home
RSS
May 2nd, 2013
12:52 PM ET

Ex-NFL player's support for gay NBA player apparently costs him church appearance

By Dan Merica, CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='DanMericaCNN']

Washington (CNN) – LeRoy Butler, a former safety for the Green Bay Packers, is one of many professional athletes to tweet support for Jason Collins, the NBA player who came out as gay this week.

“Congrats to Jason Collins,” Butler tweeted April 29, the day Collins came out in a Sports Illustrated cover story.

But Butler says the four-word tweet cost him a speaking appearance at a Wisconsin church.

He was scheduled to speak at the church (whose name he has not revealed) about bullying and his new book, "The LeRoy Butler Story: From Wheelchair to the Lambeau Leap." That was until the church, according to Butler, told him he was no longer welcome because of his tweet in support of Collins.

"The pastor called me and that's when we got into the old, the whole religion thing about gay people and things of that nature and the conversation just went back and forth for us a couple of minutes," Butler told Anderson Cooper on Thursday.

After the exchange with the pastor, Butler took to twitter to express his frustration.

Butler later tweeted that “some parents went to the church and complained about my tweet” supporting Collins. The church, according to Butler, said that if the football player apologized, he would be allowed to speak.

"They basically said this, if you apologize, ask God for forgiveness and remove the tweet, you'll be able to do this speaking engagement with the kids," he said. "I won't do that. That's taking my dignity and respect away."

He continued: "I told the pastor, blame it on my mom because my mom brought me up to love everybody."

Butler recently tweeted that the church apologized for the incident and thanked him “for not releasing the church name.”

Butler played 11 years, from 1990 to 2001, with the Packers and helped them win a Super Bowl in 1997. He was a four-time All-Pro selection, the highest honor for a year of work in the NFL, and is credited with inventing the Lambeau Leap, the iconic touchdown celebration in which a Packer leaps into the Lambeau Field stands to celebrate with fans.

As for Butler's stance on gay athletes in professional sports, he said they have "support from straight guys like me that won't judge them."

"If we win a Super Bowl ring, I don't care who you bring to the ring ceremony, I just want to win the ring," Butler said. "That's what it's all about. ... Isn't that what it's all about? Winning the championship? Not who is in my bed when I turn the lights out."

Since retiring, Butler has been active in the Green Bay community, and his Facebook page chronicles appearances and speeches he has given to churches in the area.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Belief • Same-sex marriage

soundoff (3,002 Responses)
  1. Jeff

    Church of the Hypocritical Bigot.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
  2. Lewy

    Anyone think that LeRoy is in it just to get the $8500? Anyone?

    May 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • Jesus

      Oh my, you mean, someone may do something that involves their time for money???? How dare he!

      May 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Anyone think the church is in it for the money too? Anyone?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • NotFoolinMe

      Obviously not. If that were the case, he would have deleted the tweet and "begged forgiveness". He did not do those things. You are a m0r0n.

      May 3, 2013 at 7:21 am |
  3. snowboarder

    i do not understand the irrational fear of h0m 0s3 xuality.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      I don't get it either.
      Personally I am a phobophobe...I am afraid of fear itself.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Russ

      @ snowboarder: if he'd come out in support of adultery, they would have probably canceled, too.
      you don't equate the two for reasons of your own belief.
      biblically, they see BOTH as sins – and someone celebrating something they see as sin disqualifies them from speaking.

      shoe on the other foot: say you were going to have the pastor of this church come to your civic function to speak, but now you see this & consider it a 'sin' by your own definitions. do you cancel his speaking engagement?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Richard, You're a Rooseveltian?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @russ, the biblical prohibition of h0m 0s3 xuality is irrational. "sin" is irrational. your comparison of adultery is negative because it harms the relationship. h0m 0s3 xuality harms no one.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
    • sam

      Sure, and they would have cancelled his speaking engagement if they caught him at Red Lobster, too.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • trollintraining

      Richard couldn't be a Rooseveltian.
      Rooseveltians are smart.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Just a joke Bill.
      In truth I don't have any known phobias.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • trollintraining

      @Russ
      your adultery analysis fails-
      He didn't support ho.mo.se.xuality, he supported the 'sinner'.
      THAT IS WHAT CHRISTIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!

      May 2, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @troll, actually i have friends and relatives that are h0m 0s 3xual and see first hand the absurdity of the labels such as "sinful", "deviant" and "evil", so i do support the h0m 0s3 xuals.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • Russ

      @ snowboarder: you don't have to agree with Christianity to understand why your argument is mistaken. some differences to consider... assuming you genuinely want to understand those with whom you disagree...

      1) you are appealing to individualism. the Bible teaches something quite different: we are a human community. what we do DOES affect one another.

      2) the Bible teaches we were made in the image of God – and then we corrupted that image. ho.mo.se.xuality is called a sin (hence, one such example of that corruption). to sin (as we ALL do) is an offense not just against one another but the one whose image we bear.

      3) lots of people don't think they are hurting themselves or anyone else when actually they are. again, you don't like the correlation, but if this is an immoral act – as the bible states it is – then it not only hurts society but also any of those participating in it. it goes against their created nature, the design of a family, the broader societal self-understanding (as the family is the building block of society), and the ultimate goal of existence (namely, God & His purposes in making it).

      again, you don't have to agree with it to understand it – but your argument fails to engage a Christian's understanding of existence. assuming you want to be persuasive, these are things you might want to consider.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "the Bible teaches we were made in the image of God – and then we corrupted that image."

      "WE" did no such thing. You and I and everyone else had nothing to do with it. Morally that is a terrible concept.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      snowboarder you make the judgement that h0 mo s3xuality (love that spelling, if it's ok why is it in the word filter?) harms no one. But, the Church involved probably has a doctrine that is different. They can probably make an argument that it is harmful.

      Troll in training has a great insight by the way

      May 2, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Richard, I got it. Was joking back.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Russ
      Why does god make so many gay people ?( do not try that old choice crap either. The gay people I know never chose, and neither did the straight people.)

      May 2, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @russ, i am not appealing to individualism, we are indeed a community, regardless of religious affiliation. that has nothing to do with my objection to the absurdity of some religious decrees.

      there is no rational reason to label h0m 0s3 xuality as immoral. a religious text is insufficient justification for such judgement in an intelligent species.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Cranium: I allow the possibility that ho.mo.se.xuality is genetic. so forget the choice argument...
      but note well: alcoholism is also genetic. does anyone argue "well, God made me this way"?

      no, Christians understand that the Fall in Genesis 3 affects EVERYTHING – even genetics. again, WE did this to ourselves – and we affirm it with our daily push back against God.

      unlike some other Christians here, I do not consider ho.mo.se.xuality any worse than adultery. if anything, statistically speaking, adultery is a much worse, more prevalent problem for the Church. But both are very clearly labeled biblically as sin. so "accepting" sin is directly contrary to the entirety of what God is doing in redeeming our existence.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • JMEF

      Yes made in the image of god, humans that is, should of been hermaphrodites, could of just snuggled up to Billy/? or Chad/Rachel and just done, well whatever feels good at the time!!!

      May 2, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • Russ

      @ snowboarder: you said "a religious text is insufficient..."
      on what grounds? your metaphysics are showing.

      here's the irony – there is NO scientific basis for your claim (for or against a religious text as a revelation from a metaphysical Objective reality). you are making an exclusive, metaphysical truth claim. and ironically, it is the VERY thing to which you are objecting here.

      we can have the conversation that flows out of that – but failure to recognize your own metaphysical convictions (i.e., faith, religious thoughts, etc.) would make the rest of that conversation about that point. do you see that you are doing metaphysics when you make that claim?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • Russ

      @ JMEF: you're a deist, right? sure, your distance, impersonal view of God has nothing to say here... and yet that also means you never have to change... at all. can your God tell you things you don't want to hear? if not, how would you know such a god is anything other than your own self-projection?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @russ, don't start that nonsense. pretending that a lack of evidence against an absurd notion is evidence of it's veracity is just plain dishonest.

      man has invented innumerable deities, religions and doctrines over the course of history. all religions are assume to be the creation of man unless otherwise proven.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • Russ

      @ snowboarder: you're making my point. your failure to recognize that YOU are equally making metaphysical claims leads you to make self-refuting arguments.

      as Nietzsche said, "it is STILL a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science." (my emphasis)
      you preclude the possibility of an Objective reality – despite an inability to explain existence itself. that's a rather large LEAP of faith.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @russ. plain nonsense. we place no "faith" in science. science is simply a tool.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Russ
      Yes...addictive personality disorder does have a genetic component so yes , some people are genetically predisposed for addictions such as alcoholism.
      That does not compare to the $ex drive which is one of the strongest of all instincts.
      There does not appear to be any genetic component to h0m0$exuality though, but the jury is still out...it appears to be caused by hormone levels and the timing of them, which is more of an epigenetic thing.

      Still doesn't explain why your god makes so many gay people. If god considers it wrong, why keep making them that way?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      and Russ
      Adultery is a choice. H0m0$exuality is not.

      Apples and oranges.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • Russ

      @ snowboarder: yes, science is simply a tool. but HOW the tool is used is contingent on something else.

      again, i quoted Nietzsche because he's an atheist calling other atheists out.
      atheism may claim not to be a religion, but look up the definitions of faith. it certainly fits MOST of them.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • fred

      Richard Cranium
      Orientation is not a choice what you do with your orientation is a choice. Stop giving a green light for man to behave any way that brings pleasure without consequence.
      A hetro can choose to play loose with boys and girls as well as a homosexual can. I have many in my support group that dropped habitual habits regardless of orientation.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Cranium:
      1) as with any analogy, it fails at some point. instead of objecting, see the points of contact.

      2) you're failing to hear the biblical argument. God doesn't "make them gay." we corrupted our existence. we brought sinful distortions upon a perfect creation. this is the effect of OUR doing – as with any such sinful change to his order.

      again, you don't have to agree with Christianity to understand the biblical argument. your objection continues to demonstrate a failure to hear the argument.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Cranium: also, go further with the alcoholism analogy.
      being born with a proclivity to alcoholism does not ensure one must ACT upon it.
      and no one is arguing "well, since we were made that way, guess we have to be alcoholics."

      May 2, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @russ, odd that after actually looking up the definition of faith i see that it fits none of them from merriam webster. i take nothing on faith. i draw conclusions based on evidence.

      Definition of FAITH

      1
      a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
      b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
      2
      a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
      b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
      3
      : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

      May 2, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • Russ

      @ snowboarder: you said "i take nothing on faith. i draw conclusions based on evidence."
      there is NO evidence for THAT statement... and yet it's your self-proclaimed basis for *beliefs.*
      that is FAITH. and ironically for you, it's self-refuting faith.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @russ, take your circular logic elsewhere. i'm finished with your nonsense. have a good day.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • Russ

      @ snowboarder: so you call out my faith as circular, but when I point out you have the same problem... you're done?

      May 2, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • Paul

      Until Christians try to ban everything they consider to be a sin I refuse to accept that they view being gay as just a sin like any other.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Russ
      Another apple/orange argument.
      Our $exuality is hard wired. While it is possible to override many instincts, our $exuality is hard wired and while it sometimes can be overridden briefly, your overall attraction does not change.
      You can choose to not indulge in addictive behavior. You do not choose what attracts you $exually to someone.

      It has more to do with epigenetics and biology. The wrong levels of hormones in early developement creates a female brain in a male body or vice-versa. The male and female brain differ as much as a male and female body. They are different. It is not the individuals fault that gods design is so flawed that this type of thing happens on a regular basis. They are just as hard wired $exually as anyone else, just that the body is different than the brain is wired for.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Cranium: you must be a determinist. do you really think someone cannot *choose* to be celibate?
      (NOTE: i'm talking about a different choice here than orientation.)

      it certainly sounds like you are excusing such behavior. do you do the same for *all* se.xual behaviors... including ones YOU deem as deviant?

      May 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
    • NotFoolinMe

      Your first mistake is labeling it fear. There's no fear whatsoever. It's blind hatred. pure and simple. So many people are brought up to believe being gay is a choice, that they enjoy disgusting you with their behavior, that they want to convert or predate our children, etc. 50 years ago, I would have called it ignorance. Not today. We all know better today. It's high time we start calling things what they are. Hate is hate. Ugly is ugly. Retarded is retarded, and anyone who honestly believes gay people are out to take over the world is truly retarded by every sense of the traditional definition.

      May 3, 2013 at 7:29 am |
    • Science

      Thanks again russ and bill for the help !

      Free speech helps educate the masses

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet..........splat goes a fairy in the sky !

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      Hey James Madison................religion has none it looks like.............with the comments on this blog.

      The Big question is ETHICS ! does religion have any ?

      The Ethics of Resurrecting Extinct Species

      Apr. 8, 2013 — At some point, scientists may be able to bring back extinct animals, and perhaps early humans, raising questions of ethics and environmental disruption.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130408165955.htm

      April 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |

      May 1, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |

      May 3, 2013 at 6:39 am | Report abuse |

      May 3, 2013 at 7:37 am |
    • HeavenSent

      +
      Matthew 23:29-36
      1 John 2:21-23
      Revelation 21:8

      Amen.
      +

      May 3, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Pole dancing for Jesus

      HeavenScent, If you have something to say, say it. Who wants to read your book of fairies to find out what you've been programmed to say.

      May 3, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
  4. Tracy

    What is wrong with a Church standing up for what they believe to be right? Wasn't it many people earlier that have said that once Gays can get married legally that a Church can choose not to marry them? Why is this different? It is up to the Church if they want someone to speak at their Church or not. It's almost like its dang if they do and dang if they dont.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • trollintraining

      Because the man they told not to speak isn't the gay one.
      LeRoy Butler is actilng likea christian is supposed to!
      do not judge & do unto others & love your enemy ......
      The church has gone beyond anti gay and is now anti anyone who acts christian toward gays.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Jeff

      The First Amendment protects the right of churches (ministers) to be hypocritical bigots. But it also protects the rights of everyone else to criticize the church. If the minister made the statement, he has to reap what he has sewn. Why do people always assume free speech is a one-way street.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • sam

      This speaker was perfectly ok for them until he congratulated someone on coming out as gay. That's all it took to violate a morality clause? Nice folks.

      Sure, they can decide who speaks to the congregation and who doesn't. And when they get called out for being judgmental creeps, that's ok too.

      I wonder if they would have changed their minds about him if he was just divorced instead of being supportive of one of those Dreaded Gays. Doubt it.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • Bart

      Nothing wrong with it, but the hypocrisy. Jesus was about acceptance and love. Whatever happened to letting God do the judging? So tired of Christians not knowing what is the book that they are shaking at everyone else.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • G to the T

      They have the freedom to believe that if they wish. Just as we have the right to not support them in ANY WAY if we disagree with them.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • NotFoolinMe

      Absolutely nothing. it is indeed their right. But guess what else? It's also our right under the same Bill to publicly lambaste them over it! What a country!

      May 3, 2013 at 7:32 am |
  5. De Odorizer

    "check the moral clause"???
    Wow, you wonder whose morals that tweet really refers to.
    Oh, by that church's standards "morals" are redeemable for money, just make up an apology and we'll listen to you again and pay you. Sounds like the catholic church too.
    C'mon cheeseheads, get a life... Go Pack

    May 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I doubt it was Catholic

      May 2, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • Not a chump

      Yeh, I suppose a tweet can be immoral, but I don't see his that way. Yes, the church has the right to stand up for their beliefs, just like they can stand up against, say, interracial marriage . Doesn't mean I have to respect their beliefs.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      +

      Matthew 23:29-36
      1 John 2:21-23
      Revelation 21:8

      Amen. +

      May 3, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
  6. Russ

    Why is there no room to sincerely disagree?

    This church clearly disagrees with Butler's stand – and somehow that warrants calling them "bullies"? It seems the logic on this blog is that churches should regularly compromise what they stand for – or they are labeled "bullies", "ho.mo.phobic", etc. That leaves no room for a genuine conversation – and is ironically the currently accepted form of 'bullying.'

    "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

    May 2, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • sam

      I don't see where this was a sincere disagreement.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • Observer

      A gay person comes out and invariably the church gets bullied. Same nonsense everytime a gay person comes out.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Sam:
      The church clearly thinks ho.mo.se.xuality is a sin. Butler doesn't.
      The church did not make a public spectacle of Butler – again, Butler didn't.
      What do you find insincere?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Observer: now you're twisting what I said.

      There is a way to have a non-coercive dialogue – and STILL passionately, genuinely disagree. This is not it.
      Some ho.mo.se.xuals have been bullied. Such bullying is evil & wrong.
      But it's an overstatement to claim ANY disagreement is tantamount to bullying.
      It's that *latter* claim that is (at best) political maneuvering – and is clearly intended to be coercive & silencing.

      Again, ironically reciprocal... especially for those shouting how evil such silencing & coercion is against g.ays...

      May 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
    • sam

      Hmm...I don't see the church's immediate stance of 'you violated the morality clause of the contract just by being supportive of a gay person' as really opening a sincere discussion. Butler didn't name the church or call them names, so what you're really crying about here is that you don't like the comments you're seeing so far.

      Telling him to ask god for forgiveness for just being supportive of a supposed sinner? Sorry, they deserve some flak. Free speech goes both ways.

      We know you will take any church's side no matter what the issue is, Russ, so it's not like anyone expects to have a sincere disagreement with you, either.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Observer

      I am not twisting anything you said. Just making an observation on how the church gets dragged into this mess everytime a gay person chooses to come out.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Russ

      @ sam: quite to the contrary, i'm an adamantly opposed to almost everything Westboro Baptist Church does... and most of what Joel Osteen says & does...

      oversimplification does not advance the conversation. and that's exactly what's happening here. it may turn out the church was insidiously doing something wrong by their own standards (just trying to get out of paying him, etc.) – but if the 'crime' here is disagreeing with ho.mo.se.xuality, there is no such crime by what they believe. IF however, they were 'bullying' by other means, yes, they should be called out.

      and again: they did call him to repent of his position – because that's what they believe. and NOTE: they did so privately. Butler chose to make it a spectacle – even if he hasn't named them... yet.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Observer: seems to me the church was one of the primary subjects of the article... not 'dragged' into the conversation after the fact.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • sam

      Being supportive of 'sinners' is the true christian thing to do. Unless it's one of those pesky gays. Those you have to admonish because they've made terrible life choices.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
    • Russ

      @ sam: yes, Jesus readily loved sinners... and he also said (after defending them from the legalistic types): "go & sin no more."

      the notion that tolerance does not include judging removes the basis for the word: that you 'tolerate' them DESPITE disagreeing with them. otherwise, what are you 'tolerating'?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • Observer

      The church is a "Subject' of what? For standing by what they believe in ? If they are not being bullied for standing by what they believe in what is this whole media frenzy over this church's stance? The church cannot cower down to this kind of dragging//bullying

      May 2, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Landru

      I think you miss the point. The church does have a right to it's stance. No question about it. They cancelled his appearance on a morality clause. What morality clause did Butler brake. There is nothing immoral about what he did. Secondly they did bully him. They offered his appearance to be reinstated if he apologized for congratulating someone. I think that qualifies.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Observer:
      my point was: the church was the subject of this article, not an add-on. it sounded like you were stating the latter.

      secondly, yes, you are right. if the church is going to take a stand, they need to be ready for people to disagree. however, i was calling out the hypocrisy of those who claim the Church is hypocritical for being exclusive or intolerant – when that is exactly what such critics are displaying.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Landru:
      1) he broke *their* morality standards – which certainly was the nature of the agreement he *signed*.

      2) it is not bullying when – consistent with your beliefs – you call someone out for doing something you think is self-destructive. you may adamantly disagree with their morality, but at least seek to understand their self-expression. it would be *unloving* to feel the need to cancel on Butler for self-destructive stance/belief but have so little interest as to not call him out of that self-destructive stance.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • Not a chump

      So how is "recant or we are pulling your contract" non-coercive dialog.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
    • Russ

      @ not a chump: since when did speaking at a church become a right?
      replace ho.mo.se.xuality with something you think is immoral & reconsider the scenario.
      it's not that hard to understand the logic of their actions, and it doesn't require you agreeing to understand it.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
    • Science

      Thanks for the help russ

      Free speech helps educate the masses

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet..........splat goes a fairy in the sky !

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      Hey James Madison................religion has none it looks like.............with the comments on this blog.

      The Big question is ETHICS ! does religion have any ?

      The Ethics of Resurrecting Extinct Species

      Apr. 8, 2013 — At some point, scientists may be able to bring back extinct animals, and perhaps early humans, raising questions of ethics and environmental disruption.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130408165955.htm

      April 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |

      May 1, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |

      May 3, 2013 at 6:39 am | Report abuse |

      May 3, 2013 at 7:35 am |
    • NotFoolinMe

      No one bullied anyone here! Let's not lose track of what words mean. Nothing that happened here even remotely resembled bullying. What is wrong with people? What, you can't make valid arguments with the info at hand so you have to make stuff up? Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

      May 3, 2013 at 7:40 am |
  7. Jack Daniel

    I agree with Church. Why Not.. What about their freedom of expression... get a life people...

    May 2, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • sam

      Being intolerant of intolerance is ok, too.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • snowboarder

      the great thing about freedom is speech is the responsibility of that freedom. statements have consequences. that goes for leroy and the church.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • JMM

      Of course they have the right to believe what they choose, however the church should expect people to exercise their right and expressing their criticism.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
  8. Mitch

    Congrats Mr. Butler on being a true man and standing up for what is right!

    May 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
  9. JMM

    LOl, if he removed his tweet, apologized and asked for forgiveness they would allow him to speak??? What a joke. Butler should release they name of the church. What a bunch of ignorant power hungry men of God, I mean Christians. No wonder our youth doesn't buy into their BS. Way to go!

    May 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • gettinoriginal

      Damn, I wouldn't think Westboro Baptist had that much money!!!!

      May 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • not a bigot

      JMM, of course you do not believe in God thats why!!

      May 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
  10. Stevo

    Hello pot, this is kettle! I love how the church tried to bully him into deleting the tweet, apologizing, and asking "God" for forgiveness so he could speak.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
  11. Duffy

    DAMN!!!! $8,500 bucks to speak at a church?

    May 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
  12. Richard Cranium

    They cancelled his appearance for supporting someone else who is gay...not even for coming out himself, but supporting someone else. How does supporting someone violate a "morals" clause?

    Thats the christian "love" we've all heard so much about.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • sam stone

      He should have accepted the money, and when speaking at the church, called out the leaders to their congregation

      May 2, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
  13. David B

    Judgmental Christians are not christians but people who have a label and call themselves christans. God is the Judge not those who cast the first stone yet have sins of their own. In other words look into the mirror and tell me your wrongdoings before judging others. What happened to love they neighbor? Not Judge thy neighbor!

    May 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Here goes the No True Scotsman again.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
    • trollintraining

      @RIchard Cranium

      But isn't that the same point you are making here?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
  14. sly

    Ah yes, the Nazi Church of Christ.

    Gotta love those religious wacko's, they provide so much amusement in the news.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
  15. shadysider

    Butler planned to teach a church congregation about bullying, but ends up teaching us all about principles.

    Well done, sir.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
  16. LeeCMH

    Recall when the Pentagon dis-invited Franklin Graham to speak at a National Day of Prayer event?

    The hateful Christians went on a crusade wanting Congress to investigate and impeach somebody.

    They screamed that Graham's freedom of speech was violated.

    Interesting the hateful Christians use their ability to dis-invite speakers.

    Tables turned.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
  17. revisio

    $8,500 fee for some ex-player to speak at a church?? are you serious? what a waste of money.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • mb2010a

      Jealousy is a sin also, you know...

      May 2, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
    • Gene Belcher

      Small potatoes compared to a lot of churches other wasteful spending. Look at the mega-churches that have sprung up over the last decade or so. Why would a religion devoted to worshiping a humble man like Jesus Christ require such lavish buildings to hold their services in?

      May 3, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
  18. Baalzabarber

    Good for LeRoy, The church should be ashamed of themselves. Hate mongerers. TAX'EM! Bleed them dry

    May 2, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
  19. fleas

    Somebody needs to out the church.

    This is a bunch of crap. At what point do we start putting churches and their bigotry in the spotlight??????

    May 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • Russ

      @ fleas: your 'tolerance' is awe-inspiring...

      May 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
  20. Bill Deacon

    Russ, let's come out together.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Name stealing is ignorant no matter who does it. And for the record, I find B.D. to be a disingenuous apologist – you're still wrong for stealing his name.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
    • Observer

      midwest rail,

      Amen.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Disengenuous?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Ok, nothing specific? Just an accusation? Perhaps there was a communication problem or we disagree. That doesn't make me a liar. But thanks for recognizing that my name was stolen. Pretty lame attempt and hom ophobic as well. Nice.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
    • .

      Jesus, Bill, we have yet to see anything come out of you that wasn't disingenious. You'll go to any lengths to defend the Catholic church, no matter how convoluted you have to make an argument.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I don't think anyone has to lie to defend the Church. Conversely, I think the Church is worth defending. If you have a specific issue where you think I deliberately lied, I'll address it. Perhaps I was wrong but I haven't lied. Otherwise you are just casting aspersions randomly

      May 2, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • Science

      What Bill ................no one has to lie to defend the church ?.................what about the fairy in the sky ?

      May 3, 2013 at 7:31 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.