Gay rights protesters disrupt Sunday service

The gays need to just vote with their dollars and move somewhere they are respected, and stop this silly shenanigans.

They got beat in a democratic vote. As much as I think they should have equal rights, they are just going to have to accept that they live in a homophobic state at the very least, and a homophobic country most likely.

When you get defeated in a fair democratic vote, you just have to accept that's the law of the land. They should just move to somewhere less backwards like main Europe where they will be given respect.

Originally posted by Velvet Death
I'm afraid that all the in your face activism will cause a backlash. There may be enough radical christians to mobilize and force a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution locking in their idea of marriage. Slow and steady may win this race.

Don't be afraid, be joyful!
This is the object of the whole charade.
Get a few guys to dress in pink and wear lippy to frighten the gullable "innocents",
and then tell the world the gays did it.
Next thing you know there's the backlash many are secretly hoping for.

You just have to pray no-one considers how out of character these actions were for the gay community.

It's obvious whose agenda this "protest" serves.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Clearskies

 

They were charged with 'Harassment', because, although they were on public property, they COULDN'T get a permit and decided to go anyway.

You don’t have any idea why they were forced to leave. Admit it;

Please, tell me. Why were they forced to leave? With a link.
Thanks.

Never mind. I see your edit, will be back.

Here's what your link also says;

The protesters were jailed overnight, but a judge later dismissed any criminal counts as having no basis in fact. The individuals then filed the damage lawsuit against the city.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel had concluded in dismissing the civil rights claim that a "permit" granted by the city to the homosexuals allowed police to silence the Christian activists' message on public streets.

"It is without question that Judge Stengel's decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a 'permitting scheme' can be used by police and event organizers to 'exclude persons expressing contrary messages' in public areas and at public events," Marcavage said earlier.

They were on public property, they didn't throw anything at anyone or attack.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by panda319

picket their funerals

Whoa, hold on there Hoss!

It's bad enough when people start lumping every person who calls themselves a Christian together (just as many here have decried the same thing with homosexuals), but when you bring up Westboro Baptist Church, you are no longer in the realm of any sort of Christian entity.

I hereby, as a Christian and as a human, denounce the Westboro Baptist Church and all its members and their actions as totally and completely against any and all beliefs I hold dear. I denounce them and will not allow any insinuation even that I am in any type of agreement with them to stand unchallenged.

(Note to others: this is what you do when someone who can be connected to you through an issue acts wrongly.)

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I hereby, as a Christian and as a human, denounce the Westboro Baptist Church and all its members and their actions as totally and completely against any and all beliefs I hold dear.

Well. Red. That's perfectly acceptable. But... to people outside of the Christian body... we see...

30,000 + different denominations of Christianity.

www.religioustolerance.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Christians are fully responsible for our misinterpretation and mislabeling of them. Christians can't even agree within themselves what a Christian is.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful. Just being reasonable... I feel.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Clearskies

They were on public property, they didn't throw anything at anyone or attack.

You do realize police don't jail people over night for nothing? They probably got a warning and wouldn't leave or did something else.

The court's justification for supporting police actions against the Christians was based on "the court's perception that the Philadelphia 11 were 'disrupting the event,'" the organization said. "The court came to this conclusion even though the Christians were not charged, arrested or even threatened with arrest for being 'disruptive.'"

Seems like there are conflicting opinions of what really caused the arrest, the group’s story conflicts with the police. I don’t know who is right about what took place, but the Christians tried to make this into them being silenced for their beliefs when they were disrupting a group on private property.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Well, hello Lucid!

The example I gave (which I did mean, btw) is meant to help that confusion. I doubt you have any doubt in your mind now that I am adamantly against the antics of Westboro Baptist Church. Now, being a thinking individual, does that not raise the possibility in your mind that others in similar situations might denounce their actions as well?

I could have just said 'don't lump us all together' and left my position somewhat nebulous, but instead I forthrightly made a statement. In the mind of the reader, that statement places Westboro a bit more outside the commonality of those many different denominations. Should others do the same, they will soon cease to have any power over anyone.

That's how you change public misconception. Direct, brutal assault on any immoral activity that can degrade you in their eyes. And it doesn't make the 6 o'clock news headlines spun to agree with someone else's views...

TheRedneck

Now I have a question for all those reading this thread:

If same-sex marriage were to be legalized, and if a minister who did not agree with the practice denied performing a ceremony to a same-sex couple under religious objections, could that minister be forced by law to perform the ceremony? And should he/she be forced to do so? I am not talking about civil servants (judges, etc.), but about religious leaders.

I ask this because there is a precedent. I seem to recall some people were upset because pharmacists were refusing to sell certain drugs prescribed by a doctor for religious reasons. If memory serves (and feel free to correct me on this), the practice was declared illegal and they were forced to fill the prescriptions.

So, would ministers be allowed to freely practice their religious views? Or would that be discrimination and violation of civil rights?

I believe this question is applicable since we are talking about religious attacks and the gay marriage issue... not to mention several posters on this and other related threads seem to have some sort of grudge against Christianity.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


It is my understanding that the government can not force churches to do so. Churches can pick and choose who they wish to marry; a lot of Catholic churches do this with couples. Why would they be forced with gays when they aren’t forced with straights? As for the pharmacist I think his job description was the reason that case did not swing in his favor, he did not have a “religious” job or non-secular career, and he was hired to be a pharmacist and to serve people with their pharmaceutical needs, not to impose his morality on customers.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I fully support marriage being legal for gays, and I fully support the right for any minister to deny it on religious grounds. If said gay couple is denied by a religious minister, that couple can seek it from another minister who is willing. If said gay couple wish for the marriage to be non-denominational, then this is of course a non-issue.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I doubt you have any doubt in your mind now that I am adamantly against the antics of Westboro Baptist Church. Now, being a thinking individual, does that not raise the possibility in your mind that others in similar situations might denounce their actions as well?

I have no doubt, I believe your word Red. You are combating that confusion. On a personal level, when you make it clear what your stance is, people shouldn't mislabel or misinterpret your Christianity. And I very much believe many Christians would also not condone this Church.

As it stands though, with so many different directions within the Christian Body, I am sure you can see the nature of this confusion we have?

I am not going to profess one Church is the Right one, or one is more correct then others. But 30,000+ tells the World that Christians are confused on the matter themselves. And because of this, it wouldn't be a stretch for non-Christians to think many Christians actually condone the actions of this Westboro Church..


[edit on 12-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Every point you made (and all were good points) is exactly why I was so vehement in my denial of WBC. Confusion about something one is not intimately familiar with is the normal state of humanity. What I have to do, as a Christian, is to combat that confusion with calm demeanor, acceptance (as much as I can), and strict adherence to my personal beliefs.

I have little concern about you misunderstanding me, Lucid. On a previous thread, we both came to know each other, to the extent you are now listed as one of my many friends. But there are 299,999,999 others out there, and I have to be mindful of each of them. I do not have to agree with them, but I do have to consider them if I want my associations to be respected.

Just as gay people have to be mindful of everyone else, including Christians, if they want to win over the respect of those people. Actions such as the one that started this thread, or the one where the elderly lady was harassed, only serve to disgust the populace and place public opinion firmly against gay marriage. It may not be 'right' in some peoples' eyes, but it is the way it is. It is the burden of those who wish a change to present their argument in a way that allows their acceptance, not the burden of the populace to try and understand why they should change what already is.

I am not going to profess one Church is the Right one

Neither will I. I was raised a Southern Baptist (and later found out there's a 12-step recovery program ) but now I attend a Church of God. Between the two I have tried many churches, and have either left in disgust at the practices or was kicked out for speaking my mind when something didn't sound right. That is not to disparage these churches or their congregations; they just didn't mesh with my rather out-spoken personality. Yet, throughout the whole process I have remained Christian.

that's what I am: A Christian, not a Baptist or anything else.

edit to add: and since I am starting to ramble, I will assume I am exhausted from a stressful day, and say good night to all. I will see you again, God willing, tomorrow.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

Both the Bible and the Koran forbid homosexuality. If a Christian is obedient to the scriptures, he 'hates what God hates'.

The objections I see here are directed toward Christians who actually maintain some sort of integrity toward the scriptures. The atrocities and so on that are cited (as if homosexuals committed none of their own) as "Christian" in nature, actually violated the principles and the specifics of scripture. No matter what they call themselves, these are not Christians - because they do not act like the Christ did. They are just as Christian as a Lesbian who only sleeps with men ... but calls herself 'lesbian' and attends 'lesbian' events.

As has been demonstrated by this news article, not everyone who attends church intends to comply with the commandments of God. Obviously, there is no 'religious test' for church attendance any more than there can be one for elected office.

Do these pseudo Christians commit more atrocities than the homosexuals? Of course ... they outnumber the homosexuals by hundreds, if not thousands, to one. So do the Muslims ... and they are a bit less willing to tolerate homosexuals. Christians allow secular law to govern in most cases (see Romans 13:1-4), while, in many countries, Sharia IS secular law as well and stoning of homosexuals is still perfectly acceptable.

The worlds two major religions abhor homosexuality and consider it worthy of death. That is the current against which homosexuals swim.

Yes, "God is love". But he is also "Justice and Power". He said that men should not lie with men ... and that is in keeping with the instructions at Genesis to fill the earth. But there is also the element of justice toward those who keep his commandments buy keeping his promise to rid the earth of those who don't. And, if Jericho, Sodom, Gomorrah. and the ruins at Babylon and the second temple at Jerusalem are any indication, he is also possessed of the power to make good on his word. Just look at Babylon. Saddam Hussein is not the first to try to rebuild it.

Your 'cause' is in opposition to the expressed will of God. First in the Hebrew scriptures, repeated in the Greek scriptures and copied in the Koran. Are you still amazed that you find opposition? You place your will in opposition to God's will ... as did Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-10)

That said, the homosexuals will, for a time, win. This was anticipated by the scriptures and accounted for in Revelation. But it will be a Pyhrric victory.

reply to post by MichiganBill

The objections I see here are directed toward Christians who actually maintain some sort of integrity toward the scriptures.

Jesus never mentioned gays, Paul did though. Do you condone everything else Paul condoned in scripture? He was pretty sexist. Also expressed celibacy was greater than marriage, from what I remember. Unless I’m wrong and you follow or condone everything else stated in the book, I have yet to have someone tell me they do, but anything is possible I guess…

If you are not referring to the NT and are referring to the OT, well you can not possibly follow everything in the OT, it is impossible, it is too contradictive and some things expressed are too extreme, or are trumped by the NT. So, why do you choose to be intolerant of homosexuals because of a few things said in a book and don’t follow the other things stated in that book?

When it comes to marriage I actually agree with you, your religion makes it very clear that it considers marriage between a man and a woman, but in a secular nation that recognized and gives marriages to people of all or no religions this is no longer a religious issue, perhaps it would be better to accept that and not oppose something that does not legally affect you instead of imposing the contradictive morality of an old book.

reply to post by MichiganBill

Both the Bible and the Koran forbid homosexuality.

By they way, where? They don’t condone sexual acts between the same sexes, there is a difference. Never is it stated being homosexual is a sin.

'hates what God hates'.

I really find it interesting when Christians place God and hate in a sentence together. How very typical of you to assume your hate stems from God, no it does not, you just use him to justify it.


[edit on 13-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by MichiganBill
If a Christian is obedient to the scriptures, he 'hates what God hates'.

Lovely.

The worlds two major (*Christianity is one of them) religions abhor homosexuality and consider it worthy of death. That is the current against which homosexuals swim.

So the 'current' is:

God Hates homosexuals.
Christians should also Hate homosexuals.
Killing homosexuals is worthy of God's Will.

Your 'cause' is in opposition to the expressed will of God.
Are you still amazed that you find opposition? You place your will in opposition to God's will ...

The only thing that amazes me is how dead in heart one would have to be to believe this.

And how dead in mind one would have to be to believe the Creator of Existence hates his/her/its Creation.



Redneck, if you don't hate homosexuals then you are not a Christian according to this Christian. You see the dissonance I was describing has been illustrated for me within this one thread on ATS...

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It is the burden of those who wish a change to present their argument in a way that allows their acceptance, not the burden of the populace to try and understand why they should change what already is.

I emphatically agree with you on this

As it would apply to both 'sides'.

I also find solace in that both sides make the mistake of trying to give the burden to the populace as well.. it shows both sides are guilty of being human. Which is really the crux of the argument.

reply to post by MichiganBill

If a Christian is obedient to the scriptures, he 'hates what God hates'.

I beg to disagree with your interpretation.

Firstly, God does not hate people. That is expressed very clearly throughout the latter part of the OT (chronological) and throughout the NT. Jesus never condemned anyone, despite having many opportunities to legally do so. Instead, He forgave them, admonished them, and sent them on their way.

I do not hate anyone. All men and women are children of God, whether or not they believe it or want to. As such, I strive to treat every person I come into contact with as though they were one of my brothers or sisters. Because they really are.

That doesn't mean I condone every action someone else takes. I despise the taking of an innocent life, for instance. But I do not hate the person who did so. I may feel sorry for them, because I know there is justice in the universe, but that is a far cry from hate. I may even defend myself against an attacker, using deadly force... but I will also mourn that I am forced to do so... after the attack.

To illustrate, when the USA went after Saddam Hussein, I was in full support of the action. Not because I hated him, but because I felt it was necessary to protect others. And yet, when the news screamed at me that Saddam had been executed, I bowed my head and said a prayer for him.

Yes, you can hate the sin but still love the sinner. Most people do not understand this, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. It's just a bit hard, but then, what about Christianity in practice isn't?

TheRedneck

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Redneck, if you don't hate homosexuals then you are not a Christian according to this Christian. You see the dissonance I was describing has been illustrated for me within this one thread on ATS...

Yes, Lucid, you are a very lucky person... or perhaps a prayer for clarity was answered?

I know all to well what you were speaking of, even before this post (which I answered, see above). And yes, it is beholding on me to step up to the plate and make it known to everyone else that I do not agree with that obviously non-Biblical interpretation (as I just did). Actually, I guess if I had enough time, I could do a better job just by entering into Google the words 'God' and 'hate'. As rapinbatisaltherage(sp?) mentioned, very time those two words are used in the same sentence, it should set off a warning bell.

Now, if only other Christians would do the same...

TheRedneck