WASHINGTON – A prominent pro-family leader is urging fellow conservatives to withdraw their support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney over his recent expressed support for a “sexual orientation” non-discrimination law.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Joel Page)Republican presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, speaks to supporters at a town hall-style meeting Saturday, Dec. 22, 2007 in North Conway, N.H.
Romney during an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” said he supports the contentious Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which adds “sexual orientation” to a list of federally protected classes that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
The bill upsets conservative leaders because it grants special protection to employees based on their “actual or perceived” sexual orientation. Moreover, it would force Christian organizations that oppose homosexuality to hire gay employees.
“Mitt Romney’s Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader,” said Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro-family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website.
“Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil rights are being used to promote homosexual ‘marriage,’ same-sex adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren,” he said. “These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith-minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.”
The former Massachusetts governor responded on “Meet the Press” that ENDA “makes sense” at the state level. But LaBarbera warns that if Romney “openly” promotes homosexual agenda at the state level then he cannot be trusted at the federal level.
He pointed out that the state’s “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for Massachusetts legalizing gay “marriage” – the first in the country to do so.
Moreover, the ENDA-like law forced Boston’s Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it refused to place children in gay households against Catholic teaching.
“Given Romney’s extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a ‘President Romney’ not to reverse course again on federal pro-homosexual laws such as ‘Hate Crimes’ and ENDA?” LaBarbera posed.
In addition to the homosexuality agenda, pro-family leaders have also had reservations on Romney’s commitment to the abortion issue, which he only recently said he was against.
Well-known conservative leaders who have endorsed Romney include Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation; Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition; Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice; and Mark DeMoss of the PR agency DeMoss Pond.
“Now some pro-family leaders – who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing ‘gay’ activism – will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro-homosexual-agenda candidate,” LaBarbera said.
The federal ENDA bill is opposed by Christian heavyweights such as Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. of High Impact Leadership Coalition, Alan Sears of Alliance Defense Fund, the Rev. Rick Scarborough of Vision America, and Colin A. Hanna of Let Freedom Ring.
President George W. Bush has also indicated he intends to veto the bill if it makes it to his desk.
RSS
1 Timothy 4:1
[ The Great Apostasy ] Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
1 Timothy 4:1-3 (in Context) 1 Timothy 4 (Whole Chapter)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
2 Timothy 4:2-4 (in Context) 2 Timothy 4 (Whole Chapter)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
2 Peter 2:1
[ Destructive Doctrines ] But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 2:1-3 (in Context) 2 Peter 2 (Whole Chapter)
2 Peter 2:4
[ Doom of False Teachers ] For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;
2 Peter 2:3-5 (in Context) 2 Peter 2 (Whole Chapter)
2 Peter 2:12
[ Depravity of False Teachers ] But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption,
2 Peter 2:11-13 (in Context) 2 Peter 2 (Whole Chapter)
2 Peter 2:18
[ Deceptions of False Teachers ] For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error.
2 Peter 2:17-19 (in Context) 2 Peter 2 (Whole Chapter)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
SummaTheologica, wouldn't you expect articles at a Christian site to reflect the truth of the Bible? If/when Mormon teachings contradict the Bible, what would you expect articles here to say?
rubin, you mentioned something about a similarity between believing in God and believing in Santa Clause. I heard an interesting lecture this past week by Alister MacGrath. Have you heard of him? He has a book published in response to Dawkins. At any rate, he made the interesting observation that people generally stop believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny around 6 or so years old. The fact that they and others do not start believing in them when they are older, such as 18, 35 or even 70 years old (such as Anthony Flew) expresses a distinction that something different embodies belief in God and that it is more than mere wishful thinking.
rubinluski:
I appreciate what you just wrote. I now have a better understanding about how you feel and where you are coming from.
What kind of scientist are you?
Hey chris thanx for you detailed response. Yes indeed, blogs can be very time consuming, especially when you want to get your point out there correctly. For me it all boils down to the fact that I can not really relate to the religion stuff, I have tried it and nothing there for me. I guess I am ambivalent towards religion. I figure if there is life after death, and a God, then I suppose I will learn about it then. Until then, I try to get thru life as best I can. I am a scientist by prefession, thats what i relate to. Its not a religion for me, but its what interests me. Religion only interests me in terms of what others think about it. I like to discuss religion and politics with others, sometimes I agree, sometimes I dont.
SummaTheologica,
Don’t whine so much, just because people disagree with Mormonism. When people challenge Mormonism they're not anti-Mormon. You might actually learn something if you're willing.
“You want a yes or no answer to stoning- those do not mention stoning so I don't know where you come up with the question.”
kc95819, yes I want a YES or NO answer on whether you agree or disagree with this very commandment and those like it. Either you do, or you don’t’ it’s not multiple choice, just you agree or you don’t and then your reasoning.
“When death is mentioned in this manner it may be referring to spiritual death and the ever after, not heaven, but the abyss, death or earthly death from STD"s or probably both.”
No, it’s not a deeper symbolic meaning or some symbolic translation. It means exactly what is says and asks for gays to be put to death via stoning them. This is exactly why I mentioned all the other lovely acts (working on the Sabbath, being a witch or wizard, inviting an acquaintance to seek other gods, adultery, rape, being non believer, etc.) that also ask and emphatically require a person be stoned to death, so it’s painfully obvious what it implies as ‘resolute justice’. Your rambling of STD’s and other nonsense was nice subterfuge though.
“Christians have never believed homosexuals should be stoned or harmed in anyway”
You sure about that? I have seen/heard some pretty outspoken evangelical Christians who openly ask for their death in the hear and now. While others like Ted Haggard are closet homo’s themselves, and although they don’t ask for persecution of them, its ironic they want
Well, Summatheologica, I do agree that this post is sometimes anti-mormon (though often pro-mormon as well) and often not Christian writings posts. This website is open to anyone to post on it, be they agnostic, buddhist, mormon, or even atheist. I have to ask you, what is your point? For that matter you say anti-mormon as if that is necessarily a bad thing. If you want more honest Christian perspective, then yes it will be more anti-mormon, if you want less Christian writing posts, then it will be pro-mormon, you can't have it both ways. But I am not sure that is what you want.
Oh yes, and Happy New Year to you too!
Rubin,
First off, thanks for your response. These blogs can be very time consuming. To begin with, it seems your main problem with Christianity is with the idea of sin, Hell, and an all loving and all powerful God. I am assuming that you find these ideas to be contradictory? However I would also go so far as to assume that these are not the only reasons why you reject Christianity. For instance if I were able to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between these ideas (as I am relatively sure I can give an intellectually satisfying answer) still you would not then decide to become a Christian.
But, to answer your question about Christianity; first off, I do not know that I would say that hell is a continual place of torture. I would say that it is a place of complete separation from God, which might entail suffering that is worse than said torture.
“The problem I have with most religions is they claim to know what the creator is thinking and if you dont behave in a certain fashion or you dont believe the right stuff, the creator will punish you.”
In answering this I would say that most religions do not say that you have to believe a certain thing. Most religions in fact say you have to act a certain way, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam (to a large extent), and Judaism. Of course right belief is a part of these systems, but the key is that you get to “heaven” by doing the right things. Christianity is unique in its offer.
However you are partly right that at least in Christianity, belief in Christ is the only way to heaven. Look at it this way, if a fish is out of water it will die, if the fish were intelligent and you could speak to it, and you told the fish that the only way to live is to go back in the water, it would be silly for the fish to say, “That is not fair, I want to live on the land” In much larger proportions we are people who are “outside” of God, and if our souls last for eternity then the consequences are naturally so. This all goes without saying that God does love us and He did give us a way to live “In” Him, through Jesus Christ. It doesn’t do us good to complain that that is the only way.
You said, “"God is a loving God", if thats the case, why would God allow billions of souls to be tortured for an eternity?”
It is key to remember that God does not send anyone to hell, but that He is also a just God, and a God that allows us to have free will; by choosing to live apart from God and reject His way we are choosing to go to hell. (I will not say that it is torture for eternity either).
These answers may not fully satisfy you, but they are logically coherent and at least they intellectually answer your proposed problems. I now ask you, why can’t you believe in Christianity?
This website should be renamed the "Anti-Mormon and sometimes Christian writings Post," there really isn't a whole lot Christian about it..... What a shame.
test
yellowjelo wrote:
".......WE ARE ALL CHILDREN OF GOD. Even Jesus himself asked the crowd when they presented the adultress women, that he that was WITHOUT..."
yellowjello, let me correct you Scripturally speaking if I may. Not everyone is a child of God. The correct statement is to say that we are all created by God, but not all are children of God.
We are children of God, only when we repent of our sin nature, accept Christ Jesus as the only Mediator between us and God. Accept Him as Lord and Savior; surrender completely to His Lordship (the Christ of the Scriptures; not a fabricated Christ of course), and ask Him to forgive us our sins, and come into our lives to rule and reign in our lives as Lord and Savior, and then we are to die to ourselves daily, pick up our crosses, and follow Jesus Christ!
We are also to be discerning of Sound Doctrine as the Scriptures exhort us. For we are living in the end times, and many false teachers have gone out amongst the world. We are to continue steadfastly in the firm foundation of the Word of God, and nothing else.
Also, yelloejello, you had stated on another post that you were Mormon. I want to very lovingly exhort you to examine your beliefs and see if they are truly in line with the Holy Bible. I am a BIble Believing Born again Christian who believes that both the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures are the God Inspired Infallible Absolute Truth of God. To add to it or take away from it is heresy. We do not need a companion book to the Bible in order to teach us how to live.
I have some challenging questions for you that you possibly have for the Mormon church yourself, as it is clear that the Boobk of Mormon is composed of non-biblical teachings, and they are subsequently taught as sound doctrine in the Mormon church.
1) Would you know if the Mormon church has been able to link DNA evidence to suggest the popular mormon teaching that the indian people groups in the America's have a link to the 12 tribes of Judah?
2) The Mormons celebrate great battles of people groups never heard of in history. For the record, the people groups I am refering to are made up of other people groups; not the Mayans, or Inca's. Also, what biblical basis does the Mormon Church have to say that white people are superior to blacks; or that Jesus was married and had children?
You may want to chew on some of these questions, because they do draw a fine line between clear sound doctrinal biblical teachings, and the doctrines of men. I want to encourage you to read the Word of God, Book by Book, Chapter by Chapter, Line by Line, Verse by Verse, and you will see that it will expose the Book of Mormon as a heresy. I hope the Lord gives you wisdom in your endeavor. I will be praying for you.
seedplanter, thanks for bringing out David Barton. He is definitely an authority on the matter, and his organizatin "Wall Builders" has many original historical artifacts that prove that many of the founding father's were Christians, and not just Deists as some would have us believe.
Also, on a side note, you all may want to purchase the book mentioned by seedplanter, as wel as another one written by David Barton called "Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration of Independence". You don't hear much about Benhamin Ruish, because many in today's secular progressive public schools just like talking about Benjamin Franklin, but there are many more founding father's than just Benjamin Franklin.
Although Jefferson would not be considered an orthodox Christian and he was the least religious of the founding fathers he said:
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever.” Nathaneal Greene, The Papers of General Nathaneal Greene
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” –Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
Doesn’t exactly sound like a deist. Who knows?
“History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion… and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania
“And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? …[W]ithout His concurring aid… we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.” Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin
“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited…. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.” John Adams, Works, Vol. II
“I have examined all [religions] …and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.” John Adams, Works, Vol. X
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were… the general principals of Christianity… Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principals of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God….I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these principles.” John Adams, Works, Vol. X
“[S]uch compliances [compromises]…of my honor, my conscience, my friends, my country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than hell-fire, eternal torment; and this is so unequal a price to pay for the honors and emoluments [profits from government]…that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it [compromise]. The duration of future punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think eternity a moment only, I could comply and be promoted.” John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States
Citations from Original Intent by David Barton
maranatha7593-
“The basis of our country: http://dutyisours.com/founding.htm”
maranatha7593, I wasn’t sure if you or others were aware but many if not most of our founding fathers were Deists and not Christians. Sure, they believed in god, but not the Christian religious doctrine on the concept of god. Even more apparent as one reviews their writings is apparent they distinctly despised theocracy, particularly the Christian variety. Washington was Christian, regardless though he and others above all us were believers in secularism. All one needs to do is google such founders and they will find plenty who were Deist or despised such theocratic rule.
Thomas Jefferson (Deist) wasn’t Christian, he detested the Christian doctrine and despised Theocratic rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin (Deist) Also despised the Christian theology, has many writings defining his level of disgust with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
John Adams (Deist) He too had some choice words to define the Christian faith by. Some have reported that he was Christian, however his works show he doubted the divinity of Christ and referred to god more as deists would have.
chris wrote:
"It is important to remember that everyone believes that "only their way is the right way", Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, *Agnostics, and Pluralists, as well as everyone else who lives and breaths and is able to have an opinion, believes there way is the right way."
Oh yes, I absolutely agree with you. I should have stated that in my post. i do not limit it to christians by any means. All the aforementioned believe they are correct, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. There may very well be a creator, but I would say the aforementioned- christians, muslims, hindus, jews, etc, i find all quite unconvincing in their explanations of the nature of the creator. Perhaps they are all correct in some way, or they are all wrong. As an agnostic, I cant help to think that all these faiths have very strange, and unlikely explanations of the creator. I admit I have no idea.
"Also, I have to ask you, if you are of the type of agnostic who says there is not enough evidence to decide one way or another, I would ask you, what would convince you that there is a God, and more specifically what would convince you that Christ was who He said He was?"
"what would convince you that there is a God" a sit down over a beer might be convince me.
Seriously, for the sake of argument, lets say that the earth and life on it is proof of a creator. OK fine. The problem I have with most religions is they claim to know what the creator is thinking and if you dont behave in a certain fashion or you dont believe the right stuff, the creator will punish you. In the case of christianity for example, I'm told if i dont believe in Christ, I'm going to be tortured for an eternity. That does not seem plausible to me. It also seems contrary to what many christians say about God- "God is a loving God", if thats the case, why would God allow billions of souls to be tortured for an eternity? Doesn't seem to be much logic or love with that view as far as my limited brain power can tell. On the other hand, I might be completely wrong and am headed for the pit of torture.
Happy New Year to You
I think we all can agree that there is an ultimate truth. The reason I say this is that the various religions and even agnostic reasoning are contradictions. That in itself is proof that there is a right belief and a wrong belief. My suggestion and this is a strong suggestion is to stop sitting on the fence and make a choice. My choice is with Christ but that is me. In the end those on the fence will not have a choice. Listen to the one calling out in the desert. Make that choice today. Accept Christ as your personal savior today. Accept the voucher of salvation. Accept Christ. Ask for forgiveness. Forgive yourself. As Christ's blood will cleanse your past and God will throw your sins into the lake of forgetfulness.
Rubin,
It is important to remember that everyone believes that "only their way is the right way", Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, *Agnostics, and Pluralists, as well as everyone else who lives and breaths and is able to have an opinion, believes there way is the right way. Yes Atheists and Pluralists believe that religious and Exclusive people are wrong, and that they are right. (Pluralism is also self contradictory, which any half way intelligent person can see) I put an asterik by agnosticism because it is a bit more tricky, you defined yourself as an agnostic. Agnosticism literally means "one who doesn't know" but most people mean that there is not enough evidence to decide one way or the other. If that is the case then those people also believe they are right and anyone who does decide on a belief is wrong, thus everyone is guilty of believing they are right and everyone is wrong. It is unfair of you to put that on Christians specifically and religious people in general.
Also, I have to ask you, if you are of the type of agnostic who says there is not enough evidence to decide one way or another, I would ask you, what would convince you that there is a God, and more specifically what would convince you that Christ was who He said He was?
Also, it's not so much a need for eternal life I felt as a need for God's love, His forgiveness, His peace, His joy, His grace. For me, eternal life is just icing on the cake, and I would love the daily fellowship with Him just as much if Heaven were not even promised.
rubin, I believe the words of Jesus, who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me."
maranatha7593: "yellowjello, I agree that we should try to be examples of Christ - but I don't agree that is ALL we can do. If we don't share the Gospel with those who do not know the Lord, how can they be saved? How can they inherit eternal life? There are positives and negatives to anything. There are positive things we do as Christians, and there are also 'negatives' (as perceived by others, anyway). Jesus said His true followers would be hated as He was. He also said, "Beware if all men speak well of you." Kind of disconcerting, but nonetheless true. "
The thing I cant get past with some religious folks, is their belief that their religion and beliefs are the correct one, and everyone else is wrong. I think thats what you are saying. I guess thats why I'm content being an agnostic. I'v known plenty of people over the years that have told me (WARNED ME) "my mind aint right, you dont know the "Word"" . Many of those people I wouldn't trust to walk my dog, no offense to you intended. I have tried out religion. going to church, etc,etc,etc, it doesn't do anything for me,I feel no connection what so ever. There may very well be a creator, I dont know thats why I call myself an agnostic, but its hard for me to imagine that the creator would be all that concerned about a little speck of a planet in a galaxy 100,000 light years across. in fact if God did create us, i would say that God has moved on to bigger and better things and left poor little earth to its self.
"If we don't share the Gospel with those who do not know the Lord, how can they be saved? How can they inherit eternal life?"
Perhaps not all poeple want to be saved (what ever that means). An eternal torture chamber seems absurd to me.
Perhaps not all people have this need to believe in an eternal life, i know i dont.
yellowjello, I agree that we should try to be examples of Christ - but I don't agree that is ALL we can do. If we don't share the Gospel with those who do not know the Lord, how can they be saved? How can they inherit eternal life? There are positives and negatives to anything. There are positive things we do as Christians, and there are also 'negatives' (as perceived by others, anyway). Jesus said His true followers would be hated as He was. He also said, "Beware if all men speak well of you." Kind of disconcerting, but nonetheless true. Thank you also for your kind tone. I appreciate it very much. :-)
maranatha7593 I am not defending any imorality, however it does exist and we can only try to be examples of Christ and show people the way. It is difficult, but not immpossible. We know "I can do all tihings through Christ". We know people have thier agency and we will judged according to our works. Everyone of my neighbors is a different religion. I have Budahists on one side and our neighbor hood looks forward to seeing the snow sculture of BUdha in their front yard each year. Across the roadt is a Muslim family and they have the most beautiful strone laid drive way and have on many occasions helped my family out in a crisis. Behind me is a gay couple and they are very kind. Across the road the other way is a Christian family who has lived hear 50 years and we are Mormons. At Christmas each year we exchange plates of goodies and treats. And even some of them do not honor a holiday I am so very excited about, they honor and respect my beliefs. We have a lived here for over 15+ years and I would trust them fully. I may not agree with their beliefs, but we have learned much from each other. I try to be a good example of Christ as well as they have taught me too. I am grateful we do live in a country were all this is possible. Just doing the right thing holds the greatest strength. You are nice to respond so kindly. Thank and Happy New Year.
I agree with you, yellowjello, that pedophiles should not be allowed to be priests (or schoolteachers or anything else that puts them in contact with children - ever). Yet there are people who would tell you that you are judging them, that you are throwing stones. If we take a stand against any one form of immorality, it's inconsistent to also defend another.
yellow jello, Jesus did not condemn people - ever - but He did condemn sin. After He forgave and delivered people from sin, He told them, "Go and sin no more", which is what He said to the woman you mentioned who was caught in adultery. He verified God's original plan for men and women in Matthew 19, and He never once condoned immorality of any sort.
HE WHO IS WIITHOUT SIN, LET HIM CAST THE FIRST STONE.
I support equal opportunity to people seeking employment. Remember religion is also is liisted. I don't support special rights beyond the privileges we are all guaranteed. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal"... If you could not be hired because you were a certain nationality, religion, etc. You might think twice. Here's the reality, we have homosexuals in our society. Are we more Christian if we treat our fellow man as is implied? Look were it got Hitler. Remember that pedaphiles hide within the cloth of our churhces and prey on young men? This is sick and wrong. The U.S. will spend millions of tax dollars to TRY and reform or correct within our prision systems child molesters because of political correctness. This and the pornography in the media is more acceptable than homosexuality. Most homosexuals I have worked with or even for in the REAL world would not harm children, but yet others continue treat the other problems as they can be rehabilitated. What would any of you do if your child came to you and told you they were gay? WE ARE ALL CHILDREN OF GOD. Even Jesus himself asked the crowd when they presented the adultress women, that he that was WITHOUT
Star2: "The true Church is not the Catholic Church nor is it any other Church. There are not many ways to heaven. There is only one way . That way is through the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. (John 14:6) Mary can't forgive you of your sins nor can she get you into heaven. No Pope, Priest, or Pastor can either. And the sacraments of the church won't do it either.
The only ones who are the body of Christ, which is the church, are those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb."
Yes, THIS is the truth, Star2. Thanks for speaking so clearly. God bless you. :-)
And the True Church IS the Catholic Church, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Star2-
Wrong. Jesus CLEARLY says "Peter, upon you I build my church" Jesus also said to Peter "I give you the keys to heaven" he also said to the apostles "Go and forgive in my name and where you forgive they shall be forgiven." What you said is a DIRECT violation of what the bible said. That said what I meant by fanatic was people that constantly claim that others are going to hell for various reasons. Several Protestant "prophets" claim that they can tell who is going to hell and who is not. THIS is a fanatic. Somebody that condemns others.
The true Church is not the Catholic Church nor is it any other Church. There are not many ways to heaven. There is only one way . That way is through the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. (John 14:6) Mary can't forgive you of your sins nor can she get you into heaven. No Pope, Priest, or Pastor can either. And the sacraments of the church won't do it either.
The only ones who are the body of Christ, which is the church, are those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.
Being a fanatic for Jesus should be the norm not the exception.
So you do not deny that you are a fanatic?
Oh, shucks. And here I was the one waiting on you so I COULD "handle the heat'. My, how you love to misrepresent things.
The only folq who are going to roast in eternity are those who play the silly game.
You see, wishful thinking will only get them the Heat they reserve for others.
If you cannot handle the heat, maranatha, then feel free.
It leaves them not in the TRUE church, but we do not deny that there are other ways to heaven. Ours is not the only way, just the best way. THAT is what the Pope means. Other ways will be filled with sin and treachery and other harmful things (breakoffs :P) our way is the best way, not the only way.
tliml, should I call Prophet and Online4Him over here to vouch for me?
tliml, if you are saying that about me, you are wrong and you know it. I have not once told you or anyone else that anyone is going to Hell. Stick to the facts.
BTW, tliml: Catholics (including you and taj) have told several of us Protestants over and over that we are not part of the "one true Church". Do you think that's true? If so, where does that leave everyone who's not Catholic?
You have expressed several times that I am going to hell because of my beliefs. Which just happen to have lasted 1000 years longer than your beliefs. About 1350 years longer.
tliml: "Maranatha clearly thinks otherwise, don't you?"
Please clarify - what exactly is it that I think?
Chris,
Rubin is correct. I have seen Protestant fanatics that tell me i am going to hell because I am Catholic. It is annoying. I am sure it would be just as annoying if someone walked up to rubin and said "Since you do not believe in the Word (there are several different "Words") you are going to hell, see ya." He is not being intolerant of anyone's beliefs. Whether he is atheist or not he is entitled to his beliefs and that is all fine and good as long as he doesn't push them onto anyone else. From what I am seeing he does not do that, in fact it is more YOU that are doing it to him by trying to imply that he is "intolerant" of other's beliefs. I am not atheist, but I am going to stick up for an atheist any day if somebody walks up to them and says "You are going to hell" if the truth is not revealed to them it is not their fault. Maranatha clearly thinks otherwise, don't you?
maranatha-
I completely agree with rubin. You are a fanatic that thinks everyone who does not know the edited, remastered, screwed around with, PROTESTANT, King James version WORD, is going to Hell. I know from experience. You must have an IQ below 100 because it seems that you can never tell the difference between an example or an analogy or the real thing. I used "Hitler believed he was doing the right thing" as an example of the fact "Just because you believe it is right doesn't mean it IS right", and you told me that I had a sick mind to compare anyone to Hitler... Or like when I had to ask you seven times to give me a source for your pathetic argument and you gave me catholicconerns.com, which is a poorly done, biased site that is by a protestant woman that claims to be a nun... right.
Rubin, we believe in a biblical POV. There are some things that are debatable in the Bible, but other points are very clear. I am more worried about atheist fanatics and Islamic fanatics than Christian fanatics. But I think it is important that we define fanatic. Do you mean extremism, or any Christian who truly believes in the Bible. Or do you mean the people who extremely twist the obvious truths in the Bible? Perhaps you would only be happy in Christians who lived, thought, acted, and spoke like secular people? Maybe you are intolerant of others' beliefs.
First of all, I don't tell people they're going to Hell. I'm not God and I don't know how their lives will end up - people can and do change. Secondly, I do agree with God's Word, all of it. I do believe Hell is a real place, but I also know that the Bible says it was not created for man but for the devil and his angels, and I know that God has done everything He can to give every person the ability to accept or reject His free gift of eternal ife.
Why do you consider that belief 'fanatical'?
Again, I'm curious: Why do you believe it's wrong to kill and steal?
"I'm curious: With what Christian POV do you agree?"
thou shalt not kill or steal.....
maranatha7593:
I come in contact with certain individuals that i do consider religious fanatics. they tell me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in certain things and that their POV is the correct one. My POV is wrong because I dont know the "Word". They are going to heaven and almost everyone is going to hell because they dont know the "Word" - I consider them fanatics. Probably some carry over from that repeated experience.
rubin, try to understand that when you demean any people of faith as "fanatical", you have of course offended them. I don't see any point in coming back with insults; I just tried to point out the illogic of your assumptions, the fact that you automatically discount the Christian POV and assume your POV is the only right one. That's why I asked by what criteria you had made that determination.
rubin: "You are correct, i do have trouble seeing the christian POV on many, but not all, positions."
I'm curious: With what Christian POV do you agree?
OK maranatha7593, lets reset the baseline here . I think we can agree to disagree. You have your beliefs and thats great. I have mine. In any case, I dont mean to offend anyone on a personal level. Sometimes these posts can get heated. You are correct, i do have trouble seeing the christian POV on many, but not all, positions. Homosexuality would be an area where we would disagree.
Most animals also do not mate for life. God said that humans who mate indiscriminately like animals are sinning against Him, are fornicators and adulterers. Again, humans are held to a completely different standard than are animals.
To clarify further: Animals cannot sin. They are not human, are not made in the image of God, are not accountable to God.
RE: rubin: "I'm not looking fo a fight, I am interested in exchanging points of view. Fanatical religious people have trouble seeing the other side's point of view. Your right , I'm wrong"
Your word "fanatical" indicates that you take no other point of view seriously; it negates any logical debate.
You have trouble seeing the Christian POV. Aren't you then, by your own definition, fanatical?
By what standard have you decided that you're right and Christians are wrong?
I gave answers. You just don't agree with them. When are you going to answer my questions?
"Homosexuality in any arena does not change the fact that God did not create homosexuality, that it entered the world because of sin. "
Again you dont have answer, very disappointing.
maranatha7593 however early man propogated the species, we know that God did not define incest until the days of Moses.
So you dont have an answer I take it.
Homosexuality in any arena does not change the fact that God did not create homosexuality, that it entered the world because of sin.
And why are you even discussing anything from scripture if you don't believe it? What's the point?
maranatha7593 your post "homosexuality did not exist when God created man and woman. Homosexuality exists because they allowed sin to enter the world."
Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom amongst various types of animals including primates. Are these non-human animals sinning? How would you explain homosexuality in non-human populations?
However early man propogated the species, we know that God did not define incest until the days of Moses.
rubin: "I'm not looking fo a fight, I am interested in exchanging points of view. Fanatical religious people have trouble seeing the other side's point of view. Your right , I'm wrong"
Your word "fanatical" indicates that you take no other point of view seriously; it negates any logical debate.
You have trouble seeing the Christian POV. Aren't you then, by your own definition, fanatical?
By what standard have you decided that you're right and Christians are wrong?
Seedplanter, you didn't answer my question.
you posted "The traditional family that was started by God in the Garden of Eden".
Question: Was incest involved between the offspring of A & E to propagate the species? This has always puzzled me.
I would really like to hear an explanation, what am I missing here, how did mankind turn into billions with only two people to start things off.
seedplanter: " You might as well here it while you're here looking for a fight:"
I'm not looking fo a fight, I am interested in exchanging points of view. Fanatical religious people have trouble seeing the other side's point of view. Your right , I'm wrong and YOU sinners and are going to the eternal torture chamber. I have heard many times before. Actually I dont find religion interesting, but the politics and views of religions I find to be very interesting. I am especially intriged when certain religious folks give me their take on the "truth". I prefer the study of science, thats where i find truth.
"whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. "
I am not much interested in everlasting life. One lifetime is good enough. When my time is up, its up and i dont think I have a problem with that. When I'm dead, I wont know the difference. The universe got along for billions of years without me, it will do fine for billions of years more when I'm gone.
rubi, just as God gives us the freedom to choose sin, He also gives us the freedom to remain ignorant. I geuss you've made your choice. You might as well here it while you're here looking for a fight:
For God so loved the world that He gave only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Choose life that you might live.
Homosexuality did not exist when God created man and woman. Homosexuality exists because they allowed sin to enter the world.
star2, I've just got here. But having read this first page, I just wanted to say, you've been doing a great job speaking truth. God bless you! :-)
And HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone here. I pray this will be a wonderful year for all of us, for the Spirit of God to do a new work in all our hearts.
""Sanctioning homosexuality will only bring the wrath of God on our nation"-- well I would think that america would have experienced gods wrath long ago - persecution of blacks and other minorities, extermination of its indigenous population, invasions of Vietnam and Iraq to which resulted in the death and injury of milions of innocent people, the largest arms exporter in the world, no health care for millions of its citizens, squandering earth's resources at the expense of othe countries, etc. etc.
Yes, America has indeed experienced the wrath of God before. Do two or more wrongs make a right?
rubinlueski:
May God help you.
"God will give any nation time to repent of their wickedness. If they refuse to do so He will bring His judgment on them in a most severe way. (Rev 2:21-23)"
Yeah right and santa clause visited my house on christmas. LOL.....................
rubinlueski:
God will give any nation time to repent of their wickedness. If they refuse to do so He will bring His judgment on them in a most severe way. (Rev 2:21-23)
well star2 I see that you have spent too much time in that first century cave too.
"Sanctioning homosexuality will only bring the wrath of God on our nation"-- well I would think that america would have experienced gods wrath long ago - persecution of blacks and other minorities, extermination of its indigenous population, invasions of Vietnam and Iraq to which resulted in the death and injury of milions of innocent people, the largest arms exporter in the world, no health care for millions of its citizens, squandering earth's resources at the expense of othe countries, etc. etc.
Seems kind of silly that the creator of the universe would be so focused on homosexuality when there are so many other things to focus on. Homosexuality is not unique to the human animal, so if God created all living things on earth, why does homosexuality exist if god is so opposed to it.
seedplanter, me think you have spend too much time in a first century cave.
"There is no evidence that people are born “gay.” -------
Actually there is much eveidence, both behavior and genetic
" Even so, if it was proven to be so, how could it be easily dismissed as “normal” and good?""-------
Its not a matter of being normal or good, its what it IS. As gay people point out to me, they put up with persecution and rejection, so why would they "choose" such a life style. They don't.
QUESTION , you posted "The traditional family that was started by God in the Garden of Eden". Was incest involved between the offspring of A & E to propagate the species? This has always puzzled me.
rubinlueski and all you are like minded about:
Sanctioning homosexuality will only bring the wrath of God on our nation. Have you forgotten what God did to Sodom and Gomorrha? If you think that God won't destroy this nation because of homosexuality, abortion, and the like, think twice. The Lord Jesus Christis the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Heb 13:8)
God will bring down any nation or person who thumbs their nose in the moral face of God.
God says in His Word that He will bless a nation if it obeys His commandments and He will curse a nation if they don't. (Deu 28:1-68)
JFL: You said "The only thing we CAN do is establish that marriage is between one man and one woman. Romney said he would support such a Constitutional amendment."
Whhy would Romney support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman when he denied the voters of his state to do so.?
Thanks for the post Dan. Do you have the original link to Hugh’s quote?
Rubin, you sound like you’ve spent too much time at “MoveOn.org.”
You mentioned fighting poverty. I would have to say that one of the big factors in America’s economy is homosexuality. The traditional family that was started by God in the Garden of Eden, not only fights poverty but also depression and disease. More money is being poured into finding a cure for AIDS than cancer. The tremendous burdens of health care for homosexuals have not only added numbers to the unemployment line particularly where I live in Illinois, but it has also increased insurance rates.
Studies have shown that there are numerous sociological influences that often lead to homosexual tendencies. A strong family unit consisting of a mother and father is vital to any child’s healthy development. The psychological and social impacts are only recently surfacing and mostly in isolated news sources. There was also a recent long term study that examined homosexuals who have changed. There is no evidence that people are born “gay.” Even so, if it was proven to be so, how could it be easily dismissed as “normal” and good? Some people are born with certain social characteristics such as lying, stealing, murder, rage, selfishness, lust and sexual perversions of all sorts. The list can go on and on and on. If we should look to animals as our natural guides, there are no limits. I breed dogs and I have to make certain that there is no inter-mixing of closely associated bloodlines. Our last litter included one puppy with a deformed leg. The dame would not accept him or take care of him, as the others. We had to force her to. Today he is a beautiful Golden Retriever, and brings joy to a family who loves him. Bad comparison!
How about this. Allow gay civil unions that allow for the same protective laws that married heterosexual couples receive. They don't have to be called marriages, they would be civil unions. The the folks here that are opposed to gay relationships can then move on-start minding their own business and move on to helping the poor and down trodden in the world.
I know many gays. Homosexuality is not a choice, its how they were born. Just like I knew I was a heterosexual very early in my life ,not a choice, the way I was born, the same is true for all the gays i have know. They knew very early in life they were different- that is to say the were not attracted to opposite sex. Humans animals are not unique to this.
Many have seen through Romney's deception. 2 Tim. 3:13 " But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
Romney's top media supporter, Hugh Hewitt, tipped his hand in 2006. In his 10/3/2006 interview with former Washington Post senior political writer Thomas Edsall, Mr. Edsall states, “There's nothing wrong with a gay person in my book” to which Mr. Hewitt responds, “I agree, completely, one hundred percent.” Hewitt rejects the conservative tenets of biblical revelation, Catholic natural law arguments, as well as the Pope’s statements.
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics.
The 2002 Olympics - run by Mitt Romney - was the only Olympics that restricted the Boy Scouts from participating.
Romney appointed prominent homosexual activists and Democrats as judges.
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge.
Romney's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth used huge taxpayer funding to promote homosexuality in the public schools.
Romney's Commission organized public gay "Youth Pride Day" parades and "transgender proms" which promote unhealthy and risky behavior.
Romney issues a proclamation celebrating gay "Youth Pride Day".
Romney's Department of Education promotes the homosexual agenda.
Romney's Department of Public Health (DPH) cooperates with the homosexual activist movement
Romney appointed prominent homosexuals to key positions in his administration.
Romney opposed federal legislation that would stop public schools from promoting homosexuality.
Romney's Dept. of Social Services honors homosexual "married" couple as adoptive "Parents of the Year".
Romney refused to endorse the original 2002 Mass. constitutional amendment absolutely defining marriage as one man and one women.
Romney unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) implemented homosexual marriages in Massachusetts.
Romney had marriage licenses changed to allow same-sex marriages.
Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired!.
Romney administration's training of Town Clerks (on how to issue same-sex marriage licenses) states that marriage statutes were not changed.
Romney signs bill eliminating Sexual Transmitted Disease (STD) testing requirement for marriage
When requested of him, Romney personally issues special one-day certificates to allow otherwise unqualified people to perform homosexual "marriages" .
ENDA supposedly has a disclaimer for churches. The problem is that it will impact private businesses such as Christian book stores, possibly mega churches, seminaries, etc, that hire people for things other than teaching, such as maintenance. It will be another homosexual rights bill that gives special treatment to people on acount of their sexuality. Of course public schools will be included and other civic programs that shape children's lives. Its bad business!
JLF, Romney has flip-flopped back and forth on important moral issues. I don't see how Christians can trust him to make true moral judgments in office.
Romney View of Homosexual Behavior
I am not sure this article is an accurate representation of what Romney said or meant. It certainly isn't what I have heard him say in the past. I think readers will discover Romney's message about homosexuality is that we have no control over deviant sexual practices – the secular part of society will not go along with us. The only thing we CAN do is establish that marriage is between one man and one woman. Romney said he would support such a Constitutional amendment.
Huckabee seems to be the only one who is concerned about Biblical morality.
Guiliani, tliml??? I don't see how anyone who calls himself a Christian could vote for him.
I've seen from the beginning of this campaign that Romney has flip-flopped back and forth on important moral issues, that Christians cannot trust him to make true moral judgments in office.
thelordismylight - Have you even read the law? If you had then you would know that's not true.
Psh, mike huckabee my foot! Giuliani all the way.
Ifeelfine-
This law would completely violate our right to freedom of religion because a pastor could be sued for preaching. You know it too.
Online4Him - I read it the first time you posted it but how do you know that its not you who is the eisegete? I don't know any other way or why you would say that your love for a man exceeded that of any woman unless there was something else going on. Get your head out of the sand.
all i have to say is this- mike huckabee for president
::begin quote::
And what I forgot to say is this. If homosexuality is added then the entire country will go crazy. If a guy is fired he could just claim he was homosexual and he could get a case in court that his boss fired him for his gender orientation.
::end quote::
This is already happening.
A California software maker was forced to pay a settlement and legal fees totaling over $1 million because the company did not promote a man who had come to work dressed as a woman. It did not matter that the company did not even know the "woman" was a man. The "victim" sued under California’s "sexual orientation" law. As legal fees escalated, the company finally settled out of court. To pay for the loss, eight employees were laid off, with the number eventually growing to 20. (The incident was related in "Computer Soft-Wear," in The Other Side of Tolerance, p. 12.)
Ifeelfine72,
Again; to make the text say something it doesn’t say or read something into the text outside of its original meaning is known as eisegesis.
And what I forgot to say is this. If homosexuality is added then the entire country will go crazy. If a guy is fired he could just claim he was homosexual and he could get a case in court that his boss fired him for his gender orientation.
Homosexuality is not persecuted psh. If they were added to the list A PASTOR COULD BE SUED FOR JUST PREACHING THEIR RELIGION!! I give homosexual portection a no and I also give Romney a no. If he is elected president there will be pro-gay marches every day.
Well, although the line is still commonly heard today, the "10 percent" figure has been debunked. Even the homosexual community has admitted the figure is false. A Friend of the Court brief filed with the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case said that a National Health and Social Life Survey ("the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States," according to the brief) reported "that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."
Source:
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13408
ifeelfine72: “Actually the number is 90%-95% of the rest of the population is straight - 5%-10% are gay or bisexual.”
In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics
Romney appointed prominent homosexual activists and Democrats as judges
The 2002 Olympics - run by Mitt Romney - was the only Olympics that restricted the Boy Scouts from participating.
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth used huge taxpayer funding to promote homosexuality in the public schools
Romney's Commission organized public gay "Youth Pride Day" parades and "transgender proms" which promote unhealthy and risky behavior
Romney issues a proclamation celebrating gay "Youth Pride Day"
Romney's Department of Education promotes the homosexual agenda
Romney's Department of Public Health (DPH) cooperates with the homosexual activist movement
Romney appointed prominent homosexuals to key positions in his administration
Romney opposed federal legislation that would stop public schools from promoting homosexuality
Romney's Dept. of Social Services honors homosexual "married" couple as adoptive "Parents of the Year"
Romney refused to endorse the original 2002 Mass. constitutional amendment absolutely defining marriage as one man and one women
Romney unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) implemented homosexual marriages in Massachusetts
Romney had marriage licenses changed to allow same-sex marriages
Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired!
Romney administration's training of Town Clerks (on how to issue same-sex marriage licenses) states that marriage statutes were not changed
Romney signs bill eliminating Sexual Transmitted Disease (STD) testing requirement for marriage
When requested of him, Romney personally issues special one-day certificates to allow otherwise unqualified people to perform homosexual "marriages"
The Boy Scouts may be funded in part by government funds, but it is a private organization. The government has no right to remove their freedoms on account of people’s protests. The US government has long held to the necessity of moral consciousness and its reliance on God. The discrimination of homosexual scout masters is in the best interests of good health and public safety. In the case of the courts changing their opinion (the scouts only won by 5 to 4) a stampede of NAMBLA would be knocking down their doors. This no one can deny.
Online4Him - Just read the story, its got homo-eroticism all over it. I don't believe there is any other way to interpret their love for each other was more wonderful than that of women.
kami - Actually the number is 90%-95% of the rest of the population is straight - 5%-10% are gay or bisexual.
As long as individuals are law abiding citizens they -already- have full protection the law which goes for all citizens. What this EDNA does is call for special protection based on sexual preference and practice.
For individuals who want the government out of bedroom, the ones promoting this bill, especially those in the homosexual community, seem to endorse a heck of alot of government interference to force themselves on the remaining 99% of the country who don't practice homosexuality.
Nothing new under the sun.
Keep going and soon you will not have to worry about it any more, you will not have a country
merkin,
Yes, and they have do so from the beginning. It just strikes me as odd that gays would fight so adamantly for admission into the Boys Scouts. With the recent sex scandals of a few public school teachers with their students and some catholic priests abusing of their parishioners, why would gays even touch this? It would seem easier to finance and start your own version of the Boy Scouts instead of dealing with another highly publicized court battle.
Online4Him, I wasn't equating homosexuality with a rival religious faith. My point was that the Boy Scouts are actively promoting their own, primarily Christian beliefs. They've repeatedly banned atheists as well as gays from their organization, and any way you squint at it, that just doesn't jive with our Constitution.
Merkin,
Yes, but you cannot equate a specific religious philosophy with sexual orientation. Is homosexuality a form of religious expression?
Online4Him, Yes, but the Boy Scouts is a Federally funded organization. That means they have no right to favor a specific religious philosophy.
correction:
This is exactly what they are trying to do with the boy scouts "OF" Philadelphia :)
merkin,
This is exactly what they are trying to do with the boy scouts or Philadelphia.
Ifeelfine72,
I disagree; to say that Jonathan and David or Ruth and Naomi were in same sex relationships is poor exegesis of the biblical text. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that supports same sex unions. This is nothing more than mental gymnastics and grasping for straws. To make the text say something it doesn’t say or read something into the text outside of its original meaning is known as eisegesis.
PS — Also, I thought I heard that ENDA wouldn't extend to religious organizations...? So again, why all the fuss?
Question: All of this hullabaloo over ENDA seems to be focused around the fear that anti-gay Christian groups might be forced to employ homosexuals. Do any of you really think that gay folks are going to be knocking on the doors of Liberty University et al, demanding to work for businesses that expressly condemn homosexuality? Seriously?
Online4Him - This is where we differ. I believe that the types of same sex relationships the Bible is talking about (when condemning same sex relationships) are the lustful kind where there is no love between the two but its just a convenient lustful relationship. Or when it is a straight person performing gay acts out of lust. The Bible seems to endorse loving same-sex relationships (Jonathan and David, possibly Ruth and Naomi).
ifeelfine72,
I agree; churches should not be entitled to local, state, and federal tax dollars. Once faith based organizations become dependent upon government for the tax dollars; it is a matter of time before they are told how to run their ministry. Well, if you want to bring God into our discussion; he clearly does not approve of these unions as his Word clearly states. So, churches who perform such unions are actually deviating from the written record. Having local, state, and federal institutions performing these civil unions is another matter.
I know this is a bit out there but...
Does this mean that Romney ideally supports homosexual polygamy?
Online4Him - I'm going to say something that will surprise a lot of posters (ones familiar with my comments will be surprised anyway). I agree that faith based organizations shouldn't be forced to hire anyone that don't want to hire because of their religious beliefs. But those same faith based organizations should not be entitled to local / state / federal tax dollars if they aren't going to comply with local / state / federal law. You can't have it both ways. I think the Salvation Army is a great organization and I give them a lot of my money every year because I believe in what they do but just because I do doesn't mean I don't want them to follow the rules.
I feel the converse is also true - if a church wants to marry a gay couple it should be allowed to after all, a marriage is really a union between God and the couple. When the state is involved, then there should be no discrimination whatsoever.
ifeelfine72,
First, Go back and read my statement in its context; I never said, “let’s fire gay people”. Try to accurately quote someone without putting words into their mouth. It is always interesting to me how people play the bigotry or hate card when others disagree with them. Well, done.
I agree that gays should be entitled to healthcare coverage with their partners. Everyone should have healthcare but to refer to this partnership as “marriage” is the ultimate misnomer. I am talking about forcing “faith based organizations” to hire those who “openly” claim to be gay. Every institution should be able to uphold their mission statement without having to appease special interest groups.
Online4Him said: "To impose on others your philosophies or agendas is simply wrong." Well that is exactly what you are trying to do - impose psuedo-religious bigotry on the people of the United States. So you think that it should be ok to fire gay people? How about if you fire all the divorcees or take away all of their rights? After all they're a bigger threat to families then gay people. Family values - a misnomer if ever there was one. You're all a bunch of hypocrites.
HampsteadPete,
There are already laws in place for their protection: I do not advocate violence for anyone. All special interest groups and aberrant movements cry intolerance so that they may continue to promote their lifestyles or philosophies without restraint. Do you believe that “faith based” organizations should be forced to accept employees’ who “openly” claim to be homosexual?
::begin quote::
If ignorance and intolerance are part of your religion, you are not entitled to have your beliefs considered when laws are made in our secular system. Ignorant religious beliefs are the very reason this particular law is needed.
::end quote::
Oh, I guess that must be on the BACK side of the constitution when i read it, because I missed that part.
If ignorance and intolerance are part of your religion, you are not entitled to have your beliefs considered when laws are made in our secular system. Ignorant religious beliefs are the very reason this particular law is needed.
Someday all may realize that morality and ethics are really about the alleviation of human suffering, not about what may offend one supernatural being or other.
It is sad to see our society caving in to special interest groups like the homosexual movement. If this law is passed; faith based organizations will be forced to accept an employees' homosexual orientation which completely contradicts everything that they stand for. To impose on others your philosophies or agendas is simply wrong. I guess if you scream loud and long enough, a few people think that the rest of us should accept their aberrant sexual orientation.
There shpuld be no pro homosexual laws but in the same spirit there should be no pro christian laws etc..only laws that allow people to lead their own lives in ways which cause no harm to others.
Answer: ENDA laws can and will restrict the rights of Christians. It is wrong to have homosexual rights take over religious rights. Pro-Homosexual laws do not create equality, they create inequality.
Examples:
A District of Columbia human rights commission ordered Georgetown University, a Catholic college, to violate church doctrine and sponsor a pro-homosexual group on campus. A court agreed, saying the District’s “sexual orientation” law overrode the school’s religious freedom. It didn’t matter that neither “sexual orientation” nor sodomy are protected in the Constitution or that religion is specifically protected. In the hands of the judges, “sexual orientation” takes on a life of its own.
In 2003 Atlanta Human Rights Commission ordered a local golf club to extend spousal rights to gay member partners, Thankfully officials intervened, and the Georgia legislature promptly passed a law exempting private clubs from local anti-discrimination obligations.
In September 2002 the Berkeley, California, City Council pulled the low-cost lease for city dock space for the Sea Scouts, saying that the group is associated with the Boy Scouts, and thereby violates the city’s “sexual orientation” law.
In Portland, Maine, city officials canceled a $60,000 grant for a Salvation Army meals-on-wheels program for senior citizens. Why? As a Christian denomination, the Salvation Army won't provide marital benefits to homosexual employees, thus running afoul of the city's "sexual orientation" law.
When the Portland's "sexual orientation" ordinance was introduced, proponents argued, as they do often today, that it would merely ensure that "people won't be fired for being 'gay.'"
Question: Is it being pro homosexual to want equal rights for people?