Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Reminder - Please Read
6 years ago  ::  Sep 19, 2008 - 2:49AM #1
Summer813
Posts: 325
Dear Church & State forum participants:

First of all, allow me to tell you how glad I am to see this forum active. There have been times in the past when things were a lot quieter - too quiet, in fact. Activity is much better than that sort of quietude.

However, as I am sure we are all aware, this can be a particularly contentious forum, due to the general nature of the issues we discuss here. The questions of whether, to what extent, and/or how religion and government should interact or intersect can lead to some very heated exchanges. With that in mind, allow me to set forth a few reminders of what does, and does not, belong in this forum:

1. The Beliefnet Rules of Conduct (yes, that's a link) apply as surely to this forum as to anyplace else on Beliefnet. Please be familiar with them and adhere to them when you are engaging in discussions on this forum.

2. This forum is intended for examining and discussing a variety of issues that impact or are impacted by the actions and possible interactions of government and religion in (at least primarily, if not entirely) the United States of America. There's nothing wrong with mentioning other nations and how they deal with similar issues, provided that any such mention is made in reference to an already ongoing discussion of something that is happening in the U.S. and is actually germane to the topic of the thread in which it is introduced.

3. This forum is NOT intended as a repository for threads regarding homosexuality or any other "one-note-Charlie" type of topic. When the front page here begins to show a theme of having many threads devoted to what is essentially the same topic, those threads will be either merged, moved to a more appropriate place, or closed so as to stimulate discussion of multiple issues rather than risk our becoming a single-issue community. Variety is the spice of life, and no one wants to hear the same old thing day in and day out. If we want to encourage lively discussion with multiple participants, we have to actually have something of interest to offer.

4. Note that homosexuality is certainly germane to discussions of things like civil rights, and since civil rights are certainly a Church and State issue, there is no prohibition upon bringing it up, if this is done in the context of a larger discussion. But just coming in here and using a tenuous connection to a Church and State issue as a pretext to engage in repetitive gay-bashing (or bashing any group solely on the basis of gender, race, religious belief or any other characteristic defining a group) will not lead to any useful discussion, and may lead to the merging, movement, or closure of threads - and occasionally, to the deletion of posts. Relevance is key here, as is civility. I sincerely hope that at some point new people coming to this forum and reading this message will wonder why a host even found it necessary to spell this out, but as of the writing of this post, this has been a serious issue in recent weeks.

5. We are, ostensibly at least, all adults here, and we ought to be able to engage in discussion and debate in mature and civilized tones. Furthermore, we ought to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. More on that here (yes, that's another link; please feel free to click it).

6. Finally, please be aware that this particular forum is not intended as a partisan stronghold for either Liberals or Conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, Christians or non-Christians. Not only is your Host team here (that's Davelaw40 and myself) committed to honesty and fairness in both moderation and discussion, but we ourselves represent more than one point of view that, if taken together, pretty much cover most of the spectrum with regard to the various topics likely to be discussed here. A look at our public profiles would tell you that much. The effect this is intended to have upon the tone of this forum, I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

Sincerely,

Summer813
Beliefnet Community Co-Host,
Church & State Issues
Shared pain is lessened, shared joy increased. Thus do we refute entropy. - Mike Callahan, Callahan's Crosstime Saloon
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 22, 2008 - 5:54PM #2
Summer813
Posts: 325
Apparently you're unclear on the concept that this is NOT the appropriate board for discussing homosexuality. If you wish to discuss that topic, you will need to take it to an appropriate forum. This is not that forum.
Shared pain is lessened, shared joy increased. Thus do we refute entropy. - Mike Callahan, Callahan's Crosstime Saloon
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2008 - 9:30AM #3
Sacrificialgoddess
Posts: 9,496

Friend! wrote:

Apparently you're unclear on the concept that this IS the appropriate board for discussing the church-state issue of equal access for religious clubs in public schools that are persecuted for their views on ex-homosexuals.

I personally agreed not to discuss homosexuality per se.  I am quite capable of discussion the church-state issues involved without discussing homosexuality per se. 

If you, however, wish to discuss homosexuality per se, you will need to take it to an appropriate forum. This is not that forum.

I prefer to discuss the church-state issues involved in freedom of exclusion, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.  Unless you can show that such a church-state discussion is somehow a discussion of homosexuality, then I am prepareed to discuss the church-state issues.  I will abide by whatever decision you make. 



You still haven't shown that there is an issue at all.  Until you can, take it one of the many homosexual boards we have here.  :rolleyes:

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

-- Tori Amos
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2008 - 9:57AM #4
xequar
Posts: 662
[QUOTE=Friend!;778443]Apparently you're unclear on the concept that this IS the appropriate board for discussing the church-state issue of equal access for religious clubs in public schools that are deprived of their civil rights due to their views on ex-homosexuals.

I personally agreed not to discuss homosexuality per se. I am quite capable of discussing the church-state issues involved without discussing homosexuality per se.

If anyone, however, wants to discuss homosexuality per se, one will need to take it to an appropriate forum. This is not that forum.

I prefer to discuss the church-state issues involved in freedom of exclusion, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. Unless you can show that such a church-state discussion is somehow a discussion of homosexuality, then I am prepareed to discuss the church-state issues. I will abide by whatever decision you make.[/QUOTE]Friend, are you an "ex-gay?" 

And honestly, I have to agree with Summer and SG here.  You keep bringing these threads, and yet you've never shown us any occasion where these church-state issues with ex-gays have come up.  Come on over to the gay sections.  We'll show you what's what.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2008 - 12:48PM #5
Sacrificialgoddess
Posts: 9,496

Friend! wrote:

What would you agree is a constitutional church-state issue involving EX-HOMOSEXUALS? Let us consider what your definition would be so we can agree upon whether examples exist.

If church-state violations related to bias against EX-HOMOSEXUALS can be found, then it seems fair to discuss them.

Likewise we can discuss church-state issues of unlawful bias against religious ministries or religious public school clubs based upon their beliefs about homosexuality.




And yet you can't show us any bias.  I can show you bias against homosexuals all day every day, and yet you can't prove the same for folks who are no longer gay.  :rolleyes:

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

-- Tori Amos
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2008 - 1:14PM #6
ZenYen
Posts: 447
Friend: I am not sure I understand your point here. You want OTHER people to go out and gather the examples of a problem that YOU say exists? Or you want other people to make up hypothetical examples? Sorry. If you want to make your case, gather your examples and make your case. If you can't do that, then ... what's the point?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2008 - 2:33PM #7
amcolph
Posts: 18,263
[QUOTE=Friend!;779152]I don't want the Church and State BeliefNet forum to be about all church-state issues EXCEPT those church-state issue which apply to discrimination against religious clubs and ministries that help EX-GAYS and help GAYS become heterosexuals. 

We don't need to censor this category of church-state issues.[/QUOTE]

Right now, it's an empty category.
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2008 - 2:45PM #8
ZenYen
Posts: 447
Well, we could discuss church-state issues concerning discrimination against Martians, too. Oh, wait. Martians don't exist.

I think, Friend, the hangup here is that you are subscribing to a delusion fostered by incredibly bad science and wishful thinking. You are unable to prove that ex-gays even exist, and if they don't exist, they can't be discriminated against.

Secondly, you haven't even provided any examples of discrimination against people who are deluded into thinking they are really are ex-gays. Nor have you found any examples of anyone here who would advocate prejudice or discrimination against ex-gays if they, in fact, existed.

You consistently refuse to discuss the science behind your "ex-gay" blather, and if you did want to discuss the science there are more appropriate threads on BNet to do that.

So ... provide your examples, or find something else to talk about or find a more appropriate forum for your opinions. Until then, it seems you're just looking for excuses to take cheap shots.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2008 - 4:00PM #9
dblad
Posts: 1,729

ZenYen wrote:

Well, we could discuss church-state issues concerning discrimination against Martians, too. Oh, wait. Martians don't exist.



Thank you ZenYen, and neither do Ex-Gays... (exist).


"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative conversion therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation," the American Psychiatric Association has officially stated.

Perhaps the most famous case study in the failure of reparative therapy is that of two founders of Exodus International, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, who helped start Exodus in 1976 and worked to "convert" gay people for three years, until they fell in love and left Exodus in 1979. In 1982, they held a marriage ceremony and lived together until Cooper died nine years later.
"The desires never go away," Bussee said. "After dealing with hundreds of people, I have not met one who went from gay to straight. Even if you manage to alter someone's sexual behavior, you cannot change their true sexual orientation."




Source: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelrep … sp?sid=327

Friend just continues to believe a lie and wants to foster that lie on everyone else... It ain't gonna happen Friend... persist as you may, but there will always be someone here to tell the TRUTH!


.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2008 - 4:13PM #10
amcolph
Posts: 18,263
[QUOTE=dblad;779399]Thank you ZenYen, and neither do Ex-Gays... (exist).




Source: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelrep … sp?sid=327

Friend just continues to believe a lie and wants to foster that lie on everyone else... It ain't gonna happen Friend... persist as you may, but there will always be someone here to tell the TRUTH!


.[/QUOTE]

He need not show that 'ex-gays' actually exist.

It would be sufficient to Friend!'s case that he could show that there were individuals who believed or, at least, asserted that they were 'ex-gays' who were being discriminated against for religious reasons.

He hasn't been able to do even that.
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook