Lesbian Couple Expelled From Kenneth Whalum's Church-taunted them with calls of "demon"

[The Straight Story]

Lesbian Couple Expelled From Kenneth Whalum's Church
Posted by Bianca Phillips on Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:44 PM

In an effort to learn more about mayoral candidate Kenneth Whalum, Yas Meen and Monique Stevens visited the reverend's New Olivet Baptist Church Sunday morning. But they claim the experience resulted verbal attacks and expulsion from the church.

"I had been having political debates with my partner about who to vote for for mayor. I said Whalum was the man to vote for, and she was going for Herenton," Meen says. "We decided to go to church to see what he was all about."

Meen says many in the congregation were giving them dirty looks as soon as they sat down. But she says the real trouble started when the women — who are both agnostic — opted out of a "sanctified dance" that supposedly involved congregants dancing in the aisles, laying on the floor to pray, and blowing kisses to God.

"People were telling us we needed to blow kisses, and I said, I don't communicate with my higher power like that," says Meen, who admitted to feeling uncomfortable with New Olivet's unique style of worship. She said Whalum directly called them out for not participating.

Later, when Stevens placed her arm around Meen, the women claim a security guard asked the two to leave the church. He said he'd already called the police. The women allege that a group of about 25 young men pushed them out of the church while others taunted them with calls of "demon" and "devil worshipper." Stevens' glasses were broken and she suffered scratches and bruises.

http://www.memphisflyer.com/MemphisGaydar/archives/2009/08/24/lesbian-couple-expelled-from-kenneth-whalums-church

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Of course, those aren't REAL Christians

As someone will probably say in this thread.

[crim son]

3. It gets old, doesn't it?

Being a christian these days is like being republican... now's the time to join a different group that actually represents what you believe.

[Clintonista2]

5. Wait, you think they are?

[DavidDvorkin]

11. I certainly do.

[Clintonista2]

12. You need to get out more.

[Taverner]

20. Google "No True Scotsman Fallacy"

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

26. You don't understand the fallacy, then.

This is a perfect example of No True Scotsman.

http://tinyurl.com/of5png

But hey, you managed to throw in an ad hominem as well, no extra charge! So I guess that makes up for it.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

33. Oh, Sweetie...I Guarantee You Break Many of Christianity's Countless Rules on a Daily Basis.

You're doing it right now, by attacking someone who attacks christianity. Familiar with the Beatitudes? Blessed are you when they persecute you for my name's sake. I believe what you're SUPPOSED to be doing is turning the other cheek.

Those people are just as much christian as you are.

[SidneyCarton]

41. As the persecutor, that would seem terribly convenient for you.

Yes these people are christians, so was MLK, Jimmy Carter, JFK, RFK, the esteemed Senator who died last night, and a goodly number of other men and women as well. If the aforementioned people do not define christianity, then neither can this congregation.

[Toasterlad]

42. Um...I Didn't Make the Rules.

If you've got a problem with the beatitudes, talk to JC. Personally, I don't believe that there is - or has ever been - anyone who truly lives like a "christian" is supposed to...except maybe for the Amish. I got no beef with them.

[SidneyCarton]

43. No you didn't...

But you seek to exploit them to your own advantage, so forgive me if I find your interpretation of the Beatitudes as being somewhat self-serving.

[Toasterlad]

46. And How Would YOU Interpret It?

Seems pretty clear to me. Then again, "real christians" have a knack for interpreting scripture however it suits their purpose.

I WILL say that I find it very amusing that you're trying to score points off me using a belief system that I don't believe in.

[SidneyCarton]

54. While Atheists always come to the absolute truth due to their inherently objective nature?

And who's using a belief system they do not believe in to score points? Aren't you the one who brought up the whole "turn the other cheek" thing? Clearly you don't believe in that, but you felt more than comfortable in using it on Clintonista2.

Give me a break, you couldn't give a care what that scripture means, you don't believe in the existence of the man who purportedly uttered it, and find nothing authoritative in the faith tradition that considers it sacred. I may be sinning by refusing to be abused, but you are being hypocritical in invoking the authority of texts that you yourself find to be at best fictional, and at worst abominable.

If you look at my other posts, I have already argued that there is no such thing as a "real" Christian, that all who claim that distinction must be accepted as such. That said, since we must accept all claimants to Christianity as Christians, we can accept no single example of Christian as being definitive for the entirety of the faith.

[Toasterlad]

62. All I'm Doing Is Holding People To Their Own Standards

I judge a christian (which I thought Clintonista was, because, hey, why else would anyone care?) by the laws of christianity. Please tell me how that is hypocritical or unfair. It doesn't matter that *I* don't believe it. THEY do. THEY are supposedly bound by the laws of the faith they embrace. Not sure why you have a problem with this concept.

And I certainly never claimed to be a voice for absolute truth. I have no idea how the universe came to be. There may very well be a god out there. The only thing I'm absolutely certain of is that it DIDN'T start with talking snakes and incestuous mothers and sons. Christian mythology makes exactly as much sense as Greek mythology...or scientology, for that matter. And yet, no rational adult takes those concepts seriously.

There's quite a difference between accepting that there could be a higher power, and adopting as canon a 2,000 year old children's book.

[SidneyCarton]

68. No, you're judging Christians by the standards of Christianity which you set

according to your own interpretation of a faith you do not believe in.

[Toasterlad]

71. Are You For Real? Have You Even READ the Bible?

How many different interpretations of "Blessed are you when they persecute you for my name's sake" and "turn the other cheek" can you think of? If you're a christian, you follow the bible. Period.

I was raised Catholic. I know this shit. Don't fuck with the Jedi master, son.

[SidneyCarton]

77. Did you physically strike Clintonista Toasterlad?

Did you threaten her with physical violence? I don't seem to recall either, so the whole "turn the other cheek" argument falls flat pretty fast. As to the being persecuted for my name's sake, I seem to remember that the apostles were rather quick to respond to their persecutors, even if they did not do so with violence.

What I do seem to recall is you telling her that vocally disagreeing with your rather slanted representation of Christianity was inherently un-Christian, and that you should be allowed carte-blanche to attack, and expect your victims to meekly lie down and take your verbal harangues without response. Such is the argument of a demagogue, who does not want discussion, but instead either slavish adoration of his own opinions, or the cowed silence of his opponents.

OOOhhh Jedi Master? I'm scared now. No really, I'll faint later.

[Toasterlad]

83. You Are Not a Jedi Yet, Padawan.

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

As a retarded 3rd grader could tell you, JC was speaking in broader terms than your extremely narrow interpretation. Given the scripture, any christian would absolutely be acting in an UNchristianlike manner by responding to verbal abuse with verbal abuse. How foolish of you to try and pretend otherwise.

As for what I expect, well, I would HOPE that when I ridicule someone's silly belief system that they would defend it, if they have an ounce of conviction. Unfortunately, if their belief system PRECLUDES them defending it in an aggressive manner, and they do so anyway, then they prove that they are NOT a true believer. I point again to the Amish, perhaps the only religious people on Earth for whom I have any admiration: they walk the walk AND don't talk the talk. Everyone else who professes to be a christian sooner or later proves themselves a phony...with the possible exception of Dolly Parton. I love her.

[SidneyCarton]

87. And yet, as Master Yoda would likely observe...

aggression breeds aggression. Christ set pretty high standards, so high in fact that anyone who does not have superhuman tolerances will spend a lifetime attempting to live up to them. Human nature is to meet insult with insult, argument with argument and anger with anger, usually in an escalating cycle. By opening up with belligerence, you invite belligerence in turn, and may therefore remark with satisfaction that all Christians are hypocrites. Congratulations, we all are, as are you, as are all human beings. To respond with a scripture:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

We are all imperfect. That you get your jollies out of exposing the imperfections of others just emphasises the point.

And I'm certain that sufficiently provoked, even the Amish will rise in anger, they are still human.

[Toasterlad]

93. That you get your jollies out of exposing the imperfections of others just emphasises the point

That's the only thing you've said that actually pisses me off. Did you READ the OP? Did you read about what those good christian people did to a loving couple who had done them no harm?

I'll thank you not to insult me by insinuating that christianity is an innocent pedestrian that I just turned the hose on for shits and giggles. I am persecuted by religion EVERY FUCKING DAY, as are the millions of other gay and lesbian people in this country. And I have absolutely ZERO patience for anyone who tries to defend this ludicrous nonsense that somehow has been allowed to penetrate every strata of our society, and which is directly responsible for my being a second-class citizen.

There are NO innocent christians. EVERY chrisitan is accountable for what happened to those women, as EVERY christian is accountable for DOMA, and DADT, and a host of other oppressive rules and regulations designed to keep this society ignorant and bigoted. Every dollar donated, every congregation attended, every vote cast for a religious candidate is a conduit for the hate that infests this country.

Except for the Amish. God bless them.

[SidneyCarton]

97. "There are no innocent Christians..."

"Every Christian is accountable for what happened to those women, as every Christian is accountable for DOMA, and DADT, and a host of other oppressive rules and regulations designed to keep this society ignorant and bigoted."

Well, that's a nice broad brush. So, Jedi Master, what exactly do you intend to do about that... oh wait, maybe Anakin Skywalker has a solution for you:

"I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I HATE THEM!"

After all, if we are all collectively responsible, we all killed Harvey Milk, we all killed Matthew Shepard, we are all guilty of murder and we all deserve to be punished accordingly, the doctrine of collective responsibility requires collective punishment, and as the Amish are Christians just like the rest of us, I'm sorry, but they have to be punished too. Or I suppose they could renounce their faith, maybe you could convince them to do so, since you are so attached to them.

I am sorry that you are currently forbidden that which is dearest to you due to ignorance and bigotry. I am not ignorant of the fact that religion has played a key role in your personal catastrophe. You want to hate us all, blame us collectively for your sorrow, fine. You have my pity Toasterlad.

[Toasterlad]

105. Your Insult Has Not Gone Unnoticed.

I neither want nor respect your pity. What I want is a country in which I am an equal citizen; a want that is denied by people like you and others of your ilk.

How easily you people play the victim. "I'm being unjustly persecuted for my faith!" Yes, I blame you for Harvey Milk and Matthew Sheppard. Yes, I blame you and people like you for creating a society in which the death of a gay teenager illicits comments so heinous that I cannot repeat them. You ARE all to blame for supporting a belief system that, at its core, is driven by exclusion and hate.

And yet, I've never once advocated violence against you or any other individual. Know why? Because I'm better than that. Which is more than can be said for many a christian among your lot.

I don't need religion to know what's right and wrong. How sad that you and others like you do...and STILL get it wrong.

[SidneyCarton]

107. It was not meant as an insult.

I truly do pity you. Such anger is truly painful to behold, as it is no doubt to carry. I do not doubt you have no interest in violence, if you did, we would not be having this conversation. But then again, most racists don't lynch their neighbors, and most homophobes don't actually phyisically attack LGBTQ's either. I pity you Toasterlad because in the depth of your pain you have become that which you hate the most, a bigot.

Good bye.

[Toasterlad]

109. And Again, You Can Shove Your Pity.

In the end, that's what all you people retreat to: a holier-than-thou stance in which your opponent is a pitiful creature of hate who doesn't understand what a blessing religion is. A blessing which allows you to treat others as less than human, while at the same time lamenting how bitter they become as a result. A blessing which envelopes you in a cloak of righteousness, behind which you're free to kill and ostracize and belittle and oppress in the name of god.

I may well be a bigot, but I'm a much, MUCH better man than any self-professed christian I've ever met. And that includes you, you sanctimonious clown.

[Soylent Brice]

108. and in another 2,000 years we'll be worshipping Xenu the 8 tentacled Flebop from Nartac.

blessed be his flarkhole.

[SidneyCarton]

110. Ooooh... Cthulthu will be pissed that Xenu stole his thunder!

[Soylent Brice]

111. the point i was making is that

people are gullible, and will believe literally anything.

3,000-4,000 yrs ago it was Zeus and Hera/Osiris and Isis. last 1,400-2,000 yrs it's been Mohammed/Jesus - God/Buddha, etc.

the truth is no one knows the truth, and organized religion has time and again proven to effectively enslave minds and discourage free-thinking.

i mean, "demons"? c'mon. STOOPID.

[Clintonista2]

48. I'm not a christian

Try again.

[Toasterlad]

53. No Need. Non-Christians Who Defend Christianity Are Loonier Than Christians.

[Clintonista2]

57. I defend anyone from what I see as unfair attacks

As an agnostic, I often wonder why athiests consider themselves any less "loony" than the religious. Both athiests and theists base their entire worldview on unprovable facts and beliefs.

[Toasterlad]

64. I Am Also Agnostic.

See my response above. I have no idea if there's a god, but I'm damn sure that if there is, he's not siting up there in his gated community throwing hurricanes at cities where people suck dick...which is what some real christians believe.

[Ignis]

91. Tough to spell "atheist" when you don't understand the concept, eh?

Here's a hint: Invisible is not a color.

[Clintonista2]

104. Eh I don't try to understand it

People can believe whatever they want to believe. I grew up as a Catholic along with plenty of progressive TRUE Christians who stuck to the non-violence-help-the-poor part of it all. I think it's ignorant to try to blanket in these people as being representative of christianity.

[Ignis]

112. AHA! I knew the truth would out eventually.

You're "not a Christian," yet you "grew up as a Catholic." :eyes: Now there's a teensy, tiny little fact might have been worth mentioning.

But I'm sure you wouldn't be posting all of these disingenuous attack posts because you have a soft spot in your heart for the religion of Mommy and Daddy, would you? After all, you're merely a casual, disinterested crusader for the Truth and for all True Christians, right?

Pull the other one.

[Clintonista2]

117. I'm not a Christian, haven't been in years

[Ignis]

122. So exactly how many of the Popes have been True Christians?

...Since you're an expert on the subject, and all. :eyes:

[Clintonista2]

123. I'm no expert. But I would wager non violence is certainly a requirement

Which, if we can get back to the story at hand, these "christians" certainly don't believe in.

[Ignis]

126. Er, because ahimsa is a core Christian belief?

I think you have your religions mixed up. :dunce:

You probably should have studied your catechism and church history a little more closely before making a sweeping decision that none of the hundreds of thousands of Christian warriors, soldiers, etc. throughout history were "True Christians."

For example, your fickle decision that ahimsa is a core requirement of Christianity would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that not a single one of the Allied troops who fought in WWII (who were overwhelmingly Christian) was a "True Christian."

And then there's always Matthew 10:34. :shrug: But reading is so HARD!

[donco6]

45. This is the quintessential No True Scotsman fallacy.

You do realize that, right?

[Ignis]

56. Sadly, no "True Christian" can commit a logical fallacy.

It's obviously written in stone somewhere, but some of us never received the memo.

:shrug:

[donco6]

61. I think they all have me on "ignore"

So I don't get the latest updates either.

[Ignis]

89. Well, facts that contradict one's world-view are PAINFUL.

No wonder they have you on ignore. :) Hang in there.

[Ignis]

55. "Too hard for your little brain?" ...Yeah, you're a TRUE Christian.

Was that turning the other cheek, or loving your neighbor as yourself?

:shrug:

I'm so sorry, I should have realized that True Christians(tm)--such as yourself, of course--never, ever commit logical fallacies. That's something other people do.

Thanks for reinforcing the stereotypical "True Christian" attitude that so many of us have come to know and love!

:hi:

[Clintonista2]

65. Actually I'm not a christian

As I point out in post #48.


Boy I bet you feel foolish.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clintonista2]

96. Oh no, not the Puma card!!

Remember my "Nobody with an IQ over 50..." line? Now I know why you got so upset over it.

[Ignis]

113. Aww, did it get its widdle feewings hurt?

I'd be happy to match my IQ test results against yours anytime, since you're so very worried about those scores.

Fortunately for you, I doubt there will be any questions regarding logical fallacies on most IQ tests, so you might get above a 50 yourself! :hi:

[SidneyCarton]

116. Boy, you're a cute little misanthrope aren't you?

What's wrong pal, the world's not fair so you feel the need to export your misery to others?

[Ignis]

121. Hey, thanks!

Never heard of the concept of "tit for tat," then, have you?

I'm no Christian, and I have no moral compunction to turn the other cheek when insulted...particularly by someone who--after numerous attempts by numerous posters to sway her/him otherwise--still thinks that s/he possesses a Magic Wand of +5 True Christian Detection.

:rofl:

So enjoy the show. Or don't. Either suits me. :hi:

[Taverner]

29. I am well aware of the proscribed rules

Non-violence may be a rule that some churches follow, it is not seen as a rule by All christians.

The only things that one must do to be a Christian is (1) Ask God to forgive your sins and become born again and (2) Try to be like Christ.

But the "be like Christ" is something every Church does differently

[mudplanet]

34. become born again? Bullshit.

So, according to your definition, because I'm an Episcopalian, I'm not a "Christian."

I think I'll keep my privilege to define myself. Trying to emulate Jesus' behavior and clear intent (trying to love one's brothers and sisters as one's self, simply) will do as a definition for Christian AFAIC.

(One of) The biggest problem this country has is "Christian" bigots. It's eye opening to go to a prayer breakfast and have the guest speaker begin his "witness" with a joke about agnostics.

I grew up in a Catholic environment and quickly became an anti-Catholic bigot. Then I attended a Jesuit college and learned that there is more than one way to be a Catholic or a Christian. At least the Catholics have a rich, intellectual and spiritual tradition of scholarship regarding Christ and his teachings (some of which I don't agree with) as opposed to the average "born again" oriented religions in the US that believe bibliolotry is Christianity. Jesus H. Christ, I'd take St. Augustine as an "authority" over Jerry Fartswell any day of the week. Bibliolotry is Bibli-idiocy.

As a mental health professional, I might define the "born again" as mentally ill with a fixed delusion. It's textbook.

Does it feel good when I usurp your right to call yourself a mentally healthy and rational individual?

[Progressive_In_NC]

69. The bible itself says that people who thought they were Christians will turned away at the judgement

The words "depart from me, I never knew you" come to mind. So whether you're Methodist, Baptist or Episcopalian, etc. etc. if there is a judgement day, we're all going to be in for some big surprises when we stand before our creator.

[SidneyCarton]

103. Exactly.

James said it best "faith without works is dead."

Profession of belief is not enough, hypocrisy is as damning a sin as murder.

[SidneyCarton]

25. yeah yeah yeah... been there done that.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian. But if you want to follow this to its logical conclusion, no one can claim to be the definitive "Christian" and therefore using these nuts as evidence of the true face of Christianity is as invalid an argument, as arguing that Christian liberals are definitive either.

You and PolPot are (were in his case) both atheists, neither of you define atheism. These people and I are both Christians, neither of us define it either.

[DavidDvorkin]

27. Exactly.

[MineralMan]

16. Hmm...would the Biblical Jesus have shoved those two women

out of a church he was in? I don't think so.

So, if he would not, then the people in that church were certainly not following Jesus' teachings. Seems pretty simple to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Why would Jesus be in a church?

Jesus was Jewish.

[donco6]

36. ABsolutely.

From personal experience.

[SidneyCarton]

38. And your experience is the sum total of existence?

The standard from which we should judge reality?

Prey tell me what is it that sets you apart from the subjective masses and grants you the perfect objectivity to make this judgment?

[donco6]

44. It's the sum total of my existence, yes.

The world would be much better off without religion in general, and Christianity specifically.

[Shell Beau]

49. I take extreme offense to that. The world would be better without

ANY person who hates in the name of religion, be it Christianity or whatever. But there are many peaceful, loving members of many religions, and they probably out number the wacks, but they aren't the ones you see and hear about all of the time.

[donco6]

51. Right.

I'm offended every day that all major religions gladly adhere to creeds that say I'm inherently evil, when there's more and more evidence every day that they're the one's promoting evil. We'd be much better off without any of them. People can be peaceful and loving far easier without religion.

[SidneyCarton]

52. That's a pretty broad assumption.

You assume that we wouldn't just find something else to become fanatical about and kill each other over.

People can be peaceful and loving far easier without politics too.

Ditto sports...

Ditto Sci/Fi & Fantasy obsessions

Ditto fanboy arguments about everything including computer OS...

But then again you assume reality is nothing more than your own experiences... so your prejudices are absolutely authoritative.

[donco6]

60. Several problems.

The reason politics is so contentious? Religion.

The reason sports can get violent? Alcohol.

I haven't seen too many Sci/Fi Fantasy rages, so can't comment there.

Fanboy arguments - hard to get violent when you aren't even in contact. And most of those arguments are ultimately based on religion, too.

We'd be taking a big step toward peace if religion were relegated to the dustbin of history.

[SidneyCarton]

67. Once again, you are making an assumption without fact to back it up.

We'd be taking a big step toward gender equality if all Humans were hermaphrodites too.

[donco6]

70. I have 2000 years of facts on my side.

But mine is a pipe dream anyway, as unecessary, harmful beliefs seems ingrained in many people. Oh well.

[SidneyCarton]

75. 2000 years of facts, washed through your own jaundiced perceptions.

Yours is a pipe dream, and it leaks.

[Toasterlad]

78. 2000 Years of Religious Warfare Is Not a Personal Perception

Despite your lame attempts to make it so.

[SidneyCarton]

81. And reducing religion to 2000 years of war isn't being just a tad bit reductive?

Really, I mean it's not like Christianity didn't manage to preserve numerous copies of classical text that would end up fueling Humanism at the beginning of the Renaissance, and it's not like the Church didn't fund both Michaelangelo and Da Vinci at various times in their lives. It's not like we owe the advent of Algebra and many other sciences to the courts of the Islamic Caliphates, it's not like the religious struggles in England didn't bring about the Cromwell's revolution, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, that created the Supremacy of Parliament and created the systems in which we (and more enlightened folk who will allow you to marry) live in today? No, you're right its been nothing but war, war, war, since 1AD, which sets it apart so much from the 3000 years of recorded history before that date, when all was sweetness and light.

[Toasterlad]

85. How Easily You Balance the Scales.

One wonders what any of the millions killed in a conflict over religion (which did not begin with christianity, but sure was super-charged by it) might have accomplished had they not been killed because of someone's nonsensical belief system. Maybe we'd have had flying cars by now, or anti-grav belts. Maybe cancer would have been cured, or AIDS.

You can't balance the slaughter of millions against the accomplishments of the survivors. You don't know what the dead may have done for humanity.

[SidneyCarton]

90. Well lets see...

Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan and Tamurlane all killed for power, religion really had no role. Then there's the conquest of the New World, which while swathed in Religion was really just grand theft of land and gold. Then there's the First World War, nothing really religious about that war, then there's the Second World War, which is also not terribly religious either. In fact one of the major beligerents in that war was officially an "Atheist state"

So many of the millions slain over these millennia were killed for reasons having nothing to do with religion, but a whole hell of a lot to do with greed, which interestingly enough exists independently of religion, though when coupled with it can be all the more awful.

As to what may have been: This is so much sophistry. Or someone could have created a plague that would have already wiped us out, or an Asteroid might have blown civilization off the planet in the year 809... or maybe the Brazilians would have inherited the Earth? What if is cool, but it proves nothing.

[Toasterlad]

95. So Religious Wars Are Okay Because Some Wars Were Not Religious?

Your logic is truly convoluted.

[SidneyCarton]

100. No they arent. But the bloodiest conflicts of the past 2 millennia had nothing to do with religion.

So the primary argument of your previous assertion, that religion alone is responsible for a majority of the millions of deaths in the past 2000 years is a strawman.

[Toasterlad]

106. So...There Have Been No Relgious Wars In 2000 Years? There Are None Now?

You should think before you type.

[Toasterlad]

73. How Silly.

No one said the world would be perfect without religion. Just BETTER.

Removing one thing that divides and inflames people doesn't create a substitute for that divisive and inflammatory thing. There are reasons for conflict that don't involves religion, but the removal of religion - one of the LARGEST reasons for conflict - wouldn't create a new reason out of thin air.

What a ludicrous argument.

[SidneyCarton]

74. Silly?

As ludicrous as assuming that the lack of religion would immeadiately lead to a more peaceful world? Sometimes I wonder just who the realists are in this argument. You have a pretty optimistic view of human nature, if you think that losing religion would suddenly make people docile, rational and peaceful.

I also think you overstate the impact of religion as a reason for conflict, religion is a tool, used by the haves to create conflict among the have-nots, take that tool away, they'll find another.

[Toasterlad]

76. Again, You're Twisting Words.

I didn't say losing religion would make people docile, or rational, or peaceful. I said that removing religion - a major source of conflict - would make the world better.

Look, it's very simple. Religion causes conflict, so: no religion = no conflict from religion. Does that eliminate all the problems of the world? Of course not. Just the problems created by religion, of which there are many.

Or, to put it another way, I could probably get married in a United States without religion, whereas I cannot get married in a United States WITH religion, where even the chicken-shit President has to pay lip service to imaginary sky-fathers.

[SidneyCarton]

80. I'm sorry you can't get married.

I also sorry you can't see the simple truth that the conflict that we currently reserve for religious issues would merely get displaced onto other issues if there were no religions to fight over. Human nature is contentious, we find stupid shit to fight over (surely we see that every day here on DU?) The many problems that you cite as being caused by religion, would only vanish for new problems caused by new divisions to take their place.

Believe me, we would find other reasons to hate each other, we would find other reasons to be prejudiced, we would find other excuses for homophobia, all religion provides is a efficient cover for our inherent narcissism and misanthropy, we would find another, and use it to justify our bad behavior, we don't need a "sky-father" to be selfish, cruel or unkind, it just makes it easier.

[Toasterlad]

86. Again, You're Creating Things Out of Thin Air

The removal of one source of hate doesn't create another source of hate. There are people in this country who are not religious and are STILL homophobic, but religion is hands-down the chief reason why homosexuals are not equal in this society. All you need to do is look at more secular societies around the globe to see how they treat their gay folk, and you'll see that I'm correct.

Religion is the single largest handicap hobbling the United States.

[SidneyCarton]

92. So greed is no problem?

Prove that removing one source of hate doesn't create a new one. Provide me with an example.

[Toasterlad]

98. What the Fuck Are You Talking About?

Greed exists independently of religion. I'm not disputing that. Removing religion doesn't install greed in its place. The two are separate concepts. How bizarre to think the removal of one automatically installs the other.

The onus is not on me to prove that removing a source of hate and division makes the world a better place. For a rational person, that is a given. The onus is on YOU to prove that removing religion will automatically create a new source of hate and division...one that didn't exist, previously.

[SidneyCarton]

101. No, it doesn't install it, it doesn't remove it either.

And greed/selfishness is the underlying problem here. Religion is window-dressing for Greed, it would get something else.

[donco6]

114. So, homophobia is inherent in man?

Interesting. Now, where's the evidence for that, I wonder?

[SidneyCarton]

115. Fear of the other is inherent in man.

Fear can be exploited into hatred.

If not Homophobia, than racism, misogyny, xenophobia, etc...

[SidneyCarton]

24. Just like PolPot wasn't a REAL atheist.

Because heaven knows, all professed Christians are responsible for the actions of all others regardless of denomination or doctrinal differences, while the convenient lack of an organized atheist movement absolves any individual atheist of the actions of any other.

Your bullshit double-standard is tiresome, as is the damn "real Scotsman" argument.

[Taverner]

30. Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were all Atheists

Atheists don't really have a movement. Some of us are Repubs, Some are Dems, some are Libertarians and some are White Supremacists. Yes, there is an Atheist White Supremacist org out there.

Now I would never say those Christians shoved the couple because they were Christians - but their perceptions of Christianity did play a part. Just like Pol Pot's decree of "Kill everyone over 12" was based in a very Marxist form of Atheism. Pol Pot believed all of the older generation was poisoned by Capitalism and Religion.

[SidneyCarton]

37. Precisely my point.

Those people were undoubtedly Christian, but they no more define Christianity than I, Jimmy Carter or Fred Phelps do. The reality is that there are no "true" Christians, and the ongoing attempt by some on this board to depict fringe groups as exemplars of the whole is tiresome in the extreme.

[SidDithers]

84. "The reality is that there are no "true" Christians"...

Thank you.

Sid

[SidDithers]

82. Sure he was. He was also a murdering dictatorial bastard...

The two are not mutually exclusive. Just as Christian and "intolerant fuckwit" are not mutually exclusive.

Sid

[SidneyCarton]

94. Precisely my point.

Atheism cannot be defined by one particular professed atheist, it is a complex and nuanced worldview. Christianity is also nuanced, these "intolerant fuckwits" (as you so eloquently called them) represent a part of Christianity, and not Christianity as a whole, no one can do that.

[SidDithers]

99. I think we're agreeing vehemently with each other...

:)

There are all kinds of Christians, good & bad, tolerant and intolerant, loving and hateful. They're a microcosm of society as a whole. What gets my back up is when the argument is made that "they're not REAL Christians, because of this or that". By excluding the "fuckwits", the implication is made that all Christians, the REAL Christians, are good.

Christians are just people. No better or worse than the rest of us.

Sid

[SidneyCarton]

102. Vehemently agreeing indeed.

:hi:

[Kalyke]

39. Because they're not.

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (5: 9), “You have heard that it was said by them of old time: You shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” (5:21-22). “You have heard that it had been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (5:38), and “You have heard that it had been said: You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44), and he commanded his disciples saying: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (10:16).

[crim son]

2. Hmmm.

Guess they won't be voting for the pastor. I'm straight and I don't belong to any church in large part because of their general attitude toward homosexuality. Why this couple decided to visit the Baptists is beyond me... what did they expect? Christian love and acceptance? :sarcasm:

[Taverner]

8. Not all Baptists are homophobes

The American and North American Baptist Churches can be OK
but the majority of the conferences (Southern, Conservative, Primitive, etc) are homophobic

[crim son]

10. Thanks for the correction.

I admit I'm not familiar with the many denominations.

[Taverner]

18. NP - I'm all too familiar

I am the atheist son of a family of preachers

[crim son]

19. Brave of you.

I'm an ex-Catholic. In theory I can't be a priest's kid and I'm darned glad.

[mudplanet]

35. Surprisingly enough, I've discovered that even some Southern Baptists

aren't homophobes and bigots.

[Kalyke]

40. I'm thinking Rev. Welton Gaddy isn't homophobic.

And he's a Southern baptist preacher AND a resident of Louisiana.

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/about/meet-our-president

[mudplanet]

47. The Interfaith Alliance is a great humanitarian organization.

I met some Southern Baptists in Houston who were part of an informal organization that is part of the Southern Baptist Convention that told me about how they had successfully maneuvered to prevent the SBC from essentially taking over Baylor University and turning it into a "creation science" school and thus a laughing stock (as it is, Baylor is a good university).

I don't think much of Oral Roberts and his followers, either. But I was in Guatemala in the 1990's and went to a health clinic in a very rural area that was operated by a group of doctors from Oral Roberts University Medical Center. The doctors had formed a group and provided the salary, from their own pockets, for which ever one of them was spending his service in Guatemala, thus making it possible for them to rotate their field service without bankrupting their families.

The Jesuits that taught me ranged from very conservative status quo types to Liberation Theologists. But they had all spent a number of years doing "missionary" work in developing countries. In their case, "missionary work" consisted of university teaching, engineering, practicing whatever professional skill they had, to make the lives of people in developing countries better. They were all scholars (i.e., they all had PhDs) and could have made six figure incomes in the private sector. For the most part, I believe, they believed in "leading by example," and put the worldly welfare of people first.

These were all people that I could have a serious conversation with and whose ideas and opinions I respect.

It's a mistake to paint almost any organization and its followers with a broad brush.

[donco6]

118. Then they shouldn't be Southern Baptist.

Because their church certainly teaches that homosexuality is sin. How do they square that in their minds?

[mudplanet]

120. The SBC has a lot of conventions, rules, dictates. Just like the Catholic church and

the United States of America.

After meeting some fairly decent Southern Baptist, I suspect that the church will eventually splinter in much the same way that the Lutheran and Episcopalian churches have. I have difficulty reconciling, in my mind, these decent people that I know with the typical small-minded, bigoted, hateful and, to my mind, contra-Christ-like Southern Baptists.

Remember, the SBC was is a splinter organization itself, formed when the Baptist church (not sure of the formal title) came out against slavery before the Civil War. So we have here a church founded on the principal that slavery is OK.

Do you belong to a church? If so, do you know all of it's policies, and do you agree with all of them unconditionally? For that matter, do you belong to any organization and, if so, do you know and agree with all of its policies?

I'm an American. I'm also strongly opposed to capital punishment, to the two wars we're involved in, to the system of legalized bribery that constitutes corporate lobbying. Would you suggest I opt out and renounce my citizenship (America, love it or leave it) or do I have a right to work toward changing the organization?

"homosexuality is sin" The Episcopal church recently divided over this issue, and one of the Lutheran Churches recently decided to accept homosexuality by changing it's policy and allowing practicing gays to minister in the church. One can only hope that eventually the SBs will figure it out as well.

[donco6]

124. I used to belong to an independent Bible church.

Now I eschew organized religion of any stripe.

[KamaAina]

4. So my all-time favorite human being is a "demon" and a "devil worshipper"

not only is she in a relationship with a woman, she even shares the surname of the abuse victim!

:sarcasm:

edit: smilie

[barfsalot]

6. Hey, that sux

Too bad lesbians aren't real.

They could have avoided that altogether if they had just stopped pretending.

[Politicalboi]

23. Hey Barfsalot

Does your mother know you are on the internetS?

[chollybocker]

7. Wait. Kenneth Whalum is running for MAYOR??

Let us count the :wtf: .

[undeterred]

9. What century is it?

[Union Yes]

13. Sounds Slanderous to me. The lesbian couple should sue.

[Strong Atheist]

14. More peace, love and toleration from the baptists! I am sure Jesus would

have approved...

[bevoette]

15. so i wonder who they decided to vote for

:eyes:

[salin]

17. wonder how this will shape public perspectives beyond the congregation?

sounds a little looney for even the moderate middle. Hope the word gets out.

[derby378]

28. Blowing kisses to God? What the...?!?

I have never heard of such a practice.

[Ilsa]

31. Why do some people feel the need to get between other people and God? nt

[NightHawk63]

50. Damn! And in my hometown too!

As if we don't have a bad enough image around the country.

:-(

[DeSwiss]

58. WTF?!?!?!

http://www.memphisflyer.com/MemphisGaydar/archives/2009/08/24/lesbian-couple-expelled-from-kenneth-whalums-church">

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Just a bit of headline-grabbing publicity:

"Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2021:2&version=KJV

[DeSwiss]

66. Oh. You mean this story......

...where Jebus stole a horse?



- Yeah, I already knew Jebus was a thief.

[Arugula Latte]

79. "Grand Theft Equus"

:spray:

[saltpoint]

63. So then. I one does not blow kisses to God one is a demon.

Noted.

[Echo In Light]

72. They should have played along, gesticulating wildly & putting 'hexes' on them LOL

What a bunch of bass-akward dweebs. Amazing that type of flat-earther mentality still thrives to that extent.

[salguine]

119. Actually, they should prosecute. The second anyone puts their hands on you, it's assault.

[flvegan]

125. I'm pretty sure that Jesus is horrified by some of his "followers"

Probably a lot of facepalming on His behalf on a regular basis.