Church refuses to hold funeral for gay man

[mattskramer]

Wow. I’m surprised that this thread has gone so long. The issues seems clear to me. Churches can do what they want to do and people can criticize or praise the church for doing what it does. It is as simple as that.

 

[Larkinn]

And I assume you will have no problem when the Fire Department and Police Department send vehicles to participate in the parade?

Sure as long as its voluntary.

A word of advice. If you are going to attempt to entrap me in a hypocritical view, stick to topics I've expressed a viewpoint in, don't bring up threads that I never commented on.

 

[midcan5]

Jesus loves me this I know cause the bible tells me so...

The idea of whether this is right or wrong from a legal point of view is absurd. The fact a church which preaches values grounded in the bible and then contradicts it says much about the narrow minded people who run that church. It says, Christianity like all utopian ideals is an interesting idea which has never been tried.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You do get the difference between mentioning a meeting and funding something, right?

Of course I get the difference but when you look at the practical results of such legal activity by the ACLU evidently Leftists don't.

The ACLU legal work laid the groundwork against the Boy Scouts regarding sponsoring. This, of course, has had a chilling effect against the Boy Scouts in general. Sponsoring was prohibited for both religious and sexual orientation issues. These same issues are then used to prohibit other activities as well, such as recruitment in the public schools. (read about a specific case below)

Certainly, if the State can prohibit the mention of Boy Scouts in the public schools, the Church should be within its rights to prohibit the mention of homosexual activity at its funerals.

If the suppression of Boy Scouts at schools surprises you then you would also probably be surprised to know that the Leftists in this country are out to destroy America as we know it. This is happening right now before your very eyes. When a long-respected youth group such as the Boy Scouts gets shut down in public schools, don't you think it's time for you to reevaluate your Leftist leanings?

SCHOOL VIOLATED RIGHTS OF ATHEIST STUDENT IN PERMITTING BOY SCOUT RECRUITMENT Atheist mon Nancy Powell and son Remington finally get justice in the courts after nearly five years of legal battles. Will school authorities do the right thing, and put an end to "csaptive audience" recruiting by a bigoted and discriminatory Boy Scouts organization?
Web Posted: December 15, 2001


Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge has ruled that Portland, Oregon schools discriminated against Atheist students by permitting the Boy Scouts of America to recruit during school hours.

Judge Ellen Rosenblum added that state officials acted improperly by allowing the practice to continue, and that Oregon School Superintendent Stan Bunn must now craft new regulations, and may not permit the BSA to seek new members from "captive" schoolchildren.

The Boy Scouts have come under increasing attack for their policy of discriminating against homosexuals and Atheists who cannot swear a religious oath to a God.

"It was an abuse of discretion for (Superintendent Bunn) to find insubstantial evidence of discrimination based on religion," noted Judge Rosenblum. "The evidence of discrimination is sufficient, and it was sufficient before today."

The case involved Portland mom and Atheist Nancy Powell and her nonbeliever son, Remington, who have waged a four-and-a-half year battle to stop BSA recruitment in schools during the official school day. There was never any question that Remington could not join the Scouts "because he is an Atheist." Powell has said that her action is not directed specifically at the BSA, but rather the policy of Portland schools which in effect allowed a discriminatory organization to enlist students during classroom periods. Superintendent Bunn had defended the policy, saying that it was permissible since it was up to the Scouts, not the schools, to reject youngsters on the basis of religious belief.

Originally, Remington -- now an 11-year old sixth-grade student, was interested in joining the Scouts after a BSA recruiter had visited the elementary school he attended and told him how much "fun" the Cub Scouts had.

"It sounded fun and I wanted to try it," Remington later said. "When my mom told me the Boy Scouts do not take our kind, I started crying and sobbing ... I was really sad."

A long legal battle was ahead following Powell's initial complaint to the state department of Education in May, 1998. She told the Portland Oregonian newspaper, "They are shoving these religious organizations at us. It's a chronic problem." The school district had 27 entries in its guidelines concerning religion in the classroom, including a policy of not permitting any religious symbols, exercise, observance or other activity. Powell pointed out that the Scouts were biased in their recruiting, though, and that they "willingly admit their own discriminatory qualifications for joining..."

"I'm just elated!" Powell told AANEWS this afternoon. "I've been battling against recruiting by a discriminatory organization aimed at captive audience kids who were deceived into wanting to join a fun organization, only to be told later that they weren't good enough for membership."

She did express concerns about Superintendent Bunn. "Banning the BSA during the class day is not popular, and it's a double-edged sword. The judge has clearly told Bunn that it's time for him to stop acting like a politician, and instead behave like a Superintendent of Education. The judge also said that he had abused the power of his position."

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8312037018368&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE

 

[Larkinn]

Of course I get the difference but when you look at the practical results of such legal activity by the ACLU evidently Leftists don't.

Please tell me what are the practical results of not allowing a discriminatory group to recruit during school hours?

The ACLU legal work laid the groundwork against the Boy Scouts regarding sponsoring. This, of course, has had a chilling effect against the Boy Scouts in general. Sponsoring was prohibited for both religious and sexual orientation issues. These same issues are then used to prohibit other activities as well, such as recruitment in the public schools. (read about a specific case below)

As it should be.

Certainly, if the State can prohibit the mention of Boy Scouts in the public schools, the Church should be within its rights to prohibit the mention of homosexual activity at its funerals.

Again...mentioning is NOT the same as recruiting. Besides the fact, you obviously missed me and others saying about 30 times now that the church was in its rights to prohibit mention of homosexual activity at its funerals, but it was wrong to do so.

If the suppression of Boy Scouts at schools surprises you then you would also probably be surprised to know that the Leftists in this country are out to destroy America as we know it. This is happening right now before your very eyes.

Perhaps the racist homophobic america that used to exist. I know you want to hold on to those disgusting vestiges of America, but let them go.

When a long-respected youth group such as the Boy Scouts gets shut down in public schools, don't you think it's time for you to reevaluate your Leftist leanings?

They are not worthy of my respect, so no, I don't think its time to reevaluate my leftist leanings. When you think that a group that does not allow atheists among its ranks should be allowed to infiltrate public schools, I think it is YOU who needs to reevaluate your beliefs.

 

[mattskramer]

Incorrect. Homophobia requires a fear or antipathy of homosexuality. Considering abnormal behavior abnormal does not. Neither does refusing to cater to it if it is contrary to your beliefs.

It's a dismissive label used in lieu of a logical argument. As you so readily admit in your last sentence, you aren't listening. You've decided anyone who doesn't believe the same as you in regard to homosexuals is stupid.

And you would be quite wrong, not to mention bigotted for doing so.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

Homophobia is an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. It is a fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. It is a prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality.

Even the same dictionary defines it in different ways. That is why I don’t like labels. It can mean different things to different people. Though it is time consuming, for the sake of understanding each outer, it is sometimes best to spell things out so that there is no ambiguity.

 

[mattskramer]

I understand that a Church can do what it wants to do – it can be right or wrong. People can criticize it or praise it. Those people can be right or wrong. The following is somewhat a tangent to the subject but I thought that, to a small degree, it was appropriate to post here.

Several weeks ago, I wanted to understand the position that members of “gay churches” had toward Bible passages that seemed to call homosexuality a sin. It was not enough for me to sit back and rely on my own old biases and conclude that they (the other side) must be mentally deficient or unwilling to accept what to me seemed to be so obvious to me - “One can’t be a homosexual and a Christian at the same time.” I emailed some churches and learned quite a bit about each sentence of the Bible that seemed to suggest that homosexuality is wrong. I gradually came to understand the other side’s perspective and reasoning, though I thought that one or two of their explanations seemed week. Anyway, I was directed to this web site below. It opened my eyes. Though I am still agnostic and have not committed myself fully to anything Christian, people who have emailed me have given me a better appreciation for their viewpoint and perspective.

http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/gay_and_christian_yes.htm

Visiting this sight and copmmunicating with people convinced me more than before that I should avoid using such superlative, self-righteous, declarative statements, as “You are wrong. You can’t do that! You are going to hell.” There is no coming together or mutual understanding with such rhetoric. It only serves to divide. I’ll try more often to use gentler statement that puts the ball in my court – where I accept responsibility. “I think that you are wrong. I disagree. I see your point but I think that this is better.”

 

[Chips Rafferty]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

Homophobia is an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. It is a fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. It is a prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality.

Even the same dictionary defines it in different ways. That is why I don’t like labels. It can mean different things to different people. Though it is time consuming, for the sake of understanding each outer, it is sometimes best to spell things out so that there is no ambiguity.

I don't know about homophobia, but the "sin" of homosexuality fundamentally means, “I can stick my circumcised (if not, why not?!) cock up my wife’s quoit but you can’t do the same to your male mate!”

“My imaginary Jewish Juju says so, I believe it, and that settles it - for you too!”

I wonder if RIGHTEOUS Lot also had anal intercourse with his daughters when God blessed their incestuous union?

 

[Gunny]

We're going to settle this right here and now by taking the hot air out you anti-Christian, homosexual agenda pushing nimords right now ...

WAS the person in question a actual member of the church? And I don't mean attendee, lived around the corner, nor anything else.

Was he accepted as a memberof the church; which, at a minimum would require him to be repentant, and accept Christ as his Savior. Second would be accepting the specific doctrinal practices of that specific church.

If he was not a member, none of your bogus, zero-defect mentality strawman arguments are worth the time you wasted posting them.

Only members of any Christian protestant churches I have ever attended are entitled to services performed by, or at the church.

I seriously doubt that a person most Christian churches believe to be an unrepentant sinner would be accepted as a member.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

We're going to settle this right here and now by taking the hot air out you anti-Christian, homosexual agenda pushing nimords right now ...

WAS the person in question a actual member of the church? And I don't mean attendee, lived around the corner, nor anything else.

Was he accepted as a memberof the church; which, at a minimum would require him to be repentant, and accept Christ as his Savior. Second would be accepting the specific doctrinal practices of that specific church.

If he was not a member, none of your bogus, zero-defect mentality strawman arguments are worth the time you wasted posting them.

Only members of any Christian protestant churches I have ever attended are entitled to services performed by, or at the church.

I seriously doubt that a person most Christian churches believe to be an unrepentant sinner would be accepted as a member.

I thought Jesus did the judging?

Who can be sure the poor misguided poof didn't mutter the Proddies Macey's bargain basement mantra for salvation right at the death knock?

Anyway, Jesus NEVER said anything detrimental about faggots. That's all hateful OT trash talk. And you've told me more than once that the namby pamby NT of your brand of pantywaist WASPS, took the place of the psychotic OT!

Now you seem to be saying that Jesus, or to be more specific, his ten of thousands of American churches, changed "not a tittle" of the OT!

 

[jillian]

We're going to settle this right here and now by taking the hot air out you anti-Christian, homosexual agenda pushing nimords right now ...

WAS the person in question a actual member of the church? And I don't mean attendee, lived around the corner, nor anything else.

Was he accepted as a memberof the church; which, at a minimum would require him to be repentant, and accept Christ as his Savior. Second would be accepting the specific doctrinal practices of that specific church.

If he was not a member, none of your bogus, zero-defect mentality strawman arguments are worth the time you wasted posting them.

Only members of any Christian protestant churches I have ever attended are entitled to services performed by, or at the church.

I seriously doubt that a person most Christian churches believe to be an unrepentant sinner would be accepted as a member.

How is it anti-Christian to note that this particular church is homophobic? Hating gay people is not a tenet of Christianity. If some churches choose to pursue that route, it is their call, certainly. That does not make it right. And not approving of bigotry is not anti-Christian, it is anti-bigotry.

And one would have to believe that being gay is both a choice and a sin to be repentant. Believing they should be treated fairly is simply that... not advancing the gay "agenda".

You know I enjoy your posts and think highly of you. I think you're off base on this one. S'okay, I guess we all have our bug-a-boos.

 

[DeadCanDance]

We're going to settle this right here and now by taking the hot air out you anti-Christian, homosexual agenda pushing nimords right now ...

WAS the person in question a actual member of the church? And I don't mean attendee, lived around the corner, nor anything else.

Was he accepted as a memberof the church; which, at a minimum would require him to be repentant, and accept Christ as his Savior. Second would be accepting the specific doctrinal practices of that specific church.

If he was not a member, none of your bogus, zero-defect mentality strawman arguments are worth the time you wasted posting them.

Only members of any Christian protestant churches I have ever attended are entitled to services performed by, or at the church.

I seriously doubt that a person most Christian churches believe to be an unrepentant sinner would be accepted as a member.

I realize you're grasping and flailing around for reasons to excuse the appalling anti-christian attitude of the so-called church. '

Here are the facts: The dead guys brother was a member of the church, and the church invited the brother and his family to have the service at their church.

Then, they reneged on their promise.

I'm pretty sure Jesus would have kept his promise, and given a funeral to a gay man, a prostitute, or a criminal.

 

[maineman]

We're going to settle this right here and now by taking the hot air out you anti-Christian, homosexual agenda pushing nimords right now ...

WAS the person in question a actual member of the church? And I don't mean attendee, lived around the corner, nor anything else.

Was he accepted as a memberof the church; which, at a minimum would require him to be repentant, and accept Christ as his Savior. Second would be accepting the specific doctrinal practices of that specific church.

If he was not a member, none of your bogus, zero-defect mentality strawman arguments are worth the time you wasted posting them.

Only members of any Christian protestant churches I have ever attended are entitled to services performed by, or at the church.

I seriously doubt that a person most Christian churches believe to be an unrepentant sinner would be accepted as a member.

in fact, most mainline protestant churches accept gays as members.... many denominations actually allow them to become ordained

 

[mattskramer]

We're going to settle this right here and now by taking the hot air out you anti-Christian, homosexual agenda pushing nimords right now ...

WAS the person in question a actual member of the church? And I don't mean attendee, lived around the corner, nor anything else.

Was he accepted as a memberof the church; which, at a minimum would require him to be repentant, and accept Christ as his Savior. Second would be accepting the specific doctrinal practices of that specific church.

If he was not a member, none of your bogus, zero-defect mentality strawman arguments are worth the time you wasted posting them.

Only members of any Christian protestant churches I have ever attended are entitled to services performed by, or at the church.

I seriously doubt that a person most Christian churches believe to be an unrepentant sinner would be accepted as a member.

I’ll go even further. I think that churches can do whatever they want to do. They can even take donations while trashing prayer requests. There is no business contract between the member and the church leader. The church members will decide, based on the actions of the church leaders, whether or not they want to continue to be members.

 

[maineman]

I’ll go even further. I think that churches can do whatever they want to do. They can even take donations while trashing prayer requests. There is no business contract between the member and the church leader. The church members will decide, based on the actions of the church leaders, whether or not they want to continue to be members.

I agree with you but only to a degree....in fact, many protestant churches are run by majority rule of their membership. Church "leaders" are beholden to the congregation, and members will decide based upon the actions of a majority of the membership, whether or not that particular church family meets their needs.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I’ll go even further. I think that churches can do whatever they want to do. They can even take donations while trashing prayer requests. There is no business contract between the member and the church leader. The church members will decide, based on the actions of the church leaders, whether or not they want to continue to be members.

that's not even been an issue in this thread, yet it keeps coming up.

Everyone knows the church can do whatever they want. The can dance naked between the pews and praise Satan for all I care.

I personally think what they did was wrong. For all the reasons that have been given previously. No need to repeat them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Please tell me what are the practical results of not allowing a discriminatory group to recruit during school hours?

As it should be.

Again...mentioning is NOT the same as recruiting. Besides the fact, you obviously missed me and others saying about 30 times now that the church was in its rights to prohibit mention of homosexual activity at its funerals, but it was wrong to do so.

Perhaps the racist homophobic america that used to exist. I know you want to hold on to those disgusting vestiges of America, but let them go.

They are not worthy of my respect, so no, I don't think its time to reevaluate my leftist leanings. When you think that a group that does not allow atheists among its ranks should be allowed to infiltrate public schools, I think it is YOU who needs to reevaluate your beliefs.

You are what's wrong with America.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Of course I get the difference but when you look at the practical results of such legal activity by the ACLU evidently Leftists don't.

The ACLU legal work laid the groundwork against the Boy Scouts regarding sponsoring. This, of course, has had a chilling effect against the Boy Scouts in general. Sponsoring was prohibited for both religious and sexual orientation issues. These same issues are then used to prohibit other activities as well, such as recruitment in the public schools. (read about a specific case below)

Certainly, if the State can prohibit the mention of Boy Scouts in the public schools, the Church should be within its rights to prohibit the mention of homosexual activity at its funerals.

If the suppression of Boy Scouts at schools surprises you then you would also probably be surprised to know that the Leftists in this country are out to destroy America as we know it. This is happening right now before your very eyes. When a long-respected youth group such as the Boy Scouts gets shut down in public schools, don't you think it's time for you to reevaluate your Leftist leanings?

Mentioning The Scouts in this thead is quite apropos....seeing its founder, Baden Powell, was a raging poo-pushing paedophile!

 

[Alucard]

that's not even been an issue in this thread, yet it keeps coming up.

Everyone knows the church can do whatever they want. The can dance naked between the pews and praise Satan for all I care.

I personally think what they did was wrong. For all the reasons that have been given previously. No need to repeat them.

The fact is, you think they are wrong because they are a church... You would never take the side of God...

You and others like you will attack Christianity regardless of truth or facts... You hate Christians...

Thats cool, just dont cry foul when they react...

 

[Alucard]

Mentioning The Scouts in this thead is quite apropos....seeing its founder, Baden Powell, was a raging poo-pushing paedophile!

Did you see your big Assie tough guy Rocca in his first ameikan futbal game...

He got his head knocked off by a kid...

Welcum to Amerika Aussie pussy