* My comments in red between stars *




There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man's life. However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair's homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display. Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin, and its offer was rescinded.

The family is mad, some of the media is mad, and I'm mad too. What irks me, though, is an invidious double-standard: Homosexuals and their sympathizers often expect a special dispensation from rules that apply to everyone else, while Christians are expected to dispense with their rules.

* Why do Homosexuals and their sympathizers expect dispensation from the rules that apply to everyone ELSE ? *

I'll first echo a point church officials have made, only my example will be different. It's understandable that Christians may offer their services to known homosexuals, as we're all sinners; however, most of us sinners don't expect our characteristic sins to be on display in a church service held on our behalf. Why, if a man had been a compulsive philanderer, would we expect that a church shouldn't have a problem displaying sexually suggestive photographs of him with gaggles of gals? It's absurd.

* isn't it ? *

If this would be readily understood if the individual in question were a fornicator, why not when he is a homosexual? Do they want to be treated like everyone else or don't they?

* That's what they keep telling us. Then they demand special TREATMENT *

This situation reminds me of the case of Rev. Eugene Robinson, the cleric who declared his homosexuality and was then was elected bishop by some Episcopagans. It was such a grand victory for inclusiveness, such a bold show of tolerance, allowing the Brave New Worlders to puff up their chests and boldly go where no half-man had gone before. Seldom pointed out, however, was that Rev. Robinson had left his wife and children upon receiving his netherworld epiphany. If a normal man had done so to be with another woman, would he be exalted and elected bishop? No, the attitude would be quite different, as he just might be labeled unfaithful and irresponsible - if not a pig. Rev. Robinson, though, well, was "brave." I guess being a homosexual means never having to say you're sorry.

* And never having to admit that you're wrong. Perversity hiding behind the tenets of "diversity" again. *

Getting back to the church - the one that can still be called Christian - it's time for some perspective. Let's say that a mosque had agreed to host a service for a family but balked upon learning that the party would insist on including roast pork and bacon in its food selection. In our politically correct climate, I can't imagine too many journalistic Jacobins placing the onus on the Moslems. Multicultural imperatives would hold sway, and the poseurs would disgorge platitudes about respecting differences and Islamic sensitivities. For that matter, would anyone find it anything but laughable if someone expected Moslems to brook homosexual displays? So, why are the religious convictions of Christians not similarly respected?

* Yes, why IS that ? Islam gets a free pass but Christianity doesn't ? What's up with that ?*

Then, you'll have to forgive my lack of benevolence toward the bereaved, but just how dull are these people? Even if you're a confirmed secularist, shouldn't you at least suspect that a Christian church just might have a problem with overt displays of homosexuality? What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? After all, I can't imagine there would be any expectation that Moslems should make a concession simply because you pleaded ignorance about their prohibition against pork. On the contrary, I think you'd be told to expand your cultural horizons.

* What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? We're to think that didn't mention it because, supposedly they didn't thinkk it NEEDED mentioned. We're supposed to beleive that they are/were just stupid or ignorant.

Because stupidity and ignorance are MUCH more forgivable than agressive tactics used to push perverse behaviour in the faces of religious Christians. *

Thus, who, if anyone, should be offended? A teacher is thought insensitive and offensive if he brings a crucifix and Bible into a public school and relates a religious message (although, homosexual content seems to be just fine); after all, it is said, some of the students may be of another faith and may take offense. Well, what are we to say about the act of bringing images into a church that will likely evoke the same reaction?

* We're supposed to say nothing obviously. *

But I suspect that a sort of cultural ignorance is the issue, along with a certain kind of provincialism. Many people are so awash in relativism nowadays that they just can't imagine anyone who embraces authentic Christian doctrine; that is, not anyone with whom they could possibly consort. Why, those snake-handlers may exist in some backwoods region of stills, spells, unkempt hair, rotting teeth and home-birthing, but the evolved people modernists such as themselves encounter would never subscribe to antiquated notions like sin or Truth. Of course they'd espouse the tenets of the times. Doesn't everybody?

* ???

Doesn't everybody ? *

It's funny, though, our askew conception of rights and responsibilities. I can hear it now, "Oh, those intolerant Christians! Always imposing their values on others." So, before this refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something. If the Christians entered the family's house or business and insisted that photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty of imposition of values (I would say "morals"). In this case, though, who was invading what with whose values?

The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value: Broad-mindedness. Many people treat prejudice as if it's the first and last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age's unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state. Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the bearer's deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes. And the prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a color-blind world that's afraid of the light.

One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a certain assumption. It is the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

* the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

Does it NOT ?*

Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians

I have the strangest feeling of deja vu, for some reason.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Weird. This is a new story.

Deja Vu huh ?

We have a nudie bar here called that. Is that what you're thinking about ?

This is half a story, when you say the pictures "featured prominently" his homosexual lifestyle, what does that mean?
Were they pornographic, or was he shown embracing his lover?
What was the offending image? Was he shown in costume at a gay rights parade? Or just holding another man's hand?

I think the problem here was that the church agreed to hold the funeral, knowing the man was gay, then backed out at the last minute, "we didn't know he was that gay".

So they'll do Larry Craigs funeral, but not Harvey Fiersteins.

If they had a problem with homosexual funerals, they should have said so before signing up to do this one, and then backing out at the last minute.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I see.

So it's the churchs fault ?

Alrighty then

Any one willing to address the following:
--------------------------------------------
Then, you'll have to forgive my lack of benevolence toward the bereaved, but just how dull are these people? Even if you're a confirmed secularist, shouldn't you at least suspect that a Christian church just might have a problem with overt displays of homosexuality? What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? After all, I can't imagine there would be any expectation that Moslems should make a concession simply because you pleaded ignorance about their prohibition against pork. On the contrary, I think you'd be told to expand your cultural horizons.

* What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? We're to think that didn't mention it because, supposedly they didn't thinkk it NEEDED mentioned. We're supposed to beleive that they are/were just stupid or ignorant.

Because stupidity and ignorance are MUCH more forgivable than agressive tactics used to push perverse behaviour in the faces of religious Christians. *


It's funny, though, our askew conception of rights and responsibilities. I can hear it now, "Oh, those intolerant Christians! Always imposing their values on others." So, before this refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something. If the Christians entered the family's house or business and insisted that photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty of imposition of values (I would say "morals"). In this case, though, who was invading what with whose values?

The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value: Broad-mindedness. Many people treat prejudice as if it's the first and last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age's unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state. Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the bearer's deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes. And the prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a color-blind world that's afraid of the light.

One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a certain assumption. It is the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Or do we just want to make this thread about ME or blaming this on the church ?

This is a single instance of an ATTEMPT to display homosexual pictures that was thwarted. I would imagine that a church would not allow sexually explicit heterosexual pictures to be displayed either...

So who was imposed upon?

Why can't Christian fanaticals just be happy that homosexuals exist as fodder for holier than thou sermons that make them feel better about themselves and make their own sins seem to pale in comparison?

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

I KIND of understand what you're saying. I don't know why you have to call these people "christian fanaticals". Couldn't we mention "homosexual fanaticals" as well ?

You usually emit well constructed thoughts and ideas. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say specifically to what I put in post # 6.

Yea I heard about this quite a while back. It was canceled when they found out it was a homo activism thing instead of a personal choice funeral by the deceased.
Moonbats do this shit to pharmacies and Christian bookstores too. Instead of going to the one across the street, they demand the Christian one sell them abortion pills and shit..

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

That's quite a lofty request for a Christian bookstore, I agree.

I agree with you, goober. (Surprise! ) I have a real problem with Christians that want to condemn homosexuals when we're taught to hate the sin, not the sinner. While I believe the sexual act of homosexuality is considered a sin, so do I believe that fornication is a sin and I'm not going to judge a homosexual for his sexual acts when I'm just as guilty of sex outside of wedlock.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Gee, what a surprise...

Another antigay thread by Trips. (*and he thinks open gays are the problem??? )

Get back to us with the specifics of just exactly what constitutes "with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display" and you might get some serious discussion. Till then, I'll see it for what it is, just another of your "GOOD CHRISTIAN" homophobic rants.

You know some of us Christians actually don't think homosexuality is wrong...

Also, remind me why we focus on this issue instead of poverty and other more pressing issues?

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I'm glad that there REAL Christians, such as you to keep me from coming to the conclusion that your faith has been completely hijacked by psychotic fanatics, using it as a tool for their fear and hate. I commend you, sir.

I'll say it again. For YOU.

I'm not a Christian, I'm not a "homophobe" and I wasn't "ranting".

That you would like us to dismiss facts with accusations and ridiculous rhetoric like this tells us all we need to know.

Welcome to my ignore list :-) Not that you give a damn LOL I don't either :-)

It's pointless interacting with some people.


It's funny, though, our askew conception of rights and responsibilities. I can hear it now, "Oh, those intolerant Christians! Always imposing their values on others." So, before this refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something. If the Christians entered the family's house or business and insisted that photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty of imposition of values (I would say "morals"). In this case, though, who was invading what with whose values?

The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value: Broad-mindedness. Many people treat prejudice as if it's the first and last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age's unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state. Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the bearer's deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes. And the prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a color-blind world that's afraid of the light.

One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a certain assumption. It is the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

Get it ?

No ?

I didn't think so :-)