Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Texas Pastor Protection Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
    So in your opinion, it would be ok for a pastor to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, but, not ok to ask his congregation to vote against a bill that would force him to do so if it passed? Is that correct?
    Hmm, tricky scenario. I was thinking more of Pastors overtly supporting particular candidates. I'll have to think about what you're suggesting.

    My question is, is this even likely? Why would you want to be married by a person who doesn't think your marriage is valid? In my understanding there are some churches which already support same sex marriage and will perform weddings. Why not go to one of those? I'm afraid I don't get it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      OK, so would you be opposed to the "score cards" where candidates are asked what their positions are on certain topics, and their answers are presented on a comparison sheet of sorts?

      (Let's assume that their answers are faithfully reproduced on this tally sheet, and no "cherry picking")
      Fine in theory, difficult in practice.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
        My question is, is this even likely? Why would you want to be married by a person who doesn't think your marriage is valid?
        That's actually an easy answer. The more militant GLBTGXPTK proponents want TEST cases, because they want the Churches to have to accept their status. I saw some of that at the hearings in Austin last night.

        In my understanding there are some churches which already support same sex marriage and will perform weddings. Why not go to one of those? I'm afraid I don't get it.
        That's WAY too logical, but that also came up last night - some of the Churches, most notably Presbyterian and UUs, were represented at last night's meeting and very clearly announced they welcome and support same-sex marriages.

        Some of the advocates for the Bill used them as an example - "See - if you want a Church wedding, there are plenty of options".
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
          My question is, is this even likely? Why would you want to be married by a person who doesn't think your marriage is valid? In my understanding there are some churches which already support same sex marriage and will perform weddings. Why not go to one of those? I'm afraid I don't get it.
          Not entirely made up on this issue but here is what most of the conservative TWebbers are suggesting may happen:
          1. LGBT couple goes to the church and asks for marriage ceremony to be performed.
          2. LGBT couple is refused due to the moral standings of the church.
          3. LGBT couple brings suit for discrimination against church.
          "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
          -Unknown

          "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


          I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          I support the :
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
            Not entirely made up on this issue but here is what most of the conservative TWebbers are suggesting may happen:
            1. LGBT couple goes to the church and asks for marriage ceremony to be performed.
            2. LGBT couple is refused due to the moral standings of the church.
            3. LGBT couple brings suit for discrimination against church.
            There is precedent for people on both sides of similar issues trying to provocatively do such things. Conspiracy nut Youtube pastor Josh Feuerstein went to bakeries and tried to order anti gay slogans on cakes.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
              Fine in theory, difficult in practice.
              Not really - it happens all the time. In fact, ever since it was made clear (maybe as long as 20 or 30 years ago) that Churches can speak to issues but not candidates, this is how it's been handled.

              And, with the Democrats failing even to allow God in their party platform, and bowing to the GLBTXMPKT crowd, you don't really have to name a candidate - just print a paper with his/her positions in his/her own words.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
                Not entirely made up on this issue but here is what most of the conservative TWebbers are suggesting may happen:
                1. LGBT couple goes to the church and asks for marriage ceremony to be performed.
                2. LGBT couple is refused due to the moral standings of the church.
                3. LGBT couple brings suit for discrimination against church.
                As a liberal, I would be against such a possibility.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                  My question is, is this even likely? Why would you want to be married by a person who doesn't think your marriage is valid? In my understanding there are some churches which already support same sex marriage and will perform weddings. Why not go to one of those? I'm afraid I don't get it.
                  There will always be people who want to try to make the opposition look bad. I can just imagine a couple intentionally trying to get married at a church that wouldn't allow them to do so, then making a ruckus about it in the media. Then comes the public pressure and the public officials stepping over their bounds to try to correct a perceived case of bigotry.


                  (Aaand I was way too slow typing up my response...)
                  Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                    As a liberal, I would be against such a possibility.
                    I'm thinking if you fully understand the Pastor Protection Bill (as intended) you would support it. Maybe.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Not really - it happens all the time. In fact, ever since it was made clear (maybe as long as 20 or 30 years ago) that Churches can speak to issues but not candidates, this is how it's been handled.

                      And, with the Democrats failing even to allow God in their party platform, and bowing to the GLBTXMPKT crowd, you don't really have to name a candidate - just print a paper with his/her positions in his/her own words.
                      I think for mainstream churches with Pastors of integrity, I would have no problem with this. The trouble comes from ill-educated, nutty pastors of small churches. Is there a mechanism in place to deal with them?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                        I think for mainstream churches with Pastors of integrity, I would have no problem with this. The trouble comes from ill-educated, nutty pastors of small churches. Is there a mechanism in place to deal with them?
                        This is a complicated issue here, actually, because the black churches have openly endorsed candidates for years, and gotten away with it. It's hard, then, to bring a suit against one of these smaller Churches for doing the same thing. But we're kinda getting off topic here.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Ok, Frankly I'm very ambivalent on the issue. I can remember when certain groups or associations would not permit Jews, women or people of colour as members. Most of us laud Rosa Parks now in standing (sitting) for her dignity. I believe in taking action on civil rights issues.

                          Here we are with another civil rights issue but this time it involves churches. On the one hand I can accept that some (most?) Christians reject this expansion of civil rights to LGBT people out of principle. On the other I find it hard to differentiate these civil rights claims with those that have gone before. I'm really not sure on what the best way forward is.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I also fear outright prohibiting churches from endorsing (apart from tax concerns) gets into the same kind of problem the OP here is concerned about: About governments regulating the speech and activities of churches. (I don't think churches should go around endorsing candidates, but I think they should have the theoretical right to.)
                            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                              Ok, Frankly I'm very ambivalent on the issue. I can remember when certain groups or associations would not permit Jews, women or people of colour as members. Most of us laud Rosa Parks now in standing (sitting) for her dignity. I believe in taking action on civil rights issues.

                              Here we are with another civil rights issue but this time it involves churches. On the one hand I can accept that some (most?) Christians reject this expansion of civil rights to LGBT people out of principle. On the other I find it hard to differentiate these civil rights claims with those that have gone before. I'm really not sure on what the best way forward is.
                              There would need to be a change on the part of persons like me who actually honestly believe that living a homosexual lifestyle is a sin. I don't consider being black or Jewish or female a sin. I don't even believe that 'being a homosexual*' is a sin.



                              *naturally, I'm referring to somebody who has homosexual tendencies but does not yield to them.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Um, so the original alleged "problem" was:
                                1. the existence of a law prohibiting Churches from espousing political views from the pulpit while simultaneously receiving tax-exempt status;
                                combined with,
                                2. a legal system that allows evidence fishing-expeditions that are expensive and time-consuming;
                                combined with,
                                3. an annoyed defendant;
                                which resulted in,
                                4. an expensive and time-consuming episode where multiple pastors had to hand over extensive records.

                                And the proposed solution to this, is not any of the obvious things that would address any of those points. It is not:
                                Solution to #1: a law allowing tax-exempt organisations to express political views;
                                nor is it,
                                Solution to #2: reforms to the legal system to limit time-consuming and expensive fishing-expeditions;
                                nor is it,
                                Solution to #3: resolving to sue fewer people, and annoy fewer people via lawsuit.

                                Instead it is a "solution" from the basket of utter randomness that doesn't have any connection whatsoever to the alleged "problem". The proposed 'solution':
                                Proposed law: Give churches the right to discriminate against any marriage they want to on religious freedom grounds.

                                That law appears to be a general response to the LGBT equal rights ordinances passed in the area, not something having to do with the pastors who were subpoenaed at all. That's fine. But it's wrong to imply it's about the subpoenaed pastors when it doesn't address their situation.

                                It's also worth noting that the OP explicitly links this 'religious freedom' bill with intentions to discriminate against gay people: It's "a bill that would protect Pastors and Churches from government pressure or requirement to perform weddings for gays/lesbians". In the recent case of the controversy surrounding Indiana's 'religious freedom' bill there was a widespread conservative talking-point pretending that the bill had nothing at all to do with discriminating against gay people. I hope that more honesty will surround this bill.

                                I don't find this law as written in the second post of this thread to be overly objectionable on first analysis... however I would be very surprised if it turned out that churches in Texas don't already enjoy those same protections under law. I strongly suspect that this law is totally unnecessary. Passing it would also seem to risk general public outrage, as the public may not necessarily stand for yet another state trying to pass a piece of anti-gay legislation.
                                Last edited by Starlight; 04-23-2015, 07:07 PM.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X