NYT Writer: Christians Must Be Made To Embrace Gay Lifestyle

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/08/nyt-writer-christianity-must-be-made-to-embrace-gay-lifestyle/

Well, we used to believe it was a free country.  Obviously people at the New York Times still feel like they're free to be an idiot.

[haapai]

Please provide a link to the NYT article cited in the Breitbart piece that doesn't count against my free articles for the month.  You'll have to make looking at a Breitbart piece darned near costless to me before I will even consider clicking on it. 

[Value Buy]

I love these paragraphs

Op-ed writer Frank Bruni, onetime Times restaurant critic and a gay activist, has written that Christians who hold on to “ossified,” biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America’s table and are deserving of no particular regard.

In one fell swoop, Bruni trashes all believing Christians as “bigots,” saying that Christians’ negative moral assessment of homosexual relations is “a choice” that “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

In other words, if you still cling to your benighted views and your “ancient texts,” you are living in the past and your views merit no respect.

Bruni’s solution to the impasse is not some sort of goodwill compromise or a treaty of mutual respect, but a take-no-prisoners ultimatum to Christians to abandon their beliefs or else. When Bruni says that Christians’ understanding of sexual morality is “a choice,” what he means is that there is a way out without completely losing face: just embrace the new morality preached by mainstream liberal churches that see nothing wrong with any sexual arrangement you are comfortable with. Then we will accept you.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 8, 2015 22:29:45 GMT -5 haapai said:

Please provide a link to the NYT article cited in the Breitbart piece that doesn't count against my free articles for the month.  You'll have to make looking at a Breitbart piece darned near costless to me before I will even consider clicking on it. 

Here is the NYT article:

Bigotry, the Bible and the Lessons of Indiana

[billisonboard]

Thought this was a good article:

How Frank Bruni misunderstands Christians—and why it matters

[EVT1]

Have to admit the idea is a switch from the normal 'gays must be made to embrace the Christian lifestyle'   Even though that is not what gay people are trying to accomplish.

[haapai]

Thank-you Tenneseer, for the link.  I've read the Bruni article but not the Breitbart one.  In the morning, I'll re-read the Bruni article, eat, and drink several cups of coffee before strapping on the waders and clicking on the Breitbart one. 

I expect the BB piece to be a mean-spirited hatchet job.  I don't think that I would react well, or sleep well if I read it now. 

[Opti]

Apr 8, 2015 22:24:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/08/nyt-writer-christianity-must-be-made-to-embrace-gay-lifestyle/

Well, we used to believe it was a free country.  Obviously people at the New York Times still feel like they're free to be an idiot.

The people, is really one oped author.

Try to keep your indignation at a real level TY.

[Opti]

Apr 8, 2015 22:32:07 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I love these paragraphs

Op-ed writer Frank Bruni, onetime Times restaurant critic and a gay activist, has written that Christians who hold on to “ossified,” biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America’s table and are deserving of no particular regard.

In one fell swoop, Bruni trashes all believing Christians as “bigots,” saying that Christians’ negative moral assessment of homosexual relations is “a choice” that “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

In other words, if you still cling to your benighted views and your “ancient texts,” you are living in the past and your views merit no respect.

Bruni’s solution to the impasse is not some sort of goodwill compromise or a treaty of mutual respect, but a take-no-prisoners ultimatum to Christians to abandon their beliefs or else. When Bruni says that Christians’ understanding of sexual morality is “a choice,” what he means is that there is a way out without completely losing face: just embrace the new morality preached by mainstream liberal churches that see nothing wrong with any sexual arrangement you are comfortable with. Then we will accept you.

I think its always important to read the original article no matter who analyzes it because

they put their own slant on the article.

Here's the part with ossified in it. Nothing about being at a table or not.

"That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.
"

He's imploring people to consider changing their minds. Probably why the Breitbart article

wanted to make it sound more hard-core and unaccepting than written.

[Opti]

Apr 8, 2015 22:46:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Thought this was a good article:

How Frank Bruni misunderstands Christians—and why it matters

It was too short, but I agree it was a change no one's mind kind of article

especially with the badly chosen title.

[Phoenix84]

It's interesting the nyt author talks about homosexuality as not a choice but a fundamtal aspect of identity, but then acts like faith and religious doctine that's been part of human culture for thousands of years can be suddenly "made" to change like a pair of shoes.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 8, 2015 22:32:07 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I love these paragraphs

Op-ed writer Frank Bruni, onetime Times restaurant critic and a gay activist, has written that Christians who hold on to “ossified,” biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America’s table and are deserving of no particular regard.

In one fell swoop, Bruni trashes all believing Christians as “bigots,” saying that Christians’ negative moral assessment of homosexual relations is “a choice” that “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

In other words, if you still cling to your benighted views and your “ancient texts,” you are living in the past and your views merit no respect.

Bruni’s solution to the impasse is not some sort of goodwill compromise or a treaty of mutual respect, but a take-no-prisoners ultimatum to Christians to abandon their beliefs or else. When Bruni says that Christians’ understanding of sexual morality is “a choice,” what he means is that there is a way out without completely losing face: just embrace the new morality preached by mainstream liberal churches that see nothing wrong with any sexual arrangement you are comfortable with. Then we will accept you.

Here's my thing- it doesn't matter what you're "clinging to".  There is no disembodied consciousness called "the public" which has any right to compel you to agree with anything.  You own yourself. You can be a wise man, or a fool- and it's nobody's business but yours.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The other thing that occurs to me is that Jesus still has the mob rending their garments and gnashing their teeth after 2015 years.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 9, 2015 7:14:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

It's interesting the nyt author talks about homosexuality as not a choice but a fundamtal aspect of identity, but then acts like faith and religious doctine that's been part of human culture for thousands of years can be suddenly "made" to change like a pair of shoes.

Gay ACTIVISTS (not gay people in general) do strike me as a small subset of the gay community made up of people who are extremely insecure and whose self-esteem is at or near rock bottom. They are not content to live their lives as they see fit. They must make sure everyone else sees them, not as people, not as individuals, but as gay. Gay is everything. They reduce their identity to their sexual acts. It's really bizarre to me- not something I relate to at all. There's no white male heterosexual Christian flag that I'm aware of? When did your sexuality become a "culture" and a "community" (bizarre cult)? These activist types really can't leave people alone- they have this drive to force others to learn about what they do in the bedroom, approve of it, and celebrate it with a wedding.

And I'll tell you something- these activist types are hooting, hollering, and poking a bear with a stick. People aren't apt to give up their businesses, their property, their livelihoods, nor be called names, marginalized, and publicly personally attacked because they don't agree with someone profaning and institution they regard as sacred for religious reasons.

My advise is calm down, and go live your life and enjoy it. Keep poking the bear, it's going to be back to the bathhouses and forest preserves for the lot of you- and that will include innocent bystanders who don't want to have anything to do with the activists.

[billisonboard]

Thought I would give something a go and see how it reads:

Apr 9, 2015 12:45:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...
... ACTIVISTS (not ... people in general) do strike me as a small subset of the ... community made up of people who are extremely insecure and whose self-esteem is at or near rock bottom. They are not content to live their lives as they see fit. They must make sure everyone else sees them, not as people, not as individuals, but as ... ... is everything. They reduce their identity to their .. It's really bizarre to me- not something I relate to at all. There's no ... flag that I'm aware of? When did your ... become a "culture" and a "community" (bizarre cult)? These activist types really can't leave people alone- they have this drive to force others to learn about what they do ..., approve of it, and celebrate it with a ...

And I'll tell you something- these activist types are hooting, hollering, and poking a bear with a stick. People aren't apt to give up their businesses, their property, their livelihoods, nor be called names, marginalized, and publicly personally attacked because they don't agree with someone profaning and institution they regard as ... for ... reasons.

My advise is calm down, and go live your life and enjoy it. Keep poking the bear, it's going to be back to ... and ... for the lot of you- and that will include innocent bystanders who don't want to have anything to do with the activists.

I am not sure about the "extremely insecure and ... self esteem ..." part but I generally agree this fits for "ACTIVISTS" without regard as to what replaces all those little "...'s".

[haapai]

I said that I would read it.  I have. 

Now I want a shot of Pepto and my time back.  Breitbart.com still isn't worth reading.  Williams hasn't written an article as much as he has taken every strong word or phrase out of the original article and howled at it. 

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Apr 8, 2015 22:50:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Have to admit the idea is a switch from the normal 'gays must be made to embrace the Christian lifestyle'   Even though that is not what gay people are trying to accomplish.

Are you suggesting that there aren't any gay Christians?

The gay Christian community is probably one of the few that isn't hiding behind their faith/religion to discriminate and treat others with disdain.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 9, 2015 13:03:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Thought I would give something a go and see how it reads:

Apr 9, 2015 12:45:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...
... ACTIVISTS (not ... people in general) do strike me as a small subset of the ... community made up of people who are extremely insecure and whose self-esteem is at or near rock bottom. They are not content to live their lives as they see fit. They must make sure everyone else sees them, not as people, not as individuals, but as ... ... is everything. They reduce their identity to their .. It's really bizarre to me- not something I relate to at all. There's no ... flag that I'm aware of? When did your ... become a "culture" and a "community" (bizarre cult)? These activist types really can't leave people alone- they have this drive to force others to learn about what they do ..., approve of it, and celebrate it with a ...

And I'll tell you something- these activist types are hooting, hollering, and poking a bear with a stick. People aren't apt to give up their businesses, their property, their livelihoods, nor be called names, marginalized, and publicly personally attacked because they don't agree with someone profaning and institution they regard as ... for ... reasons.

My advise is calm down, and go live your life and enjoy it. Keep poking the bear, it's going to be back to ... and ... for the lot of you- and that will include innocent bystanders who don't want to have anything to do with the activists.

I am not sure about the "extremely insecure and ... self esteem ..." part but I generally agree this fits for "ACTIVISTS" without regard as to what replaces all those little "...'s".

I can get with that.  Generally speaking, the sorts of people that become activists do so because they've found meaning in a cause.  It's a symptom, I believe, of a society that is less inclined to attribute life's meaning and purpose to the divine, and has even become hostile to the very idea of the divine or sacred.  As a result, in my opinion, people, who are spiritual beings, search for and find meaning in other things.  I think this is why the secular humanist, atheistic, statist ideologies- which include the various fringe ideologies are picking up steam and becoming more mainstream- even uniting former political opponents on the left and right- have so many religious parallels.

[billisonboard]

Apr 9, 2015 15:53:57 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Apr 9, 2015 7:14:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

It's interesting the nyt author talks about homosexuality as not a choice but a fundamtal aspect of identity, but then acts like faith and religious doctine that's been part of human culture for thousands of years can be suddenly "made" to change like a pair of shoes.

Do Christians still stone adulterers or force their daughters to marry their rapists? No. So those religious beliefs do change over time. Does the Catholic church still sell indulgences? Donate your weight in silver and they guarantee you a spot in heaven? That was official church doctrine as recently as a few hundred years ago. Don't pretend Christianity hasn't evolved over the last two thousand years.

Were changes intragenerational or intergenerational?

[mroped]

Why do we turn this into such a complicated, convoluted matter?
Simplified would be something like this: 
- gay activist writes article about gays rights and sugests that people that are more conservative religious, should shed their long outlived beliefs and embrace the reality that gays are here to stay. In his attempt he is a bit harsh or maybe a litle too blunt
- religious conservative writer/show host/what not(didn't hear about him, not interested of him therefore NOT famous!) twists the article to fit his agenda, creates a lie based on truncated text and raises a stink!

Who's right and who's wrong?
1)they are both right because they have the right to live free and make their own choices
2)they are both wrong because they acuse the other side of being the bully While they are doing the exact same thing

There have been on this Earth gay people since the beginnings.
Christianism is much younger than homosexuality. When Christianity came about there were plenty of gay people arround.

And just a question in general: If God does love us(we are his children right!) why doesn't he like gays? He created them didn't he?
I know for a fact that MY God doesn't hate gays. Doesn't even care about that because otherwise he would've found a way to communicate and let me know.
That leads me to believe that my God is better than the Christian conservative one. That one seems to be a picky/choosy one. Don't like him very much.

[billisonboard]

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

― Anne Lamott

Or loves them for that matter.

[billisonboard]

Apr 9, 2015 16:32:38 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Were changes intragenerational or intergenerational?

Both. Depends on the specific change we're talking about. Catholic indulgences were part of church doctrine one day, and outlawed by the pope the next.

But those who had already bought their ticket were "grandfather claused" into heaven.

"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"

Wonder how many hearts and minds this papal statement effected?

[Phoenix84]

Apr 9, 2015 15:53:57 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Apr 9, 2015 7:14:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

It's interesting the nyt author talks about homosexuality as not a choice but a fundamtal aspect of identity, but then acts like faith and religious doctine that's been part of human culture for thousands of years can be suddenly "made" to change like a pair of shoes.

Do Christians still stone adulterers or force their daughters to marry their rapists? No. So those religious beliefs do change over time. Does the Catholic church still sell indulgences? Donate your weight in silver and they guarantee you a spot in heaven? That was official church doctrine as recently as a few hundred years ago. Don't pretend Christianity hasn't evolved over the last two thousand years.

I've seen a lot of questions like this posted in these types of discussions before.

To properly answer it, I'd have to delve into more religious discussion that this board allows me to. But I'll give it a try.

Let's take stoning adulterers for example. Stoning adulterers wasn't itself a sin, but a punishment for adultery, which was/is a sin. A way to think of it is a law. Must of the old testament of the bible was laying out the laws and practices in order to get one right with God. Christians believe that with the death and resurrection of Christ, that people (all of humanity) were freed from the laws laid forth in the old testament, and are instead under the grace and forgiveness of God. So why Christian's of today don't stone adulterers is the same reason they don't sacrifice goats, it's not part of the law that the faithful have to follow anymore. Furthermore, the message of the new testament is to love and accept each other's sins. "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "let ye who have never sinned cast the first stone." 

However, that doesn't mean that adultery still isn't a sin, it just means that instead of passing judgment, Christians are called upon to love the adulterer and leave the judging up to God.  Not passing judgment, however, is not the same as not acknowledging the sin as wrong in the first place.  After all, Jesus forgave sinners, but still acknowledged their sin and did not partake in it himself.

As for more recent things, like Christians using the bible to promote racism or paying for a spot in heaven.  All I can say is Christians are human too, and can make mistakes and sin as well.  Just because you become a Christian doesn't mean you're going to be perfect and always be a good, loving human being.  That might sound like a cop out, but it's the truth.  The message of the new testament is about screwing up and receiving forgiveness, not necessarily being a good person.  And let's face it, some Christians easily forget the commandment to not judge others.  But Christians aren't alone on "taking it too far."  What about those gay activists that make death threats and threats to burn down businesses?  Surely you don't agree with those tactics.

And I'll even go a step farther and say that yes, in many cases there are different ways you can interpret the bible.  We got several different belief systems that fall under the Christian faith, from Methodists to Catholics to Baptists ect.  But some things are spelled out pretty clearly, and "men lying with men" being described as an "abomination" is pretty hard to interpret any other way.

[mmhmm]

To properly answer it, I'd have to delve into more religious discussion that this board allows me to. But I'll give it a try.

Delve as deeply as you like, Phoenix84. This thread is on the Religious Discussion board. 

[Opti]

But Christians aren't alone on "taking it too far." What about those gay activists that make death threats and threats to burn down businesses? Surely you don't agree with those tactics.

I think its horrible that people may have made death threats and threats to burn down

businesses. I have seen no proof whatsoever this has actually happened and it was

known gay activists who did these things. At this time, there is no report of an ongoing

investigation and any names in print of gay activists who said X.

All we know is for examples Memories Pizza said they got these threats. Maybe there are

a bunch on FB and Twitter, IDK. But if we are going to accuse gay activists, I'd like to see

some actual proof that indeed it was gay activists who did this not disgruntled folks taking

advantage of the situation and using social media and the phone to vent their hate.

[Tennesseer]

Phoenix84 said:"What about those gay activists that make death threats and threats to burn down businesses?  Surely you don't agree with those tactics."

The below does not even include terrorism by groups such as the KKK who killed hundreds of black people in the name of race and religion (the burning cross). Additional, White Supremacy groups commit crimes based upon their segregationist, religious beliefs too.

Here are examples of Christian extremism in the U.S.

1993: David Gunn was murdered by anti-abortion activist Michael F. Griffin
1994: Abortion provider John Britton and James Barrett became victims of Reverend Paul Jennings Hill.
1996–98: Eric Rudolph cited biblical passages as his motivation for a series bombings, including one at Atlanta's Olympic Centennial Park. But he otherwise denied that his brief association with the Christian Identity movement was a motivation. Rudolph is often misquoted as saying that his Roman Catholicism was a motivation. However, he only made reference to being "born a Catholic" as a hope for forgiveness of his actions, rather than as a motivation for them.
1998: James Kopp killed at least one and went on a series of anti-abortion shooting sprees, both in the U.S. and Canada.
2009: Anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder killed George Tiller in Kansas.

Terrorism in the United States

More examples, like from the KKK, in the linked article too.

Report back to this thread when one of those 'gay activists' actually carries through on one of those threats like burning down the baker's or who ever's building. If it actually happens, that would be one occurrence. Compare that one occurence to the rest of terrorism in the U.S..

Most if not all of the perpetrators in the linked article were probably straight and religious (Christian) too to one degree or another.


.

[b2r]

This is why I identify with the story of Jesus. And frankly, it is the only story there really is. This white, blond-haired, blue-eyed, gun-toting, Bible-quoting Jesus of the religious right is a god of their own making. I call this god, the god of white supremacy and patriarchy. There is nothing about their god that speaks to me as a Black woman of working-class background living in a country where police routinely murder black men and beat the hell out of black women, where the rich get richer while politicians find ever more reasons to extract from the poor, and where the lives the church imagines for women still center around marriage and motherhood, and no sex if you’re single.

This God isn’t the God that I serve. There is nothing holy, loving, righteous, inclusive, liberatory or theologically sound about him. He might be “biblical” but he’s also an asshole.

The Jesus I know, love, talk about and choose to retain was a radical, freedom-loving, justice-seeking, potentially queer (because he was either asexual or a priest married to a prostitute), feminist healer, unimpressed by scripture-quoters and religious law-keepers, seduced neither by power nor evil.

That’s the story I choose to reflect on this Holy Week. The Christian lawmakers seeking to use the law to discriminate against gay people are indicative of every violent, unrighteous, immoral impulse that organized religion continues to represent in this country.


Brittney Cooper is a contributing writer at Salon, and teaches Women's and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers.

www.salon.com/2015/04/01/the_rights_made_up_god_how_bigots_invented_a_white_supremacist_jesus/ 

[Phoenix84]

Tennesser, you don't need religion to commit hanious acts. Joseph Stalin was the leader of an attest state and responsible for the death of about 20 million people during his rule. Should I conclude that all attests want to be mass murderers, and lay those deaths directly at their feet? Should I conclude that the athirst ideology is fundamentally flawed because atheists have committed atrocities against their fellow man? If your logic is to be accepted, then the answers to those questions is yes.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 10, 2015 7:14:33 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Tennesser, you don't need religion to commit hanious acts. Joseph Stalin was the leader of an attest state and responsible for the death of about 20 million people during his rule. Should I conclude that all attests want to be mass murderers, and lay those deaths directly at their feet? Should I conclude that the athirst ideology is fundamentally flawed because atheists have committed atrocities against their fellow man? If your logic is to be accepted, then the answers to those questions is yes.

You seem to want to portrat 'gay activists' as the American Taliban when in actuality, Christians past and present, around the world and in the U.S. have often acted no better than the actual Taliban and ISIS.

The KKK have burned crosses for one hundred years. According to the KKK, their cross burning, or as they like to call it, cross lighting, symbolizes their faith in Christ.

As for anonymous death/buring threats against the pizza joint in Indiana, which by the way reopened yesterday, there are a lot of ridiculous people out there posting stupid messages.If you remember Sandra Fluke, conservatives favorite big mouth, Rush Limbaugh, started the ball rolling in insulting her. His fans then piled on her with some pretty nasty comments. If you would like to see what comments were made, click the link below as a few are somewhat XXX:

www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/03/06/sandra-flukes-crudest-and-most-cowardly-online-attackers-a-literary-analysis

As I said it is real easy to post insults and threats anonymously. 'Gay activists', conservatives, Christians and others are no better or worse than each other. There are idiots everywhere.  But you seem to want to focus only on 'gay activists'.  .

[Tennesseer]

Apr 10, 2015 0:02:55 GMT -5 b2r said:

This is why I identify with the story of Jesus. And frankly, it is the only story there really is. This white, blond-haired, blue-eyed, gun-toting, Bible-quoting Jesus of the religious right is a god of their own making. I call this god, the god of white supremacy and patriarchy. There is nothing about their god that speaks to me as a Black woman of working-class background living in a country where police routinely murder black men and beat the hell out of black women, where the rich get richer while politicians find ever more reasons to extract from the poor, and where the lives the church imagines for women still center around marriage and motherhood, and no sex if you’re single.

This God isn’t the God that I serve. There is nothing holy, loving, righteous, inclusive, liberatory or theologically sound about him. He might be “biblical” but he’s also an asshole.

The Jesus I know, love, talk about and choose to retain was a radical, freedom-loving, justice-seeking, potentially queer (because he was either asexual or a priest married to a prostitute), feminist healer, unimpressed by scripture-quoters and religious law-keepers, seduced neither by power nor evil.

That’s the story I choose to reflect on this Holy Week. The Christian lawmakers seeking to use the law to discriminate against gay people are indicative of every violent, unrighteous, immoral impulse that organized religion continues to represent in this country.


Brittney Cooper is a contributing writer at Salon, and teaches Women's and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers.

www.salon.com/2015/04/01/the_rights_made_up_god_how_bigots_invented_a_white_supremacist_jesus/ 

She is right. She is also entitled to have her own opinion of who her God is.

What is your God like?