Should Churches who teach Homosexuality as a sin be subject to

[bryant69]

Poll question: Should Churches who teach Homosexuality as a sin be subject to

some form of Government Censure?

Something like losing their tax-exempt status, perhaps?

I mean that obviously not on the table in the short term, but if you could get this passed, would you want those churches to face some sort of consequence for teaching Homosexuality as a sin?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I'm fine with removing their tax-exempt status.

I wouldn't call that censure though.

[Avalux]

2. Nope. Separation of church and state.

Government has no business censoring churches/religions, just as churches have no business in our government - no laws should be based on religious beliefs.

Tax exempt status should be done away with, period.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

3. Government shouldnt not dictate Church beliefs

If you violate seperation of church state in one direction (government into church), it only be 5 minutes before church intervenes in government.

Churches are free to believe as they wish.

[AllNamesHaveBeenUsed]

50. ...

Beat me to it. I'd have a problem with government trying to dictate church doctrine.

[redqueen]

4. Did JESUS say anything about homosexuality?

Just curious, since every time I bring up the whole bashing babies' heads against rocks thing, the first thing religious people do is say "old covenant! old covenant! that doesn't count anymore! that's not fair!"

So... is the whole "no doing people of your own gender!" rule in the NT, or not?

[bryant69]

6. Yes it is

This isn't really germain to this discussion, but the writings of Paul reference this as a sin a couple of time. Often in the context of lists of sins one might commit. Of course if you are a straight christian I would imagine it's pleasurable to focus on the sins you aren't committing rather than his words on, say, being honest or being charitable.

[xchrom]

15. i thought paul talked about it in context of worshipping in pagan temples?

but regardless -- paul is not jesus.

much as some christians try -- paul isn't the last or even the first say so re: christianity.

his take on women pretty much assures his view is myopic and hostile towards at least 50 percent of the possible believers.

other more intelligent and well versed christian have come along since then.

i'm christian -- but i don't have to be ''wedded'' to a guy with first century common era thinking intrepreting the christ.

[melnjones]

19. Whoa whoa...

lol. Same thing with Paul's teaching on women- you HAVE to look at them in their historical and social context and understand that they were LETTERS written to specific people dealing with specific issues. Paul isn't Jesus, but at least my belief is that the Bible is authoritative...not authoritative in the literal whiny-pants unwilling to do any research way that many conservatives look at it, but authoritative in that with proper study it does speak relevantly to our lives. Please read this regarding the NT and women... http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-1-07.htm

[xchrom]

57. the bible may be authoritative -- but not inerrant.

inerrancy makes an idol out of the bible.

paul only wrote two of the boos or letters attributed to him that are in the new testament -- the others are penned by who knows who.

i am one christian who passionately believes it is past time to edit books out of the bible and and others to be added in that show how in two thousand years we have changed and evolved in our faith -- neither of us are first century common era folk -- our understanding of the world is lightyears from those folk.

i.e. it's time mary m. is taught to be a dsciple -- not debated as a possibility and mother mary elevated to redeemer.

[bryant69]

24. To be succinct

There's a differnce between saying I disagree with their interpretation of the Bible and saying they are just making it up out of whole cloth.

[xchrom]

58. pretty much my thought.

[fishwax]

62. .

[demosincebirth]

29. Paul also said "you are saved by faith alone." A statement taken

by fundies as fact and forget about the Sermon on the Mount.

[melnjones]

34. There is nothing wrong with taking such a statement as fact.

There is, however, a problem with taking a single statement out of context and failing to understand it in light of the entirety of the rest of the Bible. Christians and non-christians alike do this.

[redqueen]

35. Is that where the whole faith vs. works thing started? n/t

[Bake]

45. Show me your faith apart from your works,

and I, by my works, will show you my faith.

Faith without works is dead. You can look up the chapter and verse.

Bake

[redqueen]

47. I'm not deep enough to understand that.

Sorry.

I just know there's a huge battle over the whole faith without works thing... if it's so cut and dry, why the battle?

[Bake]

48. It's really not a "deep" concept

(And I don't mean that to sound condescending). The idea is that genuine faith changes a person's life, such that the person necessarily engages in good works. The good works are not what "saves" the person, they are the natural outgrowth of genuine faith. By the same token, "faith" that does not result in good works is not genuine, and so it is worthless, i.e., dead.

Bake

[redqueen]

49. IMO it is.

Guess I'm just that shallow.

[demosincebirth]

55. Because its easier to just say you have faith. Doing "works" means

doing the footwork and giving your time.

[demosincebirth]

52. That is the way I was taught and still believe, and try to follow.

[demosincebirth]

51. Yes.

[melnjones]

12. yes and no...

Problem is that no conservatives want to take the time to do the historical and contextual study of those passages in the NT. Many churches understand that yes, women CAN teach and be ministers b/c the texts that seemingly prohibit it are often taken out of context. Many churches seek to find the original context of a lot of stuff. Few are willing to do so with the "anti-gay" passages. I'm one of the few who IS willing to do some research, but often that labels me as being liberal (which I am) or gay (which I am not) or simply not a Christian (which is ridiculous).

On edit...No, JESUS himself never mentioned anything about homosexual behavior. Not that Paul's words don't mean anything, but that is an untruth that many Christians spout.

[sarge43]

16. Jesus did say

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

So one interpretation could be that He had no problem with the laws of the Torah.

[melnjones]

22. You are taking one isolated verse out of its context...

which is EXACTLY what the fundies do all the time, including what they often do to bash homosexuals. If you're going to quote the Bible, do your homework.

[redqueen]

26. Thanks for all your insight on this issue!

I wish there were an easy way to smack this stuff down... but I suppose it wasn't easy when they used the bible to try to support their views on segregation, either.

Did you happen to see the Salon interview with the author of a new book called "Going Beyond God"?

[melnjones]

32. I haven't seen that,

but I'd love to given the opportunity.

And thank YOU for appreciating my responses. Sometimes (often) being a Christian Democrat is simply being between a rock and a hard place everywhere you go. :-)

[redqueen]

33. I can see that being the case, yes...

and you can thank the fundies for that! Ptui... they're the ones poisoning everyone's minds about religion... yours truly included.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/30/armstrong/index1.html

Enjoy! :hi:

[melnjones]

36. Excuse me?

Please explain how my mind has been poisoned.

[redqueen]

39. Not you... me...

my mind has been poisoned against religion by the fundies. I didn't realize it until I read that interview, actually.

Kind of freeing to realize the problem really *isn't* with religion, but with people's distortions.

[melnjones]

43. LOL

Ok, I'm running a fever and should just stop typing on here until I feel better. Aparently having pneumonia makes me not understand what people are saying. My apologies.

[redqueen]

46. hahah... no need... i understand :)

Hope you enjoy the interview, and hope you feel better soon! :hi:

[sarge43]

37. Did I misquote that passage?

You learn how to read. I said that was one interpretation, that's all.

And don't compare me to the fundies

[melnjones]

38. Alright...

A question then, because maybe I misunderstood. Are you saying that that is one interpretation that people commonly hold? Or simply that that is one way that the passage might be interpreted.

[sarge43]

40. It is one interpretation that could be used by a deep dish bigot

The more common interpretation is it's another way of saying "Render onto Caesar..." until the coming of the New Kingdom.

I am surprised that the homophobes don't use it more often, but I suspect their eyes glaze over anytime they come to any of Jesus' gentle and sensible sayings.

[melnjones]

42. Gotcha...

I took the tone of your post to mean, "Hey, the Bible also says this awful thing, so let's just toss the whole thing out." My mistake, and I apologize. The Bible is so precious to me and I am fine with other people not holding it as authoritative, but I get very frustrated when people (christian or not) make inferences about what the Bible does or doesn't say by taking stuff out of context and not taking time to do some research. That's what I thought you were doing.

[sarge43]

56. Nope, I'd never say throw it out. Too much of value within it.

Anyway, handshake and sorry for the misunderstanding.

[meow2u3]

66. Jesus had no need to

The Jewish prohibition against homosexuality was already settled--long before Jesus walked the earth. And since he preached to Jews, who already believe it was sinful, there was no need to preach against it.

If Jesus had preached to the Romans, that would be another story. He likely would have condemned the practice, but He would have encouraged the person to turn away from homosexuality--gently!! After all, Jesus Himself said, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." Jesus would never have looked down his nose at gays and lesbians, but would have treated the GLBT community as patiently as he did tax collectors and hookers in ancient Palestine.

[DonP]

5. I'm not a big fan of dictating what you MUST believe or teach

Penalize a group because we don't agree with all they teach?

That really kind of sounds like something they would do.

I may not like or agree with their teachings but that's why there is a first amendment.

[LoZoccolo]

7. As we've learned, it's always better to turn cultural issues...

...into political ones. That never backfires for us or anything like that. Plus it keeps the focus on things that the government is effective at.

_{NOTE: This post is sarcastic.}

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. No, as that would violate the First Amendment

Likewise, pulling status as a 501(3)(c) corporation for reasons that have nothing to do with non-profit status.

Remember, the rules protecting us are the very same that protect them.

[w13rd0]

9. Why the hell are churches...

...tax-exempt in the first place? I'd be fine with removing their tax-exempt status completely. They interfere in politics, their business is rarely not for profit, most of them serve Mammon, and their goal is to indoctrinate people into an ideaology. They should be taxed.

[Igel]

25. The same can be said for most

NGOs and educational institutions.

Greenpeace, PETA, Harvard, Oral Roberts University, Brookings Institute.

The difference comes down to religious ones. I don't want to live in a state where man tells me what religion I have to be, or decides that my religion or ideology is less worthy of protection than somebody else's.g

I draw the distinction when it's necessary for public order: some supremacist religious group tells its members to go and wage something akin to actual war against the government or society, shut them down (not a boycott, not a line of peacefully chanting people, not somebody mailing me something that harmlessly sits on the table). But this doesn't require much of a revision to the law or tax code.

[ourbluenation]

10. No - they're wacked but seperation of ch and state is a good thing.

[LeftyMom]

11. To teach that something is a sin is religious

To demand that government put a stop to it is political. The first should not effect tax exemption, the second should.

That said, I don't think churches should be tax exempt at all, no matter what thier teachings.

[Democrats_win]

31. I agree with you. False christians have given God´s house to the GOP.

They serve one master, the GOP. Every human on Earth sees what they are doing. Their sins are piled so high that they reach heaven. God will not stand by these terrible murderous thieving thugs.

Would a real Christain put up with the deliberate lies that lead us to war in Iraq? Would a real Christain vote for Abhu Ghraib and yes using SODOMY to torture? Would a real Christian support the Abramoff Republicans? Everyone knows what the GOP has become and Satan is proud of his creation. Real Christians and all Americans must not stand for the GOP any more.

[unblock]

13. saying it should be not ok is legal;saying it should be illegal is not ok.

free speech is legal, even if it's offensive.
but the minute they step into the realm of politics, the government should yank their preferred tax status.

[catabryna]

14. As an attender...

I don't believe that this subject is taboo for churches. However, I do believe that any attempt to politicize the issue by using it as a reason to vote, or not vote, for a particular candidate is a violation of the separation of church and state and should be dealt with by loss of tax exempt status. Doctrine is doctrine and we shouldn't interfere with that. Politics are politics and they don't belong in the church. And, they certainly don't belong in my vision of church and would most certainly be reason enough for me to find another place to worship.

[melnjones]

23. Very well stated. nt

[Bridget Burke]

17. No--it's called "Separation of Church & State"

Lots of "sins" are legal.

And the Republicans would not approve of many religious teachings--too "liberal."

[BR_Parkway]

18. Nope, they can teach what they want, I sure as hell don't want them

regulating my life if I CHOOSE not to be a member of their church

[rurallib]

20. Always thought churches should pay some sort of fees anyway

All this crap about them being unpolitical sure ain't working and they sure do occupy a large amount of valuable property which causes them to be users of lots of services that they don't pay for. So in effect I am subsidizing their existence whether I want them or not.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. Bigotry is wrong. But church-state must be seperated.

[Jawja]

27. Just remove the tax exemption

for churches and religious organizations.

[porphyrian]

28. All churches/temples/etc. should lose tax exempt status.

They do absolutely nothing to deserve such a break. If they provide some charity, let them file as a non-profit. There's absolutely no excuse for a multi-million dollar Crystal Cathedral that doesn't pay taxes.

[AngryAmish]

30. They should be crushed

[gollygee]

41. Churches can say whatever they want. It's the gov't that needs to stop.

The government needs to stop worrying about people's sex lives.

I couldn't care less what churches teach so long as the gov't stops making those beliefs into law.

[Throd]

53. Amen to that!

[Touchdown]

44. They incite people to violence every time they speak up

...about the evils of homosexuality. The easily led take this as an endorsement for any kind of behavior as long as it's directed at gays. Those two punks who killed Matthew Sheppard grew up in such an environment. When a group of people are targeted, lied about, legislated against, used as scapegoats for every failure of those how are REALLY in charge, it give the lessers the license to commit violence, even if it's against the law. The lessers prone to commit violence don't read law books much, and nobody bothers to tell them it's wrong.

I remember a Donahue show back in the 80s, where Houston Cops went undercover as gay men around a couple of bars that were targets for gay bashings. One cop was hit over the head with a beer bottle. He got up and with the help of his partner subdued the bastard. The kid was screaming..."Hey man! I'm sorry. I thought you were a queer, not a cop! It was a mistake."

These Christ Killers who preach about the "sins of homosexuality" are accessories to violence and murder, and deserve nothing but my contempt.

[bryant69]

59. Do they share that condemnation if they teach

a love the sinner hate the sin approach? Or if they specifically decry violence? Or is it all the same?

[Touchdown]

60. Yes.

Love the sinner. hate the sin? Orwellian doublespeak. What they call "sin" is part and parcel of what makes me human, and they have no place to dictate that I deny my humanity.

They only decry violence after it's been committed, and only to take the heat off of themselves for inciting it in the first place. It's hypocritical.

There are no mitigating or excusable degrees of opression and tyranny, and modern Christianity sits by and lets this happen in it's name.

[meow2u3]

69. In plain English, hating the sin and loving the sinner means

hating what the person does, but loving the person despite the actions you disapprove of. In other words, you can accept others for how they are even if you disapprove of certain behavior.

Do normal parents hate their misbehaving kids? Of course not. A normal mom loves her kids, but hates her kids' misbehavior. Does a normal dad hate his daughter for staying out until midnight when the curfew is 10:00 PM? I don't think so. But he hates the fact that she broke the rules. This is an example of "hate the sin but love the sinner."

[Touchdown]

71. Expressing physical gay love is not a "behavior"

...that you, or anyone else has any right to approve or not. Comparing us to children who won't take out the trash or run around a Restaurant screaming, is a pure condescending insult. When I have sex with another man, it is not "MISBEHAVIOR", period. I don't think you truly know just how disgusting, judgmental, and superior what you wrote to me, about me, and about my "behavior" really sounds to gay people. I am an adult. I do not need the guidance of a hetero who thinks I'm not.

It is an expression of letting yourself off the hook for being sanctimonious, and I don't buy into the justifications of "pretty words". Christians need to know that I will accept nothing less than their COMPLETE SILENCE on the issue of homosexuality, being gay, or sexual relations between homosexuals. If that leaves very little else for Christianity to teach humanity, then so be it.

BTW: I know what it means. Your definition is textbook perfect, and just as much bullshit as when I first heard it.

[LittleClarkie]

54. Not unless they take it a step further and advocate voting Repub

because of this belief. THEN they should lose their status.

[genie_weenie]

61. No. No. No. (I thrice deny you!)

That idea is on the path which lead to the European religious struggles of the Protestant era, as well as things like the Cathar Crusade and the massacre and land theft of those who teach an "aberant" doctrine...

[baldguy]

63. Churches should be tax-exempt.

The 700 Club is not a church.

[One_Life_To_Give]

64. I support the first ammendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[dysfunctional press]

65. why should teaching homosexuality is a sin remove tax-exempt status?

i don't get the connection..?

[theboss]

67. Not just no, but hell no

Honestly, this may be the most dangerous idea ever presented on this board...and that is saying something.

[bryant69]

68. I don't wantto make it sound like i am in favor of this idea

I was just curious.

And, of course, some Conservatives believe that this is the next step after legalizing Gay Marriage.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NoPasaran]

70. No

The notion of government approval or disapproval of tenets of religious belief is extremely dangerous.