Posted                          

quote:

---

Why have things gone so badly wrong at the CI?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
The Christian Institute seems to have become widely known as "The Tyneside Taliban" in the gay community of late - especially since it saw fit to launch a series of "pseudo-donor cards" carrying the phrase "In the event of my death I do not want my children to be adopted by homosexuals" (or words to that effect).

From a gay community perspective this was just the final straw in a long line of homphobic tirades from this organisation. It seems to have finally earned them the acolade of being referred to as the "Tyneside Taliban".

---

quote:

---

To what extent is this name justified? Why have things gone so badly wrong at the CI?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:

What pisses me off more, though, is the lack of evangelical voices opposing their tactics and message, which is unremittingly negative.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
In terms of orphanned children, I think that the parents concerned would hardly be in a position to make the decision. Personally, I think its 'wrong' because I think it displays prejudice against gay people , but we have already done this on another thread - I think.....I wonder if a similar card saying 'black people' would be as readily defended...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoo:
Of course it is relevant, Mike!

Else, should I only speak out against my own denomination? My own congregation? My own family? Only myself?

Cut the crap.

It is just as condemning to all Christians that Anglo-Catholics, alongside their Evangangelical bretheren, are not publically opposing this stance.

---

What Stoo said. Any condemnation needs to come from all sections of the church - not just one.

And, as has been pointed out before, any anti CI comment is unlikely to be picked up by the media as

• Many evangelicals haven't heard of either the EA or the CI and wouldn't necessarily consider them as their representatives even if they had!
• Such condemnation wouldn't necessarily be considered news-worthy
• I'm assuming my rant about the CI being a bunch of nutters doesn't count as it was in the pub and you didn't get to hear it personally

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
But the CI is an evangelical grouping, Nightlamp : it is from that constituency where they draw their support.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

As I said above, I find this idea tasteless and personally I don't have a problem with committed gay couples adopting children, but many Christians (evangelical and non-ev, as JL's posts here demonstrate) would agree with their motives, if not their methods.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
As a matter of prosaic fact, in some respects groups like the CI actually DO represent the majority of Christians, at least in terms of the official stance of their churches. Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism (to take three large and widespread denominations/movements) all officially teach that homosexual activity is wrong..

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Must Not Be Named:
As I recall (sorry copy not to hand)'Issues In Human Sexuality' stated that committed same-sex relationships may be acceptable for the laity, but not for the clergy. So the 'official' view of the CofE is that homosexual activity is not always wrong.

---

quote:

---

The CI does not therefore speak for the House of Bishops.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Sean : I happen to agree with your last sentence. But in saying this, I have often been told that this is in fact not the case, and that the CI do not reflect the bulk of evangelical viewpoints.

---

quote:

---

If what you say is right, and that is in fact their view, then others should hardly be surprised that those who will be personally affected by their opinions are not prepared to sit back and take it, and will speak out against that viewpoint.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
* Degs? Who's he?

---

Was my previous incarnation on the ship. I'm being a very good boy and including a reference (albeit oblique) to my former name so that all the nice people on the 'Changing names' thread in The Styx won't shout at me any more.

--------------------
The preest when he hath sayd and red all: he gyueth the benedyccion upon all those that be there present and then he doth tourne hym from the people retournynge thyther from whens he came.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Must Not Be Named:
As I recall (sorry copy not to hand)'Issues In Human Sexuality' stated that committed same-sex relationships may be acceptable for the laity, but not for the clergy. So the 'official' view of the CofE is that homosexual activity is not always wrong.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

“The report as a whole is NOT supportive of homosexual relationships. Which would seem to put the CofE on roughly the same side as the CI.”

---

quote:

---

“History attests that the Church has been the foremost persecutor of gays for almost two thousand years. During the Dark Ages, they were punished, if they were lucky, by excommunication, denial of last rites and burial in unsanctified ground. But many, not so lucky, were submitted to torture, mutilation and death by burning. The very term "faggot" refers to the bundles of sticks over which known and suspected gays were burned alive by Church authorities. Such barbaric treatment is comparable to that perpetrated by the Nazis who incarcerated gays in their concentration camps where they were brutalised and subjected to medical experiments.

All this is of course in the past and best forgotten as far as the Christian Churches are concerned (as is their persecution of the Jews, "witches" and other "heretics") but that does not mean that gay people - whether Christian or not - no longer suffer at their hands. The feelings of guilt experienced by some can be so corrosive that they lead to suicide.

At its General Synod in 1987, the Church of England voted overwhelmingly to condemn homosexual acts and called on gays to repent, and this remains its official stance. After a debate on homosexuality at the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops worldwide, the overwhelming majority of delegates (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) voted for a motion that rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with the Bible and rejected same-sex unions. After the debate the Archbishop of Canterbury commented: "I see no room in scripture for any sexual activity outside matrimony for husband and wife. I believe this says what we have all held Anglican morality stands for."

The Roman Catholic Church has always taken a hostile stance on homosexuality. A Vatican document issued in 1986 states that by choosing a partner of the same sex "homosexuals are annulling the rich symbolism and meaning of the Creator's designs". Another document issued in 1997 described "the particular inclination of the homosexual person" as "a more or less intrinsically moral evil". The Roman Catholic 1994 Catechism (summary of doctrine) announces to the world: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered'."

The Salvation Army is equally convinced by Biblical pronouncements, declaring in its most recent policy statement: "Same-sex relationships which are genitally expressed are unacceptable according to the teaching of Scripture and attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to heterosexually-based family life do not conform to God's will for society."
Then there are those evangelical Christian groups (the Courage Trust, Exodus, the True Freedom Trust, etc.) which seek to "cure" or "heal" homosexuals by persuading them to "follow Jesus" - a futile exercise which can cause immense psychological harm.

Given this appalling record - past and present - it is very hard to understand why even the most masochistic of lesbians and gay men can happily adhere to the Christian religion and its institutions, let alone seek moral guidance from them. However, many must find it extremely difficult - indeed painful - to make an honest appraisal. They have often been immersed in the dogma and teachings of organised religion from earliest childhood.”

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Even if you unavoidably share some views with people like the CI,

---

quote:

---

personally I don't have a problem with committed gay couples adopting children

---

quote:

---

There may be many Christians who due to their upbringing have doubts about homosexual adoption,

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
So presumably JL, If Ian Paisley decided to launch a campaign for people to carry donor cards saying 'In the event of my death I do not want my children to be adopted by papists' that would be an example of noble parental choice and not bigotry?

---

quote:

---

After all many people sincerely believe that Catholicism is wrong according to the Bible and Catholicism is a 'choice', so therefore presumably you deserve all you get from them?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The Southwark service went ahead and over the weekend of the 16th of November the press fascination continued. The LGCM hailed the service as a step towards "equality" while orthodox Christians lamented such extravagant official endorsement of gay sex. Bishop John Gladwin, an erstwhile evangelical, preached at the event. During his sermon, in an attempt, perhaps, to assuage his critics, he stated that cohabitation and same-sex "marriage" were less than the Christian ideal. However, his very presence and his otherwise affirming message pleased the congregation and he received prolonged applause as he returned to his seat.
At every stage of the debate Archbishop Carey and the hierarchy in general, together with the Church of England press office, seemed to be legitimising the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and, if anything, opposing their critics. The final insult came on the evening of 24 November when Dr Carey addressed Great St Mary's Church, Cambridge. Mentioning the Southwark debacle as an aside, he referred to "bullying, loud mouthed controversialists" who "make a mockery of our own faith". While he talked of "pressure groups on both sides" (7), it seemed clear to all his listeners that he had aimed his comments directly at opponents to the service. Replies are no doubt winging their way to Lambeth Palace as this article goes to print.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
It wouldn't be bigotry. Paisley talks a load of crap, but a lot of sincere Protestants think Catholicism is evil, and for one of them to not want their child adopted by people within what is for them a demonic system is totally understandable.

---

It's understandable, sure, as a historian I could give you a good account of anti-catholic prejudice in Scotland and Ulster so that it would be comprehensible, but that wouldn't make it right. It is bigotry and it does destroy other people's lives - so does anti-gay prejudice. I see nothing to choose between the two.

Personally I'm just sad that people still want to use Christianity to legitimise treating others as lesser beings than themselves.

Sorry if I got you slightly wrong Sean!

No, to be less sloppy, of course I believe that people can hold these views in good conscience because they give a high view to scripture and interpret certain bibilcal passges in a different way to me.

Loving and knowing my GLBT friends as I do, I just really really wish people would realise that those anti-gay views should go the same way as 'biblical' support for slavery. That's just my opinion on it!

L

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.