|
||||
|
Sarx (σαρξ) is the Greek word for "flesh". This is the blog of a Southern Man (sojourning in Buffalo, NY) attempting to follow God in the way of Jesus. NB: I'm currently on a "Blogging Sabbatical" to celebrate my 15th Year of online Journaling. While "Daily Tweets", the occasional review of a book, movie or eatery and Photo Blogging all continue, the daily posts have stopped until January 2011. All comments are currently in moderation. You can email me at "arkouda" at this domain.  |
We don’t want your faggy charityA Church in Texas has been told that it can not participate in an annual programme of giving gifts to the children of prison inmates. Why? Because they welcome gay people in their congregation. There is only one sin in the Bible. Only one. One. 8 comments to We don’t want your faggy charity |
|||
|
|
||||
I am so over the top sick of these so called Christians. I can just picture some kid throwing a toy on the ground because it came from someone who is gay. The prision should not allow this so called Christian group to get anywhere near the prision as it excludes people. Perhaps I am wrong but I believe that Jesus ministered to all not just the people we like. I was taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. Sometimes I wonder why I am still a Christian!
Just a follow up. I AM STILL MAD. We should write to the prison and have them trown out on their righeous butts!
Picture rejecting the toy because it came from the pastor who said there may or may not be gays in his church.
That’s what pissed me off. Not, “you’re gay I don’t want your money” – which is bad enough – but “you eat with tax collectors and sinners”
Sorry, Fr. Peter and Huw, but I disagree with your comments. You see, the end result of what you say would be even worse. What is even worse? Either the removal of all evangelical ministries from prisons or the forcible government-mandated “inclusion” of non-compatible churches in your ministry.
No, no, I prefer the freedom of association and freedom of access to government buildings that is allowed now. So then, are you about to write to the prison to have them thrown out? And will you write also if some Muslim group is excluded from a moderate Muslim ministry because that group is radical? And will you then insist that all Muslims get thrown out because they do not include the radical group?
See, the problem with what you say is that once you get government intrusion into who may and may not have access based on their religious doctrine, you are not that far away from erring on the other side of separation of church and state.
Please note that the ACLU has both defended and attacked religious groups based on the principle of neutrality. Some it defends whenever the government tries to force a definition of who must be in or what must be believed before access is allowed. Some it attacks when the religious group has either improper or preferential access.
Both of you are making a big mistake on this one.
To be clear – I’ve not called for their removal from the prison. I don’t want their ministry cancelled just because they are assholes. Kids need presents even from assholes.
I don’t foresee a child dropping a toy because it was made by biblical literalists, either.
(I notice that they also reject churches that don’t accept the Biblical account of creation. That’s even flakier, if you ask me.)
I agree on the flaky part! They are aggresively moderate! I also dislike Farrakan’s group intensely, but they must be allowed access to their followers. As well as the Wiccans. Actually, I find the few Wiccans I have met to be very nice gentle people who would make lovely neighbors. I just think they are very wrong!
Let me argue the other side. If there were a religious group who were to try to have access to their followers in order to encourage them to kill guards, I suspect that they could be safely excluded without violating civil rights guidelines.
Mmm. Access to their followers? Who is denying this?
The issue is one thing and one thing only:
Party A wants to help
Party B says they are not good enough.
Party A wants to help.
Party B says that you do not fit within the parameters of the mission of our organization.
Party A can simply help on their own. The danger of today’s interpretation of tolerance is that too often it means that no organization can have definition and parameters or they are
“judgemental.” That is actually a very long way from the Biblical definition of judgemental.
And, yes, Huw, there is more than one sin. The reason lesbigay issues get so much attention is for the same reason that the person of Jesus got so much attention in the fourth century. It is the current cultural point of conflict and tension.
In WWII, it was the issue of Jews. In the 1950′s the issue of separate but equal was strong. At the end of the 19th century to the very early 20th, suffragettes were the issue. In the 1970′s, glass ceilings were the issue. In the third century, returning apostates were the issue for Novatian.
Because they are the point of conflict, those issues get the lion’s share of the philosophical and theological attention in that particular century (or part of a century), even though there are other things that could also be addressed. Eventually the focus will be off of lesbigay issues, and then something else will take the limelight.