Freedom of Religion? Not on MY Watch

Published on April 18, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

George Takei, of Star Trek fame, has joined with a group of activists going to faith based private universities in an attempt to force those universities to change their admissions policies regarding homosexuals. In a shameful attempt to coopt the first amendment to the United States Constitution, Takei and his group of gay rights activists want to discuss the issues of faith and gay rights with the administrators of these colleges.

This, in my opinion, is precisely what is wrong with the gay rights movement. The majority of Christians, even the conservatives amongst us, accept the presence of homosexuals among us, even if we don't accept the practice. Aside from the admittedly draconian anti-gay marriage laws, most of us don't care what you choose to do within the privacy of your own homes.

But many of us do, and will continue to, take issue with those who choose to demand we rewrite our doctrine, and change our religion, to accept the homosexual community, or any other community whose activities defy what we believe to be right, based on careful examination of the scriptures.

It is one thing to ask us to respect the rights of homosexuals to exist, to live and work freely amongst us without fear. That is a humanitarian request, plain and simple. It is quite another thing to ask us to discard the very foundation of our faith in favor of liberal interpretations of scripture that have no historical basis in fact in the faith of the Christian church.

Comments (Page 2)

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Apr 19, 2006

Where does it even say "NO HOMO'S" in the bible? But then again the whole book is open for any interpretation. But seriously where does it say this?

The word HOMO is not found in the Hebrew and Greek dictionary that I know of. But here is the answer for your consideration.

"For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise the men leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"....Romans 1:26-27

"You sahll not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Lev 18:22

There's more but you can get the idea here that it's not pleasing to God.

sushiK

on Apr 19, 2006

But we don;t know for sure if God said those words.
Weren't those words written by men?

Any time something is transcribed is it not open to personal interpretation and manipulation? Seriously why would God care who does what as long as you aren't Killing, raping, stealing, etc... This is where that book needs a fresh rewrite, it is so out of touch.

Gid I do see what you are saying with a Private Org deciding who can join, but even those boundaries are being shattered. Wasn't there a Female golfer a year or so back that finally made it into the Boys club? I think you are fighting Loosing battle when you are trying to exclude certain groups.

sushiK

on Apr 19, 2006

If you had a book club for non-fiction and someone wanted to join but for whatever reson overtly stated they liked fiction.

1) Could you legally keep them out based soley on this fact?
2) Why would you want to keep them out? They share the same general interest you do.
3) It shows fear in change and acceptance.

Any gay JU users out there that want to pipe in with their 2 cents on this issue?!

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 19, 2006

Any time something is transcribed is it not open to personal interpretation and manipulation? Seriously why would God care who does what as long as you aren't Killing, raping, stealing, etc... This is where that book needs a fresh rewrite, it is so out of touch.

sushi,

While I realize you believe religion to be an invention of man, the fact is, there are many of us who don't believe as you do. The Bible doesn't need a fresh rewrite, it needs to be read in context.

Using your logic, sushi, private property ceases to exist. Taking your logic to its furthest extent, if someone shows up at my door, I MUST allow them entry to my home simply because they wish it to be so. That's not logical, that's stupidity.

In the cases cited, the reason minorities were admitted was because FEDERAL funds were involved. This is why Augusta National still doesn't admit women; it is a PRIVATE organization.

You and I are in agreement on one thing, though, sushi: where federal funds (or even federal tax consideration) are concerned, discrimination should not exist. This is why I believe churches should begin shunning tax exempt status; they are selling out their principles to make a buck. And in the case of the colleges, federal financial aid should not be granted to a university that practices discrimination. But I DON'T believe open homosexuality should be a "protected" class against discrimination any more than my sexual preferences should be protected against discrimination.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 19, 2006

1) Yes. It's a PRIVATE group, for crying out loud. If I'm playing basketball and you show up with a football demanding we play YOUR game, you're not going to get your way just bacause you wanted to!

2) See above. It's OUR group. I can keep you out because I don't like raw fish, for goodness sake

3) Personal preferences show fear in change and acceptance? Give me a break. If I start a Mariners fan club, sushi, and you show up with a Derek Jeter jersey on, you're getting tossed. Anyway, this isn't about personal preference, it's about deeply held belief.

sushiK

on Apr 19, 2006

But all these analogies are wrong.
Gays are not coming in to the school saying "Great we're in, not stop praying to God"
The believe the same thing you do! That is why they would want to go to a Christian school most conceivably. They have the same belief in what you do.

Yes darn you, your logic is right, you can exclude people for any reason when it is a Private closed group. But if they pray to the same God you do but you deam them lesser than you because of the kind of people they love?

Exclusion just seems a very funny tactic for a Religion to take.
Now that seems against God

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 19, 2006

Exclusion just seems a very funny tactic for a Religion to take.
Now that seems against God

Why would God DEFINE sin if he didn't want us to take a less than affirming approach towards it?

The believe the same thing you do! That is why they would want to go to a Christian school most conceivably. They have the same belief in what you do.

But they DON'T believe the same thing these schools believe. KFC pointed out just two verses from the Bible addressing homosexuality; there are more. While I cannot speak for all denominations these groups are targetting, I can state affirmatively that the Assemblies of God teach that homosexuality is a sin, and they will not ordain a practicing homosexual, just as they would not ordain a practicing heterosexual that was clearly engaged in premarital/extramarital sexual activities.

The fact is, there ARE Christian denominations that will ordain these individuals; they are only shut out of denominations that do not condone their practices. What they are attempting to do is to force those denominations to change their entire doctrine, which is wrong.

My analogies are ALL as accurate as your "book club" analogy.

sushiK

on Apr 19, 2006

My analogies are ALL as accurate as your "book club" analogy.

LOL yes my analogies are weak!
The analogy with Jeter doesn't work cause he's an arshole and no one would wear his shirt.

Fine, go be exclusionary in your religious practices, I will leave it that is does more harm than good and leave it at that..
And I will save my thoughts on Christiantity as a dieing religion for another day.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2006

"Exclusionary" should be based upon the will of the people. If we deem to add sexual preference to the unending list of things that we are forced to tolerate, fine. I'm annoyed with the fact that these kinds of things come either as judicial mandates or executive orders, and most rarely as a process of the popular will.

You see, when the Clinton administrations works like a dog to shove sexual preference into our definition of things we can't 'discriminate' against, that's advocacy. If President Bush decided to work the other way, that's being a tyrant. What if that is the will of the people, though?

Quasi-Liberals in the US want it both ways. Clinton can make a sweeping executive order about gays in the military and it is something to be lauded. If Bush acts on the wishes of HIS constituants and reverses it, outrage. So, "progress" only goes one way, right?

Wrong. We reversed prohibition. We reversed many policies of previous generations. The ones that are set in stone are the supposedly "right" ones. That's why more needs to be in the hands of the legislative branch, and frankly much, much more needs to be in the hands of the states, and local referendum. "Right" shouldn't be left to a handful of people to impose on almost 300 million.

The fact is, if these schools accept federal money, I don't see how they can really bar a homosexual student, given the addition of sexual orientation to the list of things you can't discriminate about. If they don't, GT's efforts to shame people out of their personal beliefs isn't much less bigoted.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Apr 19, 2006

This is why I believe churches should begin shunning tax exempt status; they are selling out their principles to make a buck

I wonder WHEN this will happen. It's only a matter of time. I'm not sure about "selling out to make a buck" tho. In our church we don't charge anyone for anything. We put on huge dinners and dinner theaters for free along with many other activities. We believe it's God's money, it belongs to HIM and it goes back to HIM.

But I do believe there will come a day, when the government will be knocking on our door to dictate who and what is allowed inside our doors. It's already happening in other parts of the world.

Exclusion just seems a very funny tactic for a Religion to take.
Now that seems against God

Well Sushik God said His ways are not our ways. Have you ever thought of that? God is a God of order. He set things up a certain way and to deviate from that order he calls it sin. Do you want us Christians to make you feel better about your sin instead of telling you that it's not what God wants for you? Then you find out later and realize we were not a very good friend to you after all. Is that what you want?

God wants us to be a light. We as light are to shed light on the dark places and reveal God to them. What you are saying is for us to shut off the light so you can stay in the dark. So be it.

Christianity is both inclusive and exclusive. You decide for yourself.

cactoblasta

on Apr 19, 2006

Why would God DEFINE sin if he didn't want us to take a less than affirming approach towards it?

Well from your quotes he didn't really. In the Romans one it's said that gay sex is 'unseemly', which generally means something more unpleasant than categorically 'wrong'. And I don't know of any Christians who follow all of the rules of Leviticus, so there's no real standing for following it on gay sex but not, say, the killing of disobedient children.

From the scriptures it seems that God had a hardnut stance towards it - but then noone listens to the God of Leviticus. I don't recall ever reading Jesus being quoted as possessing a stance on homosexuality. Paul thought it was unseemly (was it Paul who wrote Romans?) but is there anywhere else in the Bible that actually takes a hardline stance?

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 20, 2006

KFC,

Look closely at the "seeker sensitive" movement. Coffeeshops, bookstores, a plethora of titles all by the pastor and their associates available for sale within the church...all done under the church's tax exempt status. While your church isn't selling out solely to make a buck, the fact is, many churches in America ARE. Frankly, I'd like to see the tax exempt status removed from the churches...it might have the effect of casting out a few of the money changers.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 20, 2006

Actually, I didn't list any quotes. Please attribute them properly.

As to Jesus' attitude towards sin, I could discuss that, but 1) I'm not going to change your opinion anyway, and 2) I'm not a pastor and, frankly, don't want to take on that role, even in the course of debate. It is off topic to the thread at hand, which is not discussing the theological basis for the doctrine of the Assemblies of God, but rather, their RIGHT to believe as they do and to set standards for admission to their universities.

Jewbu

on Apr 20, 2006

Unless you want to erase a good portion of the bible (yes, even the NT), there's not going to BE such a policy change. We have as much right to our faith as you have to yours.

Agreed, you have a right to your faith. This is not about faith, but rather policy. Myt question still stands. You are concerned about people asking for a policy change, my question is, how else to change a policy, but to ask.

As to erasing bible, you refer to the bible yourself, but then say that it is off-tpoic to use biblical references to challenge your own use. Can't have it both ways, Gideon. The trouble with usingbible as a text for argument is that is a centuries old document written over a long expanse of time within several different cultural contexts. As someone above suggests, people dismiss the Law in the Torah easily, but hang on to small text references to "prove" their righteousness on behaviors they are opposed to. Very challenging and a goodreason notto use the bible in civil law.

Be well.

shadesofgrey

on Apr 20, 2006

(providing that they're not getting a penny of state funding),

Ah, there's the kicker. I'm sure that some of there students are on federally subsidized student loans. And until a university refuses to accept ALL federal funds, they are going to have to play by federal rules. And those rules say you can't discriminate (and it specifically mentions that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation).

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!