If gays marry, churches could suffer

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Slash & slander!

 

So Ed, tell me where I've slandered someone (and, for that matter, where Kmiec slanders someone) if you say both of us use this "tactic".

[evmori]

How many posters on this forum have you called liars, Merlyn? And your original post stated

I can only conclude that he's deliberately lying.

 

'Nuf said!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

How many posters on this forum have you called liars, Merlyn?

 

A few, if in my opinion they are lying.

 

And your original post stated

I can only conclude that he's deliberately lying.

 

Yes, because in my opinion, Kmiec is lying by saying Scouts have been "denied access".

 

So Ed, how does any of this relate to your first message in this thread, or your assertion that I'm employing the same tactics Kmiec is employing? What tactics have I employed that are the same as Kmiec's?

[Eagledad]

>>So, in fact, does the American Psychiatric Association, so you are going to be hard pressed to define it as "abnormal" in any sense other than a Biblical one (and a Biblical interpretation considered faulty by the many Christian denominations and theologians, at that). But I guess I don't count, since I'm not a Christian, and therefore can't really be religious or moral.

[Hunt]

"So they attack anything that has a moral context and implies homosexuality as immoral, the BSA included. They could really care less about the positive effects that an organization like the BSA has on cultural values because that doesnt help their cause."

 

I don't understand why you find it somehow nefarious that people who believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong would attack BSA, which admittedly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. While you're perfectly free to disagree with them and their cause, it makes no sense to suggest that they should give BSA a pass because of all the good it does. Groups seeking racial equality wouldn't let a group that discriminated on the basis of race off the hook just because they did good in other areas, and why should they?

I've noticed that when people get very polarized on an issue, they tend to think that the people on the other side don't "really" disagree, but are doing what they are doing out of some evil, ulterior motive. That leads both extemes to make arguments and accusations that are not very persuasive to people in the middle.

 

[John-in-KC]

I'll say my piece as a conservative, liturgical Christian and as a Republican...

 

Homosexuality is sin. So is lusting for another man's wife. We've all fallen short of the standard God set for us. He knows I have; I end up admitting it to Him daily. I find it interesting that we men can decide to change the standard God set "on the fly." Yes, there are pieces of Scripture open to some interpretation. The Law as presented in the Pentateuch isn't one of those pieces.

 

Bringing an amendment to the floor of the Senate that is (most likely) going to fail in flames is, indeed, pandering to the Republican base. I'm a member of that base, and I think there are some more important issues to deal with ... energy independence, the entire economic engine of America (but starting with immigration) and the national debt are just three. My Senators got letters asking them to please get back to the real problems of our Nation.

 

OK. I'm done.

 

(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[DanKroh]

Barry says: "I dont think I implied Christian anywhere. In fact, the three major religions traditionally look at homosexuality as sin."

 

Actually, I said Biblical. And, since all three JCI traditions are Biblically based (since the Torah and Qur'an draw from the OT, also), then it is not surprising that those who choose to interpret the Bible a certain way can be found in all three religions. However, Bible/Torah scholars/theologians in both Judaism and Christianity have always disagreed over those interpretations, and those that reject that interpretation are gaining more and more support. I can't speak to Islam because I don't really have any personal experience with that religion. *You* may not have implied Christian, but Christians are most definitely the ones leading the charge in this country against gays.

 

I also find your view of the APA interesting, especially that "A very large portion of the group are openly gay, so Im told." Well, I believe you've been told wrong. As a member of the APA, it is my experience that the percentage of my colleagues who are gay is not any higher than the percentage of the general population.

 

It is true that the APA did not always view homosexuality as a normal state (officially only since 1973; 33 years is "overnight"?). Out of ignorance, before research was done, it was viewed as a mental illness. But then again, at one time, so was left-handedness. As far as them being "only a group of adults with different opinions and agendas like all associations", yes they are. But their recommendations (such as this) are based on research and data, not on opinions and agendas. I understand that letting scientific data override religious fanaticism is not a popular stance in these days, but I'll take data over doctrine anytime.

 

I can't say that the APA had an influence on my views of gays at all. My view of the normalcy of homosexuality formed when I was quite young, and is probably a reason I was drawn to this area of psychology, not the other way around. I am ashamed to say that there are still people practicing psychology/psychiatry (I will not call them colleagues) who let their personal bias against homosexuality (based on religion or whatever) override their dedication to the profession and to their patients by continuing to treat it as a mental illness. Such individuals usually end up losing their right to practice when their unprofessional behavior is revealed.

 

The APA, while not politically driven, is certainly politically active when politics eskews scientific evidence in an attempt to set policy. Just yesterday, the APA put out an action alert to urge members to oppose the federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[campcrafter]

JnKC

 

Is that you are a consevative and a litugical xtian

 

OR that you a conservative christian and a liturgical christian?

 

What type of liturgy?

 

How conservative ? Latin Mass?

 

 

cc

 

[DanKroh]

John-in-KC, while I agree with the spirit of the second part of your post, there is something in the first part that I must question: "I find it interesting that we men can decide to change the standard God set "on the fly." Yes, there are pieces of Scripture open to some interpretation. The Law as presented in the Pentateuch isn't one of those pieces."

 

So then why don't Christians keep kosher?

[evmori]

What tactics have I employed that are the same as Kmiec's?

 

Let's take a look at your public school list. Not all schools on that list are public schools but you led folks to believe the list was accurate even though you know it isn't. Misleading information posted as fact! And let us not forget those membership numbers you posted but had absolutely no proof were accurate yet you posted them as though their were accurate. Misleading information posted as fact again! Why? To use the shock factor so people will think they are true! WOW All those public schools charter BSA units? Membership slipped 25% - what's going on? Just like reading the tabloids! Lots of words but very little accuracy.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[evmori]

Here's a little about the author of the article in question.

 

One of the nation's leading experts in constitutional law, Douglas W. Kmiec is professor of Constitutional law and Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University School of Law. Previously, he served as the dean and St. Thomas More Professor of Law and The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Prior to that post, he taught constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame for nearly two decades and directed Notre Dame's Center on Law and Government, where he founded the Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. Dean Kmiec has authored or co-authored numerous books and articles on constitutional issues and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. These include books co-authored with distinguished legal historian Stephen B. Presser - The American Constitutional Order, Individual Rights and the American Constitution, and The History, Structure and Philosophy of the American Constitution. In addition, he is a highly sought after national lecturer on Catholic social teaching and public issues, especially concerning the importance of family as moral educator.

 

From 1985 to 1989. Professor Kmiec served in the Reagan and Bush administrations and headed the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice, a position once held by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. His legal career also includes the coveted White House Fellowship, two Distinguished Service Awards, recognition as a 40th anniversary Distinguished Fulbright Scholar for his law teaching in Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong, and the Attorney General's Edmund J. Randolph Award.

 

Kmiec is regularly sought out for evaluation of constitutional cases on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer as well as various National Public Radio programs, such as Talk of the Nation. His legal analyses frequently appear in the Washington Post, the National Law Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal. A native of Chicago, he wrote a regular column for the Chicago Tribune.

 

Kmiec received his bachelor's degree with honors, from Northwestern University and his law degree from the University of Southern California (USC). At USC, he was selected for the school's Law Review and received the Legion Lex Commencement Prize for Legal Writing in 1976.

[John-in-KC]

To Mr Kroh,

 

No one living today on this earth can keep God's Law. I certainly cannot.

 

One, and only one man in all of pre-history and history did. His name is Jesus. He was born of Mary. His father is the Lord God. He is the Christ, the Emmanuel. He is the second person of the Trinity, God.

 

Without taking Scripture out of context, let me point you to Matthew 22:35-39 (NIV): One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

 

Even to do this much, I need the help of God!! So, by not keeping kosher, am I Damned? Yes. Only by accepting God's own complete sacrifice do I have a hope of eternal life with God in Heaven.

 

Just as I am damned because I do not keep kosher, so is the homosexual person damned for his or her acts. Only by the grace of God's perfect sacrifice, God Himself in the person of Christ Jesus dying on the Cross, risen from the grave, and ascended to come again, will he or she have a hope of eternal life with God in Heaven.

 

As to campcrafter: I find myself economically and largely socially a conservative. I exercise my faith in the context of a lutheran church. While most of my current worship (I am laity) is from the hymnal Lutheran Worship, I have celebrated the mass (lower case m, just as it's lower case c for catholic in the ecumenical creeds) in German. I listen to elements of the mass in Latin as part of the music i enjoy.

 

To return to the key elements of our conversation: It's blindingly obvious to me that God designed man and woman to couple together as though they were Lego blocks. There's one engineered way. Everything else is a "sorta-fit," and poses risks, some little, some not for the partners. Man and woman was God's designed combination. All else is from man.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[DanKroh]

John-in-KC says: "So, by not keeping kosher, am I Damned? Yes. Only by accepting God's own complete sacrifice do I have a hope of eternal life with God in Heaven."

 

Ok, you'll have to pardon my ignorance here, but I'm not really familiar with your particular flavor of Christianity (my studies in Christianity tended to occur in the more progressive denominations).

 

But isn't the washing away of sins by Jesus sort of conditional that one should be at least *trying* to uphold God's laws and should be repenitent when one "slips up"?

 

This is an area that has always interested me and has lead to some confusion (on my part) about the Christian view of the OT laws. Why is it ok to pick and choose which of the laws of Leviticus (just to name a book bursting at the seams with admonitions) are important? You said in your earlier post that it isn't ok to interpret them, and yet, traditional Christians have abandoned almost all of the admonitions listed there except for a few (usually the ones that don't apply to *them*!) that they will then loudly cry to others from the tallest tower.

 

Your answer, if I'm following it (and please correct me if I'm not) is that Christians don't even need to try to follow them because the sacrifice of Jesus absolves them of those sins (assuming they have accepted Jesus as their Savior). So for a homosexual, are they also unbound from the admonition against homosexuality in the OT (or anywhere in the Bible, for that matter), as long as they have accepted Jesus?

 

To address one other point of your argument: if homosexuality is strictly a construct of man, why is it found among the lower animals as well?

 

And to Ed, all that interesting list of creditials does for me is wonder even more how such a learned and accomplished law professor can write such a load of tripe.

[Eagledad]

>>also find your view of the APA interesting, especially that "A very large portion of the group are openly gay, so Im told." Well, I believe you've been told wrong. > But their recommendations (such as this) are based on research and data, not on opinions and agendas. I understand that letting scientific data override religious fanaticism is not a popular stance in these days, but I'll take data over doctrine anytime.

[campcrafter]

Missouri Synod no doubt

 

pax,

cc