The Scarier "Religion & Homosexuality" Thread

[sam7777]

His mixed legacy

Quote:

---

The Catholic Church, so attractive during the time of Pope John, lost much of its respect and esteem -- especially because it was perceived, perhaps unfairly, to be hostile to both women and homosexuals.



To make matters worse, the sexual abuse crisis -- which the Vatican still would like to pretend is an American problem -- has spread throughout Europe and has traumatized the credibility of the church leadership. The pope's reaction to it seems to many to be less vigorous than would be appropriate. Sex was the touchstone of his restoration of order to the church, but not, it might have been fairly said, the sexual behavior of priests.



No one in his right mind would question the personal virtue, the good intentions, the sincerity of the late pontiff. Yet, clearly he failed to restore the discipline of the church's traditional sexual ethic. The lower clergy and the laity are even less likely today, despite all his efforts, to accept that discipline than when he came to office.



The most important decision the next pope must make is whether it is time for a change in the papacy's style of governance.

---

I fear with most of the cardinals appointed by JP2 from the right wing of the church, a more progressive pope being elected is highly unlikely.



Rather than look to a dissappointing future, I'd like to look back to a Pope who I think did do alot of good:

John XXIII

Quote:

---

On Jan. 25, 1959, he quietly announced the intention of calling an ecumenical council to consider measures for renewal of the church in the modern world, promotion of diversity within the encasing unity of the church, and the reforms that had been earnestly promoted by the ecumenical movement and the liturgical movement (see liturgy). The convening of the council on Oct. 11, 1962, was the high point of his reign (see Vatican Council, Second). His heartiness, his overflowing love for humanity individually and collectively, and his freshness of approach to ecclesiastical affairs made John one of the best-loved popes of modern times.

---

Born in 1881, John XXIII transcended the prejudices of the past to look to a new future for the church. This is a promise that has been squandered by his successors to the Holy See.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 4/5/05 2:25 pm

[DaddyCatALSO]

russ; Well, historically, it was the Scottish Anglicans who provided the ECUSa with its first bishops; history is foten a sine wave.



GG: Thanks for pointing that out; I don't *expect* thought-out historical metaphors like your suggestion so I tend not to see them. BTW I regard this as a nice gesture on your part, I'm not assuming you've decided to drop our posting moratorium. (It'd be too easy for us to get into arguments neither of us would enjoy.)

[Gatito Grande]

DaddyCat, in short: Huh?



GG who is advanced in years---and don't remember things too good no more. If you're referring to some ancient (like, more than a month ago!) "difference of opinion" we had, you're going to have to remind me Out

[WebWarlock]

News.

Methodist Church to reinstate lesbian minister
Panel votes against earlier decision to defrock Philadelphia woman
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7679028/

Warlock

[sam7777]

Great News! The methodists are still way ahead of Catholics. The new pope is extremely anti-gay:
http://www.newyorkblade.com/2005/4-29/locallife/main/catholics.cfm
Catholics commiserate

ohn McNeill has never met Pope Benedict XVI, but he knows him. Their relationship began when McNeill’s first book “The Church and the Homosexual” was published in 1976, when Pope Benedict VXI was still known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. “When I published my first book on gay spirituality, the pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger, gave an order that I should be totally silenced and not write anything on homosexuality,” said McNeill.

McNeill’s book challenged the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality; McNeill, a Jesuit at the time, accepted the decree until the cardinal required he no longer minister to gay and lesbian Catholics. “A few years later I was to give up all ministry to gays and lesbians,” McNeill said. “I was doing a lot of work with people with AIDS in New York City and was ordered to give that up. I could not give that up.”

In 1987, after 40 years as a Jesuit, McNeill was expelled from the order.

McNeill, who now lives in Florida, was in the city to receive the Roger Casement and Eva Gore-Booth Leadership award from the Lavender & Green Alliance, an Irish gay group. Held at the Community Church in Midtown on Saturday, April 23, the celebration also included a premier screening of “Uncommon Jesuit,” a documentary on the 80-year-old McNeill.

Brendan Fay, who described McNeill’s service to gay and lesbian Catholics as “invaluable,” produced the film. “Since the late 1960s, John has ministered as priest, spiritual guide, therapist, and companion during very painful days for gay Catholics” Fay said.

It should be no surprise that the former Jesuit, who in 1972 co-founded the New York city chapter of Dignity — an organization of gay and lesbian Catholics — is concerned about the new pope and the direction he will lead the church.

‘The most vicious homophobe’
“He was the most vicious homophobe that we have had to deal with over the past 15 years,” McNeill said. “His letters on gay rights show no compassion or sense of God’s love. They are purely political letters.”

Writer Andrew Sullivan, on andrewsullivan.com has offered the same bleak assessment about the recently installed pope.

“We are back to the 19th century,” Sullivan writes. “Maybe this is a necessary moment. Maybe pressing this movement to its logical conclusion will clarify things. But those of us who are struggling against what our Church is becoming, and the repressive priorities it is embracing, can only contemplate a form of despair. The Grand Inquisitor, who has essentially run the Church for the last few years, is now the public face. John Paul II will soon be seen as a liberal. The hard right has now cemented its complete control of the Catholic Church.”

New York City gay Catholics voiced similar concerns, and worries. “It was a punch in the gut,” said Fay of the Ratzinger selection.

Considering the former cardinal’s paper trail, so to speak, it is easy to see why are some Catholics are worried. In a 1986 letter then-Prefect Ratzinger deplored anti-gay violence by saying “such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors when it occurs [and] it reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society.”

Yet in the next paragraph Ratzinger suggested that gay rights legislation is the cause of the violence.

“But the proper reaction to crimes against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered,” Ratzinger wrote. “When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

In 2003, on the topic of same gender marriage, the future Pope Benedict XVI reiterated in strong, clear, and direct language, the church’s opposition to marriage and civil unions:

“There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”

“It was a real blow when I heard him announced as the new pope,” McNeill said. “I have no expectation of him changing.”

Personally, I see little reason to give this pope any benefit of the doubt.

[vix84]

I came across this article whilst researching something completely unrelated. It is an article about Judaism and the way it treats homosexuals. It just really touched me. It is written with love and without an agenda.

A SECOND LOOK AT HOMOSEXUALITY

by Harold M. Schulweis

The rabbis in the Talmudic era declared that two bachelors are permitted to sleep beneath the same blanket because Jews are not suspect of homosexuality. (Kiddushin 82a) Were the rabbis treating homosexuality in the first centuries the way we once dealt with drug addiction, alcoholism, wife abuse and declared, "This is not a Jewish problem"?

We can pretend that it is not a Jewish concern, though a number of scholars have speculated that homosexuality exists in 10% of the population, and by extrapolation likely pertains to 10% of the Jewish population. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Many years ago the issue of homosexuality was for me a matter of theoretical interest. Intellectually I knew there were homosexuals but personally I knew none. Whoever they were, they were well closeted, out of sight, out of mind. These last years they have lost their anonymity. Blood and flesh persons come into my study, visible and audible with faces, eyes, lips who have come to see me. Out of desperation they have left their cloistered lives to reveal themselves.

Why have they come to me? I am not their parents. But parents are the last ones they would speak to. They are too ashamed and too frightened. They have come because I am a rabbi and because I represent Jewish ethics and Jewish law. They have come because some I have confirmed and some have heard me speak about God, love, compassion and justice in class and from the pulpit. They have heard me teach that a root principle in Judaism is our belief that God has created each of us in His divine image.

They do not feel that they were created in God's image. Quite the contrary, they feel that no one regards them as human, normal, or recognizes their personhood.

They have come carrying a terrible knowledge, one they discovered early in their lives. They are attracted to persons of their own gender. Theirs is a fateful knowledge. As they grew up they heard whispers grown into roars, stories about gays who are unnatural, perverse, pathological, sinful. They dress differently, molest children, and are wildly permissive, hedonistic, outrageous. They have seen them portrayed on the stage, on television, gay men who lisp, swishey, effeminate wimps whom others call "feigele-boychik", who live in wretched places, hang out in dark bars and dark bath houses. And they have heard of lesbian women called "dykes", "butches", angry, unattractive, emasculating, man-haters.

And those who come to me know that they are hated, rejected, mocked, scorned, reviled. They are frightened.

The hatred they know is not confined to the inner city or to people of different ethnicities, faiths, or races. At Calabasas High School in Woodland Hills California, on the night of his high school graduation, Robert Rosenkrantz shot his school mate Steve Redman ten times with an Uzi semi-automatic rifle. What turns a white middle class teenager, Robert, into a murderer? It was fear, rage, desperate loneliness. The friend, Steve and his brother Joey had spied on Robert in an attempt to prove that he was gay. When they caught him in a homosexual encounter, they told his parents. At the trial Robert disclosed that he had hidden his homosexuality from his family for years in fear of their rejection. Wendy Bell, aged sixteen, a student at Calabasas High said "If people found out you were gay at this school, you would be verbally tortured."

What greater humiliation than to discover that in the eyes of your society you are really not human. What makes a human being human more than his ability to love and be loved? But they are not lovable and are not allowed to love. They live in silent shame, fearful of the revelation that will shake the foundations of their being.

Theirs is a monstrous burden to carry. Even the most innocent question is fraught with emotional terror. Just to hear once more well-meaning aunts and uncles say "Do you have a boyfriend?", to hear someone plan to set up a date, sets up a panic in their hearts. Do others not know? How long can I bite my tongue?

They have come to see me because I am a rabbi and they are Jews. Every Yom Kippur they hear the same selection read from the Torah which sanctifies homophobia. It is chanted in the afternoon of Yom Kippur when some report headaches and the discomforts which come with fasting the entire day. But this young man who ironically reads from the Torah has more than a migraine, and not from fasting. It is written "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." It is a capital crime punishable by stoning - sekilah. (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) This aliyah is no elevation. It casts him into despair.

What do they want of me? Absolution? Assurance?

Protection? A Jewish voice? What does the law state? What does Judaism say?

I am faced not only with a text of a few verses but with human beings I know and whose families I know. I look from the law into the eyes of those before me. Without them, it might be an easier matter to judge. But the Talmud says: "You have to judge according to that which you see with your own eyes." (Baba Bathra 43a)

What do I see with my own eyes? Honest, decent God-fearing, loving men and women. And what do I hear but the penetrating words of Micah, the prophet who tells me what God requires. "It has been told you O man what is good and what the Lord demands of you -- to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with the Lord thy God."

What is just and merciful here? The persons who have come to me carry their own testimony. They have not chosen a lifestyle. Theirs is not a matter of sexual preference. They have chosen nothing except to bury the terror. "It has been for me a living hell. I no more chose my attachments to another of my own gender than you, Rabbi, chose the love of a woman. It was not something taught or modeled or revered in my home or in my circle. But I sensed it early in my childhood. I denied it, fought it, but it would not be denied."

I read that most psychologists maintain that sexual orientation is determined by the time the child is five years old.

I am told by the wisdom of Halachah to listen to the heart of the one who stands before me. As the Talmud (Yoma 83) cites the verse (Book of Proverbs 14:10) "The heart knows its own bitterness and a stranger cannot share in its joy." The verse is cited by the Rabbis in the context of declaring with people who are ill on Yom Kippur. "If a sick person says he must eat and a hundred physicians say he does not need to eat, we must listen to him. For the heart knows its own bitterness."

Those I speak to in the privacy of my study have not chosen their sexual orientation. Their testimony of the heart is important in the mind of Halachah. According to Jewish law, activities that are under compulsion or constraint, even if they are prohibited, are free of liability. "Patur aval asur." Say I have vowed to do X and can't fulfill it because of a flood or because of sickness, is not punishable. The halacha recognizes that an act must be free if it is punishable and behind this ruling reigns a religious statement from the Mishnah. "Ones Rachmana Patrei" -- "The Merciful One frees from punishment one who is coerced. (Mishnah Nadarim 33)

Scholars agree that the authors of the Bible and Talmud took their position on the issue of homosexuality on the assumption that homosexual behavior was an act of freedom of choice, that the homosexual acted either to defy God, or to oppose the law, or as a holy prostitute using his or her body, to serve a pagan cult.

The assumption of the ancients about the motivation of the homosexual was based on factual error. One cannot blame the rabbis of the first centuries for not knowing the etiology of homosexuality, or the character of constitutional homosexuals. They judged acts with the knowledge of their time. But it does not exonerate rabbis living on the edge of the twenty-first century. One cannot blame the ancient rabbis for their position on the matter of homosexuality any more than they could be blamed for the Talmudic position on the deaf mute, the "cheresh". In the Talmud a "cheresh" fell into the category of a "shoteh" and a "katan", a person who was "non compos mentis" -- someone who was mentally incompetent. Therefore until the 19th century halachists held that the deaf mute cannot serve as a witness, dispose of property, be counted into the minyan, effect a marriage or divorce. The assumption was clear. Since the "cheresh" cannot communicate, cannot speak or hear, he was considered to be "dumb", a word which originally meant mute and was turned into a colloquial expression meaning stupid.

But traditional law is not frozen. When Rabbi Simchah Bunem Sofer of Hungary on a visit to the Vienna Institute for the Deaf and Dumb observed the accomplishments of its students, he recognized that the "cheresh" is far from mentally incompetent. And in our times, Rabbi Isaac Halevi Herzog maintained that the laws prohibiting the deaf-mute from ritual and commercial acts are now void, and that the "cheresh" today can indeed participate fully in religious life.

It is a calumny against Halachah to treat it as so much dead weight. Those who know its history know that Halachah changes with new knowledge and with new moral sensibilities. Consider only the cases in which the rabbis nullified or circumvented the biblical law as in the case of the "ben sorer v'moreh" the rebellious delinquent son who could be brought to the elders and be stoned for his abominable acts (Deuteronomy 21:18) or the case of the "sotah", the wife suspected of adultery to whom the ordeal of jealousy was given (Numbers 5:12), or the case of the "ir nidachat" -- the heretical city tainted with idolatry which was to be destroyed (Deuteronomy 13:13). All these biblical laws were dismissed by the rabbis of the Talmud as purely theoretical but having no application to life. "Lo hayah v'lo atid lihyot." The same Talmudic courage and sensitivity should be applied to the homosexual who testify that their sexual orientation is not an act of will.

Moreover, we are dealing with mounting evidence that there are genetic factors which play a large role, perhaps a determining role, in this behavior. On both moral and Halachic grounds it is wrong to take one or two verses in the Bible, stripped of their historic context and devoid of medical knowledge, and apply them to punish innocent people who cannot deny their basic instincts, impulses and sexual attractions. To inflict punishment upon the innocent violates the spirit and intent of Jewish law.

There are questions from people, far from homophobic, that deserve answers. I have heard it said that if this inclusiveness toward homosexuality is accepted, why not extend that same kind of tolerance toward the non-converted mixed married? But when we speak of homosexuals and gays, we are speaking about Jewish homosexuals and Jewish gays upon whom we make the same demands of loyalty to people and to Jewish faith. We make Jewish religious and moral demands upon Jewish homosexuals and Jewish gays in the same manner that we do for Jewish heterosexuals. Faith and religion are matters of choice. The non-Jew can freely become a Jew by choice. The non-Jew can convert, but the homosexual cannot convert his/her sexual orientation.

For those who are constitutional homosexuals there is no option except denial of their sexual life. It means for me to deny them the deepest expression of love. What else can be said to the Jewish gay person? Their options are "either closet or cloister" For them there is no alternative but celibacy and sexual abstinence. That counsel is contrary to the affirmation of life and of sexuality that is so basic in Judaism and in its opposition to sexual askesis. Contrary to Stoic, Christian and Buddhist philosophies, even medieval Jewish pietistic mysticism did not encourage the denial of sexual expression. To the contrary, the joys of sexuality were lauded as manifestations of God's beneficent creation. Shall I respond to the yearnings of their heart by saying "Get thee to a monastery. Get thee to a nunnery?"

I hear it further said that if homosexuality is countenanced, why not condone polygamy a practice that is not even enjoined in the Torah. But monogamy is not a deprivation of sexual expression. If there is serious dissatisfaction, the Jewish divorce offers relief. If anything, polygamy is an excess of choice. Nor is the prohibition of incest or bisexuality analogous to homosexuality. For these there are alternative sexual expressions. For the homosexual there is no sexual expression except a sexless existence in which even masturbation is halachically prohibited. Would a loving God create such a being in His image to be condemned to life-long suffering and frustration?

Others argue that the purpose of union and of marriage is procreation; and that homosexuality is prohibited because it denies history, denies the future and defies the purpose of marriage. Are we not mandated to multiply and fructify and fill the earth? Is that argument not further substantiated by the Talmudic ruling: (Yebamoth 64a) "If a man took a woman and live with her for ten years and she bore no child he may not abstain any more from the duty of propagation." Consequently, the man is justified to divorce her and to marry another after a decade of barrenness. Yet, the rabbis could not find it in their heart to dissolve such a union. "Lo m'laah libam". Such a divorce would wrong another human being. They may live together since the purpose of union is not just procreation. The purpose of union includes the blessedness of companionship and of love that does not always eventuate in having children.

Were having children the only justification of marital union, would we deny "kiddushin" because of the infertility or medical disability of either or both bride and groom? The head and heart of Halachah concede that procreation is not the only goal of human sexuality.

Moreover, in an age in which artificial insemination and adoptions exist as choices, a homosexual union is not a barrier for the raising of family and the having of children.

There are numerous questions that are raised about the etiology of homosexuality. But ultimately my Jewish response to the lot of the homosexual remains a moral one. There is a morality in Jewish law that must not be ignored. As a moral, spiritual Jew I have to ask myself not only what the literal law declares but, especially in this issue where the law consigns to living hell such innocence, I feel obligated to deal with the purpose and intent of Jewish law.

I have been taught and believe that Jewish law is not a dead hand without heart and soul. Even the most stringent followers of the halachah would not today apply the law that demands death to the homosexual. Who calls for us to criminalize homosexuality?

The underlying issue is moral, not textual. We cannot as thinking, feeling Jews base our judgment on a verse or two in the Bible. There is an entire corpus of religious text and spiritual principles that forms rabbinic conscience. "The Torah's ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace." The Torah cultivates Jewish conscience. It reminds us that we are to love the stranger and to know his heart. If we don't know the heart, if we do not know the humanity of the pariah, we do not know our own humanity. As long as we have not discovered the stranger in our midst as "human being", we will not discover our own humanity.

The community and its rabbinic leadership have powers to turn the earth into a living heaven or hell. Over some issues we mortals have little control. We have little control over natural catastrophes: earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes. But there are catastrophes over which we have control because we have created them. The curse upon the gay person we have pronounced. This tragedy we have imposed on our children is not the will of God. It is our doing. The blessing and curse, life and death given us is our choice. We are not coerced to silence.

The law is not a monster. Jewish halachah, was not instituted to make life miserable. On the contrary, it was to enhance life, to introduce love and compassion and softness into a hard and abrasive universe. The entire rabbinic tradition was motivated to make the ways of the Torah pleasant and joyful and peaceful.

A wonderful commentary by Maimonides in his Book of Laws regards the Sabbath. There he explains that the commandment of the Sabbath while it is a biblical law may be set aside if human life is in danger. "If it is uncertain whether the Sabbath needs to be violated or not or if one physician says that violation is necessary and another says that it is not, the Sabbath should be violated for the mere possibility of danger to human life overrides the Sabbath." (The Laws of the Sabbath: Chapter II)

Ask why should the Rabbi be implicated in these rulings? Maimonides goes on to say: "And if these violations of the Sabbath are to be done they should be not left to heathens, to minors, to slaves or women lest these should come to regard Sabbath observance as a trivial matter. If you violate the Sabbath it should be done by adults and scholarly Israelites. And it is forbidden to delay such violation of the Sabbath for the sake of a person who is dangerously ill. For the Bible tells us (Leviticus 18:5) which if a man do he shall live by them. He shall live by them and not die by them. Hence, you learn that the laws of the Torah are not cruel or vengeful to the world but are a source of compassion, loving kindness and peace." There are fundamentalists, and Maimonides may be referring to the Sadducees and the Karaites who assert that this permissiveness is a violation of the Sabbath and therefore to be prohibited. Maimonides responds to obedience to such a literal reading of the Torah, with a quotation from Ezekiel 20:25 "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good and ordinances whereby they should not live."

Micah's question to us is not to be denied. What is required of us? What is demanded of me and of every Jew is to protect the hounded, the persecuted, the humiliated, the ostracized, the pariahs created by human beings and not by God. What is required of us is to accept the dignity of each individual, to know the heart of the stranger, to make them feel as home with us and to encourage them to live out their own lives with dignity and within a compassionate community.

The Lord God formed the human being of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the human being became a living soul." Every human being is created in God's image. To make the innocent afraid, to make the human being cry, to force a human being to hide from his own flesh, to humiliate God's creation, is to spit in God's face. We are taught by the rabbis that to shame God's creation is to shed his blood. That shaming is an abomination which we can cleanse from our midst.

Our sages have taught us: "Better a man cast himself in a fiery furnace than that he put his fellow to shame in public." (T. Berachot 43b)

We read in Deuteronomy 23:2 that the eunuch shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord. But the prophetic conscience would not be stilled. "Let not the alien say who has attached himself to the Lord 'The Lord will keep me apart from his people'; and let not the eunuch say 'I am a withered tree.'"

For thus saith the Lord, "As for the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, who have chosen what I desire and hold fast My covenant, I will give them in My house and within My walls, a monument and a name. Better than sons and daughters, I will give them an everlasting name which shall not perish." (Isaiah 56)

The prophetic conscience resonates in our hearts and minds. Open the gates for the pariahs, gather together the dispersed and despised. "I will gather still more to those already gathered."

http://www.vbs.org/rabbi/hshulw/homo.htm[/quote]

[Warduke]

That didn't take long...

Pope condemns gay marriages as fake and anarchic

By Philip Pullella


ROME (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, in his first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election, on Monday condemned same-sex unions as fake and expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threatened the future of the family.

The Pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of these practices were dangerous for the family.

"Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage, free unions, trial marriages as well as the pseudo-matrimonies between people of the same sex are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man," he said.

The Pope spoke to families at Rome's St. John's Cathedral on an issue that has become highly controversial around the world, particularly in Europe and the United States.

In April, parliament in traditionally Catholic Spain gave initial approval to a law legalizing gay marriage. It is widely expected to be approved by the Senate and to become law.

Gay marriages are already legal in several European countries.

However, just last week, California's Assembly killed off a bill that would have allowed gay marriage in the most populous U.S. state. U.S.
President Bush favors a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

The Pope, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed the
Vatican's doctrinal department for more than two decades, said "pseudo freedoms" such as gay marriages were based on what he called the "banalisation of the human body" and of man himself.

Aurelio Mancuso, president of Arcigay, Italy's largest gay rights group, hit back at the Pope. "Ratzinger pretends not to understand that gay unions are no threat to heterosexual marriages," he said in a statement.

FAMILY'S VITAL ROLE

The Pope, who read his 14-page speech in a steady, professorial manner while seated at a writing table, spoke of the family's vital role for the future of society.

"Matrimony and the family are not, in reality, a casual sociological construction or the fruit of specific historic and economic situations," he said.

In a clear reference to contraception, the Pope said couples went against the nature of love itself when they "systematically shut off" the possibility of "the gift of life."

The 78-year-old Pope's wide-ranging speech, interrupted by applause several times, touched on themes such as human sexuality and freedom. It clearly showed his background as one of the Roman Catholic Church's leading theologians.

"The greatest expression of freedom is not the search for pleasure," he said, adding that society seemed to want to tear down the moral goalposts he said were needed for its future.

"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to (moral) education is the overwhelming presence in our society and culture of a type of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive...," he said.

Ratzinger has already backed a controversial campaign by bishops who have urged voters to boycott an emotionally-charged referendum in Italy this weekend that would lift bans on embryo research.

The Pope's words on Monday were no surprise. In an address to fellow cardinals before the start of the conclave that elected him in April, he denounced what he called an "anything goes" mentality that marked modern times.

[maudmac]

I suppose that celibacy doesn't "systematically shut off" the possibility of "the gift of life."

[werewolf123]

Not the way the Catholic church practices it.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Lutherans Air Views on Gay Clergy, Unions

By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer


ORLANDO, Fla. - Members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America expressed anger, hurt and confusion about what role gays should have in their denomination at a hearing Tuesday on an upcoming vote at their national convention.

More than 400 delegates and observers crowded into a hotel meeting room where Lutheran leaders invited comments about proposals on blessing same-sex unions and ordaining gays who are not celibate.

The Rev. Robert Goldstein, a gay minister at Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chicago, wore a rainbow sash around his cleric's collar as he urged delegates to "go beyond the justice of incrementalism" and remove all limits on gay leadership in the denomination.

"I'm a gay pastor in this church. I serve faithfully. I love it," he said. "Our church must go beyond institutionalizing fear."

No one at Tuesday's hearing directly advocated maintaining the denomination's prohibitions on gays. But some raised questions about the impact of easing the rules.

The Rev. Carol Custead of Hollidaysburg, Pa., said a Lutheran bishop in Kenya had told her that "ties may have to be broken" if the ELCA moved toward approving gay relationships.

"Were any of the global ramifications of this considered?" she asked.

But the Rev. Ann Tiemeyer of the New York Synod said the ELCA should not be paralyzed by the potential fallout.

"We talk about the fear, concern about lack of unity," she said, her voice cracking with emotion. "But we have to remember those we have already lost" because of the denomination's restrictions on gays.

Turmoil over what the Bible says about gay sex has created rifts in Protestant denominations for years. The global Anglican Communion is struggling to stay together after its U.S. province, the Episcopal Church, confirmed its first openly gay bishop two years ago.

The key proposals before the 1,018 delegates in Orlando are based on years of work by a task force on sexuality that tried to find a compromise policy for the 4.9 million-member church.

The measures would:

• Affirm the church ban on ordaining sexually active gays and lesbians, but allow bishops and church districts called synods to seek an exception for a particular candidate if that person is in a committed relationship and meets other conditions.

• Uphold the denomination's prohibition against same-sex blessings, but give bishops and pastors discretion in deciding how to minister to gay couples.

• Call for unity, even though congregants disagree on the issue.

Several Lutherans who stood to speak at the hearing said the proposals were unclear and they did not understand what the impact would be if the policies were approved. A vote is scheduled for Friday but could be delayed by debate.

New England Synod Bishop Margaret Payne, who led the sexuality task force, said the ambiguity was intentional, to give discretion to local congregations.

"The reality is there are a variety of practices across the ELCA," Payne said.

Another church leader noted that fellow members of the Lutheran World Federation, which includes 138 member churches in 77 countries, also have different approaches on gay issues yet remain together.

The head of the ELCA, Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, is also head of the world federation, and said greater acceptance of gays with partners would strain but not sever relations with sister churches overseas.

"This is not a perfect document," said Judy Biffle of Houston, a member of a top ELCA council who worked with the task force. "It was to allow us to continue to live together ... somehow balance the tension within us ... so that we could in some manner move forward for the sake of the church."

[idontlikejam]

hey there, ok i havent read the whole topic cus the first page alone was really really long and i have to go in a minute, so sorry if this has been discussed before or doesnt belong in this thread

basically i just wanted to ask a question to all the people who belong to a church who discriminate against homosexulaity or say its wrong or sin or whatever and who are gay.

Why do you stick with the church when it says you're wrong for being gay? I know thats simplified and theres a bunch of church denominations and stuff, but basically i cant imagine belonging to a religion who is hostile to my sexuality, it doesnt make sense to me and was just wondering if anyone could explain? Why dont you just leave?

Im really not meaning to be disrespectful im just naive and have never had faith and dont know anyone who has to ask about this so i really dont understand and am definitely not meant to be prejudiced here

[skittles]

idontlikejam, Some people belong to a church because of their faith & because of the people in the church... Their faith is strong, the theology is what they believe (except for the exclusion parts) and the other members of the congregation are loving & affirming.

It's kinda like saying your family is wonderful even if your grandfather is a racist. It doesn't mean the family is bad or wrong or misguided... just parts of it.

[GayNow]

Why do you stick with the church when it says you're wrong for being gay? I know thats simplified and theres a bunch of church denominations and stuff, but basically i cant imagine belonging to a religion who is hostile to my sexuality, it doesnt make sense to me and was just wondering if anyone could explain? Why dont you just leave?

Personally, I didn't stick with my church. I've left the Catholic Church...for reasons other than their take on homosexuality. However, I have not left the Catholic FAITH...there is a difference.

I've turned away from the polemics involved with the church...I have no use for them. These "holy" men who have taken positions in the Church under the guise of "being spiritual leaders" when they simply want power can kiss my ass. And, yes, I've told them that. The Archdiocese of Chicago knows who I am....a few people, anyway.

However, does that mean I think ALL priests are hypocritical jerks? No, it does not. I've met many priests who are truly holy, spiritual men. THOSE are the priests who do not shun me for my sexuality. They don't judge me. They leave judgement for God alone. They listen to my theories on the Catholic religion being pantheistic, and don't shoot me down saying, "heresy" or "blasphemy". One of my main reasons for leaving the church is the treatment of these truly good men...they are ousted by their own. It's sad.

As for faith, mine is strong. I don't need to go to a building every Sunday to have a relationship with God. And I don't have to give up my faith to question it or be critical of it. And I don't have to give up my faith in order to subscribe to, or believe in, other faiths and religions.

It is very seldom the religion itself that is homophobic...it's the people who run it. And since the dawn of time, there have been religious "leaders" who do not lead...they dictate. Why? Because they are human. And ambition, pride, the want of power -- those are, IMHO, innate human traits.

My 2 cents.

Carleen

[Gatito Grande]

Why do you stick with the church when it says you're wrong for being gay?

"The church" is just people, Idontlikejam. What it says is "wrong" today, it can say is "freakin' fabulous!" tomorrow.

GG . . . but NOT if all the people who know "Gay is Good" leave it. So, ergo, we stay and fight. Out

. . . until that glorious day, as in my church (Episcopal), or in several others (like the UCC), WE WIN!!! Hallelujah!

[WebWarlock]

More news from God's front lines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... rss_nation

Lesbian Minister Defrocked By United Methodist Church

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Page A03

The highest court in the United Methodist Church yesterday defrocked a lesbian minister in Philadelphia and reinstated a Virginia pastor who had been suspended for denying a gay man membership in his congregation.

The nine-member Judicial Council also rejected a declaration by Methodists in the Pacific Northwest that there is a "difference of opinion among faithful Christians regarding sexual orientation and practice." The court said the declaration was a "historical statement without prescriptive force" and had no bearing on church laws.

The decisions amounted to a clean sweep for conservatives who believe gay sex is a sin and want to strictly enforce a Methodist rule against "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" in ordained ministry. They were the latest in a series of defeats for liberals in the nation's second-largest Protestant denomination who have sought to be more welcoming toward gay men and lesbians.

The court rulings, which are final, put an end to the Rev. Irene "Beth" Stroud's hopes of remaining an ordained Methodist minister. Stroud, 35, said she thought she "was prepared for whatever might happen" but found it impossible to master her emotions yesterday. "It's been tears off and on all morning," she said.

Stroud said she will continue working at Philadelphia's First United Methodist Church of Germantown as a lay minister, which means she cannot administer Communion and baptisms.

Her case began when she told her congregation in 2003 that she was living in a "covenanted relationship" with another woman. Her message from the pulpit violated the church's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the clergy and resulted in a formal charge by her bishop.

In December 2004, a jury of 13 ministers convicted Stroud of "practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teaching" and removed her ministerial credentials. But a regional appeals panel overturned the verdict, citing legal errors and an ambiguous clause in the church's constitution that pledges no discrimination on the basis of "status."

Yesterday, the Judicial Council reaffirmed the original jury's verdict by a 6 to 2 vote, with one judge absent. Wary of such a decision, Stroud had not resumed ordained ministry since the original trial.

"If it's a choice between serving in the ordained ministry with my credentials intact, and serving as an 'out' lesbian person acknowledging the most important relationship in my life and not having those credentials, I'll take being out. I think it's better and more honest, and more healthy in the long run," she said.

The Judicial Council's rulings also represented a significant change in fortune for the Rev. Edward Johnson, pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church in South Hill, Va.

Johnson, 58, had been on an involuntary, unpaid leave since June, when Methodist ministers in Virginia voted 448 to 114 to discipline him for refusing to allow a gay man to become a member of his congregation. His district superintendent and his bishop had urged Johnson to admit the man.

Yesterday, the Judicial Council reinstated Johnson, with back pay, with a 5 to 3 vote. It said local pastors have the discretion to decide on members.

Johnson was traveling yesterday and did not return messages. The Rev. Tom Thomas, who served as Johnson's legal counsel, said the decision "salvaged" the career of a good pastor and "preserves the way pastoral ministry has been done in our church for 200 years."

The Judicial Counsel viewed the case as a question about a pastor's authority, rather than a question about whether people in same-sex relationships are eligible to join the church. In a dissenting opinion, Judicial Council member Susan T. Henry-Crowe said the decision "compromises the historical understanding that the Church is open to all."

Like many other Protestant denominations, the Methodist Church has been struggling with sexual issues for 30 years. Its legislative body, the General Conference, meets every four years and has, in recent sessions, reaffirmed the prohibition on "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" in the clergy by increasing margins.

Because of a changing geographic formula, conservative Methodists from the South have been gaining influence in the General Conference and have helped elect more conservatives to the Judicial Council. In May 2004, delegates also voted to tighten church laws, making it easier to charge, try and convict gay ministers.

"A lot of loopholes have been closed, but I believe in risky ways," said the Rev. Thomas E. Frank, director of Methodist Studies at Emory University and a proponent of welcoming gays into the church. "There's a lot of ambiguities in the judicial procedures because the church has never tried that hard to get people out; instead, it's emphasized being a big tent and getting everybody in. It's a sharp reversal when we start heading in the other direction."

Mark Tooley, a conservative Methodist at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, said the rulings show that Methodism "is not moving in the direction of the Episcopal Church and declining liberal Protestantism in the West." Rather, he said, it "is moving in the direction of global Christianity, which is robustly orthodox."

Warlock

[maudmac]

How 'bout moving in the direction of Jesus' teachings. I'm having a hard time imagining that Jesus wouldn't be standing out there with his arms open wide for the queers and everyone else.

I don't know how these people can sleep at night.

[skittles]

maudmac,
They sleep the sleep of the ignorant & uninformed.
They don't know that the love that Jesus showed was shown to ALL people, not just the ones that knew him or believed in him.
They believe that Jesus loved only white conservative Americans.
They forget that he wasn't white & wasn't American & that his actions weren't those of a conservative.
They look at his sacking of the temple as saying something other than what he was saying.
They look at the old painting of Jesus & think that is what he looked like.
They are in error.

Here is a quote from a book of poetry collected by Louis Untermeyer::

He who knows not & knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not & knows that he knows not is a child. Teach him.
He who knows & knows not that he knows is asleep. Wake him.
He who knows & knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.
(from the Arabic)

The groups that exclude people from the church that was started by the followers of Jesus belong to the first group in that poem.
They don't follow the teachings of Jesus.... but they don't realize that.. or worse, they don't care..

[skittles]

From the BBC:

Bishop's battle 'for soul of church'
By Robert Pigott
BBC Religious Affairs correspondent

The first openly gay Anglican bishop has met Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for talks, as controversy still surrounds his role.

Gene Robinson makes an unlikely hero, and a still more unlikely villain.

His willingness to smile, the pale blue eyes behind the rimless glasses, give the impression of diffidence, almost vulnerability.

But when the Reverend Gene became Bishop Gene, and the first openly gay Anglican bishop, pure naked dislike rained down upon him from the four corners of the world-wide Communion.

One African Archbishop declared: "The devil has entered our church".

And the act - taking up the bishop's mitre on a cold rainy night in a New Hampshire sports hall, two years ago almost to the day - revealed a steely resolve.

Gene Robinson knew the probable consequences.

Church-splitting issue

The attempt to appoint the gay Church of England cleric Jeffrey John as the Bishop of Reading earlier the same year had dissolved into humiliating chaos.

It had also given birth to a powerful worldwide coalition of traditionalists, united in their conviction that the Bible itself rules out active homosexuality.

The conservative Anglican churches of Africa and Asia, populous and growing, had spelt out that making a bishop of Gene Robinson was a church-splitting issue.

So who is the man who regarded his ordination as an openly gay bishop as a prophetic step, willed by God himself?

Gene Robinson was born 58 years ago to tobacco farmers in Kentucky.

They did not expect the sickly child to live and called him Vicky, the name they had planned for a daughter.

He realised he was gay during a marriage of more than a decade that produced two daughters.

He even underwent therapy in an attempt to change.

It was only after his divorce that Gene Robinson met Mark Andrews, a health service administrator.

They have lived together for more than 15 years.

Moratorium imposed

Since Gene Robinson's ordination as Bishop of New Hampshire, a powerful coalition of traditionalist Anglicans has campaigned to exclude the American Church from the Communion.

They are demanding a change of heart from America. Gene Robinson says there is little prospect of that.

"People in Britain find it hard to understand the role of openly gay people in congregations in America," he says.

"They serve as wardens and in leadership positions. People in America understand that to reverse that would be to say to a significant number of the faithful, 'you're no longer members of the body of Christ'.

"I can't imagine that happening."

The American Church has placed a moratorium on ordaining any bishops at least until its governing body meets next year, but its failure to accept that Gene Robinson's ordination was wrong is fuelling a bitter and spreading dispute.

The Nigerian Church - unhappy with the Church of England's failure to condemn the American Church - recently amended its constitution to remove references to the historic links with the See of Canterbury, a defining characteristic of Anglicanism.

It has emerged that two nights ago a Church of England congregation brought in a South African bishop to ordain three men in defiance of its own bishop.

Apparently to placate conservative critics, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told Gene Robinson he could attend church services to celebrate the tenth anniversary of a gay lobby group Changing Attitude but not play any active part in them.

Nor could he wear full bishop's vestments.

'Disappointed and shocked'

Bishop Robinson admits that the conditions left him hurt and upset.

"I must say I was disappointed and shocked by that," he said. "But I'm not here to undermine the Archbishop of Canterbury.

"If that makes my visit here more acceptable then that's a small gesture on my part.

"But of course I would much rather have been greeted and allowed to conduct my ministry."

But traditionalists see even Gene Robinson's presence in English churches as a provocation.

The Rev George Curry, of the Church Society, said Bishop Robinson was not worthy of the office he held.

Mr Curry accused the bishop of "adopting a lifestyle totally contrary to the will of God as declared in the written word of God".

Because it is about how the bible is interpreted, the issue of homosexuality goes to the heart of what it is to be an Anglican.

It has made Gene Robinson's personal stand - his matter of principle - into a battle for the soul of the Church.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4408854.stm

[Gatito Grande]

As I've said here before, Beth Stroud was a classmate of mine in seminary.

She's just an exceptionally-gifted minister: there's no other way to describe her (well, she's also pretty cute, then and now ).

Drop her a line (email), and let her know you're thinking of her?

beth@bethstroud.info

GG Meanwhile my church's bishop, Gene Robinson, is bringin' a heavy dose of Gospel-love: preach on, +Gene! Out

[Tempest Duer]

Watching fools who call themselves Christian behave counter to what Christ taught is depressing.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Jewish Leader Blasts 'Religious Right'

By KRISTEN HAYS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 1 minute ago


HOUSTON - The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism blasted conservative religious activists in a speech Saturday, calling them "zealots" who claim a "monopoly on God" while promoting anti-gay policies akin to Adolf Hitler's.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said "religious right" leaders believe "unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text you cannot be a moral person."

"What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God?" he said during the movement's national assembly in Houston, which runs through Sunday.

The audience of 5,000 responded to the speech with enthusiastic applause.

Yoffie did not mention evangelical Christians directly, using the term "religious right" instead. In a separate interview, he said the phrase encompassed conservative activists of all faiths, including within the Jewish community.

He used particularly strong language to condemn conservative attitudes toward homosexuals. He said he understood that traditionalists have concluded gay marriage violates Scripture, but he said that did not justify denying legal protections to same-sex partners and their children.

"We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations," Yoffie said. "Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry."

The Union for Reform Judaism represents about 900 synagogues in North America with an estimated membership of 1.5 million people. Of the three major streams of U.S. Judaism — Orthodox and Conservative are the others — it is the only one that sanctions gay ordination and supports civil marriage for same-gender couples.

Yoffie said liberals and conservatives share some concerns, such as the potential damage to children from violent or highly sexual TV shows and other popular media. But he said, overall, conservatives too narrowly define family values, making a "frozen embryo in a fertility clinic" more important than a child, and ignoring poverty and other social ills.

One attendee, Judy Weinman of Troy, N.Y., said she thought Yoffie was "right on target."

"He reminded us of where we have things in common and where we're different," she said.

Yoffie also urged lawmakers to model themselves on presidential candidate John F. JFK, who famously told a Houston clergy group in 1960 that a president should not make policy based on his religion.

On other topics, Yoffie asked Reform synagogues to do more to hold onto members, who often leave after their children go to college. He also said the Reform movement, which is among the most accepting of non-Jewish spouses, should make a greater effort to invite spouses to convert.

[sam7777]

More religious folks taking a principled standagainst the perversion of faith by the american taliban:
[url=http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=3656]As protest, Va. church launches commitments-only policy
Move is a response to Va.'s law banning same-sex marriage[/url]

Clarendon Presbyterian Church Pastor David Ensign has an alternative air about him. He wears an earring and has been known to pick up his guitar to play a few hymns during Sunday services.

But he surprised even some of Arlington's die-hard progressives Nov. 3 at the county's annual human rights awards ceremony, where his church was honored. He used the occasion to announce the church's new wedding policy:

Traditional marriages are out. "Celebrations of commitment" are in.

To protest Virginia's laws banning same-sex marriage, Ensign and the church's governing council decided that Clarendon Presbyterian will no longer have any weddings, and Ensign will renounce his state authority to marry couples.

Any heterosexual couple who has their union "blessed" in a "celebration ceremony" at the tiny church will have to take the extra step of being officially wed by a justice of the peace at the courthouse.

"What we're saying is that in the commonwealth of Virginia, the laws that govern marriage are unjust and unequal," said Ensign, 45, who has served as the church's pastor since 2003. He said that the matter had been bothering him for months and that he suggested the policy to the congregation's leaders because his conscience would not allow him to continue performing legal marriages on the state's behalf.

But unhappily religous homphobia persists elsewhere:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_gays

The Vatican says homosexuals who are sexually active or support "gay culture" are unwelcome in the priesthood unless they have overcome their homosexual tendencies for at least three years, according to a church document posted on the Internet by an Italian Catholic news agency.

The long-awaited document is scheduled to be released by the Vatican on Nov. 29. A church official who has read the document confirmed the authenticity of the Internet posting by the Adista news agency. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the document has not yet been officially released by the Vatican.

The document said that "the church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."

"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies," it said.

"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon."

[Gatito Grande]

If you've ever been inclined to pray (medidate, send well-wishes/good karma), PLEASE pray for this man?

Robinson acknowledges alcoholism, enters rehab
By Anne Saunders, Associated Press Writer | February 14, 2006

CONCORD, N.H. --The Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, says he is being treated for alcoholism.

"I am writing to you from an alcohol treatment center where on Feb. 1, with the encouragement and support of my partner, daughters and colleagues, I checked myself in to deal with my increasing dependence on alcohol," Robinson wrote in an e-mail dated Monday.

Robinson's assistant at the Diocese of New Hampshire, the Rev. Tim Rich, said Tuesday that a growing awareness of his problem, rather than a crisis, led to Robinson's decision.

In his letter, Robinson, 58, says he has been dealing with alcoholism for years and had considered it "as a failure of will or discipline on my part, rather than a disease over which my particular body simply has no control, except to stop drinking altogether."

Rich said the news surprised him and many others.

"We did not see it in any way impact his ministry in the diocese," Rich said.

The Rev. David Jones, rector of Robinson's home church, St. Paul's in Concord, said he also was surprised and had not seen any signs, even in retrospect, that Robinson had a problem with alcohol.

Robinson was elected bishop of New Hampshire in 2003 and confirmed by the national church, causing an upheaval not only in the Episcopal Church, but the worldwide Anglican Communion of which it is part.

Robinson will spend four weeks in rehabilitation. Spokesman Mike Barwell said the diocese would not disclose the location.

Rich said he has spoken with Robinson since he went into treatment and it appears to be going well. "This is hard, hard work but he's in good spirits," he said.

Robinson indicates in his letter he plans to return to work soon.

"I eagerly look forward to continuing my recovery in your midst," he wrote. "Once again, God is proving his desire and ability to bring an Easter out of Good Friday."

In the Episcopal Church system, such matters are handled within the diocese. Between sessions of the diocesan convention, the "standing committee," an elected panel of priests and lay parishioners, normally decides supervision of the diocese during a bishop's absence and other questions regarding his administration. The national church gets involved only in rare cases of formal charges involving misconduct.

The diocese's standing committee said its members support Robinson "and we commend him for his courageous example to us all, as we pray daily for him and for his ministry among us."

In addition to touching off protests and struggles for control and property in the Episcopal and other Anglican churches, Robinson has found himself a celebrity.

At New York's gay pride parade last spring, marchers and spectators crowded around him for more than three hours, reaching out to touch his hand, crying and thanking him.

"It sounds soap-operaish to say, but I'm the son of a tobacco sharecropper who didn't live in a house with running water until I was 10 years old. I can't believe I'm here, you know. So I find it very difficult to be anything but grateful," he told The Associated Press in an interview later last year.

article here

+Gene Robinson is different, alright: different, in that among the tons and tons of alcoholic clergy within the Anglican Communion (not to mention in just about every religious tradition!) few are dealing w/ it as healthily (and openly) as he is.

. . . nevertheless, the 'phobes are already chortling "I told you so" (nevermind that their constant pressure, harrassment, and even threats would drive ANYBODY to drink---you bet I hold them partly responsible for +Gene's problem!).

GG Please lift him up in prayer? Out

[Ben Varkentine]

The Dalai Lama is anti-gay.

Although he is known for his tolerant, humane views, he is a surprisingly harsh critic of homosexuality. If you are a Buddhist, he says, it is wrong. "Full stop.

No way round it.

"A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong."

At this point, he looks across at his interpreter - who seems mainly redundant - to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.

"A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it," the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. "But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life."

Via

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04 ... -lama.html

[Ben Varkentine]

Last May, the networks wouldn't run an ad by the United Church of Christ which said "like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation." Although ABC, at least, was happy to provide airtime to Focus On The Family, the pro-Bush, "pro-life," anti-gay group.

Now, the UCC has come up with another ad that they feel promotes their message of acceptance. And although the broadcast networks, with their typical courage, are refusing to run this one too, it is running on cable channels including A&E, AMC, BET, CNN, CNN, Headline, Hallmark, History, TBS, TNT, E!, and Lifetime. But not, however, on LOGO, which is (nominally) the gay and lesbian network.

I'll say that again: The gay and lesbian network...is refusing to run an ad...that promotes acceptance and tolerance of minorities, explicitly including homosexuals.

You'd be well within your rights to ask: Why?

A Viacom-owned network, LOGO is operated by MTV, which states that its standards and practices could not accept the UCC's 30- second commercial "because of the political nature of its content," according to a sales associate's e-mail response on March 30.

When asked for an official reason, MTV Networks responded, "Our guidelines state we will not accept religious advertisements that may be deemed as disparaging to another religion."

Via

Viacom's Gay-Lesbian LOGO Network Rejects UCC's Gay-Affirming Ad

Ron Buford, director of the UCC's Stillspeaking Initiative, says the 1.3-million-member denomination's four-year identity campaign was created after focus group testing revealed the depth to which people felt alienated or rejected by organized religion. The church's new "ejector" ad uses humor to convey the message, "God doesn't reject people. Neither do we."

"I guess the idea of gay TV doesn't really mean it's your community's network," Buford told United Church News. "It's just something that's targeted at you to sell product."

On a completely unrelated matter, "The L Word" jewelry and perfume lines are now avalible:

http://www.washblade.com/2005/12-9/arts/dish/word.cfm

[maudmac]

The gay and lesbian network...is refusing to run an ad...that promotes acceptance and tolerance of minorities, explicitly including homosexuals.

I'm a bit ambivalent about this. While I do agree with what you say, I'd say that it's also true that the gay and lesbian network is refusing to run an ad that promotes Christianity and a specific church. I am glad the UCC (and other churches) are so welcoming, not just of queers, but everyone. That's how I think Christian churches should be, because that's how I think Jesus was. And I cannot fault the UCC for trying to get the message out and differentiate itself from less-accepting denominations. No doubt, some people who were searching for a church that is so welcoming have found it because they saw one of those commercials.

But, on a personal level, I don't care that the UCC welcomes me because I'm not interested in their product. I am about up to my eyeballs in churches around here, plus a few synagogues, mosques, temples, and such. I don't care for people telling me I ought to welcome their god into my heart and I really could do without my television doing that, too.

[Gatito Grande]

While I'm not UCC, I really think that with

I don't care for people telling me I ought to welcome their god into my heart

you're projecting onto the UCC, Holley (Maybe, w/ the taglines of all those *other* churches you're up to your eyeballs in?). I think the UCC would welcome you to get together with others who "don't care for people telling me I ought to welcome their god into my heart" also? The UCC is one of those religious communities (as I like to think about my Episcopal Church! ) where you bring your questions (search together for answers) and, above all, don't check your brain at the door!

GG That's really unfortunate news abou the Dalai Lama. I mean, it's one thing for him, as a celibate monk, to believe how he should "not be using his holes" It's quite another for him to be preaching that particular path to EVERYBODY else! Out

[maudmac]

While I'm not UCC, I really think that with

I don't care for people telling me I ought to welcome their god into my heart

you're projecting onto the UCC, Holley (Maybe, w/ the taglines of all those *other* churches you're up to your eyeballs in?).

Heh, I'm projecting that the UCC believes that people ought to welcome their god into their hearts? No. Note: "people ought to ______" is a far cry from "people should be made to suffer if they don't ______" or "let's go beat the crap out of everyone who doesn't ______" I am well aware that the UCC is very welcoming and accepting, as I said in my post. I know they aren't like those other churches. But they are advertising themselves on TV. What is the purpose of advertisement? To increase sales or get out a message. For those receptive to the message, it's a good thing. The UCC does want people to know about their church and go to it, if they are so inclined. If I went down to the nearest UCC, would no one there speak about God or Jesus? I am certain the topic would come up pretty quickly. It's not like they're Unitarian Universalists or something and maybe we'd talk about the Goddess, Allah, Nietzsche, Jesus, and then dance around the maypole while someone sings some passages from the Guru Granth Sahib. No, the UCC is firmly a Christian church.

I think the UCC would welcome you to get together with others who "don't care for people telling me I ought to welcome their god into my heart" also? The UCC is one of those religious communities (as I like to think about my Episcopal Church! ) where you bring your questions (search together for answers) and, above all, don't check your brain at the door!

The UCC wants people who have no interest in being Christians to come to their church and hang out with all the other people who are there who also have no interest in being Christians? Why in the world would people who don't have any interest in being Christians go to a Christian church with their questions? If someone were searching for a church or a religion, yes, a trip down to the friendly local UCC would be excellent for them, and I've no doubt they would probably be happy there. But for those of us not searching for a church or a religion, it would be a wasted trip.

About the Dalai Lama. It's really a shame he feels that way, it's pretty ignorant actually, but it's not news. He doesn't go around shouting it at the top of his lungs, but I believe that's always been his response when asked about homosexuality. Some Buddhists do indeed believe exactly as he does, but the Dalai Lama, while certainly the face of Buddhism in the western world, isn't the Official Spokesperson for all of Buddhism any more than the pope is the Official Spokesperson for all of Christianity. It doesn't speak well of either of them that one of the biggest things they hold onto about homosexuality, that it is contrary to nature, is flat-out wrong as has been proven by about a billion observations out in the wild animal world. Don't these guys watch the Discovery Channel?

[Gatito Grande]

The UCC wants people who have no interest in being Christians to come to their church and hang out with all the other people who are there who also have no interest in being Christians? Why in the world would people who don't have any interest in being Christians go to a Christian church with their questions?

Guess you'd have to go and find out?

I was responding, Holley, to your notion of "welcome their god into my heart", and equating it w/ the UCC. I find that phrase very incongruous, as an Episcopalian, and I believe that many members of the UCC would, too.

The UCC (and the Episcopal Church) are Christian, yes---in the sense of being formed around a common story. But it's a whole other (problematic, at best!) leap, to go from this story (which one can hear and process, in one's own terms), to a (creepy!) metaphysical "welcome our --- into your heart" (when I hear that phrase, I think "Why not Satan? Why not George W. Bush? And is there a difference?" )

Don't get me wrong, Holley: I'm not trying to get you to ever darken the doors of any religious community. But for those of us who do (in just a few hours, I will be in my church, witnessing/participating-in the re-presentation of Christ's Last Supper---and my priest will wash my feet! ), the ways we come together---to tell our stories, to ponder the Big Questions, to hold each other up in joy&sorrow---are extremely varied. They can't be boiled down into a uniform "BrandX All-Purpose Answer: My God in Your Heart!"

GG But, like I said: you won't know, until you go and try it, will you? Out

Happy Easter!
Happy Passover!
Happy Spring! (um, unless you're in the Southern Hemisphere: Happy Fall! )

[db]

Ok. I'm not very religious, plus I am (ethnically) not a christian, so salt to your tastes:


I read above:

The UCC is very welcoming and accepting, as I said in my post. I know they aren't like those other churches. But they are advertising themselves on TV. What is the purpose of advertisement? To increase sales or get out a message

I can't believe, however, that they really embrace homosexuality or equality and this is why:

My partner and I were "married" by minister at a local UCC. She is also a close friend, lesbian and a vocal proponent of gay marriage. UCC recently ousted her from her position (she got fired for supporting gay marriages). Now she's working a retail job and really really depressed and disillusioned with the church. She is really a beautiful person. The only person I have ever been able to have a really spiritual intelligent conversation with and it was really a joy to have her and her partner be a part of my 'wedding'. Now she is no longer able to work in her chosen field. A field that she is really beautifully articulate and loving about. All of this over homosexuality.

I saw the UCC advertisement - it was nice. But advertisements are, as well stated above, to increase sales.

I was just shocked and dissapointed - how often does a church espouse gay positive stuff? It is good to see. I sometimes think about spirituality and how nice it would be to find a community that was positive about my homosexuality. I was kind of proud to have had a UCC minister marry me... but to have a church advertise gay positivity and then to see just how negatively the reality impacted my friend. It's really dissapointing. So yeah. Maybe they do want homosexuals (so that they can convert them??), but, IMHO, the proof is in the pudding (ie: they definately DON'T want us to have equal rights or marriage).

I hope this post is ok for this thread - I didn't read the whole thing - just the part about UCC (thus my comment)

db

edited because I can't spell.