Whose isn't?
But I did preface by noting a differing perspective.
Kentucky Pastor Barred From Ministering Over Biblical View on Homosexuality..
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
But I did preface by noting a differing perspective.
Jose Fly
New member
IOW, "If you're a Christian, your bias will be with the pastor".
From a different one it's more like a fellow being told that new regulations won't allow him to continue handing out life jackets to people he sees floundering in rough seas, but he's more than welcome to counsel them on the general properties of water.
Inapt analogy between demonstrable, tangible human safety procedures and a set of religious beliefs.
Whose isn't?
Fair enough...just checking.
TH is in attendance. CleverDan
PureX
Well-known member
True. However, to those who confuse faith with pretense (as many Christians do), both conditions are equally "real".
Jose Fly
New member
Maybe so, but the government is under no obligation to buy into it.
I believe with all my heart and being that Jesus is God.
But I don't think this pastor has the right to demand that the state provide him with the means to indoctrinate prisoners, even if he was preaching Christian doctrine.
In other words, there's no neutral ground here. Everyone has a bias.
A peculiar criticism given you compared it to someone refusing physical protective gear.
lain:The parallel is used to demonstrate how the second party approaches and views the prohibition, not whether you agree on his approach.
So to this minister he is being forbidden from doing what he deems necessary to protect the safety of the person he views as being imperiled. Like it/don't like it, agree or disagree it's as valid as any relativistic valuation and an imperative to the fellow in question.
PureX
Well-known member
It's not a question of "validity", or personal imperatives. It's a question of civic rights and responsibilities. The minister's personal imperatives are not the Juvenile Detention Center's concern, nor their responsibility.
Jose Fly
New member
Which is why we have a court system.
Except that analogy was about the general concept of volunteers refusing to follow an agency's policies.
Oh, I'm sure the pastor and his supporters view this as some sort of persecution of Christians. But that only matters to them.
No he's not. He can still do that all he wants. He just can't do it as a volunteer for the government.
That's why we have courts.
zoo22
Well-known member
What about his freedom not to wear a hardhat!? ... Someone call the militia!*
If you're talking about the military... It's really more like a military chaplain not being allowed to preach to the troops that homosexuals should be put to death or that women shouldn't have authority over men or whatever.
They're perfectly free to put on their sandwich board sign and hit the streets on their own time singing fluffy songs about executing homosexuals, but they can't do it to the troops or as a military representative.
* 1-900 WE R NUTS
shagster01
New member
The article wasn't clear on where his pay is coming from. If it's from the state then I see no problem making him follow state rules.
Of course...though some biases being more accepting, compassionate and inclusive than others.... (QED)
Unless of course one's fully committed to the logically stilted "intolerant of intolerance" hypocrisy rhetoric.
Says every guy who has one to the other guy.
Other guy bastards. :mmph:
Not in a month with an "r" in it. Because those are racy enough already.
Or laws that let us be nuts in our own special way.
And mine was about how someone might see the change in policy as something emperaling. So there we go.
Or maybe he simply views it as an unconstitutional interference.
I suppose we should just ask him.
Whoever they are.
Not from your perspective. But you do realize it's not the only one in play.
Was he volunteering to be a government agent or just volunteering to help those incarcerated by a government agency?
No, we have courts to determine the legality of a prohibition or a right, etc. They don't determine the superior subjective valuation, only how any belief is protected or can be applied. This could be an interesting case if it's heard up the line.
Mob rule? Truth by fiat and a show of clenched hands? Not for the most part, thank God.
That's the spirit! :thumb:
Mob rule....melting pot. :idunno:
Guess we gotta watch what we democratically put in there huh?
:third:
I prefer a Republic. Makes it harder for the pitchfork crowd to tilt the table when it's run right.
Like doves with hawk eyes. :noid:
That's well and good, but this isn't really about the general scenario of a minister being given a forum by the state. It's about a particular perspective. What should happen to a minister who tells a gay kid that God loves him as he is and that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? The State ends up being the advocate for a specific religious viewpoint.
Was that "correct" or "political leaning"....or in the latter's case-- both?
That makes for odd nestfellows!