 |
|
|
|
 Conservative Christians say their churches have been unprepared for cultural shifts on same-sex marriage.
June 28th, 2013
06:19 PM ET
Conservatives brace for `marriage revolution'By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - With its ivy-covered entrance and Teddy Bear bouquets, Arlene’s Flowers seems an unlikely spot to trigger a culture-war skirmish. Until recently, the Richland, Washington, shop was better known for its artistic arrangements than its stance on same-sex marriage. But in March, Barronelle Stutzman, the shop’s 68-year-old proprietress, refused to provide wedding flowers for a longtime customer who was marrying his partner. Washington state legalized same-sex marriage in December. An ardent evangelical, Stutzman said she agonized over the decision but couldn’t support a wedding that her faith forbids. “I was not discriminating at all,” she said. “I never told him he couldn’t get married. I gave him recommendations for other flower shops.” Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson disagreed, and filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers. The ACLU also sued on behalf of the customer, Robert Ingersoll, who has said Stutzman’s refusal “really hurt, because it was someone I knew.” Among conservative Christians, Stutzman has become a byword - part cautionary tale and part cause celebre. Websites call her a freedom fighter. Tributes fill Arlene’s Facebook page. Donations to her legal defense fund pour in from as far away as Texas and Arkansas. “For some reason, her case has made a lot of people of faith worry,” said Stutzman’s lawyer, Dale Schowengerdt of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group. Those anxieties have only increased, conservative Christians say, since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and opened the door to gay marriage in California. Taking a line from Justice Antonin Scalia's sharp dissent, Southern Baptist scholar Albert Mohler said it’s only a matter of time "before the other shoe drops" – and the high court legalizes same-sex marriage from coast to coast. “Christians will have to think hard — and fast — about these issues and our proper response,” Mohler wrote on Wednesday. “We will have to learn an entire new set of missional skills as we seek to remain faithful to Christ in this fast-changing culture.” His fellow Southern Baptist Russell Moore put the matter more succinctly. “Same-sex marriage is coming to your community.” `The debate is over' Well before the Supreme Court’s rulings, many conservative Christians said they saw the writing - or the poll numbers - on the wall. Survey after survey shows increasing support for same-sex marriage, especially among young Americans. That includes many religious believers. Most Catholics and mainline Protestants, not to mention many Jews, support same-sex relationships, according to surveys. The bells of Washington National Cathedral pealed in celebration on Thursday. Even among those who oppose gay marriage, many think it’s a losing battle. Seventy percent of white evangelicals believe that legal recognition for gay nuptials is inevitable, according to a June poll by the Pew Research Center, though just 22 percent favor it. “The gay marriage debate is over,” said Jonathan Merritt, an evangelical writer on faith and culture. “Statistically, all the numbers move in one direction.” Young Christians have grown up in a far more diverse culture than their forebears, Merritt noted, and many have befriended gays and lesbians. Pew found that more than 90 percent of Americans overall personally know someone who is gay or lesbian, a 30 percent increase since 1993. “It’s far easier to wage war against an agenda than it is to battle a friend,” Merritt said. At the same time, many conservative young Christians say they’re weary of the culture wars, and of seeing their communities labeled “judgmental.” When Christian researchers at the Barna Group asked Americans aged 16-29 what words best describe Christianity, the top response was “anti-homosexual.” That was true of more than 90 percent of non-Christians and 80 percent of churchgoers, according to Barna. Tired of being told the country is slouching toward Gomorrah, many young Christians have simply tuned out the angry prophets of earlier generations, evangelical leaders say. “The shrill angry voices of retrenchment are no longer getting a broad hearing either in the culture at large or in the evangelical community,” Merritt said. But the battle over same-sex marriage is far from over, said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “I don’t believe most Christians are going to give up the fight,” said Brown, who is Catholic. He said his movement includes many young evangelical and Orthodox Christians. “And they are more energized than ever.” Love thy gay neighbors Energized or not, conservative Christians must prepare for the moral dilemmas posed by the country’s growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, said Moore, the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “Is Your Church Ready for the Marriage Revolution?” Moore asked, while promoting a special session on homosexuality at the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Houston in June. Many evangelical pastors have seen homosexuality as a distant culture-war battle that’s fought far from the doors of the churches, Moore said. Now, it’s as close as their front pews. “I think it’s not so much that churches haven’t wanted to talk about it,” he said, “but they haven’t recognized how much the culture has changed around them.” The first step, said Moore, is learning to defend traditional marriage without demonizing gays and lesbians. Walking through Washington’s Union Station last Thursday, Moore said he saw several lesbian couples kissing in celebration of the Supreme Court rulings. “If we can’t empathize with what’s going on in their hearts and minds, we’re not going to be able to love and respect them.” Then come a host of secondary questions: How should conservative pastors minister to same-sex couples? Should Christians attend same-sex weddings? Should florists like Barronelle Stutzman's agree to work with gay couples? `Don't give in'  Florist Barronelle Stutzman. In the 17 years she’s owned Arlene’s Flowers, Stutzman said, she’s worked with a number of gay colleagues. “It really didn’t matter if they were gay, or blue or green, if they were creative and could do the job,” she said. Stutzman suspects that some of her eight children privately don’t agree with her on homosexuality, even as they publicly support her decision. Online, Stutzman has been called a bigot, and worse. She said she’s lost at least two weddings because of her refusal to provide services for the same-sex marriage. Conservative activists say her case is the first of what will surely be many more, as gay marriage spreads across the country. As she gets ready to face a judge, the silver-haired florist offered some advice for fellow evangelicals. “Don’t give in. If you have to go down for Christ, what better person to go down for?” soundoff (5,210 Responses)« Previous 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next »
Next entry »Prayers for Mandela: Healing or a`peaceful end'?
« Previous entryWhite House: Faith groups can opt out of contraception mandate
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
This case is the beginning of many more cases to come. Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will be sued. Caterers, banquet rooms, wedding coordinators, photographers, DJs, etc. this woman should not have been so honest perhaps, and simply say she was unavailable
Candida
"This case is the beginning of many more cases to come. Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will be sued."
Nope. You've lost track of the fact that marriage is a LEGAL matter with optional religious involvement. If your church refuses to marry gays, they can always go elsewhere including the city hall in most cases.
There goes "honesty is the best policy" right on out the window!
Maybe she just should have done the right thing and provided the services she was asked to do.
Observer, doesn't make sense. So why is this woman being sued? She was to provide flowers for a wedding not the marriage. Wedding is just a party. If this florist couldn't do it there are others, in fact she even made a few recommendations. I think that this gay marriage thing has gone overboard. They now feel more righteous than ever. If I was refused service, I just go somewhere else. And if the person who refused me with explanation, I accept it as it is her right to her beliefs. Thank her and bed done with it. Why make it such a big ordeal? It's as if the gay and lesbian communities are out to get anyone who will not accept them. Face it, there's always going to be some culture, social behavior that are not accepted universally and we try to overlook their pettiness. I am Asian living in America during times when we were not well accepted.
So you think the couple should just suck it up? Why should they? Just because you did?
LinCa, what is the right thing nowadays? It was her right too to follow her religious beliefs.
Candida, Observer dismissed your claim that churches could be sued and he is correct. Churches are not obligated to provide services for gay couples, anymore than a Catholic church is required to allow non-Catholics to partake of Communion.
The real tom, yes. We do it everyday. My white husband and I once brought our baby to a very upscale restaurant and we were told they were fully booked, although we could see there were many empty seats. So do we make a scene or just take our $$ and go where we will be served by people who accepts us.
@Candida
You said, "what is the right thing nowadays? It was her right too to follow her religious beliefs."
The choice between following a fairy tale and serving a customer, shouldn't be hard. It isn't rocket science, but maybe that's just my take.
Then you're cowards. You are welcome to remain so but you have no business expecting or demanding that others be as gutless.
Candida,
"It's as if the gay and lesbian communities are out to get anyone who will not accept them"
They are "out to get" equal rights. Why is that difficult for you to undersand?
“As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington,” said (Bob) Ferguson. “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. "
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/04/09/ag-sues-florist-who-refused-flowers-to-gay-wedding/
Oh, and Candida, I call BS on your little tale of the "upscale restaurant." You didn't have a reservation, did you? You saw empty tables and assumed that the maitre d' was lying when he told you they were "fully booked"?
Get a clue.
Whatever you say tom. I am old now, I am talking moons ago and I am very sure it did not require reservations to be seated.
Just so you know, I practice Buddhism which I don't consider a religion but a way of life. Equal rights? As far as I know it was also the woman's equal right to her religious beliefs.
Baloney. I'm no spring chicken and "upscale restaurants" have required reservations as long as I can remember. I think you're full of it.
" As far as I know it was also the woman's equal right to her religious beliefs."
She is welcome to believe whatever she wants. She is not free to discriminate against others based on those beliefs.
Not being a coward but conscientious and considerate, just as I accept that you accuse me of BS.
I guess Candida is unfamiliar with the concept of "reservations".
Churches may deny marriage to anyone.
Retail businesses that are not religion-based may not deny services based on discrimination. Please understand that difference.
"Not being a coward but conscientious and considerate,"
There is nothing 'conscientious or considerate' about accepting discrimination, nor is there anything noble about insisting others should do so.
Did you not read up on this case? She did not discriminate against gays and lesbians. In fact he was a regular customer. She just told him she could nit participate in the wedding arrangement because of her religion, she does not believe in the marriage.
So? She doesn't get to do that. It's discriminatory.
I guess to some of you, there's only one side and your side is right and to hell with everyone who doesn't agree. Just know that some of the gays and lesbians have trouble even getting accepted by their own families.
Gee, what a revelation! Yes, there are gays and lesbians whose families don't accept them, sadly. Now, what in the world do you think that has to do with this case?
Answer: Not one thing.
My point is, acceptance is a two way thing. If gays and lesbians want acceptance, they also should accept there are nights out there who will not. I don't have a problem with gays and lesbians, I just have a problem with these lawsuits. The woman is 68 years old, she reserves the right to her business and its practices.
Oops auto correction, nights = bigots
You don't get to decide that she has that right, and neither does she. The case will probably go to court and she will likely lose. You don't seem to grasp the fact that business owners are not allowed to serve only those of whom they approve. They are not allowed to refuse service to Asians or African Americans or Mexicans or gays just because they don't approve of them or don't like them.
I am not so sure she will lose. One thing for sure, she has invoke the silent majority I think. Case in point, as one who never spoke out at these things, I have contributed to her funds to help her fight.
"The woman is 68 years old, she reserves the right to her business and its practices."
It doesn't matter how old she is. As long as she is in America, she needs to learn to FOLLOW THE LAW.
Do you think everyone should be free to decide which laws they will follow and which they will ignore? As a woman, you should be glad for laws that FINALLY gave you the right to vote. I'd bet you support laws against that kind of discrimination.
So Candida thinks it's better to be polite, accept discrimination, and just hope somebody ELSE will speak up for her. How courageous.
Oh give me a break on following the law! The government doesn't even follow the laws they write.
Candida,
Are you really dimwitted enough to claim that everyone should decide which laws to obey and which to ignore?
Give you a break on following the law?
This is a nation of laws. They are created to preserve and protect our individual rights and freedoms. How do you not realize that?
The America I arrived to had a lot of compassion and consideration. Even when some were bigots, there were many times more who were kind. I don't have a religious bone in me, yet I support that this woman has hers and explained kindly to her regular customer. If that man would have been compassionate, he would have accepted it and gone elsewhere. No biggie right? Like the chinese saying, if east don't work, go west.
This isn't an issue of "manners and consideration", you ninny. It's a matter of law.
Candida,
At this very moment gay soldiers, firemen, policemen, emergency workers, etc. are RISKING their lives for you and everyone else. Many have died.
Please tell us while you sit in the safety and security that they have provided to you, why these HEROES are unworthy of the SAME rights you have. Tell us why you aren't a thoughtless INGRATE.
@Candida
You said, "The America I arrived to had a lot of compassion and consideration."
It's getting better, still. We just have to work through some bigotry.
You said, "Even when some were bigots, there were many times more who were kind."
Bigotry doesn't deserve, much less require kindness.
You said, "I don't have a religious bone in me, yet I support that this woman has hers and explained kindly to her regular customer."
Just like, "Irish need not apply" and "Back of the bus", as long as it is for religious reasons, right?
You said, "If that man would have been compassionate, he would have accepted it and gone elsewhere."
He did what he should have done. He stood up against a bully. The days that religiots get to discriminate, just because they belong to the dominant cult, are coming to an end.
You said, "Like the chinese saying, if east don't work, go west."
He went west, but made sure that east would someday also work.
I am amazed how much toleration I have. In all my posts, I have not once called anyone derogatory names, yet I have been dimwit, ninny... Oh well here is the example of what this society has become. It is now my bedtime. I wish I had more time to share my wisdom with you young people.
You don't have any wisdom, and you deserved every epithet. Why should you be upset by them? After all, you think it's okay for people to discriminate, so what's the big deal about calling someone 'dimwit'?
Candida
"I am amazed how much toleration I have. In all my posts, I have not once called anyone derogatory names, yet I have been dimwit, ninny"
I never called you a dimwit. Besides being unable to answer questions, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Candida, she broke the law:
“As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington,” said (Bob) Ferguson. “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. "
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/04/09/ag-sues-florist-who-refused-flowers-to-gay-wedding/
Well, it seems clear that tallulah13 has provided definitive information that, like it or not, puts this issue to rest. Well done, tallulah13!
"Candida", "We could be hypocrites together", "Saying our religion is better!", "Like we are more fresh and sweet!"
The following is my initial post from which the Belief Blog wicked witch began her antagonistic rumblings,,,,
While I am a Deist and struggle with Christendom, I see gay marriages as a societal condition where many social groups will have to bow down and bite the bullet as a peace offering to yet another cultural classification.
June 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Awww. You poor thing. You really are butt-hurt, aren't you?
I think the continued existence of child abusers is a burden on society.
Adults abusing children sexually should be jailed with their own likes.
Any sort of abuse against children is disgusting and deserves the most stringent penalty.
Oh? But beating the crap out of them is okay, huh?
tallulah13
I agree.
What penalty was imposed on you for beating your brother, LL?
Yes, LL. I would like to know what punishment you deserve.
I have not read this article. I can't reach it. But I will tell you this much, skirts are getting shorter.
Just wait, you'll soon be seeing Christians on every street corner jumping into the air again and again trying to get themselves raptured. The only time it will work is when they slip on the curb into traffic.
Nah. Some religious people are pretty decent sorts. On the other hand, I don't think anyone would miss internet trolls. In fact, I think most people would cheer.
Qu eers? Jail em don't marry em !
Trolls! Deny them internet access!
Right get rid of tallulah and its filthy kind
Oh! What a zinger! I'm sure I'd be devastated if your opinion actually had any value.
Doesn't the author mean "republicans" because since WHEN has a republican EVER been a conservative.
Well, there's various forms of conservatism. I describe myself as a 'don't tread on me' conservative, which would be closely associated with Libertarianism, although I wouldn't vote Libertarian as these days they are just an anti-federal party. Then there's Republican conservatism, which equates to big government monitoring and controlling the behavior of the populace.
So, I'm Sorry, you used to post as Rational Libertarian, didn't you?
I like the analogy of R* Paulians as anti-federalists.
There's no such thing as a Republican these days either. They can't figure out if they are Neo-Cons, kleptocrats or minions of the Religious right's theocrats.
The GOP is now the "guess our policy" so we can will an election.
What are "kleptocrats?" I love the sound of that.
The real Tom
No, I'm not a Libertarian. I supported The Reform Party, but stopped after Buchanan took over. Since then, I've not supported any party.
Well, thanks, but that's not what I asked you. Did you post as "Rational Libertarian" at one time?
Isn't a kleptocracy when the leaders use their power to steal and exploit as much as they can while in power? Basically every government in every country ever. Period.
@TRT
here's the wikipedia definition of kleptocracy:
Kleptocracy ("rule by thieves") is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds.
I use it here to represent government of the people by the corruptible for the monied special interests – generally those in the pockets of big capital. They mostly like to talk about 'free market economy'.
The real Tom
No, I've only started coming on this blog the last month. I might stop also, everything is so mean spirited.
"Basically every government in every country ever. Period."
From a cynical perspective, sure, to some extent.
It is re-emerging stronger than ever right now thanks in part to Citizens United, but Citizens United is but a thread in the fabric. We also see it in the American Legislative Exchange Council, and many other 501(c)(3)s. Other good examples are Americans For Prosperity – who today are celebrating the defeat of the farm bill (which includes food stamps) on their website.
Thanks, Not a GOPer. I should have looked it up myself, but I'm lazy. That's what HeavenSent says, anyway...
@I'm Sorry Dave ...
I wouldn't let anything that HeavenSent or lol?? say trouble you in the least.
The dominant characteristic of this forum is unpleasantness. There are a number of regular "believe or burn" posters here who are mirrored by a possibly larger number of non-believers who tell them where to put their proselytizing.
Having said that, there can be some interesting discussion and interesting topics. There is a lot of banal noise though.
I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
From what I've seen, lots of the unpleasantness comes from the atheist camp. Somebody accused me of being HeavenSent last week, merely because I defended Catholic school education. To paraphrase, he said something like 'Catholic schools deserve nothing but contempt and loathing'. I disagreed and was then accused of being an indoctrinated drone, despite having no religious affiliation or beliefs. There's jerks on both sides.
"There's jerks on both sides."
Yes, there certainly are. The fact that there is no requirement to 'log in' here also creates an environment of childish handle spoofing, again by both sides.
Congrats to California, of course, for reauthorizing gay marriage as quickly as possible.
And thanks to the brand new PM of Australia who is working very hard to push for quick legalization:
Kevin Rudd raises stakes on gay marriage
by: Patricia Karvelas
From: The Australian
June 29, 2013 12:00AM
KEVIN Rudd has declared he will consider a plebiscite or referendum on the issue of gay marriage if Tony Abbott fails to grant his MPs a free vote to resolve the issue.
Mr Rudd yesterday sought to make his personal conversion to supporting gay marriage a central election issue and pitch to young voters, proudly declaring that he was Australia's first marriage-equality prime minister and was committed to marriage law reform.
The train can't be stopped!
New Zealand too, back in April. See yesterday's The Huffington Post .
Oh yeah – New Zealand's a done deal. Some places say only states of Brazil and Mexico, but I believe right now, if a gay couple wants to be married anywhere in Brazil, the latest court ruling I heard (it was one of their highest courts) said whatever state they were in had to honor their wishes. In Mexico, gay marriage is legal in Mexico City, but all states have to recognize those marriages (from a recent ruling).
All who are rational and dispassionate knew this was (and will continue to b) the inevitable outcome...yes?
2 Corinthians 4:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,”[a] made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.
Drive your truck through any churches lately, Austintasia?
By the way, what dreams have you had recently? Why not post them so we can all be blown away when some miraculous vision you've had while snoring shows up in some extremely tenuous form during your sentient hours (all 3 of them)?
May God bless The Real Tom with the joy and happiness she so richly deserves.
What's your issue QC?
I think it is obvious to everyone but you. You need help. Don't be afraid to ask for it.
Oh? Everyone, huh? Funny, you're the only one who thinks so. Call out your sock puppets now so you can look like you're one of a crowd, dear.
It won't matter, since I don't give two sh!ts for the opinion of a troll like you anyway.
Austin's a fraud and if you defend his nonsense, so are you.
You sound kind of defensive for someone who claims to not care.
I sound defensive? I didn't know you could hear me.
Sweetie, there's no point in trying to shame me. Give up already.
Ok, have a good night.
Oh, I will. Almost always do.
I don't think the real Tom needs help which means QuoteCity is wrong.
Do you eat shrimp Austin?
This is how it's done. Don't allow them cover under the flag, the church, or the conservative dead weights on the Court. Shine a light into every bigot infested cranny and expose them. They will scatter. Be sure to put down a bit of borax and caster's sugar for when they try to come back.
John 15:26-27
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
@austin You better leave tom alone. The other tom scored a tko over lion.
Borax and caster's sugar? Lol!
LOL – yes the borax thing. I didn't know about the sugar, though.
The sugar makes them take it back to the nest so you get the whole colony.
Akira, that was mean.
Ah – interesting. I wonder if that remedy works on those crazy ants that I hear about in the south. I tried borax years ago for a flea infestation that was a present from a neighbor dog, but I guess I was missing the key ingredient. I wound up having to drop some bombs.
"The first step, said Moore, is learning to defend traditional marriage without demonizing gays and lesbians."
The fact that they actually believe this is possible is what repeatedly demonstates their ignorance of both the legal benefits of marriage and of the importance of human relations.
This notion of 'traditional marriage' is a farce.
There is civil marriage – outlining tax benefits, survivorship benefits etc.
There is sacramental marriage where religious congregants mystify a wedded couple with 'whom God has joined, let no man put asunder".
They two are entirely separate. No one is doing anything that impinges on "sacramental" marriage – except for the high divorce rate of "Christians" who are the ones who have turned their own inst!tution into a farce.
Less and less straight couples are getting married today. Pretty soon their won't be any "traditional" marriage to defend. 🙂
our laws are based on the protection of individual freedoms, not biblical crap.
@Tom I think this is a good topic really. your opinion. and freedom.
Drunk again, Austintasia?
alcohol is too wild for me. I can't tame that one.
Yeah, sure. You're just stupid, then.
At least you have the humility to admit that, Austin. Some people never reach that point.
not really, I enjoy the fact that I dont' deal with the slavery to the life. If i drink a few beers, in three days I will NEED a few.
I'm not sure why you have trouble with the original statement. Because our laws are based on the protection of individual freedoms, not biblical crap.
"The Puritans came over to start a theocracy, not escape one. Let's face it, they succeeded."
Almost! The miracle (if you will permit me to use that word) is that they were thwarted by men of the enlightenment who threw off the shackles of established religion and created a new country without one.
Most of America forgot that detail, but thankfully we are remembering it again.
It is ironic that Great Britain – a country with an established religion, whose head of state is also the head of the state Church, is less religious than the United States.
Ooops – wrong spot.
I never seem to remember to hit reply when the post is at the bottom of the page.
The reply button can be tricky. But at least you're not a serial abuser.
Lion...............Tom is on your azz like ugly on a ape. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.
Ken Margo,
Tom is a 58 year old antagonist who gets her jollies in excremental conditionings. She is nothing but the Belief Blog's wicked witch. 😦
Translation of LL's post: Tom beat my ass again and I'm mad as hell that I can't come up with a single fact to refute what she said.
Seriously Lion..............you're losing every battle. Gay marriage, birth control, abortion, health care reform and next immigration reform. When will you look at the bible differently? Obviously your prayers DON'T work. I'm not saying to give up religion but you must admit the will of the people is stronger than your bible.
He should just quit posting. How can he keep losing over and over without seeing the light?
The moron just challenge MyWeightInWords to "show me your genes" to 'prove' that being bisexual isn't a choice. The idiot is just beyond hope.
Sorry, Dippy–I meant to type "challenged."
Well, I think we all kinda realized that all along, just by his "writing" style.
Ken Margo,
I'd not be surprised if the wicked witch of Belief Blog Central has a bone up her butt while she ponders precipitously her stand in Life.
?
Try not to be so pathetic, LL, dear. It's just sad.
Yeah, Dippy, nobody else knows what the fvck the idiot's talking about, either.
@lion.........What about YOUR stand in life? Muslim extremists use Islam to spew hateful things at Christians. Why would you lower yourself to that level by spewing things at gays and lesbians?
hahaha, suck it, fundies! that's right, whether you like it or not, our g.ay men and women will be able to express their love and commit to their partners. they will receive the benefits due them. you don't get to shove your religious views down other people's throats.
my fiance and i are straight against hate. we fully support our lgbt brothers and sisters in their fight for civil rights and equality.
There goes the neighborhoods Alice! And "we" thought it couldn't get any worse! Dumb futzes can't see past their own noses being stuck up their own hind ends! The futures will cast upon everyone's children their social hell.
So, LL, you can't come up with a single citation to support your contention. You just "believe" that it's harmful for children to be raised by two loving parents who happen to be of the same gender as each other.
I wonder: just how good were YOUR parents?
After all, they were straight, weren't they, LL? And look at you and your brother. Not exactly poster children for straight marriage as being superior to gay marriage, are you?
Tell some thing new, mammy and daddy of believers of Evolution Monkeys , secular self centered man kind do it all the time, but in their own end of the wood, unlike hindu gays, filthy secular man kind among humanity.
TrT,
Go away little girlie and take your persona with you! This is my last posting toward your jealous rants and psychotic raves tonight!
Thanks for conceding, LL. Glad to see you can admit it when you've lost the argument. Ta-ta, honey.
Douglas, it's disgusting that you would reference your foul Christian book of hate AKA the bible as a guide to anything, considering its other fine guidances such as these, from both its foul testaments. And note carefully the comments about context and interpretation that follow the quotes:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
the bible is an awful guide to good living.
the bible commands its followers to kill all g.ays, disobedient children, non-virgin brides and anyone working the weekend. that book fully endorses slavery, gives rules for buying slaves, beating slaves, even for how to sell your own daughter into slavery. jesus himself says to beat disobedient slaves "with many stripes." you would think an all loving god would have "thou shalt not own another human being - it is the ultimate evil" as one of his commandments.
modern ethics > biblical morality
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, 'He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.'"
QuoteCity
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, 'He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.'"
Why would you brag that God doesn't want the brightest of people on his side?
Observer, QC doesn't like it when smart people show up. It makes it hard for it to look like a sentient creature.
"The world with its wisdom was unable to recognize God in terms of his own wisdom. So God decided to use the nonsense of the Good News we speak to save those who believe."
1 Corinthians 3:19
QuoteCity,
So man is actually stupid when they oppose slavery and discrimination against women, handicapped people and gays and should see how smart God is to support those positions.
Oh, shit. QC looks like another damn bible babbler to deal with. When will it ever end? Can't these nitwits ever come up with something on their own?
No. I believe God wants me to oppose slavey and discrimination against women, handicapped people and gays.
Slavery, discrimination agaisnt women, handicapped people and gays actually exists more in non-Christian nations today.
Then why are you posting in opposition to those who also believe such discrimination is wrong?
QuoteCity
"No. I believe God wants me to oppose slavey and discrimination against women, handicapped people and gays."
So why does the Bible support all of those discriminations? Is this part of the "smart = stupid and stupid = smart" philosophy you referred to?
Just because something is in the Bible, doesn't mean that God approves of it.
Jesus Christ is my Lord. Not the Bible.
"Jesus Christ is my Lord. Not the Bible."
So how do you come to know about Jesus if not via the Bible, then, QC?
Baptism.
How would you know about baptism is not through the bible?
The Bible is not God. It points to God.
Not an answer. How did you know about baptism other than through the bible?
How would someone know about Jesus if there were no bible? Does he have a website?
My greatest understanding of baptism – is being baptized and witnessing and supporting other baptisms.
Not just reading about it. Faith without works is dead.
You make it sound like I claim to reject the Bible, which I don't. My point is, some things are described in the Bible honestly as they were. It doesn't mean that God approved of it.
So you DO use the bible, then? You just pick and choose. Like most Christians.
Maybe there is more to it than you realize.
Why would they leave the difficult and controversial verses in there?
Maybe there is a honest and difficult truth about ourselves being described.
The real Tom, you posted "So you DO use the bible, then? You just pick and choose. Like most Christians."
Answer: Choosing any of Jesus' truth is better than satan's lies.
If you're a fundamentalist Christian, it must be tough living in a secular country with a consti tution. England has a Christian state religion, you may be more comfortable living there.
That only remains for tradition though. More than half of the population of England are atheists. In general, religiosity permeates American life far more than it does English life.
yeah, pretty ironic.
people came here to escape religious prosecution only to prosecute others for their religion.
england has a state religion - but america is way more religious
politicians in america are expected to bring up god in speeches - politicians in england get laughed at if they bring up god
funny how things work out...
Bootyfunk
That's also a myth. As long as you weren't Catholic, early 17th century England was very tolerant of religious belief, more than any country on main-land Europe. The Puritans came over to start a theocracy, not escape one. Let's face it, they succeeded.
@I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that – "The Puritans came over to start a theocracy..."
I think history is clear that the Puritans left England to escape persecution by the Church of England with the intent (perhaps implicit) of creating a quasi-theocracy in the New World. So...in my humble opinion, both you and Bootyfunk are spot on.
Cheers
Reposted –
"The Puritans came over to start a theocracy, not escape one. Let's face it, they succeeded."
Almost! The miracle (if you will permit me to use that word) is that they were thwarted by men of the enlightenment who threw off the shackles of established religion and created a new country without one.
Most of America forgot that detail, but thankfully we are remembering it again.
It is ironic that Great Britain – a country with an established religion, whose head of state is also the head of the state Church, is less religious than the United States.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV –
Dawkins claim, perhaps facittiously, that the Church of England is the reason England has a non-believing majority. He asserts that government sanction puts the Church's ridiculous nature before the populace on a regular basis. Rather similar to Prof. Dennett's assertion that religion, ALL religions, should be taught in public school – take the mystery away and all you're left with is nonsense.
Friggin' typos –
"Dawkins claims, perhaps facetiously..."
@Really-O
"I think history is clear that the Puritans left England to escape persecution by the Church of England
It's time we challenged that myth. The Scrooby separatists (the Pilgrims) really weren't persecuted the way we understand the term today.
The 1559 Act of Uniformity required everyone to belong to the (Protestant) Church of England. The Scrooby separatists were fined for not attending services per the law. Eventually they left England to create a religious colony in Leiden in Holland.
Note this comment in wikipedia: "In the Columbia Encyclopedia, it is stated that "Although not actively persecuted, the group was subjected to ecclesiastical investigation and to the mockery, criticism, and disfavor of their neighbors."."
The Puritans were members of the Church of England. The Puritans (Cromwell and his cronies) ultimately executed the King.
And let's not forget exactly who was the King our mother's milk myths tell us persecuted the Scrooby Separatists?
Why none other than James I. The very same King James who authorized the translation of the bible that our fundies all cleave to.
It was James' Hampton Court Conference of 1604 that stopped the hopes of the non-conformists (continuing to use religion as a tool of political control – as Elizabeth I had done before him) but also authorized the bible translation so loved by so many today.
James I's son Charles I was executed during the Civil War by the Puritan led Parliamentarians.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV –
Your understanding of history is almost certainly better than mine, and I'll concede that "persecution" is an imprecise word. Let me clarify by saying that nonconformist Puritans were harassed (better?) under direction of William Laud.
I'm not much of a history buff, but I'm always up for some some education, so let me know if I'm off track.
Cheers
William Laud was made Archbishop of Canterbury as of 1633. He certainly did oppose the Puritans.
By that time the Puritans had already settled in Boston (1630) with the Winthrop fleet. Puritans had previously settled in Salem starting in 1626 and continuing through 1629. This migration was precipitated by the acession of Charles I to the throne – and not by Laud becoming Archbishop (1633).
England was spiralling into the civil war. The Puritans felt that Charles had Catholic sympathies. Laud supported the monarchy (and specifically Charles) and tried to marginalize the Puritans. Tensions between Puritans, Parliament and the monarchy increased from around 1629 through beginning of the civil war in earnest in 1642. I wouldn't make this about Laud nearly so much as the chaos of the wars of the reformation raging back and forth through Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries – all in the name of religion but just as much about power.
In the end Laud was imprisoned in the Tower in 1641. Though he had fallen out of favor with Charles he was pardoned in 1644 but this did not save him and he remained imprisoned. He was executed in 1645.
Charles himself was executed in 1649.
Laud is famously connected to the 1633 "Declaration of Sports", or permissable non-Church recreation on a Sunday.
The original 1617 declaration of sports listed archery, dancing, "leaping, vaulting, or any other such harmless recreation" as permissible sports, together with "May-games, Whitsun-ales and Morris-dances, and the setting up of May-poles" as being "legal" on a Sunday.
The buzz-kill, no-fun-zone Puritans did not like this law. (Remember that these are the same people that banned Christmas.)
The 1633 version included an additional introduction and conclusion and added wakes and ales (countryside festivals) to the list of sanctioned recreations.
Laud was imputed by Puritans to have been responsible for the 1633 declaration.
There's lots of fascinating stuff to read about this period. Most of the comments above were sourced from wikipedia.
There is no joy in celebrating the sin of Sodom.
In Matthew 19 Jesus defines marriage, without ambiguity, as the union of one man and one woman.
The folly of man thinking he knows more than the Creator of man is apparent with the recent SCOTUS
decision on "gay marriage".
They said, "Let's play house" and the Court obliged them.
Celibacy for these couples will help remove condemnation from these marriages.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Douglas,
Have you ever read a Bible?
The sin of Sodom was GREED. Read a Bible so you won't keep making such ignorant statements.
Doogie, you're committing the worst sin of all. You're being a complete bore.
Douglas, it's disgusting that you would reference your Christian book of hate AKA the bible as a guide to anything, considering its other fine guidances such as these, from both its foul testaments. And note carefully the comments about context and interpretation that follow the quotes:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
The only stories Douglas comments on are the ones concerning gay folk. Obsession is a mental disorder. Seek help, Dougie.
He's a one-trick ass.
Observer,
You don't have a clue.
The fact that Lot offered his virgin daughters to appease the mob of men demanding to "know" (engage in gay coitus)
with the angel visitors is proof positive that the sin of Sodom was gay coitus. Shortly thereafter the place was scorched.
The sin of gay coitus is STILL a sin. Celibacy is the only way out of the abyss of fornication. Gay marriage is akin
to putting lipstick on the proverbial pig. It just doesn't fit.
Read the Bible and live it Observer, then you will understand its true meaning.
Until then...you remain clueless.
What part of this escapes your comprehension, Doogie: The bible isn't the foundation of our laws and nobody has to live by your beliefs.
" What part of this escapes your comprehension, Doogie: "
Um, all of it ? Or was that a trick question, Tom ? 😉
Sorry Douglas, I'm not buying a pencil from you today.
Everything's a trick question for him, mr.
mans laws arent the foundation for God who is forgiving of our sin. He is risen.
True that, Tom.
Austin, here's a news flash for you: this isn't a theocracy, not everyone is a Christian, and our laws are based on the protection of individual freedoms, not biblical crap.
You are free to hate yourself as much as you want, Dougy. Have fun with that.
So very brainwashed, you are!
Get your own life buttercup and leave other people alone. That's simple.
I believe "The Solution" is just another of lol??s names and they are just being moronic so they can turn around and say "see you atheists are mean and hateful!". The lol?? troll often has arguments with themselves.
Dont ya just love it when people claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus!!
Hahaha, lets get Jesus' opinion of that bizarre claim before you bet the farm on it.