Presbyterian court reaffirms minister violated policy by marrying gay couples

[Dan82]

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/03/29/1...-minister.html

A Presbyterian Church appeals court has affirmed an earlier ruling that the Rev. Dr. Jane Adams Spahr violated the Presbyterian constitution and her ordination vows for marrying more than a dozen same-sex couples during the brief window when it was legal to do so in California.

Spahr, 68, was found guilty in August after a four-day ecclesiastical trial in Napa, Calif. She appealed that verdict to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific, which ruled that she violated church policy, which does not allow clergy to "state, imply or represent" that same-sex wedding ceremonies are church marriages...

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/03/29/1...#ixzz1IDAWSWpR

[Beachboi92]

its good to see they value religious freedom so highly c_c

stupid, stupid, stupid.

head, meet brick wall.

[Jay]

I hope you guys read the whole thing before you make any comment:

"And it recommended that the church clarify its policy on gay marriage. ... To date, the church has not formulated a clear and understandable policy."

If that Church haven't had a formal announcement or redacted official polices on their stance with their own ministers and gay marriage, then the minister was doing nothing wrong.

Yes, the decision is poor and it's rather disappointing, but I don't see the connection between this incident and religious freedom. You can freely choose what religion you're a part of (or not a part of!), but within each and every religion, there ought to be "rules". The Bible, for example, or the Quran, or the Catechism. This Church obviously is lacking some important pieces to it's foundation, if what the minister's attorney says is true.

[Beachboi92]

1) I'm the only one that posted about religious freedom, quote me and direct you comment at me, trying to act like your comment is directed at some general group is pointless

2) Its the irony of it all
certain religious groups argue that same sex marriages should not be permitted because they somehow "violate religious freedom" yet when someone attempts to execute their religious freedom by marrying a gay couple because they feel it is acceptable the church they are apart of will turn around and do something like this. They are not aloud to practice their religion in the manner they want- it is violating religious freedoms within the institution itself on an issue that is usually argued against on the basis of violating religious freedom. Talking about how they don't want the government forcing them to marry gays because making someone do something like that would violate that right, yet forcing clergy to not be able to marry gay people even if it is against their beliefs to deny that to same sex couples is considered acceptable practice. The rules are contradictory to their own beliefs on religious freedom.

Take some time to understand an argument before attempting to invalidate it. I'm not attacking all religions i'm pointing out the hypocrisy in churches like this no need to be defensive about it.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Beachboi92

1) I'm the only one that posted about religious freedom, quote me and direct you comment at me, trying to act like your comment is directed at some general group is pointless

2) Its the irony of it all
certain religious groups argue that same sex marriages should not be permitted because they somehow "violate religious freedom" yet when someone attempts to execute their religious freedom by marrying a gay couple because they feel it is acceptable the church they are apart of will turn around and do something like this. They are not aloud to practice their religion in the manner they want- it is violating religious freedoms within the institution itself on an issue that is usually argued against on the basis of violating religious freedom. Talking about how they don't want the government forcing them to marry gays because making someone do something like that would violate that right, yet forcing clergy to not be able to marry gay people even if it is against their beliefs to deny that to same sex couples is considered acceptable practice. The rules are contradictory to their own beliefs on religious freedom.

Take some time to understand an argument before attempting to invalidate it. I'm not attacking all religions i'm pointing out the hypocrisy in churches like this no need to be defensive about it.

1. Being only two replies, I felt it wasn't really needed to quote, but will do every time to avoid this type of misunderstandings.

2. If you're part of a Church or a Religion, you should abide to their rules and their standards. If you don't then you'll be punished. Religious Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want within a church, it means you can freely choose what religion you're a part of.

For example, in the Catholic Church, it's clear that a marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore no Catholic priest will be celebrating a same-sex marriage. Same goes, for example, with the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Jewish community, and the Islamic beliefs.

To set a different example: Let's say you're a member in a book club. There are rules within that book club that you should follow. If the book club rules state you cannot bring anyone new without previous authorization of the president of the club and you bring one without him knowing, then you're breaking a rule. You can't say "I am free to do this" because there are guidelines that limit your actions within that organization.

This Presbyterian Church made a mistake in not clarifying it's stance on Gay marriage. It is NOT the minister's fault, it is the Churches' fault. The minister was acting in what she assumed to be a correct thing to do, and how my boss says: "assumption is the mom of all motherfuckers". She made a mistake in assuming her actions were right, but the Church is the one responsible for not being clear about their stance.

[Revan]

They can go f**k themselves

[Beachboi92]

Originally Posted by Jay

1. Being only two replies, I felt it wasn't really needed to quote, but will do every time to avoid this type of misunderstandings.

2. If you're part of a Church or a Religion, you should abide to their rules and their standards. If you don't then you'll be punished. Religious Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want within a church, it means you can freely choose what religion you're a part of.

For example, in the Catholic Church, it's clear that a marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore no Catholic priest will be celebrating a same-sex marriage. Same goes, for example, with the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Jewish community, and the Islamic beliefs.

To set a different example: Let's say you're a member in a book club. There are rules within that book club that you should follow. If the book club rules state you cannot bring anyone new without previous authorization of the president of the club and you bring one without him knowing, then you're breaking a rule. You can't say "I am free to do this" because there are guidelines that limit your actions within that organization.

This Presbyterian Church made a mistake in not clarifying it's stance on Gay marriage. It is NOT the minister's fault, it is the Churches' fault. The minister was acting in what she assumed to be a correct thing to do, and how my boss says: "assumption is the mom of all motherfuckers". She made a mistake in assuming her actions were right, but the Church is the one responsible for not being clear about their stance.

1) You can direct it at me i believe is what i said, doesn't mean you need to quote, but trying to direct it at general people appears passive aggressive in nature
2) I never said the clergyman did anything wrong
3) You did a false analogy comparing book clubs and churches as book clubs don't have anything to be compared to the churches stance on freedom of religious practice
4) The hypocrisy is in churches in general and in the rules they establish in regards to the topic of gay marriage (which i mentioned already but you apparently didn't read closely)

They argue that

- Same sex marriage should not be a law because forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs and marry same sex couples is wrong. The key here is the idea that forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs is wrong in the eyes of the church.
- Then they force members of their church to act against their beliefs by saying that even if they believe same sex couples are deserving of that right they can't grant it to them.

In that way the church doesn't act in the interest of personal religious freedom, they act in the interest of institutionalized religious rule (i would call it oppression but we will say rule). Restriction of personal religious freedom within a religious institution (as a result of the church in question) is equivalent to the restriction of an institutions religious freedom within our society (as a result of the government). In essence organized religion and the rules that are created within it are hypocritical at the core of their existence and show an overwhelming lack of acceptance of personal religious freedom. Personal and institutionalized religious freedom is equivalent in that the subject of both are considered entities.

[Jay]

So, I understand all of that, and I conclude that you want to marry within a church then. Right?

I was not inferring that book clubs are the same as Churches, I was stating that both of them have their own laws. Are you part of a Church or have you been active within a religious movement? You'll know that every single one have their own rules and precepts.

Also, what do you understand for "religious freedom"? You're free to whatever you want to do within a religion, but all of your acts will have consequences. What I understand by religious freedom is that you're able to choose what religion you're associating yourself with.

Why do you say that "organized religion and the rules that are created within it are hypocritical at the core of their existence and show an overwhelming lack of acceptance of personal religious freedom"? A religion isn't supposed to tell you that everything you do is right. A religion is supposed to limit your acts so they will all be within what it considers to be good. If you're part of said religion, you're subject to those limits. If you don't want to be subject to any limitations, then you are better off somewhere else, or being spiritual but not religious (as many people are).

Have I missed the point so far?

[Beachboi92]

I'm just going to say re-read what i wrote until you actually get it and stop having a thick skull....
- i understand churches have rules, i'm arguing that those rules of in essence a violation of religious freedom.
- religious freedom is at it's core a personal thing, institutions formed as a result of shared personal beliefs. They then used their power to restrict those beliefs and freedoms and have power over large groups of people, some using it in more positive ways than others.
- Religion in itself is a personal thing, and about a personal relationship with god

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the church acting as if religious freedom is important when in practice they only believe it is important if your "freedom" is doing what they want you to do aka not freedom at all.

i showed the logical steps to my conclusion on all of this along with a nifty little analogy which i also showed to be properly fitting as an analogy in the philosophical sense, if you don't understand still you can go on being hard headed as long as you want doesn't bother me.

You have repeated the same question and somehow managed to miss my answer with every post, i suggest re-reading and maybe logic will suddenly click with you. If you want to continue this argument it you will be with yourself because no one as hard headed as you, and so blindly argumentative is worth me staying up any longer. Your argument is a lost cause, with no real support, and the substance of your argument is equivalent to you zealously running your head into a wall.

Your posts in threads will not be missed once the block button has been engaged. And let me assure you it has nothing to do with the fact that this is a religious issue. More that i prefer to debate people who actually know how to provide proper support for their argument, and know how to properly rebut opposing view points. Especially considering you make it a habit of picking people to argue with that you will never convince otherwise and then when you are out-debated you sit like a pre-schooler with your arms crossed denying your wrong to the death, reminds me of my little brother (we don't get along either).

[Jay]

Real quick because I gotta go to work:
WHAT? I am sorry if I missed your point and believe me, I've tried not to, and I feel you have missed MY point as well. But that is now besides the point.

Your posts in threads will not be missed once the block button has been engaged.

While I feel I have done nothing wrong in voice my opinion in what I feel was a respectful way, I don't see how my posts are block-worthy. Let me tell you what posts are block-worhty:

They can go f**k themselves

And similar "hate" posts towards Christianity and any type or form of Religion.

You guys seem to preach the "No hate" gospel and "It's unfair people call us fags and discriminate against me because I am gay", well I feel offended when you talk about any religion and it's members in a hateful way.

Even if you like it or not, I will do a former reply to your post. Have patience with me, I am not a native English speaker so I have to go slow on most things and maybe that's why you've had a hard time understanding what I say and vice verse. But I will post.

PEACE!