|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anti-Christian prejudice in LGB community
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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?
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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]
And a church might be both officially homophobic and be a place where gay people find their spirituality is not respected and accepted yet have gay members be upset that many gay people loathe the church.
Isn't gay life so complicated.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
[ 04. August 2013, 13:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
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.
This is an accurate summary of positions taken by a number of Southern conservative Christian churches, not just the Baptists. In each case, conservative positions (outrageous to almost everyone today) were defended in terms of appeals to (a) scripture, (b) pseudo-science, and (c) the sense that a unique and valuable "way of life" was being threatened.
Is this awfully different from the anti-gay campaign offered us by conservative Christian churches today?
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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.
There's some mischaracterisation going on in this post.
It's not just 'holding a view' when you advocate for something to be kept illegal or kept out of your church, especially when what you want to see perpetuated is a status quo which discriminates against others and deprives them of rights you possess. It's helping to perpetuate a historic injustice.
To name but one example churchgoers in Catholic churches were encouraged to flood the Scottish Government consultation on gay marriage with prepaid pre-printed postcards against marriage equality which were handed out in church. Were these people campaigning for inequality as part of their church 'just holding a view'? They're entitled to express their view - but they're not just 'holding' it in some harmless neutral way. How is it possible to decouple expressing such views from pressure which helps to keep gay people in an unequal situation?
It's meaningless in such cases to speak of "some Christians want everyone to have equal rights, and love all others as themselves ". You might as well say "for certain values of loving 'everyone' and 'everyone' having equal rights where 'everyone' = straight people".
Then we get a false dichotomy 'discrimination can only mean fear and hate and malice' versus attempts to oppose discrimination being characterised as 'bullying'.
[In case it's not obvious, the list of gruesome and heart-breaking persecutions carried out by well-meaning people who thought they were acting out of love for the highest possible motives is, sadly, a very long one indeed!]
Your post purports to be even-handed but its use of loaded terms like 'bullying' and 'thought police' shows it is anything but. Persecutions with a lot of historic impetus behind them don't just die off by themselves in an unassisted process. If they did, it wouldn't have taken hundreds of years to stop Christians advocating for gay people to be executed or imprisoned. Only when people began to speak out about it did anything begin to change.
There's a tension in Christianity caused by the foundational idea of 'testifying' and 'witnessing'. Part of discipleship is witnessing to the truth and witnessing against injustice. This means that when people think something is evil, they're going to tell other Christians about it. If the other Christians think that evil thing is good and holy, they're going to testify back. This is what is happening in the debate over homosexuality.
It's neither 'bullying' on the one part nor 'just holding a view' on the other, though you might find such things at far ends of the spectrum. There's a huge excluded middle here, and the middle is being deliberately excluded to try and attack people speaking up about centuries of oppression of non-straight people. Pro equality people are not somehow all 'bullies' and anti-equality people are not somehow all bystanders just neutrally 'holding a view'. This is a mischaracterisation of what is going on.
There is an impassioned debate about injustice going on which one side is losing, but losing in the context of a situation where they still hold considerable power which they wield against a harmless historically heavily-persecuted and stigmatised group. If you want the people trying to change that to shut up, then essentially you're asking them to let the discrimination just go on and on and on. Unopposed and unexamined discrimination doesn't just die a quick natural death. It just merrily trundles along perpetuating itself.
[ 04. August 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
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.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
And exactly why should we pay attention to people whose views are oxymoronic?
If they believed they were Napoleon we would lock them up for their own safety. If they believed that Microsoft Works was the best software package going we wouldn't let them have charge of software buying decisions. But because the reason that the self-contradictory thing they believe ("Equal rights and no right to marry those you love when they are consenting adults if those adults happen to be the same sex") is religious in nature we should suddenly pay attention to them rather than either (if benign) pat them on the head and tell them to run along and play or (if less benign) take the stick they are using out of their hands and send them to the naughty corner?
Seriously, just because a self-evidently self-contradictory position, the implementation of which hurts people, is religious we should take it seriously?
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.
Then what does it mean? That they are hurting people and campaining to destroy families because they don't care? Is this because they do not see gay people as people, do not see them as capable of love, or they are merely so callous as not to care?
And when they are actively hurting people through their actions (as they are) then they should be made to stop.
quote:
If they are in a minority, they will concede to the majority, and vice versa, but they are entitled to hold an opinion.
Indeed. And we are entitled to call it what it is. Stupid, bigoted, ignorant, oxymoronic, and something that gratuitously hurts people while benefitting no one.
Am I entitled to that opinion? Or is it suddenly only the religious that are entitled to their opinions?
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.
Cry me a river. If what members of the Church believes stays inside the Church doors then it can probably pass without comment. The second it becomes a matter of public policy that they wish to inflict on others through legal measures then the gloves are off. They are actively trying to hurt those I care about. Not just with words, but with the full force of the law. And I am going to treat this the way I would any other biggoted attempt to legislate that my friends' families be legally rent asunder.
On the other hand they are perfectly welcome to take the position that marriage, to them, is not something that should happen and should not happen within the four walls of their Church. And if they believe that then the answer is simple. Even if they are attracted to someone of the same sex they do not have to marry them. And their Church no more has to marry couples of the same sex than the Roman Catholic Church has to marry divorcees. This is the position that is the one that anyone should be allowed to hold. But the second you step outside that public position ("I don't believe in same sex marriage so I won't have one") to the destruction of charity and denial of love ("I don't believe in same sex marriage so no one should be allowed one") it ceases to be a personal view and becomes a cruel political one. And deserves to be treated accordingly. If steamrollering it works, it deserves to be steamrollered. If shaming it works, it deserves to be shamed - after all what is declaring something a sin other than an attempt to shame the other side?
As for Jesus being inclusive, how inclusive is the statement "You can not marry the person you love and in the name of Jesus I am going to stop you from doing so"?
Now take your call for politeness and aim it at your own side. Tell them to stop trying to destroy families. Tell them to just hold their beliefs, and not try to insist that everyone acts on them. Because that is all it will take. People to only behave as your simplification represents them as behaving rather than using force to impose their beliefs on others - and then whinging when they discover that the balance of force is now against them, and yowling when they discover that through their use of force to break or prevent families they have lost almost all moral authority in this society. And this is much of why the proportion of Christians in Britain has fallen by more than 10% in 10 years
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
In other words, Justinian, you are repressing their right to persecute people. Shame on you!
[ 04. August 2013, 17:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Yes, but 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. If he doesn't strive to fix his church he should not be surprised that he's seen as part of the oppression.
Your comments are more about the details of how his church is organized than what it is doing. "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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Are you saying that the Southern Churches were wrong to filter out the members who wanted to keep lynching Negroes and Jews to keep them in their god-ordained place?
Where that filtering happened, and it didn't happen often enough, I would think of it as a good thing no matter how sad it made the lynch mob.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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:
"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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Thanks, that's very interesting! I don't know if his leadership will automatically lead to more mixed churches, but it might attract more people of colour into the Southern Baptist Church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
And the Mormons. Oddly enough the mainline church was integrated until Brigham Young took charge.
Cynics may point out the urge to integrate various missionary oriented churches coincides with the realization that major growth opportunities for these churches lies in areas of the world chock full of non-white people.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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'.
He experiences as a place he wants to be. Other people, especially those outside the church are experiencing the bigotry and oppression.
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.
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
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.
[ 05. August 2013, 09:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Other Christians might reflect on how it acts or might acts. As a non-Christian non British person I do too.
However 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?
[ 05. August 2013, 22:04: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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?
We've already moved on from that discussion about diversity; we're not going to agree on that. However, when I progressed to talking about a possible way forward for Anglicans to remain in the church and approach the fight for gay equality you told me I had no right to suggest any course of action because I'm not an Anglican. So I'm not sure there's much left to say!
Let me agree with you on this: I don't think we should have bishops in the House of Lords, or that the PM should have to pay them any attention on this matter. There's been talk of removing the bishops, but I don't think anything's happened yet. In the meantime, they're obviously going to say what they think.
Finally, I really don't know what kind of action it would take for the CofE to be in the position that you're hoping for, and the OP clearly doesn't either. 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. A cynic (or a sociologist) might say that the changes will occur once the church leadership sees them as being in its best interests. At the moment this isn't deemed to be the case, for whatever reason.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
Just about everyone also knows that the Roman Catholic Church is deeply divided over same sex marriage, female priests, abortion, and contraception. However it'll probably be a cold day in hell before the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are brought even into the 19th Century on such matters as the hierarchy has nailed its colours to the mast.
Plus "The Church of England is deeply divided" isn't necessarily the picture people get. One akin to the bishops, the priests, and the bigots attempting to play Canute is the other reading. And I would point out that the bishops in the House of Lords are divided. Their two camps are fighting tooth and nail to wreck the same sex marriage bill and abstaining while their colleagues fight tooth and nail because they don't want the negative publicity.
When did homophobia become the defining value of Christianity?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
About the time that the Moral Majority decided that they spoke for everyone including the non-religious. Theocracy'r'Us, didn't you know?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
The general rule is that if it's your own private roof you can do whatever you like, but if you're offering a service for sale to the public you don't get to decide who constitutes "the public".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Have you ever considered that apportioning legal rights based on religious affiliation has a very ugly history?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
OK. So you are happy to accept anyone who professes Jesus Christ as Lord regardless of what they do. Regardless of the love they seek to destroy. The charity they seek to destroy. If your actual words are true you wouldn't give a flying fuck if they were setting up burning crosses and wearing white sheets. You wouldn't judge them because they are your brothers in Christ.
Have I understood your position accurately? You really wouldn't judge them as other than brothers and sisters in Christ if they were setting up burning crosses and wearing white sheets in the name of Jesus Christ?
For that matter are you saying that you wouldn't judge one of your brothers and sisters in Christ, and especially not a priest or a pastor, if they were involved in child abuse?
Or rather than this being a matter of principle are we actually haggling over the price? For all your stated principles there are some things that could be done by Christians that you actually would judge? You merely don't think that anti-gay bigotry, a denial of love, and an attempt to make people second class citizens based on who they love is something worth speaking out about. It's not that big a deal. In which case by not speaking out and instead extending unconditional brotherhood you are tacitly condoning the actions of the bigots within your church. You are exactly what MLK was objecting to in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The so-called moderate who rallies round his tribe in preference to justice.
Which camp do you fall into?
- 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
(There is, of course, a fourth category. Those who avoid the issue because they are engaged over there - but if you were one of those you would not be posting on this thread.)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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. ...
Belief is one thing, getting a democratic government to impose one's beliefs on others is something else. If those Christians say they want everyone to have equal rights, and they also say the government should not allow certain individuals to marry someone with the wrong genitals, then it's patently obvious those Christians do not want everyone to have equal rights. why is this so tough to understand?
It's like me saying everyone has a right to have a dog, but because I have a cat, I can ask the government to take away my neighbour's dogs.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
Well if you're not standing in judgement of homosexuals, no doubt you'll be delighted to give them the same rights to marry that you give all the other people you don't stand in judgement of.
Frankly, though, I'd much prefer it if you judged away morally and let the law give me equality anyway. Because I don't actually care that much what you think of my sexuality. The views I care about are God's and the law's, and I think God is just absolutely fine with me being gay. I'm just waiting for the law to fully catch up. After that, sod the other opinions floating around.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
So you see people in gay relationships as 'going astray'? Why not come out and say it then?
As soon as you start calling people's natural, good, beneficial relationships 'going astray' then you are being homophobic and judgmental in my book.
If someone said you were going astray because you have a heterosexual marriage how would you feel? It cuts to the centre of who we are. No wonder it hurts those who are gay or lesbian.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
Suddenly it's OK to be judgemental, but only when it's judging in one way?
A comment that I don't judge fellow Christians somehow means that I do judge everyone else?
Where did I say that I disapproved of anyone's sexuality?
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?
Where was the implication that gay people were going astray? We all go astray, in many ways. It's not for us to decide on the sins of others. I'm of the mind, as previously stated, that the living Christ will convict us, will help us to see where we are going astray, and will lead us into all that is right and good. ISTM that it's sometimes those who put their interpretation of words of scripture before the guidance of Christ who are more likely to try to write out a crib-list of sins with a hierarchy and judge others according to it.
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. The influence and coercion of others is a danger we must all be constantly aware of, as is a desire to conform and protect a flag or an organisation at the cost of human suffering. None of your camps applies to me. I give my own opinion clearly when the subject arises, and remain open to discuss and to listen. I have and do take time to think through and research relevant aspects. And I do love all others as myself. I hope for the same from others, but don't hold my breath.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
There is a deep religious meaning to holy matrimony,
Rather, it is fairly shallow. As has been pointed out on this site more than once, marriage as something to fuss about is relatively new. Paul opined it was better avoided.
Not allowing same-sex marriage is judging.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
And many Christians opposed that law for precisely that reason. Still do, if we're to take their claims about having deeply held beliefs seriously. I'm not sure if the passage of a law is convincing evidence that such a law now has universal support, even among those who previously opposed it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
There is a bias. You have a definite pro-your form of Christainity bias.
quote:
Suddenly it's OK to be judgemental, but only when it's judging in one way?
It's not "suddenly" OK to be judgemental. The only question is what it is OK to be judgemental about. Would you be judgemental about the examples I listed? Burning firey crosses and wearing white sheets or fucking kids? Or would you allow them to continue and not judge?
It is OK to be judgemental about people hurting others. To make them stop, by force if necessary.
quote:
Where did I say that I disapproved of anyone's sexuality?
As Orfeo said, whether you approve or not is secondary to whether you seek to deny others rights. It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do on the outside that counts.
quote:
and yet civil partnership gives the same provision in law as marriage.
This is false. For one you can have a civil partnership to the strains of Nine Inch Nails 'Closer' but not to The Wedding March. For another marriage has meaning in international law, civil partnerships don't.
quote:
There is a deep religious meaning to holy matrimony,
Fine. Take the term 'holy matrimony' and call your marriages that. We will use the secular term 'marriage' for the secular event that you and yours have tried to steal from us.
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.
Fine. You can have 'Holy Matrimony' to mean whatever you want. You get to define that. You do not get to make your naked power grab over 'Marriage' - a secular and legal institution.
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.
Bollocks! In the entire history of humanity no one has ever always done what is good and right.
quote:
None of your camps applies to me.
Fine. Answer my questions then. What would you do about kiddy fuckers within the church? Would you accept open KKK members as brothers in Jesus Christ? Would you judge them? And would you try to stop them?
Except that is not a question I believe you can answer. Because you know that to not judge them is to condone their behaviour.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
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? What does it need to be feed from, exactly? I'm not here to defend it, as I see myself as a Christian without having to identify with any particular denomination, but I'm interested in people's perspectives.
If the state has enforced Christianity in the past, I guess it was a very long time ago?
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? For some, like me, that may be to welcome gay marriage and pray for God's blessing upon all who take marriage seriously, but I pray too for those with deep convictions and 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.
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.
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?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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:
How long will it be before the other denominations are taken to court?
How long has the Roman Catholic Church been able to maintain its ban on marrying divorcees? Pretty long, I'd say. Much longer than "a very long time ago". So yes, while someone may take denominations to court over this (or any other frivolous matter), is there any reason to believe such suits would fare any better against a motion for summary dismissal than one compelling a Catholic priest to marry someone previously divorced?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the state has enforced Christianity in the past, I guess it was a very long time ago?
While gay marriage remains illegal and the only even vaguely coherent argument against it is religious, the state is enforcing Christianity. And stealing a secular contract and turning its definition over to Christians. Now if there was a genuine moral argument that isn't simply risible you might be able to claim differently.
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?
Of course. You have no more of a right and no less of a duty to stand up for what you believe in than I do. And one of the things I believe is opposing evil and promoting justice, including dealing with the powerful when they rain down unjust torments.
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.
Fine. You're uneasy with people being called bigots. But you're perfectly happy to let them spew their bile all over my friends. You're willing to let oppression continue.
It's not a battle until the other side starts fighting back. You on the other hand want the other side to kowtow. But won't judge those you identify with.
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.
The law stands right now against the freedom of Christian beliefs. There are Christians who believe that gay marriages should be legal and believe it because they are Christians.
The proposed law does not stand against the ability of Christian denominations to choose their own position on gay marriage.
Anyone who is in favour of the freedom of Christian belief should be in favour of gay marriage. The only people who oppose it should be those who nakedly want one subset of beliefs to trump all.
quote:
How long will it be before the other denominations are taken to court?
Taken to court? I give it a matter of weeks. And I give the court case a matter of hours before it's laughed out by the judge and the Church in question wins costs.
This is because the law gives Christians fair protection. But every group contains jackasses.
How long before denominations are successfully taken to court? The answer to that is simple. It'll take about as long to force denominations to marry gay people as it's taken to force the Roman Catholic Church to marry divorcees.
Actually it'll take less time for most denominations. But that won't be handled by the court system. It'll be handled by the denominations in question civilising and realising that they've been kicking up a fuss for nothing.
quote:
How long before the words 'holy matrimony' are claimed as a right,
Holy is an explicitly religious term. Marriage is an explicitly legal one. Holy matrimony will be claimed as a right when denominations actually start doing rather than opposing what is right. But that will be an internal fight with each denomination deciding things for itself. It won't be claimed from outside.
quote:
as well as the wedding march,
It's nice that you want special treatment from the law to the point of wanting exclusive use of a piece of music that is more than 150 years old.
quote:
Do you really believe that individual churches will be able to develop their own responses in complete freedom?
No. I believe on the other hand they will be a lot freer than they are now with your theocrats opposing religious liberty and wanting to continue the outright ban of all churches from being able to marry. I do not believe that they will remain completely free of the views of their members, however.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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?
I suppose the issue comes down to what the CofE is actually for. As a state church it's meant to have some sort of socio-political influence over the state. The CofE also sees itself, or is seen, as the religious voice of the nation. But is it really achieving its potential? Some clergy think disestablishment would be a liberation.
quote:
If the state has enforced Christianity in the past, I guess it was a very long time ago?
Maybe 'enforced' was a bit harsh, but English law is said to be based on the Christian faith.
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?
Christians should stand up for what they believe in, but does it make sense to expect a post-Christian state to retain or enact laws that will be meaningful to Christians but won't have much resonance with the secular majority?
Interestingly, Brazil has a far higher percentage of practising Christians than the UK does, according to Wiki, yet it also allows SSM. I wonder if gay people over there are quite as anti-Christian as the ones in the UK?
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?
Actually, there's an RC priest who suggests that religious groups should relinquish the word 'marriage' to the secular state and use the phrase 'holy matrimony' instead. This might be a good idea, because I can't imagine secular SSM activists fighting to use the word 'holy'! Of course, what this really means is that the RCC should withdraw from offering legally-binding marriage ceremonies in countries with SSM and simply offer religious ones. Apparently British Sikhs are considering this. Perhaps other religious groups should as well.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/07/24/is-it-time-the-catholic-church-got-out-of-the-marriage-business/
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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".
Actually if you take the legal requirement for schools to have a Christian-based assembly and teach Christian-based religious education as being enforcement of Christianity then "a very long time ago" is "now".
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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?
You seem to be saying:
a) civil partnerships are the same as marriage; and
b) marriage is special in a way that civil partnerships aren't.
This is a contradiction.
If you think marriage is special (as I do) and you are committed to giving people equal rights, then you are committed to marriage equality. By definition.
Christians who are against marriage equality are against equal rights. Again, by definition.
What they think of civil partnerships is beside the point. 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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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.
Soror Magna lives in a country where there is no such thing as a civil partnership, and there is such a thing as marriage for same sex couples, and the churches have been able to get along just fine for 10 years with no clouds on the horizon.
Unless you think that christian doctrine and theology ought only to reflect the temporal reality of England, you need to brush up on what is going on in the world outside one -- well, two -- small islands off the coast of Europe.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
... civil partnership gives the same provision in law as marriage. ...
I call bullshit. It doesn't. There is no obligation on other jurisdictions to recognize civil partnerships, as there is historically with marriage, civil or religious. For example, in the US, State A will recognize any and all marriages contracted in State B, even if a particular marriage would be illegal in State A. However, State A is under no obligation to recognize civil partnerships contracted elsewhere.
This was at the heart of the US Supreme Court ruling against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA required the federal government to deny the benefits of marriage to a particular group of people who were legally married in their state(s). Justice Ginsburg described this as, "There are two kinds of marriage: full marriage and the skim-milk marriage."
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Right. But Raptor's Eye is proposing a theology of marriage and a theology about being gay that, if it is to be valid at all, must be valid universally -- not just in England or in the UK. For example, he proposes that because civil partnerships in England give the same legal rights to same-sex couples as marriage, there is no need for them to consider marriage. As a statement about theology, that fails, because it relates only to England (if indeed it does -- I hear that CPs are in fact less extensive than marriage).
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
That previous post was not commenting on Soror Magna's, but responding to a post I evidently imagined I read from Svitlana. Sorry for the confusion.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
I don't claim to be completely unbiased, but I do try to be: to filter out prejudice, which is harmful as it fosters intolerance and hatred. Anti-Christian prejudice is as bad as anti-LGB prejudice, anti-racial prejudice, anti-church or denomination prejudice, and every other kind of prejudice.
What I'm hearing pulled apart is a straw man Christian who thinks he's entitled to dictate to the government, who comes from a long line of wicked people, and who is fighting to try to make sure that gay people don't have equal rights. This does not correspond to me, nor to any Christian I have ever met. 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.
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.
Being non-judgemental means to me observing behaviour without condemnation of the human being, rather helping them to observe it for themselves if they want me to. This involves listening as well as talking, so that they may learn to resist the temptation of whichever tendencies they happen to have. We all have tendencies of one kind or another. I don't see myself as superior to anyone else. At the same time, of course vulnerable people must be protected.
I grieve as I witness the harm people do to each other and themselves, whatever it is: lying, cheating, stealing, grabbing for themselves with no thought for others, etc. These are the sins I'm most likely to observe, day by day, rather than those you want to give me as a scenario.
I hope and pray that more people will invite God into their lives, to help us human beings to overcome all that's evil in the world. Only love overcomes evil, not hatred. Christianity is about the God who is love. It always has been. The straw man doesn't exist. Billions of Christians around the world do, all of whom get it wrong, and all of whom will have their own opinions. I hope they will continue to try to get it right and won't have their voices silenced by those prejudiced against them.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
The anti-Christian prejudice is caused by two things.
1: Christians kicking people when they are down and trying to deny them rights
2: More moderate Christians coming up with explanations why giving people a damn good kicking is Tradition and part of Christianity and that to oppose it is prejudice.
When Christianity stops being the leading bastion of homophobia in Britain, people will stop shooting back. As it is, the attempted denial of rights is lead by Christians under a Christian banner. And the major denominations at an institutional level are homophobic.
Tell me. Why are you so reluctant to have Christians lay down their arms in the battle they are waging against love and marriage?
quote:
What I'm hearing pulled apart is a straw man Christian who thinks he's entitled to dictate to the government
Given that you yourself are trying to dictate the definition of marriage to the country and are claiming the untruth that civil partnership is the same as marriage then you are.
quote:
and who is fighting to try to make sure that gay people don't have equal rights.
That is no straw man. Every single Christian who is opposing gay marriage is trying to make sure that gay people don't have equal rights. This includes the entire hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, every single Anglican bishop who bothered to vote in the Lords, and the Anglican synod, and much much more.
And every single person who follows them without open disagreement is tacitly lending their weight to that fight.
quote:
This does not correspond to me, nor to any Christian I have ever met.
You don't know one single Christian who opposes gay marriage? Right.
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.
With all due respect it does not matter why they are trying to deny people rights. The fact is that they are materially trying to prevent people having rights, and are directly trying to ensure that they are oppressed. While the battle is being waged you don't care if the enemy soldiers are there for country, for friendship, or because they are just bad people. The important thing is that they are coming towards you and those you love while armed with guns and shooting.
When the battle stops we can start with reasons, apologies, and forgiveness.
But in order for the battle to stop, two things need to happen. Either one side needs to give up any hope of equal rights or the other side needs to give up its attempt to oppress them. And I side with the oppressed, not the oppressors.
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.
You are not trying to engage with me in the slightest. You are trying to reiterate your incoherent claim that you do not judge. And you are ducking my points.
Answer my question if you actually give a damn about engagement. What would you do if you knew a fellow Christian was a kiddy fucker? What would you do if you knew they were a klansman who burned crosses on black peoples lawns?
I have asked you this simple, factual question several times. And every single time you have ducked them and fobbed me off with wishy-washy nonsense. You do not seek to engage except on your terms. Terms under which no statement is allowed to be challenged. That isn't engagement. It's letting islands pass in the night.
quote:
Only love overcomes evil, not hatred.
This is a fine sentiment. It is also complete bollocks. Tell me what stopped the Holocaust - was it love, or was it violence? Tell me what ended slavery in America - was it love or was it violence?
Violence isn't always the tool of choice. For that matter it isn't often the tool of choice. Bu the biggest enabler of evil isn't the devil. It's bad systems. And sometimes those systems need to be smashed with a hammer. And sometimes force needs to be applied.
To rescue someone from an abusive relationship, force needs to be applied (in the form of a restraining order normally) to end the abuse. Only once the abuse is ended can the healing really work. Otherwise even before the cracked ribs are healed the arm gets broken.
And the Christian opposition to the legal recognition of love is abuse. Christians, however, don't like it when the people they are abusing hit back. And they don't like it when others try to drag them off their victims. Instead they turn round and complain of force even while they are standing on peoples backs.
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.
And above all I am in favour of giving you empathy. Making you actually listen to what other Christians actually say. Putting you in the position of those many Christians claim quite literally deserve to be tortured for ever.
While Fred Phelps and Stephen Green are still wandering around and not in prison the idea that Christians are being silenced is shown to be the paranoid, delusional fantasy that it is.
[ 08. August 2013, 15:29: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
From the perspective of an LGBT Christian (myself), Justinian is on the money. People are entitled to have a particular theological perspective on gay issues but they don't have the right to make that perspective the law. Anti-Christian prejudice is absolutely not as bad as homophobia - in mostly-Christian, Western countries, Christianity enjoys immense privilege, especially in the UK, and when did you last hear about Christian-phobic bullying? But LGBT people are still harassed and attacked.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
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! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Can I remind people that if they get into a personal conflict with another user that they ought to start a hell thread and post in Hell? There is a very fine line between attacking arguments/posting style and attacking people. I think querying whether other people are 'engaging' to the point of saying 'You do not seek to engage except on your terms' is getting into the realms of personal accusation. You need to rein that sort of thing back or post in Hell as per commandment 4, Justinian.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
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.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
