The parents of the boy couldn’t understand the prohibition since girls attending the school use the same makeup.
I’m sure the fact that the boy’s parents are both women has no bearing whatsoever on his decision to wear makeup. None at all.
From here:
The parents of a Tampa Bay student have started an online petition asking for improved tolerance training after their son was castigated for wearing makeup on the last day of school.
The Tampa Bay Times reports Chris Martin decided to wear black eyeliner, eye shadow and lipstick on the last day of eighth grade at Meadowlawn Middle School in St. Petersburg.
Administrators told the 14-year-old boy he was violating the dress code.
Question: Was he also wearing girls’ clothes?
Who can possibly care if a boy wears makeup? Some conventions just don’t matter very much, and it’s delightful to see just how much people get upset over little details like this.
In a few decades we will be able to look at the children that have been raised in families with same-sex parents and we will be able to look at the statistics and see what if any impact there has been on the sexual orientation of the children. If people are honest very few parents would hope that their child becomes a homosexual. They may accept it and love and support them. But this same sex orientation is not something that they would hope for.
I really don’t care either if a boy wants to wear makeup. I suppose it is telling that both his parents were women, but, well… it is what it is.
But the most telling sentence was right at the end of the article,
“The parents started a petition on moveon.org to improve tolerance training for teachers and administrators.”
It really is an agenda.
Well, what else would we have expected from you, Vincent? We do realize by now that you are, of course, progressively superior. You do amuse me….always so desperate to shock us, only, you don’t. You’re predictable.
Most same-sex parents have this agenda. It must be listed in their manual somewhere. “Have kids, use them for gain.” These kids are pawns in the same-sex political games, though every such 10 yr. old will vehemently maintain they are doing it out of their own “beliefs.” Shameful.
Methinks the Anonymous doth protest too much.
Same sex parents? A manual? Pawns in same sex political games? Shameful…
Are you having problems with your own sexual identity?
Five’ll get you ten that you do not have a pink anything in your wardrobe.
I really suck at this shocking business. I predictably fail, and then you predictably tell me what’s in my head.
Or, possibly, neither of us are in fact doing what the other thinks we’re doing.
In any case: is makeup feminine by nature? Many cultures have men putting on makeup for all kinds of reasons, surely?
I’m just astonished at how upset people get about trivial stuff.
Oh you’re so clever! Your head is exquisitely easy to pick. You’re not even a challenge.
I wonder where I get the reputation for impoliteness on this blog. I’m not convinced I’m the one with the aggressive, ill-mannered, overly personal behaviour in these exchanges, A.
You sound, shall I say……brain-dead, Malachy. Hope there is only one of you out there.
Pink in my wardrobe? Of course I do. I’m a woman with several kids. How about you? Wait, don’t answer that. I don’t think any of us truly want to know.
He may be confusing you with me again. Wouldn’t be the first time.
I think I have a pink T-shirt somewhere. I accidentally put it in the washing machine with my red long underwear.
O.K. all readers, he is ANONY-MUSE, I am ANONY-MOUS.
Or, I can be Anonymoose and you can be Anonymouse. That might make it even more fun.
Hard to confuse you with anything Anonymuse: you are sooo British!
Bet you have a “slave” to do the washing…
Well done Anonymous: you are inching your way out of the closet! Read my brain-dead post again and you will notice that I do not mention a specific gender. [Just gender confusion…]
Of course you are a woman, but comfortable shoes; tweed jacket: the Sue Moxley wardrobe!
Nothing pink!
According to your link, Malachy, you consider yourself some kind of Christian Minister. Rather odd things to be saying for a supposed man (or otherwise) of the cloth.
That was a very strange comment to make to someone you don’t know. Quite the stereotype. And you are broad-minded?
Inner beauty is more important than outward appearance; makeup for boys or girls, men or women is not really necessary.
Apparently the parents are not tolerant of dress codes. They need some training themselves.
My thoughts exactly.
I recall reading a piece about Daniel Radcliffe, the young actor, now grown, who played Harry Potter in those movies. He is gay. He was quoted as saying:
“I absolutely hate all those people who say anything derogatory about gays…I HATE them!”
Anyone catch the irony? Mr. Radcliffe is so utterly tolerant himself, apparently, that he shows zero acceptance of anyone who does not share his opinions. I would say that he has a long way to go to be a tolerant individual, but he is certain that it is others who are the sinners. A blind fool, perhaps? Wealthy, but blind.
Same thing with these “mothers.” No tolerance for the dress code. No tolerance for the majority opinion, in a Christian culture (oh boy, will this bring the replies on!). They ought to work on their tolerance.
And since when did “tolerance” become such a virtue (diversity’s another one)? Was it on the tablets handed down to Moses? Suddenly, it’s so fashionable!
No he isn’t. He did play a gay man in his latest film though.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2277344/Daniel-Radcliffe-talks-playing-gay-poet-Allen-Ginsberg-poses-flamboyant-shoot-Out-Magazine.html
Well, you tell me what the “Out” Magazine interview with him was all about then, Kate. They used quotation marks around his words, and everything. Was he having them on?
You just love to pounce on my comments, every chance you get. The main point was what he stated about intolerance, and how he stated it, being intolerant himself. You missed that.
No I didn’t miss your point, I just didn’t bother commenting on it. If you read to the end of the article you will see that he has a girlfriend.
I don’t really care, Kate. Go back to the main point.
Perhaps we need to look at the Bible for some guideline. Consider I Samuel 16:7b – “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart”.
Seems to me that there is something more going on here than what was reported in the article. Mention is made of a shirt with an anarchy symbol and sheath. Hard to make any conclusions upon the very limited amount of information reported. However, the shirt suggests certain things about this boys character. Is it possible that this boy is a bit of a rebel, an outsider, perhaps even a trouble maker? We simply cannot tell from the little we are told. And although the article is written in a manner that strongly suggests the boy’s makeup was the reason for the boy being told that he was in violation of the dress code it is unclear if he was told that he was violating the dress code because of the make-up only, or the shirt, or both.
One thing is clear. This boy’s moms are making a big deal out of this.
“Is it possible that this boy is a bit of a rebel, an outsider, perhaps even a trouble maker?”
Where have I ever read about someone I love very much who was exactly that to the authorities of his time?
Partial quotes taken out of context are so much fun, aren’t they Vincent? You should have included the next sentence, which is
“We simply cannot tell from the little we are told.”
Perhaps you would agree with the point that I was attempting to make. The article does not give us enough information to make any conclusions about the boy.
The article does inform us that the moms concede the shirt was a violation of the dress code. So that opens up the question was the boy told he was in violation of the dress code because of
the makeup
the shirt
both the makeup and the shirt
That he was only told and not sent home nor suspended indicates that the matter was not considered too serious by the school principal. That the district is siding with the principal hints that the principal acted in accordance with district policies and procedures.
So I am left to wonder…
Is this the mountain that the moms are making it out to be?
or
Is this nothing more than a mole hill?
You may be right. I apologise. I think the larger point stands, though: what if he is a troublemaker? What kind of a troublemaker do you have to be where preventing you from wearing makeup is of any importance?
Because you know exactly what point the boys was trying to make by wearing the make-up, Vincent. It’s a slippery slope.
I can promise you that I don’t. You have me genuinely nonplussed.
Makeup is not inherently feminine. This is a silly convention. Some conventions have actual import. Others are trivial and should not have to be so stridently defended.
Make-up should only be rejected if it’s girls being feminine. Just as Barbie is sexist unless it’s boys who are imitating her.
Now that is a perceptive comment. It’s true enough that gender stereotypes are vilified by mainstream left-wing thinkers, but enthusiastically embraced by transgendered people.
I think that simply means we’re all shaped by this straitjacketing and react as we will to strong conventions — rejecting or submitting to conventions is still living according to their terms.
I’m not sure the answer is simply to turn back the clock to a time when “makeup is for girls, and short hair for boys” was an earnest, unassailable position. There is a via media: not minding one way or the other, because it doesn’t matter very much (outside of the individual sphere).
You missed the sarcasm.
drip… drip… drip… Not a chance!
Read it again Lisa: it is you that missed the sarcasm because it was more subtle than yours!
What sarcasm? Please refrain from such comments.
Tedium isn’t subtle.
I didn’t. It’s fairly glaring. You personally believe makeup is inherently feminine (or that it categorically isn’t for boys, at least) and Barbie isn’t sexist, and you’re being uproarious about it. My position is that there are arguments on both sides — and that I’m not bovvered.
But your post is still a perceptive comment. 🙂
The natural, healthy masculinity of boys is either being shamed out of them, or increasingly the only role nominally hetero- role models they see are these sad “emo” creatures. Meanwhile, the other end of the spectrum, the gangstah culture grows ever more sadistic and violent, reflecting the growing reality the new power is a gang leader with a hundred men.
You can see the “mothers” are itching for the boy to be in trouble over the make-up. After all, I’m sure that was their whole plan. Then they can make a big stink over his gender rights being violated. If it was only due to the shirt, or if he didn’t get in enough trouble over the make-up for them to rush in waving their war hammers, I’m sure the “mothers” would have been vastly disappointed.
I see some version of this story every other week in the papers. The child of same-sex parents is reprimanded in some way for pushing their gender views on others, the child claims they are doing it out of their “beliefs”, and then the parents, on cue, become part of the screaming threesome, talking about being violated. It’s always staged. Gives their cause attention, and allows then to act like honour wounded. Part of the agenda.
Anonymous, you are rude; combative; cowardly; bigoted and intolerant, and you do not care about the comments of others [it’s your way or the highway] here’s a selection from this thread alone:-
People are shameful; blind fools; brain dead; predictable; same-sex parents have ‘this agenda’-listed in their manual: “Have kids, use them for gain.” Then these kids are pawns in the same-sex political games… [Read your posts: and your own bizarre conspiracy theory in the post above.]
However, and au contraire, people “pounce” on your comments and then make strange comments about you. I wonder why? Most telling of all, you hide behind anonymity, from whence your homophobic venom can spew forth [you think] without consequences.
The obvious answer is that if you are thin-skinned like Bishop Bird and do not like the ‘heat’ then stay out of the kitchen!
And yes, I am not without my faults but at least I have the guts to commit and defend myself in the public forum…
Maybe he is the Bird?
“The child of same-sex parents is reprimanded in some way for pushing their gender views on others, the child claims they are doing it out of their “beliefs”, and then the parents, on cue, become part of the screaming threesome, talking about being violated.”
Exactly, Munchausen by proxy.
My goodness, Malachy, aren’t you a wonder of a Christian clergyman! I agree with you here — you are not without your faults.
Who was it who began mocking my supposed wardrobe? Your comments to me were full of “gender” innuendo. Who has a problem with that, Malachy? It seems that you might. And when I take you up on it, you bluff and bluster and get red in the face.
First, I was supposed to be a man with a closet full of pink, and then I was supposed to be a woman wearing tweed. You are one of the most insulting posters on this site. And I am homophobic?
As I once said to Kate, who complained that I remain anonymous, “I do not have to risk my security for your benefit.” Even my children know better than to announce their private information all over the internet. You need a little course that the RCMP gives, on internet security. And those who use simply a common first name on their postings are anonymous as well, Malachy. Ever notice that?
Silly man. With your obvious rudeness and unwarranted insults, you are the pot calling the kettle black.
By the way, this site spoofs and makes light of the New World Order. Did you not understand that? You appear to have ideas very similar to the ACofC, so if you post here, you might expect to be roasted. Perhaps you want to frequent another site more in line with your musings.
Oh, and I am most interested in this “bizarre conspiracy theory” that you claim I have, Malachy. Could you explain it to me? I don’t seem to recall any conspiracy theory, bizarre or otherwise. You’ve been watching too many B-grade American sit-coms.
Oh the irony….who is being intolerant now, Malachy? Seems that you are being extremely intolerant of me and my views. As I have always maintained, “tolerance” seems to be a one-way street with the Left-Wing.
” As I have always maintained, “tolerance” seems to be a one-way street with the Left-Wing.”
Amen to that. They accept diversity, just not a diversity of opinion.
Anonymous, like most bigots, nothing I or anybody else says will change your modus operandi…
Beware, everything you ever write is stored on servers the world over [even stuff that has been ‘deleted’], and you’d be surprised how easy it is to retrieve it all, along with your identity.
Otherwise, your latest two posts simply confirm my opinion of you. You want to ‘roast’ me, go ahead but do a bit of research first; you could start at http://www.jesusofnazareth.ca.
There! Now you can have the last word, or this particular thread will go on forever.
I am a better Christian than you will ever be. Please spare us your tripe.
Is it a contest? 😀
Only for those who want to put effort in, Vincent. But you are off lolling in easy ACofC-Anglican-ness, so you may not qualify.
My children love using those smiley faces, by the way.
I’m fine with being child-like — or childish, as you prefer. I’m too old to care. 🙂
1 Corinthians 13:11
I’m confident Paul wasn’t having a strop about emoticons. I don’t find them childish, but I don’t mind if you do. 🙂
Paul wasn’t. Nor was I.
Anonymous loves characterising me as childish precisely because of the emoticons. My argument is twofold: a) I don’t actually believe emoticons are childish at all, I think they’re just another tool and b) even if they were childish, I’m not sure that means anything much about me and/or what I say. So if you weren’t talking about emoticons, I’m once against adrift.
Also, being extremely concerned with appearing properly grown-up is not something I have much time for. We all have our priorities.
We are all sinners. Let God be the Judge! God alone knows our true spiritual standing. God knows everything about us; we don’t. Thanks be to God!
That’s not how tolerance works, though. You can’t tell someone who’s doing you no harm “Don’t dress like that”, and then cry intolerance when the person refuses. You can’t put quotation marks around the word mother, call people alphabets, and then cry intolerance when these people call you on it. You can’t be unkind to actual people and then cry intolerance when these people get a bit upset with you.
Thank you Vincent! You are a better Christian than I am.
We all have opinions; sometimes strong opinions… However, we know zip about this kid and yet folk want to pile up the wood and burn him at the stake.
I care not if he is black, white or green, gender confused or not, he is a fellow human being… He deserves our tolerance and more: respect; otherwise we go down the slippery slope and use the genocide option yet again!
I apologize: it is not a contest, but I did give anonymous the last word.
“I care not if he is black, white or green, gender confused or not, he is a fellow human being… He deserves our tolerance and more”
As long as he’s not British?
I see. Tolerance works in your favour only. Hm-m-m-m, I am beginning to see the light, Vincent. It’s all about whatever you want it to be. Relativism, I believe they call that. I can’t say you are intolerant, but you can use that term for me. That’s your tolerance at work.
But, Vincent, those people are not doing no harm, those two women are not actually both mothers, not sure what you mean by alphabets, and I am not being unkind. I am a Christian, and I am very sorry if people who do wrong in this world expect that I should look the other way for their convenience. That’s not “tolerance” as you call it; it’s turning a blind eye. You just have a very funny way of looking at it. I believe you will find that Jesus Christ himself was “intolerant” when the need arose, such as witnessing sin.
This site is a venue for debate, gentlemen. You seem to think anyone who hasn’t been brainwashed into lefty ideology is simply intolerant. What a hoot! That’s how totalitarianism creeps into a society.
We just don’t have our regular contingent on the site this week, keeping you on your toes.
And speaking of funny ways of looking at things, Vincent, I am going to hark back to comments you have made about your Francophone culture and the Anglos, or rather, “the enemy” as you have called them. Why in blazes are you in the church of the enemy then, and very happy to be there? The Montreal Anglican Cathedral was a prime symbol of The Anglo world in Upper Canada, after perhaps the Parliament buildings and the Monarchy. So you side with “the enemy” now, as it is convenient?
And I always wonder why the French Quebecers continually moan about the rest of us supposedly destroying their culture, while they themselves have booted out the Roman Catholic Church, the biggest part of their culture since its beginnings. Doesn’t it seem upside-down to you?
“I see. Tolerance works in your favour only.”
I don’t think that’s what I wrote. In my favour? I’m not gay, I’m not transgendered, I’m not Muslim. I’m invisible to you.
I didn’t call Anglophones the enemy. I was clearly (perhaps not so clearly, but then language is murky) placing myself in opposition to that view.
I’m a member of the Anglican Church of Canada for precisely those reasons that drove you away from it, Anonymous. The Anglican Church of Canada is like a Catholic Church that has its head screwed on straight. A psychologically sound Catholic Church, is the ACC.
I far prefer the Catholic Church, but then, following Catholicism in its true sense is so much harder than being an Anglican. There is sacrifice and effort and discipline involved. In Anglican parishes these days — ACofC that is — parishioners go to be entertained and to socialize. Nothing is asked of them but to put something in the collection plate. No moral expectations. Everything that is done has to make them feel good. You really think that is what Christianity is all about?
The Roman Catholic religion, if you’re not fooling yourself, is a tremendous amount more challenging. You hardly recognize that one has been spawned from the other.
You don’t have to put yourself out much to be an Anglican. You wouldn’t have found Anglican-types in the catacombs. Frankly, the Anglican Cathedrals are where all the social movers and shakers of certain generations go to be seen every Sunday. It’s like being in the right club. I had noticed on visits to Anglican Cathedrals in a few cities of this country that all the parish recipients of the Order of Canada prominently wear their lapel pins so that everyone notices when they chat over coffee afterwards. Christian humility isn’t part of the ACofC set.
So I hope we won’t you hear you moaning anymore about the supposed loss of Quebec culture, Vincent. You kicked it out yourselves.
I’ve never said a word about the loss of Québec culture, I don’t think. Once again you have me completely bewildered.
Look back over the archives, Vincent. You certainly have a short memory, when it suits.
No, I’m pretty sure the point I was making was that we are having this conversation, such as it is, because I can speak your language, and being from Québec that’s not at all a given. Precisely because we’re not losing our culture — so, you know, pretty much the opposite of the position you attribute to me.
Sure not seeing a lot of tolerance here, fist fights in the nave?
Vincent, hang in there, you are a dying breed, the ACoC and TEO are in serious decline. The bishop of Brandon lamented that if the church made it to 2060 it would be lucky.
The ACoC has attempted many paths to attract new members and sadly is has generally been a failure. The message Rome and evangelical churches have is reaching ears. Vindictive ACoC bishops who deny the efforts of their predecessor and try to re-write history and others who leave churches to fall into disrepair only because they are stubborn and cannot accept they have failed.
Each Sunday you will see fewer faces as death captures the stalwarts and empty teachings set others adrift.
The ACoC is like the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, alive and dead. But eventually the cat will die, naturally or poisoned by its own devices.
All churches are more or less in the same boat. In 1999, Archbishop George Carey said: “The church is one generation away from extinction”.
Some are not nearly as close to extinction as others, Michael.
Well said, Steve.
Good day Steve:
The psychology of intolerant and bigoted individuals is not totally understood; however, certain norms can be established and are very clearly displayed on this thread. For example, bigots get angry and defensive and then overuse projection: it is always the other person at fault. Bigots cling together in a group and exclude outsiders; if there is no support from ‘their group’ then they will quickly invent one. Bigots tend to be better than everyone else and are always right, misunderstood and unappreciated [the Hitler complex] even at the bitter end when all is lost. And even then they want the last word!
Jesus understood our human weaknesses and charged us to help one another, but the bigot is near impossible to help.
I agree with you on the subject of the ACoC and have written much on that subject; the RCC has different problems but is basically in the same boat in the first world at least.
Schrödinger’s cat might work for Anglicanism as a whole: when we look into the box we see the Anglican cat as either dead or alive but we are influenced by our affiliation [ACoC; ANiC; Evangelical; CofE etcetera]. I happen to believe that Anglicanism will end and its reality will collapse into a ‘new’ Christianity based upon Jesus’ program.
I realise that Anglicanism is on the wane. So be it. I’d rather go down on a ship I respect and admire than sail on on one I feel does not follow the Gospel.
In the meantime, I do my best to slow the decline of my church. Who knows–God willing, things may look up at some point.
Just what are you doing to slow the decline, never mind stop it?
I take part in parish life, I bring my children up in the light of the Gospel (as much as I can without smothering them), I talk up the Church around me, I pray.
Many years ago Dr. Alister McGrath wrote: “When the dust of postmodernism settles, four institutional forms of Christianity will have survived: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism”. It is very interesting that Dr. McGrath, a former Anglican theological college principal, did not mention Anglicanism. Perhaps there will be no future for the Anglican Communion in the 22nd century.
Well, Malachy, all we can say is, you yourself seem to have what you refer to as the Hitler Complex. You’re darn ticked off that I have trumped you in some of my comments, and you need to throw the insults around again. I keep scratching my head….this person considers himself a Christian Minister? But then, I suppose David has provided us with many other such examples of unclergy-like clergy on this site.
Odd that you are so involved in pushing tolerance, when the moment someone disagrees with you, tolerance is what you DO NOT show. You seem to hate men who have pink in their closets, or women who wear tweed, or the British, or anyone who disagrees with you. It appears there is only a small select group you tolerate, for all your blustering about loving mankind.
You certainly are not showing any tolerance for my views, Malachy. You seem to think you have the truth in your corner….ideas that are but a decade or two old. I have to giggle.
I always find it funny that “tolerance” is defined by left-wing ideology and those who follow it as tolerance to their prescribed groups or ideas, ONLY. They seem to have left out tolerance to the rest of the human race.
Things is, your views are about actively preventing people from living their life in peace, A. No gay person is lobbying to make your marriage null and void, for example. Tolerance demands some large measure of live and let live. If you get in people’s face and, unbidden, tell them that they can’t be who they are, when who they are does not harm you, it’s ever so slightly perverse to call them intolerant if they react a little sharply to your original intervention.
Whoa, Vincent. You are assuming that whatever anyone wishes to do is right, and that no one else has a voice in stopping it. We have something that keeps us from going out and assaulting our neighbours if we feel like it, for instance. You have this ego-centric notion that all we have to do is choose something in life, and it is our right to do it, however that choice may affect others. Unfortunately that idea is what left Canada with no abortion law. We need to curb such a notion.
The Golden Mean, Vincent. Look to the middle.
Oh, I can hear it coming. “Well, A., how does a union outside of traditional marriage hurt others?” I can tell you would need to do a great deal of in-depth reading to understand that, Vincent, though it is already obvious to many of us. Somehow, I don’t think you would invest in such reading, so I won’t bother.
Live and let live does not work in every sense; we would have anarchy and chaos. You need to read your Western History. It has all been tried before, Vincent. Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities” might also enlighten you. Certain types of human beings tend to get their way over others. Left to their own choices, a lot of people would not do very nice things. Many of this type are banged up in prison right now.
So, the Catholic Priests and Anglican Priests who sexually assaulted children over these past generations — you think that was their choice, and no one can get in their face about what they chose to do? So are you intolerant of them, Vincent?
Perverse? That is exactly what they are. If I don’t agree with certain trendy views because I do believe in the 2000 year old Christian message, I am intolerant? I reacted a little sharply to the original intentions of posters such as Malachy, and intolerance is what I got. Funny, I thought that Malachy was more than a little sharp with his “pink in your closet?” comments. You chose to overlook that though, right?
You just cannot admit, Vincent, that intolerance is a two-way street. The left claimed it as their buzzword and their virtue/vice — the new religion — and so no one else can say, “Hey, wait a minute….it works both ways.”
I do not recall “tolerance” or “diversity” being mentioned on the tablets that were handed to Moses. New contrived virtues of the new contrived ideology. I don’t lay awake at night worrying about either.
Amongst your sort, If we show that we actually have diverse views, we are branded either a racist or a bigot. That’s the nutty Left for you. Saint Malachy is very predictable. Such name-calling as his is used to keep people quiet. The Soviets perfected the method, and people like you use it on the rest of us, so you will have your way.
There is a good reason the ACofC won’t be around much longer, Vincent. You are on a sinking ship that is sinking because it deserves to. They lost track of the Gospel a long time ago. I am surprised they even mention it anymore.
Okay.
Vincent, Please re read my comments on the psychology of the bigot with reference to the two posts above yours…
Hitler complex: “it’s not me, it’s you!”
Trumped comments: “I am right; you are wrong”
David: “my group leader”
2nd paragraph, 1st response: projection
3rd and 4th paragraphs, more: “it’s not me, it’s you!”
Whoa, Vincent: “it’s my way or the highway…”
Laws: “I am law abiding, you are not” [As long as they are my laws]
Union outside marriage: “stupid Vincent, the group and I have already decided that…” & ”I do not know how to explain myself so I will project my ignorance on to you”
Certain types of human beings: “Oops, this is me, better project it onto Vincent…”
Catholic priests: “here, I prove how pathetic bigots are by quoting off subject”
“Perverse?”: “I mean perverted, pity, could have got that one right…”
Trendy views: “poor me, nasty Malachy, and by extension nasty Vincent”
You just cannot admit: more projection.
Moses: “[and Leviticus], if it’s not there it’s not biblical. Forget what Jesus said about loving my neighbour; He was just a left-wing ideologue.”
Amongst your sort: “If We [Royal ‘we’ =The Group]” pure projection; straight from the Goebbels’ propaganda school of thought.
Soviets: “Oops better call in the NKVD and the KGB” Even more projection.
And finally, the sinking of the Anglianic: “Sorry, I am a bigot and I do not know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant; the Gospel and the Bible. I just listen to the group and collect homophobic garbage cafeteria style.”
My guess is that very soon there will be an appeal to the leader to punish all dissidents, so watch out for stormtroopers carrying piano wire.
WWJD?
I just answered that question on the Gospel thread.
Problem with your statement Vincent, is that what other people do does affect others. The idea of “no man is an island” is quite real in this world. I remember back in the 70’s PM Trudeau said that the government had no place in the bedrooms of the nation, and thus the door to sexually perverse behaviours was opened. We were assured that we would not be subjected / exposed to it, but now we have pride day parades, complete with public nudity and very public displays of perverted sexual behaviours.
The other idea that if it does not affect me than it is none of my business is also wrong. Jesus charges us with a responsibility to care for each other. We are to be our brother’s keeper. So if we see someone doing something that is harmful to themselves, be it their body or their soul, than we have a God-given responsibility to say something. It is comparable to witnessing a loved one suffer from alcoholism. If you care you intervene, not for your own benefit, but for the health and well-being of the afflicted.
Admittedly, we have done a very poor job of communicating the severe spiritual harm that is inflicted upon a person who engages in homosexual activities. May God help us to do a better job of helping each other.
If by “very public displays of perverted sexual behaviour” you mean anything illegal, then the fault lies with the police for not arresting the culprits. I’m pretty sure you’re not talking about public displays of anal sex.
If you mean anything that, happening in public between a man and a woman, wouldn’t raise an eyebrow — a couple kissing, for example — then I’m afraid I can’t get upset. And anything that homosexuals get up to in private, straight couples do as well — anal sex is not restricted to gay couples.
Homosexuality is not a crime. Same-sex marriage is legal. Homosexuals, in the eyes of the law, are doing nothing wrong and have every right to be happy in public. This is a battle that you have flat out lost.
Your comparison with alcoholism is interesting. Do you actually spend time on the internet condemning alcoholics? Do you go on blogs and decry the alcoholic agenda? Lord knows alcoholism kills a lot more people than homosexuality, you might be doing a bit of good there.
Of all the problems in the world, homosexuality (which I don’t personally see as a problem at all, but I know some do) is not exactly pressing. There are thousands of people being tortured by their governments right now, dying in jails, in refugeee camps, women raped all over warzones. Their plight has nothing to do with homosexuality.
The gays are nowhere near the top of the list of calamities. For heaven’s sake, there _were_ two World Wars.
Dear Vincent,
Perhaps a little less of a combative tone would serve you better. Frankly, you come across as someone looking for a fight. I hope that on this perception I am wrong.
I know all too well the severity of alcoholism, having lost a very dear friend who suffered from that addiction. And I am ashamed to say that I feel that I failed him, for I knew that he was an alcoholic, and when he withdrew himself from my company I did not see the signs of him “falling off the wagon”. Now my friend is dead and there is nothing that I can do for him.
You are correct in pointing out that there are so many other ills in this world. The forces of evil have been so very hard at work. We now live in a world where the Christian group Crossroads Christian Communications was receiving government funding to help in the digging of wells in Nigeria, but had posted on its website the fact that it believes homosexual behavior to be sinful. This was reported in the news and the comments that were posted included demands that all government funds given to this group be returned to the government. And I do mean all, including funds from prior years. There was no concern for the people in Nigeria that would thus go without clean safe drinking water. The only thing that mattered was that this group of Christians were “homophobic” and thus had to be punished.
I for one shall continue in my own way to do as Jesus has taught me. For when we feed the hungry we help Him, when we house the homeless we help Him, and when we heal the sick we help Him. I shall continue to supply my local soup kitchen with food (including produce from my own garden), and to donate my no longer needed possession to the Re-Store as a way to support habitat for humanity (instead of having a garage sale and pocketing the money), and to give blood whenever there is a blood donor clinic in town. And I shall continue to accept that God has said “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”.
I’m puzzled by this constant repetition that I am impolite. aggressive, spoiling for a fight. If I debate I’m obviously going to state a position that will, in all likelihood, be different from that of most people on this blog, but I do try to do it in a respectful manner, and when I tweak I try to tweak “at large”, so to speak, and don’t make it personal. If merely holding a different position on a topic is seen as aggressive, we may in fact have a problem. 🙂
I’m sure you’re a lovely person in real life, AMP, and I’m glad you’re involved in helping out your community. I try to do so as well. Peace.
AMP, I believe that you need to check your facts.
Crossroads Christian Connection has not been involved in Nigeria as far as I can see; however in recent years they have claimed to be involved in agricultural programs at a low level [3%] of their activities.
They are a rabidly right wing [you might say anti-abomination] evangelical organization that describes homosexuality as a “perversion” and a “sin” and they have received funding from the Government of Canada for work in Uganda, where gays and lesbians face severe threats.
The federal government has denounced virulent homophobia in that East African country and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has condemned plans for an anti-gay bill that could potentially include the death penalty for homosexuals.
At a glance the activities of this so-called charity do not look very charitable: e.g., advancement of religion through: Production of Christian TV programs aired across Canada/USA on a daily/Weekly basis, Provision of a 24-hour national telephone prayer centre which presumably broadcast their homophobic agenda, dressed up with “Humanitarian aid worldwide primarily in the developing world, donations of funds to Canadian charities primarily for humanitarian aid in Canada and overseas”
In 2012, assets of $24 million plus revenue of $17.6 million and they spent a whopping $15.5 million on wages, purchased supplies and assets while at the same time spending only $1.6 million outside Canada, a large chunk of which is tax dollars obtained through CIDA.
Nigeria is missing nothing at all…
Hope this isn’t too combative for you, but if you want to be taken seriously do some research before you post.
That is Crossroads Christian Communications BTW before someone jumps on my typo…
Hello Malachy,
Ok. I will concede that some of what I said was not completely accurate. So the country was wrong. Still the sentiment is the same, and thus the point I was conveying is still, I feel, valid. That being that we now live in a society where if you are perceived as anti-gay than you are persecuted, and it simply does not matter what other “good work” you do.
Your comments (again I feel) serve to validate my point. You make quite a statement about the anti-gay nature of the CCC, and practically no mention of the humanitarian work that they do. Even if it is just a little, it is still more than nothing. And from my perspective I believe that the policies and laws of a foreign government that we do not agree with should not prevent us from helping people who are in real need. Especially if the government happens to be a dictatorship.
Peace.
AMP
I lived through some of the worst of Africa a few decades ago, and my most enduring memories are related to the charities and their activities in Nigeria, Zaire, Angola and Uganda. The white air-conditioned SUV’s dashing from meeting to meeting in the best hotels never saw a hard mile on a bush track and the effective level of aid and help was zero. A few show cased operations that provided the glossy pamphlets and advertising for fundraising purposes reminded me of the Nazi’s Theresienstadt which was so admired by the international Red Cross.
Canadian Christian Communications accounts suggests that the 3% of their activities which is relevant to Africa or the third world probably raises a disproportionate amount of revenue which is spent on other things. The expenditure in Africa is next to nothing.
Just like the megacharities I’d be surprised if by the time accrual of assets; administration, including payroll and general expenses; corruption and graft have taken their ‘bite’ anything more than a few cents reaches the impoverished people of Africa.
CCC is not being persecuted [even if it was it is there own fault for going public with such bigotry], CCC is actually getting rich through public donations and tax handouts!
Shalom!
I don’t think the point is about legality Vincent. It is about morals and ethics, Biblical or otherwise. What is illegal or legal at one point may be the opposite at some other time. Morals, ethics and legality are related in some contexts, but they can also be distinct, and in the opinion of many, often are. The influence of morals and ethics has certainly given rise to laws, but just because a government may deem some activity to be legal does not mean that it is moral or ethical.
That’s true, of course. But as there is more in the Bible about the way we should treat menstruating women than about the gays, as the Bible treats slavery as perfectly legitimate, as there are any number of things in the Bible that we still puzzle over or that we plain don’t follow anymore, I’ll choose to look at homosexuality as very much not a problem. You’re absolutely free to look at it differently. But, moral or otherwise (I say moral, you say otherwise), it’s still legal, and socially legitimate. Homosexuality is the major moral question of the age, and it seems clear which way the West has chosen to answer it. Praise be to God.
I don’t think the bible treats slavery as legitimate, it was just the way things were. It is not praised, and slaves are encouraged to get their freedom if they can, so freedom is seen as better.. It was a very different institution from the slavery of the American blacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
Haven’t read your link, but Wasn’t there also something in the OT about the freeing of slaves in the year of Jubillee?
And the age of an idea is no guarantee of its value. Slavery was around for millenia.
So has Christianity.
Ideas such as the left-wing are advancing need some time-testing, Vincent, before the down-side is apparent to more than just a few.
Maybe Mike Ingham can write a book about it now he has time away from lawsuits and heresy.
I live in what can be referred to as Canada’s Bible Belt. We have Canada’s largest Christian book store. Parables, always busy when places like Brandon, have lost theirs, this one bustles.
Churches are starting up in old commercial space and it is not hard to find old churches closed only because they had to move into bigger space. We have at least three mega-churches (not that I agree with the concept) that draw hungry ears for a message of the Gospel. Rome is well represented and has English and foreign language services to accommodate
The two ACoC churches are surviving but that is about it. I would make an uneducated guestimate that the total Red Deer ASA on any given Sunday probably equals or exceeds the ACoC’s country wide attendance.