Will the Church Be Next on GLAAD's Agenda?

[righteousdude2]

With the fall of scouting to pressure from the "happiest people in America" about to be finalized, I have to ask whether the "happy people" will take on the church; and when?

I wonder if there will be lawsuits and political pressure against the non-profit status of churches throughout this nation if churches:

*Refuse to unite these "happy couples" in wedlock?
*Remove "happy people" who come out of the church closets and want to be seen as the "happy crowd" of the local Baptist, Lutheran, AoG, or Catholic church?
*For discharging "happy employees" who step out of the broom closet and announce their intentions to serve the church as one of the "happiest employees" in the organization?
*If churches refuse to let "happy people" join the congregation?
*If the church assesses evil and sin as the root cause behind the reason these people are so "happy?"

There are a number of different issues that GLAAD can use to join hands with the ACLU and lock horns with the local church regarding the right(s) of America's "happiest people" around and the church not permitting these folks to serve on boards; teach Sunday School; be their pastor; use the church for wedding ceremonies; attend camps, have "happy People" clubs inside the walls of churches and other make their affiliation and association with local churches, public knowledge!

Of course, I'm not talking about "happy people" who have had a "come-to-Jesus" moment; confessed their sins; been born-again; water baptised; and denounced not only satan but anything to do with the lifestyle that once made them one of the "happiest people" on earth, and no longer consider themselves "happy people."

I can't help but believe that GLAAD has simply began the process of peeling away the outer layers of private organizations that hold to higher levels of morality, in an attempt to eventually "normalize" every institution in this country?

Actually the "happy persons" agenda is not that old. It started out as talking points in the 80's and got its legs in, or around 1992 [according to the Wikipedia page].

Here's a sound bite from Wikipedia's account of the "happy persons" agenda: In the US, the term "the g*% agenda" was first used in public discourse in 1992 when the Family Research Council, an American conservative Christian group,[2] released a video series called The G*& Agenda as part of a pack of materials campaigning on homos#$ual issues and the "hidden g*% agenda".[3] In the same year the Oregon Citizens Alliance used this video as part of their campaign for Ballot Measure 9 to amend the Oregon Constitution to prevent what the OCA called special rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.[4] Paul Cameron — co-founder of the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in Lincoln, later renamed the Family Research Institute — appeared in the video, wherein he asserted that 75 percent of g*& men regularly ingest feces and that 70-78 percent have had a s#$ually transmitted disease.[5] The G*& Agenda was followed by three other video publications; The G*& Agenda in Public Education (1993), The G*& Agenda: March on Washington (1993) and a feature follow-up Stonewall: 25 Years of Deception (1994). The videos contained interviews with opponents of LGBT rights, and the series was made available through Christian right organizations. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda]

 

[go2church]

Like many issues, each church will have to decide for themselves. Having to pay taxes would certainly pinch the budgets of most churches, but then then as a tax paying body, there would be other avenues open for representation.

 

[righteousdude2]

That is Fatih...`

Like many issues, each church will have to decide for themselves. Having to pay taxes would certainly pinch the budgets of most churches, but then then as a tax paying body, there would be other avenues open for representation.

Thanks....I know that is what I'd choose to do, too!

 

[Oldtimer]

Yes, I believe the churches will be challenged, and challenged soon.

Right now with our current pastor and deacon fellowship, I believe ours would give up tax exempt status.

However, I'm not so sure about the generation(s) that are coming after us "oldtimers". Our pastor is in his 60's and takes a firm stand on this issue. Deacons range from 50's to 70's in age. All, like myself, born in another era. Many of the young people (say 35 and under) seem to have a different outlook.

A simple example: Sometimes they want to cut Bible study or choir practice short in order to get home and watch the finals of some American Idol type TV program. An example, that I hope conveys some sense of what I'm seeing in the church, regarding acceptance of what was considered to be unacceptable. (I'm not talking about women and pants type situtations.)

Reading this thread has made me ponder about something. Is it time for churches to give up their tax exempt status? True churches, God fearing assemblies of believers.

The love of money is the root of all evil. Has this loophole of tax exempt opened the door for more corruption into the "church" as a way to keep more of what's put into the offering plate? How many false "churches/religions" exist for that purpose?

Everytime anyone, whether church, individual, local government, yields to sinful strings attached to money, satan wins. Is it time for Baptist churches to say we won't yield anymore? Jesus gave His all for our pardon. Isn't it our responsibility to give all, if that's what it takes, to keep sin at bay?

 

[Greektim]

With the fall of scouting to pressure from the "happiest people in America" about to be finalized, I have to ask whether the "happy people" will take on the church; and when?

I wonder if there will be lawsuits and political pressure against the non-profit status of churches throughout this nation if churches:

*Refuse to unite these "happy couples" in wedlock?
*Remove "happy people" who come out of the church closets and want to be seen as the "happy crowd" of the local Baptist, Lutheran, AoG, or Catholic church?
*For discharging "happy employees" who step out of the broom closet and announce their intentions to serve the church as one of the "happiest employees" in the organization?
*If churches refuse to let "happy people" join the congregation?
*If the church assesses evil and sin as the root cause behind the reason these people are so "happy?"

There are a number of different issues that GLAAD can use to join hands with the ACLU and lock horns with the local church regarding the right(s) of America's "happiest people" around and the church not permitting these folks to serve on boards; teach Sunday School; be their pastor; use the church for wedding ceremonies; attend camps, have "happy People" clubs inside the walls of churches and other make their affiliation and association with local churches, public knowledge!

Of course, I'm not talking about "happy people" who have had a "come-to-Jesus" moment; confessed their sins; been born-again; water baptised; and denounced not only satan but anything to do with the lifestyle that once made them one of the "happiest people" on earth, and no longer consider themselves "happy people."

I can't help but believe that GLAAD has simply began the process of peeling away the outer layers of private organizations that hold to higher levels of morality, in an attempt to eventually "normalize" every institution in this country?

Actually the "happy persons" agenda is not that old. It started out as talking points in the 80's and got its legs in, or around 1992 [according to the Wikipedia page].

Here's a sound bite from Wikipedia's account of the "happy persons" agenda: In the US, the term "the g*% agenda" was first used in public discourse in 1992 when the Family Research Council, an American conservative Christian group,[2] released a video series called The G*& Agenda as part of a pack of materials campaigning on homos#$ual issues and the "hidden g*% agenda".[3] In the same year the Oregon Citizens Alliance used this video as part of their campaign for Ballot Measure 9 to amend the Oregon Constitution to prevent what the OCA called special rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.[4] Paul Cameron — co-founder of the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in Lincoln, later renamed the Family Research Institute — appeared in the video, wherein he asserted that 75 percent of g*& men regularly ingest feces and that 70-78 percent have had a s#$ually transmitted disease.[5] The G*& Agenda was followed by three other video publications; The G*& Agenda in Public Education (1993), The G*& Agenda: March on Washington (1993) and a feature follow-up Stonewall: 25 Years of Deception (1994). The videos contained interviews with opponents of LGBT rights, and the series was made available through Christian right organizations. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda]

Hope that it is. The church in America needs persecution at this point. Something to force them to stand up for a Gospel that says Jesus is Lord rather than God loves you the way you are. It would weed out the posers.

 

[Salty]

I am not trying to hijack this thread - but may I uses these examples?

Is a a church required under law to have handicap parking spaces? (note - the purpose is not to discuss if we should have them)

But should a church be required to ? Suppose a Pentecostal church states "If you have faith - you will be healed" thus their belief that not handicap spots are needed.
(please this is not to be critical of Pentecostal churches)

I have been looking at para 1203 of the NY DMV, and I do not see where churches might be exempted.

Bottom line - if a church thur their religious beliefs does not want handicap parking spots - should they be REQUIRED to do so.

Let look at a more realistic example - many churches in the area of Appalachian practice snake handling even though it is against the law (execpt in WV). Those churches take Mark 16 very seriously. Does the government have a right to deny them their religious beliefs by "prohibiting the free exercise thereof";

Bottom line - the State/ Commonwealth / Federal govt will make laws little by little. And as Oldtimer says However, I'm not so sure about the generation(s) that are coming after us "oldtimers". Sure what the govt "suggests" may not seem to unreasonable-aat first - but we need to know when to stand our ground - because just like cooking a frog (start with warm water ...) the same is true with our Biblical standards.

 

[OldRegular]

What do you mean "next"? Some "congregations" have already caved.