WDEL ALERT: Southbound I-495 bridge open, NB still closed



WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Delaware becomes the 11th state to legalize same-sex marriage

For several weeks, I had been hearing gay marriage was more likely to clear the Delaware General Assembly than capital punishment abolition.

And indeed it has.

The Delaware State Senate voted 12-9 in favor and Governor Markell quickly signed the legislation into law.

State Senator Cathy Cloutier (R-Brandywine Hundred) was the only Republican senator to vote yes. I thought State Senator Ernie Lopez (R-Lewes) might have provided another Republican vote in favor, but undoutedtedly he's already been taking heat for his support for the abolition of the death penalty.

State Senator Bethany Hall Long (D-Middletown) was considered a swing Democrat who voted yes. With some of the more conservative, evangelical churches in her district, that was not necessarily a given.

State Senators Bruce Ennis (D-Smyrna) and Robert Venables (D-Laurel) were the two Democrats who voted no. All the other Republican state senators did.

(The Delaware Family Policy Council characterizes Senators Cloutier and Bobby Marshall as 'turncoats'.)

So Delaware becomes the 11th state to affirm gay & lesbian marriage; the only tinier state (by land area) Rhode Island became the 10th state.

With passage of gay marriage, Delaware avoids complications if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act: Couples married under Delaware's civil unions law would not have necessarily received the legal benefits afforded same-sex married couples. The Justices might have also specifically repudiated civil unions as "separate but unequal".

So people of the same gender will be able to marry in Delaware come July 1st. Same-sex unions from other states will be considered marriages under Delaware statute. Existing couples in Delaware same-sex unions will see their legal status morph into marriage.

Houses of worship are under no compulsion to perform same-sex ceremonies. But Delaware businesses denying marriage-related products or services to same-sex couples could become the targets of discrimination lawsuits because of a Delaware statute that bans discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Posted at 7:48pm on May 7, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

Mike from Delaware
Tue, May 7, 2013 11:56pm
I wonder how this would this scenario would play out: A church fellowship hall, say Our Lady of Fatima, which they do rent out for weddings, but won't marry gay/lesbians as that is against their Catholic beliefs, would they have to rent their fellowship hall for a gay/lesbian wedding reception even though they weren't married at Fatima? My guess is, that's a law suit waiting to happen.

My guess is, the church would lose and have to rent the fellowship hall to gay/lesbians wedding receptions IF they actually do rent out the hall to other non-Fatima folks. IF they only allow their members to use the hall then they'd probably not be forced to rent it to gay/lesbians, other than any gay/lesbians who were members at Fatima, which would be an interesting situation to say the least.

mrpizza
Wed, May 8, 2013 12:07am
Now that gay marriage is legal, you can bet that government bigotry against the church will be on the rise!

Congratulations to Mark Rice, Bill Smith, and Kavips.

Shawn
Wed, May 8, 2013 7:58am
I'll take that "congratulations", too, mrpizza. I don't care how sarcastic you meant that statement, I am so proud of Delaware today.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 8, 2013 8:13am
This really isn't a surprise. Once Delaware voted, over a year ago, to have "Civil Unions" it was only a matter of time before the word was changed to "Marriage". Per the WDEL.com news item all those Civil Unions will morph into Marriages now, so apparently those couples won't have to go back and do another ceremony, their benefits don't change, essentially only the word used to describe their union.

The Delaware Law does not require any Religious organization be it a Christian Church, Jewish Synogogue, Muslim Mosque, etc, to have to perform gay/lesbian marriages.

This would seem to be the best of both worlds, giving those folks who want same sex marriage what they want, while allowing the religious institutions to have their freedom and rights left untouched. So even though I personally am not in favor of gay/lesbian marriage [because of my interpretation of what the Bible says], I applaude Delaware and Governor Markell for allowing those religious groups to decide for themselves without any fear, hassle, or incrimination from the state.


EarlGrey
Wed, May 8, 2013 9:39am
Mike: As you just stated in your post above...Delaware went from civil unions to gay marriage in less than a year. Do you really think that Progressives (as their name implies) will no longer continue to push against the Church? Any church that chooses not to perform homosexual marriages will be demonized and called bigots.

Arthur
Wed, May 8, 2013 9:50am
I am happy that 2 people who truly love each other and want a state sanctioned event to profess their love now have it in delaware. My question is this - and its not a question as much as a prediction - you will see a rise in gay/lesbian short term marriages. Why? Example: 2 divorced women, good friends, one works for the state, the other was a stay at home mom with a entry level job to pay for the kids, etc. Both of them decide to marry so the one and her kids can be on the others state approved benefits and garner taxbreaks get married and live separately in their own living quarters and live their own lives - dating, etc until one or both find a new man they would like to marry. they get divorced and soon get remarried. Married couples are ding it now for tax and benefits purposes even though they dont live together, but stay 'married' for the reasons listed above. It will be a small number but it will happen.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 8, 2013 10:24am
Here is an article that gets into what EarlGrey and I have mentioned previously about legalized gay/lesbian marriage as churches in other nations are having some issues.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/


Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 8, 2013 10:28am
An article about the Swedish government now forcing the state-sanctioned Lutheran Church there to perform gay/lesbian marriages.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-forces-churches-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/

Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 8, 2013 10:32am
I've stated this for quite some time as the issue for me, will the churches be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs. There are those who will push for this to happen, because they want all to acknowledge what they do is "normal". It may not happen until the US allows same sex marriage nationwide. It would be more difficult for a state to do this as that would end up in the US Supreme Court, but once the Feds say it OK nationwide, that might just be a different story.

Allan Loudell
Wed, May 8, 2013 10:57am
A question for all of you with reservations:

Civil divorce and re-marriage has been with us for generations.

Has any religious denomination been COMPELLED to grant divorce and remarriage against its wishes?

Can anyone name a single time?

If not... what's the difference?

The state-supported, official Lutheran churches of the Nordic countries would hardly seem to be relevant to our situation here.

Moreover, I researched the Danish case and found even clergy of the official state-supported church are under no compulsion to perform a same-sex ceremony if they continue to have moral objections.

(Paradoxically, one Danish newspaper editor told me some young people in the state-supported church were driven AWAY from the church NOT because of the same-sex marriage, but because some clergy were against it.)

The non-state-supported, houses of worship are under no obligation to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Allan Loudell

EarlGrey
Wed, May 8, 2013 12:40pm
Mr. Loudell: I would say yes, the Church has allowed itself to be compelled to allow divorce just as it has been compelled to admit gay clergy and now perform same-sex marriages... The Church is compelled by the fear of losing members rather than remaining steadfast to the teachings of the Bible... So no, the government has not yet forced churches to perform same-sex marriage, but I believe in the not-so-distant future blue states like Delaware will make it very difficult for a church to marry only hetero couples.

Your Danish reference is interesting because the Nordic countries are rapidly leaving Christianity and the church in general...the church is disappearing in both European and Danish regions (According to Wikipedia, only 5% of people in Norway attend church) because its religious leaders have watered-down the teachings of Christ that might offend potential converts or pew warmers who tithe. Just as those who give up liberties for safety end up with neither, so too the Church that gives up its core values for converts/tithers are left with neither.

One the other hand, Christianity is growing rapidly in South America, Africa and Asia.

EarlGrey
Wed, May 8, 2013 1:23pm
I know gay marriage is big news in little blue Delaware...but is anyone else following the Benghazi hearings today? Former UN Ambassador Bolton thinks this could be Obama's Watergate...

http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013/05/07/bolton-benghazi-could-bring-down-obama-admin

EarlGrey
Wed, May 8, 2013 1:24pm
President Biden?

Allan Loudell
Wed, May 8, 2013 1:26pm
Mr. Grey...

I honestly don't think you effectively refuted my arguments.

I asked for a single example of government COMPELLING a church denomination to solemnize divorces and remarriages; you replied by saying some church denominations were modifying their positions to avoid hemorrhaging of members. That's quite different; it's not compulsion by Government.

Has the official Roman Catholic Church altered its position on ANY of these issues, even though the sex abuse scandal has undermined its position in many countries?

Indeed, two successive popes (John Paul II & Benedict XVI) have moved to tighten church rules on annulments. In 2005, JPII directed Vatican lawyers to tighten canon law governing annulments.

Yes, secularization has accelerated in the West, but surely some of that trend has been the result of young people seeing hypocrisy in organized religion.

But Europe has also seen a modest countertrend of some atheists / agnostics - while not themselves believers - seeing Christianity, or at least, some belief system, as a bulwark against Islamists in Europe.

Incidentally, when I went to Sweden in 1988 - just before the Swedish King and Queen came to Delaware to mark the 350th anniversary of the Swedish--Finnish colonization of the Delaware Valley - I took a train to Uppsala to meet and interview the Lutheran bishop there.

We talked about declining church attendance and whether Sweden had become a post-Christian society. His response was interesting. He argued (or rationalized) that many Swedes might not attend church on a regular basis - except for major holidays, baptisms and funerals - but he still saw his fellow Swedes as spiritual, even practicing Christians. He saw that in the tolerance of the Nordic countries; the elevated role of women in all sectors of society; public support for Swedish foreign aid to select countries (Tanzania) far in excess of the percentage of GNP given by most Western industrialized countries, etc. To him, Swedes were living the Gospel in a more authentic way. It wasn't just about going to church every Sunday.

Of course, cultural clashes involving skinheads and Islamists have tested that Swedish/Nordic reputation for tolerance, and Sweden may have become a less tolerant society since my visit in 1988.

Allan Loudell

mrpizza
Wed, May 8, 2013 9:34pm
Yeah, congratulations to you too, Shawn. Shame! Shame! Shame!

kavips
Thu, May 9, 2013 8:28am
And Mr. Pizza, let me kindly return the shame upon you.. For not being part of this century and still thinking that one's sexual preference makes them non-equal citizens.. Shame, shame, shame on you... You disgrace Jesus with your bigotry. :)

Just want to prove it works both ways, lol... that said, time for some music....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfRbgl-iR1Y

That sad

kavips
Thu, May 9, 2013 8:41am
In response to EarlGrey's entreaty about Benghazi... no didn't watch it. Why would we?

Looking over today's top 5 news aggregators, Benghazi is showing up on the front pages of only two. In one of them it is ranked in importance beneath this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/video/2013/may/08/new-elvis-exhibitions-open-memphis-video

As predicted, it looks like partisan politics, we all know these Republican held hearings are only being done to embarrass the opposite party. Since Obama is the best president ever in our lifetimes... as predicted, no really cares what Republicans have to say in the least...

We gave Republicans 8 years in power to talk to us. The majority of us didn't like how they acted. Now it's time to "forget about'em.." .

billsmith
Fri, May 10, 2013 4:27am
Ah, it didn't take long for Christian paranoia to reach full bloom.

Do you people ever ask yourself why others hate you?
Because Christians are ignorant, intolerant, bigoted and bullying. That's why.

You claim everybody wants to push you around to justify pushing them around first. Just like US foreign policy.

Let's hope the rapture happens today, or at least before the next election.

EarlGrey
Fri, May 10, 2013 3:16pm
Christians are hated because the God they follow/serve was/is hated by the world...so, those who follow Christ are hated.

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’
-John 15:18-25

EarlGrey
Fri, May 10, 2013 3:51pm
I asked for a single example of government COMPELLING a church denomination to solemnize divorces and remarriages; you replied by saying some church denominations were modifying their positions to avoid hemorrhaging of members. That's quite different; it's not compulsion by Government.

Mr. Loudell: Would you consider the Pentagon's recent policy change to court-martial Christians who proselytize in the military a govt. compulsion?

"God help us now when someone with such visceral hatred of conservative Christians – literally tens of millions of Americans – who says sharing this gospel is 'spiritual rape' is helping develop policies for how to deal with Christians in the military," Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council.
http://m.global.christianpost.com/news/tony-perkins-to-pentagon-end-religious-hostility-in-military--95252/

Allan Loudell
Fri, May 10, 2013 3:57pm
I hadn't heard that, Mr. Grey, and I don't immediately have the details, but I could see how a military wouldn't want someone proselytizing in the middle of training -- or a battle.

That said, I never understood how the "Bible Belt" South has traditionally been so pro-military considering all the swearing that occurs in basic training and beyond. Not to mention how to kill other human beings.

But really, this is a much different discussion from the previous: Compelling churches to grant divorces and perform re-marriages.

Allan Loudell

EarlGrey
Fri, May 10, 2013 4:16pm
Mr. Loudell,

I conceded in an earlier post that I do not have any examples of govt compelling churches on divorce, re-marriage or same-sex marriage:
"So no, the government has not yet forced churches to perform same-sex marriage, but I believe in the not-so-distant future blue states like Delaware will make it very difficult for a church to marry only hetero couples."

Government can make it very difficult for religious (Christian) institutions if they go against something like...health-care...suddenly grants dissappear, tax-exempt status changes, your church can no longer rent public buildings for services, tax deductions no longer available, etc etc.
But, no official compulsions were ever made, just nudges to push into "correct thinking".

Mike from Delaware
Fri, May 10, 2013 7:02pm
Allan: I found a couple of stories from Canada that show what EarlGrey and I have been talking about, in terms of how Churches and their ministers can be affected by legalized homosexual marriages. Funny how just over a year ago, the GLBT community in Delaware was happy and satisfied that Civil Unions were here. Now they've decided same sex marriage. So how long before what is happening in Canada happens here? There IS an agenda, and there are folks who want the Christian Church that won't bend to THEIR view of the world to be gone[not hyperbolt, but fact].

"Christians are often asked by gay activists why they oppose same-sex “marriage.” “How does our marriage hurt you?” they ask.

Well, I can think of one significant way it will hurt us: It will destroy religious freedom and free speech rights.

The handwriting is on the wall in Canada, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, in effect completely changing its true meaning. Since then, as Michael Coren notes in National Review Online, “there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings … against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.” Of course he means legal proceedings.

For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man called a state marriage commissioner, wanting to “marry” his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.

But that was not enough for the gay couple. Even though they got their ceremony, they wanted to punish the Christian who had declined to conduct it. The case ended up in the courts. And the result? Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs."

Link for rest of article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-will-gay-marriage-hurt-us-heres-how


This article tells that the government will not back down from requiring these pastors to perform homosexual marriages.

"REGINA, Saskatchewan, January 24, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Saskatchewan’s Premier Brad Wall last week defended his government’s decision not to challenge a non-binding court ruling saying that marriage commissioners must “marry” same-sex couples regardless of their religious views.

The court’s judgment on the matter was clear, said Wall, according to the Regina Leader-Post.

“We appreciate and respect the rule of law and the role of courts in our society, especially in regards to the Charter, and so we’ve made our decision,” he said.

The court had said that allowing commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex “marriages” would send “a strong and sinister message” that “gays and lesbians are less worthy of protection as individuals in Canada’s society.”

Faye Sonier, Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, who has been fighting the case, expressed her disappointment with the government’s decision in a letter to Justice Minister Don Morgan.

“Our high court has consistently noted that the right to freedom of religion is broad and it includes the right to belief and the right to act on those beliefs … It is the role of governments in Canada to ensure all enjoy these cherished freedoms.”

”We are therefore very disappointed with the decision of the government to refuse to accommodate the religious beliefs of marriage commissioners,” Sonier wrote."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sask-premier-defends-decision-to-force-marriage-commissioners-perform-gay

billsmith
Fri, May 10, 2013 9:51pm
MikeFromDelaware: You are a homophobic bigot, and a liar. You start off suggesting that marriage equality will force ministers to marry couples. But you trot out a story about a civil servant refusing to follow the laws of his jurisdiction. Once again, we have an example of Bible pounder attempting to force his views on others, instead of treating all citizens equally - as the law requires.

Now you will come back and talking about not wasting time and agreeing to disagree, which is always your cop-out when you put yourself in an untenable position.

If some voter registrar thinks women keeping silent means women can't vote and refuses to register them, are you going to defend that, too? Or if somebody thinks Blacks bear the curse of Ham and refuses to admit them to a public school, do you defend that, too? When people hate gays, it is a sure sign that homosexuality is temptation they fear.

EarlGrey
Sat, May 11, 2013 12:01am
The court had said that allowing commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex “marriages” would send “a strong and sinister message” that “gays and lesbians are less worthy of protection as individuals in Canada’s society.”

This would be the slippery slope arguement many on this blog have warned will soon come this way, but Canadians don't have the First Amendment of the US Constitution to protect religious freedoms.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


billsmith
Sat, May 11, 2013 6:24am
Earl: In Canada religious schools and other "faith based 'initiatives" can receive government support thanks to the lack of a badly worded document like the first amendment. Freedom of religion is protected in Canada's charter of rights and freedoms but people in this country like to assume "American exceptionalism" and pretend freedoms exist nowhere else.

Thanks to the lack of a broadly worded document like the first amendment, Canadian media can be prevented from many of the excesses which draw complaints here.

Now to the main point: This is why you Jesus freaks make me sick. You twist things to suit yourselves. You demand "freedom" and protections for yourself while denying them to others. This government clerk is free to exercise his own religion. But that's not good enough. He wants to stop someone else from doing what they want. Apparently Jesus jumpers have an extra commandment: Thou shalt not mind thy own business.

Apparently Christianity opposes gay marriage while its clerics abuse young boys.

Since Christians can't get away with burning people at the stake any more, I guess they have to content themselves with just pushing people around. It's too bad the people Christians like to push around are usually nice people who don't fight back. What they should do is form a picket line around this guy's church. Do unto church-goers as they like to do to others outside Planned Parenthood.

I see you can't let go of the "slippery slope" fallacy, dude. It's so convenient for justifying unjustifiable positions. And since Christians have already shown they will buy a package of ridiculous myths and superstitions, getting them to accept the "slippery slope" is easy.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, May 11, 2013 9:54am
Billsmith: In those articles the Christian commissioner offered those gay/lesbian folks a different commissioner who did the marriage ceremony for them. So it wasn't like the Christian commissioner said too bad for you, I don't do gay marriages, you're out of luck. No she found them someone to do the gay marriage for them. So she was NOT forcing her beliefs on them, but rather than those folks getting married and be happy, those gay/lesbian folks wanted to force THEIR beliefs on this Christian commissioner.

So YOU have it backwards.

So its OK for the government to force a religious institution to have to pay for abortion procedures in their employee healthcare plan too [the HHS thing with the Catholics]. So basically what YOU'RE saying is as long as the libs/progressives are getting their agenda its OK to force others to comply, but not if others do it.

What you don't seem to get from my posts [maybe I just don't say it clearly enough] is I don't want to force anyone to do anything against their will[which includes coming to Christ that is a free choice, just as whether or not a pastor should have to marry gay/lesbians should be a free choice - some churches are willing to do this, others are not]. So, even though I don't agree with it, I have no problem with the state marrying gay/lesbians as long as they allow each church, pastor, denomination to make that choice for themselves with no hassle, pressure, threats, or law suits, etc.

But as with anti-discrimination laws, that were supposed to end discrimination, but didn't end discrimination they just changed who was being discriminated against [white males instead of blacks, other minorities, and women]. So its not too far of a stretch to see NOW that gay/lesbians are going to be getting married that the state would eventually require churches and its ministers to have to ignore their beliefs and marry gay /lesbians. This situation in Canada shows how that can start to happen.

The way that situation should have worked is for Canada to say, if a marriage commissioner has religious reasons for not marrying gay/lesbians, then they are required to find another commissioner who will marry them. That way all are having the freedom to belief and live as they wish. Gay/lesbians are free to marry and Christians are free to not have anything to do with it as it goes against what God's holy word, in the Bible says. Both sides get respect and freedom. The other way this could be accomplished so that the gay/lesbian couple wouldn't have to know someone didn't want to marry them is you go do your paperwork and submit it and then you'll be assigned a marriage commissioner [so then within the inner office, someone who's OK marrying gay/lesbians will take that case]. Either way both get to practice their faith/beliefs or non-faith/beliefs as they choose.

Why is that wrong???

Mike from Delaware
Sat, May 11, 2013 10:13am
Billsmith said earlier: "Now you will come back and talking about not wasting time and agreeing to disagree, which is always your cop-out when you put yourself in an untenable position."

It's not that my view is an untenable position, its when you start the name calling, calling me a liar, etc, etc, then why waste my time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you. At that point there's nothing I can say so why bother.
__________________________________________________________

Second topic Billsmith:
For whatever reasons, you hate the church [including the LCMS], Christians, Jesus, and anything else to do with his church or people. That's fine, it is your right. You even have the right to be an ass, a jerk, a snob, an elitist, or even rude about it, and even have called me a liar above [you've been all of these just for the record], BUT that doesn't mean I have to stay here and listen to it. Trust me Bill, if I allowed my flesh to take over [and ignore the Holy Spirit's promptings], I could put your ass in its place quite quickly [you aren't the only person on this blog who's got verbal weapons they can hurl], but the Lord doesn't operate that way, so rather than allow myself to sink to your level and get into that sort of verbal fight with you [which would please the devil and grieve the Lord] I just walk away.

So bottom line Bill, you've become a cyber bully on this blog and I'm not going to be an enabler. It's time you learned some manners and how to talk to others you don't agree with. So if you want a discussion with me, then you need to keep a civil tongue in your mouth or the discussion with me is done. It is what it is, and yes on this we'll have to agree to disagree. If that means I discuss only with the others here and ignore your post, that too works for me. Your choice.

billsmith
Sat, May 11, 2013 11:14am
MikeFromDelaware: Sorry, but no. I don't hate Jesus. I don't know if there ever was such a person but I do admire many of the sayings attributed to him. I don't have much use for St. Paul, who corrupted those teachings.

One thing I admire that "Jesus" said were his comments about self-righteous, religious hypocrites. I know Christians like to think Jesus didn't like Pharisees (or Jews) when he was actually talking about people like them. Funny how the human mind works.

Funny how much Christians ignore or misrepresent things Jesus said. Jesus said pray in secret and Christians turn around and demand (usually pompous and long-winded) prayers at public meetings, public events and in public schools.

The historical record shows Christianity has been a bad influence for most of its history. Something about it brings out the worst in people. Maybe because it's basic psychological appeal is authoritarian, which is why rulers like having it around. Ever wonder why so many fundamentalists are tea party types and so many tea party types are fundamentalists?

You express loyalty to this country while acknowledging when this country fails to follow its founding principles. But you are not willing to do that with organized Christianity or its leaders.


mrpizza
Sat, May 11, 2013 12:51pm
Kavips: I'm a bigot for Jesus!

Mike from Delaware
Sat, May 11, 2013 2:36pm
Billsmith: You said, "Funny how much Christians ignore or misrepresent things Jesus said. Jesus said pray in secret and Christians turn around and demand (usually pompous and long-winded) prayers at public meetings, public events and in public schools."

The problem with this statement is it assumes ALL Christians do this and support the doing of it. I know my wife and I are as turned off to this as you. So not all Christians like a public show of prayer. Note in the discussion about Tim Tebow, here on the WDEL blog, I was not one of his fans [in terms of football if he can play, I'm for him, but he had a poor season so I can understand why NY dropped him]. I even said why I didn't support him, his showy prayer performance. I pray and talk to the Lord at work quite a lot, but no one there knows that, because its a silent form of prayer and Mr. Tebow could do that too, but has chosen to "give the appearance" of making a show of it [he may be sincere in what he's trying to do, but the appearance messes that up in my opinion], that turns me off.

So while yes there are some Christians who do like the public showy prayers, there are others [maybe a more silent group - that usually are in the less fundamentalist, conservative, type Christian churches like: United Methodist, Lutheran both ELCA and LCMS [I know you have your beefs with the LCMS, but from what I've observed they are not at all into public showiness], and Episcopalians.

No Christian leader is infallible, including the Pope [sorry Allan, on that we'll just have to agree to disagree]. All, other than Jesus Christ, is a sinner, a broken piece of pottery. It's one of the things that makes the Christian journey more difficult is the leaders are just as flawed as I. So that's why it's important to dig deep into the scriptures to try to ferret out what Jesus really meant. Unconditional love is the key. Most of us aren't even close to being able to show that, as Jesus did, thus the problem folks like you see with the church. Talk is cheap, where's the love showing in our daily walk. I totally understand that and struggle with this everyday. Some rare individuals like St. Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa probably came closer than most of us, but we are to strive for Godly perfection, even though we know we will miss the mark more often than we'll hit it. Thankfully God isn't like us and that we do worship the God of second, third, fourth, etc, chances.

I'm glad to hear that you don't hate Jesus. I sure wish you were able to look past knuckleheads like me and try to see who I am trying to follow [as a disciple] as I bumble along in this life; and seek Christ and ignore me and the rest of us in the church. I truly hate the possibility that you will miss something better, because the messenger [me] is such a dunce.

billsmith
Sat, May 11, 2013 5:06pm
MikeFromDelaware: I think I understand the message. And I also understand that, in the words of Osgood Fielding in "Some Like It Hot," "nobody's perfect!" But I don't see that Christianity tends to bring out the best in people. Instead, when people feel they've got some direct pipeline to the almighty, it seems to bring out the worst in them.


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach