Swedish LGBT Writer Demands Mosques Welcome and Include Homosexuals

[miketx]

Never heard of them wanting to kill them.

I bet there's a lot you haven't heard about! Turn off cnn.

 

[alexa]

I bet there's a lot you haven't heard about! Turn off cnn.

It's not CNN When I get interested in something I do research on it.

 

[Papageorgio]

That wasn't what I was saying. Right wing Christians and White Nationalists are the same as Muslims in their position towards gays.

I am a Christian, what is my stance towards gays since you claim to know?

 

[Papageorgio]

Never heard of them wanting to kill them.

You live a sheltered life.

 

[alexa]

I am a Christian, what is my stance towards gays since you claim to know?

I don't know your stance, Christians were in Africa telling people about how everyone had an equal right to rights and that included gay people. They were doing all kinds of other things to help them - helping them to get education, healthcare, to understand and deal with oppression etc. The Right or extreme right US Christians wanted to get Africans to go as against gays as possible and to ban abortion. They were working for the death penalty though that has not happened yet. They were there working with the neo cons. They told them that the first load of Christians were oppressors coming to try and take them over again. They said gays do not exist except in the US and these Christians were trying to destroy them as gays are really demons. They didn't manage with the abortion bit nor with the death penalty for gays but in many countries pretty much all rights for gays were taken away and both male and females suffered massive physical assault both in how bad the assault was and the number of people who experienced it. In some places it was -see someone who could be gay try and knock the hell out of the demon. So these if you like are two very different positions by Christians. The first group is usually called left wing. There are also a lot of middle ground Christians who probably think being gay is sinful but would not necessarily want to hurt them. I would guess you would be in the first or the middle group but do not yet know you well enough to know.

 

[alexa]

You live a sheltered life.

I'm not American. That is not spoken of here. I have also never seen anyone else write it on boards. Please leave a link

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't know your stance, Christians were in Africa telling people about how everyone had an equal right to rights and that included gay people. They were doing all kinds of other things to help them - helping them to get education, healthcare, to understand and deal with oppression etc. The Right or extreme right US Christians wanted to get Africans to go as against gays as possible and to ban abortion. They were working for the death penalty though that has not happened yet. They were there working with the neo cons. They told them that the first load of Christians were oppressors coming to try and take them over again. They said gays do not exist except in the US and these Christians were trying to destroy them as gays are really demons. They didn't manage with the abortion bit nor with the death penalty for gays but in many countries pretty much all rights for gays were taken away and both male and females suffered massive physical assault both in how bad the assault was and the number of people who experienced it. In some places it was -see someone who could be gay try and knock the hell out of the demon. So these if you like are two very different positions by Christians. The first group is usually called left wing. There are also a lot of middle ground Christians who probably think being gay is sinful but would not necessarily want to hurt them. I would guess you would be in the first or the middle group but do not yet know you well enough to know.

You claim to know how Christians feel about gays and then admit you have no idea how Christians feel about gays. That is why stereotyping is so dangerous, it closes off thinking.

 

[martybegan]

Well, that is for the courts to determine. They have to apply the strict scrutiny standard in doing so. We don't decide if the gov't interest is compelling enough, so your conclusion is your opinion. Which is fine- you are entitled to your opinion.

Yes, it allows them to collect money and not pay taxes on the money, and it allows the donors to not pay taxes on the income they give to the church.

If they want to be an exclusive club, let'em pay taxes.

And you were accusing me of a logical fallacy, lol.

I won't presume to tell you what you think, but you seem to me to view the church as kind of a "gay-free safe space", and I wonder why someone would need that...

So only by bowing down to SJW idiots can a organization be non-profit?

Talk about authoritarianism.

Do Churches have the right to say homosexuality is sinful, yes or no?

 

[alexa]

You claim to know how Christians feel about gays and then admit you have no idea how Christians feel about gays. That is why stereotyping is so dangerous, it closes off thinking.

Oh Please. I thought you were more intelligent than this. I never said I know how Christians feel about gays just that some are like White Nationalists and some Muslims and would like to see them dead. What I said was real. Your Christians fall into three distinct groups The Extreme right ones who were the people working with the neo cons, a middle of the road group which is just a guess and the left wing ones which were working in Africa to help people before the arrival of the neo cons and Extreme right Christians. The situation against gays was so bad it pushed Steven Fry who was there looking into things to try suicide. Now you seemed to want to play a game of which one am I and you asked me and I told you and now you came back with this time wasting nonsense pretending what I said and the way in which I said it is not the truth. It was and is. Total truth.

 

[miketx]

You claim to know how Christians feel about gays and then admit you have no idea how Christians feel about gays. That is why stereotyping is so dangerous, it closes off thinking.

It's also a perfect example of how full of crap leftists are.

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh Please. I thought you were more intelligent than this. I never said I know how Christians feel about gays just that some are like White Nationalists and some Muslims and would like to see them dead. What I said was real. Your Christians fall into three distinct groups The Extreme right ones who were the people working with the neo cons, a middle of the road group which is just a guess and the left wing ones which were working in Africa to help people before the arrival of the neo cons and Extreme right Christians. The situation against gays was so bad it pushed Steven Fry who was there looking into things to try suicide. Now you seemed to want to play a game of which one am I and you asked me and I told you and now you came back with this time wasting nonsense pretending what I said and the way in which I said it is not the truth. It was and is. Total truth.

So now you are saying some? You implied that Muslims, Christians and White Nationalist dislike gays. I tire of the left making such stupid accusations and then when challenged you get ticked off. I thought YOU were more intelligent than that and not a cheap shot artist. I tire of your bigotry and hate.

 

[para bellum]

So only by bowing down to SJW idiots can a organization be non-profit?

Talk about authoritarianism.

I don't make the laws. Making laws subordinate to scripture would also be called authoritarian by some people.

Do Churches have the right to say homosexuality is sinful, yes or no?

Churches can say whatever they want, provided that "the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy."

The same restriction applies to mosques, synagogues, temples, whatever.

Just saying something is not a violation of public policy- at least not in the US. So churches (and everyone else) still enjoy protected speech.

If churches want exemptions to public law, they should exercise their first amendment right of petition.

 

[martybegan]

I don't make the laws. Making laws subordinate to scripture would also be called authoritarian by some people.

Churches can say whatever they want, provided that "the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy."

The same restriction applies to mosques, synagogues, temples, whatever.

Saying something is not a violation of public policy, at least not in the US. So churches (and everyone else) still enjoy protected speech.

If churches want exemptions to public law, they should exercise their first amendment right of petition.

I don't make the laws. Making laws subordinate to scripture would also be called authoritarian by some people.

Churches can say whatever they want, provided that "the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy."

The same restriction applies to mosques, synagogues, temples, whatever.

Saying something is not a violation of public policy, at least not in the US. So churches (and everyone else) still enjoy protected speech.

If churches want exemptions to public law, they should exercise their first amendment right of petition.

The 1st Amendment is law, the highest law. Free exercise doesn't just include speech, it includes actions. It's a restriction on the government and thus what laws can apply to religious organizations and religious activity.


Are you going to go into rants on "clue and cause" now?

 

[para bellum]

The 1st Amendment is law, the highest law. Free exercise doesn't just include speech, it includes actions. It's a restriction on the government and thus what laws can apply to religious organizations and religious activity.

Yes, but the rights enshrined in the First are no more absolute than any other. The "fire in a crowded theater" example.

There are 5 rights protected by the first. The establishment clause is just one of them.

Again, it's a conflict of rights between the individual and the organization. This is what the courts are charged with resolving.

The US operates under the rule of law, not the rule of men. The courts interpret the laws. While I do not agree with them every time, I will always prefer that system over a man interpreting a holy book, and calling that the law.

Some churches welcome gay people, some do not. That tells me that the interpretation of the holy scripture in this case is a subjective one.

You are free to live your life as you choose, you should extend the same courtesy to others...

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but the rights enshrined in the First are no more absolute than any other. The "fire in a crowded theater" example.

There are 5 rights protected by the first. The establishment clause is just one of them.

Again, it's a conflict of rights between the individual and the organization. This is what the courts are charged with resolving.

The US operates under the rule of law, not the rule of men. The courts interpret the laws. While I do not agree with them every time, I will always prefer that system over a man interpreting a holy book, and calling that the law.

Some churches welcome gay people, some do not. That tells me that the interpretation of the holy scripture in this case is a subjective one.

You are free to live your life as you choose, you should extend the same courtesy to others...

Forcing Churches to do things they don't want to do is letting them live their lives "free as they choose"?

 

[para bellum]

Forcing Churches to do things they don't want to do is letting them live their lives "free as they choose"?

No one is free to violate public law. I wish I didn't have to pay taxes, but I am compelled to pay them anyway.

You and I are both free to live our lives as we choose. What shouldn't even need to be said is "within the confines of the law". That should be a given. You might like little girls, but you damn sure better keep your hands to yourself.

You want to exclude gay people from exercising their own first amendment right, because it conflicts with YOUR church's interpretation of scripture.

You have the right to your opinion, and so does everyone else. The courts will decide whose interests will prevail.

 

[martybegan]

No one is free to violate public law. I wish I didn't have to pay taxes, but I am compelled to pay them anyway.

You and I are both free to live our lives as we choose. What shouldn't even need to be said is "within the confines of the law". That should be a given. You might like little girls, but you damn sure better keep your hands to yourself.

You want to exclude gay people from exercising their own first amendment right, because it conflicts with YOUR church's interpretation of scripture.

You have the right to your opinion, and so does everyone else. The courts will decide whose interests will prevail.

Public law cannot violate the 1st amendment.

There is no first amendment right to force a Church to adjust to your beliefs. Find another Church.

 

[miketx]

No one is free to violate public law. I wish I didn't have to pay taxes, but I am compelled to pay them anyway.

You and I are both free to live our lives as we choose. What shouldn't even need to be said is "within the confines of the law". That should be a given. You might like little girls, but you damn sure better keep your hands to yourself.

You want to exclude gay people from exercising their own first amendment right, because it conflicts with YOUR church's interpretation of scripture.

You have the right to your opinion, and so does everyone else. The courts will decide whose interests will prevail.

Seems like another commie shows up everyday.

 

[para bellum]

Public law cannot violate the 1st amendment.

That is true, and why we have courts to adjudicate such matters.

There is no first amendment right to force a Church to adjust to your beliefs. Find another Church.

My beliefs are irrelevant. It's a question of the law. If the court says a law is unconstitutional, it is stricken from the books. I'm fine with that.

 

[martybegan]

That is true, and why we have courts to adjudicate such matters.

My beliefs are irrelevant. It's a question of the law. If the court says a law is unconstitutional, it is stricken from the books. I'm fine with that.

Yet you think the government should force Churches to marry same sex people even if the Church doesn't want to.