Author Topic: Is persecuting Churches next>> (Read 986 times)

powderman · « **on:** June 29, 2011, 04:50:05 PM »

Quote

http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2011/06/29/next_step_persecuting_churches/page/full/

With passage of gay marriage in ny some are wondering if the Churches will now be affected?? How long before some funny bunnies, backed by the obamination and his dems sue Churches for not MARRYING these perverts?? This is the kind of immoral, disgusting behaviour that the libby dems are famous for and so proud of. POWDERMAN.

LunaticFringeInc · « **Reply #1 on:** June 29, 2011, 10:42:31 PM »

Never thought of that angle, but it is indeed a interesting one. I can only imagine that its a matter of time before a church refusing to marry them is sued for sexual discrimination. In Fact I am suprised that hasnt already happened in San Francisco...or maybe it has and I just havent herd about it yet.

Junior1942 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2011, 02:36:41 AM »

As far as I'm concerned, churches can refuse to marry anyone they want to--the day they start paying taxes like the rest of us.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2011, 02:45:58 AM »

Maybe churches will need to marry only members of the church. And at many churchs new memberes are voted on .
Then also we may find preachers leaving the ministry

Shu · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2011, 04:42:51 AM »

Churches should be able to marry or not to marry anyone hey wish. I know some churches require the couple to take classes and some to charge a fee for the service.

I don't see how the government could require a church to do anything. 1st ammendment and all. For the most part churches don't make millions. A church is there to support it's community. A church is a house of worship, when the government dictates what it can or cannot do it is no longer a house of worship but an arm of the government.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2011, 04:53:40 AM »

Quote from: powderman on June 29, 2011, 04:50:05 PM

Quote
http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2011/06/29/next_step_persecuting_churches/page/full/

With passage of gay marriage in ny some are wondering if the Churches will now be affected?? How long before some funny bunnies, backed by the obamination and his dems sue Churches for not MARRYING these perverts?? This is the kind of immoral, disgusting behaviour that the libby dems are famous for and so proud of. POWDERMAN.

Let's take up a collection and pay to have a couple want ot get married in a Mosque. That would end all law suits as to what a church can and can not do.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2011, 04:56:10 AM »

If the IRS did not go after the churches that Clinton fund raised in, in clear violation of the tax exempt status and campaign finance laws, done on live TV, why would they go after any church?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2011, 05:10:27 AM »

As Americans we have all given in at times to have freedom. And we have been taught to in school and by parents and others to do so. Now many are realizing freedom means not giving in at all. Now we have elements of our country who are pushing us having less freedom. The idea that God repsents freedom collides head on with their goals of less freedom. Until they can discredit the church and God they can't win. Is there little doubt why the church is being attacked ?
In reality the battle is between politically correct and freedom .

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2011, 07:58:52 AM »

Quote

Is persecuting Churches next??

Naw, nothing like that. Churches can marry who they want, or not. Predictions of persecution are dubious.

Some people are upset they can no longer call gay people fags in polite company. I feel for them; it's no doubt hard & a little uncomfortable when you feel left behind by progressing society. It was hard for advocates of Jim Crow to see black people drinking from water fountains or eating as restaurants heretofore preserved for whites, but most of them adjusted after a decade or two - but they felt persecuted for a while.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2011, 08:09:10 AM »

Progressing in what way ? Do you feel that we as a country are better off ? Do you believe African Americans are better off ? They were/are given a fish in many cases and not taught to fish. Others in the progress have not had the oppertunity to learn to fish well either.

I wouldn't say most adjusted more like learned to play the system .

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2011, 08:18:02 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on June 30, 2011, 08:09:10 AM

Progressing in what way ?

You're not allowed to persecute people because of their sexual orientation, is all. I think that's progress.

Quote

Do you feel that we as a country are better off ?

Yes, I think so.

Quote

Do you believe African Americans are better off ?

Yeah, I think so. I'd be pretty pissed if I weren't allowed to vote, and was hassled/discriminated against because of my skin color, and the state went along with it. Yeah, I think they're better off with the vote and civil rights protections written into law. How about you? Would you prefer to be a black person in America in 2011 Georiga, or 1911?

Quote

I wouldn't say most adjusted more like learned to play the system

point taken; one cannot legislate the heart. But the law can have teeth that'll prevent bad behavior, at least in public.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2011, 08:42:19 AM »

Your last words sums it up best about the heart and here there is little progress from that stand point . To be honest many young people today resent where our country has gone ( forced to go ) more so than us older ones.
You do realize that in a country baised on freedom we can no longer hire who we wish , speak as we wish etc.
I have watched progress for a long time and question if it all was positive , maybe some was a little to positive.

Shu · « **Reply #12 on:** July 01, 2011, 02:35:46 AM »

I for one am opposed to homosexuality. I do not believe I have the right to chase them down the street with sticks etc.

As for churches, I would attend a church that had homosexuals attend. I would not attend a church that married homosexuals. I think everyone should be able to find God and the church should help point the way.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #13 on:** July 01, 2011, 02:44:45 AM »

good post shu.
I think the key word here is knowing. We and those before us lived with homosexuals but in many or most cases never knew . There is a fear of knowing . Maybe its the fact that young people could be influenced that scares most of us. Guess we will need to do a better job teaching our young what we believe in and why. In some ways this might make us stronger in our convictions .

powderman · « **Reply #14 on:** July 01, 2011, 04:06:02 AM »

Quote from: Shu on July 01, 2011, 02:35:46 AM

I for one am opposed to homosexuality. I do not believe I have the right to chase them down the street with sticks etc.

As for churches, I would attend a church that had homosexuals attend. I would not attend a church that married homosexuals. I think everyone should be able to find God and the church should help point the way.

SHU. I agree, but they should nevere be in authority, be a pastor, or in any way represent the Church. POWDERMAN.

ironglow · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2011, 04:20:24 AM »

Quote from: Junior1942 on June 30, 2011, 02:36:41 AM

As far as I'm concerned, churches can refuse to marry anyone they want to--the day they start paying taxes like the rest of us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Above is the mindset of some we have to deal with..no point in trying to help him understand the 1st article of the Bill of Rights..

Then there's Yellow, who assumes if we don't agree to encourage the sin of homosexuality, then we must want to persecute them...that takes a leap..

There are people who disagree vehemently with my pastime of hunting. They are welcome to disagree all they want, as long as they don't try to "persecute" me..

The fact is that by the courts deciding against deeply held beliefs in favor perversion, as was pointed out in the California decision stated in the link provided..serves to fracture society in a big way, leading to it's destruction.

From that link;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" As I wrote in my book "Control Freaks," the 2004 case of Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. the Superior Court of Sacramento County demonstrated this.

In the Catholic Charities case, a six-to-one majority of the California Supreme Court upheld a law enacted by the California legislature that required Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations to provide prescription contraception coverage for their employees if they purchased any prescription drug coverage for their employees at all."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Events like this simply go to prove my contention that in most of the great empires/cultures which have fallen, recognizing this perversion as "normal" was one of the last major moves they accomplished before the dissolution of their society.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 01, 2011, 06:22:53 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on July 01, 2011, 04:20:24 AM

Then there's Yellow,

yellowtail3

Quote

who assumes if we don't agree to encourage the sin of homosexuality, then we must want to persecute them...

That is not my position, and I've not written that

Quote

that takes a leap..

Since I've not taken that position... tell us again who is taking a leap?

Maybe you're feeling persecuted - do you need a hug, Ironglow?

Casull · « **Reply #17 on:** July 01, 2011, 06:35:48 AM »

Quote

Predictions of persecution are dubious.

Based on what? I'll bet that 25 years ago, predictions of so-called "gay marriage" would have been dubious.

Casull · « **Reply #18 on:** July 01, 2011, 06:38:55 AM »

Quote

As far as I'm concerned, churches can refuse to marry anyone they want to--the day they start paying taxes like the rest of us.

Wow. That's just tooo easy to bother responding.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 01, 2011, 07:22:44 AM »

Quote from: Casull on July 01, 2011, 06:35:48 AM

Quote
Predictions of persecution are dubious.
Based on what?

Based on... I don't see it happening. Some folks classify not getting their way, as persecution;going by that low standard, yeah, there might be some persecutin' goin' on!

But I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - there was the very recent case of the Preacher, persecuted with... a kiss.

Casull · « **Reply #20 on:** July 01, 2011, 09:04:41 AM »

Quote

Based on... I don't see it happening.

Well, that's your opinion. But if I were you, I wouldn't quit my day job to begin a career with the psychic network.

Casull · « **Reply #21 on:** July 01, 2011, 09:06:45 AM »

Quote

Some folks classify not getting their way, as persecution

In this case, I think they are envisioning churches being required to perform so-called "gay marriages". Certainly not a case of just "not getting their way".

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 01, 2011, 09:38:56 AM »

Quote from: Casull on July 01, 2011, 09:04:41 AM

Quote
Based on... I don't see it happening.
Well, that's your opinion. But if I were you, I wouldn't quit my day job to begin a career with the psychic network.

Oh Cas, you so clevah! But since I've never worked for any psychic network, you're evidently not as informed as you are clever.

Lissen, I know that some 'Christians' (the political variety, specifically) consider this whole 'gay rights' thing to be an assault on their faith, and them. It's a great fundraiser for Republican candidates, and a good 'are for you for us or agin us?' test during primaries.

It's going to be okay. Churches can marry/not marry whomever they want; nothing new there. Srsly. Do you think churches will be persecuted for refusing to marrying non-members?

Shu · « **Reply #23 on:** July 01, 2011, 09:40:37 AM »

Powderman,
I believe the Bible speaks out against homosexuality and I would not attend a church with a homosexual in a postion of authority. Just as the thief on the cross found salvation, so should the Church emulate Christ and win over yet one more. Christ did not sacrifice His princples nor should the Church.

Casull · « **Reply #24 on:** July 01, 2011, 09:51:24 AM »

yellow, you're not nearly as clever as you think. Tell me, do you think that 30 years ago people would have believed you if you said that someday it will be ok to see two men kissing on television, but it won't be ok to see someone smoke a cigarette? Seriously, are you unaware of incrementalism or are you just so contrary that you'll argue against anything?

Casull · « **Reply #25 on:** July 01, 2011, 09:52:37 AM »

Quote

Oh Cas, you so clevah! But since I've never worked for any psychic network, you're evidently not as informed as you are clever.

You must have missed the word "begin".

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 01, 2011, 10:01:18 AM »

Quote from: Casull on July 01, 2011, 09:51:24 AM

yellow, you're not nearly as clever as you think.

Of course I am, but it's a low bar; I don't think I'm all that clever. I used to be smarter than most everybody, but I'm not anymore.

Quote

Tell me, do you think that 30 years ago people would have believed you if you said that someday it will be ok to see two men kissing on television, but it won't be ok to see someone smoke a cigarette?

It would have surprised me.

Quote

Seriously, are you unaware of incrementalism or are you just so contrary that you'll argue against anything?

Incrementalism is how most things get done, absent a revolution. Good and bad. I am relieved that so far, contrary to hysterical 'predictions', the only persecution we're seeing has come... in the form of a kiss from a kindly old lady.

ironglow · « **Reply #27 on:** July 01, 2011, 10:50:25 AM »

Yellow asks;
"Maybe you're feeling persecuted - do you need a hug, Ironglow?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No thanks Yellow.. I get enough hugs from my wife, kids and grandkids...I don't need yours !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yellow also says;
"the only persecution we're seeing has come... in the form of a kiss from a kindly old lady."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Yellow where did you find that two adjsctive to describe the KINDLY, old lady ? The cop on the scene and the judge at her trial...didn't see her as kindly./ In fact, they found her to be hostile and aggressive toward the plaintiff !