I sure miss Joycelyn.
It makes sense. The Surgeon General should recognize the risks of homosexual behavior rather than be oblivious for the sake of political correctness.
I am simply baffled how anyone could conclude that if someone finds homosexuality unnatural he must be anti-gay.
It seems these days to not be actively gay makes one anti-gay
If you read the entire article, his personal religious views are anti-gay:
On the other hand, that hasn't affected his professional actions:
Christian priests are supposed to remain celibate. This applies to homosexual priests as well. The priest that was banned from the clergy was living with another woman. This is against the methodist doctrine, just as it would be for a male priest to live with a woman.
A gay man was blocked from joining a congregation. This sounds like some kind of spin to me, since homosexuals are allowed into methodist congregations and the methodist clergy. I'm guessing that the man was blocked for a valid reason that the writer of the article conveniently neglected to mention.
I don't trust anything in this article.
While Catholic priests are supposed to remain celibate, this is not true for all of Christianity. In particular, Methodist ministers can marry.
And, if a church follows biblical doctrine, it does not condone homosexuality.
So, he follows christian doctrine when it comes to church administration and doesn't let it influence his professional obligations. Sounds like a good thing. Especially in the face of those that are convinced that someones religious beliefs are too influential in a persons role in public office.
Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I was mostly concerned that the rules as they are should be applicable to all. It does seem wrong to me to allow heterosexual ministers to marry, but not allow homosexual ministers to do likewise. In that case this becomes an entirely different issue that I would rather not discuss here.
If Holsinger uses his professional opinion to promote his personal beliefs then I can understand why groups that are oppossed to his beliefs would want to limit his career.
The church doesn't condone drinking, gambling, extra-marital sex, and other common human habits, either. If members are banned from the congregation for those types of offenses, then:
1) the church no longer has any positive influence on their behavior (such as making them feel guilty enough to at least reduce 'sinful' behavior).
2) the congregation is going to be extremely small after a couple of months.
Edit: Assuming the allegations are true. I can believe the church wouldn't want a gay pastor since that does go against church beliefs, but it seems a little strange to me that a person would be banned from a congregation for being gay. There might be more to it than just that.
I do think he does put medical concerns above religious concerns in his professional obligations making his actions as church administrator somewhat trivial, if not completely irrelevant. His church actions are something to be considered along with other things, but not the major factors to be considered.
It depends on the church but basic biblical doctrine dictates clearly what a pastor is and is not. Those that hold a pastoral position cannot be gay, drunks, gamblers, adulterers, and practice "other common human habits" regarded as 'sinful'. To do so would not allow them to be an example of Christian conduct.
And, there are a lot of small churches out there.
Again, depends on the church. There are many "Christian" churches that have openly gay pastors or are simply gay churches.
There is specific scripture that dictates what to do with folks in the church who practice immoral behavior and show that they aren't going to stop. Certainly they are seperated from the congregation for obvious reasons. If you are curious, I can PM you those passages.
Actually, it is relevant. It demonstates his character. People in office actually having character... certainly seems odd.
I liked this part though. Ouch! :rofl:
Separate names with a comma.