This whole country is becoming a disappointment. Siamesse.cities and I are of a good mind. This country is full of good people can we not accept them for what they are. My heart cries for the small mind of the people in our nation.

Technically speaking "queer" can mean weird or strange OR it can be a general term to refer to more than one type of person outside of whatever is considered normal. So for instance a transgendered heterosexual could be classified as queer or a bisexual could be classified as queer and that term would refer to both of them in a generic sense. Queer can also refer to gays who are more militant in their desire for equal rights. By militant here I don't mean violent, I mean more outspoken. People who are activists and more in-your-face about it (as if there could be such a thing, but I digress).

In his mind homosexuals are choosing their "lifestyle" (because, ya know, being gay is like going to the gym or being a vegetarian) and therefore because it's a choice it's OK to hate them. Remember it's the neo-calvinism aspect. He believes that because he is saved he now has became the moral arbiter of the universe. So he is the person whom god yields judgement through therefore everything he says is godly. Or, another way to put it, he simply believes he is god. And because of that he can hate whomever he wants and spew whatever vile nonsense he wants w/o fear of retribution or his own lack of moral character or hypocrisy or stupidity. Because, ya know, when god does it it's therefore OK.

He would also probably use the same argument fundamentalist Christians use against atheists (as an atheist I hear this one a lot). Which is that gay people are gay simply because they want to sin. They are openly rejecting god and the morality of America purely for the purpose of creating chaos.

Difference: Queers have a very pronounced bend in their . . . oh, never mind.

I should have also added, and apologies for it escaping my mind at the time of my post, that I realize you were making fun of him @siamese. That was not lost on me. I just wanted to clarify the queer versus homosexual thing since sometimes you'll hear gay people or transgendered people or bisexual people or so on refer to themselves as "queer" and I didn't want there to be confusion. I wasn't trying to ruin your sarcasm ;-). The odds are Worley doesn't realize there's a difference between homosexual and queer and he was more than likely saying queer so that he could give emphasis. Somehow homosexual isn't scary enough of a word so if I had to guess he was trying to find a scarier one. And for whatever reason queer is scarier in his mind. That or he perceives queer to be an insult and so he was trying to work in an insult towards gays (so terrible that you can't say "you're gay" to a gay person and have that mean something bad). Or it's also possible he was just so riled up giving his sermon that he was throwing out every gay related term he could think of.

GOSH DARN THOSE QUEER HOMOSEXUAL LESBIAN GAYS!!!! ;-)

Can't speak for all 1st world countries but Britain has nowhere near the level of lunacy about 'teh gay' that America seems to.

The overriding attitude to gay people here seems to be a resounding "oh, okay then. Fancy some tea?" The only objection you get is some Daily Mail readers and the racist morons who vote for the BNP and frankly nobody takes either of those groups seriously. The Conservative government announced full marriage equality by the next election and what was the reaction? Protests in the streets? People marching on Parliament with "protect marriage" signs?

Nope, there were some people moaning about it on the comment sections of the Daily Mail article that covered it, and that's about it.

Hell we have a Pride parade in our capital city every year and nobody seems to care. If they like it, they show up. If they don't, they avoid it. They don't counter-protest like morons (at least not that I've ever heard of).

Britain is flawed in a lot of ways, but at least we're subdued and quiet about most things. We don't take to the streets with stupid things hanging from our hats waving flags and calling political opponents Bolshevik Zulus out to destroy Magna Carta.

It's pretty much that way in Canada too. Back in the 90s when the Canadian government ordered the military to allow homosexuals to serve openly, they basically did just that: "military, homosexuals are now allowed to serve openly" and the military said: "Yes, sir". Done. Overnight.

Maybe it's related to our British heritage or something but we aren't a fiery people. If it doesn't affect us in a personal way (and our "belief" system doesn't count generally) we don't make a fuss about it.

This is the most horrible thing I have heard in a long time,especially coming from a so called "Man of God" People need to wake up,this is serious and vicious hate and violence talk and should not be tolerated. Rachael I hope you really feature this on your show. What about the families of the gay people or friends,should they be put in camps too? If some one dont like you they say you are gay and get rid of you for ever? Witch Hunts in Salem,Concentration Camps in Germany,how is this different. Those also started with talk and hate,hope you inform the people of this again Rachael,this kind of talk is unamerican and dangerous.

Mouzer, Very nice in depth analysis of Pastor Worley, but after viewing his latest rant on gays, I'd just rather keep it basic. He's an a$$hole.

LOL @M. Fehrman

touché my friend, touché ;-)

Good News Flash : Radical, Right-Wing, Republicans and Draconian Tea Party Wing Nuts are a dying breed !!

As they are heading ' right ' over the cliff they created for themselves, and as they fade out of the gene pool forever, they will take with them homophobia, racism, misogyny, cruelty, hatred, war mongering, billionaire white collar crime, environmental crime, tax fraud, etc. etc. etc.

RIP you useless, spineless, haters.

Well, of course 'queer' can mean anyone not heteronormal, but I have to wonder what Worley himself makes of the word since he's so horrifically misinformed. Maybe Mickey's right and he just threw the word in for effect. Or maybe he had some specific meaning in mind just as crazy as the rest of his ideas.

Of course, queers of all kinds can and frequently do reproduce, including homosexuals. It's just that a little extra effort and motivation is sometimes needed. It's not impossible. All the bits still work according to spec. The funny thing is this guy seems to be subconsciously aware of that since he proposes two concentration camps segregated by biological gender. Even though teh gay just happens, and his whole scheme couldn't possibly work, he is still proposing what amounts to genocide.

So how are American right-wingers different from Nazis? Only that (so far) the American right are only talking about mass slaughter. But that difference will quickly disappear if they ever gain the incontestable political power they are after and the impunity of action that goes along with it.

Remember Mordrid (sp?) from King Arthur's round table who just sat around creating conflict between members to get them to turn on each other?...This is the entire GOP and the religious right. What a horrible country this would be if they were given free reign. The anger and hatred that motivates them demonstrates their complete hypocrisy.

Tolerance is one of the founding principles of our democracy. It goes hand in hand with understanding. Yet here is one who demands citizens be forced to follow his belief based agenda...his non sensical will which is as far removed from any God as one could get. I realize we are not to compare this idealism with that of the Nazis but in this case the boot fits perfectly. This 'type' of intolerant Christianity is killing America. Insane idiots with guns and microphones huh.

In the mind of this type of homophobe Homosexual can only be thought of in terms of "sex"...not relationships or love...just kinky sex. That is how they see it...as a sexual perversion...certainly not as a way of life or a natural product of nature as in the animal kingdom...just sex which is always a choice to them. You can have sex with your opposite but anything else is sex perversion...period. They can only see the sexual side.

The above Worley case is an example of what I have been trying to get people to see for decades.

What I call the tolerance vs intolerance dilemma.

When has someone stepped over the line when preaching or calling for intolerance while demanding that his/her speech is protected by our tolerance of most all speech? Why should group B be expected to tolerate it when group A starts making intolerant speeches about them?

There used to be a concept in law regarding speech in bars called "fighting words". When someone said those words to you then it was not against the law to get into a fight with them. No jury would convict you.

I do not know the answer. In this case he is calling for government action, or worse, mob action-- to round up a group of people who have committed no crime, put them in Concentration Camps, and wait (just a "few" years) until they all die. Then he will be rid of them for all time. He said he would air drop them food, but would it be enough? History shows us that he is right-- in a few years they would all be dead. Not from natural causes though, from neglect.

There can be NO doubt that this is un-American. However, let me give him some benefit of some doubt. Suppose he gets a law passed to make something that only gays and lesbians do a crime. Now is what he is calling for OK? No it is not! Why?

Recently, a righty here asked why is robbery OK to be a crime, but sodomy is not OK? They are both denounced in the Bible as immoral, so what is the difference? My answer is-- two fold-- 1st in the case of robbery someone is "hurt" and 2nd there is pretty much 100% agreement that robbery should be against the law.

Again let me improve that person's argument for them and see if that helps clarify the issue. Suppose we use the examples of prostitution and sodomy. Both are thought to be immoral in the Bible and still now many think that both are immoral. Neither has anyone hurt, at least none of the actual participants. (Here I am assuming that the woman is not a slave to some pimp and really likes her vocation.) So why is it OK for the law to prohibit prostitution but not sodomy? My answer is that in a secular state if the vast majority agrees with a law that prohibits "immoral" behavior, then even though there is no one hurt the law can prohibit it. But, it must be the "vast majority".

The current actions of the Repubs we have seen recently violate this requirement. Stealth candidates won elections by never talking about these things and now want to impose their morality on all the rest of us. This is wrong and, of course, will not stand against the will of the majority for very long.

Still, getting back to where we started-- how can this country keep such hateful speech to a minimum? Why does the law have to keep hands off? It seems to me that advocating intolerance (while demanding it for yourself) is a special case. There ought to be some way to separate this case from all the others and outlaw such speech.

Like others have said here today. The only way we all can have our American freedoms is to-- live and let live. Believe and let believe.

I would only say this: The only way to have freedom is to live and let live, believe and let believe. The "American" qualification is needless, all peoples see freedom this way.

Also, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, free speech is protected right up to the point that it becomes, as defined by law, hate speech (which this pastor's rant would be defined by our law, of that I'm confident).

I should hope it would also be hate speech in the US. Advocating genocide, even if his plan wouldn't actually have the intended result, should be the poster child of hate speech. But it's a tricky word, should, and this is a screwy country.

I'm encouraged by the Baptist State Convention's disavowal. Are you?

No, Fran, I'm not. It's all about image. The NC Baptists are distancing themselves because of his over-the-top rhetoric, not because they have a fundamentally different view. They want the same thing. They're just more subtle about how they express it.

I don't care what they want. I'm encouraged by the fact that they feel pressured to distance themselves, and pressured to be "subtle".

I am only slightly encouraged by the disavowal, because some would still say if you stay in the closet or stay on the fringes, we will then accept you. Jesus told people to love even your enemies. It isn't very loving or hospitable to tell your guests to alter themselves first, then come on in and eat.

Because you do not imprison someone, does not mean you treat them hospitably.

I know someone yelled out the window at my friend holding a [no H8] sign "It's not hate, stupid". The fact of dropping food into a pen with electrified fence does not count for being compassionate or treating your neighbor as you'd be treated.

Love the Lord your God and Love one another as yourself is the stated top 2 commandments upon which all Law and Prophets are based.

I'm not the least bit encouraged by the Baptist Convention's disavowal. I'm tired of their socially acceptable, politically correct bigotry. I want all bigots out in the open, loud and proud; so we can point and laugh at all of them.

The Emperor is butt-naked.

I don't want to laugh at them. Hate only breeds more hate. The only thing that changes bigotry is real love - the kind of courageous love that can "turn the other cheek"... and then keep telling the truth that got you slapped in the first place.

I would like to think I am the kind of person who would be able to visit my pastor and let him know that his remarks were painfully counter to Jesus' teachings. It's easy to say "sure, I'd do that," but much harder to do it.

How DOES one address Pastor Morley?

Evangelical Christians, like myself, don't care for Pastor Morley's rhetoric and wishes he would simply keep quiet....but, thankfully, we DO live in a free country with the precious freedom of speech that we all cherish - and that goes for anything Pastor Morley may say from the pulpit, including those things with which we may disagree. It's true most evangelical Christians view homosexual behavior as sinful (if not simply gross) - but I've yet to meet a human being who desires to quarantine homosexuals within an electric fence. All of us have acquaintances who are homosexual - and we get along fine.

What does the left do with Pastor Morley?

Hopefully, they'll just ignore him. He's not a threat to anybody - and anybody who believes in his rhetoric is taking the man way, way too seriously. Since I've been on the planet, leftists have told us about the importance of 'free speech.' Whenever religious conservatives have wailed about the vulgarity of the age in all of its forms (pornography; racy music, movies and television), the left has always been quick to shout out 'freedom of speech' and the need for 'tolerance.'

OK, fine....

Well, here's an opportunity for the left to put 'tolerance' of 'freedom of speech' into action - by allowing Pastor Morley to say anything he wants to say from his pulpit.

Yet, in this post, supposedly 2000 people were supposed to show up and protest the good Reverend today?? What gives? Where's the 'tolerance?' Where's the protection of 'freedom of speech?'

Why do I always feel that the left only tolerates speech that IT doesn't find offensive????

There's a difference between freedom of speech and hateful verbal attacks from a public figure which are so vicious and outrageous they provoke protest and demand a response. No one stopped him from saying it but it will not go unchallenged or unrebuked and it repercussions should include removal from the public microphone his church has provided him. That would demonstrate how much the Baptist Churches really do disagree with his rhetoric.

Well, here's an opportunity for the left to put 'tolerance' of 'freedom of speech' into action - by allowing Pastor Morley to say anything he wants to say from his pulpit.

Yet, in this post, supposedly 2000 people were supposed to show up and protest the good Reverend today?? What gives? Where's the 'tolerance?' Where's the protection of 'freedom of speech?'

Why do I always feel that the left only tolerates speech that IT doesn't find offensive????

Told ya if I said his name he'd show up. Actually John the left isn't being intolerant. This is, as I've said so many times before to you, a situation in which you want Morley to be able to say whatever he wants to say, but then you don't want anyone else to have a say. See when you tolerate other people that means other people are allowed to voice their opinion on the subject you voice to the public. So Morley speaks about this in public and that means the public then is free to respond using their free speech. And that's why they are protesting. Morley gets to exercise his freedom by speaking at the pulpit. In case you didn't notice no liberal came into his church and silenced him. He is completely legally allowed to do that. But liberals are then allowed to comment on what he said. He doesn't get to espouse whatever he wants and then make everyone else nod in agreement. If he gets to speak then everyone else gets to speak. You are confusing tolerance w/ acceptance. The left doesn't have to accept what he says, they just have to tolerate it. Protesting what he says, speaking out against what he says, sharing differing opinions, giving criticism to what he says does NOT equal intolerance.

I would say the protest against Morley is somewhat encouraging. I thank those people protesting in NC for standing up to do as their faith would steer them. We need more of this and less bitter words that promote hate and disregard. People do not even understand how this activity encourages poor treatment of your neighbors. Some folks react physically and verbal taunts create self hatred to the point of death.

I would encourage more stories about the positive actions and words from faith communities. Showing love for people. Telling people from the pulpit that "they" deserve to be penned up and food dropped is not being Christian or American. Free speech is met with free speech.

The pastor was speaking against people to treat them as cattle as well as promoting (by his given place of authority). I would hope to hear more such protests from Christians with signs that really promote love for the LGBTQ community, tolerance is why I say somewhat encouraged.

I have to say that the resistance to equal treatment and hospitable treatment is unbelievable to try to promote discord and inequality.

I think some people have understood the meaning of what Jesus came to show us.

johnlorican seems to contradict himself. I'd say all the folks protesting would not characterize themselves as "the left".

I would also point out the "good" reverend is not being Christ like and you calling him good may be a mistake. He is a man. Jesus asked why call me good, there is none good but God.

Mouzer, I agreed with every single word you said.

Pastor Morley has the freedom to say what he said - and the protestors had the freedom to say what they said. No argument.

However, I've seen MSNBC interviews with leftists demanding that Morley be silenced due to his 'hate speech,' that the government step in remove the tax-exempt status of the church - and so on. Barry Lynn of 'Americans for the Separation of Church and State' said words to that effect.

This is wrong.

This is an attempt to silence free speech.

The protest today featured the Catawba Pride President Michael Mannarino who 'demanded an apology' and that Morley, 'never preach such hateful words from the pulpit again.'

Someone also set fire to the air-conditioning unit of the church on Saturday night.

I may disagree with your perspectives - but if I don't like what you say, I can demand that you 'never say that again' - and/or vandalize your building?

THAT'S the lack of REAL tolerance that I see from the left who are always preaching about the need for 'tolerance'....

However, I've seen MSNBC interviews with leftists demanding that Morley be silenced due to his 'hate speech,' that the government step in remove the tax-exempt status of the church - and so on. Barry Lynn of 'Americans for the Separation of Church and State' said words to that effect.

No. What you heard was your own right-wing interpretation of the argument. Misunderstanding the argument is your problem; this does not mean that the left is being hypocritical or trying to silence someone.

Churches are tax exempt only because they are supposed to be non-political as per the 501 category rules. By advocating for political policies churches are in direct violation of the rules every other non-profit must abide by. It has long been the argument that churches should lose their tax exempt status and should cease to be classified as a 501c3 and instead become a 501c6. They would still be a private organization and they would still get to advocate whatever they wanted. But because they were advocating policy decisions this would mean they'd have to pay the same taxes that Super PACs and other organizations have to pay. Asking that churches be held to the rules they agree to is NOT attempting to silence them. Changing the tax exempt status of a church would NOT cause that church to end, would NOT silence the preachers, and would NOT change the religious beliefs of that organization. It would simply make churches follow the law that they are already supposed to be following. The fact that we, as a nation, have allowed churches to remain tax exempt even while they fragrantly violate the law proves the opposite of the augment you are claiming. It proves, instead, that we as a society are willing to tolerate their fragrant disregard for ethics. Furthermore you are advocating for tax exempt status which was passed by a progressive politician and was a liberal argument. So you're saying that liberals are hypocritical....because they're maintaining the position they've always held? I don't think you thought this argument through.

As for asking that Morley be silenced- I sincerely doubt anyone on cable TV has said that, although perhaps some left wing luny has. But when you say "the left wing" you are not talking about some random commentator, but instead are talking about the entire movement. The left wing movement is not calling for this pastor to be silenced. Provide evidence otherwise if you are going to claim otherwise. The left wing MAY, however, be asking why this man hasn't been investigated for committing a hate crime or for inciting people to violence. Yet again these are laws already on the books that this man is fragrantly ignoring. The fact that he isn't being arrested even though he might very well be meeting the qualifications of arrest is, yet again, more evidence of tolerance.

The protest today featured the Catawba Pride President Michael Mannarino who 'demanded an apology' and that Morley, 'never preach such hateful words from the pulpit again.'

Yes. When you exercise your free speech you get to express your disgust w/ a person and you get to say that because of the violent nature of his wording that you believe he should never say such things again. Here's the deal: that demand is not coming by virtue of law. You are, yet again, confusing acceptance w/ tolerance here. The law is not being invoked. That is a personal request via the protest group to Worley himself. If he chooses to ignore the request then there will be consequences; if he chooses to accept the request then there will be consequences (hence why it's called cause and effect). If he says no he may very well have continued protests. If he says yes he may very well have continued protests. This is an unfortunate circumstance that this man created for himself by espousing his bigotry.

I may disagree with your perspectives - but if I don't like what you say, I can demand that you 'never say that again' - and/or vandalize your building?

Do you have any evidence that the vandalism was in retaliation to his speech or to these protestors? Or are you making the assumption that it is related simply because of the timing and are blaming a group w/o any evidence? Remember the latter makes you appear the fool. And yes you can demand that someone never says something again: again this is NOT intolerance. If you say "I don't like what you say and I demand you never say it again" then I can either a. comply or b. ignore the request. I would ignore the request. You saying "I demand" something doesn't mean anything aside from the personable level. The only time it matters is w/ regards to the law. There is no law saying that I have to comply w/ your demands. As such your demand is entirely pointless on legal grounds. So yeah the protest group can demand whatever they want. This isn't intolerance it's a request. Worley is free to do what he wants.

THAT'S the lack of REAL tolerance that I see from the left who are always preaching about the need for 'tolerance'....

And here again you are lumping all persons who could be categorized as "the left" and saying that all people on "the left" are intolerant simply because they are advocating that the church follow the law or that Worley consider the perspective of the protest groups outside of his church. You are, yet again, asking NOT for tolerance, but acceptance. People are NOT going to accept his hate. But people will tolerate it. Worley does NOT get to say whatever he want and face no consequences just as no one else gets to say whatever they want and face no consequences. That's called reality. The left is NOT being intolerant here when it comes to this issue. You have failed to provide evidence or a compelling argument for your assertion; in fact what you have accomplished here is proving that you want everyone else to shut-up every time an extreme fundamentalist pastor like Worley speaks up about the annihilation of gays. And that, John, is intolerance making you the hypocrite.

Mouzer, Freedom of speech means just that, this man wasn't speaking. He was conspiring a way in which to condemn a certain group of people who are trying to escape persecution. He can say anything he wants, but he should be held responsible for what he is trying to invoke. Contrary, to old beliefs sticks, stones and words do hurt people. People need to make the distinction between Freedom of speech and Hate crimes.Mental and Emotional abuse has been proven to be extremely more damaging than physical abuse. These Church leaders may have gotten away with that within their own families, but to televise themselves doing it is criminal.

I deal with Johnlorican by putting him on my "ignore" list.

I really don't care to know what he thinks.

I think you meant to address John and not myself Angel? The point I was making is that it's completely insane to argue that because Worley has protestors outside of his church OR because people are asking why it is that his speech didn't surmount to advocacy (which would be illegal) that this somehow displays hypocrisy on the left. The argument I made about his speech being tolerated was simply to dispel this myth John and some others have that the left is constantly harassing the right. That the right is somehow victimized by the left. Worley is not a victim of anything and he does not get to claim as much (nor do his defenders). He advocated for genocide. I think it says something incredibly telling that John cares so much about abortion (which he considers to be genocide), but then immediately deploys a red herring to defend Worley (thereby justifying advocacy for actual genocide). The entire point of John's post was to excuse the actions of Worley and instead reassign blame to "the left." As I've tried so many times to explain before red herring arguments DO NOT show hypocrisy. They simply show that you are unable to provide a cogent counter-argument.

I don't want to laugh at them. Hate only breeds more hate. The only thing that changes bigotry is real love - the kind of courageous love that can "turn the other cheek"... and then keep telling the truth that got you slapped in the first place.

These people see real love, they call it evil, fight against it and teach people to pray it away.

First off the constitutional separation of church and state already protects us from religious laws being invoked, Second, ain't it interesting that most of those who yap about Sharia Law are the same kooks who want to claim America's laws came from the bible rather than from common law during the enlightenment?

Exactly Paul. There is a fine line here. Some Christians want to make America the Christian equivalent of Sharia.

How about a federal court suit because this law discriminates based on religion--does not include Christian Sharia Law, Jewish Sharia Law, etc.

Paul, if we could prevent religious laws being invoked, then states would not have proceeded with the various "protect marriage" amendments. As Rachel has pointed out on her show(s), most states that put this issue up to a vote are doing so to stand firmly against an action that is already illegal in most of the United States. In other words, I think religious conservatism trumps religious liberalism AND secular humanism any day of the week, sad to say.

And, for all that the President and Vice President have done to say that they support same-sex marriage, nobody at the federal level has been able to make changes in tax policies or in basic civil rights legislation. We still have documents that we carry to the hospital (on the rare occasions that it's necessary) to ensure that my partner and I can actually be together and that the person who is well can make decisions for the person who is not well. Until heterosexuals have to go through filing legal paperwork and taking time to "find the folder" (locate legal documents to ensure they have access to their spouse/partner) each time they have to seek emergency care, there's a lot that still has to change.

Well our founders warned us. We let things slide far too easy and now we are seeing why the founders warned us.

The problem is actually that there were (and are) a lot more of the ilk of James Madison and fewer of the type of Patrick Henry. Lumping all the founding fathers together makes about as much sense as lumping together all people who call themselves Christians.

Madison's most famous statement on behalf of religious liberty was his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,
which he wrote to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for
Christian ministers in the state of Virginia.

Other sources for Madison's beliefs are his letter to
Jasper Adams, where he argues on behalf of letting religion survive on its
own merits, and a 1792 article in which he suggests
that there is no specific religious sanction for American government.

Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:

So tell me where Patrick Henry signed the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our Government and our laws.

Awesome link up above there Paul. Thank you for posting it. There is much information that to lift up folks to are fighting to keep the separation of Church and State !

Fact-the constitution had 35 witness signatures and was ratified. This seems to go against the premise that there were or are more of Patrick Henry's ilk. Fact--the vast majority of Americans believe in separation of church and state.

Kansas legislators are also working on a bill that will demand and prevent the use of Inquisition law as set forth by the Catholic church which will also make sure Brownback cannot declare himself 'Grand Inquisitor'. They are checking to make sure no parts of the Magna Carter can be used also...while giving out ribbons for best castle design and best torture devices.

Kansas voters sure aren't having their money wasted with time consuming frivolous legislating huh. Hell, if Kansas legislators took a year off without pay the state would actually come out improved...that is if anyone even noticed.

My only point was that Patrick Henry supported the Bill of Rights (supporting individual rights), and Madison was one of the primary authors of the Constitution (at the time, that which favored the rights of a stronger federal government over the people). The debate over how much power the federal government should have over individual rights of the people is one that continues to the present day. I only hope that religious extremists will not pervert the intentions of the Constitution in asserting the will of government over private affairs like sexuality.

If we continue to live our lives based on documents written, not too long ago in the grand scheme of things, we may be aiding and subjecting ourselves in our own destruction. How can we progress as human beings if we are limiting ourselves in beleiving only certain documents. Are we documenting our lives? Are we learning from our mistakes? Are we questioning why we are doing what we're doing and Paying what we're paying and what are we really paying for? What should be amended is the fact that we are slaves to Corporate America. If Americans stopped paying for certain things like Insurance , it would force Large Corporations to listen. They are not in charge and never will be no matter how much money they have. Things have gone too far when lawyers are sueing people for accidents. Are we really free? Not anymore. It costs way too much to live in America, we are not free we have to pay for everything.

Ever hear of Amendments? I guess the idea that Amendments require each state a chance to vote yea or nay is not to your liking?

"Vatileaks": sounds like an unfortunate bodily mis-function.

The Body of Chr*st this week was diagnosed with a severe case of Vatileaks. Take it from there, gang . . .

This story was like the icing on the cake for me. when Ratzinger was appointed as Pope Benedict it shocked a lot of people. They had to actually instruct him on how to wave to people. It makes no sense to me why only certain groups of people are living in the lap of luxury while there are people, by no fault of their own, that are traveling miles to relieve themselves carrying a pail. They adorn themselves with gold while others must try to pull the thorns out that are in their feet and their heads.

The church would like to thank all of you for your donations. It is so great that the Faith Based Initiative exists as we fight against abortion,contraception and separation of church and state. Your donations help fund our attempt to either force schools to teach Christianity or states to fund our private schools as we help politicians get elected.

Again thanks.

To be a bit insensitive myself, she would be the 1st to want the ACLU to defend her right to take up two seats on an airplane for the price of one ticket.

Well. . . .let's not get carried away. There are a lot of smart, caring, open-minded people in North Carolina. Indeed, there are a number of gay-friendly churches in North Carolina--including one that I visited during a week-long stay in Asheville last year.

Whenever a Christian minister acts in a hateful or stupid way (think of the Koran-burning fellow a couple of years ago), blogs such as this one are filled with comments about how horrible Christians are. I would remind everyone that not all people of faith are like Worley or Pastor Jones. Quite a few of us (including myself, and the congregation of which I am a member) are open-minded progressives.

I also see online that the town government of Maiden, NC, is distancing itself from Worley, pointing out in particular that Worley's church is outside the city limits. A true statement, but probably meaningless, since the church is only a few miles north of town.

Always nice to be reminded that the difference between the Catholic Church of today and that of Pope Alexander Sextus (now being shown on "The Borgias") is the technology available and the clothing styles of the sheep, er, I mean the congregation. The organization known as the Catholic Church is the most corrupt political/"religious" organization in history, a predatory bunch preying on those praying for help.

The "B*bl* says to suffer the little children to come unto J*s*s. The Catholics just make the children suffer while they come.

Then and throughout the life of Christ, taxgathering was farmed out for lump sums to men called Republicans. They proceeded to raise the required sum, plus whatever else they could wring from the people, for their own income. Through such posts the Republicans became a rich and powerful group. Zealous for the national importance of their country, they cared little for their religion, and they sought to increase their national power. They began to scheme to get possession of important offices such as High Priest or King...this was written around 1400 A.D. and translated in 1616. It is referring to History that was taking place in or around the year 200 B.C. The Republicans are still continuing on in the same traditions as their forefathers who started this party. I believe men like Abe Lincoln had no idea they belonged to such a party whose origins were that of the first tax collectors. I think Democrats simply decided to take those taxes for the better good of the people, Republicans have other plans, they plan to give the taxes to the 1% who to me are a reincarnation of the original privileged few , the Hellenist.

npr ran a segment on the trial this morning: lynn's defense is basically "i was doing something and i didn't have the authority to do more"

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/27/153800130/philadelphia-priest-abuse-trial-takes-combative-turn?ft=3&f=1001&sc=nl&cc=nh-20120527

Churches are no different from those selling any other product. They find their niche (target market). Do "marketing research" to determine what consumers want. Design a "product" that sells. Then, they "sell" it to the their customers, the price being the contributions those customer make to the church.

Churches the don't tell their "customers" what they want to hear will soon find themselves with declining revenues and "profits." If those revenues decline too much, they discontinue operations or are subject to takeovers by other religious institutions. Just like any other business.

As long as the teachings of Jesus fit into that plan, churches will follow them. When his message makes the parishioners uncomfortable and indicates behavior change on their part, the churches will deviate. Like all successful business execs, they're flexible.

Proof in history, the pagan symbols were incorporated into Christian traditions, such as the Christmas tree, Yule, Easter bunny are taken from pagan tradition. Even Christmas Day is Dec. 25 or Jan. 6 or 12 days of Christmas that could be co-mingled with Saturnalia or Channukah.

I have begun to think more of these Christian Holydays as marketing. One can view the selling as evangelizing the Gospel or participating in pagan like celebrations and traditions.

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1b.htm

I am not anti spirituality or atheist, but I have to look at some of this and say hmmmmm…… I will read and allow myself to determine what I take and what I leave. The translations themselves are often problematic. If one goes in depth to learn about meaning of words from one era to the next we have to pause. http://www.hickoryrock.org/resources/English_Bible_Versions.html

All one has to do is search online these days to see the differences in the passages as translated in which versions are written differently.

Also for anyone interested: http://christiangays.com/articles/translation.shtml

Translation can be tricky. With the Bible there is the problem of the large amount of time that has passed between the original writing and final redaction, and today. Languages change, and things get lost to time. But it's not hopeless, and it's important not to imagine that there are difficulties faced in Bible translation that aren't encountered with other texts.

In some ways, we're in a better position with biblical texts. There is a far larger number of manuscripts, for one thing, which helps in detecting and correcting errors in transmission. There are also a number of ancient translations, which is sometimes a help in judging possible meanings. And over time scholarly understanding of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek has improved. All of this can help make more recent translations better than older translations, although the persistence of traditional readings is sometimes a problem (especially if that requires knowledge of the archaic meanings of words).

All of which means that care must be taken, something that religious-right figures (and, ironically, some of their critics) seldom do. The critical approach, which sandy sensibly employs, is hard work (especially when there are cheap political hits to be made).

Republicans are like trained seals or dogs.

Fascists never speak.

This is why Cantor and Lieberman have been rejected by the Orthodox.

Yeah. Did you know that..."forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors..." was actually a tradition done every seven years but when the Bible first got its copyright that passage in the lord's prayer was changed to..."forgive us our trespasses, etc...." If only our debts were forgiven every seven years and we start with a clean slate...but that would be anti Christian now huh.

It's hard to have any respect for anyone who refuses to question what they have been "told" to believe and lacks the curiosity to find out where where and how their literature of faith came into being. Any Bible thumper who does not know the truth about King Constatine or the council at Mycenae from which the Bible was compiled just wants someone else to do their thinking for them and 'fix' their afterlife, ha. It's now called Cherry-picking for power.

Sacrilegion at it's absolute lowest.

Firstly: Glad "If and when" doesn't make any more sense than the rest of what you are saying.

Secondly: Speaking of fundamentalists and Christians, why are you and so many republicans so hateful? Give me the love that Christ taught any day before the hatefulness and bigotry of those who oppose Christianity and fundamentalism.

Thirdly: Don't throw the baby away with the bathwater! Take the good and leave the bad.

If G*d doesn't make junk, please explain the KKKatholic Church.

The Bible is still around because it supposedly provides a rule book for Christians. Apparently they think they can't function without it, but 99% of Christians never really read the book. Or if they do read it, they get so lost in the begats and retellings of the same story that they forget what they were mad about. They had to keep the Old Testament (where God was a tantrum-throwing tyrant and men had multiple wives) because it contained the Ten Commandments.

The Bible provides a means for the church to control the masses. Since it contradicts itself more often than not, religious leaders can use it to justify nearly any issue they want. They're not about to relinquish that.

The Bible is not an authority on anything, it is simply a History book much like the ones they are trying to burn here and in other parts of the world. Alot of different religions are trying to teach History as they see it or they have paraphrased a lot of Bibles to suit themselves. If you run for president or King of a Country, you are not obligated to take care of anybody. But, America adopted the belief that you should help others, it's the right thing to do. What we have going on here and abroad are people who want to help only themselves and their rich buddies. The fact that religious groups have decided to join the ranks of the rich and famous is blasphemy, to say the least. The meek shall inherit the Earth, because we're the only ones willing to take care of it. The rich really need to start making other plans they should start investing their money in buying another Country and leaving the meek with the task of healing a nation and restoring it back to the "Way we were"

To equate the bible with history books is like equating the dragon riders of pern to astronomy. The bible was written by Jim Jones types and "interpreted" by men who aimed to please the king and the church while building an argument for why the church should have power over the masses.

Look at the way the fanatics discount the "old" testament while embracing a skewed view of the "new" testament.

This may be true with the newer versions of Bibles that have been paraphrased and changed to suit Right wing Evangelists. Just try getting your hands on an older version, you'd be surprised. Their explanation for paraphrasing was to shorten the Bible, it didn't it actually lengthened it to almost twice it's original pages. Testament means to witness, the bible consists of testaments written by a lot of people that were alive when Jesus walked the Earth. You could say the same thing about The Constitution, I don't believe there are any witnesses alive today but, we believe in the Constitution in much the same way people believe in The Bible, the original bible not the new-improved version. That is why I loved to argue with Priests when I was growing up. Which eventually ended up with me being excommunicated. Who can really be trusted to record History as it really occurred especially when they are now burning books again.

you got it Trollop!

Protesters back U.S. nuns in standoff with Vatican

Reuters--In the past few weeks there have been organized vigils outside churches from Anchorage, Alaska to Lady Lake, Florida and in major cities including Boston, Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles. Knots of demonstrators - sometimes a handful, sometimes several dozen - pray, sing and give thanks for nuns. More than 50,000 have signed an online petition asking the Vatican to withdraw its order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/us-usa-catholicchurch-nuns-idUSBRE84N1EQ20120524

Yes, I have followed the vigils of support. That is not enough. We know money shouts down justice, and enthrones those who seek power over others. If I was Catholic, I would follow His calling to conscience and divert my offerings from the Vatican to the nuns.

It sounds like the Vatican and the Catholic Church are starting to throw the heavy merchandise overboard. What I believe we are witnessing is a ship sinking, and nobody can afford to help this extremely costly ship. Gods' children have spoken up, they have told the secret they were threatened to not tell. It is a shame that innocent people were hurt in the process. But, you simply can not get away with hurting Gods' children. This should be a lesson for all religions. Our father excludes noone.

LCWR board to meet this week in DC. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/27/us/vatican-american-nuns/index.html

"The board will conduct its meeting in an atmosphere of prayer, contemplation and dialogue and will develop a plan to involve LCWR membership in similar processes," the group said in a statement. "We will engage in dialogue where possible and be open to the movement of the Holy Spirit. We ask your prayer for us and for the Church in this critical time."

This kind of broad accusatory rhetoric is troubling. "Christian reich"? Really?

Go and read The Family:The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power by Jeff Sharlet. You can read the opening chapter for free on Mother Jones, iirc. They very much are a terrifying blend of Christianist insanity and fascist misanthropy.