<p>mini: My sincere thanks, from me and a billion other Catholics.
As for willful misrepresentation: once again, “condemning gays” is NOT the same thing as opposing gay marriage. Keep on truckin’ though.</p>
<p>Since millions of gay Catholics celebrate 11 openly gay Popes (and dozens of slightly more closeted ones, and saints, too), and Catholics celebrated gay marriages for almost a thousand years (read: Boswell), you’re welcome.</p>
<p>Dross addressed your Boswell previously.</p>
<p>
mini, do you really FEAR being called anti-religious? Are you suggesting a ban on anyone’s right to call your opinions anti-religious? Or ban their right to characterize & discuss them in any way? That’s what I call an open dialogue. I would think you’d welcome that.</p>
<p>charge a fee for speaking? noooooooooo, but ask for taxes on the money “earned”</p>
<p>big difference</p>
<p>if I give money to a church, it is tax deductible, so I benefit, but if the church breaks the law that they agreed to to get those tax free donations, well, then I would have to pay taxes, and the church would lose its status</p>
<p>Dross: citygirlsmom just answered your question exactly as I would have answered it.</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>“I would say that arguing from the New Testament that JESUS (not Paul, but Jesus) condemns homosexuality is “Biblically-based nonsense.” He did, however, seem to have a lot more to say about bankers.” </p>
<p>!!! That’s great!</p>
<p>I actually have a list of ‘biblical laws’ at home that are conveniently ignored. Stuff like stoning one’s neighbor for wearing 2 types of cloth and other bizarre old testament laws. I’ll post it later along with the scriptural references.</p>
<p>This is not intended to dis Christianity or the bible but just to make the point that if people want to base modern laws on the bible, why is it they pick and choose?</p>
<p>For example, I doubt that gays would have a harder time getting into ‘heaven’ than rich people - remember what Jesus said about it being easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle (or something like that). So why aren’t they working on getting being wealthy outlawed?</p>
<p>
It seems to me if there is a Constitutional separation of Church and State, the State should have no authority to compel the Church to pay for what should be free (the right to free speech does not come from the government. The Founders believed it is natural to all humans.). It should have the right to free speech, including the endorsement of a person. It is, after all, mere speech-- not fighting words, not insults, not yelling fire in a crowded place, but speech that transmits opinions. Also, churches never “signed up” to lose free speech. The current view of Separation of Church and State is new, and it came about because lawmakers used their power to impose the rule upon the Church. Churches are now simply following the law. But many now lobby the government, under its rules, to try to gain back their lost rights. If the government has the right to control the speech of the Church, to demand fees of the Church should the Church merely say something, then it is quite clear to me that the “wall of separation” between Church and State does not exist.</p>
<p><<so why=“” aren’t=“” they=“” working=“” on=“” getting=“” being=“” wealthy=“” outlawed?=“”>></so></p>
<p>Lealdragon: What are THEY working on getting OUTLAWED regarding gays again?</p>
<p>
Okay. So, it seems we are making some progress. I agree, a pastor should be able to say anything he pleases, including endorsing a political candidate. And people should be free to reject his view as pure nonsense. That is American. What seems awfully un-American to me is your belief that no one should have the right to claim someone is “anti-religious”. We ought to have this right by law. Such a comment may cause us to lose our job (if it is our boss that we are calling “anti-religious”), or it may cause us to lose friends (if we are calling friends anti-religious), but it ought not activate the government in any way.</p>
<p>
The Church did not agree to anything. It is simply following our government system, even as it lobbies to retrieve its stolen natural rights. Secondly, there is no wall of separation between Citygirlsmom and State. Accordingly, the State has a logical authority to tax Citygirlsmom. But according to our law, please do not miss this, but as a matter of our law, the Constitution itself, there is a wall of separation between the Church and the State. That is why the State has no legitimate authority to limit the speech of the Church or to compel it to pay for rights that ought to be free.</p>
<p>
Of course Jesus never said anything about pedophilia or bestiality either, but we, for some odd reason, never hear anyone claiming he supported these behaviors or that they are permissible. I sometimes wonder if we are really willing to understand the positions of those with whom we disagree.</p>
<p>
I tell you if you could enter into the thinking of these people, you will see that they really are not “conveniently overlooking” anything. In fact, their system of thinking (I mean here their “hermeneutic”) is really quite interesting. The stuff below is, I think, from an evangelical hermeneutic, and I am not gonna go into a whole lotta detail because it is really tough to pull all this stuff together, but you know…</p>
<p>When we view the laws, to which you refer, from their perspective, we see the laws were all fulfilled by the purification made possible by the blood sacrifice of Christ (SEE Acts 11:1-9). Jesus himself declared that while those laws still exist, he came to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17-18). The laws are in effect today and will remain so until the end of the world. But those who are in Christ are, by imputation, fulfilling these laws through Christ. Those who are not in Christ, must fulfill them on their own, and since they are not fulfilling them, they are in fact condemned by them. Whether the laws are relevant to our times or not is not at all the issue. They must be fulfilled in both word and spirit, and Christ does this, and he offers folks the benefit of his work. This fact effectively abolished ceremonial strictures such as those affecting diet and the mixture of dissimilar items like different threads, different foods, and even different people, like Jews and Gentiles. As long as two previously forbidden mixtures are mixed both in Christ, then neither one of them is unclean. Both are now made compatible.</p>
<p>But this does not apply to moral strictures. In other words, a murder committed in Christ can never be made acceptable and clean – and neither can homosexuality. The condemnation of homosexuality was in fact continued from the Old Testament into the New Testament. In St. Paul’s letter to the Romans (Rom. 1:26-28), for example, we see clearly where homosexuality is despised. In 1 Cor. 6:9–10 the Bible even declares that homosexuals will not see heaven. Clearly then, homosexuality, in the Bible, is not made clean under any circumstances. It is deemed wrong.</p>
<p>I am not trying to defend the view. I am trying to explain it (maybe too quickly because I gotta go).</p>
<p>Drossel, I really do appreciate your willingness to discuss these controversial topics in a respectful way. I think you & I are a lot alike in the sense that we both can zero in on the root issues, and be able to understand an opposing viewpoint despite disagreeing. Where were you when I started the ‘Seeking Physics Scholars’ thread? I would have welcomed your input!</p>
<p>I am telling you this because I don’t want you to think I am backing out of a discussion just when it’s getting heated. Honestly, I am just running out of time. As a homeschool mom, I have the responsibilities of acting as advisor to my son, and I have to fill out the FAFSA, and I have to help him sort thru all the college brochures and offers and make some decisions, etc. In addition, I am taking a java class and I have homework myself on top of my job and homeschooling. And, there’s more but I won’t bore you any more with more details.</p>
<p>Point is, that cc discussions have become rather addictive for me, and I need to back off right about now. So don’t take it personally, ok? I’ll be back when time allows. I’ll peek in occasionally but I just can’t address all the points I’d like to.</p>
<hr>
<p>A few parting comments, and then I will hope to have some self-restraint!</p>
<hr>
<p>Paul was just a human, so why should we care what his opinion on homosexuality was?</p>
<p>As for Jesus, I personally think he was more than human. Was he God incarnate? Well, that opens up a whole 'nother issue, since there is another point of view and that is that ALL humans have the potential to be God-realized, and Jesus was an elder brother who showed us how.</p>
<p>So, assuming that we value Jesus’ opinions more than Paul’s, what was his actual stance on these issues?</p>
<p>Biblical Quotes Supporting the Belief that Jesus Is A Liberal</p>
<p>Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God. [Matthew 5:9] Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to
him the other also. [Matthew 5:39] I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you;
[Matthew 5:44]</p>
<p>The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21]</p>
<p>Crime and Punishment: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.
[John 8:7] Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be
judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.] </p>
<p>Justice: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.<br>
[Matthew 5:6] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7] But if ye forgive
not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]</p>
<p>Corporate Greed and the Religion of Wealth: In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle,
sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords,
and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money
changers and overturned their tables. [John 2:14 & 15.] Watch out! Be on your guard against all
kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]<br>
Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]
You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]</p>
<p>Paying Taxes & Separation of Church & State: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. [Matthew 22:21] </p>
<p>Community: Love your neighbor as yourself. .[Matthew 22:39] So in everything, do to others as
you would have them do to you.[Matthew 7:12.] If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess
and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21] </p>
<p>Equality & Social Programs: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the
blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the
resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.] </p>
<p>Public Prayer & Displays of Faith: And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be
seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into
thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret
[Matthew 6:6
& 7]</p>
<p>Strict Enforcement of Religious Laws: If any of you has a son or a sheep and it falls into a pit on
the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? [Matthew 12:11] The Sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath. [Mark 2:27.]</p>
<p>Individuality & Personal Spiritual Experience: Ye are the light of the world. [Matthew 5:14]</p>
<p>Actually that was not the set of quotes I was originally going to post, but the original one was based on the old testament, and this discussion seems to be based more on the new testament. So I won’t post it but if anyone is interested they can pm me.</p>
<p>What you’re missing, Drosselmeier, is that churches’ tax exempt status is a special benefit they have that is not given to other businesses and individuals; it’s basically a subsidy they get from the taxpayers, for being above the fray. Stripping tax exempt status for electioneering isn’t the same as imposing a fee; it’s putting churches on the same footing as the rest of us. If churches don’t want to be above the fray, so be it, but then they are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.</p>
<p>It’s not just churches and non-profits that are subject to this type of rule. Many, if not all, jurisdictions impose similar rules for government employees. My father was a WWII vet who studied political science at Tulane on the GI Bill. He was passionately interested in politics and would have loved being able to campaign for politicians who supported veterans issues. But as a state auditor, he was covered by the Hatch Act or similar legislation; a condition of his employment was that he have no public involvement in politics. Even yard signs and bumper stickers were forbidden, as they are for other people I know who are public servants and must remain above the fray.</p>
<p>There are sound public policy reasons for churches getting tax exempt status and for losing it if they break the rules. We’ve all seen how vulnerable people are to the small minority of clergy and church leaders who are unscrupulous. The idea of the taxpayers subsidizing these folks to tell their congregants that if they don’t vote for candidate X they are going to Hell is simply not in anyone’s best interests. If they want to do that, they need to give up their subsidy from the public.</p>
<p>Yes, the Salem example was a bit flip, but if you look at Christian theocracies in general they haven’t worked out very well for women, non-whites, and non-Christians. Christian governments, both Protestant and Catholic, have put countless people to death for their religious beliefs. We all talk about the Christian martyrs, but what we don’t say is that Christianity has created more than its share of martyrs in other faiths. Salem aside, these shores were no exception, particularly if you look at what was done to the practitioners of Native American religions by the divine right kingdoms of Europe and the local governors who served at their pleasure. </p>
<p>Everyone has heard of the Cajuns, but what many don’t know is that the Cajun ethnicity was created by religious persecution by a Christian government. They were Nova Scotians ordered by their government to swear to the Anglican church (something their faith taught them would doom them to Hell) or be exiled from their homes and property. Those who refused were forced into abject poverty overnight. Stripped of nearly all but the clothes on their backs and exiled, they were not even allowed to bring their rosaries, a potent symbol of their faith with them. Often family members were put on different ships with widely different destinations so as to separate them forever; in particular, husbands were put on all male ships so as to separate them from their wives and children for the rest of their lives. Some lost even their freedom; they became property themselves–slaves in the British colonies.</p>
<p>Unfortunately in present day America, some of the people calling the loudest for theocracy belong to the sects that are the most intolerant. My sister’s church is a prime example. As soon as you put them in charge of government, women will be removed from all positions of authority over men, and only le bon Dieu knows what will happen to the Cajuns, many of whom are as devoutly Catholic as ever. </p>
<p>(My sister’s church, which is part of a very well-known, mainstream denomination, teaches that the Pope is the anti-Christ, and that Catholics aren’t Christians).</p>
<p>And BTW, Dross, I never said, or even implied, as you attributed to me, that a Christian theocracy “wouldn’t work.” I did imply that it would be repressive, particularly of women, and I stand by that. But it has nothing to do with effectiveness; repressive governments are often very effective, in no small part because they don’t have to bother with civil liberties.</p>
<p>Hmmm, interesting. But I’m still trying to figure out how you can “outlaw” something that doesn’t exist (same-sex marriage, for example).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, that’s not true. Churches apply for tax exempt status, and sign off that they are agreeing not to endorse candidates or do any substantial political lobbying. <a href=“http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf[/url]”>http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf</a></p>
<p>They may not like the rules; some of them may openly break the rules, but they most definitely agreed to them. To argue that it’s a violation of church and state for the government to refuse to subsize political lobbying, just because its Christians who want to do it, sounds ridiculous to my ears. A better argument would be that it’s a violation of church and state to give tax-exempt status to any religious organization, since doing so amounts to a mandated public subsidy, which can be considered an endorsement by the government of religion in general. </p>
<p>This whole debate reminds me of the outrage of the Christian homeschoolers when E-bay, at the request of textbook publishers concerned about cheating, stopped allowing auctions of teachers’ manuals. (Textbook publishers don’t sell teachers’ manuals without doing some vetting). Some of the homeschoolers were alleging the most ridiculous things. Commonly claimed were that Ebay was saying that Christians weren’t allowed to own teachers manuals (a total distortion). Others insisted that a private business like Ebay had no “right” to dictate to Christians what they could and couldn’t sell on Ebays OWN website. Many were talking with glee about how their legal eagles were going to force Ebay to submit to their will. It really makes me wonder what distorted vision of America these particular “teachers” were passing on to their students.</p>
<p>On a side note, one thing that has impressed me is how well Haggard’s church members seem to be handling all this. For any church, having a pastor involved in adultery and drug use has to be a very deep betrayal of trust; having it all happen on the national stage has to be exponentially harder. But in the interviews, the parishoners’ comments have been impressive. People may have lost their faith in Haggard or that particular megachurch, but I don’t think they’re losing their faith in God. And they definitely seem to be able to differentiate between the two, something that always concerns me about those who follow the high profile evangelicals.</p>
<p>Lealdragon:</p>
<p>I do understand your not being able to continue the discussion (I JUST stepped in from an engagement and have little time myself). I am actually involved in many of the same pursuits that occupy your time. I persist on these issues mainly because I am not as settled on them as I would like to be, and you represented an opportunity to explore them. So, thank you for the help.</p>
<p>
You need not care about even Jesus opinion. The issue concerns why the Church cares. It believes Pauls writings are authoritative, and Paul condemns homosexuality, carrying the moral condemnation of homosexuality from the Old Testament (to some, the word of God Himself) right into the New. Therefore, the Church has no choice but to condemn homosexuality. It must teach its members that homosexuality is wrong, whether we disagree or not. To remain in harmony with the Church, when its members vote on homosexuality, they must vote against it. You obviously reject the Church, and this is your choice. It is a choice that is available to all who wish to vote for homosexuality, against the belief of the Church.</p>
<p>
Sure, and when it comes time to vote, you are free to vote in the way your faith leads you. You are in fact free to state it, endorse candidates, and say pretty much whatever you wish. It is your Constitutional right. It ought to be the right even of Church leaders.</p>
<p>
According to the system I have tried to explain, Jesus condemns homosexuality because he loves and fulfills the Old Testament law. That law condemns homosexuality, and the condemnation continues to this day through the New Testament.</p>
<p>Again, I do not defend this view. I am trying to explain that it is part of a rather tight system of thought that actually has quite a lot of meaning, in my opinion. It is not just thrown together for convenience.</p>
<p>Conyat:</p>
<p>
I am sorry, but I do believe there is simply no reasonable basis for this view. The Church is not the ward of the State, as you imply, so that the State is free to give handouts to the Church. The Church is separate by Constitutional Law. There is a wall separating the two, by law. That means the Church can do whatever it wishes, by law, as long as it does not infringe upon the Constitutional rights of any citizen, and as long as it does not cross the Constitutional wall of separation between itself and the state. Merely because a leader says words and shares his opinion is simply no crossing of that wall because that leader HIMSELF has a Constitutional right to FREE SPEECH. It is just this guy speaking what to you is complete nonsense. If others believe him, then it means his ideas have power. Merely that they have power is no reason to deny him his natural rights.</p>
<p>
And here is the precise problem with your view. There is no Constitutional wall of separation between us (you and me) and the State. So the State has the ability to tax us. But there is a hardcoded wall of separation between the Church and the State. That necessarily means it is unlawful, against our Constitution, for the State to threaten the Church with a fee, should the Church simply use words on any topic.</p>
<p>
I am sorry, but this is just not true. There is no wall of separation between the State and the rest of us. There is such a wall between the Church and the State. The rules are necessarily different where the Church is concerned. It is the law as the Founders wrote it.</p>
<p>
As</a> I have said, the Church is merely obeying the law that was imposed upon them while trying to overturn the law within government rules. The law requires the Church to apply for tax-exempt status. But the Church never agreed with this. Its natural rights are being infringed in my view.</p>