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

[East of Eden]

They do treat it [Sunday] as a special day, and as you said, most do no gainful employment.

But they are not keeping the commandment. The fourth commandment says to not do any work on the seventh day. Most Christians treat Sunday as somewhat special. It is not the same thing, for two reasons: it is the wrong day, they still do work.

Would East of Eden support making all 10 commandments into the law of the land?

If the majority of Americans wanted them to be.

Clearly East of Eden does not agree with the US Constitution.

To recap (Protestant standard counting) :

1. Do not have any other gods before me.
   
   The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
   
   Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.
   
   Clearly, making the first commandment part of the law would be a violation of the First Amendment.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
   
   First Amendment violation (Freedom of Religion).
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
   
   First Amendment violation (Freedom of Speech).
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
   
   First Amendment violation (Freedom of Religion). Making this into law would make criminals out of all but the seventh-day Christians and the Jews.
5. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
   
   Somewhat vague, unenforceable, and probably not a good idea.
6. You shall not murder
   
   No argument.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
   No argument, but should be a civil not criminal matter.
8. You shall not steal.
   
   No argument
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
   
   Already included to a degree in libel and slander laws.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
    
    East of Eden apparently wants the US to implement thought crimes.

My attempt to tie this theme to the OP:
It seems as though those who oppose the state recognition of same sex marriage do so based on their religious principles. However, if they were to hold those principles consistently, they should be advocating that all of the Biblical laws, even the ones that they routinely disobey, should have the force of law. Right?

It is you who doesn't understand the Constitution. You have said at least two of the Ten Commandments are US law, have we thereby established a state religion, and if so which one? Presbyterianism? Baptist? Judaism? Islam? Methodists? All are against stealing and murder.

[McCulloch]

It is you who doesn't understand the Constitution. You have said at least two of the Ten Commandments are US law, have we thereby established a state religion, and if so which one? Presbyterianism? Baptist? Judaism? Islam? Methodists? All are against stealing and murder.

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.

[East of Eden]

It is you who doesn't understand the Constitution. You have said at least two of the Ten Commandments are US law, have we thereby established a state religion, and if so which one? Presbyterianism? Baptist? Judaism? Islam? Methodists? All are against stealing and murder.

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.

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? I exclude the first 3 commandments, but as nobody is trying to make them law its a moot point.

I believe there are still parts of the US with laws regulating Sunday commerce.

[Beto]

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.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

It's pretty obvious that at the time, a black man's religion wouldn't matter much in what concerned their perception of the injustice they were a victim of.

[East of Eden]

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.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

It's pretty obvious that at the time, a black man's religion wouldn't matter much in what concerned their perception of the injustice they were a victim of.

"In our protest there will be no cross burnings. No white person will be taken from their home by a hooded Negro mob and brutally murdered. There will be no threats and intimidation. We will be guided by the highest principles of law and order . . . our actions must be guided by the deepest principles of our Christian faith. Love must be our regulating ideal. . . ." ML King

[McCulloch]

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.

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. The amending formula for the Constitution, which is what such measures would require, is significantly more difficult than a simple majority. 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.

I exclude the first 3 commandments, but as nobody is trying to make them law its a moot point.

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?

I believe there are still parts of the US with laws regulating Sunday commerce.

This is entirely moot. Sunday is not the Sabbath. Someday perhaps, such laws will be struck down as unconstitutional.

[Beto]

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.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

It's pretty obvious that at the time, a black man's religion wouldn't matter much in what concerned their perception of the injustice they were a victim of.

"In our protest there will be no cross burnings. No white person will be taken from their home by a hooded Negro mob and brutally murdered. There will be no threats and intimidation. We will be guided by the highest principles of law and order . . . our actions must be guided by the deepest principles of our Christian faith. Love must be our regulating ideal. . . ." ML King

I didn't say he wasn't a highly religious person. The point you missed was that any black man, religious or otherwise, would have the law changed without "principles of the Christian faith" being the driving force. Their religion or lack of it is completely beside the point. Or will you argue an atheist black man wouldn't have a discriminating law changed? Thus Dr. King's religiosity cannot be argued as the cause of his actions. Correlation does not imply causation.

[micatala]

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.

Yes, this is the main distinction. I fully agree that MLK was informed by his religious beliefs, as were many other civil rights workers. In my view, their faith made them more effective and persistent in their efforts.

However, civil rights laws were not enacted ONLY because they coincided with religious teachings. The religious rhetoric may have been persuasive to many, but the rationale for the laws went far beyond the religious views that some used to support them.

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. The amending formula for the Constitution, which is what such measures would require, is significantly more difficult than a simple majority. 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.

Establishment occurs if there is no other rationale than the religious one for a law. If we passed a national ban on adultery and made it a criminal offense AND if there were valid secular purposes for the law, then it would not be a violation of the establishment clause.

I exclude the first 3 commandments, but as nobody is trying to make them law its a moot point.

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?

This is the crux of the matter.

[East of Eden]

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.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

It's pretty obvious that at the time, a black man's religion wouldn't matter much in what concerned their perception of the injustice they were a victim of.

"In our protest there will be no cross burnings. No white person will be taken from their home by a hooded Negro mob and brutally murdered. There will be no threats and intimidation. We will be guided by the highest principles of law and order . . . our actions must be guided by the deepest principles of our Christian faith. Love must be our regulating ideal. . . ." ML King

I didn't say he wasn't a highly religious person. The point you missed was that any black man, religious or otherwise, would have the law changed without "principles of the Christian faith" being the driving force. Their religion or lack of it is completely beside the point. Or will you argue an atheist black man wouldn't have a discriminating law changed? Thus Dr. King's religiosity cannot be argued as the cause of his actions. Correlation does not imply causation.

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.

[McCulloch]

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.