6 Sneaky Ways the Christian Right Foists Its Biblical Agenda on America

This may be of some use to our full marriage versus religious freedom posters.

www.billtrack50.com...

Legislators and judges implementing full marriage have generally been mindful of religious objections from churches seeking not to solemnize some of the marriages allowed by law. Specific protections enacted into law, which are fairly tight (do you think that big religion has lobbyists?). It is always very difficult for an American government to compel a religious organization to do anything that it has religiously founded objections against (like solemnize marriages of same-sex couples), or to prevent the religion from doing peaceable things that it has religiously founded reasons for (like solemnize marriages of different-sex couples).

American law has made its peace that religions discriminate for religious reasons. "Congress shall make no law..." is not a negotating position, and since shortly after the Civil War, states have had little or no power to intrude in religious matters, either. The courts have shown scant inclination to grant civil remedies in religious disputes, even where statutes are unclear.

I don't see that the threat to any American church's prerogative to discern which marriages to solemnize rises above the speculative. Conversely, although I admire the creativity of some "dodges" that have been proposed here, churches have sufficient deference in law that no special pleading will be neeed.
-

reply to post by adjensen

Most people, yes, they'll work around it. But the radicals who want to bend society, all of society, to their point of view will not.

And those 'radicals' are the Christian Evangelical Right-Wingers who want to force THEIR religion on everyone: schools, laws, etc.

We've come full circle here, finally!

The point of the OP and article is that NO RELIGION has the right, in this country, to IMPOSE their beliefs on EVERYONE, and that is precisely what they are trying to do!!!

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

Because there's nothing to specialize in -- marriage is marriage.

I think we've found our issue here.
There is CERTAINLY something to 'specialize in.' "I specialize in Catholic doctrine, therefore, I am unable to go through with these proceedings as an official of the Catholic church."

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Yes, a Catholic priest is only qualified to conduct a Catholic wedding, but there isn't a "Straight Catholic Wedding Sacrament" and a "Gay Catholic Wedding Sacrament" such that he can "qualify" for one and not the other -- there is just the "Catholic Wedding Sacrament."

If you want to say that the Catholics can just say that the "Catholic Wedding Sacrament is only between one man and one woman," we're right back to square one -- if there is a law saying that same sex marriage is legal, and that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then that statement is discriminatory and the church can be sued for holding to it.

Sorry, it all comes down to "I can't marry you, because you are gay", and if those two laws are put in place, which is what proponents want, making that statement would be illegal.

reply to post by eight bits

(do you think that big religion has lobbyists?)

They absolutely do.

American law has made its peace that religions discriminate for religious reasons. "Congress shall make no law..." is not a negotating position, and since shortly after the Civil War, states have had little or no power to intrude in religious matters, either. The courts have shown scant inclination to grant civil remedies in religious disputes, even where statutes are unclear.

Yeah, I was just thinking 'what judge in their right mind would award a judgment to people suing the church?'

reply to post by adjensen

Yes, a Catholic priest is only qualified to conduct a Catholic wedding, but there isn't a "Straight Catholic Wedding Sacrament" and a "Gay Catholic Wedding Sacrament" such that he can "qualify" for one and not the other -- there is just the "Catholic Wedding Sacrament."

And the new Pope can't delineate that there should be? The Catholic church is soundly against gay marriage as well as birth control measures. If someone in the parish marries a divorcee, they are excommunicated (or were, years ago. I don't know the new rules, if there are any). The Catholics already HAVE that right, and practice it.

If Catholics are condemning of gay marriage (which they are), then they already have grounds to say, "We don't believe in that, so we will not do it."

Anyone insisting on being married in a church that is fundamentally NOT aligned with the beliefs or practices of the person seeking service will not have a leg to stand on by taking it to court.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

Most people, yes, they'll work around it. But the radicals who want to bend society, all of society, to their point of view will not.

And those 'radicals' are the Christian Evangelical Right-Wingers who want to force THEIR religion on everyone: schools, laws, etc.

There are radicals on both sides of every issue, Wildtimes, including this one.

reply to post by eight bits

It is always very difficult for an American government to compel a religious organization to do anything that it has religiously founded objections against (like solemnize marriages of same-sex couples), or to prevent the religion from doing peaceable things that it has religiously founded reasons for (like solemnize marriages of different-sex couples).

I do recognize that, my concerns are based more on the recent HHS Mandate, the way that this issue of gay marriage has seemed to have gone from a non-issue to one of apparent critical importance and widespread acceptance in the blink of an eye, and the increasing discard of religiosity from the world.

I know that there are many who believe that the world will be much better off with a rejection of religion and a replacement of societal norms with those that have a secular basis and worldview, I just don't see it that way. Just looking at the changes that the United States has seen over the last 50 years of that process leads me to worry.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, a Catholic priest is only qualified to conduct a Catholic wedding, but there isn't a "Straight Catholic Wedding Sacrament" and a "Gay Catholic Wedding Sacrament" such that he can "qualify" for one and not the other -- there is just the "Catholic Wedding Sacrament."

And the new Pope can't delineate that there should be?

No, he cannot. The church cannot introduce new doctrine, and a new sacrament would be new doctrine.

If someone in the parish marries a divorcee, they are excommunicated

That is absolutely not true, and not really germane to the issue.

Anyone insisting on being married in a church that is fundamentally NOT aligned with the beliefs or practices of the person seeking service will not have a leg to stand by on taking it to court.

You may be right, but anytime matters are given over to the courts to decide, at least in the United States, a reasonable or rational decision is not guaranteed.

Who would have believed, for example, that killing fetuses would be deemed legal on the basis of "privacy" under the due process clause of the 14th amendment, or that "human being" could be redefined for the same purposes?

reply to post by adjensen

There are radicals on both sides of every issue, Wildtimes, including this one.

Yes, I absolutely acknowledge that, and am very aware of it.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me. The middle ground is what I am fighting for.

reply to post by adjensen

That is absolutely not true, and not really germane to the issue.

It was absolutely true when my grandmother married my grandfather, who was a divorcee. That's why they switched to the Episcopal faith to begin with, and why I was raised as an Episcopalian. When did THAT doctrine get changed? It's entirely germane to the issue.

reply to post by colbe

Wildtimes, personal opinion, mine too doesn't matter, it won't get you to Heaven. Follow God's ways, He knows best.

colbe, are you going to address the OP article, or not?

Just to add: I think churches should absolutely be allowed to refuse to marry gay people. If it's against their beliefs, they should be permitted to refuse anyone for that reason (or any other reason). They are NOT a business. They are a private organization and can be as bigoted and hateful as they want, IMO.

There are plenty of churches that are willing to marry gay people. Or they can marry in the court house like I did. Or they can get married on the beach with a pastor or whatever. Some churches think they own marriage. It's not true, but if that's what they believe, then they should be allowed to refuse.

Forcing secular behavior on the church is as bad as Christians forcing religious behavior on other people.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Forcing secular behavior on the church is as bad as Christians forcing religious behavior on other people.

Yep!

Thanks again for posting, BH.
I'm afraid I'm getting brain-tired and no longer able to keep up the intellectual energy necessary to address the thread. Separation of church and state is the premise.
It is a Constitutional fact, and not likely to be 'amended' on grounds of ANY religious zealotry. I hope.

But that's all I can add for today. Carry on, everyone! I'll look forward to seeing what developments occur on the thread tomorrow!

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

That is absolutely not true, and not really germane to the issue.

It was absolutely true when my grandmother married my grandfather, who was a divorcee. That's why they switched to the Episcopal faith to begin with, and why I was raised as an Episcopalian. When did THAT doctrine get changed? It's entirely germane to the issue.

Well, I guess that technically you're correct, though it's probably not what you think it is -- it doesn't mean that you're kicked out of the church, it just means that, until the issue is corrected, you can't take communion. Because I had previously been married without an annulment, after we were married my wife no longer took communion, though she still was a member of the church, went to Mass and was ministered to by her priest when she died.

There was no formal excommunication, though -- she just stopped taking communion of her own accord.

Ironically, I ran across a very pointed article this afternoon whilst doing my exercises.

At George Washington University in Washington DC, two gay students went to the campus Catholic priest to inquire about their sexuality. Father Greg Shaffer counseled them, in accordance with Catholic teaching that if they wanted to stay Catholic, the church's stance is the same for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals -- no sex outside of marriage, so they needed to remain celibate.

That's pretty clear -- they can either remain celibate, or they can renounce their Catholicism and join a religion that doesn't have that teaching. As you say, why would they want to be a part of a church that they disagree with on such a fundamental issue?

So, did they choose celibacy? Or choose to change religions?

Neither -- they launched a campaign to have the priest kicked off of the campus, because of his anti-gay statements.

Catholics rally behind DC priest amid controversy

As I said, there are radicals on both sides of the issue.

Originally posted by adjensen
Ironically, I ran across a very pointed article this afternoon whilst doing my exercises.

At George Washington University in Washington DC, two gay students went to the campus Catholic priest to inquire about their sexuality. Father Greg Shaffer counseled them, in accordance with Catholic teaching that if they wanted to stay Catholic, the church's stance is the same for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals -- no sex outside of marriage, so they needed to remain celibate.

That's pretty clear -- they can either remain celibate, or they can renounce their Catholicism and join a religion that doesn't have that teaching. As you say, why would they want to be a part of a church that they disagree with on such a fundamental issue?

So, did they choose celibacy? Or choose to change religions?

Neither -- they launched a campaign to have the priest kicked off of the campus, because of his anti-gay statements.

Catholics rally behind DC priest amid controversy

As I said, there are radicals on both sides of the issue.

Yes, God's way, the truth, sex is for marriage and procreation, both. One exception for the latter.

Abstain during the woman's fertile time if you have a grave reason for not being open to life. Search Natural Family Planning.

The truth concerning the "act" of sodomy, it is a grave mortal sin and must be repented of with true contrition and confessed to God. Go to Confession if you are Catholic. Do this and from now on, if you believe yourself to be homosexual, remain celibate.

The family, the family. Why so much of the world is in pain, they do not follow God. Read the Blessed Mother's
words again, she explains very well. So many in our times do not think serious mortal sins are even a sin now!
Read the bolded. And people do not go to Confession like they use to. Dead in mortal sin. The messages from
Heaven shout out, repent, confess your mortal sins to God.

+ + +



www.locutions.org...

07-16-2011 - 56. Sin Destroys the Marital Relationship
Mary:
....People are pulling in all different directions and the oneness of mankind is being shattered. Who can unite mankind? All is divided and the forces of division multiply each day. This is not the Father's plan. He dreamed of a united human family but this sin destroyed this unity. Dividing man from woman, made them almost enemies in their own relationship. Yet, they had a continual urge for each other and man had a loneliness for a companion in his trials. This is the problem I will address because all other problems flow from this sexual war, the inability of man and woman to fully enjoy a loving relationship. If man and woman were at peace, then there would be peace in the world. But, there is no peace. So, let us begin.
Every man and woman is selfish but they do not understand this. They enter into marriage believing that they can be a good husband and a good wife. Soon, however, the realities of their relationship become apparent. The sinfulness of the husband encounters the sinfulness of the wife and problems emerge.

They try to resolve these problems, even in a sincere way, but they are not totally successful. Then, they distance themselves. Their sexual contact becomes less frequent. They even question their original attractions. They function together but the full intimacy is missing, not just of body but even of friendship. Something important is missing in the family. This is transmitted to the children. The fullness of God is not present.
I must reveal the problem and offer the true solution. The problem is the universal presence of sin which lies hidden and unseen in every human heart. The solution is to see this selfishness and by repentance to remove it. This, however, is beyond the power of the husband and wife. Forgiving and removing sin belongs to God. So, every marriage without God is doomed to some level of failure because of sin in the human heart. Let every husband and wife explore my words. Use them to open your eyes. You will see your sins, but also you will see a God who will free you. Mutually accept your need for my Son and a new road will open before you.

07-17-2011 - 57. The Effects of a Home Without Love
Mary:
So many parts of human life are bent and twisted that the human person finds it very difficult to turn to God and to seek Him. That is why I am his messenger. Like John the Baptist I am called to "make straight his paths." Where will I begin? As always in the human heart.

When the person grows up in an atmosphere of loving parents and a home that is in order, free from strife and turmoil, he can easily perceive the goodness of God because he sees life, love and happiness all around. However, when the original plan of the Father for the family becomes far removed from the original model, then a darkness covers the mind and a heaviness comes upon the feelings. The person is not free to choose the light or to respond to love. Everything is bottled up within, the result of years of an unsatisfying home. What can be done when this is so widespread? The normal, loving home has become the exception, not the rule. Especially, I address you who are reading my words right now. Your lack of faith is not rooted in the lack of goodness in my Son. It has its roots in your family where so many disorders entered and where faith was dim. I have not come to blame anyone but to offer you a very special gift. I will be your mother. For many reasons, your own mother was not able to provide and nourish you..

reply to post by colbe


The thread Colbe... the thread!

You are just spouting your own personal religious rhetoric, and not addressing the thread subject matter at all.

What are your opinions on the OP?... not just some duplicated regurgitated religious doctrine... we actually want to hear what you think, your original thoughts on the OP, not what some book says you should think.

Cheers

reply to post by adjensen


Actually I found a few articles that say different. Here is one.

www.thecollegefix.com...

But in an interview with The College Fix, the students in question – Damian Legacy and Blake Bergen – said they simply feel discriminated against by the priest who heads up the campus’ Catholic student center, and they are upset by what they contend is a disproportionate emphasis on the subject of gay marriage by the Catholic Church. The men said some gay students on campus have felt intimated and ashamed because of Father Greg Shaffer’s firm stance against homosexual marriage.

They called news reports that say they aim to mount a campaign to boot Shaffer, a well-liked priest, off campus because he does not support gay marriage, misleading. “Our request to the university has never been that Father Greg be removed or ‘banished’ from campus, as some have suggested,” according to an official statement released Monday by Bergen and Legacy.

The undergrads are both in the early 20s. Bergen is Jewish, and Legacy is an ordained priest in the North American Old Catholic Church, a newly formed sect that seeks to offer a more inclusive Catholicism. Legacy said he has all of the same rights and responsibilities afforded a Catholic priest. They said they have launched an effort to lobby the university to take a more active role in deciding who can be adult religious leaders on campus, so that in the future students don’t feel discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, race or gender.

Does'nt sound like they want to get the priest kicked off campus, seems like they just want to be the religous go to's for the gay people that are on campus.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by colbe

 

The thread Colbe... the thread!

You are just spouting your own personal religious rhetoric, and not addressing the thread subject matter at all.

What are your opinions on the OP?... not just some duplicated regurgitated religious doctrine... we actually want to hear what you think, your original thoughts on the OP, not what some book says you should think.

Cheers

It gets old, "regurgitated" and another "spew." Come up with some new negative words. Excuse me, a person's faith is their personal belief. God doesn't change, I don't need to come up with my own original belief, I want the Truth.

Hey friend, go back and read my earlier post, did you bother, the OP said it was her OPINION all that is needed is civil marriage. I posted God's opinion, mine too. To show proof this is God's opinion...

Mary's words, Our Lord's mother explains why the world is such a mess. Marriage is a Sacrament. It is holy. We all need God's grace, Civil marriage isn't enough or pleasing to God.



God bless you,

colbe

reply to post by colbe


Colbe,

This thread isn't about gay marriage, the Op's opinion on it, your opinion or the church's opinion. It's about right wing Christians using "sneaky" methods to get their religious agendas enacted as law.

Do you think that the United States should enact laws according to religious doctrine?