Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[Syriusly]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

You see? Perfect example. You have expressed an opinion and I don't care. I am not victimized by it, threatened by it or even slightly upset by it. I'm not going to start an entire thread to show how people are out to get me because of it. I don't care and I don't have to care. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

Yep- only one entity- the churches members.

And I have no doubt you would avoid any church that follows the will of its members.

 

[koshergrl]

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

Please, show us where "the writer called for government action against churches by the government."

"Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry" Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

What do you suppose that means? How does one *make* church leaders take "homosexuality off the sin list"?

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

Well, at least you read it. That's good. That is a quote from Gold, not at all what the writer was saying. What Gold meant I don't know. However, nowhere in that quote does he say the government must make the church leaders do anything. Based upon the activities of that group, I would say he intends to do it through public relations campaigns. So far that has worked well for the LGBT community. Theirs has been what must be one of the most non-violent and effective revolutions in history. Truly impressive.

"...Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

No matter who he is implying should *make* church leaders *take homosexuality off the sin list* (and we all know he wants the government to do it) it's still sedition. In this country, you can't FORCE people to adhere to a particular religion, nor may you dictate to people what they must worship. No matter who you are.

And this isn't a *successful revolution* except in the way the Nazi takeover of Germany was a *successful revolution*...or the commie destruction of Russia was a *successful revolution*. It's an example of a small minority using propaganda and crooked judges to force the majority into submission to policies that are oppressive..and unwanted.

 

[Syriusly]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

You know that's what he, and others like him want. Right?

You know that Conservatives want to impose government mandated Christianity on everyone. Right?

 

[Syriusly]

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

Please, show us where "the writer called for government action against churches by the government."

"Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry" Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

What do you suppose that means? How does one *make* church leaders take "homosexuality off the sin list"?

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

Well, at least you read it. That's good. That is a quote from Gold, not at all what the writer was saying. What Gold meant I don't know. However, nowhere in that quote does he say the government must make the church leaders do anything. Based upon the activities of that group, I would say he intends to do it through public relations campaigns. So far that has worked well for the LGBT community. Theirs has been what must be one of the most non-violent and effective revolutions in history. Truly impressive.

"...Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

No matter who he is implying should *make* church leaders *take homosexuality off the sin list* (and we all know he wants the government to do it) it's still sedition. In this country, you can't FORCE people to adhere to a particular religion, nor may you dictate to people what they must worship. No matter who you are.

Once again- what you imagine in your head doesn't make it so- no one but you and your fellow Conservative Christian victims are saying that the government is being asked to do anything.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Having read Frank Bruni's actual column I can see why you are outraged.

He points out that faith based bigotry is still bigotry.

But nowhere does Bruni say that churches must be forced or coerced to do anything. You just made that crap up.

Nowhere does Bruni or anyone suggest that the state do anything to churches- you just made that crap up.

Poor Christians- so determined to be victims.

There is no such thing as faith based bigotry, fool.

 

[koshergrl]

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Full Definition of SEDITION
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Sedition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority:
Wouldn't that include every right wing rally?

Name one.

The rancher who refused to pay for the use of land he did not own and the people who showed up with guns when the government insisted he not be allowed to steal from the rest of us comes to mind. What would you call pointing weapons at government officials?

He wasn't stealing from you, asshead.

He was stealing from the taxpayers, of which I am one. I notice you didn't address the actual point and I don't blame you. I named an example of actual sedition from someone who is definitely right wing. Is that why you decided to start calling me names?

What utter nonsense.

I don't like entitlement losers who think federal land grabs give them ownership of the property of others.

Nor do I like entitlement losers who think people don't have the right to stand up to a tyrannical government.

 

[Syriusly]

Having read Frank Bruni's actual column I can see why you are outraged.

He points out that faith based bigotry is still bigotry.

But nowhere does Bruni say that churches must be forced or coerced to do anything. You just made that crap up.

Nowhere does Bruni or anyone suggest that the state do anything to churches- you just made that crap up.

Poor Christians- so determined to be victims.

There is no such thing as faith based bigotry, fool.

LOL- oh there are so many examples right here in this thread- bigotry based upon the Bible or the Quran or the ramblings of the Westboro Baptist Church is still bigotry.

 

[Katzndogz]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

Idiot

You see? Perfect example. You have expressed an opinion and I don't care. I am not victimized by it, threatened by it or even slightly upset by it. I'm not going to start an entire thread to show how people are out to get me because of it. I don't care and I don't have to care. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

Yep- only one entity- the churches members.

And I have no doubt you would avoid any church that follows the will of its members.

Any right thinking person would avoid such a church as if it carried the plague.

 

[Syriusly]

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

You see? Perfect example. You have expressed an opinion and I don't care. I am not victimized by it, threatened by it or even slightly upset by it. I'm not going to start an entire thread to show how people are out to get me because of it. I don't care and I don't have to care. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

Yep- only one entity- the churches members.

And I have no doubt you would avoid any church that follows the will of its members.

Any right thinking person would avoid such a church as if it carried the plague.

I can see why your type would avoid any church that listened to its members.

Much better to be dictated by church elders or a Pope.....or someone else in authority.....

 

[PratchettFan]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

You see? Perfect example. You have expressed an opinion and I don't care. I am not victimized by it, threatened by it or even slightly upset by it. I'm not going to start an entire thread to show how people are out to get me because of it. I don't care and I don't have to care. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

He doesn't say that in the title of the piece. That is in the title of the thread.

 

[PratchettFan]

They are entitled under the first amendment to express their opinion. You are entitled to not care and the churches are entitled to do as they please. Ya gotta love freedom.

"Oh we won't require churches to accept our lifestyle". The New York Slimes article is chilling.

And someone else who didn't bother to read the piece but assumes he knows what it says.

 

[Mr.Right]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

Idiot

You see? Perfect example. You have expressed an opinion and I don't care. I am not victimized by it, threatened by it or even slightly upset by it. I'm not going to start an entire thread to show how people are out to get me because of it. I don't care and I don't have to care. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

He doesn't say that in the title of the piece. That is in the title of the thread.

Regardless, that is his intention. Like I said, conservative are not fooled. Liberals are predictable. We all know where this is going.

 

[PratchettFan]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

You know that's what he, and others like him want. Right?

No, it isn't. That's just what you and others like you want us to believe.

And I suppose you believe that militant gays aren't using the government to trample a person's right of conscientious objection too. Please say yes. I could use a good laugh.

I am amazed at how weak people are. The LGBT population is what...? 3% or so? And yet they are trampling the rest of our rights. Truly god like powers these people have. Or, it could just be that straight people are coming around and realizing just how ridiculous and unfair the attitudes have been. Nah... that can't be.

So yeah, go ahead have a good laugh. I don't believe militant gays are using the government to trample a person's right of conscientious objection. I believe the very idea is silly.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

Yep- only one entity- the churches members.

And I have no doubt you would avoid any church that follows the will of its members.

Any right thinking person would avoid such a church as if it carried the plague.

I can see why your type would avoid any church that listened to its members.

Much better to be dictated by church elders or a Pope.....or someone else in authority.....

No. That's what you want. The church elders or the pope or someone in authority take homosexuality off the sin list and make everyone swallow it. No elder or authority, no majority of members can or should change the Bible into something they like better. Christianity is not a popularity contest. Christianity is not a product to be decorated according to the focus group.

If a majority of members decided to change the religion to suit the members it isn't a Christian church. It might be the First Church of Vassilation but not a Christian church.

 

[Mr.Right]

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

Yep- only one entity- the churches members.

And I have no doubt you would avoid any church that follows the will of its members.

Any right thinking person would avoid such a church as if it carried the plague.

I can see why your type would avoid any church that listened to its members.

Much better to be dictated by church elders or a Pope.....or someone else in authority.....

No. That's what you want. The church elders or the pope or someone in authority take homosexuality off the sin list and make everyone swallow it. No elder or authority, no majority of members can or should change the Bible into something they like better. Christianity is not a popularity contest. Christianity is not a product to be decorated according to the focus group.

If a majority of members decided to change the religion to suit the members it isn't a Christian church. It might be the First Church of Vassilation but not a Christian church.

Jesus Christ. The same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[PratchettFan]

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

You see? Perfect example. You have expressed an opinion and I don't care. I am not victimized by it, threatened by it or even slightly upset by it. I'm not going to start an entire thread to show how people are out to get me because of it. I don't care and I don't have to care. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

He doesn't say that in the title of the piece. That is in the title of the thread.

Regardless, that is his intention. Like I said, conservative are not fooled. Liberals are predictable. We all know where this is going.

Uh huh. Once again, this is why SSM is becoming a reality across the nation. In 20 years people will wonder why anyone would have an issue with it. All because this is the type of argument being used in opposition to it. Most politicians are now embarrassed to be connected with it. They would rather stand mute than be associated with this kind of thinking. You are bringing phantasmagorical paranoia to a whole new level.

 

[PratchettFan]

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

Please, show us where "the writer called for government action against churches by the government."

"Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry" Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

What do you suppose that means? How does one *make* church leaders take "homosexuality off the sin list"?

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

Well, at least you read it. That's good. That is a quote from Gold, not at all what the writer was saying. What Gold meant I don't know. However, nowhere in that quote does he say the government must make the church leaders do anything. Based upon the activities of that group, I would say he intends to do it through public relations campaigns. So far that has worked well for the LGBT community. Theirs has been what must be one of the most non-violent and effective revolutions in history. Truly impressive.

"...Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

No matter who he is implying should *make* church leaders *take homosexuality off the sin list* (and we all know he wants the government to do it) it's still sedition. In this country, you can't FORCE people to adhere to a particular religion, nor may you dictate to people what they must worship. No matter who you are.

And this isn't a *successful revolution* except in the way the Nazi takeover of Germany was a *successful revolution*...or the commie destruction of Russia was a *successful revolution*. It's an example of a small minority using propaganda and crooked judges to force the majority into submission to policies that are oppressive..and unwanted.

Ah, that wonderful phrase "we all know", which is just code that you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. You don't know anything of the sort. And even if he does want to, so what? He is entitled to his position and make his point to his hearts delight. It is called freedom of speech. Sorry if you don't care for it, but that's life.

The thing is that you are not in the majority. You are in an ever shrinking minority. And I really do want you to continue to exercise your freedom of speech to get your point across to as many people as possible. You more you explain your side, the smaller that minority is going to become.

 

[Mr.Right]

Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.

He doesn't say that in the title of the piece. That is in the title of the thread.

Regardless, that is his intention. Like I said, conservative are not fooled. Liberals are predictable. We all know where this is going.

Uh huh. Once again, this is why SSM is becoming a reality across the nation. In 20 years people will wonder why anyone would have an issue with it. All because this is the type of argument being used in opposition to it. Most politicians are now embarrassed to be connected with it. They would rather stand mute than be associated with this kind of thinking. You are bringing phantasmagorical paranoia to a whole new level.

All I heard was quack quack.

 

[Mr.Right]

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

Please, show us where "the writer called for government action against churches by the government."

"Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry" Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

What do you suppose that means? How does one *make* church leaders take "homosexuality off the sin list"?

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

Well, at least you read it. That's good. That is a quote from Gold, not at all what the writer was saying. What Gold meant I don't know. However, nowhere in that quote does he say the government must make the church leaders do anything. Based upon the activities of that group, I would say he intends to do it through public relations campaigns. So far that has worked well for the LGBT community. Theirs has been what must be one of the most non-violent and effective revolutions in history. Truly impressive.

"...Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

No matter who he is implying should *make* church leaders *take homosexuality off the sin list* (and we all know he wants the government to do it) it's still sedition. In this country, you can't FORCE people to adhere to a particular religion, nor may you dictate to people what they must worship. No matter who you are.

And this isn't a *successful revolution* except in the way the Nazi takeover of Germany was a *successful revolution*...or the commie destruction of Russia was a *successful revolution*. It's an example of a small minority using propaganda and crooked judges to force the majority into submission to policies that are oppressive..and unwanted.

Ah, that wonderful phrase "we all know", which is just code that you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. You don't know anything of the sort. And even if he does want to, so what? He is entitled to his position and make his point to his hearts delight. It is called freedom of speech. Sorry if you don't care for it, but that's life.

The thing is that you are not in the majority. You are in an ever shrinking minority. And I really do want you to continue to exercise your freedom of speech to get your point across to as many people as possible. You more you explain your side, the smaller that minority is going to become.

Quack quack.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

“What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?”

What part of “the First Amendment applies only to government, not private persons or organizations” are you and other ignorant conservatives not quite grasping.

Nowhere in the article is anyone advocating government enact a law requiring churches to 'accept' homosexuality.

Your stupidity is exceeded only by your hate.