AZMike
-
Content Count
675 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by AZMike
-
-
Age is of no importance. If one had an agenda, they could always find clergy in any religious group that would support it. Whether it be divorce, homosexuality or any number of other human failings, Any religious body that can justify the brutality of the Crusades and Inquisition can figure out a way to justify away the wording in Scripture on the issue of homosexuality.
Just curious. The Catholic priesthood has a counterintuitive aspect in that older American priests and nuns/religious sisters (for a variety of reasons) tend to be have less adherence to orthodoxy and be more theologically liberal, and the younger priests coming out of the seminaries and the nuns overwhelmingly tend to be very orthodox, a phenomenon that has led many to speculate about the upcoming changes in the Church in the next 10 or 20 years.
-
At one time, we considered the principles in Euclidean geometry to be absolute truths because Euclidean geometry was pretty much the only system of geometry we knew. The general public mostly still believes them to be absolute truths because in general, we aren't very good at updating curriculum and most people zip right past newspaper and magazine articles about developments in science and math unless its a heavily hyped article with a headline like "Oatmeal Causes Cancer" or the inevitable follow up "Oatmeal Cures Cancer". Most mathmaticians no longer consider them absolute truths because we have new systems of geometry that are challenging what we know about the math. Einstein's e-mc squared changed the world, and geometry was one of those things it changed. While we may still accept those principles as true, we do so to the best of our knowledge (though that has changed), not because it's universally true.
I don't believe all truth's are relative. Those truths that we believe are true to the best of our knowledge are certainly relative - something may come along, maybe long after we have passed on, that will blow those truths apart. There are some truths that are absolute - my example of the average distance between the Earth and the Moon, for example - nothing will come to change that, except perhaps the destruction of one or the other, but if that happens, then it really doesn't matter what is and isn't true.
Morals, however, are relative. I tend to chuckle when someone tries to argue that moral relativism is somehow bad. Moral Relativism in not inherently bad because all morals are relative. They're relative to our collective understanding, they're relative to out time, they're relative to differing cultures. For the most part, we all tend to share most of the same morals - ask anyone if murder is ok, and they'll say no. Ask anyone if stealing is ok, and most of us will say no - though if you ask anyone if it's ok for the police department or fire department to break into a grocery store to gather food and water for people after a massive natural (or other) disaster, most would probably say that's ok, even though it's still technically stealing (moral relativism in action). Where we get conflict is where our collective ideas of what is moral and what is not moral starts to change to a significant degree - and those changes tend to take a long time. The founding fathers argued about whether slavery should be allowed even as it was being codified in the Constitution - there were already arguments over the morality of slavery back in the late 1700's - it took a few decades to reach a critical mass for a mjor conflict to break out over slavery. It took decades for the folks who believed alcohol was immoral to get prohibition passed. It took decades to pass an amendment giving the right of women to vote, something many had a moral objection to. It took decades for civil rights laws to be passed. Think Gay Marriage and Gay Civil Rights are something new? These things have been fought over since the 1950's.
We can hope that something like murder will always be considered immoral. A look at popular culture - from movies like Soylent Green to Death Race to the 2013 movie The Purge set in a future US where one night a year all crime, including Murder, is sanctioned as a way to control population growth and stengthen the economy should remind us that even while we think something like murder if immoral is an absolute truth, we can imagine a society where it is not.
Morals are instantiated in individuals, not societies.
-
PS. AZMike, since it seems by the way you talk that you are Catholic, I was a UC for a Catholic church, just after the vote to allow in gay youth passed, I had a talk with the church's pastor... I do not know if this decision was regional or national but he assured me that the Catholic church had already discussed this issue at a conference.. Not only did the church have no issue with the homosexual youth, but WHEN the BSA passed the local option the church would have no issue with that either.. And that is how he worded it, emphasis on WHEN..
How old was the pastor, incidentally?
-
Ever stop to consider:
1) Murder is homicide
2) Abortion is homicide
3) War is homicide
4) Capital Punishment is homicide
5) Fatal auto accidents are homicide
6) Self defense often results in homicide
There are many different ways to redefine homicide to make it "morally" acceptable. All the redefinitions are just opinions made by humans to placate their justifications for homicide.
I think that is "why Thou shalt not kill" in the Commandments is more properly rendered as "Thou shalt not murder" in many translations. Homicide is acceptable in some circumstances. Murder never is. Felonious murder (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc) is the word used in the original Hebrew, and is not used when describing acts of war, execution, etc.
-
There are no moral facts therefore there are no moral truths, there are only opinions about morality and current acceptance of those opinions, which is changeable. Is killing moral? (I'm staying away from murder is a legal concept which makes it a subset of killing - and frankly, if one thinks murder is immoral, then how can one argue that killing might not be?). Most of us would say no - but most of us would have exceptions. It's not moral to kill someone else, but many support the death penalty so therefore it must be moral to kill someone else some of the time. There are too many contradictions to say that killing someone is immoral is a fact.
Opinions are not fact - they can be based on fact - but they aren't, in and of themselves, fact. It's just as likely that an opinion is not fact. For instance, say you have a 2,000 lb lead bar at your feet. You can make a factual statement that it is a 2,000 pound lead bar. You can also say it is your opinion that it is a 2,000 lb lead bar and that opinion will seem like fact. But, you could say that it is your opinion that it is a 2,000 lb copper bar. We know it's a lead bar, so the statement of opinion can't be fact.
Truth and Fact are not the same either. Everything that is true in also a fact. But not everything that is a fact is also true. Let's look at that lead bar again. We accept that it is a fact that a 2,000 pound lead bar weighs 2,000 pounds. But is it true that the 2,000 lead bar is a 2,000 lead bar? The answer is no. Why is it not true? Because truth is universal. For something to be true and to remain true, it needs to be true everywhere. Move that 2,000 pound bar to Sweden, it's still a fact that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds. Move the bar to the moon though, and it now weighs 16.6% of what it weighed on earth, or 332 pounds. On earth, it's a fact that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds and on the moon, it's a fact that the bar weighs 332 pounds. Since we're talking about the same object in two different places with two different facts, it is not also true that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds. It can't be true because it weighs something completely different on the moon - it's not a universal fact.
So what would be true? A universal fact is true. Example - the average distance between the moon and the Earth is 238,857 miles. No matter where you go, Australia, the moon, Venus, Pluto, the edge of the Milky Way, the edge of the Universe, the average distance between the moon and the earth doesn't change - it's still 238,857 miles. That is a universal fact, and that therefore makes it a truth. Can the distance between the moon and earth change? Sure - but if it changes for the Earth, it changes for everywhere else as well.
Is it true that murder is immoral? No, because we don't know if that would be a universal fact. We hold it to be true to the best of our knowledge, but since our knowledge of the rest of the universe is limited, we just don't know if there is a civilization out there that might believe murder is acceptable and moral.
For right now, the best we can do is to say that mankind currently holds that certain things are moral and certain things are immoral knowing and accepting that throughout history mankind's opinion on just what those things are have changed (we don't have to look back much beyond 150 years to see this - at one time, many people in the US held that slavery was moral - we no longer do) and accept and understand that change continues to happen and we can't stop it, no matter how much we might want to.
No discipline need justify its first principles. In Euclidean geometry, we accept certain unprovable truths in order to do higher math. In morality, we accept the basic moral laws I outlined. To do otherwise is just mental masturbation.
It's interesting that people who propose that all truths are relative (not singling you out here) object very strongly if you take their car keys without asking.
People who propose that all moral systems are culturally based object very vociferously if you propose that anti-homosexual laws were perfectly moral until the laws began to change a decade or so ago, and that Thomas Jefferson's belief that male homosexuals should be castrated was perfectly moral, given the cultural standards of the time.
I distrust any moral stance (or non-moral stance) that requires you to make a ridiculous assertion but to live your life as if you didn't really believe it.
-
I think the natural law that we are born with recognizes the verities of what the objective moral code is. There will be gray areas (I shouldn't take another human life, as life is precious, but may do so in defense of my own life), but most people and most healthy societies respect them as broad principles, even as they may disagree on the details.
- Human life is precious and should be preserved.
- One should honor and respect the Creator and holy things.
- One should help and give to others who are in need.
- One should honor one's parents and give them respect and obedience.
- One should not take what is not their own.
- One should not be needlessly cruel to another.
- One should not take a life without good cause.
- One should not force another into having sex.
- Children are uniquely worthy of protection.
and there are more. C.S. Lewis included a list of them, along with cites from the religious writing of different times and cultures, as an appendix to his book Men Without Chests, a very worthwhile examination of the idea that all moral values are relative.
That this a rudimentary sense that we are born (and as a Christian, I say imbued) with, reflects that we are different than other animals, some of whom may share some aspects of that natural law (as fellow creations), but not to the extent that humans do.
-
Rome didn't have a concept of homosexuality as we have it today, ie a loving relationship of equals between two people of the same sex. Instead it was all about an expression of what they saw as masculinity. A man was allowed and indeed encouraged to have sex with younger men in order to show his dominance over them, specifically taking the dominant role. It was not about an expression of love but an expression of strength.
This is an argument one hears often - that the condemnation by the early Church specifically related to pederasty, and not to the sort of loving, mutually supporting same-sex relationships between males or female adults.
That is spurious, however.
Roman males, including some quite powerful ones, entered into sexual relationships with other males of a similar status. Nero's homosexual dalliances were previously mentioned by Peregrinator. Julius Caesar's homosexual relationships with other powerful men (as well as women) was not only known, it was the subject of ribald gossip and poetry. He was "Every woman's husband and every man's wife" according to Curio, as described by Suetonius. Nicomedes, King of Bithynia ,was Caesar's most famous boyfriend, and the ditty about him ran "Whatever Bithynia and her lord possesed, Her lord who Caesar in his lust caressed!"
Same-sex marriages did occur in classical Rome between adults, and both Martial and Juvenal reported them with disapproval. Roman law did not recognize same-sex marriages, but Juvenal worried that the increasing number of gay marriages could lead to official recognition - plus ca change, eh?
Nero celebrated two marriages, once playing the feminine role (with a freed slave, Pythagoras [not the mathematician]) and once in the masculine role (with Sporus). There may have been another wedding where he played the role of bride.
The Emperor Elagabalus also married his male partner. This prompted other members of his court to marry their partners, to honor and/or imitate him.
Aside from marriage, there was a very active gay ("cinaedus") subculture in Rome that had its own districts, bathhouses, dinner parties, recognition signals, etc.
Many of the emperors, including Caligula and Tiberius (the emperor at the time of Jesus' crucifixion), were involved in both adult and child sex with other males.
The Jews, and one would presume Jesus, were aware of all these things happening, and would have considered them anathema, whether they involved teens or adults.
So no, the argument that SSM would not have been familiar to Jesus or the apostles is nonsense.
In addition, about 2/3 of all Christians in the world hold that the Bible is not the sum total of Jesus' teachings - there was a Church before there was a Bible, and there was an deposit of oral teachings from Jesus to the apostles (as even the Bible states) which can be found in the early documents of the Church (such as the Didache) and the writings of the early Church fathers. Those traditions which originated from Jesus, condemned homosexual behavior and specifically homosexual marriage (as Eusebius did), whether it involved adults or boys, so a sola scriptura argument or arguing from Jesus' apparent silence for homosexual behavior or marriage won't fly.
-
Whatever the link was it comes up with an "HTTP 404 Not Found" error.
Let me ask you, Why do you think members of the church do not have the right to pressure change within their own churches? Why do you think churches have yearly or bi-yearly conferences to propose changes? How do you think churches changed their position towards blacks, women or inter-racial marriages over the years? My answer is simple, it is healthy for churches to make changes in their policies, but the changes should not come from any outside influence but through what the members of the church want..
People can and will advocate for all sorts of changes - the Tridentine Mass, marriage for priests, denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, etc. The Catholic Church is not a democracy (more like a monarchy with Christ as the King), but it has procedures where Catholics (and even non-Catholics) can advocate and make their voices heard for various causes - such as the synodal process. Rome then makes its decisions with this input. Certain teaching cannot change, such as marriage being between a man and a woman and priesthood being reserved for males, certain teachings possibly could as they are considered "disciplines" - such as eating meat on Friday or allowing priests to marry.
But again, this is not the issue at hand. It is whether COs (including non-religious ones - VFWs, American Legion, and even religiously-affiliated COs that are not actually "religions," like the Knights of Columbus or an Evangelical church's PTA - will lose the protection that the current program affords them, and whether the kind of mob-mentality that we have seen directed against individuals and businesses will force them to act against their principles.
You have totally and purposefully misquoted both Packsaddle and I in this comment (should I accuse you of doing so to advance your personal agenda?)
Pretty sure all agendas are personal, Moosetracker.
You said, and I quote, The Pizza joint is a place of business open to the public not a church, therefore if they sponsored a BSA unit, when it goes to local option, they will probably be pressured to change.. What a bummer... But, I would imagine they have learned a lesson and will not see an angry mob and cheerfully welcome them to direct all their anger at them.. Packsaddle wrote " I know of an informal boycott in which a very successful businessman has been driven to ruin merely because he publicly disagreed with a government decision regarding a construction project. He knew the score and felt it was worth the risk to be able to express his opinion. He paid the consequences. It's not a Brave New Word at all. Welcome to real life and a very old world of business. If you pretend to serve the public, it would probably be good business to actually DO it."
I drew the reasonable inference from those statements that you both feel it would be appropriate that local COs be pressured to conform to your set of beliefs. If that was incorrect, I apologize. But do you really feel that any CO that fails to conform to a demand to allow homosexuals as adult leaders in the BSA will NOT face that kind of pressure? Do we live in the same world, you and I?
I stated that CO's that are businesses would be pressured to change, but not "ALL" COs... I think Packsaddle is similar, but I know it also is not "ALL" COs.. I in fact stated that their would be no pressure from outside to get involved a churches youth organization, just as there is no outside pressure to force churches to perform same-sex marriages..
I have to disagree. As I showed, and I will be happy to provide you many more examples, Catholic schools, Catholic dioceses, Catholic fraternal organizations, and Catholic adoption agencies have all been pressured to change their policies to conform with a secular goal. It's not just Catholics, either. The Salvation Army has been the target of a gay boycott for years because they do not allow same sex couples to share quarters in their homeless shelters (the Salvation Army is an actual denomination, not simply a charity, and has mainstream Christian views on homosexual behavior.) A church isn't simply a building, it is all the practices of that religion, which can include charities, education, communal organizations. Secular LGBT pressure groups have and will attack the fringes as a way to attack the core. This is not in dispute.
As for Pope Francis, from all I read that was not a response to a question about a specific priest..
That last one was taken from "The Catholic World Report".. So now you misquote the Pope?.. (again I ask, personal agenda?)
Your sources are incorrect. In context, he was responding to a question from a reporter about a specific priest, Monsignor Battista Ricci, Who had been the target of accusations as being a member of a "gay mafia" within the Vatican.
REPORTER: I would like to ask permission to ask a somewhat delicate question: another image has also gone around the world, which is that of Monsignor Ricca and news about your privacy. I would like to know, Holiness, what do you intend to do about this question. How to address this question and how Your Holiness intends to address the whole question of the gay lobby?
POPE FRANCIS: In regard to Monsignor Ricca, I’ve done what Canon Law orders to do, which is the investigatio previa. And from this investigatio there is nothing of which they accuse him, we haven’t found anything of that.
This is the answer. But I would like to add something else on this: I see that so many times in the Church, outside of this case and also in this case, they go to look for the “sins of youth,†for instance, and this is published. Not the crimes, alas. Crimes are something else: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, the sins.
But if a person, lay or priest or Sister, has committed a sin and then has converted, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is important for our life. When we go to confession and truly say: “I have sinned in this,†the Lord forgets and we don’t have the right not to forget, because we run the risk that the Lord won’t forget our [sins]. That’s a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. I think so many times of Saint Peter: he committed one of the worst sins, which is to deny Christ, and with this sin he was made Pope. We must give it much thought.
But, returning to your more concrete question: in this case, I’ve done the investigatio previa and we found nothing. This is the first question. Then you spoke of the gay lobby. Goodness knows! So much is written of the gay lobby. I still have not met one who will give me the identity card with “gayâ€. They say that they exist. I think that when one meets a person like this, one must distinguish the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in such a beautiful way, it says, Wait a bit, as is said and says: “these persons must not be marginalized because of this; they must be integrated in society.â€
The problem isn’t having this tendency, no. We must be brothers, because this is one, but there are others, others. The problem is the lobbying of this tendency: lobby of the avaricious, lobby of politicians, lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This, for me, is the more serious problem.
So, Pope Francis was speaking of the allegations made against one priest, and found that no evidence was found that he was gay by the investigation. He then expands that into a larger dialog, which he likes to do, and says that being gay - that is, having homosexual tendencies - does not mean one is cut off from religious life, and quotes the Catechism to show that this is a standing tradition of Catholic teaching. The same tradition recognizes that this is a cross to bear, as other people have other crosses to bear, and calls on those with a same-sex attraction to live a celibate life (even as a man who feels he can love only a woman who is already married is called to live a celibate life - we are not our attractions, we are children of God.) But one cannot heal a wounded person unless one first accepts them as a human being. He goes on to say that the "lobbying of this tendency" - i.e., groups that identify as homosexual - are wrong. So while one may accept that one has a same-sex attraction, one should not form pressure groups to advocate on behalf of homosexual behavior such as marriage - which is in contradiction to your point earlier.
He has made further comments to clarify the issue, if you'd like I can provide them to you.
Also the Pope actions other actions toward homosexuals since then has spoke volumes.. I do not see the Catholic church performing same-sex weddings in my lifetime, I am sure it is still a considered a sin in the church.. What is refreshing about the Popes attitude is just that... His attitude.. He does not raise homosexual sin as something worse then any other sin, and he knows all humans have sin.. Therefore he can treat homosexuals with the respect that they deserve. "Who am I to judge", is basically a take away from the John chapter 8 (as we have discussed).. Seems the Pope understands this story the same as I do..
You are correct in that the Pope is a compassionate man whose goal is the evangelization of marginalized classes, that he continues the Catholic tradition that all people should be treated with the respect due their inherent human dignity. and that the Catholic Church will never perform homosexual marriages and will continue to catechize against homosexual behavior, just as we should treat alcoholics with compassion but not normalize their behavior. The Church accepts homosexuals just as it accepts all us other sinners, but it calls them (as us) to confession and repentance, not celebration of their problems.
-
Ahhh-Ha... I found the piece about the LGBT PAMPLET... I looked again after Merlyn pulled something I did not see..
I see nothing in it about forcing Catholics to accept same-sex marriages.. I believe it is similar to basically what the Catholics and LGBT are cordially talking about currently, A GREATER ACCEPTANCE of GAYS IN THE CHURCH.. Outsiders may be working with Catholic homosexuals (I don't know from the pamphlet if it was created due to catholic homosexuals asking for the help of the HRC, or even who in the HRC put the pamphlet together, or who the pamphlet is for the Catholic Clergy or the LGBT community), but from what I read the meetings are pleasant and the only people who are talking with the Bishops and the Pope are Catholic homosexuals.. So far from what I see of this movement, if the Catholic church changes then it will still be Catholic LGBT church members talking to Catholic clergy... And since I don't see any "Force the Catholic Church to marry the Gays" in the pamphlet, I will read it as intended.. The Pope says "Who am I to judge".. But some of the Bishops are actively judging and condemning..
(AZ Mike - We crossed posts.)
The HRC, which is the largest gay lobbying group, is a secular group that has consistently lobbied the the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus to stop using its funds to support traditional marriage initiatives (which have won in the majority of cases before being reversed by judges): http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/the-catholic-hierarchys-devotion-to-fighting-marriage-equality http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/catholic-church-and-nom-responsible-for-60-of-anti-equality-funding-in-four https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1507.They are free to say such things and to use their funds to attack the Church, but the Church and the KoC are equally free to express their opinions and use their funds to support their views - just as they did with nuclear disarmament, just as they did against capital punishment, just as they do for protection of the rights of undocumented immigrants, just as they do against abortion.
Could you explain why you think the issue is only whether "churches aren't being asked to conduct gay marriages by outsiders," Moosetracker? I doubt that is a big priority for the LGBTs (yet, I suspect it will be as soon as other goals are secured). The reason I brought up the issue is the vulnerability to legal and extralegal harassment for any traditional CO that opposes gay leadership in the BSA, if BSA HQ allows the local option. You and Packsaddle have already agreed that such pressure will cause all COs to be subject to harassment that will make them change their beliefs, and that you feel this is acceptable and a good thing. So we seem to be in agreement on what the endgame of a local option is, we just disagree on whether that kind of social engineering / mob justice is an appropriate or a good thing to do to American citizens.
In context, Pope Francis's remark was concerning a priest who was reported to have a same sex attraction but who said he was living a celibate life, in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Pope Francis is a very compassionate man, but he was referring to that man's position, not stating a policy that he chose not to judge whether homosexual behavior was sinful. He has done just that, and has referred to same sex marriage laws in Buenos Aires as a product of the devil, so I would't over-interpret his remark.
-
1
-
-
The passage of Tykes you quoted had no scripture at all..
tyke, on 03 May 2015 - 5:39 PM, said:
There is no bible passage in that.. He makes no hint at any verse from John 8 verses 1 - 11.. He asks as simple straight forward question.. It would be like you son "Asking you "Dad, can I go to Sam's party tonight.. George, will be there".. (And your son knows you admire and respect George..). And your answer to your son's question is "Go, and sin no more John 8:11" ... "Ok, Dad.. What does that mean?"
AZMike - You will have to point out the news article on the LGBT pressure group which is not affiliated with the Catholic Church, nor is it made up primarily of Catholics, which is pressuring bishops to accept same-sex marriage. I returned to your original list and I don't see it listed.. Justice Alito, Cake shop, Cake Cottage, Fleur Cakes, A farm, A party place, Gortz Haus, a campground, Photography, Flower shop and an Inn... This may be the reason I skipped over it.. It is not listed.. Anyway, I surfed the net with "LGBT group Catholic churches same-sex weddings"... I got nothing you described, and the type of large protest you describe should have news articles from both sides of the issue..
From Post #54:
Certainly, the "Human Rights Campaign," a non-Catholic gay rights pressure and lobbying group, has prepared slick advertising materials to pressure Catholic bishops to accept gay marriage and end orthodox teaching on human sexuality. You can read their material here: http://www.hrc.org/f...f_the_Worst.pdf
I did find some bishops discussing being more welcoming to homosexual families (not weddings), and the Pope giving an LGBT group the VIP treatment etc.. All respectful discussions being had by all..
Which is the way it should be. Homosexuals should be treated with dignity and respect (and should afford others the same courtesy, which would include refraining from use of hatfeul terms like "Homophobe" or "bigot" against someone who expresses a difference of opinion, yes?)
We don't kick people out of the Catholic faith for being homosexual (or anything else, actually), so there is room for discussion without schism. But doctrine on the sinfulness of sexual relations outside of marriage isn't going to change, and marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman within the Catholic Church.
-
AZMike - I will study your examples.. The second one (the school) may be run by a church, but it is not a church.. As for CO's who are a business or preform a public service I have no issue with the public pressuring them into opening it's scouting units to gays..
What many overlook in claiming that churches won't be affected is that many "church" COs are actually not churches, but social groups affiliated with the church - PTAs, Knights of Columbus, etc. Would they be granted the same protections as a church? Probably not, and they would be subject to the same social harassment as any other group.
As for you one gay who turned straight, therefore all gays can be straight example.. I can regale you with a story of a gay man and lesbian women who married (in order to give the woman US citizenship) and loved and treated each other very close to man and wife, except for in one respect.. The man died of aids and the women cared for him until the end, and was in tears that regardless of their feelings for each other it could never translate over to a sexual attraction for each other so that they could have had a normal relationship.. Some people who are not gay still in their youth have sexual experimentation.. Perhaps your friends friend was experimenting in her youth and never really gay.. Perhaps she is currently lying to herself now, and is still attracted to women... But, no a homosexual doesn't just turn straight, as has been proven throughout history with failed psycotheropy, or brainwashing experiments..
Anne Heche might disagree with you.
It's kind of a pointless argument. If someone who identifies as gay decides that he or she is no longer gay and wants to have sex with people of the opposite sex now, the argument then becomes "Well, they were never really gay in the first place, or are just bisexual." If a person identifies himself or herself as straight, then later starts having sex with people of the same sex, the argument becomes that change is possible, and/or that he/she was secretly gay all along, or somesuch."
There certainly are some people who always have and always will identify as gay, just as there are some who do the same as straights. Between those two poles of complex human behavior, there is a large group that aren't sure, or who may identify as gay or straight at different times in their lives. In the case of the young, I would argue that they shouldn't be pressured to make a decision one way or another. If it's wrong to use therapy to try to force them into identifying as straight, it's equally wrong to use social pressure to force them into prematurely accepting a self-identification as "gay."
The well-regarded research study that showed that the majority of youths who self-identify as gay in anonymous polling drop that description within 5 years and self-identify as hetero shows that for some young people, their sexual identity is flexible, but the majority of that group do sort out their feelings and decide they are straight. (There was not a similar switch to being gay for youths who identify as straight.) So yes, many people, especially young ones, who identify as gay later "turn straight," as you said.
The desire by the LGBT community to claim that once someone is identified as gay, they can never turn back, but a straight person may well "come out" is more than a little weird. It's like the old saying that "what's mine is mine, what's yours is....negotiable."
-
As for those business examples, that kind of exercise of the 1st amendment has been happening for as long as this has been a country, or longer. If you don't like a business owner then don't do business - tell your friends and other people about it - organize a boycott. I won't attend any conference in this state because of a long-standing boycott. Am I bad because of that?
The fact that business owners hold a certain political view is not privileged information if they have divulged that fact publicly and people are free to inform others of the fact. People are also free to promote boycotts for any reason they like. I know of an informal boycott in which a very successful businessman has been driven to ruin merely because he publicly disagreed with a government decision regarding a construction project. He knew the score and felt it was worth the risk to be able to express his opinion. He paid the consequences. It's not a Brave New Word at all. Welcome to real life and a very old world of business. If you pretend to serve the public, it would probably be good business to actually DO it.
Certainly, one can start or join a boycott. Would you agree that the other tactics I mentioned are wrong, all of which have been employed against those who oppose SSM or simply don't want to participate in a SSM ceremony, or (now) agree to participate but inform those who made them do so that they have religious objections to SSM (as in the Wildflower Inn case) should lose their businesses and their reputations for a sincerely held belief that was the stated view of the President just a few years back? It is a brave new world, indeed.
Should people who hold such views receive death threats, forged derogatory Yelp reviews, anonymous calls in the middle of the night, human rights board complaints, a barrage of defamatory tweets, demands to remove the CO's state tax exemption as a "discriminatory organization," hostile emails sent to one's business associates and clients - all of which have happened?
That you and Moosetracker agree and seem to approve of using the local option to collapse all resistance to homosexual adult leadership within the BSA is part of your right to express your opinion - why would you deny it to others?
-
Everyone else has done my work for me nicely.. Thanks guys.. And that is exactly how I stated it..
"To prove this you will need to point out to me the public pressure (outside of their own church membership) that have been all over churches to force them to perform homosexual marriages.. For this same prediction was raised by conservatives over the legalization of Gay marriages.. Your predictions have been wrong.. The only time you get in trouble is when you try to enforce your viewpoint on the public who do not hold your same belief .."
You did not name churches.. You named businesses.. And businesses are fair game.. I do not think I have trouble with what I say, you seem to have trouble interpreting what I say..
I have not stated otherwise anywhere.. I have stated at least twice now that CO's that are a business will be pressured to be open to the public (including gays), or they will have to drop their charter..
I appreciate your honesty. Yes, as you said, any businesses or charitable organizations associated with them will be subject to harassment / boycotts / threats if they fail to follow the new party line. Why is that so hard for people to admit?
I did not name churches because you asked for examples of churches being pressured by outsiders, not by schisms within the churches.
I did in fact name the largest LGBT pressure group in my reply, which is not affiliated with the Catholic Church, nor is it made up primarily of Catholics, which is pressuring bishops to accept same-sex marriage. Why did you skip over that, Moosetracker?
Here's another example: The Bishop of San Francisco Diocese is currently the target of an attack by an outside because the church does not accept teachers who are in a same-sex marriage. An outside public relations firm (which, which refuses to disclose who is paying it, has paid demonstrators to picket and disrupt parish events The aforementioned Human Rights Campaign, a secular, non-Catholic LGBT pressure group, is among the groups paying for Sam Singer's company to pressure the bishop. (Singer's company also has represented a host of oil companies involved in environmental disasters, as well as the two largest SF newspapers.) http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/oil-company-hit-man-has-archbishop-cordileone-in-his-sights-96081/
-
I think it's apparent that you get in trouble when you simply voice your opinion, Moosetracker. That pizza joint family in Indiana never discriminated against a single gay person. They simply answered, honestly, what they would do in the hypothetical instance that they were ever asked to cater a gay wedding. You can be punished even for voicing your opinion in private, by (for instance) donating money to a political initiative to preserve traditional marriage definitions (a ballot initiative that passed handily, incidentally, so it's hard to argue that Brandon Eich was "enforcing his viewpoint" against the majority.)
Certainly, the couple in Idaho that own the wedding chapel are being charged by the state for refusing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony. One could argue that they are running a commercial establishment rather than a church, but they are ordained ministers in their own denomination,and many church ministers in non-commercial religious churches accept payments and donations for conducting services. The Idaho ministers are looking at potential 6 month jail sentences and heavy fines.
Certainly, the "Human Rights Campaign," a non-Catholic gay rights pressure and lobbying group, has prepared slick advertising materials to pressure Catholic bishops to accept gay marriage and end orthodox teaching on human sexuality. You can read their material here: http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/The_Best_of_the_Worst.pdf
Certainly, there are gay couples that are suing in England to force churches to marry homosexual couples: http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Gay-dads-set-sue-church-sex-marriage-opt/story-19597954-detail/story.html
Certainly, Obama's Solicitor General knows that religious colleges, and ultimately churches, will be pressured not to teach against gay marriages or risk losing their tax-exempt status. He admitted that much during his exchange with Justice Alito last week while arguing on behalf of the administration for recognition of gay marriage as a constitutional right:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I - I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I - don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is - it is going to be an issue.
Ah, but we are not just talking about churches being made to perform homosexual marriages. We are talking about the risks of publicly opposing LGBT pressure groups.
We have businesses that have experienced all I described and more, not because they would not serve gay people, but simply because they would not participate in a particular kind of event:
â– Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado: Owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in July. The Lakewood bakery has faced at least two protests, a Facebook-driven boycott, and a discrimination complaint from the state Attorney General that was scheduled for a hearing in September. Phillips has said he would rather close his bakeshop than compromise his Christian beliefs. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)
■Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa: Baker Victoria Childress denied service to a lesbian couple hoping to get married in 2011. The Des Moines baker was called a “bigot†and faced a protest and Facebook boycott but refused to budge, citing her Christian faith. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)
â– Fleur Cakes, Oregon: Pam Regentin, the owner of the Mount Hood-area cake shop, refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple earlier this year, sparking another Facebook boycott in May. (Sources: news reports including local television.)
â– Liberty Ridge Farm, New York: The family-owned farm in mid-state New York is facing a human rights complaint after refusing to host a lesbian wedding in 2012. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)
â– All Occasion Party Place, Texas: In February, the Fort Worth-based wedding venue declined to host a wedding reception for a gay couple. An online boycott has now been launched against the business. (Sources: local news and the Huffington Post.)
â– Gortz Haus, Iowa: After refusing to host a gay wedding (reported in August), Betty Odgaard, the owner of the business, received threatening calls and e-mails and now must contend with a complaint the couple has filed with the state civil rights commission. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)
■Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, New Jersey: In 2012, a state judge ruled that a Methodist-owned events venue in Ocean Grove violated state law when it refused to host a gay wedding in 2007. Also, while the discrimination case was still pending, the facility lost its state tax exemption because it was deemed “no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public,†the New York Timesreported. (Sources: The New York Times here and here, Philadelphia Inquirer, and LifeSiteNews.)
■Elane Photography, New Mexico: The state Supreme Court ruled in August that a New Mexico photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon could not legally deny services to same-sex couples. The photographer had refused service for a lesbian commitment ceremony in 2006. One of the women had filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, which ruled against the photographers in 2008, prompting an appeals process that led to the high court decision. It’s now unclear what will happen to the business. (Sources: press releases and news reports including the Catholic News Agency and the Santa Fe New Mexican. The case is discussed further below.)
■Arlene’s Flowers, Washington: A florist refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding last March and now owner Baronelle Stutzman is facing a lawsuit from the state Attorney General. (Sources: news reports including local television and the Associated Press.)
■Wildflower Inn, Vermont: A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement. (Sources: The New York Times and Huffington Post.)
Oh brave new world.
-
To prove this you will need to point out to me the public pressure (outside of their own church membership) that have been all over churches to force them to perform homosexual marraiges.. For this same prediction was raised by conservatives over the legalization of Gay marriages.. Your predictions have been wrong.. The only time you get in trouble is when you try to enforce your viewpoint on the public who do not hold your same belief ..
I think it's apparent that you get in trouble when you simply voice your opinion, Moosetracker. That pizza joint family in Indiana never discriminated against a single gay person. They simply answered, honestly, what they would do in the hypothetical instance that they were ever asked to cater a gay wedding. You can be punished even for voicing your opinion in private, by (for instance) donating money to a political initiative to preserve traditional marriage definitions (a ballot initiative that passed handily, incidentally, so it's hard to argue that Brandon Eich was "enforcing his viewpoint" against the majority.)
Certainly, the couple in Idaho that own the wedding chapel are being charged by the state for refusing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony. One could argue that they are running a commercial establishment rather than a church, but they are ordained ministers in their own denomination,and many church ministers in non-commercial religious churches accept payments and donations for conducting services. The Idaho ministers are looking at potential 6 month jail sentences and heavy fines.
Certainly, the "Human Rights Campaign," a non-Catholic gay rights pressure and lobbying group, has prepared slick advertising materials to pressure Catholic bishops to accept gay marriage and end orthodox teaching on human sexuality. You can read their material here: http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/The_Best_of_the_Worst.pdf
Certainly, there are gay couples that are suing in England to force churches to marry homosexual couples: http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Gay-dads-set-sue-church-sex-marriage-opt/story-19597954-detail/story.html
Certainly, Obama's Solicitor General knows that religious colleges, and ultimately churches, will be pressured not to teach against gay marriages or risk losing their tax-exempt status. he admitted that much during his exchange with Justice Alito last week while arguing on behalf of the administration for recognition of gay marriage as a constitutional right:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I - I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I - don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is - it is going to be an issue.
Ah, but we are not just talking about churches being made to perform homosexual marriages. We are talking about the risks of publicly opposing LGBT pressure groups.
We have businesses that have experienced all I described and more, not because they would not serve gay people, but simply because they would not participate in a particular kind of event:
â– Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado: Owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in July. The Lakewood bakery has faced at least two protests, a Facebook-driven boycott, and a discrimination complaint from the state Attorney General that was scheduled for a hearing in September. Phillips has said he would rather close his bakeshop than compromise his Christian beliefs. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)
■Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa: Baker Victoria Childress denied service to a lesbian couple hoping to get married in 2011. The Des Moines baker was called a “bigot†and faced a protest and Facebook boycott but refused to budge, citing her Christian faith. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)
â– Fleur Cakes, Oregon: Pam Regentin, the owner of the Mount Hood-area cake shop, refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple earlier this year, sparking another Facebook boycott in May. (Sources: news reports including local television.)
â– Liberty Ridge Farm, New York: The family-owned farm in mid-state New York is facing a human rights complaint after refusing to host a lesbian wedding in 2012. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)
â– All Occasion Party Place, Texas: In February, the Fort Worth-based wedding venue declined to host a wedding reception for a gay couple. An online boycott has now been launched against the business. (Sources: local news and the Huffington Post.)
â– Gortz Haus, Iowa: After refusing to host a gay wedding (reported in August), Betty Odgaard, the owner of the business, received threatening calls and e-mails and now must contend with a complaint the couple has filed with the state civil rights commission. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)
■Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, New Jersey: In 2012, a state judge ruled that a Methodist-owned events venue in Ocean Grove violated state law when it refused to host a gay wedding in 2007. Also, while the discrimination case was still pending, the facility lost its state tax exemption because it was deemed “no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public,†the New York Timesreported. (Sources: The New York Times here and here, Philadelphia Inquirer, and LifeSiteNews.)
■Elane Photography, New Mexico: The state Supreme Court ruled in August that a New Mexico photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon could not legally deny services to same-sex couples. The photographer had refused service for a lesbian commitment ceremony in 2006. One of the women had filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, which ruled against the photographers in 2008, prompting an appeals process that led to the high court decision. It’s now unclear what will happen to the business. (Sources: press releases and news reports including the Catholic News Agency and the Santa Fe New Mexican. The case is discussed further below.)
■Arlene’s Flowers, Washington: A florist refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding last March and now owner Baronelle Stutzman is facing a lawsuit from the state Attorney General. (Sources: news reports including local television and the Associated Press.)
■Wildflower Inn, Vermont: A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement. (Sources: The New York Times and Huffington Post.)
Oh brave new world.
-
Same thing I already said.. Church CO's are not on the agenda.. The Pizza joint is a place of business open to the public not a church, therefore if they sponsored a BSA unit, when it goes to local option, they will probably be pressured to change.. What a bummer... But, I would imagine they have learned a lesson and will not see an angry mob and cheerfully welcome them to direct all their anger at them.. Unless of course they believe they might get another great payday out of it.
Ah. They will be made to care. Once they have learned their lesson about the meaningless of religious convictions, all will be well.
Unlikely they will get a payday out of it, BTW. GoFundMe, under pressure from gay activists, will no longer collect funds for any such people.
-
Moose, I can agree with you that local option would be a fair position.
But then take your reasoning:
and apply it to the recent actions of the LGBT lobbies.
Bakers, photographers, and florists are being forced out of business and sued because they don't wont to participate in a Gay wedding ceremony. (Even one pizza joint that has never catered any wedding has been closed due to death threats!)
What rational can you use to comfort COs that want to have straight SMs that they won't be bludgeoned into submission by the Gay lobby?
JoeBob makes a good point. The recent trend in gay culture has been to demonize anyone who fails to accept the idea that gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, must not simply be tolerated but accepted. Careers have been ruined, like Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, as well as local people who for religious or moral reasons don't want to be involved in gay marriages.
Should a local option be granted, local COs would essentially be forced to accept gay leaders, or face the possibility of local anti-discrimination and civil rights complaints and lawsuits, commercial pressure, anonymous calls in the middle of the night, human rights board complaints, a barrage of defamatory tweets, blog posts, demands to remove the CO's state tax exemption as a "discriminatory organization," forged Yelp! reviews of their company, hostile emails sent to one's business associates and clients, picket lines, MoveOn.org petitions directed against their CO and them personally, boycott demands, death threats, etc., etc. It would be a fait accompli for the gay lobby, as they pick off each non-compliant CO until all cave, or drop out of scouting.
It's likely that should such happen, the exodus from Scouting would not be because volunteers don't want to be involved in scouting with gay leaders, as much as their desire not to be character assassinated, and not to have their names pop up as a "homophobic bigot" whenever someone does a Google search for their name. The personal satisfaction one gets from volunteering in a youth organization is not sufficient to outweigh the sort of harassment that is commonplace now for anyone who gets on the wrong side of the LGBT community.
Because of this I wouldn't stay in Scouting if the local option were to become policy. I would drop out within a minute. I wouldn't be alone, either.
-
1
-
-
It depends what "that" is. If it is local option, which is what some people in this forum have been advocating for years (and my council's SE supported it when National floated the idea two years ago), I think the net impact on membership would be negligible, and maybe positive. Sure, there would be a lot of yelling and screaming and huffing and puffing like there was the last time, but once the action was taken, how many CO's would really leave the BSA because some OTHER unit could POTENTIALLY have an openly gay adult leader? Not many, I believe. Not that that's really the main issue - the main issue what is right and wrong, and the current policy of FORCING CO's to discriminate is wrong. The Biblical example of the adulterer, mentioned above, is interesting because there is NO National policy that REQUIRES a unit to exclude a known adulterer. A unit can choose to have an adulterous leader, or not to. (And here I go on my usual litany.) Same with a leader who is living, unmarried, with a member of the opposite sex. Same with a leader who is grossly overweight to the point of (in the opinion of some) setting a poor example for the kids. Same for the leader who is regularly seen exiting the local watering hole and staggering home (not driving, and not at troop meetings.) Same with the "exotic dancer". And on and on. The CO may accept, or exclude, all of these people as leaders. Why not the openly gay leader? What is that a decision that only National can make, when almost all of the other adult leadership decisions are made at the local level?
Where are all these troops that have the exotic dancer troop leaders? Inquiring minds want to know!
-
Vatican City, which is also considered an independent country, does not have a Scouting movement either so they should be added to the list.
There are also 19 other soverign countries that have scouting programs that are not part of WOSM;
- Afghanistan - Afghanistan Scout Association
- Albania - Scouting and Guiding in Albania. In 2014, the membership of Beslidhja Skaut Albania was terminated by WOSM with hopes to establish a new National Scouting Organization.[5]
- Central African Republic - Fédération du scoutisme centrafricain
- Republic of the Congo - Association des Scouts et Guides du Congo
- Djibouti - Association des Scouts de Djibouti
- East Timor - União Nacional dos Escuteiros de Timor Leste
- Equatorial Guinea - Scouting in Equatorial Guinea
- Eritrea - National Scout Association of Eritrea
- Guinea-Bissau - Corpo Nacional de Escutas da Guiné-Bissau
- Iran - Iran Scout Organization
- Iraq - Iraq Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Council
- Kyrgyzstan - Scouting in Kyrgyzstan
- Mali - Scouting in Mali
- Samoa - Scouting in Samoa
- São Tomé and PrÃncipe - Associação dos Escuteiros de São Tomé e PrÃncipe
- Somalia - Scouting in Somalia
- Turkmenistan - Scouting in Turkmenistan
- Uzbekistan - Scouting in Uzbekistan
- Vietnam - Vietnamese Scout Association
Vatican City doesn't have Boy Scout troops, yet the Vatican has signed an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons. How is that fair?
-
Boy your on a roll this morning AZ... Was there a reason for two different threads that will spark similar comment, rather then putting them in the same thread?
I wanted to bleed energy off from the religion/evolution thread and let it die a natural death.
-
File under "You Will Be Made To Care."
The New York State attorney general’s office has opened an inquiry into the Boy Scouts of America’s hiring practices to determine whether the group has discriminated as an employer against gays.
The office will ask Wayne Brock, the chief scout executive of the Boy Scouts’ national organization, for detailed information on the group’s involvement in hiring decisions there and at its local councils. The request comes three weeks after the Boy Scouts’ New York City affiliate said it had hired a gay Eagle Scout to work in a scout camp this summer.
The New York group, the Boy Scouts’ Greater New York Councils, said it had hired Pascal Tessier, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who grew up in Kensington, Md., and is a student at the College of Wooster in Wooster, Ohio. Over the last couple of years, he has become a prominent figure in the debate about gays in scouting.
Ms. Clarke noted in the letter, which was obtained by The New York Times, that state law prohibits an employer from refusing to hire a person based on sexual orientation and also forbids discrimination on the job. “Entities that operate in or are registered to do business in the State of New York must comply with these anti-discrimination requirements,†she said in the letter.
[...]
She asked Mr. Brock for information about the national organization’s role in, and its ability to control, hiring decisions made by the local councils.
The letter did not indicate how the attorney general’s office might seek to enforce the Human Rights Law against the Boy Scouts, but it did make note that the group derives “significant income from both merchandise sales at its Scout Shops, as well as through the operation of its 16 local councils in the state.â€
Read More Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/nyregion/new-york-investigates-whether-boy-scouts-employment-practices-discriminated-against-gays.html?_r=0
-
Interesting forum bug I just noticed - apparently you can't put words in ALL CAPS in thread titles, so acronyms (LGBT & BSA) get converted into lower case with the first letter capitalized.
-
A pro-LGBT group has raised more than $50,000 to donate to the Boy Scouts of America if the organization ends its ban on gay adult leaders.
Scouts for Equality launched its campaign on the crowdfunding site Challeng.org last week, calling on President Bob Gates and the Boy Scouts to lift the organization's ban on gay adults during its national meeting later this month.
"If they meet this challenge and vote to end their ban on gay adults, the proceeds from this campaign will be donated straight to the Boy Scouts of America. But if they don't vote down the ban, your donation won't be processed," Scouts for Equality Executive Director Zach Wahls says in a video promoting the campaign.
"When I was growing up in the Boy Scout, my moms taught me that being gay ha nothing to do with your ability to live by the promises of the Scout law," Wahls says.
The campaign, which began with a $10,000 pledge from Scouts for Equality, had raised $53,285 by Friday morning.
The BSA lifted its ban on gay youth in 2013 but continues to bar gay adult leaders. However, the Greater New York Councils of the Boy Scouts recently hired an openly gay man to serve as youth leader. Meanwhile, the New York attorney general's office has launched an investigation into whether the Boy Scouts' employment practices violate the state's ban on anti-gay discrimination
-
Interesting article on the status of "youth clubs" in modern Russia, which seem to be more paramilitary in tone. We do some hatchet-throwing, but not as much knife-throwing as these boys do.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/01/putins-boy-scout-army-russia-military-patriotic-clubs-ukraine/
Does anyone know if there are actual scouting groups in Russia that are affiliated with the world scouting movement?
(This may be considered more appropriate under the International Scouting forum; if so, mods please feel free to move it.)
Lgbt Group Will Pay Bsa $50,000 To Lift Ban On Gay Adult Leaders
in Issues & Politics
Posted
The Catholic Church is the original Big Tent. There is a wide range of beliefs, but if beliefs are very different, we don't kick people out of the faith to form their own schism, we keep them inside the tent and argue some more. There is no mechanism to remove someone from the religion, even excommunication is simply a discipline that deprives someone of the sacraments, always meant to be corrective and not meant to be permanent.
I always feel there is a kinship or bond between me and every other Catholic, even if we disagree on most issues - we're still part of the same family (this applies to my feelings towards other Christian faiths as well). I don't even define myself as a liberal or a conservative anymore, I'm just a Catholic. That means I take some views that some define as very conservative (opposition to abortion, opposition to gay marriage) and some that others define as very liberal (opposition to capital punishment, defense of the rights of immigrants and the poor and homeless.)
As the great Catholic writer R.A. Lafferty wrote in his 1971 novel The Flame is Green, "Things are set up as contraries that are not even in the same category. Listen to me: the opposite of radical is superficial, the opposite of liberal is stingy; the opposite of conservative is destructive. Thus I will describe myself as a radical conservative liberal..."