1.Im a christian,I dont have anything against homosexuals and jesus would not hate me.
2.Jesus does not hate anyone.

Dont you wish other religion/faiths would also accept gays?


Anyway,I say let the churches of all religions have their own laws.

I applaud you and your tolerance, but unfortunately you are in the minority.

And I realize that Jesus doesn't hate anyone (hate the sin, not the sinner, right?). A strong choice of words. Here - he would greatly dislike most Christians.

So it's Martin Luther King Jr's fault he got shot. Is that what you're saying? Because that is what Algren is saying.

She took a risk, just like she did, only thing is, his was more risky.

Not really fault. But one knew what the consequences might be. One sometimes need to risk those consequences for one reason or another.

If a middle eastern conservative woman who wears a veil over her face applies for a driver's license and gets rejected cause she wouldn't reveal her face for the picture (like in the amusing report I read the other day), she pretty much knew that was gonna happen.

Most christians arent like what you discribe them.

That's those idiots out of Kansas, it's one extended family (about 20 to 30 folks) that goes around saying they are a church. They are not a part of any larger denomination and no denomination stands with them on their hate. For one thing, their position contradicts the Old and New Testament:

"For God so loved the WHOLE world ... that WHOSOEVER shall believeth in Him shall not perish ..."

God does not smile when a homosexual dies in their sin.

Look at this from 1 Timothy 2:

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time.

At the same time, I think it was right for the church to defrock her, in that the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. Just as the church should defrock any clergy who continues to exhibit another other sin habit, such as alcoholism, drug addiction or adultery.

That's right. So it's absolutely asinine to blame the victim here because of someone else's prejudices. Unless we challenge the status quo, we can't expect the status quo to change.

Blame only lies to the point that the person knew what she was getting herself into. It was expected.

Is that the "God hates fags" family?

Man, they were hilarious on Howard Stern show.

Back on topic.

I can understand both sides in this case.

On the one hand, I have my own personal beliefs, and I don't believe she has done anything wrong.

On the other hand, religious organizations should be allowed to form their own set of rules (with limitations, I guess). I mean would you go all crazy if a priest was not allowed to continue serving in his position because he had a wife, or something of that sort (which the Catholic church doesn't allow). I mean, there's nothing wrong with getting married, having a family, so his rights are being violated....right?

it depends really. I would be highly annoyed if some woman sued a club named "The Men's Club". I mean theres nothing wrong with a woman being part of the club but those are the rules of the club.

It's not a question of what they should be allowed to do. They can hire whoever they want and no one is really disputing that.

But that doesn't mean we have to like it. And it doesn't mean we can't make waves and generate a shifting opinion toward the acceptance of homosexuals as equals in all walks of life, whether in churches or the workplace.

Well, there are many thing I don't like about certain religions, like animal sacrifices, or I don't see what's wrong with eating pork, which is considered a big sin in many religions.

I just want acceptance. I can accept that they think homosexuality is wrong, just like I can accept them thinking eating pork is wrong. But I do also want the same thing in return, they can think homosexuality is wrong, but I don't think they have a right to take it into the goverment and use their religious beliefs to prevent something (gay marriage) from being legal in the eyes of the government.

What they do within their religious establishment is not really my business (I'm sure there are exceptions).

Edit: whoops, I only read your first two sentences and replied to that.

I, um...agree with you :wink:

Although this would be ideal, and great progress for sociey,. sadly I don't see this happening. There are to many far right christians who are raised/born/taught that homosexuality is a disease...a malfucntions, a perversion. I actually know alot of people who equate it with child molestation(both being perversions)
Ignorance breeds Ignorance and hates breeds hate. It's a sad sad thing.
You would think the hypocrisy alot of these "Christians" show, would be enough for them to realize they are not showing what a real christian really is

You might find this post by Andrew Sullivan enjoyable. Here's the relevant quote:

The simple truth is that there isn't a single civil right I would deny to an evangelical Christian. I've defended their freedom of religion, of association, of disassociation, and believe they should be treated with respect. I wouldn't dream of drumming them out of the military, firing them for their faith, tearing up their relationships, or taking their children away from them. The favor, alas, is not returned.

I love that quote

Haha.

I love it.



*runs to the link*

I agree and disagree with bABA. This is what reform from within is all about, and its a long and painful process. She'll get defrocked, many others will, but this is how the whole system slowly changes and that is the process. I don't think its right to blame the victim for homophobia, but I also think the "victim" could have done one of two things. Hise it and stay in the position, or make her sentiments public. She chose the latter knowing that there would be repercussion to her direct and immediate position but that in the long run bringing this subject to the forefront is what will make it a regular discourse and one that could reform the church's stance on the issue. So its give and take, she is making a decision based on her long-term desires and not her immediate ones and I respect that.

Many people ask, Why not just leave if they don't accept you? And to those I say that doesn't necessarily help the process. If one has great respect for an institution or culture ot the point that they want to stay with it and help guide it in different directions, they have a right to. We may not have like the past elections, for example, and we may crack jokes about fleeing to Canada, but most of us are going to stay in the U.S. Why? Because we love the U.S. and love what it stands for enough to work with it and want to remain a part of it. That is the same thing for the church right now. Homosexuals are staying and trying to work with something that has alot of meaning in their lives, and eventually all of their actions are going to affect it. It might be decades from now, but they're willing to give up immediate comforts in light of their future goals.

I'm sorry that sexual orientation is consistantly addresses as a sin. I think its silly, but the only way to address thatis to keep doing what everyone has been doing thus far. I wish there wasn't so much resistance towards it, and am shocked that this disscussion takes more precedence than many other issues that are far more "sinful." But that's just me.

Like I said Dolcee. Maybe the word blame is sort of wrong here as it implies negativity. I do believe that people should live with the consequences for their actions, whether theyre for reform, wrongdeeds or for the general good.

My point is that she knew what she got herself into. Yet she went for it, whether with good reason or not. The most I feel in this case for her is disappointment. But that doesn't mean it has to end here. If she was trying to fight a system, she still can. And if she feels upto it, she should continue.