Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[PratchettFan]

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.

I'm not at all surprised.

 

[Mr.Right]

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.

I'm not at all surprised.

Quack quack

 

[Mr.Right]

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.

That is exactly what they want though.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

How dare you say something about another persons free choice to be who they are. Do you say things to white women who date black men? No. You shut your fucking mouth because you dont want to be called a racist. We want to drive homophobes into the closet.

We say nothing because there are no militant groups of blacks or whites making outlandish demands that we accept inter-racial marriage or else. In other words, it's a non issue, since the Bible mentions nothing about inter-racial marriage.

I/we dont care what the bible Koran or book of Mormons say.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

How dare you say something about another persons free choice to be who they are. Do you say things to white women who date black men? No. You shut your fucking mouth because you dont want to be called a racist. We want to drive homophobes into the closet.

We say nothing because there are no militant groups of blacks or whites making outlandish demands that we accept inter-racial marriage or else. In other words, it's a non issue, since the Bible mentions nothing about inter-racial marriage.

LOL.....it wasn't a 'non-issue' when the Loving's fought for their right to be married to the one that they loved.

And plenty of preachers then claimed that the races were supposed to be separated- even Christian icon Bob Jones- founder of the Christian College Liberty University claimed that

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

They re write history all the time.

 

[KGB]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.

It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.

It ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable.

And it elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance, above the evidence in front of you, because to look honestly at gay, lesbian and bisexual people is to see that we’re the same magnificent riddles as everyone else: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

Which is the church's call...not the government.

well of course it is. That's how it should be. Separation of Church & State.

 

[KGB]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.

It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.

It ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable.

And it elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance, above the evidence in front of you, because to look honestly at gay, lesbian and bisexual people is to see that we’re the same magnificent riddles as everyone else: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

Do you really want to go there?

The Church through the centuries has used 'annulment' to pretend a marriage never existed- often determined by the wealth or power of the man wanting the annulment.

I am glad that the Catholic Church has a way for divorced people to remarry- by pretending that they never were married.

That isn't what annulment means. It doesn't state that a marriage didn't take place, it says that a sacramental marriage did not occur. Marriage has a sacramental aspect to it according to Church doctrine & it is that piece which is indissoluble. However, if it can be shown that a sacrament did not occur, then the individual is free to be remarried in the Catholic Church. It's not a legal term which is why children of annulled marriages are not considered "out of wedlock". It is simply a sacramental judgement. I went through this process & this is how it was explained to me by my local diocese at the time.

 

[bodecea]

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

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.

Federal land, federal taxes....which I pay (not sure if you do or not).

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Which government made the Episcopalian church change its stance on homosexuals?

The British government. Or did you not know that the Episcopalians are the American branch of the Anglican church?

 

[auditor0007]

Woosh, right over the quacker's head

Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh

That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.

 

[Political Junky]

Liberals want the government to have veto power over religious doctrine. The religion then becomes an arm of the government.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

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

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.

Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.

“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

Christian churches must be made to affirm homosexuality says New York Times columnist News LifeSite

Bruni's commentary:

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

A New York times columnist and a corporate leader........umm since when are those two people in any position to change anything about law or conduct of a church? Ohh. I see they are just two people expressing their opinion about churches. Personally I think they both are wrong, let churches do what they will in church. I do find it appalling though that religion has incorporated into a political party. Now that is not separation of church and state and sets a dangerous presidence. So yeah I find your post ironic... Is that where you were going?

 

[Mr.Right]

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

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.

Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.

“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

Christian churches must be made to affirm homosexuality says New York Times columnist News LifeSite

Bruni's commentary:

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

A New York times columnist and a corporate leader........umm since when are those two people in any position to change anything about law or conduct of a church? Ohh. I see they are just two people expressing their opinion about churches. Personally I think they both are wrong, let churches do what they will in church. I do find it appalling though that religion has incorporated into a political party. Now that is not separation of church and state and sets a dangerous presidence. So yeah I find your post ironic... Is that where you were going?

Christians as a political party? seriously? Christians are free to vote just like everyone else. you got a problem with that?

 

[TimothysAlaska]

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

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.

Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.

“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

Christian churches must be made to affirm homosexuality says New York Times columnist News LifeSite

Bruni's commentary:

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

A New York times columnist and a corporate leader........umm since when are those two people in any position to change anything about law or conduct of a church? Ohh. I see they are just two people expressing their opinion about churches. Personally I think they both are wrong, let churches do what they will in church. I do find it appalling though that religion has incorporated into a political party. Now that is not separation of church and state and sets a dangerous presidence. So yeah I find your post ironic... Is that where you were going?

Christians as a political party? seriously? Christians are free to vote just like everyone else. you got a problem with that?

No i don't. as you said they are free to vote. And free to teach in their churches whatever they will. all I was saying is it sets a dangerous presidence, As you can see from country's like Iran. Religion is fine, but get too much of it in any government and it is a problem no matter what religion it is. History is filled with that lesson.

 

[The Rabbi]

Woosh, right over the quacker's head

Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh

That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.

It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.

 

[PratchettFan]

Woosh, right over the quacker's head

Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh

That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.

It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.

So what you are saying is that any opinion contrary to your beliefs is an attempt to suppress your beliefs. Barry Goldwater was so right.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

 

[Mr.Right]

Woosh, right over the quacker's head

Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh

That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.

It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.

So what you are saying is that any opinion contrary to your beliefs is an attempt to suppress your beliefs. Barry Goldwater was so right.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

One does not compromise with evil.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Most Americans side with gays in religious freedom disputes: Reuters/Ipsos poll

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

One does not compromise with evil.

I guess we have to destroy the GOP and Tea party...ain't anything more banal and evil than that....

 

[Conservative65]

Woosh, right over the quacker's head

Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh

That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.

It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.

So what you are saying is that any opinion contrary to your beliefs is an attempt to suppress your beliefs. Barry Goldwater was so right.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

One does not compromise with evil.

I guess we have to destroy the GOP and Tea party...ain't anything more banal and evil than that....

You couldn't kick your own ass must less destroy something much stronger than you.