Why are Christians expected to shed their principles in deference to the spirit of the age?
There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man’s life. However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair’s homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display. Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin, and its offer was rescinded.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Irene Wagner
When I had nearly finished reading Duke's quite reasonable article, I wondered how many (or how few, actually) comments I would need to read before encountering the word "homophobia."
David Nalle, you exceeded all my expectations for alacrity! But thanks for sending props out to the church for its generous offer to pay for the funeral at some other venue.
And speaking of a Christian organization's effort to keeping its promise, even when the keeping requires intricate choreography with OTHER treasured values, I'm reminded of the company New Tribes, which produced End of the Spear, the true story of missionaries whose death had such an impact on the Aucun tribesman who killed them that they in turn became missionaries for Jesus.
The story of forgiveness and redemption caught the attention of actor Chad Allen, who auditioned for, and got, the lead role of missionary Nate Saint. During production, when it was brought to the attention of New Tribes that Chad Allen was a very politically outspoken homosexual, there were some decisions that needed to be made.
New Tribes took it on the chin from many Christians who were outraged to have their hero played by an outpoken homosexual, but they were men of integrity, and they continued filming with Chad as Nate.
And they explain why here . New Tribes provided Chad Allen with a script. High Point Church couldn't script the funeral service that was to be held in their sanctuary. Though the decisions made by the leaders of New Tribes and High Point Church were different because of differences in circumstances and control, their hearts were clearly in the same place.
27 - Irene Wagner
Those links again.
End of the Spear
and
Christian Studio Explains Casting Gay Actor as Missionary
28 - Colin Ricketts
"It is well established that the biblical reference is to murder. Society has differentiated self defense and national defense from murder for centuries as well. It's fine to try and play dumb and conflate the two, just don't expect everyone else to go along with your fantasy."
I don't think I am 'playing dumb', it seems quite clear to me - many Christians (Quakers for example) are indeed pacifists because of that belief, which I think is a mighty and noble thing!
I'm no biblical scholar, a complete ignoramus in fact, so you'll have to tell me how it is 'well established' that it means judicially-defined murder rather than all taking of life, I am well aware that is what many people take it to mean.
29 - gonzo marx
again..i must call bullshit...
this rant revolves around two different things...
1 - someone wanting to be buried in their church, it being agreed to, then denied for reasons fo the church
2 - the big one here, some thinking that homosexuality is "sinful", where they trot out the old Leviticus quote about "abomination"
even if we toss aside the actual Christ message about forgiving sinners, and the part about how you treat the least of these...and his ministry to those society had tossed aside (which demonstratres that this "church" has completely lost their Way)...you still run afoul of the theological problems with trying to state that a single admonition in Leviticus is still to be followed...but the rest of that Book can be ignored...
or do i still need to gather the entire village to stone my grandmother for wearing cloth made of two different threads?
so many who like the "abomination" bit forget the rest of that book, or some of the other silliness in the OT...
try this link for a fine refutation, utilizing Biblical quotations, of the entire "abomination" argument...
for those who think themselves "righteous" and find it proper that a church failed to minister to one of their own, for what they perceive as a "sin"...
get the fucking stick out of yer own eye
nuff said...
Excelsior?
30 - gonzo marx
oh yeah..for Colin...
if you accep tthe Jewish scriptures as authentic for verification, then the 10 Commandments do translate as
"thou shalt not murder"...big differenc ethere, especially since rabbinical Law has clear definitions for murder
which always tickled me about so called "literalist" christians who hold sunday as the "sabbath" which is a Roman invention , shifting from traditional sabbath of the Jews to "sun" day, to usurp the day of rest that was observed by the Roman sun worshippinj greligion prevalent at the time of Constantine...
but i digress
Excelsior?
31 - Irene Wagner
"You rarely see evangelical churches protesting outside military bases for example..."
August 21, 2007 @ 14:27PM â€" Colin Ricketts [URL]
"It seems quite clear to me - many Christians (Quakers for example) are indeed pacifists..." August 21, 2007 @ 16:39 PM - Colin Ricketts
And while we're on the subject of changing the subject, do you think Quakers would approve of accepting homosexuals into the military? Would you approve if the Quakers were to disapprove (on the basis of their pacifism, of course)?
What if High Point Church had hosted a funeral with full military honors for a homosexual, including punch and cookies afterwards? Would that've been ok. Don't get mad (=cross) I just love "yankin" Brit chain.
32 - Irene Wagner
Gonzo Marx - get thee to a Bible Concordance. It's not just some obscure Levitical reference. If I were to list all the NEW TESTAMENT prohibitions of homosexual activity, I'd be called a Bible thumper.
33 - Dr Dreadful
You rarely see evangelical churches protesting outside military bases for example
And Fred Phelps doesn't count.
(Before anybody brings him up...)
34 - Colin Ricketts
Thank you Gonzo Marx (a very fine conflation that!).
No worries Irene, what's a Brit and a chain, I know what a yank is. :)
35 - Dr Dreadful
It's not just some obscure Levitical reference. If I were to list all the NEW TESTAMENT prohibitions of homosexual activity, I'd be called a Bible thumper.
Paul (and others) also have quite a lot of other prohibitions which modern Christians conveniently ignore. Like the one about women not speaking in church, for instance.
In fact, if Paul saw you commenting on here he'd probably have a conniption.
36 - gonzo marx
Irene, pleas edo list for me anytime Yeshua ben Miriam, who holds the Greek honorrific of "the Annointed" called ANYONE an "abomination" ...or said to outcast any sinner from his ministry
not the Pauline dogma, but some quote from "Jesus"
then you can try getting down off your high horse, and we can discuss comparative theology in a reasonable fashion...
i'll be glad to go over and discuss my knowledge in scriptural matter in both the realm of content and anthropological as well as archeological accuracy...not to mention the theological
but, do feel free to attempt to "educate" me...i await your Enlightenment
however, i do operate under the premise that gnosis > dogma
Excelsior?
37 - Irene Wagner
Ah yes the amazing Reverend Phred. I actually was going to bring him up, but changed my mind. Most Christians eschew any association with this graceless man.
But the farther east you go, the closer you end up to west.Phred Phelps might just have some insight into why the family tapped a church with conservative theology to host the funeral of their homosexual relative. Apparently Phelps has inscrutable (to the rest of us) reasoning they do.
38 - Irene Wagner
Groucho Marx, Why should I have to show you Scripture where Yeshua called homosexuals an abomination? Why are you requiring me to do this?
There aren't any stories of Jesus interacting with a homosexual. But he DID have words for the woman caught in adultery, and they weren't, "You abominable whore." Jesus, using the brilliant "let those of you without sin be the first to throw a stone" forestalled her execution by a self-righteous mob.
What he did say was, Neither do I condemn you, go and SIN NO MORE.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. And homosexual practice is a sin, no greater, and no less a sin, than adultery, lying, overeating, and being a pompous jackass online.
I eagerly await your mea maxima culpa. *wink*
39 - Dr Dreadful
Why is it a sin?
Who does it hurt?
40 - Irene Wagner
Well toots we aint in church, so St. P can rest in peace.
But seriously Gonzo Marx (!) St. P was a GOOD deal more respectful of women, even as important functionaries within the church, than people realize. The women he wanted to keep silence in the church (context is EVERYTHING) where ladies who kept badgering their husbands with questions in the middle of the service when they heard something they didn't understand.
Elsewhere, St. Paul gives instructions for women who were prophesying. So he allowed for women to be prophetesses--that's a pretty high position, wouldn't you say?
Now far be it for me to suggest that modern Christians follow the Scriptures to the letter, or even more importantly in full accordance with the Spirit. The Bride (a biblical analogy of the Church) needs a lot more work before she's ready for the Bridegroom (Jesus Christ) to bring him to His Father's home.
But there are a lot of Christians who are doing their best, their flawed, human, best to walk that Narrow Road (between Law--keeping the commandments and Grace--keeping them with Love.)
I put the leaders of the church in question in that category, though I'm not their ultimate judge. Jesus is.
41 - Irene Wagner
Dr Dreadful,
What if it only hurt God? Would that be enough for it to retain its status as sin?
And don't accuse me (you haven't of course, yet, but I can feel it comin' ON from other quarters) of wanting to codify it as sin on the American lawbooks. As long as adultery and premarital sex and overeating aren't against the law, then neither should any kind of (non predatory) sexual behavior be.
42 - Baronius
Dr. D, why does a sin have to hurt someone else? Sitting at home fantasising about a friend's wife doesn't hurt anyone else, but it's clearly considered a sin in Christian churches. I think you can make the argument that some acts hurt the actor, but you don't have to.
43 - Dr Dreadful
Irene, I'm not gonzo. You're being tag-teamed! ;-)
Call me cynical, but saying it's 'disgraceful' (NIV) for a woman to speak in church is a bit more than a reaction to inappropriate nattering in the stalls.
Also, not surprising that Paul was OK with women prophets. If they claimed to be speaking the word of God, far be it from him to stop them, eh?
And, as you say, it's all about context. Like the context which led to the author of Leviticus prohibiting the 'abomination' of homosexuality. It was a response to a special situation which faced that society and no longer applies.
44 - Irene Wagner
But does homosexuality only hurt God?
Even if you agree with me that CIVIC laws against homosexual practice are Unconstitutional and perhaps even antibiblical, is this something we should steer our kids away from?---as the book being advertised on this page suggests it is.
Just so happens I have a young son who is artistic, more articulate than his very articulate older sister, sensitive...all the positive traits that one associates (stereotypically or not) with homosexuality. But if a physical attraction to the same sex turned out to be also one of my son's attributes (after the normal gender confusion of the teenaged years had passed), what would I do?
I'd have to tell him that he was experiencing strong sexual desires that needed to be brought before God at the Throne of Grace (as ALL strong sexual desires need to be, be they desires for premarital couplings, incestual couplings, one night stand heterosexual couplings...all of those are, or can be, STRONG sexual desires).
In the end, its a matter between the Lord and him. I can't control my son's sexuality after he reaches a certain age. My role is to teach him what the Bible says, and just as important, point him to the Person--He's real and alive, not just an Idea--who is able to help him walk in those paths. And to pick him up when he falls down, as everyone does.
I think Christian men (in the West) could stand to be a lot closer to one another, a lot less "macho." So its not like I'm going to squash any manifestation of tenderness in my son towards other guys. But if there's a reason he really can't relate or interact in a romantic way toward females, I'd certainly want to explore that block, rather than automatically assigning my son to a life as a homosexual.
It's a hard life. There are few homosexuals who'd deny that.
45 - Dr Dreadful
Irene, we appear to be a comment or two behind one another(!)
Same question, really. Why would a loving relationship between two consenting adults hurt God?
46 - Irene Wagner
The above was to...whom it may concern. Gonzo, Dr.Dreadful. I'm sorry for getting you mixed up there!
But what is going on, guys? I mean, I don't want to sound paranoid, because I really am NOT afraid of homosexuals, but I hear about prominent gays auditioning for roles as Christian missionaries, and hear about families wanting their deceased homosexual members eulogized in conservative Christian churches. What gives?
It sounds like...Fred Phelps in drag, you know what I mean?
47 - Baronius
Well, if you guys are talking over each other, I should really shut up. You're doing fine on your own, Irene.
48 - Jesse
Irene, on #46 --
The church has been an imposing unified force for a long time. But there are people who believe in the core philosophy without subscribing either to the letter of the bible or to the authority of the clergy. Homosexuals who attempt to forge their own Christian movements, and to participate in Christian culture, are these types of activists. They care about the core values of the church... belief in a protective power, universal love and sacrifice, and duty to their transcendental values. But they don't agree with certain codes (laws? dogmas?) held by the institution.
And they have this right, according to precedent. Scripture has been reinterpreted for years, whether by sects, or by the Vatican, or by individuals who wanted to find a more personal relationship with God. No matter what faith you claim, it's probably the result of a long history of reinterpretations.
And people who questioned the authority of the church have been at the heart of some of the most important movements in history. Martin Luther was an activist in his own right. He asserted his right to protest, and as a result, he created a new movement, and he sparked reforms within the Catholic church, as well.
I hope gay activists are able to do something similar... when the church begins to understand who its conception of "sin" excludes, it might have to shift its philosophies back in the direction of tolerance and humility. This would probably be a healthy development.
49 - Irene Wagner
Dr Dreadful,
There's a book by Rob Bell, called Sex God. I haven't read it, but I've read his Velvet Elvis and it was thought provoking. Maybe you should take a look, if you want to get inside the evangelical mind, or rather AN evangelical mind, on the relationship between God and Sex.
I'm not God, and I don't mean to be disrespectful or snarky, but what if I answer your question and the Almighty's looking down and saying NO, you've got it all wrong, Irene, THIS is why it bothers me.
But I'll give it my best shot, ok?
I think it has something to do with the fact that maleness and femaleness and the relationship between the two is one of the very first things God established about being human (I'm using the book of Genesis as a basis for that statement).
And even more importantly, man and woman were made in God's image. There was something about man alone that couldn't fully reflect God's image. There wasn't something about woman alone that couldn't reflect it fully either. But man and woman together, that God closer to the image of God that man and women were created to reflect--and in reflecting, glorify, exalt, celebrate.
That's not to say that deep committed caring same sex friendships are not important to God, and pleasing. "How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in harmony, it is like the fat rolling down Aaron's beard..."
But there is something symbolic about the act of sex, and the Bible is very explicit about making that connection. Sex between man and woman, not animals but the part of the creation that was supposed to reflect God's glory, is supposed to be Holy.
The metaphor of sex as communion with the Divine is repeated time after time in the scriptures. Israel's wandering from God is described as harlotry, adultery, spiritual whoredom. And when God forgives Israel, the imagery is of a husband taking back a wayward but beloved wife. And in the New Testament, Jesus himself reinforces the idea of God as Lover and God's People as his Betrothed.
---
The other consideration is God as Designer, God as Artist. Might it be an affront to the Artist to use the most symbolic, the most spiritually significant part of my body, in a way other than the Designer intended it to be used?
But what about the people who really genetically ARE both? There's a rather rare chromosomal condition (I can't remember the specifics) that causes a married man who has fathered children to, in midlife, start growing breasts and other secondary female characteristics. How is he/she to be true to the intentions of His Creator?
I've read some of their stories. They are very moving, and many of them very directly address the question of how they perceived God directed their decision to embrace one gender over another. They don't seem to be furious at God. But they've born MUCH pain.
As a Christian talking about gender roles, I always try to keep people like this in mind. Growing into the man, or woman, God made one to be isn't easy for ANYBODY. And there are some for whom it is a particular burden.
50 - Jesse
I don't think the Fred Phelps analogy holds. Nobody would give a crap about Phelps if he was just a fundamentalist who believed all non-evangelicals were going to hell. But he's a violent, hateful force, instigating the media with open celebrations of death and vengeance by a higher power.
Aside from almost non-existent splinter cults, there's nobody in the homosexual community who orient their protest around open violence.
51 - Irene Wagner
OK at 4:29 MST i read all comments addressed to Irene, and I appreciate all the thought that went into them.
But it's dinner time in the Mountains, and part of my current gender identity involves getting some grub on the table!
Carry on!
52 - Dr Dreadful
I don't think the Fred Phelps analogy holds.
Neither do I. That's why I said he didn't count.
53 - Dave Nalle
however, i do operate under the premise that gnosis > dogma
Thereby falling into the fallacy of thinking you are privy to revealed truth. The formula should actually be:
logos > gnosis > dogma
Dave
54 - Egbert Sousé
If this is an article about imposing values on Christians, shouldn't the title be "Homo-accept-us"?
55 - Zedd
Gonzo,
Its quite clear that you don't understand Christian theology.
Your comments reveal that fact. I'm sure you don't really want to understand it either. But come on, for the sake of scholarship, you shouldn't be so brazen about a topic that you obviously know very little about.
Before you let loose on me and invite the rabid Rambo Chick from the other thread to sick me.....Huuuuug?
56 - Zedd
Jesse,
You are correct when you say that people have been reinterpreting the bible for hundreds of years.
However your statement that "when the church begins to understand who its conception of "sin" excludes, it might have to shift its philosophies back in the direction of tolerance and humility. "
You misses that, its not the Church which defines the sin, its the text, the Bible.
What you are saying is the Church (universal church) should acknowledge and dismiss the sins that you think they should acknowledge or dismiss. If there is a God, he would be rather tiny if he operated that way. If his laws for us as our Creator depended on how we feel about them, then he would be irrelevant wouldn't he?
However if you think the Bible is a nice book, not in anyway attached to the will of a deity for us, with some good stuff and some bad stuff and you can pick and choose what you want to adhere to, then it's a different story and your conclusion makes sense.
Some look at the definition of sins to be like the restrictions that we place on infants. We don't allow them to walk in the middle of the street even though they may be having fun and find it adventurous but they don't have the big picture and don't have a concept of traffic or accidents. They just see an opportunity to explore and feel stifled by us adults, cry and throw a fit. To many, the restriction against sinning is just that. We don't understand the extent of the harm that we place ourselves under when we ignore the warning against engaging in sinful practices because it feels so great and so natural and so freeing, but God has the bigger picture. Even though we may kick and scream, the inevitability of the harm that is ahead supersedes our momentary angst.
57 - Zedd
Doc
Sin according to theology hurts the person who commits it. The issue of sin is not only about order and fairness in society but it is about the individual's spirit.
So if the belief is that if one is living contrary to their "intended state", they are hurting themselves because it is in their "intended state" that they find their true purpose for being and therefore their unmeasurable joy.
58 - Irene Wagner
Zedd: You rock!
Dr. Dreadful, not wanting to borrow trouble, but when Jesse said "I don't think the Fred Phelps analogy holds," I believe he was referring to MY comment:
"...but I hear about prominent gays auditioning for roles as Christian missionaries, and hear about families wanting their deceased homosexual members eulogized in conservative Christian churches. What gives? It sounds like...Fred Phelps in drag, you know what I mean?"
And, several hours later, Jesse's comment notwithstanding I'm still seeing FRED PHELPS IN DRAG written all OVER this Texan funereal fiasco.
59 - STM
DD: "Thanks, Clavos, but if you'll remember, the rule was not that I shouldn't post at all on a Duke thread, but that I should endeavor to change the subject."
The rugby world cup starts in two weeks, with France first cab off the rank in Paris against Argentina, who are promising to be the surprise packet of the competition (which probably means they'll be going home by the quarter-finals).
The Wallabies face Japan in their first game.
My tip: New Zealand. They are still the best team running around at the moment, despite their loss to Australia last month in the Tri-Nations at the MCG.
Don't know much about your mob Doc, except that they gave Wales a flogging in the warm-up Tests earlier this month but fell badly against France.
I reckon The William Webb Ellis Trophy ("Bill") will be coming back to the Antipodes, but in the hands of those dreadful men in black from the land of the wrong white crowd just across the ditch.
60 - Zedd
Lets not forget that most charities in the Western world are Christian charities.
And yes there are a lot of Christians who are pacifistic. Must they be in the news to exist. Especially since its not news that they exist because they have been with us for hundreds of years.
61 - Clavos
Would love to support you in that most valiant effort, mate, but I know diddley about rugby, including not knowing until now that the Frogs play it. That must be a sight- a mob o' poofy Frogs prancing around and squirting stinkwater on themselves and their opponents; Zut alors! Bet the Poms love that!
Nonetheless, I salute your spirit, my friend...
62 - Irene Wagner
Speaking of poofy Frogs prancing around, I wonder if they might resemble...FRED PHELPS IN DRAG?
63 - STM
Clav: "That must be a sight- a mob o' poofy Frogs prancing around and squirting stinkwater on themselves and their opponents; Zut alors! Bet the Poms love that!"
Actually, they are really good at it and play a very entertaing - and bone-rattling - style of rugby.
Their forwards are all really ugly looking and battered up, and more ominously, their backs are all good looking and look like they've never been tackled.
As my dad used to say, when you run onto the park and spot the opposition, the only thing more worrying than a 130kg prop forward with cauliflower ears and a nose that's been broken 50 times is a five-eighth (like a quarterback) with a nice hair do who looks like he's just stepped off a hollywood film set.
Well, that's the French. I am also told the smell of cheap aftershave, sweat, garlic and Gitanes can grind down their opponents' mental fortitude in the scrums.
64 - STM
Fred Phelps, the mad preacher who's not really a Christian?
65 - STM
BTW, does anyone think that Selwyn seems a bit, well ... I dunno if obsessed is the right word, but captivated, certainly in terms of his opposition, by these photo-montages of man-on-man love?
Isn't the church supposed to extend its love to all, without condition, according to the teachings of Jesus.
Surely that should also apply to raging teapots.
66 - Dr Dreadful
Zedd #57: Some people choose to be celibate. Their "intended state" is to procreate like everyone else. Yet the Church does not consider them sinners.
And now, over to Stan at the sports desk...
Knowing squiddly dot about the rugby form book as I do, all I am able to predict with some confidence is that England will probably make the most inept defence since "I do not recall". Therefore, I'm tipping them to lose to Namibia, Tuvalu and the Vatican before recovering (too late to qualify from their group though) to pull off an implausible victory against a team of Terminators from the year 2025 who've travelled back in time having identified Will Carling as the savior of mankind. No-one will have the heart to tell them that they've got the wrong World Cup or that the venerable Mr Carling is about as potentially harmful as a lobotomized guinea pig.
I'll go with Fiji to win the whole tournament after tempting each of their opponents with an ultra-strong batch of kava the night before the game. New Zealand will get as far as the semi-finals, whereupon they will forfeit the game in terror when their opponents, the United States, respond to their haka with a sequence of dance routines from Broadway shows.
67 - STM
Or, mate, the Poms could respond with a spot of morris dancing. What do you think?
68 - Irene Wagner
STM YES, that'd be the Fred to whom I refer, and yes, the Church needs to extend its love to the Fred Phelpses of the world as much as it needs to extend love to the homosexuals, and teapots (?)
But extending love to a person doesn't necessarily mean, in fact it often PRECLUDES, inviting him up to the pulpit to preach, or giving him the right to subject the saints to any kind of dang slide show he wants.
Now, I will rephrase the FRED PHELPS IN DRAG question, in the fond hope of actually getting a straight, if you'll pardon the expression, reply.
Even as a Christian with an old-fashioned view of homosexuality, I cringe when I hear Fred Phelps going on his "God hates fags" tirades. Are there, conversely, any homosexuals out there who cringe when they hear about other homosexuals (claiming to represent YOUR interests) carrying the Hate Crimes philosophy to the extreme that it threatens the freedom of speech and religion of EVERYBODY?
69 - Irene Wagner
And Dr. Dreadful, you're being dreadfully rude. You pressed me, TWICE, for a theological discourse at a time of day when I was busy feeding my young, but I took the time to put some thought into a response, which, rather than acknowledging, you trampled over with your silly (albeit amusing) subject changing tactic.
NOW, you have THRICE declined to answer my question about FRED PHELPS IN DRAG.
70 - Irene Wagner
If you weren't...you know...and I were married to you, you'd be sleeping on the couch tonight, I'm THAT disgusted.
hmmph!
71 - STM
Irene asks: "teapots (?)"
Think about this Irene. Think about the shape of a teapot, dear (old song ... "here is my handle, here is my spout" :).
You know ... resembling a person with one hand on their hip and another pointing, perhaps, you know, a bit limp-wristedly.
72 - Zedd
Doc,
I don't want to get into a biblical nit picking thing and also get too boring but actually, perhaps according to biology and evolution our intended state is to procreate (sort of) but not Christianity. Our intended state is to please God. Actually Paul says not marrying (ergo not boinking) is a better place because it allows him to be more focused on his Life's mission. BTW he wasn't saying that everyone should not boink...
Doc, I hate to tell you but you just said that homosexuality is a glitch.... I know we don't want to go there again (I certainly don't) so I'll leave you with that. But GOTCHA! Mowed down again!! Aim and thrust! One for the Zulus! Yeah baybeee!!
I'd better get to work.
73 - Clavos
Irene,
Just for the record:
Neither STM nor the Doc are, ahem, gay, despite their clever senses of humor.
That said, I've never met either of the blokes personally; I'm speaking from having avidly followed both of their posts and comments here on BC for about a year now.
They are, however (as am I), strong defenders of individual freedom, including those of gay folks.
74 - Dr Dreadful
Zedd: I said no such thing. I was merely tossing your own argument back at you. And you're behaving like a high school football player who just sacked the QB. Where's your dignity?
Irene: Sorry for offending you. I thought Jesse had answered your Fred Phelps analogy pretty well. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, I don't think it's a particularly good one. From what I can gather, the Sinclair family didn't purposely seek out that church just to cause maximum offense, which is Phelps's approach. They chose it because a family member attends there.
Now if Fred has a stipulation in his Will demanding that his memorial service be MCed by Gene Robinson, then I might be prepared to accept the comparison.
75 - Jesse
Irene: "Even as a Christian with an old-fashioned view of homosexuality, I cringe when I hear Fred Phelps going on his 'God hates fags' tirades. Are there, conversely, any homosexuals out there who cringe when they hear about other homosexuals (claiming to represent YOUR interests) carrying the Hate Crimes philosophy to the extreme that it threatens the freedom of speech and religion of EVERYBODY?"
This is SUCH a strange analogy to me. Nobody in the gay activism community goes around saying "DEATH TO THE STRAIGHTEYS." I'm not even sure HOW you could articulate the gay-rights agenda (haha) in terms that are as violent and offensive as Fred's tirades.
The other thing here: we're talking about a purely civil disagreement, not a legal one. Nobody is threatening with legislation, or even a lawsuit. Nobody is threatening your, or High Point Church's, "right to free speech." Censorship is an alarm bell that's sounded ALL THE TIME in this country to ward off disagreement, but in this case, mutual hostility and disagreement are the beginning and end of the problem.
If you really want to get into the Marriage debate, then go for it. That's an issue where talk of freedom, free speech, and government sanction actually makes sense. But nobody can take away the rights of these two parties to be pissed at one another... nor can they take away Phelps' right to say stupid shit at Veterans' funerals. Talking of "threaten(ing) the freedom of speech and religion of EVERYBODY" is irrelevant to this case.