Church That Closed Its Doors To Gay Navy Vet Opens Them Up For Beck
August 26, 2011 12:29 pm ET by Adam Shah
Glenn Beck announced that to follow up his rally in Jerusalem, he will be appearing at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, on Sunday. That church is notable for a particularly horrific example of anti-gay bigotry: its decision to cancel a memorial service for a Gulf War veteran because the deceased man was gay.
In 2007, the church volunteered to host a memorial service for Cecil Sinclair, a Navy veteran who served in the Gulf War. However, the day before the memorial service was to be held, the church withdrew its invitation. The Associated Press reported at the time that family members said that the church knew Sinclair was gay, but canceled the service "after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors."
According to the AP, High Point pastor Rev. Gary Simons said that "no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men 'engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.' " The AP continued:
Simons said the church believes homosexuality is a sin, and it would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle if the service had been held there.
"We did decline to host the service - not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle," Simons told The Associated Press. "Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it - yes, we would have declined then. It's not that we didn't love the family."
Simons said the decision had nothing to do with the obituary. He said the church offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends.
"Even though we could not condone that lifestyle, we went above and beyond for the family through many acts of love and kindness," Simons said.
[Simons' sister Kathleen] Wright called the church's claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging.
Beck has a pattern of associating with virulently anti-gay figures.
Beck's Jerusalem rally featured a number of religious figures who espouse anti-gay bigotry. Last year, Beck created the "Black Robe Regiment," which also included a large number of people who are fervently anti-gay.
And appearing with Beck at High Point Church will be David Barton, a man Beck has called "the most important man in America today." Barton has opposed military service by gay men and lesbians while arguing that homosexuality "was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss," wondered why we don't "regulate homosexuality" like trans fats, and blamed bullying of gays in schools not on the bullies but, rather, on "people from outside the schools coming in and saying 'Oh, you got a bullying problem and we need to teach a course for you.' "
Id rather they quote Twain or Wilde.
[The LORD said] "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
(Ezekiel 16:49-50)
This church is quite arrogant and unconcerned; they are haughty and are doing a detestable thing. Sodomites at the High Point Church in Arlington, TX. Real, biblical Sodomites at the pulpit.
They sinned before the eyes of the Lord by turning their backs on a fallen veteran because they are making things up about the Bible that don't exist to advance their hatred of God's creation.
Satan has deceived High Point Church.
And you.
BTW, it isn't ME who satan has deceived. I know when I'm being deceived (during my beer, right now) but he doesn't deceive Christians concerning whether homosexuality is right or not. He may deceive left-wingers (by the droves), but not Biblical Christians. Read the Bible again, and show me where It says homosexuality is a creation of God.
In Judaism, hospitality is considered a Mitzvot, a commandment. The mob wanted to rape the angels, Lot protected them even offering his own daughters. The fact that they were trying to have sex with other men was the least of their sins.
Funny, you seem to be pretty confident in running with the "God hates f-gs" interpretation.
You go to a rabbi.
You know that, as a Christian, you receive the Holy Spirit, who has the responsibility of, among other things, showing you Biblical insights and giving you comprehension of what you read, right, changedname?
So, to accept a man's interpretation over everything else is not a very good practice, from a theological point of view.
I suspect you don't know this, because you seem to think the only way you can interpret the Bible is if you spend your life studying it. That's simply not true. From the moment you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, God will open the scriptures to you if you study.
A pretty limited god it seems.
Biology has found homosxuality in many creatures. Many of them not able to give much thought to what is proper or improper sexually.
If its a concious choice prove it by changing your own sexual identity.
Yes, very limited.
eweston said: Biology has found homosxuality in many creatures.
Yes, but God gave man 'free will'. Do any of those other creatures have free will? What about the "harm" it does to the creature that isn't gay and is being forced to participate in homosexual acts? Is that acceptable? Or are you saying all the creatures of the world have 'free will' also and simply "choose" to be homosexual?
Oh yes they do. You cannot choose how tall you will be. But you can choose to be gay.
Most people here realise that being gay is not a choice but that is because they know and are comfortable with their sexuality (whether gay or straight).
Of course, to people like Marcus Bachmann and yourself it is obviously a choice because you are in a constant fight to overcome your feelings of attraction to the same sex and therefore choosing not to be gay. (I'll let you in on a little secret, your still gay).
So c'mon folks, give changedname a break, he has chosen not to let on that he is gay and thinks that every one else has had the same little internal battle he has. Its OK Changedname, we harbour no ill feelings here about your sexual orientation. (I'd give the blaze a miss though, they might not be so understanding)
Piping plovers. Duh.
It just doesn't work that way. Sure, someone who is bisexual might ignore or choose to detest the part of themselves that likes members of the same or opposite sex, but they are still attracted to members of the same or opposite sex regardless of how much they despise it.
Me, I am a heterosexual male. I could never "choose" to be attracted to men. It is just not possible.
"Changing orientation" doesn't happen. You are either homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual (rare). If one believes that they can "choose" whom they're attracted to, perhaps that person is simply bisexual.
It would make a lot more sense than changing orientation...which has NEVER been conclusively shown to happen in the history of man.
I've heard it, almost exclusively, from ( self-described)straight male Christians.
I don't think a person could out themselves any more clearly.
Extending from that, the argument pushed by people who wish to deny gay people the right to marry because "we should not accord the such rights based on a lifestyle choice", would fall flat since hetrosexuality is also a lifestyle choice, and by that argument marriage should not be a right accorded to hetrosexuals either.
That's right. We are given free will to choose as we please. Some make good choices and some make bad choices. But my idea of good and bad are strictly religious based.
Do you make a habit of making claims you cannot prove? If so, you are going to be a very good left-winger when you grow up.
We have had a few recent killing of gay people recently. Bu that wasn't du to the legal paperwork in our government. More will be killed, often by christains. A matter of little note though?
South American countries don't have laws like that either, none the less nonlegal death of gays in christain countries is all too real and too comon.
You won't have very long to wait if Uganda passes it's law criminalizing homosexual behavior. The death penalty is on the table in that case. Odd thing is? Those crazy Ugandans were helped in their anti-gay cause by the religious/political right from THIS country, so you can easily and truthfully argue that there are Christians in America that think in some case at least being gay is a capital offence.
They don't worship the same risen Christ that I do, of that much I am certain.
Does that mean that if a religion states that it does not allow same-sex marriages, same-sex couples can't be married? If so why should such a "religion based defense" be limited only to marriage?
Religion, according to the Bible, governs all aspects of life. In fact, many laws are based in religion (stoning of adulterers for example), and religious text states of ancient laws that should be abided to in everyday life. It doesn't just cover marriage (unless you'd like to tell me why this "religious defense" should be exclusive to marriage and not applied to other aspects of law).
If that's the definition of a "religious defense", then there are 2 questions that need to be answered, first, should this also be applied to other aspects of life? Laws governing things like punitive measures for criminal acts or even determining what should be punishable by law as well? (the Bible had a law, the law of Moses for example, Islam has its religious laws too).
The second question is linked to the first, but can only be formed if a particular definition is established. That definition is whether or not these laws are based on a specific individual's religion or encompassing all peoples of all religion. What the former describes is if a same-sex couple are of a religion that does not allow same sex marriage, they should not be allowed to be married, but if they are atheists or of a religion that says nothing about homosexuals not having the right to marry (or even that it is wrong perhaps) then they CAN be married. The latter would mean that NO homosexual couples can marry if a religion says they can't.
For the former, it must be asked, if this is the case for marriage rights, then why can't religious laws specific to one individual of a particular religion apply to that person exclusively based on his religion? Meaning if a person is Muslim, he/she should be tried under Sharia law whereas a Christian should be tried under the laws dictated by the Bible etc, each person tried according to their own religious teachings. A possible consequence of this is that it would completely erode the current standing law system as well as the notion of secularism.
For the latter, the question then would be: "which religion's laws to put into practice?" Because religious laws differ, even conflict, we can only have laws from 1 particular religion. Which lucky religion's laws gets instated? And if such does get instated, then we can consider America as a theocracy not much different from Iran, a state ruled according to one religion's teachings. We'd have to wonder how that would fare for multiculturalism and the diversity of ideas, among other things.
Most animals show actions resulting from free will. Self conciousness is rare in non vertebrates.
Consider mating cats. Do they sound like their having a good time?
Still waiting for you to conciously turn gay as a choice, and thereby prove your point.
Humbug - the eighth deadly sin.
The "sin of homosexuality" was never mentioned as the reason.
The "sin of homosexuality" was never mentioned as the reason.
Are you sure you want to denigrate a "Prophet of Islam"? Cartoonists are threatened with death for denigrating a "Prophet of Islam". You may want to look up Theo Van Gogh. But that is the religion you constantly defend and are insulted when I call them evil.
And, yes, I know the meaning of the word: bigot. And you are most definitely one. Don't fear who you are, come out of that closet and admit who you are. You are a bigot, you may have been born that way, but I believe it is a choice.
You are a bigot because you can't accept other people having any differing opinions. I can accept other people having different opinions. What i don't accept is using your beliefs as a bludgeon and arrogantly declaring everybody either evil or beneath you. Can you even define bigot?
Saqib Ali, State Delegate of Maryland and Maryland's first elected Muslim politician, wrote an opinion article in the Maryland Gazette newspaper supporting same-sex marriage.
What now, changedname?
Naturally, this complete breakdown was accompanied with the trademark wingnut Declaration of Victory !
I always love that, when even they realize they can't maintain their arguments, so they just tell everybody they won the debate.
Sort of the equivalent of flipping the game board over and running out of the room.
He's obviously been around here awhile to have a track record of 0-112... Personally I believe it's closer to 0-1,234.
Read the Bible again and show me where Christ said we were to publicly accuse and persecute homosexuals because of their lifestyle. Any verse from the four gospels will be fine. I'll wait. And it will be a long wait.
You are a LIAR. You wingnuts keep SAYING being gay is a choice but no one in their right mind believes that. I am sure you keep telling yourself that you choose not to be gay. I know my being a heterosexual was not a choice and there is no reason to believe, certainly no evidence, that being gay is a choice. Every gay person I ever knew told me it wasnt a choice for them
You people are pathetic. You think if you keep repeating lies they become true
Further, the only reference to the term which was incorrectly translated to mean "homosexual" in the New Testament was by Paul. Many theologians believe that the "thorn" which Paul claims was in his side was his own homosexuality. Christ was completely silent about homosexuality. He never uttered a word about it.
Oscar romanticised the activity of males prostitutes as "feasting with panthers".
Hmmmn, I wonder if Becky has been reading Oscar Wilde - don't tease the panther?!
Inside Edition Investigates TV Preachers Living Like Rock Stars
But it sure keeps many of them from being murderers and rapists. Without religion there would be no reason to not murder or rape. What rules do you follow that say murder and rape is not good? Gee, I hope their not religious based rules.
Example: I may want to murder you to keep you from taking a better position at work from me. If I am offered a higher position at work but I know you are my direct competition, I would want to eliminate my competition (self-preservation). How would I suffer any consequences if I got that raise because I eliminated you?
I read the link I provided (you may want to try that) and the 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' punishment system sounds quite familiar. Where have I read that before?
But since you ignored the rest of my post i'm going to stop playing your stupid game and repost it:
My parents (one an atheist and the other got involved in Wicca) instilled in me the sense of what is right and what is wrong. And that is "the golden rule"....which antedates Christianity...and human beings.
"The golden rule" and altruism, thought by many to be strictly limited to human beings, have been observed throughout the animal kingdom.
It's touched on below in the thread, with the idea that many religious people believe atheism is a religion. They need to see it as one. They can't think outside of that box.
And this idea, that humans can't possibly have morals outside of some supernatural guidelines, it's just as loony.
It might be difficult to find historical rules that are entirely secular, but that's pretty easy to understand; we're in the 21st century, and a majority of people still believe a lot of mythology, despite our advances in science and knowledge.
It seems pretty obvious that a few thousand years ago, people were less likely to reject the magical explanations.
And who was most likely to write down sets of rules ? The religious, naturally.
This gets to another myth that hyper-religious people believe- that the non-religious want to wipe out religion.
I'd be terrified if everybody like changedname suddenly lost their religion. Imagine the mayhem, when those who don't see any rational reason not to murder and rape, were suddenly relieved of that burden, the threat of eternal damnation.
AiG asserts that the existence of altruism in animals (such as a whale caring for a sick or injured member of its pod) is proof that evolution is false. You heard right. They think that this proves evolution is false. Why?
They assert that altruism denies natural selection and "survival of the fittest". And this is a stunning insight (at least to me) into their worldview.
Disregarding their baseless assertion for a moment, they believe that "evolutionism" and, therefore, what intelligent, educated people accept as true, is that we think that it's "every man for himself"; a "free-for-all".
Perhaps they even think that themselves. Everyone is a single person and, therefore, not responsible for what happens outside themselves and, possibly (but maybe not) their own kith and/or kin.
They cannot accept that man is a social animal and that morals exist to perpetrate the species...and, therefore, morals pre-date religion.
It is my opinion that religious scripture, actually, is a codification of humanity (as written by humans of the age). As the species matures, these morals change as the population grows and intelligence increases, so morals of the past don't necessarily translate to today.
We know that sickness isn't caused by demons that attacked you because you saw a naked woman or something, but by living things called "germs" and "viruses". Pork and shellfish are no longer hazardous to one's health (unless you overconsume, but that's not what I'm talking about) so it is no longer evil to eat it, though some religions and denominations still ban it for their followers.
Long story short (too late!), morals come from man. They don't come from a deity or scripture.
But, if you are completely incapable of intuitively knowing right from wrong and your parents didn't teach you this, then I'm glad that there's SOMETHING there to keep you from going barbarian on us. Though the idea that there are people like that walking freely in the world is quite scary to me...
But, it is quite disturbing, to me, that there are people out there without an intuitive sense of right and wrong and that they need a book, deity, or threat of punishment to act morally.
I wonder what he'd think of a deity that doesn't look kindly on people that act in this manner and would only accept those that are moral people regardless of belief into good hereafter.
That's it, first name that came to mind, same level of revulsion from me . .
All in all they do appear to be a rather nasty bunch of anti-Christians - an excellent fit for that narcissistic sociopath Beck.
/snark
GOD HATES NO ONE!!!
Secondly, whether you choose to accept this or not, homosexuality is an abomination in the Bible. It's a sin, just like many other sins. I The problem lies when people who are willfully living in sin that they choose not to repent from, yet expect the church to accept them AND their sin. A good church would not allow a homosexual, any more than the would not allow a couple shacking up together or spouses who are having an adultress affair to become members. They should be encouraged to attend the church in hopes they will learn the Gospel and turn from their sin, but actually becoming a member is different. While I clearly understand a funeral isn't the same as becoming a member of the church, the same rule applies.
This article states he was not a member of the church. It also doesn't specify whether the man even claimed to be a Christian or not. So under what obligation does the church have to perform this memorial service? Although we "support the troops" it doesn't mean you compromise your values in order to do it. Also, the conflict that can occur in the church can be very damaging. Churches are for worship & glorify God, not to please the world.
I'm just curious if any of you church bashers out there hold Islam to the same standard? If a mosque refused to perform a memorial service would you be as outraged?
Again, they are not required to act in a Christian manner but what they're doing is a sin and God will judge them on this in the beyond. If there was one.
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)
But here's the good news:
1 Corinthians 6:10 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." [/b](NIV)
Turn from your sin & trust in Jesus, despite your sins, you will inherit the Kingdom.
Why would you want to have a service in a church that doesn't support this type of lifestye unless it was another scheme to try to push your agenda onto people who don't want anything to do with this lifestyle. I'm sure any Universalism church who has no sound Doctine would have been happy to perform it.
When they didn't allow this service to take place they were acting in a Christian manner.
You might want to read the Bible (assuming you're a Christian) and find out exactly who goes where. Jesus tells you. And He tells you why. Try not to be too elated if you find you aren't going upwards in your afterlife. It is described as a pretty bad place. Filled with a whole lot of bad people. I wouldn't want to go there no matter who is there. Noble or not.
And not to get into a a theological debate, but Jesus doesn't say anything. There is no book that Jesus wrote, just what is WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER the death of Jesus, and supposedly by his Apostles.
What ever happened to Jesus's message of loving and respecting people regardless of what they believe or do?
No, he is condemning hypocrites. If that gay person is a hypocrite then he is condemned, according to johaely. Or are you saying that all gay people are NOT hypocrites?
turkeysocks said: What ever happened to Jesus's message of loving and respecting people regardless of what they believe or do?
That is still His message. Hence: hate the sin, not the sinner. You do remember that little quote don't you? Which is why that church paid for all the food for more than 100 attendees at that funeral service and completed the videos and pictures for the family to show off. They just didn't want it done IN the church.
However, your "hit...my wife" analogy is way off. I took a direct quote of yours and used the direct quote of yours and you denied you said it.
They're always demanding that everything be dumbed down for them.
If they truly follow the teachings of Jesus, then they WOULD HAVE HELD IT IN THE CHURCH. By refusing to allow the funeral to be done in the church, they are showing HATE FOR THE SINNER along with the "sin".
You apparently don't really know about Jesus's message of love and compassion. That is why you fail to understand what the point is.
Who said this?
Homosexuals are hypocrites in your eyes, not Johaely's. So your point is still moot, as you are extending your opinion as if it is Johaely's opinion.
Yet somehow I don't think you will understand what I just said.
JOhealy said something negative about hypocrites.
Changednames "gotcha" seems to be - if a hypocrite happens to be gay, that means Johaely is condemning homosexuality.
Wow.
The more he types letters and tries to read and comment on others' words, the more exposed his thinking becomes, and it is a little scary...
If a homosexual is a hypocrite, I will call them out for their hypocrisy, not for their homosexuality.
It's what they do, not what they are.
Also, changedname, you cannot read whatsoever. Here is what Johaely said:
You are just wrong when you say Johaely said that Heaven *IS* full of hypocrites and hell *IS* full of noble men.
Come back when you have a stronger command of the English language. And some more intelligence.
But, if they hear the Word of God and refuse it or deny it, then they go to hell along with all others who refuse or deny the saving grave of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But, don't worry, since most left-wingers don't believe in Heaven or hell, there is nothing for you all to worry about. You won't go to either place. I, personally, do believe in Heaven and hell and do not want to go to hell. Remember, God won't drag you into Heaven kicking and screaming. You've got to want to go there.
No need to thank me, I'm here for everybody!
Your 1 Corinthians 6 reference is mistranslated. But, even if it were true, you didn't read it. It says "homosexual offenders". "Offenders" is important and you ignore it. But, no, it's not about homosexuals.
Leviticus 18 is not homosexuality. Neither is Leviticus 20.
Have you actually, y'know, done any research? Into your own religion or homosexuality?
I know that this church doesn't support "this type of lifestyle" and that is what is sinful. God created homosexuals and for a church to turn away from God's creation is quite sinful and I'm surprised that you would support sin.
If you need an idea of how this one "thinks", may I offer this nugget, the one that got NNN into my Wingnut Hall of Fame folder, apparently something learned at the Yogi Berra Theological Institute;
Lol. I love that one. Almost as much as an adult who feels the need to brag about not needing a nanny while admitting to being controlled by an imaginary Babysitter in the Sky.
( Well, until you got to the end of that sentence, with the dopey "agenda-pushing nonsense).
I've never understood myself why people want to join a church that is bigoted against them. Good question, why would any rational person want to associate with a bunch of narrow-minded hate-mongers who consider themselves superior to that person ?
Hey, andy, what brand of "tripe" do you believe will happen to you after you die? Just wondering, to get a comparison point of view from someone who doesn't believe in "the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ".
In other words superior. I can't talk for Andy, but i know that after i die i will either be buried or cremated. Whatever happens after, i don't know.
Have you figured out which part of "full of hypocrites" was taken out of context yet?
Hey, johaely, why did you stop asking about Buddha and Gandhi? Although, I tried googling "Ghandi" and didn't find anything on this person. Do you have a dictionary? Or access to spell check? Or is that some sick trick you do by purposely spelling a name wrong so you can claim innocence later on, after I've conversationally destroyed every comment you made.
Wow, you a incredibly stupid an delusional. You somehow believe that my typo was some evil ploy and that you are actually making a point?
And I like how he describes it as a 'sick trick' as if you're some pedophile slipping roofies to kids in the after school tutoring club...
I have news for you, no one understands what G-d's will is. Do you know why? Because G-d gave us free will. I never bought that he gave us free will so we would mindlessly follow his teachings. No, I think he gave it so that we, humans, can become better as human beings. To find peace and harmony with one another, despite our differences in culture, ethnicity, and religions.
If you really believe you are "saved by the grace of God and our lord Jesus Christ", then take your head out of your buttocks, and learn to love and respect others regardless of their differences to you.
I'm not "mindlessly" following His teachings. I have full and complete control over why I choose to follow His teachings. First of all, it beats any other choice I have.
Have you EVER actually question anything that you've been taught? Have you actually tried to research the history of the Bible? Or bother to learn why so many other books or and teachings were left out of the Bible? You do know that there were hundreds of other books of different denominations of early Christians which were stamped out simply because they did not meet the criteria or questioned the belief structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
And the Bible itself, has changed little since the European Dark Age. Do translations differ? Of course, but the stories are still the same.
So the question comes, have you ever truly looked else where? If not, then your comment would be considered a LIE.
Also, when you use "first of all", there generally follows at least a "second of all".
Ahem
All within one conversation, you've shown ignorance of the Islamic faith. The Islamic faith has it's roots in Judeo Christianity, and though it has separated and become something different, many of it's tenets are "burrowed" from Judaism and Christianity.
You've shown a lot of ignorance for a man who has supposedly studied.
If you truly are learning from the teachings of Jesus, then you would embrace even those who disagree with you regardless of their differences to your beliefs. But alas, all you've shown is hatred towards anything that doesn't align with your "Christianity". Which again, leads me to suspect whether or not if you've actually bothered to study the Bible and other religious faiths.
You equate peaceful followers of Islam, of which are the vast majority, with the actions of a few extremists.
If we were to do that (equate bombers of women's health clinics with all of Christianity) we'd be called a bigot. And rightly so.
Why can't we call you a bigot for doing that very thing?
Don't forget to itimise your expenses for the Promote Revolution, section of your tax return.
You don't run a peaceful revolution though the use of violence.
I really have some doubts on you providing the umph for showing the fighters how to properly achieve a stable government through peaceful means y'know.
I'll tell you what, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING! It is a war that has nothing to do with religion.
Heck, I can do the same. How about the Mexican drug cartels? The majority of them are Christians, and look at all the horrible things they've done to Mexico and in South-western USA! Killing and selling drugs, man Christians are so dangerous!
Sorry, bub. Islam isn't doing what you linked.
And it doesn't matter if they are or are not dangerous to YOU. They are a danger to OTHERS. It doesn't matter if they are a danger to people on a daily basis or not. They are still a DANGER to others.
Here's the fact, there are BILLIONS of Muslims in this world. And only a minority of them are or have committed terrorist acts. If you actually compare the acts of Islamic Fundamentalists to the actions of Christian Fundamentalists in the past, they still have a LONG WAY TO GO before they can match the atrocities that have been done in the name of Jesus and G-d.
I don't believe in tripe or fairy tales. I'm more reality-based, I believe in facts and logic.
The same thing will happen to me when I die as happens to an apple, a gopher, or you; we'll decompose. I respect your right to believe you'll ascend to a magical theme park, and get wings and a harp, but until you can show comparable evidence for your idea as I have for mine, I'll remain unconvinced.
And, yes, if you think you're in some special group who thinks you're saved, you have a completely unwarranted superiority complex. Sorry, that's the truth.
Keep up the 'good works'. You're earning your way into secular humanism/atheist heaven with that philosophy.
This is the problem with trying to talk to the superstitious, you think everybody else is as child-like as you are.
Like I said, I'm not a real tripe fan. That's your gig.
I'll happily answer that one. I'm no fan of Islam either and the anti-gay attitudes you find throughout much of the Muslim world are archaic. Funny how much you have in common with them, Nonanny.
Did you read that? That was 7 countries. Not 7 individuals, not 7 churches, not 7 cities. Where is your self-proclaimed outrage? Non-existant from what I see in your posts.
Also, like always, you completely glossed over what you posted. In very big letters the article has these paragraphs:
After all, Judaism (and therefore Christianity) also call for the death of gay people.
It IS the norm. You'll notice that the other countries on that list are Muslim countries ... the ones who have the most harsh punishments for being homosexual. YOU make it seem like anti-homosexuality is an anomoly of Islam, where in FACT it is extremely dangerous to be known to be gay in those settings. Thanks for proving your approval of Islam hating gays while disapproving of Christianity calling homosexuality a "sin".
It is not the norm in predominantly Muslim countries as, believe it or not, they mostly secular.
I can give you a list of 10 predominantly Muslim nations that don't execute gay people since that is the standard you use.
I'm sure you can, johaely. But I asked for ONE Christian ruled nation that executes homosexuals for being homosexual. That I am still waiting for.
Stay tuned...
That's an interesting statement for you to make. You constantly whine about my 'displeasure' with Islam, yet you call them "fundies" when they control the government and execute gays for being gay. Do you understand why I don't like Islam, now? If I had called Islam a bunch of "fundies" you would instantly call me a racist and bigot. Should I call you a bigot, now?
You don't have a displeasure towards Islam, you are a bigot. There are many Muslims countries with secular law that don't kill gay people yet you consider only the theocracies or broken states (which also have horrible overall human rights records) and use them as the representative of the whole religion. What you do would be like if i took the Inquisitions and Crusades as the representation of Christianity.
BTW, you DO take the Inquisitions and the Crusades as the representation of Christianity. And so do most of your left-wing cohorts. Which makes all of them bigots too. For the exact same reason you justify calling me a bigot.
You are just horrible people who use Christianity and Jesus as a bludgeon to impose your will on everyone.
The U.S., being a relatively liberal nation, has been able to keep our equivalent of the Taliban in check.
I'm hoping for further fractures between this streak and the Randinista's.
The extremists muslims that he calls "fundies" are definitely fundamentalists.
But the inquisitions and the Crusades were organized by what was then considered MAINSTREAM Christian movement (the Church had great influence over government at that time), which was pretty darned fundamentalist, perhaps way more so than the extremist Muslims of today. They did terrible things in the name of their religion, proof positive that fundamentalism is indeed a problem
Calling fundamentalists fundamentalists is no more bigoted than calling racists racists.
See, that's the thing Traveller/changedname ignores. We aren't calling the entire Muslim faith evil (as he's doing). Just a small subset that distort their religion for their own personal agenda.
He doesn't know what the word "bigot" means and he thinks that repeating what he was told by others that he can somehow score political points. But, if he doesn't know what he's talking about, then those "political points" he thinks he's scoring is actually harming his case.
The problem is fundamentalism, regardless of which religion it is based upon.
Homosexuality is not punishable by death in Malaysia for example. And it is pretty darned conservative a country in itself already.
Also, it is irrelevant what is happening in those 7 countries. Those 7 countries are not the United States. And these countries are not following the Quran.
Read what I said again. Because you're lying. I would NOT support a mosque that does this. Did you read that? I would NOT support a mosque that does this.
Read it again until it gets through that thick skull.
Oh? Do you feel Islam is a good religion of fair interpretations of their laws? Do you support the Palestinian right to govern themselves the way they want to? How about Iran? They are following the scriptures given to them by the Quran. There are no misinterpretations. If you think there is, bring the quotes that are misinterpreted and show how they are being misinterpreted. Bring exact quotes and exact misinterpretations.
But Islam is a religion. Much like Christianity, it has set down its own laws for those who follow that faith. The laws of Faith are far different then the laws of Man. Only fundamentalists try to make the laws of Faith the law over man.
I answered your question. And I refuse to answer these tangential questions which are completely irrelevant to the topic.
That was acceptable in the bible, yet today we condone slavery. Or perhaps you do not since it is in the bible?
And honestly, I think the this church failed it's mission. It did not act like Jesus commanded us. It did not help this family.
Helping this family would have meant providing an service for a fallen American soldier, comforting his family.
Don't you think that is what Jesus would have done? Did Jesus turn away anybody?
It DOES condone slavery.
I don't think he knows what "slavery" is.
He mentions a football player being traded against his will. No. He's a football player. He chose to be a football player. If he doesn't like what is happening in his job, he can find another job.
Slaves cannot do that, Traveller/Changedname. They cannot say "I'm not going to do this anymore and find greener pastures."
The Bible makes a distinction between slaves and paid servants (see the story of the prodigal son for a reference on paid servants). That same distinction applies today. You're making a false equivalence there.
Your name becomes more hilariously ironic with every post you make.
Mediamatters brings 2 conflicting reports and claims only one is factual. How about you give us just the slant you want instead of using 2 separate links that say 2 different things?
The first link says the church cancelled after seeing what pictures and videos the family wanted to use during the memorial.
The second link says the church cancelled after finding out the 'partner' was listed in an obituary.
In both links it is clearly pointed out that the reason the pastor cancelled the memorial is because of gay images that were going to be used during the service. For Mediamatters (a company that prides itself on accuracy and honesty) to insinuate that the service was cancelled because of an obituary listing is quite dishonest and clearly misinformation.
And, yet, the church still provided food for the "more than 100" attendees at another site that the church provided and provided the video and pictures for the family.
In the end, Mediamatters is trying to smear Glenn Beck because he is willing to associate with a church that has (and holds) principles. That seems kind of contrary to what Mediamatters claims to have as a purpose in their 'about us' section which states their goal is to expose "misinformation". What misinformation is involved here? Only their own.
Interesting.
The stories from Associated Press and the Christian Post pretty much mesh. Both tell us the High Point Church backed out of their commitment to host Cecil Sinclair's funeral. Both tell us Sinclair was a Navy veteran. Both tell us that Sinclair's brother worked at High Point as a janitor. Both offered quotes from Rev. Simons where he was given the opportunity to explain his decision.
Care to point to the conflict, oh former Traveller? And after you've done that would you be good enough to show where Adam Shah said one of these sources was factual and the other was not?
Now, if you want to critique these articles for slant--sure. The Christian Post article takes time to mention that Simons is the brother-in-law of Joel Osteen--a trivial piece of information that has nothing to do with the Sinclair service. The Christian Post piece takes the time to insert the Focus on the Family's strawman argument that pastors preaching against homosexuality could somehow be charged with a hate crime if a member of their congregation goes out and assaults a member of the gay community. It also, in the midst of telling us how the High Point Church as repeatedly has said it shows care and compassion to homosexuals, tells that *gasp* an openly homosexual choir wished to sing at the service, and that they also wanted an open microphone that would allow anyone to speak (including, presumably, the gays)!
Nope, you won't find those tidbits in the A.P. article. However the A.P. article tells us Sinclair served in the first Gulf War (The Christian Post did not) offers the quote from Sinclair sister, Kathleen Wright, where she called Simons' claims about the submitted photos to be a "bold faced lie."
I'm guessing that the center of the "bold faced lie" charge can be found in the Christian Post piece where they tell us the church claims that one of those photos featured one man touching another's genitalia. Would you say that would be a rather odd photo for a family to submit to a church?
Regardless of how we'd care to slice and dice this matter I think all of us would agree this isn't exactly Christian behavior on the part of Rev. Simons. I'm sure we've all heard many questionable words and deeds of more than a few defended with the handy, dandy, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," line.
Remember, if you're ever having trouble making sense of a wingnut's thoughts, the problem is probably that you're thinking using normal human logic. The right wing brain operates almost entirely on logical fallacies, so look for that first.
I may have this wrong ( and I'm sure changedname will correct me if he can clarify) but I believe what he's trying to show as the "conflicting reports" boils down to this;
One source says that the funeral was canceled after the pictures and videos were seen.
Another source mentions that the funeral was canceled after the obituary was revealed.
What we may have here is the binary brain running up against its own post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Event B happened after Event A. The reptilian brain understands this as " Event B happened exclusively, as a direct result of Event A".
When it's mentioned that Event B also happened after Event C, this "crashes the unit", as it deletes the first thought in order to free up space for the new info.
If there were a third source that reported the fact that, say, the funeral was canceled after the 4th of July, this would probably have the same effect.
Hope this helps.
You're close, andy. One article says the event is cancelled BECAUSE of "event A", the other article says the event is cancelled BECAUSE of "event B". Slight difference than your interpretation. But, I've already seen you have trouble interpreting.
They go on to offer Rev. Simons' take.
Seems like the A.P. offered a more balanced report than the Christian Post was eager to pursue an obvious slant--you didn't miss their headline which reads, "Texas Megachurch Harassed for Refusing to Host Pro-Gay Memorial" did you?
From the Christian Post item;
.
So, the church says they made their decision based on their bigotry.
Then the other report says;
That says "after" not "because" You're a liar, or stupid. Could it be implied? Sure, if the church hadn't already admitted that they'd made their decision based on their bigotry.
Or, you could argue that the church didn't mind his being gay, as long as he hid it. Bad argument.
Unless you can point to any conflicting reports saying events happened "because of" certain events, you're a fool.
I already did that. Did you not read what I wrote? Or are you having problems with your reading comprehension today?
You saw a "conflict" in how the Associated Press and the Christian Post reported when the High Point Church discovered that Sinclair was gay.
From the eighth paragraph of the Christian Post story.
"The church said their decision was based upon several factors including photos turned over to them to create a multimedia presentation which made it clear that the deceased - 46-year-old Cecil Sinclair - was homosexual."
From the fifth paragraph of the Associated Press story.
"The church's pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men 'engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.'"
No conflict there. Both offered Rev. Simons side of the story.
The charge that the service was called off after the obituary was published was made by Kathleen Wright and appeared in the Associated Press report. The Christian Post, who we already know did not bother to quote Wright, also failed to present that side of the story to their readers.
We can see an omission here, but no true conflict on the basic fact of this incident--the High Point Church withdrew their offer to host Sinclair's memorial service because he was gay.
Regardless, you also made the claim that Media Matters judged only one story as factual. Big ol' failure on your part on that one, T.
I'm sorry, you were saying what now about reading comprehension problems?
How many comments do I have to write before you approve me? All my comments have been on topic. None have been offensive. I have not engaged in derogatory name calling as many of your commenters do. How long does this process take?