MOBO gay protest stepped up
Sat 28 August, 2004 05:18

By Paul Sexton

LONDON (Billboard) - A prominent gay rights group is stepping up its campaign against what it views as homophobic lyrics by a number of reggae acts.

The OutRage organisation has attracted widespread media coverage in recent days, first by calling on EMI Records UK to cancel its contract with controversial Virgin Records reggae artist Beenie Man, even though he is signed to its U.S. company.

EMI Music UK declined comment. But Virgin said in a statement, "The Beenie Man lyrics in question are from songs released on independent labels not affiliated with Virgin Records. We do not condone violence."

In the United States, MTV has taken action against Beenie Man. On August 24, the channel yanked him from an August 28 concert it is presenting in Miami the night before the Video Music Awards after gay groups announced plans to protest his inclusion, according to MTV.

After its complaints to EMI, OutRage accused the Music of Black Origin Awards of condoning homophobia by its alleged refusal to refrain from nominating artists who express anti-gay sentiments in their music.

An open letter from OutRage head Peter Tatchell to MOBO chief executive Kanya King asked that this year's award nominations, which were announced August 24, exclude "any singer or group who incites or glorifies -- either in the past or the present -- the murder of lesbians and gay men (or anyone else)."

The letter cited Beenie Man, Buju Banton, Bounty Killer, Elephant Man, Vybz Kartel, Capleton, TOK and Sizzla. This year's MOBO nominees include Elephant Man and Vybz Kartel in the best reggae artist category. The awards take place September 30 at London's Royal Albert Hall.

MOBO responded to OutRage's allegations with a statement that said the organisation "strongly emphasised to voters ... that the MOBOs don't support music that clearly incites violence toward gay people."

The statement continued, "People obviously did keep this in mind when voting, because the controversial Beenie Man ... has not been nominated."

Nominations for the MOBO Awards are determined by 2,000 members of the British record industry.

In reference to Elephant Man, the MOBO statement conceded that he "had previously recorded material that could be deemed homophobic ... nearly four years ago. Elephant Man that his current material is a positive celebration of Jamaican culture and has no references to the issue in question."

The new action is just the latest protest from OutRage. In September 2003, the group complained to police about lyrics on records by Beenie Man, Elephant Man and Bounty Killer and delivered a dossier on the subject to Scotland Yard's Race and Violent Crime Taskforce.

The Crown Prosecution Service is investigating whether charges should be brought against the three artists.

In early August, Beenie Man said in a statement that "certain lyrics and recordings I have made in the past may have caused distress and outrage among people whose identities and lifestyles are different from my own ... I offer my sincerest apologies to those who might have been offended, threatened or hurt by my songs."

Reuters/Billboard

Even though i don't agree with his lyrics, that is my own opinion, and i am not threatened by the lyrics in his songs, but i do believe artists should have freedom of expression and speech.
If we don't want to listen to artist that promote hate and intolerance, are biggest bet would be that we can alwayd turn the channel or not buy the albu.

Freedom of Speech is more important than being, ...'offended, threatened, or hurt'... by someones words of expression... here, here dennytate .

Mtv banning him from performing in my opinion was wrong. An artist shouldn't be censored as long as
they are in agreement in condoning with FCC regulations of not using verbal curse words or insults on stage. I think they don't want another Janet and Justin Timberlake mistake, but in what they would percieve to possibly believe to being a homophobic attack. To ban him from performing or expressinh his views is wrong.
Indeed "Freedom of Speech" is more important than being offended ! I couldn't agree more.
What i am saying is that even though i do not agree with his views on gay people , he has every right to state his opinions and use his lyrical art to demonstrate his view points on whatever subject he is writing about. As artists or listeners.. if we are offended by such lyrics, we don't have to buy the album. I do not agree with people banning nor taking away his freedom of expression, but i can understand their anger considering his lyrics.
Beenieman himself stated in one of his songs that queers and gays should be executed.
He has very right to use those lyrics, just like the gay community has every right to protest,ignore and not share the same view points in his music.
We are just trying to make this world a better place for everyone, but someone will always be offended by something, so we cannot take away Freedom of Speech !
I completely agree with you Sound Seeker !

Wouldn't that music fall under the same anti-hate laws that keep nazi hate-rock off the shelves? Oh wait... not if it's on a major label!
Freedom of expression doesn't make hatemongering alright... I'm sure if the tables were turned [homosexuals singing about killing Jamaicans] the Jamaican community would be quite outraged!

/against censorship, but also against music that incites racism/homophobia/sexism...

"An open letter from OutRage head Peter Tatchell to MOBO chief executive Kanya King asked that this year's award nominations, which were announced August 24, exclude "any singer or group who incites or glorifies -- either in the past or the present -- the murder of lesbians and gay men (or anyone else)."

You gotta love how the denounce violence against gay people, and then throw in "or anybody else" as a kind of afterthought. As if the vast majority of society is somehow less important than they are.

Anyway, great idea: let's stamp out freedom of expression because a tiny minority is "offended." Because, you know, that's so good for society and all...

I'm not an advocate of the gay lifestyle one bit however I would stand up for their rights just like anyone elses. They have the right to live and work without fear. having said that, I'm so sick of hearing the word homophobic applied to anyone that doesn't seem to fit the political correct pattern when refering to gays. those lyrics are harmless. it is very hard for me to support and defend their rights when they throw these stupid accusations around

Music lyrics are full of love and hate, and someone
will always be offended.
I am Jewish. I also am a Christian. I am transgendered. I am human. If people want to write
songs against these specific LABELS that make me up who i am as a person, that is something i cannot hold against them, even though i believe that they are wrong and i'm offended, they have their right expressing their views in song, but the minute they attack me personally outside the realm of art, as in the state of a threat or harassment, then that is where the line is drawn. Like if someone knocked on your door with words that were imposed to be harassment or a threat. You can ban the book, you can ban the movie, but you cannot ban the person of
expressing their rights. If they are personally attacking you, you can prosecute. ( common sense )
Freedom of Speech

Beenie has the right to Gay bash and be bashed for it.

remember Randy Newmans song years ago called "Short People"

it was a protest against bigotry but was taken the other way and there was a big uproar

Hey folks, my freedom of speech was suspended for about a week by something called poverty. (They cut off my cable bill cause I was late paying it!)
But I skipped some meals and less important bills, paid an extrodinarily high amount of money, and am now back online to exercise my #1 freedom while it is still sorta legal to do so.

Leflaw said it correct. Bashing anyone/anything is your right, no matter how offensive ...and it is the right of others to bash you back. I will bash Beenie for his bashing, (and even more so for being affiliated with the RIAA) but I will also stand up for his right to bash whomever/whatever he chooses.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!
(...so we can do things like eat and pay our bills ontime!)

For the record, I am a Christian. I try to live, and ask for supernatural help in living, the life. I fail, I succeed. I'm only human. Needless to say, but there.

"They have the right to live and work without fear."

Bash me for this if you want, like you said, you bash someone, they bash you. I just had to put this in when I saw that sentence.

But: The people in Sodom and Gomorrah were exercising the 'right' to live and work as homosexuals. Look what happened to them.

Something strikes me quite odd about anyone named "Beenie" making fun of anyone else for anything.

That post illustrated some of the dark side.

The upside is that God loves us all, but unfortunately we are all separated from Him through our human nature. He wants everyone to come back to Him, but also lets those who choose certain things (ie: lifestyles) through free will. And as stated in the same section, the people in those cities suffered and received what was due to them in their physical bodies. God will freely forgive them (and forget) and help them get out of this lifestyle if they come to Him as they are. I don't intend to sound preachy. Someone wanna discuss this kind of stuff? Mail me: asiaminor2k (at) yahoo (dot) ca

But hey, there's a reason why homosexual members were angered when Tim LaHaye released a book about why the homosexual lifestyle is actually an unhappy lifestyle. Then again, God also said that he and others who stood for Him would be opposed and persecuted for what is the truth.

Am I high on something? For the record, I don't do drugs either But that's just in case someone thinks so. Ah, free speech! =)

My first one, not CodeWarrior's

shmoo, you guys playing live in the Denver area anytime soon?

Well, I guess I will wade into the gay issue...

Firstly, I don't know why this whole gay euphemism started, any more than I know why people starting using the term "straight".

As for me, I don't care what one consenting adult does with another one as long as they don't hurt a third person.

That being said...one time I was in a national park and had to use a public bathroom. When I entered, there were sounds of two men having sex coming from a stall. That made me very uncomfortable and I turned and left immediately. I think personally it is uncool for heterosexuals OR homosexuals to be having sex in a public bathroom.

In the Bible, we not only find the warning about it being a sin for a man to lie with another man, BUT, in the SAME Bible, we find that King David, while a young man, had a "special friend" named Jonathan, who was King Saul's son. We know that David loved Jonathan...and it may well have been agape love and not sexual, but some scholars being it had more of an erotic nature than that.

We also know that King David's rebellious son Absalom, who actually, for a time, took over the throne in Jerusalem from King David, died because his LONG HAIR, got caught in a tree and he was murdered while he hung there helpless. So, the son of the King had long hair, and thus, it was not a total ban on long hair in men.

Now, as to the Bible speaking out against consensual sex between men, yes, it does. It also asks the question
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, IF A MAN HAVE LONG HAIR, IT IS A SHAME UNTO HIM?" - 1 Corinthians 11:14 Actually, that is a question (I found it on a bible thumping site downing men with long hair) and the obvious answer is NO, because if a man stays "natural" , i.e. obeying the natural processes of nature...his hair will grow long. The intervention of cutting the hair is not "nature".

And Samson had long hair, and as much as the bible thumpers decry it and want to teach against it, it is VERY likely Yeshua (Jesus) had both a beard and long hair.

The bible thumpers will point to their doctrinal assertions on this site
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/longhairedmen.html
to say Jesus could not have had long hair. They go ON and ON about Jesus was NOT a Nazarite (they had long hair), they say he was a Nazarene, not a Nazarite. But, Jesus is spoken of often as Jesus OF Nazareth....not called Jesus the Nazarene.

Now, why do I say he may well have had long hair? Most of the pictures of Jesus were modelled after the Mandelion...
http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/iconography/iconographyofstlukeparish.cfm
"
The Iconography of St. Luke Parish


An Overall View of the Iconography at St. Luke Parish


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some of the text taken from a talk given to Lutheran group at St. Luke Orthodox Church
during Lent 2001 by Alexandria Lukashonak
Icon of the Theotokos
Orthodox Christianity and Iconography go hand in hand -- you don't get one without the other, and so today, I'd like to introduce you to Icons - particularly to the Icon of our Lady of the Sign which is the one you see on the wall of the sanctuary, the one that greets you as you enter our church. The Icon of the Virgin Mary Theotokos, which means birth giver of God, is seen as the heart of the church offering us her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.


In Old Testament times, the temple was the place where God dwelled. With the incarnation of Christ, He came to dwell among us and in us. His Mother becomes the new temple and as such she is given an important place in the church.

Before I go on, I'd like to tell you a little bit about what icons are and what they are not:

An icon is a form of Holy Scripture. It represents a true account of a holy person or event, which actually occurred. Icons date back to Genesis 1: 26 humanity was created in the "icon" or "image" and likeness of God, but God had not yet become incarnate and had no visible, physical form. With the incarnation of Christ, that physical form became visible and was able to be depicted. The icon that we see here today is actually a copy of one, which was found in the catacombs dating back to the first century.

As we all know, the bible was not available in the early days of the Church. Even after the word of God was put into writing, it was virtually impossible for the average person to own a copy of the various scriptures. They had to be hand copied on vellum and were very expensive. In addition, the literacy rate in many countries was not high enough for the masses to read the scripture. The Church met this problem early on by adapting iconography, already developed in the first century, to a teaching use. Almost the entire bible would be painted in a manner, which was strictly regulated so that it correctly portrayed the scripture and these icons decorated the walls of churches to the extent that, in some churches, there would be no bare walls left. Iconography, in fact, became another language.

There was a period of time in the 8th century when rulers in the East (Leo III and Constantine V) attempted to subject the Church to their rule. In order to gain control of the Church, they attacked zealous Christians, especially monks, who defended the integrity of the Church. Their attack was specifically aimed at the veneration of icons. Eventually they were defeated and the proper use of icons was confirmed by the Council of Nicea held in 787, long before the church became divided.

Icons are not humanistic drawings of holy persons. They are not sentimental, personal revelations but are called upon to be true and faithful to the spiritual and ascetic qualities of the persons depicted, that is, the true reality of the person as he or she was created to be, unmarred by sin. This is actually what being a "Saint" is all about.

Icons are objects of reverence or respect and veneration or honor. This is very different from worship. We do not worship icons, rather, when correctly made and used in worship, icons give a greater understanding and awareness of spirit and truth and lift the soul upward in adoration of God and his creation. Honor rendered to the image ascends to its prototype and he who venerates an icon, adores the person.

The Icon of our Lady of the Sign which greets you upon entering St. Luke's is so named because she is the sign of the Incarnate Christ coming to us. In Isaiah 7:14, we read: "The Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin shall be with Child and shall call his name Emmanuel (God with us )." It is also known as the Platytera, a Greek word meaning "more spacious than the Heavens." In a hymn from St.Basil's Liturgy, we sing: 'For He made your womb more spacious than the heavens."

The Mother of God is shown with her hands upraised in prayer, and she is offering us her son, Jesus, usually shown in a mandula over her bosom. (A mandula is an oval circle representing the universe and showing that Jesus is the Creator of the universe.) The many winged angels, the cherubim, shown on either side of Mary indicate that she is higher than the angels Again, we sing: " more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare, more glorious than the seraphim, you gave birth to God the Word. "The letters at the top of the icon stand for Mary, Mother of God, and the letters on either side of Christ are his initials.

The letters in Jesus' halo stand for "O Own" meaning "I am," the name given to him on Mt. Sinai. The placement of this icon in the church is important. It is displayed in the dome over the altar because Mary who presents Christ to the world, also represents us in worship before God and is seen as a model in prayer to her Son, who we are all called to love and worship.

I'd like to close with the words of Peter Gillquist concerning his reaction during one of his early encounters with Icons. (This is taken from Again Magazine, Volume 9, No. 4.)

"I remember entering a church sometime ago and seeing a picture or icon of Mary with open arms front and center on the wall (apse) just behind the altar. My first impulse was to wonder why Christ was not featured at that particular place in the church though he was shown in a large circle that was super imposed over her heart. When I asked why she was so prominently featured, the Christian scholar with me explained: 'This is perhaps one of the most evangelistic icons in the entire church. What you see is Christ living as Lord in Mary's life and her outstretched arms are an invitation to you and me to let him live in our lives as he does in hers.' The power of that icon stays in my mind to this day, for she has set the pace (standard) for all of us to personally give our lives to Jesus Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Icons in the altar at St. Luke
Icon of the Nativity
Written (Painted) by Cheryl Pituch a former Parishioner

The icon of the Nativity of our Lord is on the North wall above the table of preparation. There is a relationship between the Nativity of Christ and the service of preparation which precedes the Liturgy. In the service the Holy gifts are prepared to be offered as Christ's birth is his preparation to be offered for our sins. The child is rapped in swaddling cloth which is symbolic of his grave rapping's. The icon depicts Joseph being tempted to put Mary away, the wise man, shepherds, angels and star from the East. Also can be seen are the midwifes washing the child Jesus and the barn animals.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Crucifixion of our Lord

This Icon on the South wall of the altar depicts Christ who said, "And I, If I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself." (John 12: 32) The Theotokos, Mary the wife of Clopas, Mary Magdalene, Apostle John and the St. Longinius are standing below the cross. From Christ's side flow blood and water which represent the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. This is literally the forgiveness of sins that gushed out of Jesus' side; the water gushed unto regeneration and the washing away of sin and the blood as drink productive of life everlasting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Eucharist

This Icon of the Eucharist is on the back wall behind the altar showing Christ giving Communion to His apostles. All the apostles are in attendance, including St. Paul who was historically not in attendance at the Lord's Supper. The icon is not of the Lord's Supper, but rather a mystical icon of the Eternal Eucharist which was celebrated in the past, is celebrated in the present and will be celebrated in the future in the Kingdom of Heaven. An open Gospel is present on the Altar with the words of St. Luke. Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22: 17-1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom

The icons of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great are located under the windows above the Altar. They were placed there to honor the two saints who revised the ancient apostolic Liturgy of St. James. (To view the Divine Liturgy page with complete text please click here) These two revisions of the Liturgy are the most frequently used liturgies in the Orthodox Church and are named after these two church fathers.

To view the Life of St. Basil the Great, please click here

To view the Life of St. John Chrysostom, please click here


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iconastasis or Icon screen

The Iconastasis or Icon screen was made by Rob Ketchmark the husband of one of our parishioners. The icons on the Iconastasis were painted by Heather MacKean who resides in Portland, Oregon. An Iconastasis is a trademark for Orthodox Churches. They are patterned after the wall in the Jewish temple which separated the woman's court from the sanctuary. This shows our connection with the Old Testament. The icons on it signify our unity with Christ, His mother and all angels and saints.

Icons of Christ and the Theotokos



The Icon on the left of the Altar table is of the Virgin and Child which commemorates the Incarnation of Christ and His first coming. The Icon of Christ on the right commemorates the Apocalypse (Second Coming) of the risen Christ. The Altar table which separates the two icons represents our time in which we communicate with God through His Son who is given to us in the Eucharist (Holy Communion).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Icons of St. Luke & St. Innocent



The second to the right and left on the Iconastasis are icons of St. Luke and St. Innocent. According to the parish tradition, the patron saint of the parish appears to the left of the Virgin and child (Greek) or to the right of Christ (Russian). Usually in the Greek tradition St. John the Baptist appears on the right of Christ. By putting St. Luke on the left as in the Greek tradition and St. Innocent to the right as in the Russian tradition we signifying the Pan Orthodox nature of St. Luke Parish.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Icon of Archangel Michael & Archangel Gabriel



The Archangels Michael and Gabriel appear on the two deacons' doors on the far left and right of the Iconastasis. They are placed on the doors as guards signifying that this is a holy place and to enter with fear and trembling. Michael, in Hebrew, means "Who is Like God." St. Michael is depicted with spear in hand with which he attacks Satan. He is considered to be the guardian of the Orthodox faith and fighter against heresy. He is the leader of the angelic army and when Satan fell away from God and carried half of the angels with him it was Michael who arose and cried to the unfallen angels "Let us give heed! Let us stand aright; let us stand with fear, and the whole angelic army sang aloud "Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Sabaoth: Heaven and earth are full of Your glory." ( See Joshua 5:13-15 & Jude 9)

Gabriel means "power of God." St. Gabriel is the herald of the mysteries of God, especially the mystery of the Incarnation and all those that are linked with it. He is the angel who announced to Mary, "Rejoice highly favored one, the Lord is with you blessed are you among women" (Luke 1:2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Icons of the Royal Doors



The Royal Doors witness to the good news, the Gospel of salvation. The icon of the Theotokos and the Angel Gabriel at the center of the doors proclaim the first good news when the Angel announced to Mary that she would be with child of the Holy Spirit and give birth to a Son who would be Emanuel-God with us. ( Luke 1:24-36) Mary, because of her Virginity is called, in Liturgical text, The Closed Door. The second announcement of the good news, Christ's resurrection, came through the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These icons are placed around the Annunciation icon. The icons of David and Solomon appear on the Royal doors because of their kingship and kinship to our Lord. Solomon is mentioned in the scripture in the construction the temple doors. (Kings 6:32 & Chronicles 3:7) The doors also refer to the coming of Christ when the "King of Glory will come in." (Psalm 24)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Icons of the Theotokos and Angel Gabriel

Tradition says that the Angel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary while she was spinning yarn and announced to her that she would give birth Jesus Christ (Luke 1:31) The icon shows Mary with yarn in her hand. A verse from the Canon of St. Andrew or Crete describes in a poetic way the story of the Annunciation. "O pure Virgin, the flesh of Emmanuel was formed within your womb as a robe of crimson is spun from scarlet silk. We proclaim you to be truly the Mother or our God."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Four Evangelists



The center of the royal doors are adorned with icons of the four evangelists. St John and St. Luke are on the left with St. Mark and St. Matthew on the right. For more inforamtion on their lives please use the links below.

To view the Life of St. Luke the Evangelist, please click here

To view the Life of St. Mark the Evangelist, please click here

To view the Life of St. John the Evangelist, please click here

To view the Life of St. Matthew the Evangelist, please click here



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Icons of Soloman and David


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


At the top of the Royal Doors are depicted the Prophet David and the Prophet Solomom. The icons of David and Solomon appear on the Royal doors because of their kingship and kinship to our Lord. Solomon is mentioned in the scripture in the construction the temple doors. (Kings 6:32 & Chronicles 3:7)

To view the life of the Prophet David, please click here

To view the life of the Prophet Solomon, please click here


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pentecost (The decent of the Holy Spirit)

The Icon between the ceiling and arch is of Pentecost (The decent of the Holy Spirit) which occurred 50th days after Pascha when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles in the form of fiery tongues. (Acts 2: 1-4) The Icon portrays the historical event which occurred in Jerusalem in 33AD. St. Paul is depicted in the lower left of the icon. At that time he was not a follower of Jesus Christ and not in attendance on Pentecost. He received the gift to the Holy Spirit when he was baptized in Damascus. This icon transcends Pentecost and symbolized the decent of the Holy Spirit on the entire Church - past, present and future.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mandelion or Icon Not Made With Hands

The Icon at the very apex the arch is called the Mandelion or Icon Not Made With Hands. It is the face of Jesus Christ which mystically appeared on the napkin which was used by St. Veronica to wipe our Lord's face on his way to Golgotha. The holy napkin was sent by the Apostles to Abgar King of Edessa who was gravely ill for the purpose of healing him. It was placed in a niche above the city gates of Edessa. This began the practice of placing this Icon at the entrance of the Church or over the Holy Doors."

Some believe the mandelion was formed by a cloth placed over the face of Yeshua himself, and his image was formed on the cloth.

The Mandelion, as an icon, is believed to have inspired medieval artists to portray Yeshua with long hair and beard. There was no logical reason to explain why they could not just as easily have used a short haired image, but if you survey the depictions of Jesus through the ages, you find that most are fairly close...i.e. the image of Jesus until the last decade or so, was fairly standard...much like he is depicted in The Passion of the Christ.

And, if you look at The Last Supper, by one of my own favorite artists, DaVinci (who was "gay")..you note that the hair length for the apostles varies in length. In fact, more often than not, in OTHER art works depicting the apostles, especially Peter, you will note they are generally depicted as short haired.

But, there's more...
Jeremiah has several passages (7:29, 9:26, 25:23, 49:32) talking about
how cutting one's hair is synonymous with being unholy. Similarly,
the listing of horrible things which will happen to enemies of Israel
in Micah 1 ends with a threat that Mare'shahites shall be shaven bald.

The Stromata of Celems Alexandrius, Book II, Chapter XVIII, paragraph
6 states that if a master falls in love with a female captive should
shave her hair, both to shame such a disgraceful love, and also to
determine whether it's love or lust, since no one could possibly lust
after a shaved head. (Bald men unite to oppose this heresy ).

We know that the Nazis would shave the Jewish women's heads to shame them,
and in the Norwegian countries, after the war, women who collaborated with the Nazis or had affairs with SS officers, were captured by townspeople and had their heads shaved as a sign of shame to everyone.

Geez...getting longwinded here.

The deal is this. One CANNOT isolate the Bible from its cultural influences.
The Bible is first and foremost, a product of the Jewish culture.

The Christian religion, at first, was meant ONLY for Jews. In fact, only Saul, renamed Paul, was in favor of letting non-Jews (Goyim) become followers. This brazen assertion that all people should be able to Christians, caused a major riff between Paul and the other apostles, especially Peter. They did not even approve of Paul breaking bread with Goyim.

But, if someone is going to follow the Bible, follow it ALL. Remember the Sabbath (shabbat) and keep it holy, does not mean taking off work to play golf on Sunday. The sabbath is the seventh day of the week, NOT the first, which is Sunday (taking a sabbatical is taking a vacation every SEVENTH year).

How many Christians follow that keep the SEVENTH day holy stuff? IN the Bible, and according to Jewish custom in biblical times, picking up sticks on Saturday could get you stoned.

Are there unhappy homosexuals? Of course, and guess what...there are unhappy heterosexuals as well. Nowadays, there are a lot of unhappy people here and in every country in the world, and that has nothing to do with sexual preferences.

And, I believe that guys who are gay, are usually born that way. I've known gay guys and lesbians, and from their report, they were always attracted to the same sex. Certainly, given the prejudice many people have aganst them, why would anyone just CHOOSE to go through all that.

So, yeah, you can use the bible to prove a lot of things depending on how you interpret the Greek...

The truth is that the old testament has God doing a lot of what seems to be petty and meanspirited things....the new testament is the more loving, reasonable, rational one...which leads some to see the God of the old testament like an easily pissed off, vengeful diety just looking for a reason to wipe people out. But, how about the God of the New Testament....when Jesus talks to him in the Garden before he is to be arrested and asks his father if the cup could pass from him...does he get a voice saying yes or no? How about when Jesus calls out and says Father , Father, why has thou forsaken me? Again...no answer....no talk from God.

I think we all believe what we believe...but these guys who carry signs and call homosexuals fags and say that Aids is God's answer to them, make me want to vomit. These toothless backwoods idiots wouldn't know God or Jesus if he came up and asked them for the time...and yes...if Jesus came back with long hair wearing robes...these yokels from the movie Deliverance would be the first to brand our Lord and Savior, Yeshua...a "Fag".

Ya think if Yeshua came back to Earth that he would hang out with Pie Eyed Goo Faced people like Falwell, or that evil Howdy Doody lookalike Pat Robertson? No, Jesus hung out with fishermen and common people...simple poor people.

God must love the common man, because he made so many of us.

sorry for that long post folks.

People can say anything for a 'report'. But no offense to your post CodeWarrior.

I don't think they were 'always' attracted to the same sex. After all, that's why God made man and woman, man for donation and woman for capacity (or a 'partner' as said in the OT) so the human species would survive. No judging here, but I think their minds became twisted (Devil at work) and they willfully went against nature (man and woman). Free will in everyone. Sure, there may be the odd thought or lust for a same member, but there's also the (natural) option of falling for a member of the opposite sex. And sure you can fight this position with all the science and psychology in the world, but the fact remains that there's a reason why man and woman were created.

And I am sorry, but some things that I want to say, I don't usually always say eloquently (unlike some other people that we know of).

And apparently, since Christ came to earth and gave Himself for us, that broke all the old rules of the OT. So now, we just have to accept Christ thru faith (etc), and deal with the Ten Commandments (which are hard enough to begin with as humans).

Wow, Code, glad you're in a talkative mood again! Live from Miami here and all the local news is full of MTV junk--I could really live without ever seeing Jessica, Jennifer, or Britney again, but remember there is a large gay community on South Beach, so things could really heat up here by Monday night. Personally, I'm gonna watch the Republican sideshow instead, just to keep track of the lies they tell this time. Plus, by Tuesday we will have a better idea of where that newest hurricane is going to be heading. I've been through Andrew, and really don't know if I can stand another one of those. And Shmoo, glad you're back. There are some very strange people on here lately.

In July, a transit system police officer in Washington, D.C., arrested, handcuffed and searched Stephanie Willett, 45, an Environmental Protection Agency scientist, detaining her at a police station for about three hours because she was finishing up the chewing of her PayDay candy bar inside a Metrorail station, in violation of the no-eating rule. Transit officials pointed out that Willett had been warned by the officer a minute before not to enter the station while eating the candy bar, but she thought if it was completely in her mouth as she walked in, she was safe. [Washington Post, 7-28-04]

"those lyrics are harmless. it is very hard for me to support and defend their rights when they throw these stupid accusations around"

I didn't see any lyrics in the article. What lyrics are you talking about that are "harmless"?

Here's some Beenie Man lyrics:

"I'm dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the queers".

"Hang chi chi gal wid a long piece of rope" (hang gay women with a long piece of rope).

"Chi chi man" is a derogatory Jamaican patios insult, similar to faggot, poof and queer.

The lyrics of "Bad man, Chi Chi Man" include the exhortation that if you see a gay DJ run off the stage like a clown, kill him:

"Yuh see im to run off a stage like a clown, kill dem DJ!"

"Wouldn't that music fall under the same anti-hate laws that keep nazi hate-rock off the shelves? Oh wait... not if it's on a major label!"

What anti-hate laws are you talking about that keep nazi-hate rock off the shelves?

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=white+power+music&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

Good points, mroop.

Code wrote: "God must love the common man, because he made so many of us."

Yep, He so loved us so much that He gave His only begotten Son to die for us.

'Code wrote: "The truth is that the old testament has God doing a lot of what seems to be petty and meanspirited things....the new testament is the more loving, reasonable, rational one..."

The real truth is that God is not necessarily "rational" by OUR standards, but that His ways are - as He Himself put it - "beyond finding out".
And His ways don't always suit our conventions, not to mention political correctness.
For example, even in the New Testament, homosexual sins (as well as heterosexual sins such as fornication and adultery) ARE condemned by God . . . though forgiveable. (You may not need proof of this from actual New Testament passages -- but I can furnish them from one of my huge Bible reference books if you'd like -- I still have them from the Bible college I had attended.)

Neither of us are theologians; on that note we can agree.
But, we can't resist dabbling, can we?

'Code also wrote: "Ya think if Yeshua came back to Earth that he would hang out with Pie-Eyed, Goo-Faced people like Falwell, or that evil Howdy Doody look-alike Pat Robertson? No, Jesus hung out with fishermen and common people...simple poor people."

Very well said.

But here comes a tough part. AsiaMinor responded to a sensitive issue that was broached by 'Code. The latter had written: "...guys who are gay, are usually born that way. I've known gay guys and lesbians, and from their report, they were always attracted to the same sex. Certainly, given the prejudice many people have aganst them, why would anyone just CHOOSE to go through all that?"
AsiaMinor responded: "I don't think they were 'always' attracted to the same sex. After all, that's why God made man and woman . . ."

If we accept the premise of the Bible being true, then it's reasonable to peruse what the Creator had designed. That account is in Genesis, chapter 3:18-35.
God sets down the standard; man can choose to follow it or not. Often, to his chagrin, he chooses to go his own way. Sometimes, God even says -- through an apostle, as in Romans chapter 1 in a discussion about homosexual impulses -- that He "gives them up" to perverted lust. BTW, this is the part of the New Testament (especially in verses 18-32 of Romans 1) that often draws the most ire from leaders of gay rights organizations.
But, as I said before, God isn't about to reverse course just because man, or a given segment of a society of man in a given time in history, wants Him to; He is spiritually sovereign over all, and His Word is for all time. I realize this truth may not necessarily be well-received, but God and the Bible never claimed to be entered into a popularity contest . . . and His followers can sometimes expect persecution.
As I mentioned previously, sex sins (whether heterosexual or homosexual) are forgiveable; what God expects is for us to ask to be forgiven and then show we mean we're sorry by striving prayerfully with His help to make appropriate changes to our wayward lifestyle. The Bible gives sufficient evidence that people CAN change -- and that would include fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals. Those who don't really want to change might find an appealing excuse if they try hard enough.

Wow, 'Code, I think you stirred up a hornet's nest.
(Actually, having the news topic about gays to discuss was probably an initial impetus.)

Theologians we aren't, but theology is fascinating nonetheless!

wow.. religion AND sexual preference, in the same forum. Go figure.
I'm really finding this kind of cool. I agree with (believe it or not) every single one of these posts in one way or another. Not in entirety. But that's not the point.
I'm not sure where it came from, but there's a line..

I don't like the fact that you burn the flag, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it.

or something like that. I feel that way about this whole scene. If someone chooses to live an openly homosexual life, then I say let them. I'll defend that right.
What I WILL NOT defend is their right to make my life miserable.
I do not like being called straight in a derogatory tone. I don't like bein told "dump the bitch and make the switch" or anything like that. The dichotomy that this line of reasoning represents is enormous. There must be a line that everyone toes evenly, or the distinction blurs.
Gays want to marry? go for it. Want the same job I have? Here, take mine. Want to live in apartment next to mine? Sure, did you make the grade on the rental application? Gay teachers? Sure! If they are qualified and can teach as well if not better than some other teacher.

The line has to be drawn because.. well.. hrmm.. these people are making CONSCIOUS and OPEN decisions about how they present themselves. PRESENT themselves. The KNOW there is an anti-gay lobby out there, and that many school kids as well as adults feel strongly against the gay lifestyle. The choice they make is not without its perils, and yet, the still CHOOSE to be who they are.
I have seven tattoos, and am working on designs for four more. None of them are especially evil (spiderman, Xmen and some others) and yet, I get labeled all the time as a "biker" and worse. So what? I made a consicous decision to only get ink above the elbow and not anywhere that it can be seen in a regular everyday shirt. I know many people that are surprised to see my ink, and it does change their opinion of me. Ya know what tho? That's cool.

I don't like the fact that you think tattoos are gross, evil and wrong, but i will defend to the death your right to express that opinion.

My point is.. people make choices. Society helps shape these choices, but ultimately, it's the person that makes the choice. To be able to live with that choice is what makes a person stronger. To strike out in the same manner when someone bashes [insert appropriate cause here] is not the way to go about showing your views.

Here's something different. We're boycotting the RIAA here.. almost three years I think..
We've banded together because we believe that the standards and practices of the record cartel are unfair, unequitable and wrong, so we CHOSE to boycott. Why wasn't this same method chosen to combat this "beenie man"? I've been actually rather pleased since I started boycotting, found a bunch of new music, made a few friends and my life is much richer for it.
Boycott, the other way to fly.
ttmmm

What the hell is going on here? The article was about Beenie man, and now everyone's gone turned it into a god damn sunday school class. jesus christ. The best way to disenfranchise the members of this site is to turn the place into a god damn forum on god's motives. The bible, icons, your god damn tatoos, or your interpretation of god's will has nothing to do with Beenie Man's issue. The Beenie Man issue is not about religion, homophobia, or even free speech. The Beenie Man issue is about validation and reward. Nobody is trying to censure Beenie Man, they are trying to keep him from being rewarded for expressing bigot views. As a society we often confuse rights with reward. Beenie Man has a right to say whatever he wants in his songs. However, that doesn't mean that as an inteligent society we have to reward him for it. Our removal of his reward does not indicate we are trying to trample his free speech rights. It simply means that in a modern society struggling with the fallout of hate and intolerance, we will not be considering his song as something worthy of merit. There is nothing wrong with this. If every piece of written, sung, or spoken hate shit was worthy of an award, we'd be in a sad state indeed. Don't feel insenced that Beenie Man is being castigated. He can write whatever he wants, but we as a society need not reward him for such trash nor feel obligated to even put his trash in the running. Instead feel bad for Beenie himself, he has made an asshole of himself and will feel it for a while.

Asia said: "I don't think they were 'always' attracted to the same sex. After all, that's why God made man and woman"

And what exactly makes you fucking God to tell people this? If you haven't experienced something, then you dont know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm gay and a long time member of this site, I grew up gay, and I've always been gay. I was attracted to men before being gay became acceptable or whatever, and that's just the way I am.

How DARE you tell ME that I made a CHOICE to live a lifestyle as difficult to deal with as this? Do you think I LIKE being reviled by millions of people worldwide? Do you think I enjoy our president introducing amendments to the fucking CONSTITUTION that would ban my rights? Do you think I like hearing bible-thumping fucks like you telling me that I'm going to burn in hell? If you think I chose this lifestyle, you're just a fucking moron.

As for what Code said about gays having sex in bathrooms, Im sorry you had to experience that. There are bad apples in every group. Personally, I've gone into bathrooms and heard men having sex with women, once on a highway rest area, and another bathroom in the office that I worked at. It's a two way street there. Just because some gay make us look bad and thats all the media focuses on doesnt make us all freaks. I live a pretty normal life, nobody would ever know I was gay unless I told them. That's how most gay people are, it's just the attention seekers and weirdos that the media focuses on to make us look like clowns. There are PLENTY of heterosexuals that do weird things do, but do the media focus on them and say "Here's a bunch of heterosexuals in bondage leather spanking each other"? Of course not!

You people are conditioned to believe that all gay people are flaming 'fags' and I'm goddamn fucking SICK of it!

Beenie can say whatever the fuck he wants, providing that I can get on national TV and say something along the lines of: ""I'm dreaming of a new America, come to execute all the Jamacians". But you don't see that happening do you?

I have it on good authority God hates the RIAA, MPAA, and yes, especially the BSA.

Remye, yours is a very good post. You've pointed out some very important things. And one of them reminds me of something I omitted in my messages. I never did address the issue about how "Beenie Man" and others may have gone beyond mere exercising of free speech to being potentially guilty of violating some rights of other citizens. As leflaw wrote: "Beenie has the right to Gay bash and be bashed for it."

In Beenie's own words: "I offer my sincerest apologies to those who might have been offended, threatened or hurt by my songs."

In general (going beyond Beenie’s case), there are those who are regretful over inappropriate choices and try to amend their ways. BTW, if this were to be a specific indictment -- and it's not -- I would have to include myself concerning past inappropriate choices in life (including previously having been Gay for over ten years prior to 1983).
And I don't mean inappropriately wayward in a societal sense; I'm referring to what the Lord expects.

Our government grants citizens to have primary rights which the Preamble to the Constitution says are endowed by their Creator . . . and the Bible says that the Creator grants people the right of free will to choose whether to live for Him or not.
Notice:
1) Our government grants what it says the Creator endows as rights;
AND
2) The Bible says the Creator grants the right of free will to obey Him or not.

Perhaps I'd better do my part to prevent unnecessary disagreement by adding an additonal fact:
The Bible teaches that believers are to obey the authority of government except in a case where the government tries to get a citizen to do something that's against God's will as expressed in His Word (Scriptures).

Please note that when I say 'fact', I mean documented fact. The Preamble is a document. The Bible is a document. I'm talking about fact as stated in the document. I'm prepared to parlay regarding what the Preamble actually says as well as what the Bible actually says, regardless of how much confidence someone has in either.
(Sorry, 'Code, I'm going to have to take the other fork in the road when it comes to debating whether or not the original Greek allows us to make substantial variations in the rendering of its meaning. I have a lexicon here in case you want to go that route; but I doubt this forum will tolerate us doing so.)

P.S. Just for the record:
I didn't bring up the topic about gays (the news article did, and we jumped right in).
I didn't bring up the topic about religion (AsiaMinor did, and 'Code elaborated at length).
But by the same token, by no means am I disparaging either instance having occurred; merely anticipating additional criticism for discussing these socially polarizing issues.)

and Cary Sue is already a pillar of salt and doesn't know it yet.


Happy Sunday one and all.

For the record, I'm cool with good people no matter their race, sex, orientation, whatever.

Error: One of my sentences SHOULD HAVE BEEN:
"I'm prepared to defend what the Bible actually says as well as what the Preamble actually says."

also for the record...I'm a double PK (preacher's kid)....

And, from the bible...What is the image of the invisible God? The firstborn of every living creature...kinda blows that whole anthropomorphic image of a man with white hair and beard flying on a could reaching his finger toward Adam...is he reaching to contact adam, or just giving him the finger...
Quien sabe.

by double PK..I meant both my mom and dad were ministers for many years.

I wouldn't want to disappoint those who expect to see me add: Both the Preample and the Bible are relevant to the lives of many, heh-heh.
There.

(As 'Code already knows): God's 'cool' with people, too. He'd better be; He created them.
He loves people, and He desires them to follow His will - but doesn't coerce. Neither should his followers!
Ahem (cough)....the Crusades...the Inquisition...etc., etc., mercy!

"Perhaps I'd better do my part to prevent unnecessary disagreement by adding an additonal fact:
The Bible teaches that believers are to obey the authority of government except in a case where the government tries to get a citizen to do something that's against God's will as expressed in His Word (Scriptures)."

How about when instead it is against what YOU YOURSELF thinks is right/wrong for YOU. I mean, SCREW all the "authorities" that differ from what is known in your own heart to be right/wrong when you KNOW it and FEEL it in your own heart. Conforming to a standard of society need not always be done. You can always just get away from the oppressers. No need for a "cure" when it is not a disease. So what if you differ in oppinion/view/lifestyle. You need NOT give up things/ways about when/if IMPORTANT to you. You need NOT feel "shame" and merely convert because everyone around you is/are/act as you don't/ain't/aren't.

Think for yourself, THEN
I will be there for YOU!

(Beatles, probably a line by Lennon)

"Schmoo":
The Bible's response to your observation:

"There are some ways that seem right in the heart of man, but the end thereof is disappointment."

Believers are to follow the Lord who says that "every soul is to be subject to higher (spiritual) authority."

But EVERY person has the right (free will) to choose whether they will follow God's will or not. Neither choice guarantees freedom from adverse consequences in this life, though, it could be added.

"bible thumper" is a great hate word to get somebody's goat with. On par with "liberal nut job" or "nazi" or "nigger" or "spic" or "fag" or "younameit."

But, as offensive as the connotations are with words like these, PLEASE... don't take them away. Life would be so boring if we had to express ourselves in anger/hatred (or, and yes, moronic stupidity) by saying something lame like:

"I must disagree with you most strongly over such and such..."

when it is MUCH easier to say...

"You are a fucking ass!"

Your choice of words in those situations helps describe your feelings at the moment, and perhaps more importantly, something about YOURSELF.

This is all SOUP.
We need more than just noodles and broth. Spice, meat, veggies, etc. add the flavors that make it worth eating.

Take away our words/right to say them as we choose, then you take away the whole point in making the soup in the first place.

P.S.
That part in the passage about "the end" likely is alluding to a future (eternal) consequence of going one's own way without God.

No one's taking away your words/rights to say them as you choose, or, as I've said many times (from Scripture) your right to choose to live as you please.
Where have I indicated otherwise?

To DemandRelevance:

btw, not sure if I have officially welcomed you to our little community yet. I now wholeheartedly do so.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

I personally don't believe in any gods or "higher powers" (either big "g" or little) but I don't require anyone to believe the way I do. I merely offer my own oppinions and listen in return as I/we feel like it.

Thanks, man! I really appreciate that!

One final thought: Here's how I feel we are in consensus:
Government allows many freedoms in everyday living.
God allows freedom to live for Him or not. And His followers are SUPPOSED to be a good example and follow how He wants them to live.

We probably don't see a divisive dichotomy there, so that part's all good, right?

I don't mind. I will still spout my views/oppinions/filfth as I deem appropriate ...and I invite all to do the same as they see fit. Sometimes we may convince/influence one another, but most times, probably not. It does no difference make. We can all be friends here if we choose to be. (Or we can all fight like cats and dogs and be bitter enemies ...and at the same time STILL gain worthwhile discourse.)

The goals/aims/views/agenda/issues of our little gathering remains the same...

OVERTHROW the music monopoly that wears as it's face the name RIAA!

A parting P.S. to the "one final thought" that I posted . . .

I've been in the trenches of the seemy side of life; so, now, I look back with regret along with a strange brand of advantage of perspective -- not to mention gratitude to the Lord for blessing me the way He has.

I try to be a genuine Christian, but that's not to exclude the likelihood that we all have a foible or two or three or..., and I'm sure there won't be a lack of an audience to direct them to my attention. But that's the way it's supposed to be.
Personally, when I fail or fall, I ask for forgiveness and help from above, and try to get started again in a better way.
I don't mind sharing a mixture of both responsibility along with freedom -- I'm speaking in a spiritual sense.

And I don't really intend for this to be construed as proselytizing -- I just thought I'd share to let you know where I'm really coming from.

BTW, I had told leflaw in another forum I agree with his assessment that I was very individualistic, and that's true. Each individual should be allowed to decide for himself/herself what their priorities are, how they want to live, etc.,WITHIN the liberties and other rights that should be afforded to them and other citizens as well.
He and I have no problem co-existing; we've sort of accepted each other in a certain sense.
But, then, that was as of yesterday ... before I posted all the stuff you've seen on this forum today. Not sure what he may think now, but, again, the issues I've discussed about gays, religion, etc., were not originally brought up by me.

Wholeheartedly in agreement with what you wrote about the goals/aims/views/agenda/issues on this site!
Thanks.

"What anti-hate laws are you talking about that keep nazi-hate rock off the shelves?"

Maybe things are different down there. [I am from Canada]
Here hate-rock falls under the same category as distributing hate literature.
Also, I am not saying they can't have their opinions, but to advocate violence over them is an entirely different story... Such discrimination is foolish anyway, and I don't get why people are so idiotic... people are people...

Yeah, advocating violence has got to be crossing a line in the sand!

Earlier today, Fobix wrote: "...The Beenie Man issue is not about religion, homophobia, or even free speech. The Beenie Man issue is about validation and reward. Nobody is trying to censure Beenie Man, they are trying to keep him from being rewarded for expressing bigoted views. As a society we often confuse rights with reward. Beenie Man has a right to say whatever he wants in his songs. However, that doesn't mean that as an intelligent society we have to reward him for it. Our removal of his reward does not indicate we are trying to trample his free speech rights. It simply means that in a modern society struggling with the fallout of hate and intolerance, we will not be considering his song as something worthy of merit."

And, as mroop and Nexus7 pointed out, some of those lyrics go BEYOND bigotry, to outright INDUCEment to promote violence.

You guys already know I believe in tolerance regarding individual liberties and freedom to choose your lifestyle. To that I will also add that I abhor blatant brutality.
So, there's no doubt where I’m coming from.

Theory of government: we all, as a society having agreed to submit to a governing authority for the common good, must adhere to certain limits.
As Fobix pointed out, at the very least, it is expedient to withhold privileges or rewards in certain instances.
In other cases, invoking the justice system may be warranted.
It seems simple enough, doesn't it?

He has every right to bash un-civilized, un-ethical, and un-natural activity, but if he does the homosexuals technically have a right to 'bash' him if they live in the united states. How about Emenim? Tones of his lyrics bash homosexuals, they bitch at him for it and he still does it.

Advocate all you want. Speak your mind and spew your venom!

But to MAKE/DO violence is when it becomes a sin/crime in my book. (unless simply actively defending yourself/family/neighbors/country ...but the key word is "DEFENDING")

SAY what thou will.

lordperrin: Saying the 'wrong' thing at the 'wrong' time will tick people off hugely. I think I did that to you

1. I never said I was God.

2. People haven't experienced the Big Bang, but no one calls them crazy or that they don't know what they're talking about with something that happened from zero.

3. I'm not telling YOU that you made a choice. In that form, I'm voicing my opinion, which happens to be shared with other people as well, so those people must also be morons. Why do women exist then? That is not a bashing-response question.

4. Yup, that would be my biggest problem. I use parts of Scripture in the wrong way. I'm not the most eloquent person, as said before.

5. To you, I don't know what I'm talking about b/c I haven't yet experienced it. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Like you said, there are bad apples in every group. With that, I apologize if I really offended you by my post. It seems I'm a bad apple in this group, although I didn't mean for that. I just don't always say things nicely. We are conditioned to think of you like that? Apparently, it's the same with you - you think we are bible-thumpers who condemn everyone to Hell. But we don't do that. Only God does that. If I made a bad image, I am sorry. Now, I'll shut up before I say something else that sets you off.

I appreciate the lively discussion we've had and that we can all keep our cool.

I also wanted to say I really enjoy the well thought out arguments of DemandRelevance.

Lemme say this...I did not mean, in any way, disrespect for anyone's beliefs, and when I say "bible thumpers"...due to my background as a tent evangelist's kid who spent my summers as a youth, accompanying my mom and dad in revivals throughout Louisiana, being ridiculed by other kids because I prayed and didn't swear (that was then, this is now)....I can kinda call them bible thumpers in the way it is ok for blacks to call each other "my nigga"..but it would be dangerous for a white robed KKK creep to call them the same.

When I say "bible thumper", I am talking about the self righteous, holier than thou creeps who say that AIDS is God's answer to "Fags" and who made fun of long hair when I was a younger guy in the 60s and 70s.

Anyone who really and truly follows the teachings of Christ and tries to live as he did, in humility and service to others, I take my hat off to and owe the deepest respect....to use a hackneyed phrase...
Some of my best friends are holy rollers...and the Pentecostal folks here will know what I mean.

One thing Jesus /Yeshua was dead set against, was hatred and ridicule of other people. His message was love others as yourself....in parable after parable, if Yeshua taught anything, it was love, tolerance, forgiveness...and when I say "bible thumper"....I mean those who are acting and teaching directly in opposition to the teachings of my Savior.

The bible says we should pray in private, hidden, and not in public as the publicans do.

People like Billy Graham's son, Falwell, Robertson, Jay Sekulow, et al, are an affront to the teachings of Jesus. Judge not lest ye be judged seems to have escaped them when they did their speed reading of the Holy Scriptures.

I've had good friends who are Islamic, Mormon, Buddhists, Taoists,Catholic, Sikh, Ba'hai, and every religion in between...as well as atheists and agnostics.

I really have to defer and offer respect to each one of them who, through personal soul searching, comes up with their own view of life. I may not agree, but I am not omniscient/all knowing, and thus, they probably know as much as I.

I have had some personal experiences that formed my beliefs, as well as years of reading the Bible, the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, and about every other philosophical and religious text I can get my hands on.

There is a moral and ethical way to live that is not dependent on a higher power, and although I believe otherwise, I still respect their right to believe as they see fit.

The word is given unto all men and women. Those who hear it and take it to heart are in one group, those who wish to follow other paths are also welcome to do that under our freedom of religion.

I would like to close with this. Be you atheist, agnostic, pagan, Catholic, protestant, Wiccan, whatever...one thing is clear....hate and war form the path to death and misery.

Love and mutual respect form the path for growth and progress....

I choose the latter.

Peace
Namaste
Ho
Shalom
Moonies, and yes, atheists, and every other

that last line belonged earlier...I don't know how it got there....
the Devil probably did it...

CodeWarrior said: "I have it on good authority God hates the RIAA, MPAA, and yes, especially the BSA."

God hates the Boy Scouts of America?????

CW - kyo.

Code, thanks for the affirmation.
Incidentally, I have great respect for you and your work.

Among many things you mentioned, it's hard to keep from responding. You're correct, of course, when you refer to some of the current leaders of the faith as projecting less than a noble image through one manner or another. And that's a sad but true commentary on such state of affairs because, as you say, it does does not cast a favorable light on the exemplary teachings of Jesus /Yeshua . . . who, yes, of course, championed love, tolerance, and forgiveness as you so well stated.
Indeed, He epitomized the ideal of humility and service to others -- your words again (there's no way I could, or need to, improve on the way you have phrased it).

Not just us, but God Himself, is doubtlessly disappointed with some who have brought shame on the faith by their ill-advised verbal ranting and love-lacking attacks that have occurred in recent decades. That is NOT how Christ would conduct Himself if He had chosen to be living among us here in our day, and I'm sure many people know so. Just one compassionate exhange He had with the penitent woman accused of adultery dispels any doubt; and then, to that, add how He also pardoned the promiscuous woman He met at a well.
First the forgiveness; then He requested that they mend their lives, but He didn't rage or rant or belittle at any time.

What a different world this would be if we could only strive better to practice the rule of love, as you pointed out. The Lord set the priorities in right order, didn't He, when he said we need to fear and love God first, and then love others as much as we love ourselves. But it's obvious we cannot even give that a good try without His enablement. I mean, He also expects us to treat our enemies well; and that's where a parting of the ways occurs with many folks -- understandably so, too, just knowing myself and how I'm inclined to function by nature. Show love to others, yes, but including enemies too? Wow, that just whirls beyond our presence of mind.
(Theoretically, though, in an idealistic world where everyone had the ability to care about everyone else, logic would say there shouldn't BE any significant enemies. Fascinating.)

Fortunately, we can get His forgiveness and His help to try harder to please Him and to care about people more. And it's a good thing that Christ's perfect life is imputed to us by faith; otherwise, our efforts alone would fall short of God's high goal.
So, there's a lot to be grateful for.

I'm also quoting another of your well-articulated points: "There is a moral and ethical way to live that is not dependent on a Higher Power, and although I believe otherwise, I still respect people's right to believe as they see fit."

Finally, you said:
"Hate and war form the path to death and misery.
Love and mutual respect form the path for growth and progress.
I choose the latter."

Do I hear an "Amen!" somewhere?

[Signing off...]

Business Software Alliance...
I think God is fine with the Boy Scouts


Amen

wow.. lots of good reading here!
lordperrin:
If there was any part of my post that got you, then I apologise if I offended you. I think I lost the intent of my post somewhere. It wasn't to say that anyone choosing to be open about their lifestyle is bad, good, or otherwise.
I will stand by my statement that it is a choice. It is! Some feel they are strong enough to deal with the negative impacts you mention, some don't. However, a choice it is, and a choice it will remain.
My statement was more to reflect that *I* personally don't have any control over anyone's decisions, and while it may be distasteful to some, that does not make the choice (or right to choose)any less valid.
I personally happen to like the fact that some people CAN and DO live their lives regardless of all the crap that can come from being part of an 'unpopular' group. I don't have the stones it would take to do that, tho I can't say I know exactly what you and other gays are going thru.
Everyone here has made valid posts, and it has made for some interesting reading. We've all scored points and we've all made mistakes.
My own take (to bring this relevant to the original post) is that this isn't a free speech issue, it's more of a 'paid speech' issue. Someone, somewhere is trying to make money with statements that directly attack/villify/degrade another group. Free Speech? Yes. Should (s)he get paid for expressing those views? IMHO no.
When did free speech become a haven for that kind of crap. Where in the Constitution does it say that no matter what the distribution method or payment someone has the right to verbally abuse someone else?
Free Speech will always be a source of debate, because there will always be someone on both sides.
ttmmm

I dont think the artist's free speech was compromised. His "sponsors" had the right to pull him out out of fear of losing endorsements because of the backlash.
It's business..plain and simple.

For example:
If I had an employee who was throwing out racial slurs to my customers, I WILL fire him..it doesnt mean his right was compromised, he can go out and be an ass whereever he wants..NOT in my business which is MY right...MY business which he was hurting.
Corporations are no different..advocacy groups have greater impact within consumers and marketing which is why they reacted so promptly to pull him out.
Don't confuse business with free speech.

SlimFast dismissing Whoopie Goldberg was a business decision; as I recall, we beat that horse to death. She is free to say what she feels like, and the company she represented is free to decline to continue her services.
The current thread has had an interesting facet to it, at least to the extent that we discussed how some of the lyrics are tantamount to incitement to violence.
Most of us decided that Beenie Man and others like him have crossed a line beyond the usual right to free speech.

And, to address your assessment of the situation, ostensibly the "sponsors" had a right to deny the artist what some earlier post had referred to as "privileges".
Yeah, I kind of think there's a general consensus among 'our family' here for that.

If you'll indulge me to carry things a step further, and to permit a play on words:
Free speech ends where someone else's safety may be put at unnecessary risk.
The classic example concerns how a person has the ability to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowed theater, but that speech is no longer "free" -- it comes at a "cost", including a possible cost to the 'offender' in terms of being cited for public endangerment.

In the case of Beanie Man, it could be argued that there is both an inflammatory and an incitement component to the offending words that he delivers.
As far as how litigation would play out in a court of law, I'd defer to mroop or someone more experienced than myself, but that's an interesting prospect to contemplate.

Freedom of expression and opinion does not include inciting someone to commi