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

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:

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:

[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.

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!


.