I got an e-mail today from a man who sent me a link to the pastor’s blog on the Web site for Crossroads Christian Church in Grand Prairie. He was appalled at the blog posted Oct. 14 by Pastor Barry Cameron and titled “Change we can’t believe in.”
I, too, found the blog appalling. But not surprising. In fact, the first sentence sound more than a little reminiscent of a certain Oklahoma state legislator (Sally Kern, anyone?). Here’s what Cameron had to say:
“This past Sunday, I shared in my message that the #1 battleground for America is homosexuality. It’s not the war in Afghanistan or the ongoing conflict in Iraq.”
And later, he says: “Hebrews 13:4 says, ‘Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.’ As I shared this past Sunday, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 makes it clear anyone who, as the habitual, continual pattern of their life, lives in sexual immorality of any kind will not inherit the kingdom of God. In short, the Bible clearly says people who live like that and die like that are not going to Heaven. Instead, they’ve sentenced themselves to an eternity in hell.”
He then went on to note that President Barack Obama had just recently spoken at the Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington, D.C., and castigated the president for saying that same-sex relationships are just as admirable as opposite-sex relationships, and that he supports equality in all areas for LGBT people.
Cameron was “concerned” because the president said LGBT people shouldn’t face discrimination in employment. The pastor warned, ” God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows,” and that “the work being done by the HRC and those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, warring against the traditional family and the biblical values that have shaped this nation for some 233 years, is not something God will ever bless.”
In a second blog post referenced by in the e-mail I received, Cameron noted that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon church) was the fastest-growing faith group in the country in the 1990s. That’s a problem, he said, because the Mormon church is “a faith based on fiction. A faith based on a fairy tale.”
Now, after what happened in California with Proposition 8 last year, I personally have a hard time scraping up any sympathy for the Mormon church. But this blog by Cameron is another perfect example of the kind of religious bigotry perpetrated by Cameron and others like him.
One of the founding principles of this country was religious freedom, and Pastor Barry Cameron has the right to believe anything he wants. Even though I find his beliefs ridiculous and hateful, as best, and, at worst, downright dangerous, I will defend his right to those beliefs because to do otherwise would undermine my own right to religious freedom.
But here’s the problem: Cameron is one of those people who thinks that his rights outweigh everyone else’s rights. He thinks that his beliefs are the only ones that are correct and righteous and therefore he has the right to impose them on the rest of us, that our government should be based on his religious beliefs.
And here’s the part that makes him and his beliefs dangerous: He tells his flock these things, and because he is their pastor — in other words, because he in effect controls their access to God and heaven — they are going to go along with him. I mean, they don’t want to endanger their chance at eternity in Heaven by thinking for themselves.
Go read Cameron’s blog. For that matter, read all his blog posts. And take the chance to post a comment, but please, be courteous. If we charge in there cursing and belittling the pastor or his congregation, they won’t take the time to even hear (read) what we have to say. Make your point, but do it politely enough that they might actually read it and perhaps start to think about it.
Because that’s the only way to defeat religious bigotry: By getting reasonable people to think for themselves.
Tammye,
I am deeply disturbed by the increasing effort on your part to rally people in the community to launch little media smear campaigns against people YOU personally have a problem with. If you don’t like the man or his views then go and complain to him yourself. Don’t try to shove it down everyone’s throat that we should all get on his blog just because YOU have a problem………………. First it was the Dallas Morming News columnists and now this.
The last time I checked the DV employee log, you are Senior Editor of the Dallas Voice, NOT some one woman political / religious rally organizer who uses her job in the media to further her own personal political / religious beliefs rather than practicing non-biased journalism !!
Now, I certainly don’t agree with some of these people’s views, but whether we like it or not, they have the right to have them just as we have the right to have ours. And I’ll go even further to state that those in our very own community have just as much right to their opinions and views as anyone else and to have them aired in the media without censorship.
So Tammye, start putting your money where your mouth is concerning protected constitutional “freedoms”. You strongly assert everyone’s right to religious freedom, yet how ironic that you don’t allow (via censorship) people’s constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press at the Dallas Voice.
Keep your personal religious and political opinions to yourself and stop trying to shove them down everyone’s throat !!!
The Stonewall Democrats / Republicans and Cathedral of Hope are located right around the corner. If you feel that strongly about politics and religion, perhaps you should go work for them and not a community paper……………….
Tammye,
I am deeply disturbed by the increasing effort on your part to rally people in the community to launch little media smear campaigns against people YOU personally have a problem with. If you don’t like the man or his views then go and complain to him yourself. Don’t try to shove it down everyone’s throat that we should all get on his blog just because YOU have a problem………………. First it was the Dallas Morming News columnists and now this.
The last time I checked the DV employee log, you are Senior Editor of the Dallas Voice, NOT some one woman political / religious rally organizer who uses her job in the media to further her own personal political / religious beliefs rather than practicing non-biased journalism !!
Now, I certainly don’t agree with some of these people’s views, but whether we like it or not, they have the right to have them just as we have the right to have ours. And I’ll go even further to state that those in our very own community have just as much right to their opinions and views as anyone else and to have them aired in the media without censorship.
So Tammye, start putting your money where your mouth is concerning protected constitutional “freedoms”. You strongly assert everyone’s right to religious freedom, yet how ironic that you don’t allow (via censorship) people’s constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press at the Dallas Voice.
Keep your personal religious and political opinions to yourself and stop trying to shove them down everyone’s throat !!!
The Stonewall Democrats / Republicans and Cathedral of Hope are located right around the corner. If you feel that strongly about politics and religion, perhaps you should go work for them and not a community paper……………….
Tammye,
I am deeply disturbed by the increasing effort on your part to rally people in the community to launch little media smear campaigns against people YOU personally have a problem with. If you don’t like the man or his views then go and complain to him yourself. Don’t try to shove it down everyone’s throat that we should all get on his blog just because YOU have a problem………………. First it was the Dallas Morming News columnists and now this.
The last time I checked the DV employee log, you are Senior Editor of the Dallas Voice, NOT some one woman political / religious rally organizer who uses her job in the media to further her own personal political / religious beliefs rather than practicing non-biased journalism !!
Now, I certainly don’t agree with some of these people’s views, but whether we like it or not, they have the right to have them just as we have the right to have ours. And I’ll go even further to state that those in our very own community have just as much right to their opinions and views as anyone else and to have them aired in the media without censorship.
So Tammye, start putting your money where your mouth is concerning protected constitutional “freedoms”. You strongly assert everyone’s right to religious freedom, yet how ironic that you don’t allow (via censorship) people’s constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press at the Dallas Voice.
Keep your personal religious and political opinions to yourself and stop trying to shove them down everyone’s throat !!!
The Stonewall Democrats / Republicans and Cathedral of Hope are located right around the corner. If you feel that strongly about politics and religion, perhaps you should go work for them and not a community paper……………….
Disappointed –
If we all have the right to our own views, and I take it you have some of your own, then go to the blog and post your OWN views. Remarkably enough, you’re posting your views right here and now, despite Tammye’s editorial despotism and vicious censorship. Oogah Boogah. And, this being a blog, and what’s more, a blog based on commentary and opinion, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the author, Tammye, to suggest that people with views similar to her own go and express those views where someone other than the LGBT community might hear them and be effected by them.
And a thousand cheers to you, Tammye, for those last two paragraphs! It’s so rare to see such an enlightened rejection of the “angry demands” mentality that seems to fuel so many in our ‘movement.’ (A mentality which, by the way, has suffered a severe blow with today’s collapse of Equality Across America) Screaming in people’s faces, “Accept us, Dammit! Whether you like it or not!” will never get us anywhere. We have to rebrand ourselves so that people open their minds. Reasonable people will consider the truth when it’s contrasted with the religious definition.
Wonderfully said, Ms Nash.
Travis: Thanks for your comment.
I agree with Tammye. I don’t think it’s helpful to use anger. In fact, calling religious people ‘bigots” misses the point – they simply have “bigoted belief systems.”
We’re not going to change the minds of those that (literally) believe the religious teaching that has punished homosexuals for 2,000 years – we’d be much better off marginalizing them. Ignoring them would be a good start.
The good news is that only one-third of people in the US that describe themselves as “religious” are the ultra conservatives that condemn us. We should spend our time on the two-thirds that actually put equality BEFORE religion. We should ask them for their help. I believe they will join us. Maybe, at some point, those clinging to the idea that homosexuals are “wrong” will get tired of congregating with those that validate hate.
Religion has grown up, we should, too.
Excellent blog Tammye! I commend you for your restraint in the face of such hatred. However, I am more than a little confused by “Disappointed”. The very fact that they are allowed a public forum along with everyone else shoots his/her theory in the foot. How can one not see that?
Gee, why is it not surprising that all of the Nash “supporters” come out of the woodwork with their love and support for their friend within an hour that the comment was made……………..
Your little “support group” is showing its true colors. and telling the real story here.
Fight your own battles Tammye………..
Gee, why is it not surprising that all of the Nash “supporters” come out of the woodwork with their love and support for their friend within an hour that the comment was made……………..
Your little “support group” is showing its true colors. and telling the real story here.
Fight your own battles Tammye………..
Gee, why is it not surprising that all of the Nash “supporters” come out of the woodwork with their love and support for their friend within an hour that the comment was made……………..
Your little “support group” is showing its true colors. and telling the real story here.
Fight your own battles Tammye………..
What Disappointed has failed to realize that these mega-churches, I don’t place them in the same catergory as most churches because they don’t spew the hatred. These mega churches their goals as fundamentalist is to convert people and change for the worse. If you read the second blog about the LDS, Barry’s church is trying to change or bring down Mormons, why would another religion want to do that? Where is the Mormon’s religious freedom? It is easy for the mega-churches to go after the smaller groups…why don’t they go after Islamic faith if they are so concerned about thier religion…Barry is a hypocrite that is just after money.
As a Christian who believes what the Bible clearly preaches, it is impossible to support religions that disagree with the Word of God. It is clear in the Bible that belief in Jesus Christ is the only way to have a relationship with God in heaven. To support and encourage other religions would be a direct contradiction to what Bible believing Christians are supposed to live by. Mega church or not… Christians who base their life on the Bible cannot support the Mormon church, the Islamic faith, or other false religions.
Jesus, born to the virgin Mary, was given as a sacrifice – God’s only Son. He died on a cross for the sins that we commit every day to save us from the sin in our lives. If we do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, we are not moving in the right direction.
Tammye:
An interesting mix of religious groups (among others) banded together to get Proposition 8 passed here in California–including the Mormon (LDS) Church, the Catholic Church and a number of conservative churches (including Rick Warren’s mega church in Orange County). While these religious groups could agree on their opposition to Proposition 8, it appears that this coalition is now fracturing. It will be interesting to see how this story progresses.
To Honest: I believe that you have the right to your religious beliefs, and – having been raised in the Southern Baptist Church – I know that the the Christian church is based on the idea of a personal relationship between the individual and Christ. And I know that it is part of the religious teachings that Christians should evangelize, or in other words, witness or testify to others and convert them to Christianity. I have no problem with that. But there is a difference in sharing your faith and forcing your beliefs on others. The problem, for me, is when anyone tries to force their religious beliefs on others through force or by incorporating those religious beliefs in civil law. And that, unfortunately happens way too often these days.
And to “Disappointed Reader:” I always have and always will fight my own battles. Just so you know, of those who have commented in this thread, I only know one – Dawn Meifert. I did not ask Dawn to comment, haven’t even discussed this post or any post with her. I sure didn’t ask any of the other folks to comment, since I don’t even know who they are. They all have the right to comment on the blog, just like you do. You’re just mad because they agreed with me and not you. Get over it.
HUMMMM aren’t news journalists supposed to report the news without bias?
I really don’t care who sucked his dick or greased his palm so long as the report is made without bias and it seems that we can’t even do that here in this screwed up gayborhood.
This town will *never* outshine Greenwich Village NYC ever! Period.. There’s too many biggots, too many hate mongers, religious extremists, and nobody here knows the concept of what it’s like to be a student of The Juilliard School, 60 Lincoln Center Plaza, N.Y.C., NY so don’t even think of comparing Dallas to NYC.
The bottom with news and even politics.. Report the facts and keep your opinionated mouth shut. Who you voted for, what you ate for breakfast, or when you took your morning dump has nothing to do with the reality you report to others.
Unless of course you work for Rupert Murdock or Faux News or you post your crap on Myspace which Rupert (the biggest Anti-Gay advocate on the planet) owns.
Tammye, it’s time for you to start acting like a Senior Editor of the Dallas Voice instead of flip flopping your job vs. personal life here in this blog.
I don’t want to hear about you defense to my comments, or your reasons. You have a a job to perform so do it! If you worked for a television network news giant you’d probably be out of a job right now.
Media bias refers to the bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, in the selection of which events and stories are reported and how they are covered. The term “media bias” usually implies a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. The direction and degree of media bias in various countries is widely disputed, although its causes are both practical and theoretical.
A technique used to avoid bias is the “point/counterpoint” or “round table,” an adversarial format in which representatives of opposing views comment on an issue. This approach theoretically allows diverse views to appear in the media. However, the person organizing the report still has the responsibility to choose people who really represent the breadth of opinion, to ask them non-prejudicial questions, and to edit or arbitrate their comments fairly. When done carelessly, a point/counterpoint can be as unfair as a simple biased report, by suggesting that the “losing” side lost on its merits.
In rare cases, a news organization may dismiss or reassign staff members who appear biased. This approach was used in the Killian documents affair and after Peter Arnett’s interview with the Iraqi press. This approach is presumed to have been employed in the case of Dan Rather over a story that he ran on 60 Minutes in the month prior to the 2004 election that attempted to impugn the military record of George W. Bush by relying on allegedly fake documents that were provided by Bill Burkett, a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Texas Army National Guard.
I am “Mormon”. I don’t really care if you have any sympathy towards me or my church. But, I do think I have the right to demand the same tolerance from GLBT’s that they demand from me/us. How in the world does anyone expect what they categorically refuse to give? Tolerance is a two way street.
I do not know how I feel about “gay marriage”. But, I do know how I feel about being harrassed, or intimidated, or coerced into accepting what I cannot accept, as part of my religious freedom. It does not make me hateful (I do not hate anyone, it’s a totally wasted emotion), or homophobic (I do not FEAR gays, and that’s what phobic means; I only fear being forced to believe something I don’t.). It makes me an American.
Some have likened the “boycotting” of those who support (thru monetary donations and/or petition signing) anyone who is against gay marriage to the KKK intimidating blacks on their way to the polls. I can almost see this as Communists or radical Arab Moslems trying to force their ideologies on society as a whole.
Why didn’t these people learn as kindergartners, that throwing temper tantrums when you don’t get your way, is NOT the way to win friends and influence people? I mean, geez, get a clue!
Linda, you missed the whole point of the mentioning of the LDS….please read the blog. This church is going after the Mormon faith, the point was that if it’s not their way, then who do not think or believe like them are wrong. This church is planning to build a church right next door to the temple in Utah! Open your eyes and look what this church is doing!
Linda, I find it interesting that you read LGBT newspapers. Glad to have you as a reader.
Linda:
Give me a break….you are not going to try to recycle a variation of the “KKK intimidating the blacks at the polls” argument that Mormon Apostle Elder Oaks’ unsuccessfully made last month, are you?
While it is clearly a rhetorical flourish on your part to invoke the KKK, your statement simply has no basis in fact. Show me even ONE example of a person who was intimidated from voting for Proposition 8 during the 2008 election. It is impossible to do so because there are none.
There are simply NO cases involving Proposition 8 in which a person of faith was intimidated into not voting for the measure because he or she was a Mormon, a Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew or any other religious group. Because of the secret ballot system in American, no one knows how you actually vote unless you self-disclose–and then you would have already voted!
This differs greatly from the South during the 1960s and before where African-Americans (based solely on the color or their skin) were intimidated from voting through threats of great bodily harm. Such intimidation against voting clearly did not happened regarding Proposition 8.
Linda are you blind? These mega-churches are forcing and brain washing people to believe their idealogies, and if you question any of it, your pushed to the side because your obviously a free-thinker!
Linda, you did not read the blog of what pastor Barry is starting with the Mormons…shaking head at you.
a. building a church next to one of our temples is, IMHO, not a problem, as long as they don’t bother people going to the temple. The Oakland temple is right next door to a big Orthodox church.
b. David, I don’t really read them except for an article here and there. I’m open to other’s ideas, as long as they don’t get shoved down my throat.
c. steven, no, I just mentioned that as something others did. No one was intimidated when voting on Prop 8. But, you seem to bring up another inconsistency. The GLBT seems to think that the MOrmons somehow put guns to people’s heads to vote agianst prop 8 and similar propositions in other states. Outside of Utah and portions of Nevada, Arizona and Idaho, Mormons are in the minority. I heard that the opponents of prop 8 raised more money than the ones for it. If money equals votes, then prop 8 should have failed. If it were up to the Mormons, it would have failed a lot, as Mormons were definately in the voting minority.
However, AFTER prop 8, intimidation, vandalism, boycotting, etc., is the order of the day. And it’s just going to back fire. Most Mormons just dig in their heels and stay the course. You cannot force someone to believe what they don’t believe. When the choice is, listening to God or listening to the GLBT, we are going to choose God.
d. yes, many of the mega churches try to brainwash.. They all hate the LDS church. We’ve been dealing with it for years. I doubt very much pastor barry can do anything that hasn’t already been done before.
Linda:
If Mormons choose to be against marriage equality, so be it. History will take note of the strong efforts that the Mormon Church has taken against marriage equality.
Until 1978, the Mormon (LDS) Church was also against equality for African-Americans. Mormon leaders spoke of the civil rights movement in the 1960s as a communist plot and did not allow African-American men to be members of the priesthood until a stated revelation by the Mormon prophet said that should change.
in the Mormon Church (black men could not be priests in the Mormon Church until then.) In adid
As seen in much of the articles written by The Dallas Voice, we have again veered off on a tangent in this commentary which really has no relevance to the main point that was initially made, which was why journalists and especially the Senior Editor for the Dallas Voice insist in engaging in biased journalism and shoving their PERSONAL opinions down everyone else’s throat via the media.
Linda, I applaud you for stepping out and voicing your thoughts here at a GLBT paper and I am saddened by the harsh condescending rhetoric you had recieved for doing so. I agree, clearly its not about this Win/Lose, Us/Them, In the Clique/ Out of the Clique etc…..ideology which has become such an OBSESSION with some of these folks here, but rather coming to a common ground so that people still hold their beliefs, are validated for them and whether we agree with them or not, the freedom to express those beliefs openly without the fear of retaliation, ruin or personal harm. And this is exactly the kind of community rallying in which I mention above which fosters such radicalistic consequences………..
But what upsets me the most is that both me and a few other commentors above feel that we have to both remind and educate the Senior Editor of our community paper as to how to engage in fair and unbiased journalism and the effects that foisting a person’s personal political and religious beliefs has on the greater whole, issues that I certainly would have expected a Senior Editor of a paper to already be well-versed on.
Yet, it is funny that you Tammye nor any of your journalist staff will once publish an article in the Dallas Voice which would report FACTS which just may uncover the corruption in our community that YOU PERSONALLY wish to cover-up and replace with your own personal biases…….
Again, I feel that your personal bias has no place in the media and particularly in the “Gay” media and I would encourage you to find an industry, such as the church or politics which better suits your interests. Clearly you have more of a passion for either of those than you do for journalism.
As seen in much of the articles written by The Dallas Voice, we have again veered off on a tangent in this commentary which really has no relevance to the main point that was initially made, which was why journalists and especially the Senior Editor for the Dallas Voice insist in engaging in biased journalism and shoving their PERSONAL opinions down everyone else’s throat via the media.
Linda, I applaud you for stepping out and voicing your thoughts here at a GLBT paper and I am saddened by the harsh condescending rhetoric you had recieved for doing so. I agree, clearly its not about this Win/Lose, Us/Them, In the Clique/ Out of the Clique etc…..ideology which has become such an OBSESSION with some of these folks here, but rather coming to a common ground so that people still hold their beliefs, are validated for them and whether we agree with them or not, the freedom to express those beliefs openly without the fear of retaliation, ruin or personal harm. And this is exactly the kind of community rallying in which I mention above which fosters such radicalistic consequences………..
But what upsets me the most is that both me and a few other commentors above feel that we have to both remind and educate the Senior Editor of our community paper as to how to engage in fair and unbiased journalism and the effects that foisting a person’s personal political and religious beliefs has on the greater whole, issues that I certainly would have expected a Senior Editor of a paper to already be well-versed on.
Yet, it is funny that you Tammye nor any of your journalist staff will once publish an article in the Dallas Voice which would report FACTS which just may uncover the corruption in our community that YOU PERSONALLY wish to cover-up and replace with your own personal biases…….
Again, I feel that your personal bias has no place in the media and particularly in the “Gay” media and I would encourage you to find an industry, such as the church or politics which better suits your interests. Clearly you have more of a passion for either of those than you do for journalism.
As seen in much of the articles written by The Dallas Voice, we have again veered off on a tangent in this commentary which really has no relevance to the main point that was initially made, which was why journalists and especially the Senior Editor for the Dallas Voice insist in engaging in biased journalism and shoving their PERSONAL opinions down everyone else’s throat via the media.
Linda, I applaud you for stepping out and voicing your thoughts here at a GLBT paper and I am saddened by the harsh condescending rhetoric you had recieved for doing so. I agree, clearly its not about this Win/Lose, Us/Them, In the Clique/ Out of the Clique etc…..ideology which has become such an OBSESSION with some of these folks here, but rather coming to a common ground so that people still hold their beliefs, are validated for them and whether we agree with them or not, the freedom to express those beliefs openly without the fear of retaliation, ruin or personal harm. And this is exactly the kind of community rallying in which I mention above which fosters such radicalistic consequences………..
But what upsets me the most is that both me and a few other commentors above feel that we have to both remind and educate the Senior Editor of our community paper as to how to engage in fair and unbiased journalism and the effects that foisting a person’s personal political and religious beliefs has on the greater whole, issues that I certainly would have expected a Senior Editor of a paper to already be well-versed on.
Yet, it is funny that you Tammye nor any of your journalist staff will once publish an article in the Dallas Voice which would report FACTS which just may uncover the corruption in our community that YOU PERSONALLY wish to cover-up and replace with your own personal biases…….
Again, I feel that your personal bias has no place in the media and particularly in the “Gay” media and I would encourage you to find an industry, such as the church or politics which better suits your interests. Clearly you have more of a passion for either of those than you do for journalism.
What Linda and Disappointed have both missed the point of why I submitted the blog about Barry going after the LDS….he refers the LDS to the devil. And it is really bothers me that this church in Texas is going to build a church in Utah…to bring down the Mormon church, that is distrubing and dangerous…..but you two were blinded by their ideaology…I feel sorry for the both you.
“Disapppointed Reader”:
This thread is relevant since religious groups have played a strong role in the campaign against marriage equality — including yesterday’s Question 1 in Maine (strong support from the Catholic Church, Focus on the Family, and National Organization for Marriage, which has refused to release its donor list) and Proposition 8 in California (strong support from the Mormon Church and its members). It is interesting now that how these same religious opponents of marriage equality are now turning their guns on each other.
Linda, one more response to your previous point. No, the Mormon Church did not put a gun to the head of the supporters of Proposition 8 in California. However, the Mormon Church (as an institution) and its members played a strong role in Prop 8’s passage — including donating (by many estimates, including the “Yes on 8” campaign itself) more than half of the $40,000,000 raised by the “Yes on 8” campaign. But for the Mormon money, it is unlikely that Prop 8 would have passed.
As to “listening to God” to decide what you should do and the positions you should support, the God that I know does not support discrimination and inequality. It’s too bad that your God apparently does.
Reality check. This is what Tammye said:
“But here’s the problem: Cameron is one of those people who thinks that his rights outweigh everyone else’s rights. He thinks that his beliefs are the only ones that are correct and righteous and therefore he has the right to impose them on the rest of us, that our government should be based on his religious beliefs.
And here’s the part that makes him and his beliefs dangerous: He tells his flock these things, and because he is their pastor — in other words, because he in effect controls their access to God and heaven — they are going to go along with him. I mean, they don’t want to endanger their chance at eternity in Heaven by thinking for themselves.”
Read it again and then consider what happened in Maine yesterday – Religion won.
Tammye acknowledged her “personal” belief and I think she nailed it. The harmful “taboo” of talking about religion – honestly and openly – continues to challenge our efforts to gain equality. More people should speak up and speak out. Nothing is sacred (or off limits) in our pursuit of freedom and equality.
This is a blog, not a news report. It is a place for editorial commentary and opinion pieces. If you want a straight reporting of the facts, read the articles on the main page. And quite simply, if you don’t like reading opinionated commentary, then blogs probably aren’t the best reading material for you.
What we should be highlighting from Tammye’s insightful piece (and no, I have never had the pleasure of meeting her) is that many, many influential religious leaders and their followers still believe that LGBT people are wrong and bad. If you need evidence, take a look at the successful Yes on 1 campaign led by Catholics in Maine. Look at how Washington state’s domestic partnership law just barely squeaked by in the face of religious opposition.
As Tammye said, you cannot tell these people not to think what they think or believe what they believe. You cannot condemn or ridicule them for what they have accepted as fact from their pastors or their scriptures. And you cannot simply pass laws and expect them not to retaliate. But we can speak reasonably with them – we can offer them an alternative understanding, and we can ask for their help. And the reasonable people (and there are a lot of them) will join us.
No one has tried this.
For the criticism directed at Tammye Nash for expressing her opinion about some religious institutions: are you kidding me? The Dallas Voice is a Gay Newspaper, with gay readers and of course it has a mission – our equality, or at the very least fairness.
Tammye spoke up on the blog Instant Tea – which I believe is the purpose of most blogs – to create a “conversation.” If she were to put her thoughts in the Dallas Voice – I’m certain it would be in the Viewpoint Section.
The LGBT Community lacks individuals with the courage to tell the truth. I, for one, am glad Tammye has balls. Where are yours?
Stephen: THE CHURCH was never against equality for blacks. A couple of leaders sounded like they were. Maybe they were, or maybe their supposedly racist remarks were taken out of context. It wouldn’t be the first time. Look how people have taken Elder Oaks remarks out of context.
Disappointed: Thanks for your kind words. It’s like the old saying “I may not agree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say them”.
missing the point: There is nothing that church can do to destroy the LDS church. They might think they can. They might even try. But, like I said, it’s been tried before and it never works. IN fact, it’s people like them that actually help our church, because they base their actions on lies and half truths, and when thoughtful thinking people try to look at both sides of the issue, the worst that happens is that they become a friend of our church, knowing that people like Barry are using subterfuge and dishonesty to achieve their ends. The best is that they actually join our church. So, the church just gives them all the rope they need and they end up hanging themselves.
At the end of Tammye’s blog, she posts this:
“…If we charge in there cursing and belittling the pastor or his congregation, they won’t take the time to even hear (read) what we have to say. Make your point, but do it politely enough that they might actually read it and perhaps start to think about it.
Because that’s the only way to defeat religious bigotry: By getting reasonable people to think for themselves.”
I think this should be said to ALL supporters of “gay marriage” and the GLBT, about Cameron’s church, the Catholic church, the LDS church, etc. All the screaming tantrums thrown by GLBT and their supporters at the temples and other places, boycotting, etc., isn’t going to win any friends of the Mormons, or anyone in the Christian world. Try being reasonable, and if that doesn’t work, then forget it. Go after the ones who support your side, and build that end up, and get what you want. There’s always ways of getting what you need, if not what you want.
Nice try, Linda, but you are simply wrong about Mormon Church history as it relates to African-Americans.
Based upon the policies of the MORMON CHURCH, African-American males could not be members of the priesthood until 1978 because of their race. In 1978, the Mormon prophet stated that he had a relevation and changed the LDS (Mormon) Church’s policy as it relates to African-Americans.
For those interested in this discriminatory history of the Mormon Church against African-Americans, there are a number of articles and blog posting regarding it. You can start with Joann Brook’s article entitled “Mormonism’s Black Issues” at https://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/1931. The blog “A Soft Answer” (run by a Mormon in good standing with the LDS Church) had a very interesting thread regarding Elder Oaks’ comments regarding Proposition 8 and the civil rights movement and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s response. (See https://asoftanswer.com/2009/10/14/keith-olbermann-declares-elder-oaks-one-of-the-worse-people-in-the-world/ .) Linda, the discrimination existed; simply stated otherwise cannot make it go away.
It really amazes me the amount of groupthink and status quo rebuttal that takes place here on the Dallas Voice Blogs, all in the name of defending that ever glorious figure known in our community as the Senior Editor and her journalist staff (the second coming ???)…………
Let’s clarify one universal “truth” about religion right here and now.
I am not concerned what creed, belief, denomination, sect or any other branch anyone believes in as this is a personal choice for people. What I do find utterly disgusting is some of the commentors above who clearly wish to EXPLOIT the practice of religion (in whatever form that may be) to promote some GLBT “activist” political agenda to gain political leverage and money !!! It is apparent that this is what is really going on here with a few behind the scenes people promoting this and calling all the shots (and you know exactly the people I am speaking of Ms. Nash)………….
Its horrible that politics has become such an OBSESSION with some of you folks and if I were to read these comments without the article attached, I would have thought that I was reading a rehearsed script from folks who were brainwashed robots at the behest of their “leaders” to retaliate against free thinkers for offending one of their own………….
So before some of you “activists” want to run your mouths about how “religion” bruises your political egos, perhaps you should examine the REAL agenda that you are trying to promote here…………
Case in Point:
Andrew, I’m not surprised in the least by your support for both Tammye and her religious beliefs here. After all, wasn’t it the Dallas Voice partially led by Tammye Nash which via another posting provided you an open forum in which to advertise your new elitist “Game Plan” clique meetings at The Melrose ??? I have learned from a few insiders that had attended that meeting that it was nothing but a religious based “activism” clique designed to force your religious views (oops I’m sorry, political views shrouded in religion) on people who didn’t agree with your “activist” agenda ??? So please spare me the false rhetoric and nauseating butt kissing that you do to perhaps gain editorial favors with the editor to promote your agenda !! You all run in the same elitist circles and drink from the same Dom Perignon trough, so you are fooling no one.
Also Andrew, to clarify. The Dallas Voice is a GLBT paper with GLBT readership, not exclusively a “gay” paper with “gay” readership. How sad that you are the first to pick up a picket sign and shout off your mouth about equality when you insist in EXCLUDING bisexual and transsexual people from your mention of the community……..How blatantly hypocritical !!!
Its not about having political “balls” here, its about getting to the core issues, issues that many in the Nash clique will cover-up at all cost to protect the corrupt status quo……..
Once again, fight your own battles Tammye rather than your “groupies” doing it for you.
It really amazes me the amount of groupthink and status quo rebuttal that takes place here on the Dallas Voice Blogs, all in the name of defending that ever glorious figure known in our community as the Senior Editor and her journalist staff (the second coming ???)…………
Let’s clarify one universal “truth” about religion right here and now.
I am not concerned what creed, belief, denomination, sect or any other branch anyone believes in as this is a personal choice for people. What I do find utterly disgusting is some of the commentors above who clearly wish to EXPLOIT the practice of religion (in whatever form that may be) to promote some GLBT “activist” political agenda to gain political leverage and money !!! It is apparent that this is what is really going on here with a few behind the scenes people promoting this and calling all the shots (and you know exactly the people I am speaking of Ms. Nash)………….
Its horrible that politics has become such an OBSESSION with some of you folks and if I were to read these comments without the article attached, I would have thought that I was reading a rehearsed script from folks who were brainwashed robots at the behest of their “leaders” to retaliate against free thinkers for offending one of their own………….
So before some of you “activists” want to run your mouths about how “religion” bruises your political egos, perhaps you should examine the REAL agenda that you are trying to promote here…………
Case in Point:
Andrew, I’m not surprised in the least by your support for both Tammye and her religious beliefs here. After all, wasn’t it the Dallas Voice partially led by Tammye Nash which via another posting provided you an open forum in which to advertise your new elitist “Game Plan” clique meetings at The Melrose ??? I have learned from a few insiders that had attended that meeting that it was nothing but a religious based “activism” clique designed to force your religious views (oops I’m sorry, political views shrouded in religion) on people who didn’t agree with your “activist” agenda ??? So please spare me the false rhetoric and nauseating butt kissing that you do to perhaps gain editorial favors with the editor to promote your agenda !! You all run in the same elitist circles and drink from the same Dom Perignon trough, so you are fooling no one.
Also Andrew, to clarify. The Dallas Voice is a GLBT paper with GLBT readership, not exclusively a “gay” paper with “gay” readership. How sad that you are the first to pick up a picket sign and shout off your mouth about equality when you insist in EXCLUDING bisexual and transsexual people from your mention of the community……..How blatantly hypocritical !!!
Its not about having political “balls” here, its about getting to the core issues, issues that many in the Nash clique will cover-up at all cost to protect the corrupt status quo……..
Once again, fight your own battles Tammye rather than your “groupies” doing it for you.
It really amazes me the amount of groupthink and status quo rebuttal that takes place here on the Dallas Voice Blogs, all in the name of defending that ever glorious figure known in our community as the Senior Editor and her journalist staff (the second coming ???)…………
Let’s clarify one universal “truth” about religion right here and now.
I am not concerned what creed, belief, denomination, sect or any other branch anyone believes in as this is a personal choice for people. What I do find utterly disgusting is some of the commentors above who clearly wish to EXPLOIT the practice of religion (in whatever form that may be) to promote some GLBT “activist” political agenda to gain political leverage and money !!! It is apparent that this is what is really going on here with a few behind the scenes people promoting this and calling all the shots (and you know exactly the people I am speaking of Ms. Nash)………….
Its horrible that politics has become such an OBSESSION with some of you folks and if I were to read these comments without the article attached, I would have thought that I was reading a rehearsed script from folks who were brainwashed robots at the behest of their “leaders” to retaliate against free thinkers for offending one of their own………….
So before some of you “activists” want to run your mouths about how “religion” bruises your political egos, perhaps you should examine the REAL agenda that you are trying to promote here…………
Case in Point:
Andrew, I’m not surprised in the least by your support for both Tammye and her religious beliefs here. After all, wasn’t it the Dallas Voice partially led by Tammye Nash which via another posting provided you an open forum in which to advertise your new elitist “Game Plan” clique meetings at The Melrose ??? I have learned from a few insiders that had attended that meeting that it was nothing but a religious based “activism” clique designed to force your religious views (oops I’m sorry, political views shrouded in religion) on people who didn’t agree with your “activist” agenda ??? So please spare me the false rhetoric and nauseating butt kissing that you do to perhaps gain editorial favors with the editor to promote your agenda !! You all run in the same elitist circles and drink from the same Dom Perignon trough, so you are fooling no one.
Also Andrew, to clarify. The Dallas Voice is a GLBT paper with GLBT readership, not exclusively a “gay” paper with “gay” readership. How sad that you are the first to pick up a picket sign and shout off your mouth about equality when you insist in EXCLUDING bisexual and transsexual people from your mention of the community……..How blatantly hypocritical !!!
Its not about having political “balls” here, its about getting to the core issues, issues that many in the Nash clique will cover-up at all cost to protect the corrupt status quo……..
Once again, fight your own battles Tammye rather than your “groupies” doing it for you.
Actually, Disappointed Reader, I have no idea what the hell it is you are talking about. I didn’t even know I had groupies.
You keep telling me to fight my own battles. What battle are you talking about? I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what kind of cover up you are talking about — mainly because neither I nor anyone on this staff is involved in any cover up. And I can assure you beyond any doubt I do not “run in elitest circles” or drink Dom Perignon.
You get on this blog and write on and on about conspiracies and cover ups and on and on and on, haranguing people for having an opinion that differs from you and talking about how we censor you. If somebody dares disagree with you you just accuse them of being my lackeys and groupies and go off on some tangent than no one understands. For instance, it’s okay for you to post your comments and call everybody names, but it’s not okay for Andrew to post a comment about having a meeting to come up with some plan of action.
Look, I have no battle to fight here. I am not concerned with what you call me or what you accuse me of, because it makes no damn sense and has no basis in fact or reason. And I am not going to spend my time arguing with you because you make no sense whatsoever.
“Disappointed Reader”:
Sorry, I don’t fit your conspiracy theory of “a few behind the scenes people promoting this and calling all the shots.” I live in a small town in the Central Valley of California, and participate in blogs such as “Instant Tea” to address issues that are important to me and to the GLBT community. These issues include those groups (including certain religious groups) that seek to take rights away from those gays and lesbians who wish to marry and/or have a domestic partnership (depending on the specific state involved).
From what I have read on this thread, it is unclear how you reached the conclusions and conspiracy theories in your last post.
Sorry to disappoint you Disappointed Reader, but I haven’t had any meetings expressing my “political” or “religious” views. I have had a series of very helpful LGBT Strategy and Planning meetings. It’s far from “elitist,” as you suggest – it has been about 100 very real, very sincere people expressing ideas.
Your Posts here seem to be an attempt to stifle conversation (free speech) or criticize others. That’s not very helpful.
My apologies if you believe I have, in any way, excluded anyone – including bisexual or transsexual individuals. Our challenge is obtaining our equality – to that end, I believe we all have something to contribute. Perhaps, you might consider adding to the conversation.
Thursdays at 7pm at the iLume Complex, 4123 Cedar Springs (enter on Knight Street).
We have seen many ideas for LGBT Equality and continue to explore strategies/plans that have the possibility of igniting a real movement. We do this very honestly and objectively.
I have held these conversations in several cities and I believe the results will lead to an exciting new direction – one that can win – in the next few years.
We’re not going to change the minds of those that (literally) believe the religious teaching that has punished homosexuals for 2,000 years – we’d be much better off marginalizing them. Ignoring them would be a good
You get on this blog and write on and on about conspiracies and cover ups and on and on and on, haranguing people for having an opinion that differs from you and talking about how we censor you. If somebody dares disagree with you you just accuse them of being my lackeys and groupies and go off on some tangent than no one understands. For instance, it’s okay for you to post your comments and call everybody names, but it’s not okay for Andrew to post a comment about having a meeting to come up with some plan of action.
just go to http://www.blacklds.org for the black Mormon side of things. I’m not saying there was NO discrimination by some members and leaders of the LDS church, but, as a whole, the church never advocated discrimination.
We have our beliefs. If you don’t believe like we do, then you don’t join our church. If you join our church, it’s because you believe as we do. Simple as that.
No one can make us change our doctrines, except for God.
Personally, I don’t care if gays want to get married to each other. Maybe it’s for the best.
Here is what I believe.
Sexual relations is to be between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wed to each other. All other is sin. If you believe different, hey, that’s your priviledge. But don’t force me to believe what I don’t.
Marriage is to be between a man and a woman.
I don’t want, at some point down the road, for some gay couple to decide that they want THIS church to marry them and THIS church doesn’t want to marry them, so hey, let’s SUE them into marrying us! And it WILL happen, someday. Maybe not this year, or next, or even the next, but, in about ten or twenty, it’s gonna happen! Sure as night follows day.
Thank you for allowing me to vent.
Linda:
Are you actually reading what you are writing?
There were OFFICIAL LDS Church policies that PREVENTED African-American men from the Mormon priesthood based upon the color of their skin. Those were the well-documented beliefs of the Mormon Church until 1978, which were clearly discriminatory against African-Americans. It took a self-described revelation from the Mormon prophet in 1978 to change this official beliefs of the church that discriminated against African-Americans. Sorry, Linda, no matter how you spin it, those are the facts and the official LDS policies were discriminatory.
Also, let’s get real regarding forcing churches to marry gays and lesbians. I know of no movement in the gay and lesbian community to force churches to marry a couple that the church does not want to marry. Ironically, the Maine legislation (just overturned by Question 1) clearly exempted out churches from ANY requirements of marrying those that they did not want to.
Why would a gay or lesbian couple want to force the the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church (two churches that have been in the forefront of marriage inequality) to bless or sanctify their marriage? I don’t want to spend my special day with someone with (at a minimum) does not support my marriage and very well may dislike or hate me. There are many wonderful pastors, priests etc. who could marry me.
Linda, in closing, you and your church are clearly entitled to your beliefs — that’s why we have freedom of religion in this country. What is wrong, however, is when you use your religious beliefs and resources to take my rights from me — the right to marry the one person that I love. Now that is wrong.
Like I said:
I know that, before 1978, blacks of African descent could not hold the priesthood. Fact. Can’t deny it.
However, some things to think about:
The priesthood is not a job.
The priesthood is GOD’S priesthood.
If blacks WANT the priesthood, then I can see how they would feel slighted by not being able to hold it. HOWEVER, if they believe it’s a false priesthood, then where is the problem?
And if they believe it’s GOD’S priesthood, as much as they don’t like it, they accept that this is GOD’S will and they accept it. Many blacks did.
Many women in my church don’t like that they can’t hold the priesthood. I don’t know why?
You either accept it as God’s will, or you have nothing to do with the church. It’s really just that simple.
Why is it when ANY pastor speaks directly from the Bible someone has to be offended and target that pastor? The only true word is the word of God which is the Bible not man. By speaking the truth from the Bible people will protest. It is not a matter of if a war will begin, but when. These articles. for instance, are waging wars against all Pastors all over the world that speak the truth. You might not think so because of the way it is so “nicely” worded, but their are people that will take matters in to their own hands. You just gave them the ammunition and a target to do it. I just Pray people will not use it.
If God wanted same sex marriages he would have made it where a man and man (or woman and woman) could get pregnant naturally themselves. NO, he made it for a man and woman to be together to bring life. The only way same sex couples can have children is by adoption, or scientific measures. It is NOT natural.
Chris are you kidding me?
Barry is not preaching from the Bible…he is preaching hate. As Barry said, the #1 issue in America right now is homosexuality….please defend that for me because I really don’t understand it. I cannot believe that homosexuality is #1 issue in America, not the wars, not the economic situation, not starving people but homosexuality, please tell me !!!
Also, I don’t remember anywhere in the Bible where it says to go after another religion?
Chris, you are obviously blinded too…I feel sorry for you.
Did I say I agree with Pastor Barry on that being the #1 issue. NO, I honestly do not believe that. You are correct in the Bible does not say to go after another religion. However, it does call for us to be witnesses and bring as many people as we can to Salvation no matter race or religion. I believe ALL religions are man made and have their own man made laws. Just because we attend a certain church does not mean we are all sheep under the Pastor’s direction. If I have questions I ask and have to be shown by scripture from the Bible my answers. Not by any other book or word of man. Bottom line is Truth hurts and that’s why so many people are angry and protesting.
Chris, thank you for being civilized in your response…I understand completly what you are saying…and I have attended churches, I have asked several questions about anything and everything…but I could not get the same answer, a logical answer or was just blown off. And I agree with you that Religion is man-made…and this will probably offend you but so is the Bible…if you really think about where the Bible has come from, it’s a story passed down, things added and things taken out of context…
Linda:
What is simple is that the Mormon Church has a well-documented history of discrimination against African-Africans that continued until 1978.
The fact that some African-Americans tolerated accepted the discriminatory practices of the Mormon Church does not make it right and does not make it proper. Many African-Americans tolerated or dealt with the Jim Crow laws in the South (so called separate but equal–but never equal) However, the fact that some African-Americans tolerate the discriminatory laws in the South did not make those laws right and did not make it acceptable.
Through the actions of visionary leaders, American has moved substantially toward racial equality. We will hopefully move toward marriage equality in the near future.
Again, Stephen, The PRIESTHOOD is not a job, it’s nothing to do with where a person works, sleeps, eats, etc. It’s FAITH.
Before the Civil Rights movement, and even a few years after, there were other Christian churches that refused to allow blacks to join, PERIOD. There were those who allowed blacks to join, but they had to sit in the back, or they had to have separate services. VERY few allowed blacks to worship shoulder to shoulder with everyone else. But we did.
And it’s not just African-Americans. It’s Africans, too. Many Africans in Central and Western AFrica read the Book of Mormon and called Salt Lake wanting to join the church, but had to wait, first until they could receive the priesthood, then for the civil violence to cease, so that the church could send in missionaries. Now, thousands of Africans in Ghana, Nigeria, etc., are members. There is an African black in the First Quorum of the SEventy. For a few years, there was a black Brazilian in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, but their tenure is temporary.
The Priesthood is from God. God gives it to whomever He wants. Do you believe this? Do you want it?
Do you believe in the First Amendment of the Constitution? the one that says that government will make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? That means, NO ONE tells any religion what they can and cannot believe, or how they can or cannot worship. Back in the 19th century, the US government went against the first amendment and the church could do nothing. Now, it should be a different story.
There is no way, tho, that blacks and gays are the same. blacks do not choose to be black. Homosexuals, OTOH, choose their actions. I don’t know if one can help what they feel, or not. But they CAN help what they do with those feelings. God wnats us to control our baser instincts.
Linda:
Were you just complaining about the U.S. ban on polygamy in your last post? It sure looks like it. You stated: “Back in the 19th century, the US government went against the first amendment and the [Mormon] church could do nothing. Now, it should be a different story.”
Let me get this straight…it is O.K. for the Mormon Church to help get laws passed that ban gay and lesbian marriage, but it was wrong for polygamy to be banned in the United States in the 1800s. Ironic indeed.
Linda:
You still haven’t explained how granting the right to civil (not religious) marriages will impact your First Amendment rights in any way.
As I previously stated, you and your church are clearly entitled to your beliefs. What is improper, however, is when you use your religious beliefs and resources to take my rights from me — the right to marry the one person that I love.
The residents of Maine decided that marriage is only for heterosexual couples yesterday. It served as a major blow for the various lobbyists who have been fierce advocates of same sex marriage rights. All of this campaigning has me wondering why the HRC and various other organizations are spending all this money on semantics. Here’s my logic. The heterosexual community’s argument is that the TERM “marriage” is and should remain an institution of the church. The LGBT community’s argument is that they deserve the same RIGHTS as hetersexual couples engaged in common law and legalized marriage. My question is this, if we are trying to get the RIGHTS why are we spending precious time and money lobbying to CALL the union “marriage” when the name of the unions are irrelevant? Does it really matter that people who don’t ackowledge your relationship as a valid lifestyle call your relationship “marriage”, or does it only matter that you have the exact privilidges and benefits from the state and federal government afforded those who are in heterosexual marriages? Do the opinions of those opponents really have validity in your relationship?
It is intrinsic on the LGBT community to realize that as we endeavor to receive equal rights that we don’t get caught up in semantics. Case in point, individuals have the right to believe how they wish as long as those beliefs don’t break any laws. There are still many people who don’t believe blacks are equal to whites eventhough the law has stated such for many decades. The law prevails and blacks still have the same rights as whites yet each individual has a choice to ackowledge that equality or reject it IN THEIR OWN MIND. It is no different with the opponents of same sex marriage.
If my partner and I decide to committ to each other and call it a civil union with all of the same tax and legal benefits of a heterosexual marriage, wouldn’t that solve the battle? Maybe i’m making this too simple but it seems that we are hell bent on forcing people to accept a terminology they would rather spend all their money fighting to keep exclusively for themselves. Personally I don’t see the harm in same sex civil unions with all of the rights and privilidges of heterosexual marriages. It doesn’t undermine the “strength” of the term marriage anymore than a cheating husband or wife undermines the “strength” of the term “marriage”. It also doesn’t take away the validity of the love of the same sex couple, nor add to it as the strength of a relationship lies within the willingness of the two parties in the relationship to communicate, agree, agree to disagree but still love each other etc.
I sometimes wonder if we fight over semantics in order to sustain employment at lobbyists organizations. I’m sure it would be a much simpler task to pass civil unions with the exact rights and privilidges as hetero-marriage IF WE ASKED FOR IT. But if we did that what would we need all these lobbyists for? I have often heard activists talk about how greatful they are for progress but wouldn’t the RIGHTS of “marriage” under the terminology “civil union” be the biggest step the country has ever made? I mean once everyone in the hetero community realizes the world didn’t crumble and burn in 20 years can’t there be a change in terminology then since the fight really seems to be over semantics?
Just a thought. If we’re fighting for the RIGHTS then go for the RIGHTS and let the church community have the TERM “marriage”. It’s wasteful to fight over words and beliefs as beliefs are only there to govern those who believe them. That’s why change happens one person at a time, because individuals change what they believe based off personal experience. We can’t force people to call our relationships marriage even if the government ackowledges them as such. So why don’t we REALLY just fight for the same rights and call it civil unions (because technically in a democracy people have the right to call you and your union whatever they want as long as there’s no bodily harm inflicted).
@ Ramon:
The people in Maine actually do support same-sex marriage by 55% to 45%. The problem is they didn’t come out to vote the way the religious crowd did. We can’t beat “religion” without actually trying. We didn’t give our side a good reason to take the extra step of showing up to vote.
Civil Unions is the “back of the bus.” Equality means “same” for everyone.
We lost in Maine because we made the issue “marriage,” instead of “equality.” We need to figure out how to get our supporters to stand with us and get out to vote.
The GLBT Community does not have a strategy for equality – they have a strategy to prolong the debate because that’s how they make a living. If we achieved equality , they’d be out of business. They don’t have an incentive.
Josh, you hit the nail. That’s why Prop 8 passed in CA. Not the Mormons, but the GLBT didn’t get out the vote! I’m sure that if EVERY registered voter in CA came out to vote last year, prop 8 would have failed. The GLBT lobby raised almost as much money as the Catholic/Mormons/other Christians did, if not more, then why did prop 8 pass? Because there was either voter apathy, or too many thought, there’s no way it’s going to pass, with or without my vote, so why bother?
Don’t throw temper tantrums outside MOrmon temples, put it back on the ballot then GET OUT THE VOTE!!
Personally, I am a fence sitter. Civil unions works for me. Separating Civil unions from church unions works for me. The ONLY ONLY reason I would oppose gay marriage is because someday, down the road, some gay couple is going to want a church to marry them that doesn’t believe in gay marrige, etc.
Oh, and I wsn’t complaining about the ban on plural marriage, as much as I was about government making unconstitutional laws regarding the free practice of religion.
>it is O.K. for the Mormon Church to help get laws passed that ban gay and lesbian marriage, but it was wrong for polygamy to be banned in the United States in the 1800s. Ironic indeedWhat is improper, however, is when you use your religious beliefs and resources to take my rights from me <
The LDS church is not taking anything away from you. Mormons are using the same resources that everyone else has to do what everyone else has the right to do, VOTE. They just had one advantage, they were more organized. It wasn't any church that took anything away from you, it was the VOTERS. They spoke.
Linda,
The fact that you have not responded shows that you cannot demonstrate how how granting the right to civil (not religious) marriages will impact your First Amendment rights in any way. I also note that you quickly dropped your polygamy and religious freedom argument — not a compelling argument outside of very narrow segments of society.
My point in providing the links to the blogs of this church, especially about the LDS were to show that this church is a bully. I am all about freedom of religion. But why would this church in Texas build a church right next door to the temple in Utah…I am all for gay rights but I am also for equal rights for other religions, but when a religion forces it down another group’s throat without thinking of the consequences, then I have a problem with it. They need to stay inside their $20 million church and mind their own business.
Jeff, I do have a life.
I have no problem with civil unions. I have no problem separating marriages from civil unions.
When the government outlawed plural marriage, it was a violation of the church’s constitutional rights. However, homosexuality is not a religion.
lost focus, there are always those who want “to save the godless Mormons”, just like they want to save the “godless homosexuals”. Believe me, we’re used to it.
Tammye,
I’m only 14 years old and i think that what you are trying to put across to the people
in America is wrong. Especially to the children, the youth. How can you say that
being gay lesbian Bi or trans gender is okay. Wow, if you are parent you should be
ashamed. Teaching your children that being Gay is okay. That is the most absurd thing
i have ever herd. I mean i look at the people in my highschool who are gay lebian bi and transgender and ask them how their parends feel about them being that way, and it kill
me to hear them say that their parents think it’s okay. It’s like people have herd it so many times that they start to think it’s okay, and you know why because of people like you.
Who say oh it’s okay your not doing anything wrong. Well it is wrong how can you read Barry Camerons blog and still think that it’s okay like especially if you call yourself a christian. He even put scriptures from the bible that clearly tell you it’s wrong. Honestly, i respect everyone’s opinion but i have an opinion too. All i am trying to say is that any lesbian gay bisexual or trans gender who calls them self a christian is just a mockery to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
-Danielle Delgado
If the above comment is authentic – that’s our problem. The “religious” teaching that homosexuals are wrong. Teaching this at such a young age (impressionable) makes it very difficult to unlearn. Thankfully, more parents have enough respect for their children to allow them to grow up and then “pick” a religion – if they want. Inheriting religion must end.
Danielle:
You tell your mother or father that is is a sin to lie–and you and the person who wrote it for you just did. You clearly did not write the statement that was posted on this blog, but the statement was written in such a manner that it would appear to be written by a young teenager.
It is unfortunate that you apparently live in a household where bigotry against gays and lesbians and other religions–including the LDS (Mormon) Church–thrives prospers. Danielle, tell your mother or father that bigotry is wrong and is definitely NOT Christian.
Linda:
You stated: “The LDS church is not taking anything away from you. Mormons are using the same resources that everyone else has to do what everyone else has the right to do, VOTE. They just had one advantage, they were more organized.”
Actually, Linda, Mormons DID take something way from me and other gays and lesbians in California. Mormons (who were urged by their leaders in multiple ways) gave more than 1/2 of the funds to the “Yes on 8” campaign in California (more than $20,000,000) — including crucial funding at the beginning when it was unclear if that ballot measure would qualify for the ballot. But for the Mormon funding, it is unlikely that the Prop. 8 would have passed.
I most likely will not be able to convince you of this fact, but other reader may be interested in the documentation about the Mormon involvement in Proposition 8 from the periodical Religion in the News. Written by Doe Daughtery, “The Mormon Proposition” chronicles Mormon involvement in the “Yes on 8”, as well as previous gay marriage initiatives in Hawaii and Alaska. You can review the article at https://caribou.cc.trincoll.edu/depts_csrpl/RINVol11No3/Mormon%20Proposition.htm
detailed article entitled “The Mormon Proposition” about the Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church from the periodical Religion in the News. The link is
Not true, Linda. But for the Mormon seed money,
Sorry about the extra language at the end of my previous post. The “final version” is below:
“Linda:
You stated: “The LDS church is not taking anything away from you. Mormons are using the same resources that everyone else has to do what everyone else has the right to do, VOTE. They just had one advantage, they were more organized.”
Actually, Linda, Mormons DID take something way from me and other gays and lesbians in California. Mormons (who were urged by their leaders in multiple ways) gave more than 1/2 of the funds to the “Yes on 8? campaign in California (more than $20,000,000) — including crucial funding at the beginning when it was unclear if that ballot measure would qualify for the ballot. But for the Mormon funding, it is unlikely that the Prop. 8 would have passed.
I most likely will not be able to convince you of this fact, but other reader may be interested in the documentation about the Mormon involvement in Proposition 8 from the periodical Religion in the News. Written by Doe Daughtery, “The Mormon Proposition” chronicles Mormon involvement in the “Yes on 8?, as well as previous gay marriage initiatives in Hawaii and Alaska. You can review the article at https://caribou.cc.trincoll.edu/depts_csrpl/RINVol11No3/Mormon%20Proposition.htm “
>But for the Mormon funding, it is unlikely that the Prop. 8 would have passed.<
There's no way of knowing that. The thing that gets me is, This is CALIFORNIA we're talking about. I lived there for nine years. What gets me is, Obama took California. Easily.
But, the SAME PEOPLE who voted FOR Obama voted FOR prop 8. Now, how do you figure this?
More blacks voted FOR prop 8.
More hispanics voted FOR prop 8.
No Mormon held a gun to anyone's head.
Those AGAINST prop 8 raised just as much money.
California has, I would bet, more gays per capita than any other state. It definately has more gays than Mormons! And many more straights who support "gay rights", and would vote against prop 8. This is a BLUE state, bluer than blue.
Maine is a blue state. Their "prop 8" should have passed.
Yet, in both states, it didn't pass.
I still say, the Mormons are just a convenient easy target for gay temper tantrums.
Oh, and one other thing. I don't live in CA anymore, I live in Ohio. I never HEARD of prop 8 before the election that passed it. So, people shouldn't be taking anything out on ALL mormons.
It wasn't Mormons, it was the VOTERS. Like I said, no one had a gun to their head.
But, I have this feeling that, if there's another on the ballot in CA, there WILL be "guns to the heads" so to speak, but it won't be the Mormons holding it.
You are completely ignoring the power of advertising and the Mormon Church provided a great portion of that money. That is the reason that the LGBT community is so angry at the Mormon Church. You never heard of Prop 8 before the election because the advertising wasn’t running in Ohio; it was running in California, targeting likely voters. But you’re right. They’re the exact same voters who voted for Obama. Interesting that as California was voting to break a glass ceiling by putting an African American in the White House, they were voting to take rights away from another group. But, Linda, precisely because you don’t even view the rights of gays and lesbians as rights is the reason those rights should never be put up form a vote. We never voted on rights for religious groups or ethnic groups or religious groups. As Jesse Ventura (former Minnesota governor) said on election night, if we put slavery up for a vote today, we’d have slavery today.
The best way for the LGBT community to demonstrate to every straight person what it is like to have their rights threatened is for Californians to get yet another proposition on the ballot. This one would end civil marriage for straight people. And in California, it is very easy to get propositions on the ballot. I don’t know why the LGBT community in that state haven’t gone on the attack and started taking away the rights of others in the same way their rights have been eliminated.
Linda:
You stated: “I still say, the Mormons are just a convenient easy target for gay temper tantrums.” Temper tantrums? You are still bitterly complaining about the Mormon loss of “plural marriages” (aka polygamy) and that happened in 1890–119 years ago! Gays and lesbians loss their total marriage rights in California one year ago and in Maine 2 weeks ago. Are we more than a little upset? You betcha!
You can try to spin the loss of our rights in however you like, but if it wasn’t for the Mormon money which came very early in California to fund their less-than-honest campaign (to put it charitably), Proposition 8 would not have passed.
Also, until the National Organization for Marriage (the major funding source and initiator of the “Yes on 1” campaign in Maine) releases its contributor list, we won’t know if the Mormon Church played a big role in Maine too. Given the Mormon Church’s history (see this article here https://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3689 among many others) it wouldn’t be a big surprise.
@ Linda:
Enough, already. Mormons have a “bigoted belief system.” They believe and TEACH that homosexuality is wrong, sinful or deviant. They teach those beliefs – bigotry.
So, I won’t call you a bigot. I’ll simply point out that you have a “bigoted belief system.” That’s your choice. Other than that, it’s in the best interest of the LGBT Community to simply ignore you. If you ever want to join humanity, you’ll need to drop that belief system.
Please get over in the corner with the Baptists. Like you said “you’re easy targets.” But, just argue with each other. We’re not playing that non-productive game anymore. Have a nice life.
So I tried to post comments on Crossroads Christian Church in regards to the post. My postings were calm, collective, and respectful, but they were denied posting by the moderator. You can tell from the other postings they pick and chose what they want posted on their website…hyporcrites!
The Mormon Church is now trumpeting its support of a Salt Lake City municipal ordinance that provides limited anti-discrimination protections for gays and lesbians. (See Associated Press coverage at: https://www.startribune.com/business/69748257.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr .)
When the Mormon Church supported Proposition 8 in California, it took away a huge bundle of rights from gays and lesbians in California. While it is nice that the Mormon Church supported a Utah city’s anti-discrimination law, that does not begin to make up for the rights that have been lost in California and other jurisdictions.
I note, however, that the Mormon Church did NOT support statewide anti-discrimination legislation that was proposed in Utah this year. Here is an excerpt from a May 3, 2009 Salt Lake Tribune article entitled “Utah prime location for gay-rights movement”:
“In the midst of the Prop. 8 debate, however, the [LDS] church also quietly posted a statement on its Web site saying it did not object to civil unions or basic legal protections for same-sex couples involving hospitalization, medical care, housing, employment and probate rights as long as they do not infringe on the “integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” The statement went unnoticed until after the November election.
Equality Utah drafted a package of bills around those rights for the 2009 legislative session. Polling showed more than two-thirds of Utahns supported such protections. But all of the bills failed.
“The majority of Utahns get it,” Thompson said. “But the folks in the people’s house somehow feel that providing these legal protections is an endorsement of something they fundamentally disagree with.”
Where was the support of the LDS Church when these bills were pending in Utah this year? Nowhere to be found….
If the LDS Church is really serious about demonstrating that it is not for discrimination against gays and lesbians, then it will support statewide legislation in Utah that provides protection from discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Finally, the filmmakers behind “8: The Mormon Proposition” said that Mitt Romney saw their film and put pressure on the LDS Church to “extend an olive branch to the gay community to try and deflate the anticipated negative press” that would come from its release, over concern with an anticipated 2012 Presidential campaign. (See https://8themormonproposition.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-tmp-press-release.html.)
Dear Brian. The LDS church believes that sexual activity should be confined to a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded. Anything else is a sin.
We also believe marriage between a man and a woman is sanctified by God.
We believe that God did not create any feelings in us that we cannot control. Sexual feelings are among these. That means that, whatever sexual feelings we have, we are strong enough to keep these feelings from becoming sinful actions.
All Mormons, as everyone, have the right to vote, and to make their voices heard on politcal and social issues. We also have the same rights as everyone else to donate to political causes. Perhaps all that money did help get it passed. we don’t know for sure. But, again, everyone has that right to donate to whatever cause they believe. I believe it was fair all around. That’s why I believe all those protests were “temper tantrums” becuase they didn’t do any good whatsoever.
And, Stephen? I am not “bitterly complaining”, I am merely pointing out that constitutional rights were violated.
one more thing.
Since Mormon voters in almost every state, except Utah, is probably less than 5%, there is no way we are FORCING our beliefs on others.
Those who donated are merely getting those who believe as we do to vote, same as the GLBT are. It’s all fair.
Linda:
You stated: “I believe all those protests were “temper tantrums” because they didn’t do any good whatsoever.”
Using your analogy, were the protests against slavery in early 1800s were “temper tantrums” because they didn’t make slavery go away immediately? What about the early protests in support of a woman’s right to vote? Were they “temper tantrums” because it took decades for that right be given to women? How about protests against the prohibition against certain ethnic groups owning property in certain upscale neighborhoods? Was that a “temper tantrum” because it took the courts a number of years to correct that injustice? What about protests against laws that prohibited interracial marriage? Were those “temper tantrums” because it took the U.S. Supreme Court until the late 1960s (the Loving decision) to overturn those laws throughout the country? Finally, were the early protests against racial inequality “temper tantrums” because it took many decades for the national civil rights legislation to become law in the 1960s?
The answer–of course–is that all of these “temper tantrums” were important steps in the movements to gain equality for the groups that I listed above. The protests by gays and lesbians against marriage inequality are no different — they are an important element of the ongoing movement for marriage equality. And, in the end, they will make a difference for equality.
No, protests against slavery were totally different, as slaves had NO VOICE whatsoever in their own interests and protections and rights. Slaves were, in effect, mere animals to their masters.
For gays to compare wanting the right to marry with slaves getting the right to be real people? It’s just not even close.
Mormons are NOT using gays as pack animals; we do not question their humanity in any way whatsoever. WE have NO POWER over gays whatsoever! ALL Mormons did was alert the voters in California, giving EVERYONE the same the same opportunity to make their voice heard.
As far as women’s right to vote, well, guess who was the FIRST to give women the right to vote?
If you say “The Mormons”, you are ABSOLUTELY right! Yes, in Deseret Territory, women DID have the right to vote. After the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the US government took that right away. And after Utah became a state, it was back to square one.
The reason they are temper tantrums is because gays are NOT going to favorably impress the Mormons that way. They are NOT going to make GOD change HIS mind on what is or is not a sexual sin. They are NOT going to make our church change our beliefs, or make us (meaning the members, not THE CHURCH) stop being politically active, if that’s what we choose to do. If I want to donate money to a cause, I will. If you, or anyone else, doesn’t like the choices I make, that’s NOT my problem! It was not THE LDS CHURCH that voted in prop 8, it was the PEOPLE of the STATE of CALIFORNIA. And you know what? I have a sneaking suspicion that GAYS outnumber MORMONS in that state. Especially Mormons who would vote for Prop 8.
Just answer one question:
What earthly GOOD did all those protests do, other than to be a catharsis for the losers?
Linda, I have had it with you and your rambling, sometimes people need to be told to shut up, and you do!
You make no sense! You’re defending a useless cause.
Just saw one of your ‘religious folk’ got sentenced to 10 years for sexual assault of a young girl…that is a religion I want to be a part of…where do I sign up?
Also, since religious groups are donating so much money to fight causes, they need to start paying taxes just like the rest of us! If not, they have no say!
Well, Linda, given the very recent furor over Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks’ ill-conceived comparison of Mormons to the African Americans in the civil rights movement, I see that you have elected not to address that particular analogy in your response. By your silence, are you admitting that “temper tantrums” of Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and a wide range of other brave activists seeking racial equality was not actually a “temper tantrum” but was part of a landmark civil rights movement?
In the same way, gay and lesbians are seeking equality in not only marriage but also housing, education and jobs on a national and state-by-state level. Are our protests and political activities a temper tantrum? Absolutely not. We are seeking the same equality that others—including Mormons—currently enjoy.
Do you and the Mormon Church have to support our efforts for equality? Of course not….however, in the long run, history will not look kindly on the Mormon Church’s position on equality for gays and lesbians–just like the Mormon Church’s well-documented and long-held discriminatory policies against African Americans looks bigoted today.
Stephen,
Blacks do not have equality. Neither do Women. They have some laws to protect them – civil rights, but not equality. It’s clear that a majority of Americans believe that Blacks and Women are “equal,” but a minority of Americans still do not.
Obtaining “equal rights” is not the same as creating equality. The LGBT fight for so-called “rights” is just the default result – it doesn’t create equality. Time does. Old ideas die – sooner or later. The same will happen to us, unless the LGBT Community shifts it’s focus and resources from “settling” for equal rights, to a real pursuit of real equality.
I don’t believe the civil rights protests of the 60s included ‘temper tantrums,” either. It was also more than 40 years ago. The world has changed – the LGBT Community has not.
I believe that what Elder Oaks said was that the GLBT was trying to intimidate people into either seeing things their way or not voting their own conscience. Sort of like groups like the KKK would intimidate blacks into not voting or whatever.
As you might have found by now, the LDS church DOES support CIVIL rights of people on jobs or housing based on sexual preferences. It’s only the issue of marriage.
How did we discriminate against blacks? It’s true that, until 1978, blacks of african descent could not hold the priesthood, but that begs so many questions:
Do you believe we have God’s priesthood or man’s?
Do you WANT said priesthood?
Is said priesthood a job that falls under EEO rules?
Did blacks lose anything by us not giving them our priesthood? (If they do not believe our priesthood is of God, if they believe it’s man made, or even blasphemous, are we still discriminating against them by not giving them said blasphemous priesthood?)
If a black person believed that our priesthood is GOD’S priesthood, and GOD decides who gets it and who doesn’t, and that GOD at that time didn’t allow blacks to have it, and they join our church anyway, are they being discriminated against?
Linda:
While the LDS Church’s support two days ago of the SLC anti-discrimination ordinance was positive, it was a very, very small step–especially given the LDS Church’s track record on equal rights for gays and lesbians.
The LDS Church was nowhere to be found when statewide anti-discrimination legislation was pending in Utah earlier this year. If the LDS Church is really serious about demonstrating that it is not for discrimination against gays and lesbians, then it will support statewide and national legislation that provides protection from discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Your attempt to justify the LDS (Mormon) Church’s discriminatory policies against African Americans is simply amazing…I will let your comments speak for themselves.
The reason the church came out now with support of anti-discrimination is because many LDS state legislators were unsure of how to go, and wanted to make sure the church was on board.
I would really like for you to answer those questions I posed on our supposed discrimination against blacks. If you can.
Supposed discrimination against blacks by the Mormon (LDS) Church?
“From 1849 to 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy against ordaining black men of African descent to the priesthood. Under the same policy, black men and women of African descent were prohibited from participating in the temple Endowment and sealings, ordinances that the church teaches are necessary for the highest degree of salvation. However, the LDS Church has always had an open membership policy for all races, and black people who were aware of the racial policy did join the church. In 1978, church leaders ceased the racial restriction policy, declaring that they had received a revelation instructing them to do so.”
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
You still didn’t answer the questions. How is it discrimination? If you don’t want something that you don’t believe in, how is it discriminatory?
Linda, here’s the difference. No one really cares what you and your religion believe or how you and your religion practice. Doesn’t matter. Discriminate or not. Don’t care.
But when it comes to what my government allows me to do and rights my government grants me, those rights need to be exactly the same as the rights granted you. The way my partner and I pay our taxes should be exactly the same as the way you and your partner pay yours. The way my partner and I are treated in public should be the same as you and your partner. Over 1,000 of those rights are granted through civil marriage.
Everyone should be allowed to gain those rights the same way. Either through marriage for all – or no civil marriage for anyone.
Religious marriage? Don’t care. My religion marries two adults, same sex or opposite sex, as long as both are Jewish. Your religion. Don’t care. Don’t want to perform religious marriage? Fine. Great. Those who don’t agree? Worship elsewhere.
Now, Linda, you answer me a question. My religion does perform same sex marriage. Those marriages are not recognized by the government. How is that not interfering with my religious rights and recognizing separation of church (or synagogue) and state?
David, you know, this may surprise you, but, for the most part, I agree with you. I have a feeling that, someday soon, civil marriage and religious marriage will be two separate things. Would that be a bad thing? IMHO, no.
I just get miffed when people try to make it sound like homosexuality is a religious thing. MY religion doesn’t recognize it. Like you said, great, worship elsewhere. And when Prop 8 was put to a vote, the people voted. Yes, Mormons donated money to the cause. No, they didn’t (IMHO) affect the outcome, other than to get out the vote.
Now, instead of “throwing temper tantrums” in front of LDS temples, those who want what you want should go back to the drawing board, and try to figure something out, so that it works for everyone.
Bottom line, for me, is, you must do what you think you must do, and so must I.
The only thing I disagree with is the vote on Prop 8. It was a vote on civil marriage. Nothing in that law forced any religion to do anything and yet people voted to take away CIVIL not religious rights. That’s criminal and, as far as my religion teaches, immoral.
Read this:
https://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-mormon-move.html
And this:
https://thehoot.net/articles/7056
Maybe it will help clear it up.
My big fear is that, somewhere down the road, there WILL BE a couple who will try to force SOME church, maybe not mine, but SOME church that does NOT believe in “gay marriage”, to marry them anyway. In all sincerity, would you support such a move? A gay couple? I know that there are some who will feel that they must support this some-time-in-the-future couple, even tho they totally disagree with them. And others who will feel “hey it’s about time”.
I hope you can understand people’s fears. Not phobia, but real fear. Really, we need to work together on this, your side, our side, stop all the fighting, and get down to business, so to speak.
Because you fear someone doing something else that is unconstitutional is no reason for you to force your unconstitutional views on others, Linda. Forcing your church to perform same sex weddings would be ridiculous. No, I don’t understand people’s fears. As Jerry Falwell once said to Mel White, “Thank God for the gay people. If they weren’t there, we’d have to invent them.” The only reason – the ONLY reason – you have been made to fear, hate, loathe, detest, discriminate against, put down, see us as unequal, force your views on – is for fundraising reasons. It’s very very very very very very profitable for churches to gay bash. And no, I won’t read anything by that turd Andrew Sullivan.
Wow just getting to this blog and you guys totally missed the point of the above blog mentioned. You guys called Pastor Cameron a bigot and said he preaches hate. It is actually just a hard pill to swallow if you are associated with the Mormon church or a homosexual lifestyle. Your guard immediately goes up in defense and that is understandable. What he preaches though is out of love and in hope of helping your salvation. Cameron preaches from the bible and no where else. Numberous scriptures can be quoted from the bible that condems a homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle is being forced in the face of christians everyday and everyone once in a while they push back and are called bigots for doing it. To christians stealing is wrong and everyone agrees, that person is called a thief. To christians killing is wrong and everyone agrees, that person is called a murderer. Both of these things are mentioned numberous times in the bible as sins that you will go to hell for. The preaches against these and are not call bigots. Because in the end the embrace these people so their lives are changed. To christians homosexual behavior is wrong and most people agree, and bible condems this behavior the same way. So what is different? Why do they become bigots? If you choose to turn your back on the bible it is your choice but you will always have a christian in your ear sharing their love with you because Jesus command that. Pastor Cameron said that Mormonism is built off of fairy tales because there is not a foundation of truth to the book of Mormon. Ask a Mormon to show you the locations of events mentioned in the book of mormon and they can not because they don’t exist. The bible teaches us to save people like these that have had false teachings. But it is all done out of love not hate. They can build a church next door to them because they come knocking on your door everyday and so they are going to knock on theirs.
Fundamentalist Christianity, or more specifically, types of Christianity which practice Biblical literalism are revealed time and time again to possess an inability to examine the Bible academically. This idea that the Bible may be taken literally, word by word, is a new idea. We see this type of literalism sprouting in the past century, predominantly, but the roots certainly stretch back to the Reformation and the publishing of the Bible. Perhaps the Catholics had very good reason in saying that not everyone should be reading it, look what has happened to society since people have been able to get their hands on a copy and prance around acting as if they are the bearers of truth.
While I could rant a great deal about Fundamentalist Christianity and the negative effects it has on the world, I will constrain myself to one particular issue, that being homosexuality.
From an academic reading of the Bible, it becomes clear that the most common passages that are used to condemn homosexuality are used in error. If only fundamentalist Christians had better educations, perhaps we could have avoided this issue.
It is commonly stated that the following are proofs for the immorality of homosexuality:
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah
The book of Leviticus
Romans
Corinthians
We shall begin with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As this is well known, even in secular circles, I will not tell it again. However, I will draw attention to a few certain facts:
We know that God was planning to destroy the cities but Abraham’s plea convinced God to spare the cities if ten righteous people could be found.
We then see that two angels were sent down, Lot meets them, and invites them to stay in his house. Alas, that evening, trouble was to be found as Genesis 19:4 tells us:
“Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom – both young and old – surrounded the house.”
Note the wording, all the men from every part of the city. Every single man. Looking at this rationally, is it possible for every single man to have been homosexual? Not if the society was that of a continuing population, which it was.
Now we arrive at the most famous indication used by fundamentalists to show that God destroyed the city due to their homosexual tendencies.
“And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” Genesis 19:5 (KJV)
Other translations suggest “know them carnally”, or “have sex with them”. Here is where a literal reading of the Bible would fail one.
What we know of Jewish history and culture tells us how important it was that a guest who arrived at your door to be welcomed in and nurtured. The mob that formed at Lot’s door, were those of a society who has since attempted to abolish this law because they felt that should they harbour every guest, the guests would desire their riches.
We can understand now, why they wanted to two guests to come out of the house. Lot was adhering to Jewish custom, but going against what the mob desired. What is the significance of the mob “wanting to know them carnally”? (if we use that translation). Most likely the same significance raping your enemies had in ancient warfare, homosexual gang rape. It was a sign of dominance, and a great humiliation for the other party involved. We see this type of rape occur throughout history, time and time again.
One might still read this as being a passage outlining the immoralities of homosexuality, but it is not. Yes the mob from Sodom wanted to rape Lot’s guests, but rape (in original context and as used in Hebrew) does not outline sexual desire, it is (as it has been through much of history) to humiliate and establish dominance over another person.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not one that outlines the immorality of homosexuality, but rather God’s displeasure with the abandonment of Jewish custom and the blatant selfishness of those from Sodom, and their inability to be humble towards guests.
Some may argue that in Ezekiel 16:49,60 the term abomination refers to the homosexual acts of Sodom:
“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me. Therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”
The word abomination is also used in the bible to refer to things such as lying, making evil plans, murder and so on. To suggest that in this specific context it referred to homosexuality, is not founded in reason.
Some people still reject that Sodom and Gomorrah is an occurrence in which hospitality is the key issue, but look at what Christ himself said:
“But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” Luke 10:10-12
Does this not further validate that Sodom and Gomorrah was indeed punished on the grounds of inhospitality, rather than homosexuality (as falsely inferred).
At this point, people often exclaim that I should read Jude 7, so I do:
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (KJV)
I assume they are pointing to the word fornication and inferring homosexual relationships from this, clearly that inference is unfounded.
We can now move on to Leviticus. We must first understand that Leviticus contains what is known as the “Holiness Code”. These were laws which outlined how the Israelites were to keep themselves in good standing with God.
The classic verse we receive from Leviticus is 18:22:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; It is an abomination.”
However, looking a bit deeper we begin to ask ourselves why?
Let us first identify the usage of the term “abomination”. The Hebrew word from which this is translated is “toevah”, which means impurity, uncleanness, or that which is culturally or socially taboo. ”Abomination” is usually used to denote idolatry or furthermore the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, as we see in Ezekiel.
Is this significant? Very much so, especially when you realize that in Hebrew there exists the word “Zimah” which literally means “what is wrong in itself”. If homosexual activities were immoral in and of themselves, why wasn’t the word that would have conveyed that used, but rather a word which conveys a social taboo used in its place?
In the Greek translations, “toevah” is translated over as “bdelygma”, meaning ritual offence. Why would this be used instead of a word like “anomia”, which literally means “a sin”.
Remember, these laws are part of the “Holiness Code”. Just as eating pork was, sewing two types of seeds together and wearing certain combinations of clothing. These were all abominations, but were they not inherently immoral.
Eating pork was a cultural taboo, yes, but it is not explicitly identified as an inherently immoral action.
So why was homosexuality classified as a cultural taboo? There are several possible reasons, the intermixing of the male and female roles, the inability to procreate, etc. But we are not in a position to infer that it is due to the inherent immorality of the action because that is simply not supported by the evidence.
Furthermore, we must look at the fact that the “sexual immorality” listed in Leviticus refers specifically to cult-worship of Molech. It is evident from the passage Lev 18:21, of which the aforementioned passage is headed by, that the sexual immorality mentioned is that of the actions of pagan worshippers. When we read the entire passage, from 18:21 onward, we see:
21And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
The passage 22 and 23, clearly refer to the manner in which pagan worship was conducted in the said culture. Homosexual activity as worship to Molech is wrong, comitted, loving homosexual relationships are not specified. Even if we are to grant that it is not just as worship to Molech, but rather homosexual relationships in general are “abominations” (or culturally taboo), it is not established that they are inherently immoral actions. And as such, they cannot be classified as sexual immorality.
We’ve now dealt with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the passage in Leviticus, now we may move on to the passage in Romans:
“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:24-27 (KJV)
The general message that Paul tries to convey in Romans 1 is that the righteousness of God is necessary due to the fact that all human beings have sinned.
However, fundamentalists seem to take this passage to be making reference to homosexual acts and explicitly defining them as immoral. Since we have so far established that the Bible has done no such thing elsewhere, this is in many ways the “last chance” for the Bible to outline homosexuality as inherently immoral. Let us use some critical thinking here:
Paul speaks of women and men turning to that which is unnatural, this is clear. Now, if we are to state that Paul’s passage refers explicitly to homosexuals we have to define homosexuality as being unnatural. To do this, we would have to look at heterosexuality and state that it is the natural way, and since homosexuality deviates from that, it is therefore unnatural.
While it is true that only heterosexual relationships can produce offspring, does this entail it is more natural than homosexuality? No, that is simply fallacious reasoning. We would committing the naturalistic fallacy if we attempt to argue a moral precept from an empirical state (arguing from IS to OUGHT).
Under which criteria would one define homosexuality as being unnatural? Seemingly a heterosexual might say so, but wouldn’t the homosexual be justified in classifying the heterosexual as unnatural? What are we to extrapolate then?
This type of reasoning also falsely supposes that it is a choice to be homosexual, when in actuality we have all the evidence to the contrary. Homosexuality is indeed a natural phenomenon, and we witness it elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
Essentially, this analysis (from whom I have since forgotten), outlines my position:
“To apply Paul’s rhetoric passionately, directing implications at others, however misconceived those concerns may be, setting yourself up as judge and moral arbiter, falls into Paul’s rhetorical trap. To do so engages dishonourable passion, risking arrogant religiosity and reproach. God judges all persons, regardless of outward appearance, by the things of the heart (Prov. 16:1; Romans 2:16). Paul teaches us that those things are known through hope and faith and not by directing passionate censure at others.”
Let us not forget that Paul may very well be speaking from his own position on the issue, as it is evident there is no declaration regarding homosexuality prior. As is such, this reference surely can be disposed of as we do with references slavery, polygamy, rape and the supression of women.
Due to the lack of homosexual reference prior, it seems we are quite able to read Paul’s passage as meaning the lustful desire between those of the same sex, which would be condemed on the grounds of their lust, not their homosexuality.
Paul’s epistle, as I’ve stated before, outlines clear predispositions regarding the term ‘natural’. When Paul says that these people are going against their nature, he surely cannot be referring to homosexuals as we now know it is indeed, not a choice. It would be whiggishness to criticize Paul for this, but it does outline a need for contextual study over a superficial reading. Armed with this new knowledge we are challenged to interpret what is meant by natural. Paul may very well mean that unnatural sexual acts are prohibited, however it is not explicitly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is one such unnatural act. Just as it is natural for a heterosexual man to want a woman, so to is it natural that a homosexual man want another man. We see this throughout mammals, there is no violation of nature involved.
However, many interpretations lead to Paul referring to pedophelia in this passage and such would be an example of an unnatural act, wherein children are not ‘meant’ for that which they are being used. Some interpret the “men…with other men” portion to be a translation of the original Greek word for “pederasty” which was commonly practiced at the time by adult males with male children.
Of course, this is based on that passage alone. We must not forget the importance of contextualizing when analyzing.
1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
This is clearly a reference to the pagan worship at the time, and now we see…
1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.
Criticism of homosexual acts? Not quite, to quote David W. Shelton:
But when it’s put back in its context, we get a clearer picture of what Paul is doing. He’s talking about the dirtiest, the slimiest, and the most far-from-God so that he might fully illustrate the perfect grace that is in the cross of Christ. And what could possibly be more wicked, or more depraved than a bunch of Jews who rejected their God and became temple prostitutes?
Finally, Paul closes with:
1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
This passage does not deal with homosexual relationships at all. The only sexual expression that’s dealt with here (as in Leviticus) is within the context of pagan sex-related or other fertility rituals. This is precisely why context is of grave importance!
Lastly, we arrive at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV) which states:
“9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
There is a very big problem in equating effeminate to homosexual. As I have already stated there was certainly a cultural issue with men who acted as women, and women who acted as men. It was considered wrong for a man, whom has been favored in being a man, to act like a woman and vice versa. However, this does not explicitly define homosexuality nor does it hold homosexuality as prime criteria.
My above points to the character of Paul still apply as well.
The Greek terms translated over to effeminate (or in some translations ‘homosexual’) are “arsenokoites” and “malakoi”. “aresenokoites” refers to exploitative sex (not necessarily homosexual), and “malakoi” refers to sex in excess, and overindulgence.
With that said, the passage fails to condemn homosexuality as well. We are also beginning to see the problem with translation.
In conclusion, it should be clear now that superficial and literal readings of the Bible are no substitute for an academic, rational analysis. This applies to both theists and atheists alike, we should be engaging our faculties of reason when reading the Bible (and all texts for that matter), not suspending them.
“To Randy”:
That was quite an academic analysis of key Bible texts used by fundamentalists against gays and lesbians. While the fundamentalists’ position on gays and lesbians is clear, Mormons are not great supporters of equal rights for gays and lesbians. And, in California, it was the Mormons who put their money on the line in order to take away the rights of gays and lesbians to marry.
Stephen.
That shut up Randy I see…nicely put To Randy!