Jesus' Example Of Lobbying Against Gays

[Guest]

what he said

[Guest]

TK wrote

If you were talking about specific siutations that might require this, an example that comes to mind is an adult bookstore attempting to open in the neighborhood.

Here's an alternate approach I know of.

North of Toronto, where I live, a strip club opened a few years ago. After it opened a group of Christians from a particular congregation began to pray that God would close it down. The strip club did close down, and in a strange twist of fate they ended up selling the building to the very congregation that prayed for it to close. They now meet there on Sunday mornings. This story was so compelling that the Toronto Star, the largest Canadian newspaper and known to be left wing, did a major article on it.

I don't think anybody is saying there are not times to confront people. Some tatics, I find, are appropriate and others are not.

[Guest]

Perhaps, instead of "aggressive action" i should have said "in your face" action. I think many of the OT prophets, John the B, and even Jesus were in people's faces occasionally.

But when they were "in peoples faces" it was the religious people, the people God was supposed to be in covenant with, not the sinners (as far as I remember). This lines up with what Paul teaches in 1Cor. 5.

TK, I was thinking the same thing Derek wrote. I was wondering what examples from scripture you would use to suggest "in your face" action toward the world.

[Guest]

Hello, Perry,

Thank you for your response.

kaufmannphillips: If "T-shirts that promote unChristian agendas" are deemed sufficiently objectionable, should such a standard not be applied even-handedly? Students who wear shirts that advertise non-kosher food products, for example, promote unJewish agendas. Students who wear shirts with buttons promote unAmish agendas.

Perry: Yes. Absolutely. That's precisely my point. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that they are NOT applied even handedly. The standards are set up in such a way that Christians can be critized (perhaps many times rightly so)for promoting Christian agendas. At the same time, however, when Christians attempt to apply this same standard to those promoting nonChristian agendas, we're labeled as intolerant.

How's that even handed?

The "even-handedness," if you will, may hinge (or fail, depending upon your perspective) upon the sacred/secular distinction. American legal tradition hedges against government sponsorship of religious agendas, whether Christian, Jewish, or otherwise. Promoting an equitable approach toward homosexual orientation, however, is seen as a non-religious agenda.

Now, I personally am not an advocate of the American hedge. I am a theocrat with a heavy religionomic bent. But I suspect you might prefer the vacuum of the American tradition over my particular religionomy, as it would most likely put a major crimp in your day-to-day life.

Perry: Let me ask you, and I realize I'm asking you to speculate here, and I'll understand if you don't want to play that game. If the rule stated above, applied evenhandly, resulted in the expulsion of more than 100 gays, what do you think media reaction would be, and how would the school be characterized?

I expect that coverage and response would vary depending upon the inclinations of different media outlets, and to some extent (perhaps) upon the particulars of the situation.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your response.

(aleph) Although I enjoy working in the public schools immensely, I would choose some manner of private option for my own child(ren) if possible. This could involve some combination of homeschooling and coursework/tutoring/apprenticeship outside the home. I've also worked for a private religious school in the past, and (as I suppose you'd agree) even those must be vetted carefully.

(beth) I would not necessarily assign the pedagogical role to the mother. It is feasible that the mother may have greater earning potential, while the father may be a more gifted educator. I see no reason for gender to eclipse practical allocation of familial resources on this point, necessarily.

(gymel) I would also point out the very real possibility that neither parent is sufficiently equipped to educate even their preteen children. In other cases, the vicissitudes of life may have yielded a single-parent household, so that there is no second parent to take on the task of education. Such challenges make the development of further options beyond homeschooling an imperative.

(daleth) I find it perhaps optimistic that there would be no homeschool shootings. We might consider the statistical factors at hand: the number of shootings as a percentage of the number of public school students nationwide, compared to the number we might expect at an equivalent ratio based on the number of homeschooled students nationwide.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hiya KP,

Do you mind me calling you KP? Or does that make you think of Kim Possible?

American legal tradition hedges against government sponsorship of religious agendas, whether Christian, Jewish, or otherwise.

No it doesn't. It just claims to. That's my gripe.

Promoting an equitable approach toward homosexual orientation, however, is seen as a non-religious agenda.

By whom? Is it your contention that the more than 100 students who were suspended were dealt with using an equitable approach?

Now, I personally am not an advocate of the American hedge.

I think it's a slippery slope. It works reasonably well when the spirit of the idea is maintained. Our current legal system cares little for the spirit of the law.

But I suspect you might prefer the vacuum of the American tradition over my particular religionomy, as it would most likely put a major crimp in your day-to-day life.

I would prefer that you didn't make such speculations about my personal preferences. By their very nature such comments have the weight of accusation and are just form of covert personal attack.

If you want to call me something, call me it.

I expect that coverage and response would vary depending upon the inclinations of different media outlets, and to some extent (perhaps) upon the particulars of the situation.

That's a cop out.

Perry

[Guest]

Perry,

I don't think Emmet was attacking you. He was merely saying that plurality in religion works out well for us, since no one can force us, in America, to conform to a religion with which we disagree (Emmet's religion is Judaism--he's not a Christian. He was probably referring to placing us all under Kosher laws and Jewish festival observance). I think you may have misunderstood his meaning. I have never seen him attack anyone on this forum.

[Guest]

I gathered that he was Jewish.

His speculations were way wrong.

Perry

[Guest]

Hello, Perry,

Thank you for your response.

Do you mind me calling you KP? Or does that make you think of Kim Possible?

For some reason, it makes me think of "kitchen patrol."

kaufmannphillips: American legal tradition hedges against government sponsorship of religious agendas, whether Christian, Jewish, or otherwise.

Perry: No it doesn't. It just claims to. That's my gripe.

Could I trouble you to clarify?

kaufmannphillips: Promoting an equitable approach toward homosexual orientation, however, is seen as a non-religious agenda.

Perry: By whom?

Inasmuch as the medical establishment has taken a stand that homosexuality is not a disorder, it is understandable that a secular governmental entity would follow its lead. Do you feel that an equitable approach toward homosexual orientation is a religious agenda? Religious people may oppose or support such an approach, and irreligious people may support or oppose it, as the case may be.

Perry: Is it your contention that the more than 100 students who were suspended were dealt with using an equitable approach?

I am not familiar with the particulars of the case, so I cannot comment. The article TK referenced did not give a detailed account of the background that led up to the suspensions.

kaufmannphillips: But I suspect you might prefer the vacuum of the American tradition over my particular religionomy, as it would most likely put a major crimp in your day-to-day life.

Perry: I would prefer that you didn't make such speculations about my personal preferences. By their very nature such comments have the weight of accusation and are just form of covert personal attack.

If you want to call me something, call me it.

I'll call you "feisty," after your last post .

If you knew more about my religious orientation, you might not take the comment as a personal attack. For example, my religionomic stance would not afford opportunity for Trinitarian devotion. Under my preferred regime, then, Trinitarians would have the option of either deportation or expiration. My favored regime would also strictly enforce Sabbath observance with capital punishment. I may quite reasonably imagine that you would not be receptive to such parameters, but I may only speculate, because it is not completely impossible that you might agree with my stance.

kaufmannphillips: I expect that coverage and response would vary depending upon the inclinations of different media outlets, and to some extent (perhaps) upon the particulars of the situation.

Perry: That's a cop out.

I expect that Sean Hannity would respond differently than Al Franken, and I suppose that coverage and response might vary depending on the relative viciousness of the offenders' conduct. Do you disagree?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

The definition of "religion" from the Latin is: "to bind togther, to bind fast, to place an obligation on" (the modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is late: from 1535).

The APA (American Psychological Association) made a "binding obligation" that homosexuality was no longer a sin. Was it in the 1970's or 60's? I've forgotten.

At any rate, the religion of Secular Humanism accepts the APA as: "an authoritative source for matters pertaining to belief and practise"....