I know it's not worldwide, but it's an important piece of news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070811/gay-funeral/


anyway, since the link doesn't work, it's about a gay vet being denied a funeral in a church because in the newspaper it said his partner was one of his survivors.

the link works now I fixed it, lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070811/gay-funeral/

sorry everyone I had a hard time getting that link in there correctly. Sorry, but the last link is the one that works/.

It's a sad story James, but I think it behooved the family of the deceased to make sure when they were planning the funeral that the church was aware of the deceased's sexual orientation.

I wouldn't think that it would be relevant one way or the other if the person was gay or straight.

I wouldn't think that it would be relevant one way or the other if the person was gay or straight.

I wouldn't think so either, but apparently the church feels differently. It's their right as a private organization to set their own rules. I may not like the rules, and therefore I'm free not to be a member of their group.

I wouldn't think so either, but apparently the church feels differently. It's their right as a private organization to set their own rules. I may not like the rules, and therefore I'm free not to be a member of their group.
You are right about it being their call on hosting the memorial service.

I would say, though, that this church is kind of missing the point of what they are and what they should be doing. I'm sure that if someone who had other "sins" (and I don't know of any who have not) requested the service, there would most likely be no problem.

Let he who is without sin, host the memorial service.

:rolleyes:

I would say, though, that this church is kind of missing the point of what they are and what they should be doing.

I completely agree.

You are right about it being their call on hosting the memorial service.

I would say, though, that this church is kind of missing the point of what they are and what they should be doing. I'm sure that if someone who had other "sins" (and I don't know of any who have not) requested the service, there would most likely be no problem.

Let he who is without sin, host the memorial service.

:rolleyes:Exactly what I was thinking. What a joke! No wonder so many prople here at allforums, and elsewhere, find it so easy to attack Christianity.

You are right about it being their call on hosting the memorial service.

I would say, though, that this church is kind of missing the point of what they are and what they should be doing. I'm sure that if someone who had other "sins" (and I don't know of any who have not) requested the service, there would most likely be no problem.

Let he who is without sin, host the memorial service.

:rolleyes:

Well said Oldphart!

I love the line the church spokesperson used: "It's not that we didn't love the family."

Yeah true love reflected by cancelling the whole service hours before hand.

maybe the church is rather could we say, hippocritical

...or Homocritical? There seem to be a few pet "sins" which warrent this sort of "stand on principle" in these churches.

...or Homocritical? There seem to be a few pet "sins" which warrent this sort of "stand on principle" in these churches.

Exactly right.

And therein lies the problem. What they have just said is that if you are found to have sinned they will judge you but only for certain kinds of sin. If you die while in a hold up after being shot by police, will they refuse to bury you? Will they turn your family away if you were an embezzler, a rapist etc. It defies logic. As OldPhart has said... who is without sin in the eyes of a Christian? Supposedly no one but apparently this church has decided to judge and condemn.

And apparently they found him to be a sinner unworthy of forgiveness. Interesting.

I wouldn't think so either, but apparently the church feels differently. It's their right as a private organization to set their own rules. I may not like the rules, and therefore I'm free not to be a member of their group.

Agreed, Vile. I also think the family 'pushed the limits' of the church's generosity by requesting the inclusion of a video in the service that depicted their dearly departed kissing another man. I've been to funerals for gay men and have yet to see photos of their 'coupling' on display, so I don't think that was necessary. Anyway, sexual orientation is really a rather moot point at this juncture of a person's existance, IMHO.

I recently heard a church leader discussing how disrespectful some people have become when it comes to reverence inside a church. A fashion consultant agreed and added that most brides nowdays dress 'for the party' and not the religious ceremony at the alter. Bare shoulders inside a church building is indeed disrespectful... no matter what the religion, but that doesn't stop 90% of modern brides from choosing strapless gowns.

Really too bad. Churches are about the last bastion where people should show respect, and it appears that reverence is crumbling. I think that's kinda sad.

Just my $.02.

SMW

Per his sister, in the article....

"Wright called the church's claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging."

As far as bare shoulders... I wouldn't call that disrespectful. Actually if you want to follow biblical "laws" all women should have their head covered.

Styles change... I don't see this as disrespect necessarily.

Folks wonder why a great many stay away from organized religions. Situations like the funeral service described here are but one of many reasons.


... Bare shoulders inside a church building is indeed disrespectful ...

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Folks wonder why a great many stay away from organized religions. Situations like the funeral service described here are but one of many reasons.




Would you care to elaborate on that?

It's just my opinion, dear... there's nothing to elaborate on.

As far as the church backing out of their offer, that's entirely their right to do so. Charity is a gift, not an entitlement. Same way with church membership. Nobody twists anybody's arm to join or avoid certain religions... at least not in this country.

I'd say if you don't like that what church did, by all means... boycott and never set foot in their sanctuary again. That's really the only thing you can do... besides complain, I mean.

SMW

Per his sister, in the article....

"Wright called the church's claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging."

As far as bare shoulders... I wouldn't call that disrespectful. Actually if you want to follow biblical "laws" all women should have their head covered.

Styles change... I don't see this as disrespect necessarily.
Same response, darlin. Just my opinion. I only mentioned the church leader/fashion consultant's dialog because I thought it was interesting.

There are NO hard & fast rules concerning proper attire in church these days (unless, of course, the individual church sets rules). I just happen to agree it's disrespectful for a woman to bare her shoulders at a religious ceremony.

I'm not saying the guy's sister is lying... but there must've been something in the video that made the church leaders uncomfortable and I respect their option to back out of their offer. If they don't believe homosexuality is 'right' in the eyes of God... they'd be hypocrites to do anything else.

I think it's like the old saying, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

In other words, if someone offers to do something nice for you, and you NEED that something nice, you oughta be willing to play by their rules.

SMW

I'm not saying the guy's sister is lying... but there must've been something in the video that made the church leaders uncomfortable and I respect their option to back out of their offer. If they don't believe homosexuality is 'right' in the eyes of God... they'd be hypocrites to do anything else.
SMW
I can buy the right of the church to refuse the burial service. I think it is cruel and distasteful and painful for all involved. I also in general do not like the spirit of it.

You say if the church embraces the concept that homosexuality is wrong because in the eyes of God it is a sin, then it is understandable. Does that mean that any of their church members whose sin is known should also not receive burial by that church?

What are your feelings on the churches hypocricy with regard to that?

I can buy the right of the church to refuse the burial service. I think it is cruel and distasteful and painful for all involved. I also in general do not like the spirit of it.

You say if the church embraces the concept that homosexuality is wrong because in the eyes of God it is a sin, then it is understandable. Does that mean that any of their church members whose sin is known should also not receive burial by that church?

What are your feelings on the churches hypocricy with regard to that?
I'd say that's a hypothetical question, Sal, since the man involved wasn't a member of their church.

Who knows? Maybe all their members are sinless????

(I know, doubtful... but not for me to judge.)

Unfortunately, the family of the guy who died made his 'lifestyle' a determining factor or else the funeral would have just gone on with the service, having his picture on the casket like is usually done and people would have cried and he would've been buried. A 'video' tribute to the deceased was a bit much, if you ask me.

Reminds me of one of the saddest funerals I ever attended for a guy who committed suicide. His service was held at a Pentecostal church (not sure who was the member there... his family, probably, doubt if it was him). Anyway, like many fundamentalist churchs (and maybe more liberal ones too.. not sure about that), the church believed he was doomed to HELL for taking his own life. They went thru the service... but never once was anything good said about him... only that he was weak and refused to turn to God for help -- and that his death should serve as an example to those of us still alive. Even if you don't believe in everlasting life, it's really sad to attend a service where the church believes someone will burn in hell for their sins.

Made me wonder why they even bothered to have it in a church. I'm pretty sure he would've preferred the local Harley shop.

:(
SMW

Bare shoulders inside a church building is indeed disrespectful... no matter what the religion...I love your 2 cents, but I think bare shoulders are perfectly fine.

I'm pretty sure he would've preferred the local Harley shop.
And rightly so! To remember those we love, in spite of warts we may see there, is the whole point. Maybe this is why so many people bithch about "churches," or fancy cliques.

And rightly so! To remember those we love, in spite of warts we may see there, is the whole point. Maybe this is why so many people bithch about "churches," or fancy cliques.
Yeah, Shiloh... after posting that story about my friend, I realized that the worst thing that could've happened to the guy in Shreveport would've been for the church to okay his funeral, then used his passing as a warning to their congregation. (I believe he was fairly young, wasn't he?)

Yeah, Shiloh... after posting that story about my friend, I realized that the worst thing that could've happened to the guy in Shreveport would've been for the church to okay his funeral, then used his passing as a warning to their congregation. (I believe he was fairly young, wasn't he?)I'm not sure if your post is meant to be ironic.

But as to the funeral you attended, the thing that strikes me is this: a person who kills himself is often in great dispair over something, the way this individual seems to have been treated would more likely than not tend to push the desperate away from that congregation if they came to a place of recognizing their need. Something that seems hateful or damning is not going to serve the purpose of spreading the news of a church as a place of hope and healing.

........I think bare shoulders are perfectly fine.

No way!!

What an abomination! Everyone "knows" that the omnipotent Creator of the entire Universe is mightily insulted and vexed by the sight of the shoulders of a member of the species homo sapiens. Especially those of the evil female.

[/sarcasm]

I'm not sure if your post is meant to be ironic.

But as to the funeral you attended, the thing that strikes me is this: a person who kills himself is often in great dispair over something, the way this individual seems to have been treated would more likely than not tend to push the desperate away from that congregation if they came to a place of recognizing their need. Something that seems hateful or damning is not going to serve the purpose of spreading the news of a church as a place of hope and healing.
Believe it or not, Shiloh... there are many fundamental churches that do not consider it their mission to offer a place of hope and healing to those in pain. They consider it their mission to minister to their believers and their doors are not open to those who don't believe the same way.

I can understand why those kind of churches tend to turn people away from organized religion. But while I think it's important to KNOW they exist, it's just as important to know they make up a small minority of churches.

People like Freethinker have a hard time knowing there's a difference.

SMW

P.S. FT, showing too much skin in church shows a lack of respect. It has nothing to do with biblical teaching, it's simply showing respect. Showing too much skin in COURT is disrespectful as well. Don't believe me, just try it and see how happy it'll make everybody if you show up in your speedos.

....there are many fundamental churches that do not consider it their mission to offer a place of hope and healing to those in pain. They consider it their mission to minister to their believers and their doors are not open to those who don't believe the same way.

I can understand why those kind of churches tend to turn people away from organized religion. But while I think it's important to KNOW they exist, it's just as important to know they make up a small minority of churches.

We disagree.

I was raised in the South, and from my own experience I can emphatically state that a very large number -- not just "a small minority of churches"--- of Christian churches throught the South have a --""Get thee away from me!, evil doer!" -- attitude toward homosexuals being a part of their church or their congregation.

People like Freethinker have a hard time knowing there's a difference.

I understand the difference perfectly.

The Reverend Fred Phelps, and other churches of the **Gays are evil sinners who will burn in Haaaaayuuuull forever!!** ideology, are (unfortunately for the Xtian religion) correct in their application of "God's Word" when it comes to homosexuals.

The Xtian God, in the Old Testament, makes it unmistakeably clear that homosexuals are evil and unclean and have to be executed. Stoned to death.

P.S. FT, showing too much skin in church shows a lack of respect. It has nothing to do with biblical teaching, it's simply showing respect. Showing too much skin in COURT is disrespectful as well.

Gee whiz. How could I have been so wrong in the application of the Universally Recognized Edicts of Respect...............?!?!?

Oh! I know what it is!!

I seem to have misplaced my copy of *"The Absolute and Indisputable RuleBook of What Constitutes Respectfulness in Church and in Court"*.

:rolleyes:

____________________________

The "showing of respect" is nothing but a human invention. It is meaningless, other than to denote that one certain group of hominids has arbitrarily taken it upon themselves to decide that actions A, B and C are "respectful", while actions D, E and F are not "respectful".

Tell me, FT. Is there ANYTHING or ANYONE you respect??

I knew someone like you once... but they're in prison now.

Believe it or not, Shiloh... there are many fundamental churches that do not consider it their mission to offer a place of hope and healing to those in pain. They consider it their mission to minister to their believers and their doors are not open to those who don't believe the same way.Sad, but true. I hope for them.
I can understand why those kind of churches tend to turn people away from organized religion. But while I think it's important to KNOW they exist, it's just as important to know they make up a small minority of churches.True, but they are loud enough to get a bunch of the attention, maybe most of it.

The "showing of respect" is nothing but a human invention. It is meaningless, other than to denote that one certain group of hominids has arbitrarily taken it upon themselves to decide that actions A, B and C are "respectful", while actions D, E and F are not "respectful".
While I certainly agree that there are great variances in what people deem respectful and other's find disrespectful (Like the bare shoulders SMW talked about, I'm fine with that although she is not). There are other instances that equate to vile, rude, tasteless, etc. that are also lumped into the "respect" scenario.

For instance, If I visit your house, and while there, take a shit on your dining room table. That would be disrespectful to you (not to mention vulgar and rude) to do that. I doubt any hominid would find that practice respectful to them.

I would also consider constantly attacking people's beliefs to be disrespectful. But that's just me.

Tell me, FT. Is there ANYTHING or ANYONE you respect??

Yes. There are many *people* --and their minds-- that I respect. Noam Chomsky. Howard Zinn. Michael Parenti. John Chuckman. Robert Ingersoll. Bertrand Russell. Richard Dawkins. Sam Clemens.

But respecting people is --for me-- quite different than respecting some thing like the amount of shoulder skin that a person reveals in certain buildings.

I knew someone like you once......but they're in prison now.

Of course he is. In Gawd-fearin', RightWing Amuuurica, all anti-gawd heathens who do not know the rules of shoulder-bearing should be sentenced to prison.

For instance, If I visit your house, and while there, take a shit on your dining room table. That would be disrespectful to you (not to mention vulgar and rude) to do that. I doubt any hominid would find that practice respectful to them.

?!?!?

I will say this;

Were that to happen, the thought --"Why, by doing that, this person is being disrespectful to me!"-- would never, in a million years, enter my mind. Gross, yes. Rude, yes. Regretable, yes. Stinky, yes. A mess, yes. Foul, yes. Weird, yes. Unlikely to get them invited again, yes.

But "disrespectful"........??

No.

Reminds me of one of the saddest funerals I ever attended for a guy who committed suicide. His service was held at a Pentecostal church (not sure who was the member there... his family, probably, doubt if it was him). Anyway, like many fundamentalist churchs (and maybe more liberal ones too.. not sure about that), the church believed he was doomed to HELL for taking his own life. They went thru the service... but never once was anything good said about him... only that he was weak and refused to turn to God for help -- and that his death should serve as an example to those of us still alive. Even if you don't believe in everlasting life, it's really sad to attend a service where the church believes someone will burn in hell for their sins.

Made me wonder why they even bothered to have it in a church. I'm pretty sure he would've preferred the local Harley shop.

:(
SMW

I can not imagine having to sit through such a travesty. That's just sad.

Yes. There are many *people* --and their minds-- that I respect. Noam Chomsky. Howard Zinn. Michael Parenti. John Chuckman. Robert Ingersoll. Bertrand Russell. Richard Dawkins. Sam Clemens.

But respecting people is --for me-- quite different than respecting some thing like the amount of shoulder skin that a person reveals in certain buildings.



Of course he is. In Gawd-fearin', RightWing Amuuurica, all anti-gawd heathens who do not know the rules of shoulder-bearing should be sentenced to prison.
************************
Talk about Rabid hater.
Chomsky is a Jew and also an anti-semite.
Explain that.?
He also Hates America.
However Loves his Socialist Euro.
The guy's a true loon. Boring to a flaw.
OH yeah,he can parse History and make it appear as if His
estimates are favorable to Humanity.
The guy knows Humanity like a Mosquito.
He just bites the Right away.

?!?!?

I will say this;

Were that to happen, the thought --"Why, by doing that, this person is being disrespectful to me!"-- would never, in a million years, enter my mind. Gross, yes. Rude, yes. Regretable, yes. Stinky, yes. A mess, yes. Foul, yes. Weird, yes. Unlikely to get them invited again, yes.

But "disrespectful"........??

No.
Fair enough.

We just have a different outlook on things.

That's what makes you and I different individuals (and may be why we tend to disagree on some issues here on the forums).

Yes. There are many *people* --and their minds-- that I respect. Noam Chomsky. Howard Zinn. Michael Parenti. John Chuckman. Robert Ingersoll. Bertrand Russell. Richard Dawkins. Sam Clemens.

But respecting people is --for me-- quite different than respecting some thing like the amount of shoulder skin that a person reveals in certain buildings.



Of course he is. In Gawd-fearin', RightWing Amuuurica, all anti-gawd heathens who do not know the rules of shoulder-bearing should be sentenced to prison.
So, let me get this straight, FT. You have no respect for 'things' like churches, courts, law enforcement, govt., military, patriots, big corporations, charitable organizations, firefighters, schools, etc. The only respect you have to give is for those people who 'think' just like you? How 'bout your family? You DO have a family, don't you? Funny, you didn't mention them.

Not trying to rile you up. Just trying to understand how a person can reach your age and not feel the least bit obliged to join your fellow humans in a civilized society?

SMW