!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You exaggerate when you say that the feeling is that all Christian churches are anti-gay

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

People who come out as Gay risk losing their job, custody of their child, being beaten up or killed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

I'm unaware of any cases where that has happened to Christians who revealed their faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I do wonder if my experience is distinctively English.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
No, I'm afraid I really don't.

---

quote:

---

Not, as far as I am aware, in the UK or really anywhere in Western Europe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:


Of course, part of that is that as far as I can tell we haven't had a decent Archbishop of Canterbury since Robert Runcie. Carey was a homophobe. Williams was an academic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
But I literally can not think of a consistent moral line the CofE has tried to take the lead on since Carey became Archbishop that wasn't homophobia. Or possibly tea and cake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
What's wrong with being an academic?

---

quote:

---

I was disappointed about the Jeffrey John debacle. I continue to wish that the Church of England would bless same-sex partnerships. But I don't think that it's healthy or productive (spiritually or politically) to allow that disappointment to fester into blind rage or a crude 'us and them' mentality.

---

quote:

---

If we start dividing the world into black and white polarities, us and them, the good people and the bad, then I think we're going down a very dangerous route.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To me as an outsider, the CofE comes across as being in a total muddle, rather than homophobic. Also, ironically, the media interest in this subject gives the impression that the CofE has loads of gay priests, which somewhat undermines the idea that it's a totally awful place for gay people to be. Perhaps the CofE entices gay people under false pretences, then cruelly disappoints them. I can see how this might happen.

---

quote:

---

I'm not talking about disagreement with various Church teachings, or even with simple atheism. My experience is of a hatred of Christianity that simply goes far beyond the reasonable, i.e. it cannot be reasoned with. I remember that when I once mentioned that Michael Ramsey, the response I got was 'well, he was probably just a closet pedophile'. Now, that's mercifully pretty atypical, but it does seem that very often being openly gay (especially if 'on scene') most correlate to agreeing with everything Richard Dawkins says about religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
the media interest in this subject gives the impression that the CofE has loads of gay priests, which somewhat undermines the idea that it's a totally awful place for gay people to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
Those from a strong sacramental tradition (lapsed RCs and Episcopalians) are attracted to the Episcopal Church (those congregations that are welcoming, which are probably still a minority). [/QB]

---

My impression, based both on what I've read and on limited personal experience, was that the US Episcopal Church and the vast majority of its parishes were extremely welcoming and on-board with LGBT issues, what with having openly gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions and all.
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
What you have to remember is that many, many LGBT people have been badly hurt by religious people. Or love someone who's been badly hurt. For many people it's the kind of pain that we have long memories about. It may never really go away. I'm really glad that that hasn't happened to you, but for those of us it has happened to, it can become very difficult to have a positive attitude towards religion. Is it fair to all the good religious folks out there who wouldn't act like the hurtful person did? In a strict sense, no. But it is understandable.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Even Millenial ordinands can't have a sexual relationship with their partner! Anglican priests can have civil partnerships but still have to be celibate, and depending on one's bishop can face a lot of interrogation on the nature of their relationship.

Also it should be pointed out that a lot of Millenial ordinands are conservative evangelicals, and youth does not guarantee liberalism. Most LGBT clergy I know are middle-aged, middle-class gay men. Most LGBT Christians I know are traddy Anglo-Catholics (mostly white gay men who are opposed to OoW - thanks for the support guys ), I only know one from a more Reformed church (my trans friend I mentioned earlier, who is URC).
 

---

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
No, I'm afraid I really don't.

---

Yes you do. As far as I am aware of, no one thinks that the Quakers or the Unitarians are anti-gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Even Millenial ordinands can't have a sexual relationship with their partner!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Also it should be pointed out that a lot of Millenial ordinands are conservative evangelicals,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

and youth does not guarantee liberalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Most LGBT clergy I know are middle-aged, middle-class gay men. Most LGBT Christians I know are traddy Anglo-Catholics (mostly white gay men who are opposed to OoW - thanks for the support guys ), I only know one from a more Reformed church (my trans friend I mentioned earlier, who is URC).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
That may be true, but it does NOT imply that everyone knows they are supportive of gays. A large number of people will have no idea what they think, or even that such groups exist. In this case, "I can't think of any such groups" can also be correct if the speaker doesn't think about the Quakers and Unitarians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Bacchus:

Male Anglican priests and ordinands are, in my experience (which may not be normative), vastly more likely to be gay than the general population. I don't know nearly as many female priests or ordinands, but in my more limited sample would suggest that lesbians and bisexual women are perhaps slightly overrepresented. Of course, the degrees to which they're open about their sexualities vary quite a bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Also it should be pointed out that a lot of Millenial ordinands are conservative evangelicals, and youth does not guarantee liberalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Palimpsest

Well, one reason that I wonder about a more general tide against Christianity and religion, is that I remember how vehemently anti-Christian my grandparents and parents were. And they didn't seem alone in that, in the working class area I grew up in. 50 years ago, I heard loads of adults scorning religion, and treating the local vicar as a complete imbecile.

I don't think this was because the church was anti-gay and anti-women really. One of my grandfathers conceived a violent hatred of Christianity during WWI, for reasons, too complex to discuss here. But he wasn't alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You exaggerate when you say that the feeling is that all Christian churches are anti-gay

---

No, I'm afraid I really don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

People who come out as Gay risk losing their job, custody of their child, being beaten up or killed.

---

quote:

---

Not, as far as I am aware, in the UK or really anywhere in Western Europe (well, okay, there are unfortunately some instances of homophobic violence, but mercifully few, and I'd feel much safer as a white gay male than a dark-skinned straight man, or a woman of any race or sexual orientation)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

I'm unaware of any cases where that has happened to Christians who revealed their faith.

---

quote:

---

Really, because I am definitely aware of cases where that's happened and continues to happen. But again, not in the UK or really anywhere in Western Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Palimpsest

Well, one reason that I wonder about a more general tide against Christianity and religion, is that I remember how vehemently anti-Christian my grandparents and parents were. And they didn't seem alone in that, in the working class area I grew up in. 50 years ago, I heard loads of adults scorning religion, and treating the local vicar as a complete imbecile.

I don't think this was because the church was anti-gay and anti-women really. One of my grandfathers conceived a violent hatred of Christianity during WWI, for reasons, too complex to discuss here. But he wasn't alone.

---

It may be that the anti-gay and anti-woman positions of the Churches are only a late major blow to church membership. From where I stand I could see the British seething cauldron of class struggle having started the process much earlier. An English friend of mine said he had done some research in school about Robin Hood and that the original mythological figure was a priest-killer.
I understand British class even less than I understand Christianity so I'll stop there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:


Of course, part of that is that as far as I can tell we haven't had a decent Archbishop of Canterbury since Robert Runcie. Carey was a homophobe. Williams was an academic.

---

What's wrong with being an academic? I have huge respect for Rowan Williams, who seems to be one of the few voices that's been willing to say that it's not that simple on this issue amongst others. To my mind, a recognition of complexity and a rejection of black and white thinking is a prerequisite of moral courage as well as intellectual integrity. Saintliness isn't easy, because it has to start with a flawed person interacting with other flawed people

---

quote:

---

I was disappointed about the Jeffrey John debacle. I continue to wish that the Church of England would bless same-sex partnerships. But I don't think that it's healthy or productive (spiritually or politically) to allow that disappointment to fester into blind rage or a crude 'us and them' mentality.

---

quote:

---

If we start dividing the world into black and white polarities, us and them, the good people and the bad, then I think we're going down a very dangerous route.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
... If we start dividing the world into black and white polarities, us and them, the good people and the bad, then I think we're going down a very dangerous route.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's understandable when anyone from a group of people who have been oppressed bats against those who oppressed them, or who they perceive as still oppressing them.

It's easy for them to push so far that they become the oppressors, and see it as justice served.

---

quote:

---

Among Christians there are various viewpoints, as there are among every group of people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's easy for them to push so far that they become the oppressors, and see it as justice served. It's easy too to lump 'them' together as a type, and visit prejudice and hatred upon people whose reality is far from the caricature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It isn't ducking the issue Justinian, it's directly to the point.

If there's a shocking level of homophobia within the Christian community, and a shocking level of Christianophobia among the LGB community as per the op, throwing eggs at each other with vehemence and name-calling is never going to help reconcile those people in love, regardless of who is holding the most eggs at any one time.

[QUOTE]
'Us and them' should be consigned to history. There really is only us, we're all brothers and sisters in the human race. We're all different from each other, we won't all hold the same opinions, we'll all have been influenced by our education, upbringing and culture, but we can live with that and with each other if we all make the effort and try to be a good influence to the current and to the next generation. As MLK said, 'I have a dream'. They take time and effort, but they can come true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's understandable when anyone from a group of people who have been oppressed bats against those who oppressed them, or who they perceive as still oppressing them.

It's easy for them to push so far that they become the oppressors, and see it as justice served. It's easy too to lump 'them' together as a type, and visit prejudice and hatred upon people whose reality is far from the caricature.

The only way to progress as a human race is for us to recognise all prejudice for what it is, and to take people as we find them.

Jesus demonstrated tolerance and taught love of God and love of others. Christianity is about following the teaching and example of Jesus.

Among Christians there are various viewpoints, as there are among every group of people. Tolerance of others despite their pov standing against our own, allowing them to speak even when we hate what they say, takes strength of character. But if it's what we all hope for from others, it's what we must learn to do ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It isn't ducking the issue Justinian, it's directly to the point.

If there's a shocking level of homophobia within the Christian community, and a shocking level of Christianophobia among the LGB community as per the op, throwing eggs at each other with vehemence and name-calling is never going to help reconcile those people in love, regardless of who is holding the most eggs at any one time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Quotes file

The problem with the statements from the hierarchy of the CofE, for example, is that membership of the Cofe puts someone in the moderate group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.

---

quote:

---

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's understandable when anyone from a group of people who have been oppressed bats against those who oppressed them, or who they perceive as still oppressing them.

It's easy for them to push so far that they become the oppressors, and see it as justice served. It's easy too to lump 'them' together as a type, and visit prejudice and hatred upon people whose reality is far from the caricature.

The only way to progress as a human race is for us to recognise all prejudice for what it is, and to take people as we find them.

Jesus demonstrated tolerance and taught love of God and love of others. Christianity is about following the teaching and example of Jesus.

Among Christians there are various viewpoints, as there are among every group of people. Tolerance of others despite their pov standing against our own, allowing them to speak even when we hate what they say, takes strength of character. But if it's what we all hope for from others, it's what we must learn to do ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I think this is a case when skies darken when chickens come home to roost and everyone ends up getting pooped on.

The church has been fairly consistent, and still is, on disliking homosexuality. You'll see it either openly labelled as a sin, see gay people told not to practice and so on. For all that there are a large number of Christians who aren't homophobic, those who are tend to shout louder and get more coverage, because if there's one thing that journalists like, it's a lack of ambiguity and plain statements.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
And yet Archbishop Michael Ramsey was outspoken in favour of the decriminalization of homosexuality when that was not a hugely popular position. I don't think his position would be seen as pro gay by today's standards, but he saw at least that criminalization was not just. But somehow that position did not develop while the secular world has (onthe whole) moved on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I think this is a case when skies darken when chickens come home to roost and everyone ends up getting pooped on.

The church has been fairly consistent, and still is, on disliking homosexuality. You'll see it either openly labelled as a sin, see gay people told not to practice and so on. For all that there are a large number of Christians who aren't homophobic, those who are tend to shout louder and get more coverage, because if there's one thing that journalists like, it's a lack of ambiguity and plain statements.
.

---

And yet Archbishop Michael Ramsey was outspoken in favour of the decriminalization of homosexuality when that was not a hugely popular position. I don't think his position would be seen as pro gay by today's standards, but he saw at least that criminalization was not just. But somehow that position did not develop while the secular world has (onthe whole) moved on.

But at least someone has now been appointed to lead on tackling homophobic bullying in church schools.

Carys

---

My neighbor raises chickens and they do go home to roost. But his real problem when he bought the house was that 50 years ago some one was raising racing pigeons in the house and generations later without any encouragement they were still treating the porch as a dovecote.


The secular world has moved on a great distance. So much so that your list of deeds and good intentions is pathetic.

You might want to consider why it was felt necessary to appoint someone to stop homophobic bullying. In a well run school this would have been done automatically by the school authorities. Of course they have the challenge of stopping the bullying while still saying that gay children are sinners but shouldn't be punished for it.
 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You might want to consider why it was felt necessary to appoint someone to stop homophobic bullying. In a well run school this would have been done automatically by the school authorities. Of course they have the challenge of stopping the bullying while still saying that gay children are sinners but shouldn't be punished for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The best bit in that was 'he even tried to kiss her in the paint aisle in B & Q'.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
You're trying to remove all context from the situation and use that to claim equivalence. Now the LGBT side might be throwing eggs. But the Christian side is throwing rocks. Reconciliation is almost impossible in the midst of an armed conflict.

At present the overwhelming majority of Christians in Britain are members of groups whose leaders are actively trying to prevent LGBT people from marrying those they love. (Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church). This is a direct conflict. And reconciliation can only truly happen when Christian leaders stop this. In America it's worse, I believe.

In order for reconciliation to happen, Christians have to stop trying to smack LGBT people in the face as a point of policy. Because as things stand the conversation is something like this.

"Moderate": You two should learn to get along.
Christian: *smack* Absolutely. We should all love one another. *Smack*
LGBT: He's hitting me in the face. I can't get along with someone who hits me in the face.
Christian: *smack* It's my religion. Now I'm offering my right hand to shake and make up. *smacks with left*
LGBT: Ow! No I can't take the hand of someone who smacks me in the face.
"Moderate": Why must you be so unreasonable. There's only us. We're all brothers and sisters.
Christian: *smack* I couldn't agree more. Jesus came to preach the brotherhood of all and I can't turn my back on that any more than I can the instructions to smack you in the face. *smack*
LGBT: F**k this. I'm out of here. I'll shake hands with those of you that don't try and smack me in the face.
"Moderate": Why must you be so unreasonable? He's only doing what his conscience dictates. He's just been influenced by his education, upbringing, and culture is all.
LGBT: *Ignores moderate and shakes hands with the few Christians who do not try to smack him in the face*
Moderate: We must be a good influence to the next generation. Work together and it can come true.
Christian: *smack* Sorry. It wasn't personal. My book told me to.
LGBT: You know what I want to see for the next generation and how I want to see them be better? By making sure that people don't get smacked in the face.
Moderate: Can't we all just get along? I mean look at you. Why are you a Christianophobe?
LGBT: Because he keeps smacking me in the face.
Christian: *smack* As I said. It's not personal. It's what the bible says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Your faux conversation, however, could be reversed, istm, with a smack in the face for possibly holding an opinion with which you disagree. You and others seem to be saying that if anyone thinks that marriage is about holy matrimony between a man and a woman, he or she is a bigot, is attacking LGB people, and should not give their opinion on the matter. It sounds to me as if this would undermine the whole idea of freedom of speech. In a democracy all voices should be heard. Moderate people should stand up against attempts to silence anyone or bully or taunt them into backing down imv, as well as speaking out if the law is unfair or being broken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I thought that civil partnership was supposed to give equal rights in law to everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I have to say that I regret having created this thread, and have hesitated to post on it (or indeed the Ship) again.

The recent harassment (thankfully not violent) of a friend on a London bus has made me aware of how naive the picture I painted of the UK as an LGBT paradise was. The fact is that I live, work, and go to church in something of a middle class ghetto where people don't look at you (too) strangely if you campaign for the Green Party, and where being gay really isn't an issue (I can't speak for being Trans, as I have no experience of that). It is also almost certainly true that, because I have spent so much of my life in very 'churchy' circles, I am not as aware as I should be of how things look from the outside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

I've been accused of being an Uncle Tom (for I don't know what else 'kiss the whip' is supposed to mean), but the fact is that I am acutely aware of the need for the Church to change its line on LGB people and their relationships. Within my own branch of the Church (the Church of England), a lot of this change is a matter of making the official line correspond to the pastoral care already provided on the ground by many, if not actually most, parish priests. I'm not currently involved in Church government at any level, but it's definitely something that I am willing to consider, although the structures governing the Church of England are designed in such a way as to make any change very difficult (not always a bad thing in itself, but frustrating on this issue).

In the meantime, I try to live my life, as honestly as I can, as a gay Anglican.

---

quote:

---

I do still feel that I was in the right in at least one aspect of the OP, which might be summarized by saying that I see two options for someone in my situation. The first would be to reject the teachings of the Church whole cloth; the second to 'test all things; hold fast that which is good'. The second, in my view, is almost certainly more difficult, but the superior choice when considered intellectually, morally, and spiritually.

For instance. I am not a Roman Catholic (and am unlikely to become one, because of my sexuality amongst other reasons), but say that I were. I might justly oppose the way in which the Roman Catholic Church's high view of the family (as expressed in Gaudium et Spes amongst other sources) has been used to justify discrimination against LGBT people. However, I might still very justly find Gaudium et Spes (which, of course, does not mention homosexuality at all, much as the gospels don't) to be in almost every respect an excellent work of social teaching, to respect its teachings on human dignity, on our response to poverty, and the prevention of war. There is no logical reason why this hypothetical version of me should reject these things, let alone reject and also to reject Pacem in Terris, Rerum Novarum, or for that matter the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the intercession of the saints, or the Assumption.

My dignity as a human being (upon which my dignity as a gay human being is dependent) demands the liberty to make these decisions of my own accord. For the same reason, I have no right to demand (and no grounds to expect) that anyone should agree with me. I should, however, hope that they might respect the integrity of my position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


The non-Anglican Gay community can mitigate the attempts of the Church to wrong gays by secular fights over the law, by diminishing the influence of the nastier church leaders and by welcoming those that seek to flee the hierarchy rather than fight it or who move to a church that doesn't do bad things.

However fixing your church so it doesn't do these things and not wither into an embarrassing memory is only going to come from people like you and only if you fight for it within your church. The gay community has its own history and the lesson we have is that silence does not accomplish this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


The non-Anglican Gay community can mitigate the attempts of the Church to wrong gays by secular fights over the law, by diminishing the influence of the nastier church leaders and by welcoming those that seek to flee the hierarchy rather than fight it or who move to a church that doesn't do bad things.

However fixing your church so it doesn't do these things and not wither into an embarrassing memory is only going to come from people like you and only if you fight for it within your church. The gay community has its own history and the lesson we have is that silence does not accomplish this.

---

Or, alternatively, it might be better to let the CofE 'wither into an embarrassing memory' and to support a smaller denomination that is fully committed to a more liberal theological outlook, certainly as far as sexuality is concerned.

As a state church the CofE feels it has to try to have a niche for everyone, which means never speaking with one voice on gay issues. IMO the best way to get a totally gay-affirming church is to focus on getting the CofE disestablished, at which point the evangelicals and the liberals will part company, and the liberals will be free to conduct SSMs, etc. If the desire for sexual conservatism is short-lived or unprofitable then the evangelical churches will either fade away or they'll become as liberal as the others, at least on this issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As a state church the CofE feels it has to try to have a niche for everyone, which means never speaking with one voice on gay issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Racism and anti-semitism still exist in English society, and it would be a mistake to think that they present no more challenges for the CofE.

---

And yet the CofE doesn't seem to have any trouble making official statements condemning racism or anti-Semitism. Given your assertion that the Church of England "feels it has to try to have a niche for everyone" how is it possible that they're willing to offend the racists and anti-Semites in English society?
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Anti-Semitism was a position with theological arguments in some churches. They have mostly managed to discard those arguments.

I see no reason not to try to fix all fragments of the Church and not assume that fissure is required. It was only a few decades ago that they all thought gays were evil.

I see disestablishment as a larger issue that should be approached only if necessary. Your post gave me a momentary fantasy of irreconcilable sects making a mad rush for the exit to avoid being the last group who is stuck being established.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


I see no reason not to try to fix all fragments of the Church and not assume that fissure is required. It was only a few decades ago that they all thought gays were evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I see no reason not to try to fix all fragments of the Church and not assume that fissure is required. It was only a few decades ago that they all thought gays were evil.

---

But surely your own country is the example here. From what I understand, a number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent decades, with the changing theology on this issue as one of the main contributing factors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Am I just over-sensitive or do other people (and particularly other LGB Christians) find more prejudice based on their faith than on their sexuality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos :
A number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent centuries. It's what American denominations do. Take, for example, the formation of the Southern Baptists in the mid-nineteenth century over the issue of slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos :
A number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent centuries. It's what American denominations do. Take, for example, the formation of the Southern Baptists in the mid-nineteenth century over the issue of slavery.

---

Didn't most mainline denominations had such a split?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But the Anglican church leadership DOES speak with one voice on the gay issue - all the official statements on the matter agree with each other, and the opposing views within the Anglican church are totally ignored by the leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:


The Southern Baptists are an interesting case study. If we go by SvitlanaV2's standard that number of adherents is a good measure of the correctness of church positions, then as the largest denomination of American Protestants the Southern Baptists must have made all the right calls. Or at least more right calls than any other group of American Protestants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos :
A number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent centuries. It's what American denominations do. Take, for example, the formation of the Southern Baptists in the mid-nineteenth century over the issue of slavery.

---

Didn't most mainline denominations had such a split?

---

Disagreement over the issue? Yes. An actual organizational schism that persists to this day? No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


I see no reason not to try to fix all fragments of the Church and not assume that fissure is required. It was only a few decades ago that they all thought gays were evil.

---

But surely your own country is the example here. From what I understand, a number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent decades, with the changing theology on this issue as one of the main contributing factors. The denominations that have taken the liberalising move haven't grown as a result, but have declined.

Of course, you might say that decline and fissure don't matter, that being right is all that counts. That's a valid point! But for a denomination whose previous modus operandi has been to tolerate diverse theologies, being 'right' hasn't been the primary focus of their identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[Basically, what comes across is that the church is at sixes and sevens with itself. I don't understand why it should be this way. I mean, the CofE leadership quite obviously invites people with all sorts of divergent theological views - and sexual histories - into the ministry or into , so why would it ignore them? What's the point?

It's almost as if the congregations, theological colleges and official leaders and spokesmen are each entirely separate entities, compelled by different agendas to pursue different goals. It's quite peculiar, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The CofE doesn't seem to have any trouble making official statements condemning racism or anti-Semitism. Given your assertion that the Church of England "feels it has to try to have a niche for everyone" how is it possible that they're willing to offend the racists and anti-Semites in English society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Public statements don't always give the full picture about what's going on. A church might officially condemn racism yet still be a place where a black people don't feel that their spirituality is fully respected and accepted. A church might be formally homophobic (whatever definition one might use) yet still be a place where gay clergy and laity are over-represented because they find that on the ground there's encouragement from influential people such as theologians and some members of the clergy and laity.

Church life is never as straightforward as it seems. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

The Southern Baptists are an interesting case study. If we go by SvitlanaV2's standard that number of adherents is a good measure of the correctness of church positions, then as the largest denomination of American Protestants the Southern Baptists must have made all the right calls. Or at least more right calls than any other group of American Protestants. Interestingly, virtually every position on a social issue that they've taken since their founding has been on what's currently considered the wrong side of history. Pro-Slavery. Pro-Jim-Crow. Anti-Women's-Suffrage. Pro-Segregation. If we accept the "numbers = correctness" theory, these were the correct positions to hold, as demonstrated by the Southern Baptist's current number of adherents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps some Christians want everyone to have equal rights, and love all others as themselves, while at the same time holding the view that marriage means the union between a man and a woman. If so, that doesn't make them afraid of LGB people, nor does it mean that they hate them, nor does it mean that there is any malice in their opinion, nor does it mean that others should try to bully them into silence or into changing their minds. If they are in a minority, they will concede to the majority, and vice versa, but they are entitled to hold an opinion.

I dislike the idea of any church organisation becoming so exclusive that the thought police filter out those who don't agree with any set standpoint. Jesus is inclusive. Everyone is welcome to follow him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps some Christians want everyone to have equal rights, and love all others as themselves, while at the same time holding the view that marriage means the union between a man and a woman.

---

quote:

---

If so, that doesn't make them afraid of LGB people, nor does it mean that they hate them, nor does it mean that there is any malice in their opinion, nor does it mean that others should try to bully them into silence or into changing their minds.

---

quote:

---

If they are in a minority, they will concede to the majority, and vice versa, but they are entitled to hold an opinion.

---

quote:

---

I dislike the idea of any church organisation becoming so exclusive that the thought police filter out those who don't agree with any set standpoint. Jesus is inclusive. Everyone is welcome to follow him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
All I can say is, if members see few or no redeeming qualities in their churches then they owe those churches no loyalty and no love. If America is renowned for schism, a country where people are supposedly free to re-invent themselves, then there should be no compulsion to suffer in silence in a church where you're dreadfully unhappy. It doesn't matter if you grew up in that church - it doesn't own your soul. Evangelicals especially should understand that a relationship with God is independent of family tradition. Protestants don't believe that salvation is a gift offered by the church, but by God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...I dislike the idea of any church organisation becoming so exclusive that the thought police filter out those who don't agree with any set standpoint. Jesus is inclusive. Everyone is welcome to follow him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Leaving a church that oppresses you is not the issue under discussion. The original poster sees value in his church. The problem is that his church leadership is active in the struggle to continuing oppressing gay people.

---

quote:

---

"It can't be fixed because the church has to have a niche for bigots who want to oppress" is neither an acceptable answer or historically correct. You need to read King's letter from Birmingham jail and realize that the moderates that disappoint him all had excuses based on their expertise for why equal rights should not happen now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
since, as we know, American churches remain racially segregated places, regardless of what's 'historically correct'. From outside the country I see little sign that anyone's battling hard against that particular situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
since, as we know, American churches remain racially segregated places, regardless of what's 'historically correct'. From outside the country I see little sign that anyone's battling hard against that particular situation.

---

On a tangent the Southern Baptists, of all people, are. To the point that their current president is African-American.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Leaving a church that oppresses you is not the issue under discussion. The original poster sees value in his church. The problem is that his church leadership is active in the struggle to continuing oppressing gay people.

---

First of all he - just like any black person or any woman - needs to re-establish exactly what it is about his church that's valuable if it's experienced as a place of oppression and is dominated by 'bigots'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

"It can't be fixed because the church has to have a niche for bigots who want to oppress" is neither an acceptable answer or historically correct. You need to read King's letter from Birmingham jail and realize that the moderates that disappoint him all had excuses based on their expertise for why equal rights should not happen now.

---

I'm not saying that S. Bacchus shouldn't work to make his church a different kind of place. Churchgoers should create the kinds of churches that they want. Indeed, it occurs to me that American churches may end up more successful at offering equal theological rights to gay worshippers than they are at integrating people of different ethnicities into the same congregations, since, as we know, American churches remain racially segregated places, regardless of what's 'historically correct'. From outside the country I see little sign that anyone's battling hard against that particular situation.

If the OP wants to change the CofE, campaigning for the official approval of gay blessings might be the first line of attack. Some are quietly performed in defiance of the rules, but maybe a good strategy would be to get a priest to perform a blessing in the full glare of publicity, the better to force Mr Welby et al to confront reality. But British Christians don't normally work up enough passion to engage in big public demonstrations regarding sexual issues, either for or against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He experiences as a place he wants to be. Other people, especially those outside the church are experiencing the bigotry and oppression.

---

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that you are not a member of his church. Unless you want to join his church, why not let him pick the tactics? My bar is only that silent assent and weeping doesn't count as fighting the oppression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He experiences as a place he wants to be. Other people, especially those outside the church are experiencing the bigotry and oppression.

---

I have no truck with churches causing problems to anyone 'outside the church'. To be honest, I can't understand how it is that American churches have so much political influence when the country is supposed to have a clear separation between church and state. Even our prime minister, who is himself an Anglican, felt perfectly free to ignore what Anglican archbishops had to say about SSM.



I don't think it's desirable but it's there, if only the Bishops in the House of Lords and more as vocal opponents of allowing SSM. Once again, you're trivializing the actions of the Hierarchy and claiming they don't matter. They do matter.

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that you are not a member of his church. Unless you want to join his church, why not let him pick the tactics? My bar is only that silent assent and weeping doesn't count as fighting the oppression.

---

I simply wanted to bring something new to the discussion. Moreover, as the state church what the CofE does or doesn't do sends a message to all the other churches in the land. It's certainly treated by the British media and by non-affiliated British people as the public voice of Christians and of Christianity. For that reason, I think other Christians are justified in reflecting on how it acts or might act in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Suggesting how the members of that church oppose bad actions is best done by them and ignoring your suggestions like "oh they have to keep a place for homophobic bigots in their diversity" or "It would be better to leave the church then try to fix it" or "That would just be Anglicans talking to each other".

The criteria from the outside is, are they actually waging the fight or leaving?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, everyone in the country knows that the church is deeply divided over this, so it's hardly the case that pro-SSM Anglicans are biting their tongues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps some Christians want everyone to have equal rights, and love all others as themselves, while at the same time holding the view that marriage means the union between a man and a woman. If so, that doesn't make them afraid of LGB people, nor does it mean that they hate them, nor does it mean that there is any malice in their opinion, nor does it mean that others should try to bully them into silence or into changing their minds. If they are in a minority, they will concede to the majority, and vice versa, but they are entitled to hold an opinion.

I dislike the idea of any church organisation becoming so exclusive that the thought police filter out those who don't agree with any set standpoint. Jesus is inclusive. Everyone is welcome to follow him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Another datapoint concerning these people so keen to maintain conservative Christian standards under their roof, even if it does mean smacking people in the face (Justinian sense)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/married-preacher-who-banned-gay-2071283#ixzz2ZiM74Y9g

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
There's a big debate to be had about whether it is still 'your own roof' when you open a business and invite people to pay money to spend time under the roof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Everyone is welcome to follow him doesn't mean that everyone is following him regardless of what they're doing. Surely that's obvious. The logic problems with this post are deep and profound.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm happy to embrace everyone who professes that Jesus Christ is Lord as a brother or sister in Christ without standing in judgement on them.

---

But if they're not Christian, judge away!

Have you ever considered that apportioning legal rights based on religious affiliation has a very ugly history?
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm happy to embrace everyone who professes that Jesus Christ is Lord as a brother or sister in Christ without standing in judgement on them. I'm not perfect. I wouldn't see it as loving of others to judge me and reject me from their company if the sins they found me guilty of offended them. Rather I hope that others will help build me up in faith, pray for me, and be discreet and honest with their opinions if I ask for them.

---

• Those who believe that gay rights are actually morally bad
• Those who will not speak out against genuine injustice when committed by someone from your tribe
• Those who prefer to support the bigots in their own tribe, not caring about the implications for justice despite knowing it to be unjust simply because it does not cross some arbitrary threshold

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps some Christians want everyone to have equal rights, and love all others as themselves, while at the same time holding the view that marriage means the union between a man and a woman. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Everyone is welcome to follow him doesn't mean that everyone is following him regardless of what they're doing. Surely that's obvious. The logic problems with this post are deep and profound.

---

I'm happy to embrace everyone who professes that Jesus Christ is Lord as a brother or sister in Christ without standing in judgement on them. I'm not perfect. I wouldn't see it as loving of others to judge me and reject me from their company if the sins they found me guilty of offended them. Rather I hope that others will help build me up in faith, pray for me, and be discreet and honest with their opinions if I ask for them.

Jesus is happy for sinners to follow him. Our relationship is with him, he is our judge, he will convict us where we are going astray, and he will guide us toward perfection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Jesus is happy for sinners to follow him. Our relationship is with him, he is our judge, he will convict us where we are going astray, and he will guide us toward perfection.

---

quote:

---

There is a deep religious meaning to holy matrimony,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Soror Magna says that it's obvious that Christians who think that marriage means the union between a man and a woman don't want everyone to have equal rights in law, and yet civil partnership gives the same provision in law as marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Soror Magna says that it's obvious that Christians who think that marriage means the union between a man and a woman don't want everyone to have equal rights in law, and yet civil partnership gives the same provision in law as marriage. There is a deep religious meaning to holy matrimony, and I uphold the right of anyone to hold the belief that it should remain in religious terms between a man and a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I do find some of the reactions to what I say quite extraordinary, as so much is read into my words that I haven't actually said. Perhaps a bias within overwrites text at times.

---

quote:

---

Suddenly it's OK to be judgemental, but only when it's judging in one way?

---

quote:

---

Where did I say that I disapproved of anyone's sexuality?

---

quote:

---

and yet civil partnership gives the same provision in law as marriage.

---

quote:

---

There is a deep religious meaning to holy matrimony,

---

quote:

---

and I uphold the right of anyone to hold the belief that it should remain in religious terms between a man and a woman.

---

quote:

---

Justinian, my observations are brought before God without judgement. With my witness comes request for guidance. God will always guide me to do what is good and right.

---

quote:

---

None of your camps applies to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I probably come close to agreeing with you on the theology. However, the law of the land can no longer justify its position as an enforcer of Christianity, or of a particular type of Christianity.

If Christendom is dead, as some evangelicals say, then we have to accept that the hegemonic assumptions made by Christendom must also die. This will be especially hard for Anglicans, but as much as I appreciate the CofE I think its role as the state's handmaiden no longer works. Its legal exemption from the SSM scenario is one more proof of that.

Rejecting Christendom should be accepted as something positive, because it can liberate the churches to be who they really are and need to be. They shouldn't need to hang on the coattails of nationalism, patriotism, or whatever. If we're 'in the world but not of it', why should we expect the state to reflect our theology of marriage, or anything else? Churches should each develop their own responses to hetero and homosexual relationships in complete freedom (as they once did, in fact) without clinging to the legal definitions provided by the state, even though individual Christians should have recourse to the state's protective laws when they wish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the state has enforced Christianity in the past, I guess it was a very long time ago?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
How long will it be before the other denominations are taken to court?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the state has enforced Christianity in the past, I guess it was a very long time ago?

---

quote:

---

In a democracy, all voices should be heard, including those of Christians. Does being 'in the world and not of it' entail having no input into the society we live in, or standing up for what we believe to be good and right, openly and vocally?

---

quote:

---

I'm very uneasy about the way they are being vilified and attacked by some who seem to be trying to bully them into silence and capitulation.

---

quote:

---

You say that individual Christians should have recourse to the state's protective laws when they wish, but when that law stands against the freedom of Christian beliefs, it's not protection but oppression it's offering.

---

quote:

---

How long will it be before the other denominations are taken to court?

---

quote:

---

How long before the words 'holy matrimony' are claimed as a right,

---

quote:

---

as well as the wedding march,

---

quote:

---

Do you really believe that individual churches will be able to develop their own responses in complete freedom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps you can let me know in what way you think that the C of E has not been what it needs to be thanks to its input to the state?

---

quote:

---

If the state has enforced Christianity in the past, I guess it was a very long time ago?

---

quote:

---

In a democracy, all voices should be heard, including those of Christians. Does being 'in the world and not of it' entail having no input into the society we live in, or standing up for what we believe to be good and right, openly and vocally?

---

quote:

---

How long will it be before the other denominations are taken to court? How long before the words 'holy matrimony' are claimed as a right, as well as the wedding march, wherever anyone decides to demand it? Do you really believe that individual churches will be able to develop their own responses in complete freedom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the state has enforced Christianity in the past, I guess it was a very long time ago?

---

Depends. If you consider the criminalization of homosexuality to be "enforc[ing] Christianity" (and I'm hard pressed to think of non-religious reasons for such a law) then "a very long time ago" means "the mid-twentieth century".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Soror Magna says that it's obvious that Christians who think that marriage means the union between a man and a woman don't want everyone to have equal rights in law, and yet civil partnership gives the same provision in law as marriage. There is a deep religious meaning to holy matrimony, and I uphold the right of anyone to hold the belief that it should remain in religious terms between a man and a woman. Clearly some don't uphold this right, as they are suing the Church of England for the 'right' to a religious wedding (the other thread refers). Does this show a lack of love?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Soror Magna says that it's obvious that Christians who think that marriage means the union between a man and a woman don't want everyone to have equal rights in law, and yet civil partnership gives the same provision in law as marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
... civil partnership gives the same provision in law as marriage. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm not proposing any theology of marriage and about being gay, which would belong on the other thread about gay marriage. What I'm trying to explore is the anti-Christian prejudice mentioned in the op, which some of the posts on this thread highlight.

---

quote:

---

What I'm hearing pulled apart is a straw man Christian who thinks he's entitled to dictate to the government

---

quote:

---

and who is fighting to try to make sure that gay people don't have equal rights.

---

quote:

---

This does not correspond to me, nor to any Christian I have ever met.

---

quote:

---

I do know Christians and non-Christians who are struggling with the idea of gay marriage, not because they want to deny anyone rights but because of their deep conviction that holy matrimony, the same thing as marriage to them, is a sacramental union between a man and a woman.

---

quote:

---

Justinian, contradiction doesn't engage with me, or listen to me. I'm trying to listen to you, but I'm hearing a dance that is trying to stamp out my words.

---

quote:

---

Only love overcomes evil, not hatred.

---

quote:

---

I hope they will continue to try to get it right and won't have their voices silenced by those prejudiced against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
when did you last hear about Christian-phobic bullying?

---

Heard about it? Don't know; but I certainly experienced it when I was at school. Being repeatedly taunted as "Bible basher", largely because my Dad happened to be the local Vicar rather than any action of my own, did wonders for me between the ages of around 8 and 13.

You're right, of course, that homophobic bullying is a much larger problem, and it is with considerable regret that I confess to doing my share of contributing to that during the same period when I was a victim of bullying myself. Way to go self-awareness!
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

I hope they will continue to try to get it right and won't have their voices silenced by those prejudiced against them.

---

Almost no one is in favour of actually having Christians silenced. Merely of taking away their influence and their tools to oppress others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Taking the bishops in the House of Lords and the whole question of establishment (both of which only effect the Church of England) out of the equation for a moment: of what specific "influence and tools" do you insist that Christians must be stripped? The right to seek - individually or collectively - to influence public opinion by (currently) legal means? The right to lobby parliamentarians and other decision-makers? The right to voice their opinions publicly? The right to vote the "wrong" way? Genuinely, I'm stumped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Then there's the religious control of a depressing number of state schools and state academy schools. The obvious one being Peter Vardy's creationist Academies. But I want all faith schools gone and the idea that you can take government money to run a state service, and then give priority to a subset of people based on their religion rejected. (I'd further point out that the faith schools as currently implemented take a disproportionately low number of the poor both when looked at nationally and locally).

And while on the subject the Collective Act of Worship that is wholly or broadly of a Christian character that is mandated in state schools should be scrapped.

Enough of a start?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If you reduce the number of faith schools, then you will inevitably increase the number of Christian parents (and those from other faiths) who will home-school. Happy with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps some Christians want everyone to have equal rights, and love all others as themselves, while at the same time holding the view that marriage means the union between a man and a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
1. Most of the CofE faith schools are the best schools in England, I can't see parents being happy with your plan to close them down, and the legality of being able to do this is questionable as many faith schools maintain their status based on the endowment conditions etc. that formed the school in the first place.

---

quote:

---

2. Do you have figures for your statement on 'the poor'? I'm interested since some figures from Wales give an impression that CinW schools are not as selective as you must think faith schools are as they take a disproportionate number of non-Churchgoers than they do actual Churchgoers.

---

quote:

---

The Guardian's summary of the data:
Some 73% of Catholic primaries and 72% of Catholic secondaries have a lower proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than the average for the local authority.

It is the same for CofE primary and secondary schools. Some 74% of these primaries and 65.5% of secondaries have a smaller proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than is average for the local authority.

In contrast, non-religious schools tend to reflect their neighbourhoods. Half (51%) of non-religious primaries and 45% of non-religious secondaries have a smaller proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than is representative for their local authority.

Faith schools fared no better when examined at a more local level. We compared the proportion of poor pupils in each postcode with the proportion of poor pupils in faith schools and non-faith schools studying in that postcode. The data shows 76% of Catholic primaries and 65% of Catholic secondaries have a smaller proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than is representative of their postcode. This is the case for 63.5% of CofE primaries and 40% of CofE secondaries.


Non-religious primaries and secondaries are far more likely to mirror the proportion of poor pupils in their postcode – just 47% of non-faith primaries and 29% of non-faith secondaries take a smaller proportion of free school meals than is representative for their postcode.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I rest my case on this thread.

Prejudice is always a bad thing, it fosters hatred which fosters violence which escalates in retaliation.

Without prejudice there would have been no holocaust or KKK. Only love overcomes the root causes of evil, prejudice being one of them. I accept that Christians are prejudiced too, everyone is to some extent without always knowing it, but I appeal to all whether Christian or not to see other people as fellow human beings worthy of being loved, whatever their faults.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Taking the bishops in the House of Lords and the whole question of establishment (both of which only effect the Church of England) out of the equation for a moment:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Taking the bishops in the House of Lords and the whole question of establishment (both of which only effect the Church of England) out of the equation for a moment:

---

"But aside from all that, what did you think of the play Mrs. Lincoln?".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Official endorsement by the state is a pretty big thing to overlook. Why is this something you feel should be ignored?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in what sense do acts of Parliament "only effect the Church of England"? Isn't the whole point of having a seat in Parliament the ability to effect the rest of the country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Taking the bishops in the House of Lords and the whole question of establishment (both of which only effect the Church of England) out of the equation for a moment:

---

"But aside from all that, what did you think of the play Mrs. Lincoln?".

---

As far as I'm concerned, you can save the hackneyed sarcasm for a deserving cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in what sense do acts of Parliament "only effect the Church of England"? Isn't the whole point of having a seat in Parliament the ability to effect the rest of the country?

---

Are you working the assumption that the CofE bishops are speaking and acting for all the Christians in Britain? If not, I'm not sure what your point is.

---

1. Laws apply to everyone
2. Laws are passed by Parliament
3. Those who hold a seat in Parliament get to pass laws (see #2) that apply to everyone (see #1)
4. Certain Bishops in the Church of England have seats in Parliament by virtue of their status as bishops in the Church of England
5. This gives them the power to pass laws (see #3) that apply to everyone (see #1)
6. Because the law applies to everyone (see #1) the ability of CofE bishops to shape the law directly contradicts your assertion that their Parliamentary seats "only effect the Church of England"

quote:

---

Also because I am more concerned about freedom of speech,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And why doesn't the Church of England count as "Christians" in your estimation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Once more with feeling: it is prescisely because the Church of England alone enjoys these privileges that I wanted to keep discussion of them to the side when answering Justinian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Other Christians - let's think of the Catholics, for example - will only incidentally "benefit" from them when the CofE exercises them in ways which further the common aims of all Christians. I am not arguing that other Christians should have these same "influence[s] and tools". But not all Christians have aims furthered by the exercise of the CofE bishops' legislative policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Once more with feeling: it is prescisely because the Church of England alone enjoys these privileges that I wanted to keep discussion of them to the side when answering Justinian.

---

Really? It's not because the state granting certain Christian groups unearned access to the levers of power fatally undermines your thesis that Christians don't possess any special influence and tools unavailable to non-Christians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Other Christians - let's think of the Catholics, for example - will only incidentally "benefit" from them when the CofE exercises them in ways which further the common aims of all Christians. I am not arguing that other Christians should have these same "influence and tools". But not all Christians have aims furthered by the exercise of the CofE bishops' legislative policies.

---

For that matter not all Anglicans have their "aims furthered by the exercise of the CofE bishops' legislative policies", yet that's hardly a demonstration that such power doesn't exist, that it isn't based on their religion, that their religion isn't Christian, or that it's not a kind of "influence" which could potentially be used as a "tool[] to oppress others". The whole exception you're pleading for is a giant non-sequitur based on unwillingness to recognize special privilege where it exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The British government has a special carve out to boost the power of a particular Christian religious faction within government. The fact that it doesn't do so for your favored faction (or for any others) is not a reason we should ignore the obvious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
*Therefore, all Christians have this power to oppress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You love to sneak in those previously-unmentioned modifiers, don't you? [...] Your first reaction was to stake out a certain sizable privilege (automatic access to the levers of power) as either not Christian or somehow not a tool which could be used to oppress others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... I'm struggling here, but if I've got it right your argument needs to go like this to make it stick against me:

*Granting Christian groups an established place in the state and a share in legislative authority gives them a power to oppress others.

*The Church of England is a Christian group.

*The Church of England has been granted such an established place and share in legislative authority.

*Therefore, all Christians have this power to oppress.

I'll accept the premises if you'll admit the conclusion doesn't follow. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I conclude that if certain Christians have some values and goals in common with the Church of England, they benefit when the Lords Spiritual promote those values and goals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act and Catholic Emancipation were totally unnecessary then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I don't agree with this "it's only a tool of oppression if everyone participates" standard you and CB seem to have adopted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act and Catholic Emancipation were totally unnecessary then?

---

Totally non-oppressive, by your standards, since the Parliament that passed those laws was only a tiny portion of the British population of the time. Now I don't agree with this "it's only a tool of oppression if everyone participates" standard you and CB seem to have adopted, but you should at least apply it consistently.

---

I have no idea by what leaps of illogic you have arrived at your conclusion. The discriminatory legislation which was repealed applied to the entire population, not just the then Parliamentary oligarchy.

Now, until you answer my previous question, I see little point in engaging with you further until you deal with the questions asked rather than keep trying to twist them into something they are not.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
If you say that you're in favour of equality, but actually don't support treating people the same, that would make you a liar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
If you say that you're in favour of equality, but actually don't support treating people the same, that would make you a liar.

---

If you're in favour of equality for men and women, can you still support using the term "father" to describe the male progenitor and "mother" to describe the female? Or do you have to use the same word?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
If you say that you're in favour of equality, but actually don't support treating people the same, that would make you a liar.

---

If you're in favour of equality for men and women, can you still support using the term "father" to describe the male progenitor and "mother" to describe the female? Or do you have to use the same word?

---

It depends on your purpose. I mean, if you're talking about a particular individual, then I suppose you could label them as a 'father' or a 'mother'. But most of the time, and especially when you're trying to talk about the group as a whole, the word 'parent' will do just fine.

And certainly, when you're writing any kinds of rules or laws about how to treat fathers and mothers, if the whole point is that you're going to treat father and mothers exactly the same, then don't use the distinguishing words when you're not going to distinguish.

---

Yes, you're right. And thinking through this analogy has shown me that language *is* important. I suppose a better analogy is adoptive parenting. if I were the adoptive mother of my children, it would kill me if, say, letters from school were addressed to "The Parent of [Every Other Child]" but addressed to the "Adoptive Parent of Little Monk".

And I suppose it must be the same if every time someone refers to your marriage they take care to use a phrase that distinguishes it from a "real" one.

I'm sorry for being slow to grasp that.


 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Yes, you're right. And thinking through this analogy has shown me that language *is* important. I suppose a better analogy is adoptive parenting. if I were the adoptive mother of my children, it would kill me if, say, letters from school were addressed to "The Parent of [Every Other Child]" but addressed to the "Adoptive Parent of Little Monk".

---

Internet discussion does sometimes change peoples minds, and thank you for being open enough to allow it to do so and forthcoming enough to say that it has done so. Thank you for bolstering my faith in humanity a little.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0