6 Sneaky Ways the Christian Right Foists Its Biblical Agenda on America

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by tovenar

 

A. It was a camp ground pavilion, that is open to the public, not a church.
B. It was a civil union, not a "marriage".
C. The Methodist clergy did NOT perform any ceremony. No one was FORCED to marry them.
D. The church was not forced to shut down. They just had their tax exemption for the pavilion removed.

You're right. They were coerced in lots of other ways, as were all the others in the NPR article. But I failed to meet your standard. None of them was coerced into performing a service.

They were merely punished for NOT doing so.

So, your assertion stands, since shutting down institutions is completely acceptable and is not the same as forcing them to provide a specific service.

You certainly win the high ground in that discussion.

reply to post by adjensen

adj, I'm pretty sure that the constitution provides for their right to refuse to marry homosexuals. I really can't imagine them being 'forced' - because no one is 'forced' to be part of a religion! On the other hand, THEY want to FORCE RELIGION onto America.

reply to post by tovenar


Go back to this post to see the beginning of the discussion. I was answering a particular statement about "forcing a church to perform a homosexual wedding." I asked to see one case where a church was forced to marry a gay couple. Bringing in pavilions and civil unions, etc, just muddies the issue. It's not about higher ground, it's about you changing the question to fit your answer.

The Christian Right foists it's biblical agenda on America. And churches are NOT being forced to marry gay couples. Fear about "what might happen" is not a good reason to legally discriminate.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

adj, I'm pretty sure that the constitution provides for their right to refuse to marry homosexuals.

No, it doesn't. Read up on the HHS Mandate and the issues associated with it. Changes to the mandate that have occurred since it was announced have not been made because the government admits that it cannot legally regulate religious institutions, but because the Catholics (mostly) have raised such a fuss.

If there are laws that say gays can marry, and there are laws that say one cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, what legal basis exists for refusing to marry gay people? As was the case when the HHS mandate came out, and the church protested that their only option, apart from complying, was not to provide any insurance to anybody, their only recourse in the face of discrimination lawsuits will be to not marry anyone.

reply to post by adjensen


Well, if they want to have that right to refuse service to anyone, then they should pay taxes and be a private business. Then they can hang out a shingle that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

Well, if they want to have that right to refuse service to anyone, then they should pay taxes and be a private business. Then they can hang out a shingle that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

I'm confused, sorry.

Are you saying that private businesses are allowed to discriminate? Restaurants can put out that shingle and then tell all the black people to leave?

And are you saying that churches should be forced to do things that their doctrine says are wrong?

reply to post by wildtimes


Private businesses are not allowed to refuse service to anyone (despite the little signs in the window).

In Oregon, Washington, and Texas, private businesses such as florists, bakers, and photographers, as well as wedding chapels, have been sued for refusing to participate or "provide services" in gay weddings.


You can refuse service on religious grounds; but in Oregon and Washington (as well as the city limits of Fort Worth) you are fined for refusing based on sexual orientation.

The long and short of it is, the anti-christianity crowd have no empathy or respect for people who disagree with them. Since they'd like to exile Christianity from the public square, the fact that someone else's free speech or other civil rights are infringed is of no consequence to them.

Who is surprised when folks (on either side) feel like there is an "enemy" that is out to get them?

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still

reply to post by tovenar

The long and short of it is, the anti-christianity crowd have no empathy or respect for people who disagree with them.

No, that is patently ridiculous. Nobody has a problem with people practicing their beliefs quietly and reverently. The problem is the so-called "Christians" who want EVERYONE to believe what THEY BELIEVE.

Empathy and respect is what the Christians who are pushing for a Theocratic America LACK. They have NO EMPATHY AND RESPECT for others' beliefs or lifestyles. Their self-righteous bludgeoning of others' choices and beliefs is appallingly disrespectful, arrogant, and pushy. All they have to do to not be 'hated' is quit what they're doing that is HATEFUL. Try to tell them, "but, you reap what you sow", and they would look like deer in the headlights. It never occurs to them that they are CAUSING the hatred with their own HATRED.

There are plenty of Christians who despise what the Evangelicals are trying to push into laws. I was raised as a Christian, and the people I loved and had as my community were vehemently opposed to Tammy Faye, the 700-club, and all those loud fear-mongering condemning loons. No one cares when churches quietly go about their business - we DO CARE when they try to FORCE US to adopt THEIR RELIGION and want to teach OUR children THEIR RELIGION. THEY ignore common sense and science (like evolution) and present it as 'Truth for Everyone', and it isn't.

They have no right to keep children from learning about evolution, or the universe, or OTHER RELIGIONS and lifestyles.

And THAT is 'the long and short of it.'

reply to post by adjensen

Are you saying that private businesses are allowed to discriminate? Restaurants can put out that shingle and then tell all the black people to leave?

And are you saying that churches should be forced to do things that their doctrine says are wrong?

I'm talking about 'taking clients'. A private business providing a service is able to decline the patronage or business of any one seeking their services. Churches aren't selling food. They are selling religion.

The Catholic and many traditional Protestant churches won't give communion to non-members or the unconfirmed. They won't marry couples who have not attended pre-marital counseling sessions with the deacon or priest before he agrees to marry them (that's how my first wedding was in the Episcopal church).

Lawyers have a right to not take a case. "I'm a defense lawyer, not a litigator or divorce/family lawyer."
Tutors can say, I'm unable to take you on as a client at this time, or "I don't know calculus, but I can help with basic math."
Roofers can choose not to do business in certain neighborhoods or on certain types of roofs depending on their pitch and materials requested.
Tree-fellers can decide whether or not to cut down a tree in someone's yard based on their equipment, insurance, liabilities, or expertise.
Car rental places and hotels can choose to discriminate based on age or credit status.
Country clubs can require a certain income level or zip code or 'membership.'
ATS can ban people who make trouble.

We're talking about specialists. If I had a private practice, I could tell people, "I'm sorry, but my practice is in the field of X and I don't know enough about Y to help you."
"I'm not qualified," or "I don't feel my services are appropriate for you," is a simple thing to say. Adding, "but perhaps I can steer you in the right direction" is appreciated but not mandatory.

It's the same thing. "I'm sorry, I'm unable to provide that service to you on the grounds that it would be against my business principles." Whether it's taking a real estate listing, or offering a massage, people have the right to choose who to provide their services to. Churches are "specialists" in their own religion. They should not be forced to serve people who they are not qualified (by their doctrine) to serve.

The churches in question here are trying to FORCE others to Convert to Their Belief Systems and subvert the rights of others who do not believe what they do.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

Are you saying that private businesses are allowed to discriminate? Restaurants can put out that shingle and then tell all the black people to leave?

And are you saying that churches should be forced to do things that their doctrine says are wrong?

I'm talking about 'taking clients'. A private business providing a service is able to decline the patronage or business of any one seeking their services.

No, they can't. If a business refuses to serve someone on the basis of race, for example, they can be sued for discrimination. Even if they just said "we have the right to refuse service", if the only people that they refused to serve were minorities, they would be sued. It happens all the time.

I will say it again -- if there is a law that says same sex marriage is legal, and there is a law that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal, then any church that marries straight couples and refuses to marry gay couples can be sued for discrimination. That's the fact of law, and it doesn't matter what their motivation or justification is -- they are in violation of the law, period.

The Catholic and many tradition Protestant churches won't give communion to non-members. They won't marry couples who have not attended pre-marital counseling sessions with the deacon or priest before he agrees to marry them (that's how my first wedding was in the Episcopal church).

Those are rules that are associated with the church, and they are not discriminatory -- no one has the right to be married in the church. But if a church marries straight people but not gay people, that is discriminatory and if there is a law that says you can't do that, then they either marry everyone, even against their beliefs, or they can marry no one.

The churches in question here are trying to FORCE others to Convert to Their Belief Systems and subvert the rights of others who do not believe what they do.

You're trying to spin that argument, but it's the proponents of gay marriage who are trying to force others to convert to their belief system, at least as far as gay marriage goes, because the current view is that same sex couples do not have the right to marry, in the church or outside of it.

That's why the establishment of civil unions, that are every bit the equivalent of a marriage, is the most reasonable approach, and, to me at least, it is very telling that people who are in favour of gay marriage aren't willing to go down that road. They want either everything or nothing, no matter the cost, and one is left to wonder why.

reply to post by adjensen

That's why the establishment of civil unions, that are every bit the equivalent of a marriage, is the most reasonable approach, and, to me at least, it is very telling that people who are in favour of gay marriage aren't willing to go down that road. They want either everything or nothing, no matter the cost, and one is left to wonder why.

adj, I think you're kind of derailing the point of the OP here, and focusing on gay marriage in specific churches, when that is not the issue.

With all due respect I say that. Civil unions are marriage. If some churches or officiants want to marry gay people, that's groovy. Again, I don't know why a homosexual couple would want to be married in a church that condemns them anyway. There are churches who will do it and embrace all - for example the Gnostic Christian church in America. Serves all comers, including pagans or people of any other faith in the spirit of Christ.

I beefed up the post above with a few more examples of specialists 'refusing service'. Please have a look at it to see the added examples and explanations of my stance.

reply to post by wildtimes

That's why the establishment of civil unions, that are every bit the equivalent of a marriage, is the most reasonable approach, and, to me at least, it is very telling that people who are in favour of gay marriage aren't willing to go down that road.

Wait. What? That's what the state legislatures are deciding, whether or not to allow 'civil union' between homosexuals. And yet, the federal government refuses to acknowledge those 'civil unions' as legitimate when it comes to the tax code or survivor rights or medical 'next-of-kin' status.

I'm going to post these 'break-out' points again here:

Lawyers have a right to not take a case. "I'm a defense lawyer, not a litigator or divorce/family lawyer."

Tutors can say, I'm unable to take you on as a client at this time, or "I don't know calculus, but I can help with basic math."

Roofers can choose not to do business in certain neighborhoods or on certain types of roofs depending on their pitch and materials requested.

Tree-fellers can decide whether or not to cut down a tree in someone's yard based on their equipment, insurance, liabilities, or expertise, or the species of tree.

Car rental places and hotels can choose to discriminate based on age or credit status.

Country clubs can require a certain income level or zip code or 'membership.'

ATS can ban people who make trouble.

We're talking about specialists who offer their services to the public. If my handy-man says "I don't do HVAC", I'm going to sue him? That's ridiculous.

Religion should be considered a specialty, and has the same rights to determine who they serve and who they don't. No one that I know of is trying to "force" them.

I mentioned my own heterosexual marriage before. My fiance was not affiliated with any religion. My church did not require him to "convert", but did require US TO ATTEND counseling together before the ceremony.

On the other hand, a good friend of ours - a Catholic - fell in love with a Jewish girl. He wanted to marry her. In order to do so, he had to convert to Judaism according to her church.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

With all due respect I say that. Civil unions are marriage. If some churches or officiants want to marry gay people, that's groovy. Again, I don't know why a homosexual couple would want to be married in a church that condemns them anyway.

Because I see something here that you apparently don't.

Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm a little too sensitive to the government telling churches what to believe and how to act, but there is more to this issue than inheritance issues and who can visit who in the hospital. Because if that's all it was, we'd already have civil unions, because I don't think there would be much opposition to it. But that's apparently not what we're being fed.

Last year, there was a "Marriage is between one man and one woman" constitutional amendment on the ballot here in Minnesota. It started out with pretty solid support, like the 30+ other states that have such a thing, but in the end, it failed. Why? Huge donations to the other side, a lot from big corporations, meant a couple of months of almost constant television ads.

Funny thing, though -- in none of those ads did a gay person appear. None. They were all one or two white people of varying ages, laying out a case that was, essentially, guilt. "I've been married for 25 years, how dare I refuse that right to anyone else?" That was the campaign, and it worked, well.

ETA: Here's an article on the campaign: What's missing from pro-gay marriage TV ads? Gays

I beefed up the post above with a few more examples of specialists 'refusing service'. Please have a look at it to see the added examples and explanations of my stance.

The problem is that all of those are along the lines of "I'm not qualified to marry gay people," which is not a valid disclaimer. The priest/pastor is actually saying "I won't marry you because you're gay," and, if there is a law that says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, that is illegal.

reply to post by wildtimes


Again, nothing in your list there is discriminatory.

What would you think of a lawyer who said "I won't represent you, because you are black."? Or a restaurant that said "I won't serve you, because you are a woman."?

That is discrimination, not saying "I won't represent you, because you're getting a divorce and I'm a business attorney."

reply to post by adjensen

The problem is that all of those are along the lines of "I'm not qualified to marry gay people," which is not a valid disclaimer. The priest/pastor is actually saying "I won't marry you because you're gay," and, if there is a law that says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, that is illegal.

I see what you're saying,
but it's a simple fix for them to be able to say "I'm not qualified to marry gay people." Make it a specialty. Have the priests/pastors go to in-services and updated training based on "best practices", just like other professionals are required to continue their educations in order to keep their licenses.

Again, and I can't seem to emphasize this enough:
Why would a gay couple want to be married in a church that condemns them? There are other churches who will.

Here's a more pointed analogy:
Should a salon that specializes in caring for the hair of black people be forced to serve me? They don't have the expertise to deal with my blonde, fine, wavy hair - so I don't go to them!

Should a beautician or cosmetologist who is not knowledgeable in the specifics of the hair of black people be forced to cut their hair, too?

We've ALL had a bad haircut. It's the responsibility of the service provider to say, "I can't work with that set of circumstances." And it's the responsibility of the consumer to find a place that CAN.

It's common sense. If a church doesn't believe gays should be married, then the couple can find a church that DOES. It seems crystal clear to me. I'm sorry if I'm being redundant or you think I'm being difficult.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

The problem is that all of those are along the lines of "I'm not qualified to marry gay people," which is not a valid disclaimer. The priest/pastor is actually saying "I won't marry you because you're gay," and, if there is a law that says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, that is illegal.

I see what you're saying,
but it's a simple fix for them to be able to say "I'm not qualified to marry gay people." Make it a specialty.

Because there's nothing to specialize in -- marriage is marriage. It would be seen as a dodge, nothing more. If a lawyer said "I can't represent you, I'm not qualified to represent black people" do you think that would fly?

Again, and I can't seem to emphasize this enough:
Why would a gay couple want to be married in a church that condemns them? There are other churches who will.

And I'm, as usual, woefully inept in getting my point across

Most churches do not condemn gays, and even if they did there are people who will go to the church that they know will refuse to marry them, and ask, to force the change. That's what activists do -- they don't just say "oh, the Catholics won't marry us, let's go to the Unitarian Church," they say "So, the Catholics think they can refuse to recognize gay marriage? Well, we'll just see about that."

Most people, yes, they'll work around it. But the radicals who want to bend society, all of society, to their point of view will not.

reply to post by adjensen

Because there's nothing to specialize in -- marriage is marriage.

I think we've found our issue here.
There is CERTAINLY something to 'specialize in.' "I specialize in Catholic doctrine, therefore, I am unable to go through with these proceedings as an official of the Catholic church."

Originally posted by wildtimes ..With all due respect I say that. Civil unions are marriage. If some churches or officiants want to marry gay people, that's groovy. Again, I don't know why a homosexual couple would want to be married in a church that condemns them anyway. There are churches who will do it and embrace all - for example the Gnostic Christian church in America. Serves all comers, including pagans or people of any other faith in the spirit of Christ.

Wildtimes, personal opinion, mine too doesn't matter, it won't get you to Heaven. Follow God's ways, He knows best.

Civil marriage alone is not God's plan WT. Marriage is a sacrament, you have to be married before God. For the last fifty years, people have lost the faith, accepting every sexual sin, fornication, etc, voting into law the killing of our children, homosexual marriage and on and on. Satan's plan to destroy the family.

If your family is broken, you do not have a good father or mother, or separated from them turn to God the Father (we are all the prodigal son, He has His arms open) and to Our Lord's mother. Keep close to them, don't be sad, it is the times. They know of your suffering, they will console you. We join our sufferings with Christ. Offer any suffering to God in prayer, He can save souls, give God your far away loved ones and even strangers.

_ _ _

www.locutions.org...

07-16-2011 - 56. Sin Destroys the Marital Relationship
Mary:
....People are pulling in all different directions and the oneness of mankind is being shattered. Who can unite mankind? All is divided and the forces of division multiply each day. This is not the Father's plan. He dreamed of a united human family but this sin destroyed this unity. Dividing man from woman, made them almost enemies in their own relationship. Yet, they had a continual urge for each other and man had a loneliness for a companion in his trials. This is the problem I will address because all other problems flow from this sexual war, the inability of man and woman to fully enjoy a loving relationship. If man and woman were at peace, then there would be peace in the world. But, there is no peace. So, let us begin.
Every man and woman is selfish but they do not understand this. They enter into marriage believing that they can be a good husband and a good wife. Soon, however, the realities of their relationship become apparent. The sinfulness of the husband encounters the sinfulness of the wife and problems emerge.

They try to resolve these problems, even in a sincere way, but they are not totally successful. Then, they distance themselves. Their sexual contact becomes less frequent. They even question their original attractions. They function together but the full intimacy is missing, not just of body but even of friendship. Something important is missing in the family. This is transmitted to the children. The fullness of God is not present.
I must reveal the problem and offer the true solution. The problem is the universal presence of sin which lies hidden and unseen in every human heart. The solution is to see this selfishness and by repentance to remove it. This, however, is beyond the power of the husband and wife. Forgiving and removing sin belongs to God. So, every marriage without God is doomed to some level of failure because of sin in the human heart. Let every husband and wife explore my words. Use them to open your eyes. You will see your sins, but also you will see a God who will free you. Mutually accept your need for my Son and a new road will open before you.

07-17-2011 - 57. The Effects of a Home Without Love
Mary:
So many parts of human life are bent and twisted that the human person finds it very difficult to turn to God and to seek Him. That is why I am his messenger. Like John the Baptist I am called to "make straight his paths." Where will I begin? As always in the human heart.

When the person grows up in an atmosphere of loving parents and a home that is in order, free from strife and turmoil, he can easily perceive the goodness of God because he sees life, love and happiness all around. However, when the original plan of the Father for the family becomes far removed from the original model, then a darkness covers the mind and a heaviness comes upon the feelings. The person is not free to choose the light or to respond to love. Everything is bottled up within, the result of years of an unsatisfying home. What can be done when this is so widespread? The normal, loving home has become the exception, not the rule. Especially, I address you who are reading my words right now. Your lack of faith is not rooted in the lack of goodness in my Son. It has its roots in your family where so many disorders entered and where faith was dim. I have not come to blame anyone but to offer you a very special gift. I will be your mother. For many reasons, your own mother was not able to provide and nourish you..