The purpose of the "Gay" Crusade

[TheQuestioner]

When i was about ten years of age i attended church on a regular basis. I remember vividly that i few times in sunday school i was taught that being LGBT was horridly wrong, and also that Muslims were sad people because they put so much time and effort into the "wrong religion". Now I tried hard to believe this, but in the end even as a ten year old i couldn't, i couldn't see what was wrong with being gay, and this has got me wondering. What is the purpose of targeting and discriminating homosexuals, what would it achieve for any church base except alienate a portion of their church body? and lastly Why isn't this energy spent on something that does not alienate people and can universally be considered bad, like adultery?


please help me out it confuses me so much at times.


sorry if a similar thread exists i'm new here

[Beto]

McCulloch said,"To advocate having a law simply because it is part of your religion, is contrary to your constitution." This is exactly what ML King did, as well as Wilberforce and the other British Evangelicals who stopped the slave trade and changed a host of other societal ills.

No, this is what you think Dr. King did, based on his words. I will state it again for your benefit... correlation does not imply causation. Dr. King advocated for just laws, first and foremost. Where he thought his sense of justice came from is a different matter. And as far as I'm concerned he incurred in the same logical fallacy as you.

[East of Eden]

McCulloch said,"To advocate having a law simply because it is part of your religion, is contrary to your constitution." This is exactly what ML King did, as well as Wilberforce and the other British Evangelicals who stopped the slave trade and changed a host of other societal ills.

Please document that ML King and Wilberforce were advocating changes in law simply because it was part of their religion. I believe that these good people were advocating changes in law, in agreement with their religious beliefs, because the existing laws were unfair and unjust.

Regarding Wilberforce, from Wikipedia:


In October 1784, Wilberforce embarked upon a tour of Europe which would change his life and ultimately his future career. He travelled with his mother and sister in the company of Isaac Milner, the brilliant younger brother of his former headmaster, who had been Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge in the year when Wilberforce first went up. They visited the French Riviera and enjoyed the usual pastimes of dinners, cards, and gambling.[35] In February 1785, Wilberforce returned to the United Kingdom temporarily, to support Pitts proposals for parliamentary reforms. He rejoined the party in Genoa, Italy, from where they continued their tour to Switzerland. Milner accompanied Wilberforce to England, and on the journey they read The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul by Philip Doddridge, a leading early 18th-century English nonconformist.[36]

Wilberforce's spiritual journey is thought to have begun at this time. He started to rise early to read the Bible and pray and kept a private journal.[37] He underwent an evangelical conversion, regretting his past life and resolving to commit his future life and work to the service of God.[7] His conversion changed some of his habits but not his nature: he remained outwardly cheerful, interested, and respectful, tactfully urging others towards his new faith.[38] Inwardly, he underwent an agonising struggle and became relentlessly self-critical, harshly judging his spirituality, use of time, vanity, self-control, and relationships with others.[39]

At the time religious enthusiasm was generally regarded as a social transgression and was stigmatised in polite society. Evangelicals in the upper classes, such as Sir Richard Hill, the Methodist MP for Shropshire, and Selina Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon were exposed to contempt and ridicule,[40] and Wilberforce's conversion led him to question whether he should remain in public life. Wilberforce sought guidance from John Newton, a leading Evangelical Anglican clergyman of the day and Rector of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of London.[41][42] Both Newton and Pitt counselled Wilberforce to remain in politics, and he resolved to do so "with increased diligence and conscientiousness".[7] Thereafter, his political views were informed by his faith and by his desire to promote Christianity and Christian ethics in private and public life.[43][44] His views were often deeply conservative, opposed to radical changes in a God-given political and social order, and focused on issues such as the observance of the Sabbath and the eradication of immorality through education and reform.[45] As a result, he was often distrusted by progressive voices due to his conservatism, and regarded with suspicion by many Tories who saw Evangelicals as radicals, bent on the overthrow of church and state.[24]

In 1786 Wilberforce leased a house in Old Palace Yard, Westminster, in order to be near Parliament. He began using his parliamentary position to advocate reform by introducing a Registration Bill, proposing limited changes to parliamentary election procedures.[7][46] He brought forward a bill to extend the measure permitting the dissection after execution of criminals such as rapists, arsonists and thieves. The bill also advocated the reduction of sentences for women convicted of treason, a crime that at the time included a husband's murder. The House of Commons passed both bills, but they were defeated in the House of Lords.[47][48]


See also the book and film, "Amazing Grace".[/b]

[McCulloch]

Please document that ML King and Wilberforce were advocating changes in law simply because it was part of their religion. I believe that these good people were advocating changes in law, in agreement with their religious beliefs, because the existing laws were unfair and unjust.

I have no doubt that Wilberforce was a deeply religious man or that his faith supported his political goals. However, if his message was that slavery should be abolished because his religion (and presumably the established religion of England) was against it, it would not have been listened to in Parliament or in the Lords.

[East of Eden]

Those activities are not prohibited by US law because they are part of the ten commandments. They are prohibited by US law because there is a demonstrated requirement that allowing stealing and murder go against human rights and orderly society. To advocate having a law simply because it is part of your religion, is contrary to your constitution.

Had you been around in the 1960s, you could have then told ML King to stop his efforts to change our law based on his religious convictions.

I was too young in the 1960's to respond to King. I believe that opposed certain laws based on the injustice of them. Yes, his religion supported that opposition, but the basis for his advocacy were the principles of justice and freedom.

Whatever someone's reasons are to be for or against something are nobody else's business, and has nothing to do with the Federal government establishing a religion.

Answer my question, which Christian denomination would thereby be established (think Church of England) by 51% of Americans voting for more of the 10 Commandments?

None. If 51% of Americans voted for a measure that is contrary to the Constitution it would still not become law.

That is the question, what is constitutional.

However, to answer your question, if the required support were to be found to revoke the first amendment and establish the Sabbath then the Christian religion would become established.

The founders assumed America to be a Christian nation, they simply did not want a particular Christian denomination to be recognized by the Federal government (States had established churches well into the 1800s). From Joseph Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution':

1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

But that's the whole point. Why is it that you advocate that certain biblical laws (such as the one against homosexuality) be included as the law of the land, but others not? Why is it that this religious principle should be legislated but that one should not?

Because this is the one that is before us in this thread.

This is entirely moot. Sunday is not the Sabbath.

The Biblical principle is one day a week is for rest and worship. I don't think God cares whether that day is Sunday or Saturday, as with 7th Day Adventists.

Someday perhaps, such laws will be struck down as unconstitutional.

That would be a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.

[McCulloch]

Whatever someone's reasons are to be for or against something are nobody else's business, and has nothing to do with the Federal government establishing a religion.

I see your point. You may advocate for the abolition of slavery because your religion says that slavery is bad. But for the Federal Government to adopt that abolition, they must have a reason that is more than this or that religion is against it. I probably worded my original point poorly.

The founders assumed America to be a Christian nation, they simply did not want a particular Christian denomination to be recognized by the Federal government (States had established churches well into the 1800s).

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788],

. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

in the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by the Senate on June 7, 1797, and ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797.

But that's the whole point. Why is it that you advocate that certain biblical laws (such as the one against homosexuality) be included as the law of the land, but others not? Why is it that this religious principle should be legislated but that one should not?

Because this is the one that is before us in this thread.

But the point is that you oppose the recognition of same-sex marriage because of biblical law. Yet you the same biblical law would, for example, would require capital punishment for breaking the Sabbath. You do not advocate for that law. So I conclude that your application of biblical law into the public sphere is biased and inconsistent.

This is entirely moot. Sunday is not the Sabbath.

The Biblical principle is one day a week is for rest and worship. I don't think God cares whether that day is Sunday or Saturday, as with 7th Day Adventists.

Your opinion in this matter is noted. Do you have any Biblical support for the divine indifference to which day is to be kept as the Sabbath? Is it alright to move it to Sunday or Friday or even Wednesday? Why not every eighth day?

[East of Eden]

Whatever someone's reasons are to be for or against something are nobody else's business, and has nothing to do with the Federal government establishing a religion.

I see your point. You may advocate for the abolition of slavery because your religion says that slavery is bad. But for the Federal Government to adopt that abolition, they must have a reason that is more than this or that religion is against it. I probably worded my original point poorly.

Just to clarify, I am not saying the government should do anything 'because the Bible says so', only because the people will it.

. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

The same John Adams who said the US was founded on the general principles of Christianity.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

I agree, all religions, or none, should have protection.

In the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by the Senate on June 7, 1797, and ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797.

Strange this phrase is not in the Arabic treaty version. From Wikipedia:

The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 in the version of the treaty ratified by Congress corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version.[18]

In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States's treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean in terms of the United States's legal position in relationship with the rest of the world.[19] According to Hunter Miller's notes, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all."[15]

After comparing the United States's version by Barlow with the Arabic and even the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.[15]

From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts..."[15] It is important to note, though, that as Miller said:

It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.[15]

Irrespective of any differences between the Arabic and English texts, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to and ratified by Congress.


IMHO this can be interpreted as an obvious statement that the US has no state religion, and thus, no quarell with Islam.

But the point is that you oppose the recognition of same-sex marriage because of biblical law.

That, and common sense. As I said above, whatever motives prompt a voter to act are nobody else's business.

Yet you the same biblical law would, for example, would require capital punishment for breaking the Sabbath. You do not advocate for that law.

Why would I? I'm not a bronze-age member of the theocracy of Israel.

So I conclude that your application of biblical law into the public sphere is biased and inconsistent.

Possibly. What are we to do about bias and inconsistency among voters? We can't even get rid of bias and inconsistency among candidates.

Do you have any Biblical support for the divine indifference to which day is to be kept as the Sabbath?

The Church as worshipped on Sunday from the earliest days, possibly because it was the day of Christ's resurrection.

Is it alright to move it to Sunday or Friday or even Wednesday?

Possibly, but it would be a lot of trouble for no compelling reason.

Why not every eighth day?

That would violate the Biblical principal of one day of rest per week.

[McCulloch]

Strange this phrase is not in the Arabic treaty version.

Would it be too much to presume that the President and the Congress ratified the English version not the Arabic? I think that since the phrase was in the English (ratified) version, it clearly indicates the intent of the nascent government of the USA.

The same John Adams who said the US was founded on the general principles of Christianity.

[quote="John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief"]God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.[/quote]

The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.

I agree, all religions, or none, should have protection.

So until all religions agree that same-sex marriages should be prohibited, you have no objection to its recognition, so long as those religions which oppose same-sex marriage are not compelled to participate. Right?

Yet you the same biblical law would, for example, would require capital punishment for breaking the Sabbath. You do not advocate for that law.

Why would I? I'm not a bronze-age member of the theocracy of Israel.

You seem to be reasoning (selectively) like one.

Do you have any Biblical support for the divine indifference to which day is to be kept as the Sabbath?

The Church as worshipped on Sunday from the earliest days, possibly because it was the day of Christ's resurrection.

I did ask for Biblical support. Your speculation on this matter may be correct. Or maybe they worshiped on Sunday because they were otherwise engaged on the Sabbath. Or maybe they switched to Sunday to differentiate themselves from the Jews. The fact is that the collective practice of the Jews and the explicit record in the Torah, makes it rather clear that the specific day was important. But, you feel that it is unimportant.

[East of Eden]

Strange this phrase is not in the Arabic treaty version.

Would it be too much to presume that the President and the Congress ratified the English version not the Arabic?

I didn't say they didn't, just that you are reading into it more than it says, namely, the US does not have a state Christian church.

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.

Never said Adams was an orthodox Christian, that is a different thread. He did say the US ws founded on the general priciples of Christianity.

The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.

Regarding Washington, I have to side with his adoped daughter over the Rev. Dr. Wilson:


Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833
Sir,

I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give you the information, which you desire.

Truro Parish [Episcopal] is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church [the church where George Washington served as a vestryman], and Woodlawn [the home of Nelly and Lawrence Lewis] are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed [supported and contributed to] largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother...

He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.

It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis [Martha's daughter] died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event [before they understood she was dead], he [General Washington] knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge [Bushrod] Washington's mother and other witnesses.

He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war. I have often seen him perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but no sound was perceptible. I have sometimes made him laugh most heartily from sympathy with my joyous and extravagant spirits. I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation, particularly when he knew that I had the most perfect model of female excellence [Martha Washington] ever with me as my monitress, who acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving me as only a mother can love, and never extenuating [tolerating] or approving in me what she disapproved of others. She never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity [happiness in Heaven].

Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

With sentiments of esteem,

I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis

So until all religions agree that same-sex marriages should be prohibited, you have no objection to its recognition, so long as those religions which oppose same-sex marriage are not compelled to participate. Right?

No, I think same-sex marriages should be prohibited (One thing I agree with Obama on) as long as the majority of Americans want it to be so.

I did ask for Biblical support. Your speculation on this matter may be correct. Or maybe they worshiped on Sunday because they were otherwise engaged on the Sabbath. Or maybe they switched to Sunday to differentiate themselves from the Jews. The fact is that the collective practice of the Jews and the explicit record in the Torah, makes it rather clear that the specific day was important. But, you feel that it is unimportant.

Correct. What matters to God is what you think of His Son, Jesus Christ, not whether you are in church Saturday night or Sunday morning.

[McCulloch]

I didn't say they didn't, just that you are reading into it more than it says, namely, the US does not have a state Christian church.

[T]he Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion

Forgive me for my lack of reading comprehension, but I see this statement as going a lot further than saying that the Christian USA does not have a specific state sponsored denomination. This says that the Government of the USA is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. But I guess I must be a literalist. [sarcasm]It must be obvious to the discerning reader that the intent was really that the USA is intended to be a generically Christian nation, giving no preference to any specific denomination of Christianity. [/sarcasm]

What matters to God is what you think of His Son, Jesus Christ, not whether you are in church Saturday night or Sunday morning.

Couldn't you then say, "What matters to God is what you think of His Son, Jesus Christ, not whether you are in bed with a man or a woman so long as you love your marriage partner and have committed yourself to be faithful to him/her"?

[Beto]

No, I think same-sex marriages should be prohibited (One thing I agree with Obama on) as long as the majority of Americans want it to be so.

Regardless of whether or not Obama is just being demagogical (which is likely in my opinion), he cannot rationally defend that position anymore than you can. But his double standard is painstakingly obvious because of his sponsoring of legislation to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and then fuelling that exact same discrimination by standing against gay marriage, when his personal feelings on the matter, as a Christian, should not be relevant.

If he's for banning same sex marriage because he's Christian, why the heck doesn't he simply ban other religions altogether? If he's convinced Christianity is the right choice, and the majority of Americans are Christians, why not do that as well? I mean, come on... You can't marry a person of the same sex, even if you're Christian, but you can worship another god freely? So ultimately, being gay is worse than worshipping other gods. This is almost too ridiculous to handle...

Any way you slice it, it's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is something Obama is allegedly against.

If I may ask EoE, what are your feelings concerning marijuana? Relates to the "majority" criteria...