Posted on 04/30/2004 4:44:20 PM PDT by narses
I suspect that it could manifest itself over this issue but also incorporate some churches acceptance (and possible promotion) of abortion.
Can a homosexual be a faithful member of a church? Yes. Can a homosexual celebrate/institutionalize homosexuality and be a faithful member of a church? No. An unrepentant sinner who celebrates his faults rather than trying to change them is too tied to this world.
The same is true of adultery. If a church staffer engaged in an act of adultery, (s)he could seek forgiveness. If (s)he decided that (s)he wanted to remain married but continue to publicly keep a little someone else on the side then I believe it could be grounds for dismissal at a church for failing to set a good example.
If this seems draconian, there are employers in the secular world that prohibit the smoking of tobacco at anytime. That is a legal substance and should have no bearing on employment if the smoker can abstain while at the office. If such clauses in an employment contract are legal I don't see why a "moral code" clause could not also make some choices of sexual partner grounds for dismissal.
What about "The Good Samaritan"?
It would be an even better if "the church" took it upon itself to provide medical care for free (funded out of generous donations). Some churches do provide some aid and assistance to those unable to provide for themselves.
The difference between a church providing free medical care and the government is that one voluntarily receives the funds to provide aid while the other takes it under rule of law (and arbitrarily determines how much to take). God asks for 10% but imposes no controls to insure that the church receives it. The modern government wants far more than that. God also doesn't make a distinction between what percent the "rich" and the "middle class" should give to the church.
The Supreme Court only recently "changed the law" with regard to sodomy laws.
People are "poo pooing" the idea of a constitutional blockade on same sex marriages. If the Constitution is not ammended to specifically prohibit such an arrangement, we will soon see the Constitution ammended (at least through further Supreme Court activity) to include sexual fetish along with "race/creed/color".
If the "living interpretation" of the Constitution accommodates homosexuality then you can forget about ever "changing the laws".
The Church (Catholic and Prostestant) must take a stand on some positions and be unwavering to popular (self-gratifying) whims of the public. If the church refuses to stand on principle, does it stand for anything?
I'll include this discussion of Secular Humanism as one of the causes of the Reformation:
E. The Renaissance and Humanism partly introduced and greatly fostered these conditions. Love of luxury was soon associated with the revival of the art and literature of Graeco-Roman paganism. The Christian religious ideal was to a great extent lost sight of; higher intellectual culture, previously confined in great measure to the clergy, but now common among the laity, assumed a secular character, and in only too many cases fostered actively and practically a pagan spirit, pagan morality and views. A crude materialism obtained among the higher classes of society and in the educated world, characterized by a gross love of pleasure, a desire for gain, and a voluptuousness of life diametrically opposed to Christian morality. Only a faint interest in the supernatural life survived. The new art of printing made it possible to disseminate widely the works of pagan authors and of their humanistic imitators. Immoral poems and romances, biting satires on ecclesiastical persons and institutions, revolutionary works and songs, were circulated in all directions and wrought immense harm. As Humanism grew, it waged violent war against the Scholasticism of the time. The traditional theological method had greatly degenerated owing to the finical, hair-splitting manner of treating theological questions, and a solid and thorough treatment of theology had unhappily disappeared from many schools and writings. The Humanists cultivated new methods, and based theology on the Bible and the study of the Fathers, an essentially good movement which might have renewed the study of theology, if properly developed. But the violence of the Humanists, their exaggerated attacks on Scholasticism, and the frequent obscurity of their teaching aroused strong opposition from the representative Scholastics. The new movement, however, had won the sympathy of the lay world and of the section of the clergy devoted to Humanism. The danger was only too imminent that the reform would not be confined to theological methods but would reach the content of ecclesiastical dogma, and would find widespread support in humanistic circles.
Does talk of the "culture war" seem to resonate?
"I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the Councils, because it is clear as day they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore, I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture . . . I cannot and will not retract . . . Here I stand, I can do no other. So help me God, Amen" - Martin Luther
The Catholic Church is a charitable, non-profit organization. Furthermore, under Anglo-Saxon law the Church has always had a special status. Hence the first article of Magna carta protected the rights of the Church. The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution follows in this tradition. You probably think of religion as a private matter, but if we follow your logic the churches would be forced on grounds of conscience to abandon charitable activities they have been involved in for almost two thousand years.
Like I said, I was glad that the RCC provided these services where they did not exist. It might even be arguable that Catholic Charities, or some such organizations that exist simply to give things to people should be protected by the same rules that govern essential church functions. These functions are already protected by exemptions in the law that prevent a woman from suing the RCC under equal rights laws to ordain her as a priest.
But Catholic universities, hospitals, and perhaps other entities are competing in the free market, and sell their services alongside other providers, both private and governmental. Sometimes a government mandate is financially onerous on private entities, if you give an exemption for it to government and nonprofit entities, you've created an unfairness.
In a way, this is the Catholic Church's "social justice" power coming around to bite it on the butt. Sort of a payback for all the years the RCC has been championing the minimum wage, for instance.
I remember a cultural war with racism back in the sixties, but we never called it that. It was couched in terms of freedom of association, keeping kids going to school in their own neighborhoods, and even religious reasons about why the races were put on different continents.
The month of May is going to be really hard on a lot of people here at FR, that's for sure. The howling and wailing over what's coming in Massachusetts in just a couple of weeks will probably replace Kerry as a topic of discussion.
In about five years, we'll all be over it.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Culture of Vice |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
In strictly religious settings, such as the operation of churches, seminaries, etc., I will agree. When it comes to hospitals and universities, it is another competitor in the marketplace.
Furthermore, under Anglo-Saxon law the Church has always had a special status. Hence the first article of Magna carta protected the rights of the Church.
Yes, back in the days when the Church and the State were one, and there was an official religion you had to belong to, in order to have whatever rights of citizenship that a monarchy allowed you at a given time, yes, that's true.
You probably think of religion as a private matter,
You took the words out of my mouth.
...if we follow your logic the churches would be forced on grounds of conscience to abandon charitable activities they have been involved in for almost two thousand years.
They will not have to abandon truly charitable activities, but if they are out there in the marketplace, competing for fees from individuals, money from insurance companies, scholarship funds from public and private sources, and tax dollars, then they should abide by the same rules that everybody in the marketplace has to follow. See my post above about circumstances coming around to hoist them on their own petard.
People do not see what is coming and what the true intention is behind the homosexual agenda. They don't want to take part in church life they have no want or need to repent of their sins - they want to take over the church and destroy it from the inside.
The church needs to get out of the business of business and get back to it's reason for being - to save souls. The question to the church is does it wish to compromise itself on it's fundametal beliefs and continue to provide Social Services or does it pull out and let the Government, that is forcing it to comply, pick up the shortfall.
The church seems to be to scared to use it's leverage. It wouldn't take long before the Government came crawling back begging them to reinstitute their Services. In fact it may only take the threat to get the politicians concerned.
Mel
The culture war of the 1960s was the same as today: If it feels good, do it. Madalyn Murray O'Hair getting God out of her child's life/classrooms (although he took Him up on his own while she was murdered in a den of theives over some gold coins); abortion (right to choose to kill), etc.
Mixed marriages was not a part of the "culture war" regardless of how you try to spin it.
I totally agree - so let them bring it on! We should refuse it anyway and not accomodate evil. The Church as a whole has been way to comfortable playing footsy with the world in the past and this is where it has gotten them.
Mel
I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to. I was just trying to make the point that the arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage have their parallels in the 1960's racial struggles. Religious and cultural reasons were used as justifications for keeping black people "in their place".
Mixed marriages was not a part of the "culture war" regardless of how you try to spin it.
I don't know where you were in the 1960's, but I was in a suburb of Gary, Indiana, where my family got caught up in the "white flight" of ethnic Europeans from the deteriorating conditions of the Chicago area. There was definitely a cultural divide between white people and black people in that time, and part of it involved mixed marriage. I'm certain that a few religious organizations of the time would have had the same moral reservations about giving spousal benefits to a worker's other-race husband or wife.
Conscience clauses for individual medical practitioners have long protected those who do not want to do abortions. And, there's a difference between performing a murder within the four walls of your institution, and merely following the law and giving spousal benefits to a person outside of your institution.
Maybe there should be law that protects business institutions of religious organizations, and then people who would otherwise be working for an institution that despises them would get the message. Do it through legislation that enacts civil unions, or you'll have judges imposing it on us the way they see fit. Massachusetts could have seen the handwriting on the wall when this happened in Vermont, if they had simple crafted a civil unions statute, that provided that religious organizations did not have to give spousal benefits, there might not have been anything for the Massachusetts SJC to decide on. Now, MA is faced with judge-created law, and its consequences.
I agree that some doctors have gotten fat on Medicare/Medicaid. But most I've heard from find that the Medicare/Medicaid patients take up far more paperwork than they are worth, and other paying patients make up the slack for them. What this has to do with the article at the top of this post eludes me, however.
Hospitals and schools are not "business arms" of the churches but the equivalent of public schools and hospitals.They don't exist to make a prophit. although they may have to in order to exist.
It's not me setting the terms, it's courts and legislatures, our system for enacting laws designed to bring about social justice. Now, the Catholic Church has already set the precedent by calling for laws designed to effect social justice, why shouldn't the Church be bound by them?
And what exactly is "social justice?" According to whose values? And if these values are contrary to those of the churches, should the churches abandon their values and adopt those of the people who control the government?
Conscience clauses for individual medical practitioners have long protected those who do not want to do abortions. And, there's a difference between performing a murder within the four walls of your institution, and merely following the law and giving spousal benefits to a person outside of your institution.
And suppose the law changes are you are commanded to do what the law requires? Maybe there should be law that protects business institutions of religious organizations, and then people who would otherwise be working for an institution that despises them would get the message. Do it through legislation that enacts civil unions, or you'll have judges imposing it on us the way they see fit. Massachusetts could have seen the handwriting on the wall when this happened in Vermont, if they had simple crafted a civil unions statute, that provided that religious organizations did not have to give spousal benefits, there might not have been anything for the Massachusetts SJC to decide on. Now, MA is faced with judge-created law, and its consequences.
Civil unions are legal devises which grant to two individuals most of the rights of marriage. It virtually makes marriage meaningless.
I agree that some doctors have gotten fat on Medicare/Medicaid. But most I've heard from find that the Medicare/Medicaid patients take up far more paperwork than they are worth, and other paying patients make up the slack for them. What this has to do with the article at the top of this post eludes me, however.
You spoke of the "market" as if the market determined the price of medical services. It does not. Medicare/Medicaid is too big a play for any sort of free market to function.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.