| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2010 10:31:54 PM · #4551 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There's no problem until Person B insists on having their marriage ceremony on church property, at which point Person A is offended because their church is used for something they disagree with. I realize that the Ocean Grove situation involved property that was open to the public. What I don't get is why a gay couple would even want to have their ceremony on property owned by a church that didn't approve of gay marriage. |
What you don't seem to comprehend is that the church cannot have it both ways? If the church provides services to the general public, then they cannot decide that they can select who can avail themselves of their services.
Personally, I would much rather see churches lose their tax exempt status... a process where they essentially are subsidized by the general populace.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 10:51:59 PM · #4552 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What I'm saying is that the government should not be free to pass laws that restrict free practice of religion as provided by the first amendment. |
"only a few decades ago, laws prohibiting interracial marriages were regularly defended on religious grounds. In striking down anti-miscegenation statutes forty years ago, the Court made clear that religious objections cannot stand in the way of enforcing equality principles in the public sphere."
"if we replace "sexual orientation" with "race" in these cases, their outcomes would become obvious to almost everyone. If a photography business refused to provide services to African Americans customers due to religious objections, almost no one would argue that it should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws."
"Many sincere, deeply devout people object to being referred to as racists, sexists homophobes, etc. They generally point to passages in their holy texts -- the Hebrew Scriptures, Christian Scriptures, Qur'an, etc. -- which they interpret as requiring them to discriminate against others. However, discrimination against others based on a holy text is still discrimination. Further, it is a violation of a major theme that permeates all holy texts and religions: the theory of reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule... Whenever religious institutions are perceived by the general public as operating to a lower ethical standard than the rest of society, religious conversion becomes increasingly difficult to achieve."
How can religion be a credible moral standard when it's so often the last and most formidable obstacle to basic human decency? |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:09:50 PM · #4553 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What you don't seem to comprehend is that the church cannot have it both ways? If the church provides services to the general public, then they cannot decide that they can select who can avail themselves of their services.
|
I'm not sure why you think that, but I do realize that the Ocean Grove case that has been brought up was a situation in which a church was denying a gay couple the use of their property which was open to the public. I don't disagree with that specific decision. But, the government needs to be careful not to take other cases like this too far. Church buildings that are privately owned are open to the public (at least most of them are). Anyone who wants to worship there can do so. If the courts decided that churches must allow their privately owned buildings to be used for gay marriage ceremonies, that's a violation of the first amendment. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:19:40 PM · #4554 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What you don't seem to comprehend is that the church cannot have it both ways? If the church provides services to the general public, then they cannot decide that they can select who can avail themselves of their services.
|
I'm not sure why you think that, but I do realize that the Ocean Grove case that has been brought up was a situation in which a church was denying a gay couple the use of their property which was open to the public. I don't disagree with that specific decision. But, the government needs to be careful not to take other cases like this too far. Church buildings that are privately owned are open to the public (at least most of them are). Anyone who wants to worship there can do so. If the courts decided that churches must allow their privately owned buildings to be used for gay marriage ceremonies, that's a violation of the first amendment. |
Would gays be welcome to worship there along with the general public? |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:32:37 PM · #4555 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"only a few decades ago, laws prohibiting interracial marriages were regularly defended on religious grounds. In striking down anti-miscegenation statutes forty years ago, the Court made clear that religious objections cannot stand in the way of enforcing equality principles in the public sphere."
"if we replace "sexual orientation" with "race" in these cases, their outcomes would become obvious to almost everyone. If a photography business refused to provide services to African Americans customers due to religious objections, almost no one would argue that it should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws."
"Many sincere, deeply devout people object to being referred to as racists, sexists homophobes, etc. They generally point to passages in their holy texts -- the Hebrew Scriptures, Christian Scriptures, Qur'an, etc. -- which they interpret as requiring them to discriminate against others. However, discrimination against others based on a holy text is still discrimination. Further, it is a violation of a major theme that permeates all holy texts and religions: the theory of reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule... Whenever religious institutions are perceived by the general public as operating to a lower ethical standard than the rest of society, religious conversion becomes increasingly difficult to achieve."
How can religion be a credible moral standard when it's so often the last and most formidable obstacle to basic human decency? |
Be careful comparing race and sexual orientation. The Bible does not say that it is sinful to be African, Asian, American, European, etc. The Bible does say that it is sinful to be homosexual. Discrimination on the basis of race is not biblical. People who claimed that the Bible told them to discriminate based on race were deceiving themselves into falsely misinterpreting what the Bible really says. You really need to butcher the Bible and ignore context in order to come to the conclusion that it condones racial discrimination. On the contrary, you need to butcher the Bible quite a bit to conclude that it DOES condone homosexuality.
Saying that Christianity must be wrong about all moral issues because some people were wrong in using the Bible to justify racial discrimination would be like saying that Islam must be wrong about all moral issues because some people were wrong in using the Quran to justify mass murder. You could use the same logic to say that the US government must be wrong about all moral issues because it was wrong to allow slavery for so long, in which case why should we trust the government to lead us in the right direction regarding discrimination against gays? |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:40:26 PM · #4556 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What you don't seem to comprehend is that the church cannot have it both ways? If the church provides services to the general public, then they cannot decide that they can select who can avail themselves of their services.
|
I'm not sure why you think that, but I do realize that the Ocean Grove case that has been brought up was a situation in which a church was denying a gay couple the use of their property which was open to the public. I don't disagree with that specific decision. But, the government needs to be careful not to take other cases like this too far. Church buildings that are privately owned are open to the public (at least most of them are). Anyone who wants to worship there can do so. If the courts decided that churches must allow their privately owned buildings to be used for gay marriage ceremonies, that's a violation of the first amendment. |
I seriously doubt that the government is as you say taking things too far as the decisions rendered in instances such as these are rendered by the courts and not government.
There are many issues addressed in the First Amendment, and it would be interesting to see if stances such as that which you seem to advocate run afoul of the separation of state and religion issue, as the church involvement is issues of this nature could be construed as a form of political interference. Viewed in this perspective churches could conceivably lose their tax exempt status.
Considering that society as a whole subsidizes churches to some extent, how is it that you can justify exclusion of one element of society.
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:46:30 PM · #4557 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Be careful comparing race and sexual orientation. The Bible does not say that it is sinful to be African, Asian, American, European, etc. The Bible does say that it is sinful to be homosexual. |
Perhaps you need to go back and re-read Shannon's submission.
The issue at hand in this instance is not one of biblical interpretation but rather one regarding the legality of refusing a service that a legal entity denies to a particular group within society... That is the essence of the discussion at hand.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:49:29 PM · #4558 |
Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Ephesians 6:9:And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
Titus 2:9:Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:49:53 PM · #4559 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I seriously doubt that the government is as you say taking things too far as the decisions rendered in instances such as these are rendered by the courts and not government.
There are many issues addressed in the First Amendment, and it would be interesting to see if stances such as that which you seem to advocate run afoul of the separation of state and religion issue, as the church involvement is issues of this nature could be construed as a form of political interference. Viewed in this perspective churches could conceivably lose their tax exempt status.
Considering that society as a whole subsidizes churches to some extent, how is it that you can justify exclusion of one element of society.
Ray |
I didn't say that the government IS taking things to far, I said that they need to be careful NOT to take things to far.
Also, the church does have the right to decided who may or may not be married in its sanctuary. It is private property. Also, churches are communities, and guess what, communities are exclusive. You don't hear about married guys complaining because they were denied entrance into a community for single mothers do you? Communities are exclusive and they have prerequisites for membership. It's been that way for thousands of years. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:52:10 PM · #4560 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Ephesians 6:9:And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
Titus 2:9:Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. |
Thank you Brennan for taking a bunch of Bible verses out of context, pasting them here, and then providing absolutely no explanation for doing so. Maybe you didn't realize, but this thread is about gay rights, not slavery. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 11:58:42 PM · #4561 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I seriously doubt that the government is as you say taking things too far as the decisions rendered in instances such as these are rendered by the courts and not government.
There are many issues addressed in the First Amendment, and it would be interesting to see if stances such as that which you seem to advocate run afoul of the separation of state and religion issue, as the church involvement is issues of this nature could be construed as a form of political interference. Viewed in this perspective churches could conceivably lose their tax exempt status.
Considering that society as a whole subsidizes churches to some extent, how is it that you can justify exclusion of one element of society.
Ray |
I didn't say that the government IS taking things to far, I said that they need to be careful NOT to take things to far.
Also, the church does have the right to decided who may or may not be married in its sanctuary. It is private property. Also, churches are communities, and guess what, communities are exclusive. You don't hear about married guys complaining because they were denied entrance into a community for single mothers do you? Communities are exclusive and they have prerequisites for membership. It's been that way for thousands of years. |
...and of course that makes it right.
You did not address the issue of legality vs biblical interpretation I mentioned earlier, nor did you deal with the question of tax exemption and the possibility that the actions of churches could be construed as a form of political interference.
The issue that churches are exclusive is almost laughable when one considers that they are at the public trough via their tax exempt status.
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 12:01:48 AM · #4562 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Thank you Brennan for taking a bunch of Bible verses out of context, pasting them here, and then providing absolutely no explanation for doing so. Maybe you didn't realize, but this thread is about gay rights, not slavery. |
This coming from one who almost managed to take this topic completely off track.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 00:02:27. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 12:03:49 AM · #4563 |
Then I misunderstood your previous comment that the bible had been twisted to justify slavery and racism. I thought direct quotes might shed some light. Most of the quotes used by Christians to speak of the evil of homosexuality are from Leviticus, but they seem to pick and choose which bits of the Old Testament to observe, and which to ignore. Much as a previous generation picked and chose phrases to justify slavery. Paul speaks against homosexuals and marriage in the same book.
Religion ought to be a personal choice, and therefore a bad basis for law. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:05:53 AM · #4564 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and of course that makes it right.
You did not address the issue of legality vs biblical interpretation I mentioned earlier, nor did you deal with the question of tax exemption and the possibility that the actions of churches could be construed as a form of political interference.
The issue that churches are exclusive is almost laughable when one considers that they are at the public trough via their tax exempt status.
Ray |
Of course it's right. Communities depend on exclusivity. As soon as communities lose their exclusivity, they are no longer communities.
Am I required to address every single issue that you bring up? I chose not to deal with the question of tax exemption because I don't know much about the subject. As for legality vs. biblical interpretation, I'm not sure what post you're referring to.
Of course church buildings are not exclusive. The Christian community, however, is exclusive. You're really stuck on this tax exemption thing. What's the big deal? Why is it so important to the issue of gay rights? |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:24:15 AM · #4565 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Then I misunderstood your previous comment that the bible had been twisted to justify slavery and racism. I thought direct quotes might shed some light. Most of the quotes used by Christians to speak of the evil of homosexuality are from Leviticus, but they seem to pick and choose which bits of the Old Testament to observe, and which to ignore. Much as a previous generation picked and chose phrases to justify slavery. Paul speaks against homosexuals and marriage in the same book.
Religion ought to be a personal choice, and therefore a bad basis for law. |
Direct quotes taken out of context is exactly the sort of twisting that I'm talking about. You can take any Bible verse and tell someone what you think it says, but that's not always what the author meant. For example, in Ephesians 4-6 Paul talks about how Christian believers should act and live in unity with one another. He tells how children should respect parents, wives should respect husbands, and slaves should respect masters. Paul is not giving permission to go out and get a bunch of slaves, he's telling people how the should act in various kinds of relationships. The context of Colossians is the same. Paul is talking about relationships. In neither letter does Paul condone harsh treatment or increased slavery. On the contrary, he tells masters to treat their slaves justly and reminds them that they have a master too (Jesus). Titus writes directions for teaching all groups of people (i.e. what to teach women, what to teach men, what to teach slaves, etc.) and Peter talks about the need for all people to submit to their authorities (not just slaves submitting to masters).
Context, context, context... |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 08:08:42 AM · #4566 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Context, context, context... |
I would agree with yoou absoolutely. Context is critical.
The context in which you interpret the bible is one where secular society has prohibited slavery and determined a different moral direction. Accordingly, you have grown up believing slavery to be wrong. You therefore interpret your holy book (which *cannot* be wrong) in a way that does not actively promote slavery.
The context in which 18th Century slave owners grew up was one where slavery was normalised - and they interpreted the bible to support their cause.
The context in which your children or grandchildren will grow up is one where homosexuality is normalised, and they will read the bible in a way that does not condemn all homosexual people.
The bible will always be right because the people reading it will always interpret it in a way that reflects their context. There is an inexorable movement towards the fair treatment of gay people and your arguments will be seen in the same light as we now see those of pro-slavers and anti-apartheid campaigners.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 08:09:17 AM · #4567 |
I don't think any of the white supremacist churches such as The World Church of the Creator or The Twelve Tribes have been sued for refusing to admit blacks into membership or refusing to do black weddings. They also haven't been sued for their hate speech - protested against - absolutely, but never sued. Blacks who wish to marry just go find a church that will do it for them. If a photographer who was a member of The World Church of the Creator said, "I don't do no n*** weddings. I only do inbred pig f**ker weddings." They wouldn't get sued for it. The black couple in question would go find another photographer, and tell EVERYBODY how shabbily they were treated, so that the photographers buisness would go into the toilet. So, why can't gays do the same thing? If you look at Elaine Whatshername's website - it's pretty obvious that she's religious. There's cutesy little scripture verses on EVERY page. I dare say she may have been targeted by this couple because she was a person of faith. Like I said before - she was being gracious to say no. She could have gone and done a bad job or delivered 300 pictures of feet. What she did wrong was saying WHY she wouldn't shoot the wedding.
Matthew said: The context in which you interpret the bible is one where secular society has prohibited slavery and determined a different moral direction. Accordingly, you have grown up believing slavery to be wrong. You therefore interpret your holy book (which *cannot* be wrong) in a way that does not actively promote slavery.
The context in which 18th Century slave owners grew up was one where slavery was normalised - and they interpreted the bible to support their cause.
The problem with your argument was that there have always been persons of faith who looked at scriptures and said, "This is wrong." William Wilberforce in England, The Religious Society of Friends - instrumental in the Underground Railroad in the U.S., The Mennonites, etc. Robert Barclay, and early Quaker apologist said that the Scriptures are a dangerous thing in the hands of someone who doesn't have the Spirit - and used justifying slavery and the Inquisition as examples of why it is dangerous.
And on the flip side of that there are STILL people who use scriptures to justify racism - see my above examples of The World Church of the Creator and The Twelve Tribes.
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 08:28:54. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 08:18:26 AM · #4568 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Religious people should not be free to break any law. What I'm saying is that the government should not be free to pass laws that restrict free practice of religion as provided by the first amendment. |
So if a religion requires that a community stone an adulterer, you would oppose any law that required due process and prohibited vigilante action?
If a religion required that women be subservient to men, you would oppose any law that prohibited sex-discrimination?
If a religion required that animals be slaughtered in a particular way by an augur, you would oppose any animal cruelty legislation that required animals to be treated/killed humanely?
If an animal was considered holy, you would not allow the government to order it to be culled as part of a disease control program?
Does this hold true for any religion that anyone comes up with?
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Incidentally, this is happening in the UK. Faith schools are getting an exemption from non-discrimination legislation to add "religious character" to sex education classes:
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8533235.stm |
I don't see how this is a problem. The school is still required to teach all the views. The only difference is that the school is no longer prevented from telling the students which view their faith holds. |
Really? When we as a society make a decision to ban discrimination, religious schools should have a get-out clause?
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 08:54:24 AM · #4569 |
| Here in Utah, the Mormon Church directs the Public Schools to teach only abstinence, failing that, one becomes a good Mormon.. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:34:24 AM · #4570 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Here in Utah, the Mormon Church directs the Public Schools to teach only abstinence, failing that, one becomes a good Mormon.. |
LOL! |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 12:14:08 PM · #4571 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and of course that makes it right.
You did not address the issue of legality vs biblical interpretation I mentioned earlier, nor did you deal with the question of tax exemption and the possibility that the actions of churches could be construed as a form of political interference.
The issue that churches are exclusive is almost laughable when one considers that they are at the public trough via their tax exempt status.
Ray |
Of course it's right. Communities depend on exclusivity. As soon as communities lose their exclusivity, they are no longer communities.
Am I required to address every single issue that you bring up? I chose not to deal with the question of tax exemption because I don't know much about the subject. As for legality vs. biblical interpretation, I'm not sure what post you're referring to.
Of course church buildings are not exclusive. The Christian community, however, is exclusive. You're really stuck on this tax exemption thing. What's the big deal? Why is it so important to the issue of gay rights? |
Goodness gracious... I must say that I am surprised with your answer as it fails to address the questions raised.
The "and of course that makes it right" comment alluded specifically to the bold portion of comment that things had been done this way for "thousands of years" and had nothing to do with the issue of "exclusivity".
With regards to "legality vs. biblical interpretation" the point being advanced was that Scalvert's post dealt with legal issues and that your response was one where you dealt exclusively with biblical interpretations. Essentially what I was saying is that you cannot answer a legal question by making reference to the bible... at least not in the example I quoted.
The issue of tax exemption is a rather simple one. What I am advocating here is that churches ought to remain neutral on social issues, at least in the political sense, since failure to do so could quite conceivably be construed as a form of political interference, which could give rise to their losing their tax free exemption.
What's the big deal? Why is it so important to the issue of gay rights? Simply put, if the church is adamant on getting involved in political issues then it is only fair that they forgo their tax exemption status... remember that little issue of separation of church and state... that would be the big deal here.
I do hope this clarifies matters for you a tad.
Have a great day, :O)
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 12:26:08 PM · #4572 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
What she did wrong was saying WHY she wouldn't shoot the wedding. |
Legally, I fear you are wrong. Legally she could not and ought not have discriminated, regardless of her motivations. What she did was "Legally" wrong and that is the sole reason why she got sued.
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
Matthew said: The context in which you interpret the bible is one where secular society has prohibited slavery and determined a different moral direction. Accordingly, you have grown up believing slavery to be wrong. You therefore interpret your holy book (which *cannot* be wrong) in a way that does not actively promote slavery.
The context in which 18th Century slave owners grew up was one where slavery was normalised - and they interpreted the bible to support their cause.
The problem with your argument was that there have always been persons of faith who looked at scriptures and said, "This is wrong." |
...and the problem with your argument is that you are pointing to the exception rather than the rule, or if you prefer, to the rebels within the church who saw the flaws in the interpretation of the scriptures at that time. There is no denying the fact that most within religious institutions readily adhered to the scriptures as they were being proffered at the time.
Keep reading Matthew's submission and you will find that he makes reference to tolerance in the future and where our grandchildren might interpret the issue of homosexuality in a totally different vane.
One would think that tolerance is something we all strive to develop and enhance.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 12:27:11. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 12:26:41 PM · #4573 |
| tell that to Jeremiah Wright |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 12:29:38 PM · #4574 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
tell that to Jeremiah Wright |
Tell him what exactly and in what context?
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 12:36:06 PM · #4575 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by alans_world:
Here in Utah, the Mormon Church directs the Public Schools to teach only abstinence, failing that, one becomes a good Mormon.. |
LOL! |
Yep...kinda like here the church strongly suggested couples try the rhythm method.
Do you know what they call couples that practiced this: PARENTS :o)
Ray |
|
