Thursday, February 03, 2005
Pro-Homosexual Liberalism Is a Religion
This is a discussion that spun of a post by Eric at Is That Legal? Eric asked:
There are a few important points in all that was raised below, and I hope to rewrite them in orderly fashion soon. For now, here is the discussion:
It probably means that there not speaking in tongues types. I don't think it means that if you are not a member of they´re church that you are not normal.
Thomas Kearney
It could go either way.
It *probably* does mean, politely, "No Snake-handling, No Speaking In Tongues" as a way of reassuring people. (If it were Catholic, it would mean something like "This is not a schismatic Tridentiste outfit, the music and liturgy will be in English," but those are so rare that people have to go hunt them out, or build their own, so you'd never see a sign like that.
But it could also be a statement of the unpleasant truth (and probably is, regardless of intent) that like most churches they're packed with mindlessly-conventional Middle Americans who would never *dream* of doing anything as flaky as say, grabbing a guitar and wandering across country as a busker, or being arrested at protests, or giving up their way of life, selling all and going to work and live in the inner city like Dorothy Day...
bellatrys
I think it means they're not saints, and they wouldn't expect you to be either.
It might also mean you can wear casual clothes. It's hard to fill the seats, and a lot of churches are really pushing a "come as you are" message to get young people in. Without the young people, a church will die.
MacKenzie | 01.23.05 - 11:26 am | #
Sure. Obviously.
But "normal?"
Eric | Email | Homepage | 01.23.05 - 12:39 pm | #
I agree with Mackenzie. It is just an ad. It is saying: "See we are ordinary folk and we sing modern music, not those stuffy hymns.
Independent non-denominational christian churches are entrepeneral businesses. They are to seek out a market niche and pursuing customers.
j swift | Email | 01.24.05 - 10:51 am | #
Oxford English Dictionary:
normal 2.a. Consituting, conforming to, not deviating or differing from, the common type or standard; regular, usual.
Get it? Regular people. The message is that people at this church are not different from you.
Dave S. | 01.24.05 - 12:50 pm | #
I agree with Eric that perhaps "All Welcome" might be a bit more inclusive - but it might well be well-intentioned, if open to misinterpretation. I drive past it occasionally, and the church in question's quite easygoing & liberal from what little I know of it.
Rob | Email | 01.24.05 - 12:58 pm | #
Dave S. -- So would I be right in saying, then, that this particular church's message sits atop two assumptions: (a) people tend to prefer not to be in a faith community with people unlike themselves, and (b) appealing to that aversion is a good way to build membership?
Eric Muller | Email | Homepage | 01.24.05 - 2:26 pm | #
No, no, no the church is seeking customers for conversion! At the least it is seeking to broaden its appeal to what this particular church might consider "borderline Christians", those who are tired of the stuffy hymns, stultifying sermons and such. It is a damned variety show in some of these churches.
I attended a large evangelical church for a short time and they had contemporary music. A band got up played contemporary "music of worship". People sang, danced, talked in tongues, were seized by the spirit and flopped like fish on the floor. Hell, one morning the head pastor's aged mother fell asleep on the front row and passed away right there on the spot!
This church might lean to conservative evangelical or to something more akin to the more liberal Methodist, but in the end it is to convert.
j swift | Email | 01.24.05 - 3:37 pm | #
Well, they do have a website and are pretty clear about things. It has this crawl along the bottom:
No Extremes!
The only place where Cameron Crazies and Tar Heels don't hate each other! [I assume a college football reference.]
---
No Snakes! Caged Drummer! [I have no idea]
9:00 AM Sunday Service for early risers.
11:00 AM for slackers and generally lazy people.
Free coffee and food (bagels)!
---
In their beliefs texts, they say they adhere to the bible, the Nicene creed, and the 10 commandments; they disagree and reject speaking in unknown tingues and prophecy; they reject both godless evolution and any creationism or Genesis interpretation that reject valid scientific research...
I would say they are trying to attract northern protestants who have moved to North Carolina.
I looked for a hint that they were welcoming of gays and found this:
Q: What is the church's position on homosexuality?
A: We do not have a specific statement on homosexuality; we
David Margolies | Email | 01.24.05 - 6:20 pm | #
Sorry, I did not realize there was a character limit. Here is the rest of their stance on gays:
Q: What is the church's position on homosexuality?
A: We do not have a specific statement on homosexuality; we refuse to point out just one group of people. Instead we have a statement on sexuality in general: “We believe the Bible is clear; the intimacy of sex is reserved for a man and woman who make a life-long commitment together in the sacrament of marriage.” While this shows we disagree with homosexuality (which disagrees with creation itself), we want to say so in love, because God loves each person and so do we. We believe any sexual relationship outside this lifetime commitment of marriage is against the will of God for that person and will be damaging to them and to society.
David Margolies | Email | 01.24.05 - 6:21 pm | #
Bagels? Now I'm getting interested. Lox and cream cheese and I'm all over that like white on rice!
I love the part about hating gays in love (in a loving way, that is, not hating "gays in love"). It's against the will of god, and damaging, but gosh darn it, we love you! And won't you come break bagels with us?
K | Email | 01.24.05 - 7:11 pm | #
K,
There is no hate in their statement. Is that so difficult to see? read?
It´s interesting how pro-homosexuals can engage in more cognitive selection about homosexuality than even the most fundamentalist religious person (which the above is not an example).
Not endorsing homosexuality does not equal hating homosexuals. To say they hate homosexuals is sheer slander and defamation. An ad hominem attack is not an argument. With each passing day we see pro-homosexuals having less arguments and more dogmatic, fundamentalist attitudes. That´s what´s generating the need to stifle speech and discussion, specially of the questioning kind.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.24.05 - 9:35 pm | #
I agree with Alessandra. It's a difficult issue. One of the primary reasons why people often turn to religious arguments in trying to persuade people to avoid homosexuality, especially the many that are bisexual in some form or fashion, is because explaining the reasons to prefer heterosexuality are not terribly easy or comfortable for men. Men don't enjoy discussing sexuality or relationships in general. It's easier to just set a policy and do it, like normal business. That may or may not be effective in this arena, but it's not out of hate. That is simply incorrect.
Robert | 01.25.05 - 11:09 am | #
Robert, what does preference have to do with anything?
David Margolies | Email | 01.25.05 - 11:26 am | #
Religion in this case is just a cover for hate. "Against the will of god." You can't love the person you want to. What could be more hateful than that, short of inflicting physical injury (and that's been done by some, too, though this group doesn't appear to condone violence).
I just believe in equal rights. Adults who love each other should have the same rights as you or I. If you want to hate or save gays in your private little discriminatory world, fine. But legally, gays should be equal.
K | Email | 01.25.05 - 11:53 am | #
Gotta get one of them there "PRO-GAY" stickers fer the car, if'n it'll fit next to the "PRO-INFANTICIDE", "PRO-SATAN", and "PRO-TERRORISM" stickers.
Personally, I'm PRO- religious people keeping it to themselves. If they are such devout believers, then they should realize their deity doesn't instruct them to relentlessly push their faith on others LIKE FUCKING AMWAY SALESMEN. Furthermore, even Amway doesn't get personal and tell you that you are paving your way to hell if you don't buy their products!
pjk | Email | 01.26.05 - 3:13 am | #
It's good to know that Amway looks good compared to *someone*.
K | Email | 01.26.05 - 12:29 pm | #
Religion in this case is just a cover for hate. "Against the will of god."
vs.
“We believe the Bible is clear; the intimacy of sex is reserved for a man and woman who make a life-long commitment together in the sacrament of marriage"
====================
There is no hate above. Religion, in this case, is not a cover for anything, it is already bared. It stipulates sex should be reserved for within marriage. Saying they hate homosexuals is the same falsity as saying they hate heterosexuals (unmarried ones who are sexually active, that is). Only someone who refuses to read would say they hate.
Just a cheap distortion to defame them because they understand human behavior should be based on different values and rules. You´ve construed a fake hate stake for you to burn them at.
"I just believe in equal rights."
People with this myopic pro-homosexual fanaticism believe they have the right to slander others in any cheap way while they are entitled to respect.
________________________________________
That´s not what equal rights mean. This is what they believe in:
a PC freedom of speech. a bound freedom of thought. a vicious, intolerant tolerant. a self-pitying pride. a non-violent name-calling.
"What could be more hateful than that, short of inflicting physical injury (and that's been done by some, too, though this group doesn't appear to condone violence)."
Since GLBT´s perpetrate gazillions more violent crimes than they are the victims of any anti-homo crime, if you were concerned about violence and justice you´d be ranting about how violent GLBT´s are.
But then again the media/schools instead of teaching uninformed people about this reality, only distort it more and more.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.26.05 - 8:58 pm | #
"Personally, I'm PRO- religious people keeping it to themselves. "
Given that liberalism functions in many ways just like a religion, what we have right now is a war to see who is going to dictate society´s mass/state religion. Liberals want to shove down their religion and destroy the scope of other religions (or any aspect of any other religion that does not submit to the dogmas and values of liberalism).
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.26.05 - 9:08 pm | #
Alessandra, you are completely full of shit. You astound me with the degree to which you can spread around bullshit in a liberal fashion (not in the sense you use the word, but gramatically correct), yet still have so much left (oops, same as above parentheses) to spare.
You are the one looking for the power to control hearts and minds here. All we "forced homosexuality advocates" want is to be guaranteed the freedom OF religion, or FROM religion, especially when self-righteous fuckheads like you tell us you know best, because you talk to God.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, bitch. You may have cast your vote for the candidate most likely to try and tamper with the Constitution, but neither of you will find that an easy task.
Go to godhatesfags.com if you want a sympathetic audience, unless they sent you here. In which case, go back.
pjk | Email | 01.27.05 - 5:16 am | #
pjk,
a vicious, intolerant tolerant. a non-violent name-calling. an educated moron.
Do you actually believe that you are going to stop other people from thinking by becoming violent with them? Silly, I guess you never really studied history. Remember that studying is different than going through school with teachers who can´t ask questions.
I didn´t come here expecting much, but it never ceases to astound me how the comments on this thread resemble the attitudes of the Europeans when they first met the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Because the Indians had a different value system, the Europeans, in their cute self-righteous violent way, branded them as full of sin and the devil incarnate. You slap on full of hate and evil incarnate. Same dynamics, slightly different label.
" Alessandra, you are completely full of shit. self-righteous fuckheads like you. bitch. go back."
Threatened are you? By a few little questions?
pjk:"You are the one looking for the p
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.27.05 - 8:11 am | #
pjk:"You are the one looking for the power to control hearts and minds here."
Mirror, mirror on the wall, what is pjk trying to desperately control?
Have I punctured a few holes in your groupthink denial?
previous me:"Liberals want to shove down their religion and destroy the scope of other religions (or any aspect of any other religion that does not submit to the dogmas and values of liberalism)."
When the usual social engineering tactics that pro-homosexuals use don´t work, they resort to raw violence.
Nothing that the Catholic Church hasn´t used before in the exact same way.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.27.05 - 8:13 am | #
"Alessandra, Go to godhatesfags.com if you want a sympathetic audience,"
Actually, my sympathetic audience is at God-and-others-who-hate-people-who-have-
become-exactly-what-they-criticize-in-ways-
that-make-even-Orwell´s-chin-drop.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.27.05 - 8:52 am | #
From Gregory Koukl :
Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster's the word tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others' beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.
we can't tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.
This essential element of tolerance--disagreement--has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant.
This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise tolerance toward him, yet doing so brings the accusation of intolerance. According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.27.05 - 10:14 am | #
Allesandra - I agree with pjk in his views on homosexuality, though not in the way of expressing it. YOU are the one telling people what they can't do, so YOU are the one trying to control people. I never said what you can think - I just said you are wrong. I have the same freedom to express my views you do, so this has nothing to do with PC-ness or you silly fantasies about controlling thought.
And what the hell are you talking about with respect to gays causing more crime? Please show me some statistics from the government on that one. I'll wait (thump, thump, thump)...
Speaking of PC-ness, I've never seen so much right-wing PC verbiage in one set of posting. I don't follow any line, liberal or conservative or religious. I think things out for myself, thankyouverymuch. You have to run for your bible to find out what to think. To me, this issue has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It's about equality, fairness, niceness and treating people the way you way you want them to treat you.
Violence by gays - what a crock. Let's check with Michael Shephard on that one.
K
Allessandra - here's an article about some of the people you hate, er, I mean the people you love as you are sending them to a fiery death in hell (sorry!): http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/01/27/fallout_from_postcards_decision
(You don't live in Oklahoma by any chance?)
K | Email | 01.27.05 - 5:59 pm | #
Alessandra, calling you an ignorant, self-righteous, right-wing lackey or any of the more colorful terms you inspire isn't violence.
From what I gather, you're not Catholic. Are you possibly oriented with a religious organization that is somewhat fundamental? If you are, perhaps you should consider that unless your church elders or husband sent you here to convert heathens, there is something else that you could be doing, in your submissive role as a woman (according to them).
Or, do you just blow off the religious teachings of your (obviously) open-minded church, and cherry-pick among the verses that support your forgone conclusions?
Lastly, if liberalism is a religion, please direct me to the governmental entity that will grant me tax exempt status.
pjk | Email | 01.28.05 - 2:45 am | #
Eric says- "So would I be right in saying, then, that this particular church's message sits atop two assumptions: (a) people tend to prefer not to be in a faith community with people unlike themselves, and (b) appealing to that aversion is a good way to build membership?"
IMO, the answer to both would be yes, unfortunately. We all fall short of the glory of God.
Dave S. | 01.28.05 - 1:14 pm | #
Dave S., yes, we do all fall short of the glory of God.
It's just that churches don't usually do it on their signs.
Eric | Email | Homepage | 01.29.05 - 9:30 pm | #
And what the hell are you talking about with respect to gays causing more crime? Please show me some statistics from the government on that one. I'll wait (thump, thump, thump)...
==================================
I thought you didn´t believe in hell... gettting religious, are you?
Please show me how you´re not severely ignorant on issues of crime.
Post the data you are so familiar with regarding crime of every type and how much of it is committed by non-heterosexuals. I´ll give you a tip:
murder, drug-related violence, child abuse, adolescent abuse, rape, pimping, knowingly transmitting a death causing virus such as AIDS, aiding and abetting or keeping silent about any other crime, and least but certainly not last, we have battering.
If you aren´t a real ignorant, bigotted, self-righteous pro-homosexual, you will be able to prove that all of that above is minute, tiny, compared to a few deaths that result from real (not invented) anti-homosexual crime.
Or is all of this pro-homosexual fanaticism nothing more than a few very emotional push buttons coming to the fore without much reasoning?
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 8:49 am | #
It's about equality, fairness, niceness and treating people the way you want them to treat you.
============================
Yes, but when people speak in the name of equality and fairness and then practice inequality and unfairness, then it´s when things have gone awry.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 8:53 am | #
YOU are the one telling people what they can't do, so YOU are the one trying to control people.
=============================
That´s not so. Because telling people what they can do or what they can´t do is about control. Either way.
If you tell someone "you can smoke here" or if you tell them "you can´t smoke here" - the issue is control in both instances.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 8:56 am | #
I have the same freedom to express my views you do, so this has nothing to do with PC-ness or you silly fantasies about controlling thought.
============================
It was pjk who said I was engaging in thought control, not my silly fantasy. It´s interesting that nothing in anything I wrote suggests that I´m telling anyone (including you) they can´t say their views.
What is also interesting is that when I express my views, all of a sudden, it´s labeled "attempt at thought control" and when you express your views, well, the label is "just my views."
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 9:04 am | #
Alessandra, calling you an ignorant, self-righteous, right-wing lackey or any of the more colorful terms you inspire isn't violence.
===================================
Of course, not.
And if you go over to that church and give them small pox blankets as a sign of your "tolerance" towards their views and values, that´s not violence either, it´s "progress."
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 9:07 am | #
Lastly, if liberalism is a religion, please direct me to the governmental entity that will grant me tax exempt status.
=============================
I can direct you to a better reflection- What is a religion? What social functions does *any* religion have? What is morality?
Religions establish a few fundamental tenets for a group: a) what reality is and is not, b) what is right and wrong c) rules/laws based on values, to guide social relations/behavior.
*** added afterwards:
d) it defines what is important and what is not e) it selects which people (issues/views) will be heard and which will be ignored ***
(this is a tiny little blurb, you can read books about it if you want to think more)
Notice that liberalism does all of the above. It has its definition of what reality is (in the social sciences, the jargon for this is "social construction of reality"), it stipulates what is right and wrong (the morality of liberalism), and it defines its rules/laws to guide/control social relations and behaviors.
Perhaps the very different characteristic of our current liberalism is that most liberals hate to see it as a "religion" even though it is very much a religion. But this blatant lack of insight is not any different than most other religions which say "Only my religion is the absolute Truth," i.e., I am always right, anyone who disagrees with me is always wrong. About everything.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 9:28 am | #
Good lord, and here I was expecting Alessandra to BE Catholic from the combination of the Italian name and the "we lovingly reject homosexuality" claptrap straight out of the Catechism.
But I find she's an equal-opportunity bigot. Heh. Takes all sorts, I guess.
What's even funnier is, I generally accepted the "lovingly reject homosexuality but not homosexuals," (aka "hate the sin, love the sinner") claptrap from my Catholic upbringing, until it was forced down my throat by people who had been lying about their own unchastity.
At which point I started examining my own beliefs and realized that a) I didn't believe it nor accept the claimed authority of the people telling me I had to accept it on their authority, and b) the fact that I didn't have (afaik) a stake in the game, no homosexual relatives being hurt by this "loving rejection" BS, didn't mean that I wasn't obligated to reject it as the BS it was, and to speak up for the rights of *everyone* regardless of orientation no less than ethnicity.
I didn't realize I was a "myopic pro-homosexual fanatic" though. (Myopic, yes, since I can't afford lasik. But fanatic? I've never marched in a protest even.)
Men don't enjoy discussing sexuality or relationships in general.
Er, Robert, what planet are you on? The people I have heard talking most about sex, and their relationships over the years, in juicy, squelching detail, have all been males. Your gender is sort of *notorious* for it - a bit unfairly, true, kitchen gossip can be just as lubricious as "locker-room" talk - but either you're living on a desert island or...those aren't really men around you, I guess.
bellatrys
Alessandra, you go to your church, I'll go to mine.
You really make Eric look like a psychic when you ramble on despite the irony with the posts title.
I have a brick home, so if I want to carry on a discussion as usefull as you engage in, I just need to pick a wall.
Have a nice oblivious life, toots.
pjk
What pjk said. Whather Alessandra is an idiot, a troll, or just a blathering bigot, I have no more time for any of these.
K
bellatrys:
What's even funnier is, I generally accepted the "lovingly reject homosexuality but not homosexuals," (aka "hate the sin, love the sinner") claptrap from my Catholic upbringing, until it was forced down my throat by people who had been lying about their own unchastity.
====================================
Well, I guess that proves just how fanatic you are. If "unchastity" bothers you so much to discredit what anyone who is unchaste says, obviously, battering, adultery, child abuse, and rape do not bother you at all. Because these are all crimes committed by liberals also (or does your fanaticism go to the extent of thinking only conservatives do this?). So if you are going to discredit someone for unchastity, but not for serious crime, you´re a fanatic. And a major bigot as well.
Alessandra
Part of Bellatrys´s fanaticism, which is also very clear in pjk and K, is to construct a stereotype of anyone who disagrees with them in pro-homosexuality, as someone who must be burned at the fake-hate-stake or must be equated to a bigot.
So not only does bellatrys have a mindset of "I am always right, anyone who disagrees with me is always wrong. About everything.", but anyone who questions his way of thinking must be demonized as a bigot as well.
Given how severely ignorant all of these pro-homosexuals display themselves to be in subjects of severe violence, and how much liberals perpetrate violence, which can only happen if liberals are extremely bigoted, this "bigot" claim is really a straw-man ad hominem attack. Throw on the label, because you can´t counter-argue. It´s a variation of the fake hate stake.
Alessandra
I have a brick home, so if I want to carry on a discussion as usefull as you engage in, I just need to pick a wall.
=============================
Which proves why these small minded pro-homosexual dogmas are so cherished by ignorant people. Throw in a little complexity of analysis and they are lost. All they can do is call names, throw bricks, but alas no intelligence, no thinking, no arguments, no data. What could be more self-serving than someone like that to call another person a bigot?
We can add a few more descriptions of pro-homosexuals: a narrow, zealoted open-mindedness. a violent, brick-throwing, troglodyte tolerant.
When one examines the basis for what the liberal pro-homosexuals have stated here, one finds:
It is, because I say it is. (not because my arguments can support what I am saying).
It is right, because I am saying it is right. (same as above)
You´re wrong, because you are a #%$%@* (fill in the blank with swear word or insult). (not because I can counter-argue).
Self-congratulatory, extremely simple-minded ways of thinking kept in place by strong push-button attitudes and emotions.
Alessandra
update feb 6-2005 - This thread is really pertinent to the above and very interesting. About the problematic attitudes people have about others who have different opinions:
from Justin Katz:
People hold religious, social, or any other beliefs in varying degrees. Some treat them as relative, and whimsically; belief is a matter of perspective, so everybody's beliefs are equally true, including the changing beliefs of an individual over time. Such people are metastatically dangerous, in their way, but the more palpable threat comes from the opposite end of the spectrum: those for whom beliefs are to be so rigidly held that they cannot be questioned, even implicitly through the equal endowment of rights to speech and association.
That, in essence, is fanaticism.
blog entry title: Judge Not That Ye Be Not Judged. Or Something Like That. Whatever.
[picture of sign in front of church saying:]
Hope Creek Church.org
normal people
contemporary music
I see this sign frequently when I drive up to Durham, NC, from my home in Chapel Hill.
Being Jewish and all, I'm no expert ... but isn't there something not particularly, well, Christian about the message?
There are a few important points in all that was raised below, and I hope to rewrite them in orderly fashion soon. For now, here is the discussion:
It probably means that there not speaking in tongues types. I don't think it means that if you are not a member of they´re church that you are not normal.
Thomas Kearney
It could go either way.
It *probably* does mean, politely, "No Snake-handling, No Speaking In Tongues" as a way of reassuring people. (If it were Catholic, it would mean something like "This is not a schismatic Tridentiste outfit, the music and liturgy will be in English," but those are so rare that people have to go hunt them out, or build their own, so you'd never see a sign like that.
But it could also be a statement of the unpleasant truth (and probably is, regardless of intent) that like most churches they're packed with mindlessly-conventional Middle Americans who would never *dream* of doing anything as flaky as say, grabbing a guitar and wandering across country as a busker, or being arrested at protests, or giving up their way of life, selling all and going to work and live in the inner city like Dorothy Day...
bellatrys
I think it means they're not saints, and they wouldn't expect you to be either.
It might also mean you can wear casual clothes. It's hard to fill the seats, and a lot of churches are really pushing a "come as you are" message to get young people in. Without the young people, a church will die.
MacKenzie | 01.23.05 - 11:26 am | #
Sure. Obviously.
But "normal?"
Eric | Email | Homepage | 01.23.05 - 12:39 pm | #
I agree with Mackenzie. It is just an ad. It is saying: "See we are ordinary folk and we sing modern music, not those stuffy hymns.
Independent non-denominational christian churches are entrepeneral businesses. They are to seek out a market niche and pursuing customers.
j swift | Email | 01.24.05 - 10:51 am | #
Oxford English Dictionary:
normal 2.a. Consituting, conforming to, not deviating or differing from, the common type or standard; regular, usual.
Get it? Regular people. The message is that people at this church are not different from you.
Dave S. | 01.24.05 - 12:50 pm | #
I agree with Eric that perhaps "All Welcome" might be a bit more inclusive - but it might well be well-intentioned, if open to misinterpretation. I drive past it occasionally, and the church in question's quite easygoing & liberal from what little I know of it.
Rob | Email | 01.24.05 - 12:58 pm | #
Dave S. -- So would I be right in saying, then, that this particular church's message sits atop two assumptions: (a) people tend to prefer not to be in a faith community with people unlike themselves, and (b) appealing to that aversion is a good way to build membership?
Eric Muller | Email | Homepage | 01.24.05 - 2:26 pm | #
No, no, no the church is seeking customers for conversion! At the least it is seeking to broaden its appeal to what this particular church might consider "borderline Christians", those who are tired of the stuffy hymns, stultifying sermons and such. It is a damned variety show in some of these churches.
I attended a large evangelical church for a short time and they had contemporary music. A band got up played contemporary "music of worship". People sang, danced, talked in tongues, were seized by the spirit and flopped like fish on the floor. Hell, one morning the head pastor's aged mother fell asleep on the front row and passed away right there on the spot!
This church might lean to conservative evangelical or to something more akin to the more liberal Methodist, but in the end it is to convert.
j swift | Email | 01.24.05 - 3:37 pm | #
Well, they do have a website and are pretty clear about things. It has this crawl along the bottom:
No Extremes!
The only place where Cameron Crazies and Tar Heels don't hate each other! [I assume a college football reference.]
---
No Snakes! Caged Drummer! [I have no idea]
9:00 AM Sunday Service for early risers.
11:00 AM for slackers and generally lazy people.
Free coffee and food (bagels)!
---
In their beliefs texts, they say they adhere to the bible, the Nicene creed, and the 10 commandments; they disagree and reject speaking in unknown tingues and prophecy; they reject both godless evolution and any creationism or Genesis interpretation that reject valid scientific research...
I would say they are trying to attract northern protestants who have moved to North Carolina.
I looked for a hint that they were welcoming of gays and found this:
Q: What is the church's position on homosexuality?
A: We do not have a specific statement on homosexuality; we
David Margolies | Email | 01.24.05 - 6:20 pm | #
Sorry, I did not realize there was a character limit. Here is the rest of their stance on gays:
Q: What is the church's position on homosexuality?
A: We do not have a specific statement on homosexuality; we refuse to point out just one group of people. Instead we have a statement on sexuality in general: “We believe the Bible is clear; the intimacy of sex is reserved for a man and woman who make a life-long commitment together in the sacrament of marriage.” While this shows we disagree with homosexuality (which disagrees with creation itself), we want to say so in love, because God loves each person and so do we. We believe any sexual relationship outside this lifetime commitment of marriage is against the will of God for that person and will be damaging to them and to society.
David Margolies | Email | 01.24.05 - 6:21 pm | #
Bagels? Now I'm getting interested. Lox and cream cheese and I'm all over that like white on rice!
I love the part about hating gays in love (in a loving way, that is, not hating "gays in love"). It's against the will of god, and damaging, but gosh darn it, we love you! And won't you come break bagels with us?
K | Email | 01.24.05 - 7:11 pm | #
K,
There is no hate in their statement. Is that so difficult to see? read?
It´s interesting how pro-homosexuals can engage in more cognitive selection about homosexuality than even the most fundamentalist religious person (which the above is not an example).
Not endorsing homosexuality does not equal hating homosexuals. To say they hate homosexuals is sheer slander and defamation. An ad hominem attack is not an argument. With each passing day we see pro-homosexuals having less arguments and more dogmatic, fundamentalist attitudes. That´s what´s generating the need to stifle speech and discussion, specially of the questioning kind.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.24.05 - 9:35 pm | #
I agree with Alessandra. It's a difficult issue. One of the primary reasons why people often turn to religious arguments in trying to persuade people to avoid homosexuality, especially the many that are bisexual in some form or fashion, is because explaining the reasons to prefer heterosexuality are not terribly easy or comfortable for men. Men don't enjoy discussing sexuality or relationships in general. It's easier to just set a policy and do it, like normal business. That may or may not be effective in this arena, but it's not out of hate. That is simply incorrect.
Robert | 01.25.05 - 11:09 am | #
Robert, what does preference have to do with anything?
David Margolies | Email | 01.25.05 - 11:26 am | #
Religion in this case is just a cover for hate. "Against the will of god." You can't love the person you want to. What could be more hateful than that, short of inflicting physical injury (and that's been done by some, too, though this group doesn't appear to condone violence).
I just believe in equal rights. Adults who love each other should have the same rights as you or I. If you want to hate or save gays in your private little discriminatory world, fine. But legally, gays should be equal.
K | Email | 01.25.05 - 11:53 am | #
Gotta get one of them there "PRO-GAY" stickers fer the car, if'n it'll fit next to the "PRO-INFANTICIDE", "PRO-SATAN", and "PRO-TERRORISM" stickers.
Personally, I'm PRO- religious people keeping it to themselves. If they are such devout believers, then they should realize their deity doesn't instruct them to relentlessly push their faith on others LIKE FUCKING AMWAY SALESMEN. Furthermore, even Amway doesn't get personal and tell you that you are paving your way to hell if you don't buy their products!
pjk | Email | 01.26.05 - 3:13 am | #
It's good to know that Amway looks good compared to *someone*.
K | Email | 01.26.05 - 12:29 pm | #
Religion in this case is just a cover for hate. "Against the will of god."
vs.
“We believe the Bible is clear; the intimacy of sex is reserved for a man and woman who make a life-long commitment together in the sacrament of marriage"
====================
There is no hate above. Religion, in this case, is not a cover for anything, it is already bared. It stipulates sex should be reserved for within marriage. Saying they hate homosexuals is the same falsity as saying they hate heterosexuals (unmarried ones who are sexually active, that is). Only someone who refuses to read would say they hate.
Just a cheap distortion to defame them because they understand human behavior should be based on different values and rules. You´ve construed a fake hate stake for you to burn them at.
"I just believe in equal rights."
People with this myopic pro-homosexual fanaticism believe they have the right to slander others in any cheap way while they are entitled to respect.
________________________________________
That´s not what equal rights mean. This is what they believe in:
a PC freedom of speech. a bound freedom of thought. a vicious, intolerant tolerant. a self-pitying pride. a non-violent name-calling.
"What could be more hateful than that, short of inflicting physical injury (and that's been done by some, too, though this group doesn't appear to condone violence)."
Since GLBT´s perpetrate gazillions more violent crimes than they are the victims of any anti-homo crime, if you were concerned about violence and justice you´d be ranting about how violent GLBT´s are.
But then again the media/schools instead of teaching uninformed people about this reality, only distort it more and more.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.26.05 - 8:58 pm | #
"Personally, I'm PRO- religious people keeping it to themselves. "
Given that liberalism functions in many ways just like a religion, what we have right now is a war to see who is going to dictate society´s mass/state religion. Liberals want to shove down their religion and destroy the scope of other religions (or any aspect of any other religion that does not submit to the dogmas and values of liberalism).
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.26.05 - 9:08 pm | #
Alessandra, you are completely full of shit. You astound me with the degree to which you can spread around bullshit in a liberal fashion (not in the sense you use the word, but gramatically correct), yet still have so much left (oops, same as above parentheses) to spare.
You are the one looking for the power to control hearts and minds here. All we "forced homosexuality advocates" want is to be guaranteed the freedom OF religion, or FROM religion, especially when self-righteous fuckheads like you tell us you know best, because you talk to God.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, bitch. You may have cast your vote for the candidate most likely to try and tamper with the Constitution, but neither of you will find that an easy task.
Go to godhatesfags.com if you want a sympathetic audience, unless they sent you here. In which case, go back.
pjk | Email | 01.27.05 - 5:16 am | #
pjk,
a vicious, intolerant tolerant. a non-violent name-calling. an educated moron.
Do you actually believe that you are going to stop other people from thinking by becoming violent with them? Silly, I guess you never really studied history. Remember that studying is different than going through school with teachers who can´t ask questions.
I didn´t come here expecting much, but it never ceases to astound me how the comments on this thread resemble the attitudes of the Europeans when they first met the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Because the Indians had a different value system, the Europeans, in their cute self-righteous violent way, branded them as full of sin and the devil incarnate. You slap on full of hate and evil incarnate. Same dynamics, slightly different label.
" Alessandra, you are completely full of shit. self-righteous fuckheads like you. bitch. go back."
Threatened are you? By a few little questions?
pjk:"You are the one looking for the p
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.27.05 - 8:11 am | #
pjk:"You are the one looking for the power to control hearts and minds here."
Mirror, mirror on the wall, what is pjk trying to desperately control?
Have I punctured a few holes in your groupthink denial?
previous me:"Liberals want to shove down their religion and destroy the scope of other religions (or any aspect of any other religion that does not submit to the dogmas and values of liberalism)."
When the usual social engineering tactics that pro-homosexuals use don´t work, they resort to raw violence.
Nothing that the Catholic Church hasn´t used before in the exact same way.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.27.05 - 8:13 am | #
"Alessandra, Go to godhatesfags.com if you want a sympathetic audience,"
Actually, my sympathetic audience is at God-and-others-who-hate-people-who-have-
become-exactly-what-they-criticize-in-ways-
that-make-even-Orwell´s-chin-drop.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.27.05 - 8:52 am | #
From Gregory Koukl :
Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster's the word tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others' beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.
we can't tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.
This essential element of tolerance--disagreement--has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant.
This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise tolerance toward him, yet doing so brings the accusation of intolerance. According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.27.05 - 10:14 am | #
Allesandra - I agree with pjk in his views on homosexuality, though not in the way of expressing it. YOU are the one telling people what they can't do, so YOU are the one trying to control people. I never said what you can think - I just said you are wrong. I have the same freedom to express my views you do, so this has nothing to do with PC-ness or you silly fantasies about controlling thought.
And what the hell are you talking about with respect to gays causing more crime? Please show me some statistics from the government on that one. I'll wait (thump, thump, thump)...
Speaking of PC-ness, I've never seen so much right-wing PC verbiage in one set of posting. I don't follow any line, liberal or conservative or religious. I think things out for myself, thankyouverymuch. You have to run for your bible to find out what to think. To me, this issue has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It's about equality, fairness, niceness and treating people the way you way you want them to treat you.
Violence by gays - what a crock. Let's check with Michael Shephard on that one.
K
Allessandra - here's an article about some of the people you hate, er, I mean the people you love as you are sending them to a fiery death in hell (sorry!): http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/01/27/fallout_from_postcards_decision
(You don't live in Oklahoma by any chance?)
K | Email | 01.27.05 - 5:59 pm | #
Alessandra, calling you an ignorant, self-righteous, right-wing lackey or any of the more colorful terms you inspire isn't violence.
From what I gather, you're not Catholic. Are you possibly oriented with a religious organization that is somewhat fundamental? If you are, perhaps you should consider that unless your church elders or husband sent you here to convert heathens, there is something else that you could be doing, in your submissive role as a woman (according to them).
Or, do you just blow off the religious teachings of your (obviously) open-minded church, and cherry-pick among the verses that support your forgone conclusions?
Lastly, if liberalism is a religion, please direct me to the governmental entity that will grant me tax exempt status.
pjk | Email | 01.28.05 - 2:45 am | #
Eric says- "So would I be right in saying, then, that this particular church's message sits atop two assumptions: (a) people tend to prefer not to be in a faith community with people unlike themselves, and (b) appealing to that aversion is a good way to build membership?"
IMO, the answer to both would be yes, unfortunately. We all fall short of the glory of God.
Dave S. | 01.28.05 - 1:14 pm | #
Dave S., yes, we do all fall short of the glory of God.
It's just that churches don't usually do it on their signs.
Eric | Email | Homepage | 01.29.05 - 9:30 pm | #
And what the hell are you talking about with respect to gays causing more crime? Please show me some statistics from the government on that one. I'll wait (thump, thump, thump)...
==================================
I thought you didn´t believe in hell... gettting religious, are you?
Please show me how you´re not severely ignorant on issues of crime.
Post the data you are so familiar with regarding crime of every type and how much of it is committed by non-heterosexuals. I´ll give you a tip:
murder, drug-related violence, child abuse, adolescent abuse, rape, pimping, knowingly transmitting a death causing virus such as AIDS, aiding and abetting or keeping silent about any other crime, and least but certainly not last, we have battering.
If you aren´t a real ignorant, bigotted, self-righteous pro-homosexual, you will be able to prove that all of that above is minute, tiny, compared to a few deaths that result from real (not invented) anti-homosexual crime.
Or is all of this pro-homosexual fanaticism nothing more than a few very emotional push buttons coming to the fore without much reasoning?
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 8:49 am | #
It's about equality, fairness, niceness and treating people the way you want them to treat you.
============================
Yes, but when people speak in the name of equality and fairness and then practice inequality and unfairness, then it´s when things have gone awry.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 8:53 am | #
YOU are the one telling people what they can't do, so YOU are the one trying to control people.
=============================
That´s not so. Because telling people what they can do or what they can´t do is about control. Either way.
If you tell someone "you can smoke here" or if you tell them "you can´t smoke here" - the issue is control in both instances.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 8:56 am | #
I have the same freedom to express my views you do, so this has nothing to do with PC-ness or you silly fantasies about controlling thought.
============================
It was pjk who said I was engaging in thought control, not my silly fantasy. It´s interesting that nothing in anything I wrote suggests that I´m telling anyone (including you) they can´t say their views.
What is also interesting is that when I express my views, all of a sudden, it´s labeled "attempt at thought control" and when you express your views, well, the label is "just my views."
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 9:04 am | #
Alessandra, calling you an ignorant, self-righteous, right-wing lackey or any of the more colorful terms you inspire isn't violence.
===================================
Of course, not.
And if you go over to that church and give them small pox blankets as a sign of your "tolerance" towards their views and values, that´s not violence either, it´s "progress."
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 9:07 am | #
Lastly, if liberalism is a religion, please direct me to the governmental entity that will grant me tax exempt status.
=============================
I can direct you to a better reflection- What is a religion? What social functions does *any* religion have? What is morality?
Religions establish a few fundamental tenets for a group: a) what reality is and is not, b) what is right and wrong c) rules/laws based on values, to guide social relations/behavior.
*** added afterwards:
d) it defines what is important and what is not e) it selects which people (issues/views) will be heard and which will be ignored ***
(this is a tiny little blurb, you can read books about it if you want to think more)
Notice that liberalism does all of the above. It has its definition of what reality is (in the social sciences, the jargon for this is "social construction of reality"), it stipulates what is right and wrong (the morality of liberalism), and it defines its rules/laws to guide/control social relations and behaviors.
Perhaps the very different characteristic of our current liberalism is that most liberals hate to see it as a "religion" even though it is very much a religion. But this blatant lack of insight is not any different than most other religions which say "Only my religion is the absolute Truth," i.e., I am always right, anyone who disagrees with me is always wrong. About everything.
Alessandra | Email | Homepage | 01.30.05 - 9:28 am | #
Good lord, and here I was expecting Alessandra to BE Catholic from the combination of the Italian name and the "we lovingly reject homosexuality" claptrap straight out of the Catechism.
But I find she's an equal-opportunity bigot. Heh. Takes all sorts, I guess.
What's even funnier is, I generally accepted the "lovingly reject homosexuality but not homosexuals," (aka "hate the sin, love the sinner") claptrap from my Catholic upbringing, until it was forced down my throat by people who had been lying about their own unchastity.
At which point I started examining my own beliefs and realized that a) I didn't believe it nor accept the claimed authority of the people telling me I had to accept it on their authority, and b) the fact that I didn't have (afaik) a stake in the game, no homosexual relatives being hurt by this "loving rejection" BS, didn't mean that I wasn't obligated to reject it as the BS it was, and to speak up for the rights of *everyone* regardless of orientation no less than ethnicity.
I didn't realize I was a "myopic pro-homosexual fanatic" though. (Myopic, yes, since I can't afford lasik. But fanatic? I've never marched in a protest even.)
Men don't enjoy discussing sexuality or relationships in general.
Er, Robert, what planet are you on? The people I have heard talking most about sex, and their relationships over the years, in juicy, squelching detail, have all been males. Your gender is sort of *notorious* for it - a bit unfairly, true, kitchen gossip can be just as lubricious as "locker-room" talk - but either you're living on a desert island or...those aren't really men around you, I guess.
bellatrys
Alessandra, you go to your church, I'll go to mine.
You really make Eric look like a psychic when you ramble on despite the irony with the posts title.
I have a brick home, so if I want to carry on a discussion as usefull as you engage in, I just need to pick a wall.
Have a nice oblivious life, toots.
pjk
What pjk said. Whather Alessandra is an idiot, a troll, or just a blathering bigot, I have no more time for any of these.
K
bellatrys:
What's even funnier is, I generally accepted the "lovingly reject homosexuality but not homosexuals," (aka "hate the sin, love the sinner") claptrap from my Catholic upbringing, until it was forced down my throat by people who had been lying about their own unchastity.
====================================
Well, I guess that proves just how fanatic you are. If "unchastity" bothers you so much to discredit what anyone who is unchaste says, obviously, battering, adultery, child abuse, and rape do not bother you at all. Because these are all crimes committed by liberals also (or does your fanaticism go to the extent of thinking only conservatives do this?). So if you are going to discredit someone for unchastity, but not for serious crime, you´re a fanatic. And a major bigot as well.
Alessandra
Part of Bellatrys´s fanaticism, which is also very clear in pjk and K, is to construct a stereotype of anyone who disagrees with them in pro-homosexuality, as someone who must be burned at the fake-hate-stake or must be equated to a bigot.
So not only does bellatrys have a mindset of "I am always right, anyone who disagrees with me is always wrong. About everything.", but anyone who questions his way of thinking must be demonized as a bigot as well.
Given how severely ignorant all of these pro-homosexuals display themselves to be in subjects of severe violence, and how much liberals perpetrate violence, which can only happen if liberals are extremely bigoted, this "bigot" claim is really a straw-man ad hominem attack. Throw on the label, because you can´t counter-argue. It´s a variation of the fake hate stake.
Alessandra
I have a brick home, so if I want to carry on a discussion as usefull as you engage in, I just need to pick a wall.
=============================
Which proves why these small minded pro-homosexual dogmas are so cherished by ignorant people. Throw in a little complexity of analysis and they are lost. All they can do is call names, throw bricks, but alas no intelligence, no thinking, no arguments, no data. What could be more self-serving than someone like that to call another person a bigot?
We can add a few more descriptions of pro-homosexuals: a narrow, zealoted open-mindedness. a violent, brick-throwing, troglodyte tolerant.
When one examines the basis for what the liberal pro-homosexuals have stated here, one finds:
It is, because I say it is. (not because my arguments can support what I am saying).
It is right, because I am saying it is right. (same as above)
You´re wrong, because you are a #%$%@* (fill in the blank with swear word or insult). (not because I can counter-argue).
Self-congratulatory, extremely simple-minded ways of thinking kept in place by strong push-button attitudes and emotions.
Alessandra
update feb 6-2005 - This thread is really pertinent to the above and very interesting. About the problematic attitudes people have about others who have different opinions:
Well, as Charles Krauthammer once opined,
"To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."
I'd probably replace "stupid" with "hopelessly naive" or "let their emotions cloud their judgement," but I think Krauthammer is basically on target. On many issues, most liberals don't look at deviations from the holy scripture of liberalism as differences of opinion, they view them as moral failings. You aren't just wrong, you are as Ann's reader puts it a "heretic".
Hawkins is partly right, especially because the Left's self-identification is tied so closely to the notion of themselves as lonely crusaders against bigotry, a posture that requires you to regard all your opponents as bigots.
[...]
2. The influence of academia and pop culture. Quite simply, college ensures that, at a fairly young age, most conservatives get the experience of being surrounded by people who vocally disagree with their political opinions, which teaches you to keep your head down a bit and stay civil. This is reinforced by the fact that a lot of us watch movies and listen to music made by people whose political opinions we find repugnant. I think a lot of liberals, particularly the more vocal ones on the internet who grew up in blue-state cities and went to blue-state colleges and got into blue-state occupations like the law or academia, just don't have the same formative experience of having had to reconcile themselves to political disagreements with people they otherwise like or respect, and it shows.
Posted by Baseball Crank
from Justin Katz:
People hold religious, social, or any other beliefs in varying degrees. Some treat them as relative, and whimsically; belief is a matter of perspective, so everybody's beliefs are equally true, including the changing beliefs of an individual over time. Such people are metastatically dangerous, in their way, but the more palpable threat comes from the opposite end of the spectrum: those for whom beliefs are to be so rigidly held that they cannot be questioned, even implicitly through the equal endowment of rights to speech and association.
That, in essence, is fanaticism.
Comments:
Post a Comment
