Homophobia is UnAmerican

[SpyridonOCA]

In the American tradition, we pride ourselves in celebrating diversity and free choice. The right to self-determination and personal autonomy is one of our greatest virtues and a source of our strength. Having said that, why would we deny freedom and individual rights to gay people? As an Orthodox Christian, I don't want the government interfering with my lifestyle choice. Religious faith is just as much of a choice as homosexuality, but I don't see any gay people trying to stop me from attending church. While I find homosexual sex to be an immoral act, I'm not going to prevent gay couples from doing whatever it is they do in the privacy of their own homes. Republicans, if they truly are libertarian Reaganites, should want the government off the gay man's back just as they want government off their own. That's all I have to say about that.

[Khaleas]

So who again did you support for president???

*turns on the blinking neon signs*

[Hoankan]

You know, maybe it's because I'm an ex-cop but I can hear the voices of certain criminal groups complaining using very similar logic. Simply remove the homosexual stuff and replace it with proper words for pedophiles (I have seriously heard them make the same claim), incest, drug use (from dope to far far worse), and what not.

[Akathist]

You know, maybe it's because I'm an ex-cop but I can hear the voices of certain criminal groups complaining using very similar logic. Simply remove the homosexual stuff and replace it with proper words for pedophiles (I have seriously heard them make the same claim), incest, drug use (from dope to far far worse), and what not.

About the part I bolded, there is an activist group called "man/boy love association" who is actually doing exactly this.

Their point of view is that what happens in the privacy of the home is just that ... private. So, child rape and molestation is none of the goverments business. (In their opinion.)

Then there is all of the men who beat their wifes and live in girlfriends who can not comprehend why there is a law against domestic violence.

I have heard the argument over and over... "but beating someone or having sex with a child is not like homosexuality".... well.. maybe the beating stuff is not like it... but the molestation and sex with minors is in the same vain. They claim that no law should give an age of consent to a child so as long as the child is not physically hurt there should be no law against sex with a minor.

With homosexuality there may be mutual consent but there is still a spiritual illness that results.

I agree children are harmed more then an adult in situations like this.

But I believe we as a country should not condone behaviors that are so spiritually unhealthy.

Currently most states also have laws on the books btw, for many heterosexual sexual behaviors as well. The law enforcement often never takes action on them but the laws still exist. I have no problem with those laws remaining on the books.

As a country, relativistic ethics and morality is only causing more and more of a decline in our culture and wellbeing as a nation, IMO.

[JustinHesychast]

/agree with Spyridon.

And as an aside, it irks me to no end when people compare homosexuality with pedophilia or other such things.

[SpyridonOCA]

So who again did you support for president???

*turns on the blinking neon signs*

I would support either John McCain or Barach Obama as an alternative to Hillary Clinton. Senator McCain has been attacked for not supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, even though President Bush previously stated that gay marriage is a states' issue, not a federal one. It is not the responsibility of our government under the Constitution of the United States to criminalize homosexuality. Let the Church of Christ heal the homosexual, not the government.

[Khaleas]

.

Currently most states also have laws on the books btw, for many heterosexual sexual behaviors as well. The law enforcement often never takes action on them but the laws still exist. I have no problem with those laws remaining on the books.

As a country, relativistic ethics and morality is only causing more and more of a decline in our culture and wellbeing as a nation, IMO.

Yup, in many states it's illegal to live together man and woman if you're not married... Virginia has some interesting ones... :sorry:

[SpyridonOCA]

Let's be realistic for just one moment. Why require the state to do that which is the Church's job?

[Khaleas]

Let's be realistic for just one moment. Why require the state to do that which is the Church's job?
Umm, cuz last time I checked neither of my neighbors go to church... So who is going to make sure they go and hear what the church's job is? I for sure can't forcefully drag them...

[Hoankan]

/agree with Spyridon.

And as an aside, it irks me to no end when people compare homosexuality with pedophilia or other such things.

You don't like pedophilia and agree that their sexual rights to choose their partners should be curbed. But it irks you that this group whose rights have been curbed and who make the same case as the group you support dares to use the same argument. That's pretty hypocritical of you.

Sorry but no sympathy from me here. I have quite seriously heard a child molester say things so very similar as what was in the OP while he was being arrested. If you don't like it, go talk to the pedophiles who are making the same arguments and convince them to change.

Let's be realistic for just one moment. Why require the state to do that which is the Church's job?

Many things like drugs, prostitution, or gambling can be very subjective. Many people claim they harm no one or if they do, it is only the person who does it. Few remember the broken families, spreading of disease, and bankruptcy, among other things, that can result.

Others argue that as long as the person consents, then it is ok.
So the German and his volunteer (victim?) who decided to eat said volunteer could argue that it was completely voluntary and perfectly fine. Likewise, a pedophile can use the same argument that homosexuals do; that it is between two consenting people and the government should stay out of the situation. (I can already hear the counter argument)

There are things that people want to do that society (parts or whole) or the government feel that should not be done. This can range from flat out harming others such as murder and rape. Or it can be where people claim there are no victims (which is seldom the case) like prostitution and drugs. It is up to the government to set the bounds for what is and is not fine.

And what about the church? Well the church is voluntary, the government isn't (death and taxes comes to mind).

[JustinHesychast]

You don't like pedophilia and agree that their sexual rights to choose their partners should be curbed. But it irks you that this group whose rights have been curbed and who make the same case as the group you support dares to use the same argument. That's pretty hypocritical of you.

Sorry but no sympathy from me here. I have quite seriously heard a child molester say things so very similar as what was in the OP while he was being arrested. If you don't like it, go talk to the pedophiles who are making the same arguments and convince them to change.

So have I. It doesn't make them right. Homosexuality is (generally) a consent between two ADULTS. Pedophilia is not, and saying that it is the same argument is ludicrous at best. Pedophilia is an adult and a CHILD. Homosexual couples are between two ADULTS. It's completely different. Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, those with animal... love... ... well, the comparison is just ridiculous.

[Hoankan]

Justin, I don't know how much you have been around children, but as a teacher I am around them daily. You have also probably never spent much time around criminals nor have you studied crime. I have done both.

Consent is simply one person saying doing X is ok. A child can say ok to something. You can ask them to do something for you and they will. Ask them to play with you and they'll happily say yes. Many of them will want people to play with them and will readily consent to playing.

If consent is all that is needed, then a child can easily give consent. In fact, many early puberty children could be quite receptive to it. And before you even try to counter that, go to the interrogations and the stories that come out of pedophile cases. It'll give you nightmares, I promise. (*note: I'm watering this down heavily*) Not to mention that mentally retarded adults cannot give consent. Shouldn't they be allowed to? After all they are adults as you so eloquently pointed out.

The problem is morality. To me (and Christian teachings), homosexual behavior is immoral, but to you it is ok. To you, pedophilia is immoral, but to a pedophile it is ok. Different cultures over various times have had different ideas of what is ok and what isn't. Ancient Egypt believed incest was perfectly ok. Ancient Greece thought young boy love was normal. Let's not even talk about the marrying age of some girls in rural parts of a few Islamic nations even today. Or maybe you'd like to go into a different moral subject like is abuse ok or how about infanticide? Or maybe we should take a walk right off the deep end and get into the really dark things that people would like to be able to do?

Most people on the wrong end of the stick usually complain and feel unfairly treated and yet there are pedophiles who know that what they feel is wrong and get help. Likewise there are homosexuals who feel that their minds are making them feel something wrong and give it up.

In the end, the law is used as an equal measuring stick. For those of us who follow or as we in the Church are called to do, go far beyond there is no problem. Others want to lower the law to match their own morality or just disregard it. That is the choice they make. Sometimes there are cases where morality is improved with the changing of the laws, but you've failed to make the case that this is one such case.

If consent alone was a good enough marker, then why do you not back people who want to choose to be eaten and the cannibals who'd like that (I mentioned the German above and you chose to ignore it) or the pedophiles or some other groups who have had their right to choose taken away?

[SpyridonOCA]

Umm, cuz last time I checked neither of my neighbors go to church... So who is going to make sure they go and hear what the church's job is? I for sure can't forcefully drag them...

Where does the Constitution authorize our government to criminalize homosexuality? The unnatural fear and hatred of gay people is unAmerican and unChristian. There is nothing more sinful about homosexuality than any other sin. Are we going to have the government enforce laws against hatred, lust, jealousy, greed, and anger?

[Xpycoctomos]

We should always fear things that are sinful. Homosexuality should be feared because it is wrong. The homosexual, however, should not be any more than anyone else.

Please choose your words carefully.

[Protoevangel]

Where does the Constitution authorize our government to criminalize homosexuality? The unnatural fear and hatred of gay people is unAmerican and unChristian. There is nothing more sinful about homosexuality than any other sin. Are we going to have the government enforce laws against hatred, lust, jealousy, greed, and anger?
Apples and orangutans Spy.

Emotion | Action
hatred | assult, murder, torture, etc
lust | homosexual "encounters", adultery, rape, etc
jealousy | stalking, assult, murder
greed | theft, cheating, embezzlement, etc
anger | assult, murder, slander
"homosexuality" | ???

Sorry, entirely wrong category. Try again when you aren't so confused.

[Dorothea]

Let's be realistic for just one moment. Why require the state to do that which is the Church's job?
Wait. Wasn't it a few weeks back you were wanting a government that was theocratic (run by the Church)?

[Protoevangel]

Wait. Wasn't it a few weeks back you were wanting a government that was theocratic (run by the Church)?
Isn't that called bi-polar?


http://www.sqprojekt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/bipolar.jpg



Or maybe just confused.


http://cache.consumerist.com/assets/resources/2006/11/confused.jpg

[rusmeister]

This is where the harm comes from steeping one's self in politics too much, because you're steeping yourself in arguments and beliefs (like Chris Matthews or whoever) that are not founded on our faith, and so sooner or later, you come to believe their arguments and parrot them. You're even using patently propagandistic words like 'homophobia' (as if we were afraid of people who syffer from same sex attraction).

If I were your priest, Spyridon, I would tell you to take a six-month break from the all of the media, computer or otherwise.

The fact that you've only got Justin agreeing with you ought to tell you something. Every adult Orthodox poster here is telling you you're off base. Draw the conclusion.

[JustinHesychast]

Justin, I don't know how much you have been around children, but as a teacher I am around them daily. You have also probably never spent much time around criminals nor have you studied crime. I have done both.

Consent is simply one person saying doing X is ok. A child can say ok to something. You can ask them to do something for you and they will. Ask them to play with you and they'll happily say yes. Many of them will want people to play with them and will readily consent to playing.

If consent is all that is needed, then a child can easily give consent. In fact, many early puberty children could be quite receptive to it. And before you even try to counter that, go to the interrogations and the stories that come out of pedophile cases. It'll give you nightmares, I promise. (*note: I'm watering this down heavily*) Not to mention that mentally retarded adults cannot give consent. Shouldn't they be allowed to? After all they are adults as you so eloquently pointed out.

The problem is morality. To me (and Christian teachings), homosexual behavior is immoral, but to you it is ok. To you, pedophilia is immoral, but to a pedophile it is ok. Different cultures over various times have had different ideas of what is ok and what isn't. Ancient Egypt believed incest was perfectly ok. Ancient Greece thought young boy love was normal. Let's not even talk about the marrying age of some girls in rural parts of a few Islamic nations even today. Or maybe you'd like to go into a different moral subject like is abuse ok or how about infanticide? Or maybe we should take a walk right off the deep end and get into the really dark things that people would like to be able to do?

Most people on the wrong end of the stick usually complain and feel unfairly treated and yet there are pedophiles who know that what they feel is wrong and get help. Likewise there are homosexuals who feel that their minds are making them feel something wrong and give it up.

In the end, the law is used as an equal measuring stick. For those of us who follow or as we in the Church are called to do, go far beyond there is no problem. Others want to lower the law to match their own morality or just disregard it. That is the choice they make. Sometimes there are cases where morality is improved with the changing of the laws, but you've failed to make the case that this is one such case.

If consent alone was a good enough marker, then why do you not back people who want to choose to be eaten and the cannibals who'd like that (I mentioned the German above and you chose to ignore it) or the pedophiles or some other groups who have had their right to choose taken away?

There is so much crap wrong with those comparisons and that "logic" it ain't even funny. But I am tired, and it doesn't matter what I say because there will always be.... people.... in the world that believe homosexuality and such things as pedophilia are the same.

[xenia]

...homosexuality and such things as pedophilia are the same.


Inasmuch as they are both perversions that break God's law and unrepented of can send a person to hell, they are the same.

[Hoankan]

What Akathist said plus it's against the natural order of life. You don't see other animals with this problem do you Justin?

And like I said in my last post, go and study the issues. Read the confessions and stories before you begin to tell me my logic is flawed. Or better yet, be a cop that arrests one of them (or maybe does it for a living).

[JustinHesychast]

I'm not saying that it isn't sinful, etc. It is. But homosexuality is nothing akin to pedophilia except for the sinful part.

Oh, and.... yes, there are animals. I watched a huge documentary about it once. All sorts of animals have homosexual relationships. One that I remember was a species of monkeys, and they would be make-male and female-female (sex, longterm relationships, everything) and the only time they would even associate with the opposite sex was during mating season a time or two, and that's it.

[Hoankan]

I'm going to have to ask for evidence on that one. Last time I checked (granted it was a long time ago) there weren't any documented cases besides one psychological study about over crowding.

You admit that it is immoral. And yet you don't agree with there being laws to protect against this immorality. The point I am trying to make with the pedophiles is that they use the same argument as homosexuals and every time homosexuality is given legitimacy it gives pedophiles encouragement.

Now you pointed out that it has to be between two consenting adults. I pointed out that there are adults who cannot give consent and that children are able to give consent in other situations. Bother of these points poke holes in your argument and should these supports be weakened, then they may just get what they want. I pointed out in the past that things we consider immoral have been legitimated and it can happen again. Spyr's arguments would be a major step in this direction but he is caught up in the political zeal of it all not to notice the moral ramifications. Akathist's posts point this out well.

As a former cop and currently a teacher, I am acutely aware of the dangers against children. I know the horror stories and I can see how they can happen. I also know that it is our concept of what is moral and immoral that protects these children more than anything else. If our morality begins to slip and things we know to be immoral given legitimacy, then the risk of other more immoral things begins to become easier.

[Protoevangel]

I also know that it is our concept of what is moral and immoral that protects these children more than anything else. If our morality begins to slip and things we know to be immoral given legitimacy, then the risk of other more immoral things begins to become easier.
It's called "MAVAS", or "Moral Acceleration Velocity Acclimation Syndrome" (Actually, I think I just made that term up).

When you are in a car and quickly accelerate from 0 to 60, the force of the acceleration is felt quite strongly. But when your speed becomes constant, you become acclimated to the new speed, and no longer feel the true force of your velocity. As our society continues to move away from morality, we feel moments of acceleration, but quickly acclimate to the new velocity. What was once understood as horrifically perverse, becomes odd, then accepted, and eventually lauded.

[JustinHesychast]

I can see homosexuality becoming accepted in the coming years. Sort of like how white Americans (for the most part... some older people not withstanding :P) accept African Americans now. It used to be appalling to even think about - the KKK lynched in the name of God. But now African Americans are just the norm now.

If that makes sense. I'm not feeling to well today. :P

[rusmeister]

Well, Justin, since you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand what Orthodox teaching is on homosexuality and same-sex attraction, even though it's been told to you a hundred times, I don't see any point in discussing it further.

I had thought you were brighter than to try to tell Orthodox Christians that their Church's teachings are wrong.

[Xpycoctomos]

I'm going to have to ask for evidence on that one. Last time I checked (granted it was a long time ago) there weren't any documented cases besides one psychological study about over crowding.

You admit that it is immoral. And yet you don't agree with there being laws to protect against this immorality. The point I am trying to make with the pedophiles is that they use the same argument as homosexuals and every time homosexuality is given legitimacy it gives pedophiles encouragement.

Now you pointed out that it has to be between two consenting adults. I pointed out that there are adults who cannot give consent and that children are able to give consent in other situations. Bother of these points poke holes in your argument and should these supports be weakened, then they may just get what they want. I pointed out in the past that things we consider immoral have been legitimated and it can happen again. Spyr's arguments would be a major step in this direction but he is caught up in the political zeal of it all not to notice the moral ramifications. Akathist's posts point this out well.

As a former cop and currently a teacher, I am acutely aware of the dangers against children. I know the horror stories and I can see how they can happen. I also know that it is our concept of what is moral and immoral that protects these children more than anything else. If our morality begins to slip and things we know to be immoral given legitimacy, then the risk of other more immoral things begins to become easier.
An important difference between Pedophiles and Homosexuals is that Pedophils are necessarily predatory whereas Homosexuals don't have any more a predatory nature than Heterosexuals.

So, a government does need to step in when the actions or desires of others are forced upon someone weaker who can't defend themselves (for whatever reasons). That's a world apart from a government that believes it should enforce it's will contrary to what two consenting adults do.

I have to say I agree that the government does not need to be in the business of regulating what one does or does not do in the privacy of their bedroom, as long as no one's rights are being infringed upon. However, I did hear a senator (or something) on NPR the other day who said that while he does not believe the government should outlaw sodomy, it should not encourage it. The government should encourage normal sexual relations within marriage because he claims the latter are healthier for a society. He compared it to smoking (second-hand smoke aside) that the governmetn should not encourage it and, in fact, takes steps to discourage it or at leat inform the people of its maladies, but it doesn't outlaw (and he feels this is wise). I don't know how I feel about it exactly, but I think it is a very balanced view taking into consideration the libertarian nature of our government (that is more than not ignored by both conservatives and liberals).

I just tried looking it up. It was on the Diane Rehm Show, I think this one: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/08/01/31.php#18812 (second part of the show with Sen Jim DeMint. Anyway, I think anyone here would be interested to listen. I only came in on the part where he was talking about his view on Gay Rights.

Now before you all mumble about how NPR is the devil incarnate, Jim DeMint is a very conservative and well-spoken politician and although you can still feel the liberal bent on the program, the show is done respectfully and treats the senator with dignity.

Xpy

[JustinHesychast]

I had thought you were brighter than to try to tell Orthodox Christians that their Church's teachings are wrong.

I never did anything of the sort.

As an aside, at our school each year there is this thing we do called Data Match. You answer questions, etc. and it lists your top 10 compatible people and top 10 least compatible people. It's always just listed your opposite sex matches... until this year.

[Xpycoctomos]

I never did anything of the sort.

As an aside, at our school each year there is this thing we do called Data Match. You answer questions, etc. and it lists your top 10 compatible people and top 10 least compatible people. It's always just listed your opposite sex matches... until this year.
What do they tell you is the purpose of a school doing this? Even before they included people of the same sex?

[JustinHesychast]

I don't know. We just are handed it and are supposed to fill it out. It's more of a money thing, because you have to pay a few bucks to get your results right before Valentine's Day.

[SpyridonOCA]

Wait. Wasn't it a few weeks back you were wanting a government that was theocratic (run by the Church)?

First of all, the United States is not an Orthodox monarchy. It is a Constitutional Republic and, therefore, the Constitution should be obeyed. Furthermore, Orthodox monarchy is not a theocracy, but the symphonic relationship between Church and state. Remember, in the final years of Orthodox Tsardom, there was legalized prostitution, simply because it was easier for the state to not enforce laws against prostitution. There is a difference between opposing homosexuality as a sin against nature and homophobia, the unnatural fear of homosexuals.

[Dorothea]

First of all, the United States is not an Orthodox monarchy. It is a Constitutional Republic and, therefore, the Constitution should be obeyed. Furthermore, Orthodox monarchy is not a theocracy, but the symphonic relationship between Church and state. Remember, in the final years of Orthodox Tsardom, there was legalized prostitution, simply because it was easier for the state to not enforce laws against prostitution. There is a difference between opposing homosexuality as a sin against nature and homophobia, the unnatural fear of homosexuals.
I'm still confused, Syridon. I thought you were a fan of Putin's and how his country's government was set up, and how you wished that we had a government more religiously (Christian) run? So, are you saying you don't want that? Yes, there's a difference between opposing the sin of homosexuality and homophobia. Are you saying people who want a marriage amendment that is between a man and a woman to be homophobic?

[JustinHesychast]

Why does it matter if a marriage is between a man and a woman? Why not a woman and a woman or a man and a man? There are many homosexual couples that would make for a better and more moral marriage than millions of heterosexual marriages.

In fact, marriage is so abused today anyways, with heterosexuals making a mess of marriage. Divorce and remarriage God only knows how many times, etc. Many heterosexual marriages aren't even in a church. So why deny the homosexuals the right to marry (as well as all the legal benefits and such)? Seems slightly off, hm?

[Dorothea]

Why does it matter if a marriage is between a man and a woman? Why not a woman and a woman or a man and a man? There are many homosexual couples that would make for a better and more moral marriage than millions of heterosexual marriages.

In fact, marriage is so abused today anyways, with heterosexuals making a mess of marriage. Divorce and remarriage God only knows how many times, etc. Many heterosexual marriages aren't even in a church. So why deny the homosexuals the right to marry (as well as all the legal benefits and such)? Seems slightly off, hm?
Well, Justin, I think some of your examples are to the more extreme, but some, not so extreme. I believe that a child needs a father and a mother (unless circumstances can't be helped....such as the death of one) because they each bring something unique to the parent/child relationship that helps a child grow up balanced and healthy. We as a society are to be a good example to follow. JMO.

As far as divorce, yes, that is a plague in our society. I think to many, they go into a marriage with their own misconceptions of what it is to be like, and realize, after the honeymoon wears off that marriage is a daily walk and a daily choice of working at it, and some aren't wanting to make that effort.

[JustinHesychast]

I want to point out that I am not advocating that homosexuality is OK, etc. But so many heterosexuals ignore and shrug off the sacrament of marriage nowadays... it's done in a church out of mere tradition, or it's done only by the state on not seen as religious at all. I don't see the sacrament of marriage to be worth defending when it is already spoiled by those outside (and even within) the Church. So why not let gays marry, get on with their lives, and get the legal benefits? If it doesn't happen today, it will happen tomorrow. Just give it time, and homosexuality will be seen as completely normal (like in my school thing on page 3), just like white racism against blacks... it will all pan out with time.

[SpyridonOCA]

I'm still confused, Syridon. I thought you were a fan of Putin's and how his country's government was set up, and how you wished that we had a government more religiously (Christian) run? So, are you saying you don't want that? Yes, there's a difference between opposing the sin of homosexuality and homophobia. Are you saying people who want a marriage amendment that is between a man and a woman to be homophobic?

No matter how much I might like an Orthodox monarchy, the United States is not an Orthodox monarchy. I am not a traitor to my country, and therefore, I would not support an effort of Orthodox Christians to force the United States into Orthodox monarchy. Democracy isn't for all cultures, just as Orthodox monarchy wasn't made for American culture. In the United States, we believe in the Constitution.

According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, whatever powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution belong to individual states and to the people. Therefore, the United States government has neither the right nor the responsibility to criminalize homosexuality, since the sin of homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Constitution. You might support a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, but our founding fathers did not have that intent.

[Dorothea]

I want to point out that I am not advocating that homosexuality is OK, etc. But so many heterosexuals ignore and shrug off the sacrament of marriage nowadays... it's done in a church out of mere tradition, or it's done only by the state on not seen as religious at all. I don't see the sacrament of marriage to be worth defending when it is already spoiled by those outside (and even within) the Church. So why not let gays marry, get on with their lives, and get the legal benefits? If it doesn't happen today, it will happen tomorrow. Just give it time, and homosexuality will be seen as completely normal (like in my school thing on page 3), just like white racism against blacks... it will all pan out with time.
Yes, that has been the plan of the homosexual movement from the beginning.

[Dorothea]

No matter how much I might like an Orthodox monarchy, the United States is not an Orthodox monarchy. I am not a traitor to my country, and therefore, I would not support an effort of Orthodox Christians to force the United States into Orthodox monarchy. Democracy isn't for all cultures, just as Orthodox monarchy wasn't made for American culture. In the United States, we believe in the Constitution.

According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, whatever powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution belong to individual states and to the people. Therefore, the United States government has neither the right nor the responsibility to criminalize homosexuality, since the sin of homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Constitution. You might support a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, but our founding fathers did not have that intent.
I see what you're saying. But you do realize that the reason the amendment was never mentioned or made part of the Constitution at the time was because it was a given what marriage meant. So, there was no need to explain it. Because of the recent past decade or so with the aggressive homosexual movement, it has forced those of the Christian belief to have to defend their beliefs, and because of that, it looks like what you have said.

[Protoevangel]

I see what you're saying. But you do realize that the reason the amendment was never mentioned or made part of the Constitution at the time was because it was a given what marriage meant. So, there was no need to explain it. Because of the recent past decade or so with the aggressive homosexual movement, it has forced those of the Christian belief to have to defend their beliefs, and because of that, it looks like what you have said.
That's exactly right. The whole liberal revisionism that Spyridon has apparently bought into is beyond pitiful.

[rusmeister]

I never did anything of the sort.

Justin, it has been pointed out to you time and again what the position of the Church is on homosexuality, but you keep on posting on how normal it is as if you never read everything that has been told to you. It has been said how it is wrong and an abomination, even as we accept people who suffer from the desires like any other of us sinners. Every post you make insisting on its 'normality' flies in the face of this.

If you wish to understand how to deal with your own desires, please feel free to ask. But if you wish to continue to praise them and tell us that they are something normal and proper, please don't.



Official EO and TAW position on Homosexuality


Homoesexuality is not a controversal subject in Eastern Orthodoxy. This is a settled matter. To be Eastern Orthodox is to believe what the Church teaches:



Quote:
The position of the Orthodox Church toward homosexuality has been expressed by synodicals, canons and patristic pronouncements beginning with the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life. Thus, the Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual experience which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function ascribed to sex by God's ordinance and expressed in man's experience as a law of nature. The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality should be treated by religion as a sinful failure. In both cases, correction is called for. Homosexuals should be accorded the confidential medical and psychiatric facilities by which they can be helped to restore themselves to a self-respecting sexual identity that belongs to them by God's ordinance. In full confidentiality the Orthodox Church cares and provides pastorally for homosexuals in the belief that no sinner who has failed himself and God should be allowed to deteriorate morally and spiritually. Psychiatric reconciliation is bound to prove short-lived.
from: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/ar...rticle7101.asp (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp)


Quote:
Given the traditional Orthodox understanding of the Old and New Testament scriptures as expressed in the Church's liturgical worship, sacramental rites, canonical regulations and lives and teachings of the saints, it is clear that the Orthodox Church identifies solidly with those Christians, homosexual and heterosexual, who consider homosexual orientation as a disorder and disease, and who therefore consider homosexual actions as sinful and destructive.

According to Orthodox Christian witness over the centuries, Biblical passages such as the following do not permit any other interpretation but that which is obvious:


If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination . . . (Leviticus 20:13)


For this reason (i.e. their refusal to acknowledge, thank and glorify God) God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27) Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral (or fornicators), nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (or sodomites; literally those who have coitus, or who sleep, with men), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...osexuality.php (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HopkoHomosexuality.php)
Quote:
Homosexuality: Although there is much more open discussion about homosexuality in the twentieth century than in previous times, there is definite reference to it in ancient writings. The frequently used synonym, sodomy, comes from the apparent homosexual activity among men of Sodom (Genesis 19), and the severity of strictures set forth in the Holiness Code, with nothing short of the death penalty being imposed, suggested that the need for discipline must have been great, (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The Old Testament understood normal sexual intercourse as not only a way of expressing a loving relationship, but also as a divinely appointed way of procreating new life.

In the New Testament, St. Paul condemns male prostitutes and homosexuals (I Corinthians 6:9-11). In the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:24-32), he also judges it as unnatural. Homosexuals are included elsewhere among the immoral persons who, St. Paul says, deserve judgement by God (I Timothy 1:10). There is no example in all of the New Testament of approval, acceptance, or even tolerance of homosexuality.

Throughout Christian history, this disapproval has continued to be the case. In the patristic era freedom from homosexuality was seen as a mark of the Christian's ethical superiority to the wanton way of life that converts had left. Patristic thinking, like scriptural references, were directed to the practice of homosexuality, not to the desire itself. The Orthodox Church does not condemn the person who keeps this propensity in check, and ministers to homosexuals who wish to find release from this inclination.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/bookl...ism_ext.htm#n3 (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catechism_ext.htm#n3)




http://christianforums.com/t2477439-eastern-orthodox-taw-position-on-important-topics.html

[Xpycoctomos]

I don't know, I think Spyridon and Justin both make some points that need to be dealt with (sure, not by TAW, per se, but by the greater Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian Society in America).

I don't have a hard time at all saying that people of the same sex cannot get married in the Orthodox Church. I can defend that and I have no problem taking any heat that would come along with that. However, I have a difficult time telling gay people in the US that they can't get married by a secular government. I don't, and I never have, bought the "well, why not just let people marry [insert animal or object here], then?" becuase I think such an argument fails to recognize the innate human dignity of both partners comparing at least one of them to a beast. It also demonstrates an intent to remain ignorant of the true love that both people truly have for each other... a love that is no less likely to be real that any normal relationship out there. Many opponents to gay marriage or gay lifestyle (but not all by any means) feel the need to believe that gay relationships are nothing but beastial and are as deep as any one-night stand. But that just isn't true at all. There are, by all Christian standards EXCEPT for the big fact of the two being of the same sex, wonderfully deep gay relationships that are as altruistic as any other relationship.

Now, as I said, this has no place in the Church, never has and never will. But it's a belief that I don't believe can be well imposed outside of the Christian context. Our government is not a Chrsitian government. Sure, it was based on Judeo-Christian morals just as much as it was originally based on white European morés. But just as the latter aspect was not held as a rule (that is, now black people and women are allowed to vote despite our original constitution), neither is the former aspect an inherent part of our nation that must always remain. We live in a democracy which is great... many times. But it also means that the majority rules and that while religion CAN play a part in how we form those rules, it is not an innate that must always remain for the US to be the US. The US was never set up to lead people to salvation. It never had anything to do with salvation. Our motto is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". "Life" is about as close as it comes. But "life" for what? For earthly liberty which is neither here nor there when it comes to theosis. And, the pursuit of happiness. This may be not only indifferent to Christianity but antithetical. Maybe that last one is why we are sooooo materialistic (and in debt, that is, so much of what we own is owned on fake money that only exists in Chinsese banks) because we think happiness is something we deserve and can "pursue".

So, that's part of why I don't think the Constitution should be treated like the Bible. I think it should be used (and abused) as a means to an end. Ron Paul can wave the constitution in my face all he wants, but if I am not convinced that it is as sacred as the Bible as he seems to be, then it means as much as a Mormon telling me "you should believe this becuase the Book of Mormon says so!" lol.

I am beginning to lead into my final (and seemingly contradictory) point. But first of all, my original point is simply that the consititution does not inherently uphold Christian values but rather the dignity and superiority of the masses (and if the masses happen to be lead by Chrsitain morals... sobeit).... and the ridiculous "pursuit of happiness" all guided by the concept that you can do what you want as long as it doesn't mess with anyone else's personal rights (we break that one all the time... but it doesn't really bother me). There is nothign on a level of encouraging theosis at all. Becuase of this, I don't see how we can tell others that gay marriage should remain outlawed. The gay neighbor getting married doesn't affect my life directly one bit.

However, my final point, is that, despite what I've said above, I support an ammendment banning gay marriage. Not because I think it is constitutionally defensible but because I see our government as a means to an end. A means to use and abuse as necessary in order to further Christ's message. I don't want to see gay marriage become legal because it will make it that much more difficult of Christians growing up in this society to see it as something wrong. IF/when gay marriage becomes legal in the US, give it one (two tops) generation and the Orthdoox and other Churches that hold strong to this tradition will look hateful to the rest of society and people will defect from the Church. And while that may be their fault and hidden persecutions will always come, I don't want to set up a society that is any more difficult for my Orthodox brethern than necessary.

So, I support the ban on gay marriage, even though I don't think it is very "American". But I am not concerned with America as much with the OC.

This is soemthign I go back and forth on. Othere days, I may say I simply don't support a ban at all and taht the Church needs to deal with the reality of the society it finds itself in, and that as an Orthdoox Christian I support the individual rights of everyone, even if I don't agree wtih them, while at the same time continuing the fight for the OC to be the Church that upholds the morals God has given us within herself.

It's a strange dichotomy that I don't know I will ever come fully to terms with. Luckily, I at least always know where the OC stands on how an Orthdoox should live his or her life.

Xpy

[nutroll]

First of all, I don't like the involvement of the government in marriage in the first place. Marriage is to be a sacrament, not a legal contract. That being said, I doubt that is likely to change. On the topic of Gay Marriage, I think it shows the faultiness of the government being involved. What right does government have to define marriage at all? Why should we be looking to government for guidance on this issue? The Church says that Marriage is a Sacrament that takes place between a Christian man and a Christian woman. No matter what the government says, that is what marriage will always be.

In general, however, I do support the notion of Civil Unions. It seems to me that if two people spend their lives together, know each other better than anyone else, and truly care about one another, it is cruel, not to mention somewhat foolish to not let them be a part of important decisions on behalf of one another, to not allow them to visit each other in the hospital as family members, or to be able to leave one another an inheritance. It also seems to me that the denial of such things strikes at the wrong target. We believe that homosexuality is a sin. But denying civil unions only penalizes the relationship, not the sex. Two gay people can still meet and have all the sex that they want to. And they can go out night after night and have a new partner every day, and they will never be penalized for their behavior. And yet if they meet just one person and spend 50 years of their life with that person, they can be denied the ability to make decisions for that person, be kicked out of their funeral, or have the home that they built together taken away because it was in only one person's name and goes to the family of the one that died. I see this as a subtle encouragement for gay people to only engage in random, meaningless sexual encounters. Is a stable relationship between two gay people less sinful than a random encounter? I don't know the answer to that, but I tend to think it is less disruptive to society.

I don't think that we will ever regain any control on this issue. The problem is not that gay people want to be married, it is that somehow we have lost the ability to speak with authority about sin. I suspect that it has a lot to do with people who understand sin as a list of no-no's that they are willing to yell and scream about in a usually hypocritical manner. If we lived the lives that we preach about, and if we understood why certain things are sins rather than just repeating a list of sins, I think we would have a much easier time convincing others. As long as there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church out there, all Christians have a more difficult time proclaiming the truth and being believed.

I don't think being permissive will help us to teach others, but I think that going after the wrong targets only takes away our voice on moral issues. I would rather see everyone that believes in an anti-gay marriage amendment take some time to explain to some people why homosexuality is a sin in a rational, loving, and thoughtful way. In the long run, I think it would be more helpful.

[Xpycoctomos]

First of all, I don't like the involvement of the government in marriage in the first place. Marriage is to be a sacrament, not a legal contract. That being said, I doubt that is likely to change. On the topic of Gay Marriage, I think it shows the faultiness of the government being involved. What right does government have to define marriage at all? Why should we be looking to government for guidance on this issue? The Church says that Marriage is a Sacrament that takes place between a Christian man and a Christian woman. No matter what the government says, that is what marriage will always be.

In general, however, I do support the notion of Civil Unions. It seems to me that if two people spend their lives together, know each other better than anyone else, and truly care about one another, it is cruel, not to mention somewhat foolish to not let them be a part of important decisions on behalf of one another, to not allow them to visit each other in the hospital as family members, or to be able to leave one another an inheritance. It also seems to me that the denial of such things strikes at the wrong target. We believe that homosexuality is a sin. But denying civil unions only penalizes the relationship, not the sex. Two gay people can still meet and have all the sex that they want to. And they can go out night after night and have a new partner every day, and they will never be penalized for their behavior. And yet if they meet just one person and spend 50 years of their life with that person, they can be denied the ability to make decisions for that person, be kicked out of their funeral, or have the home that they built together taken away because it was in only one person's name and goes to the family of the one that died. I see this as a subtle encouragement for gay people to only engage in random, meaningless sexual encounters. Is a stable relationship between two gay people less sinful than a random encounter? I don't know the answer to that, but I tend to think it is less disruptive to society.

I don't think that we will ever regain any control on this issue. The problem is not that gay people want to be married, it is that somehow we have lost the ability to speak with authority about sin. I suspect that it has a lot to do with people who understand sin as a list of no-no's that they are willing to yell and scream about in a usually hypocritical manner. If we lived the lives that we preach about, and if we understood why certain things are sins rather than just repeating a list of sins, I think we would have a much easier time convincing others. As long as there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church out there, all Christians have a more difficult time proclaiming the truth and being believed.

I don't think being permissive will help us to teach others, but I think that going after the wrong targets only takes away our voice on moral issues. I would rather see everyone that believes in an anti-gay marriage amendment take some time to explain to some people why homosexuality is a sin in a rational, loving, and thoughtful way. In the long run, I think it would be more helpful.
I think you make very excellent points.

On an historical note, apparently in the early Church, the Church would accept the government's marriage (even during Christian persecution) as the sacrament itself. Over time the marital rite came into play. I only say that to point out that historically, the Church did view government's say in things as important. However, that doesn't mean that we must continue to do so. I think in times like these when we DO have our own rite to follow and the government completely confuses what marriage is anyway, we should learn to lean more and more on the Church's rite and view the government's "rite" a nothing more than a mere legality.

Anyway, i think you make excellent points, all of which I have held before and contiue to hold.

However, the government never is going to get out of the business of marriage and for me... it IS a game of semantics. If the gov were to (for legal reasons) call it a civil union (all of them, not only gay unions, but straight one's as well), that would be fine by me. THEN the word marriage would be taken out of the secular realm and given to the people to decide what that means for them. But as long as they call it marriage, the Orthdoox Church (and others) will become increasingly stigmatized for denying what people feel is a "right". If the government tells us that marriage is our RIGHT (even between two people of the same sex) then people will see us as a Church that denies people basic rights... as if we were to deny people of different races to marry. HOWEVER, if the gov calls it a civil union... well, a "civil union" is completely a secular and legal matter anyway and the only one that can deal in legal matters is the government, so no one COULD look to ANY Church to dole out civil unions any more than they could look to a Church to dole out driver's license. The word marriage needs to be given to the people, especially when every other household has a different definition for that word based on their personal morés and beliefs.

I appreciated your post a lot. But until the gov stops using the word marriage, I will have a difficult time support gay "marriage" ("civil unions, I can do... but that will very soon give way to usign the word "marriage" within our lifetime, guarenteed).

[Dorothea]

First of all, I don't like the involvement of the government in marriage in the first place. Marriage is to be a sacrament, not a legal contract. That being said, I doubt that is likely to change. On the topic of Gay Marriage, I think it shows the faultiness of the government being involved. What right does government have to define marriage at all? Why should we be looking to government for guidance on this issue? The Church says that Marriage is a Sacrament that takes place between a Christian man and a Christian woman. No matter what the government says, that is what marriage will always be.
I believe it became an issue when the gays and lesbians of the movement wanted their marriage to be counted in the sense of being "legal," which involves the government. The government was pulled into this issue because they brought them into it and wanted their "marriages" to be legal and recognized by the state (whatever state they were in).




In general, however, I do support the notion of Civil Unions. It seems to me that if two people spend their lives together, know each other better than anyone else, and truly care about one another, it is cruel, not to mention somewhat foolish to not let them be a part of important decisions on behalf of one another, to not allow them to visit each other in the hospital as family members, or to be able to leave one another an inheritance. It also seems to me that the denial of such things strikes at the wrong target. We believe that homosexuality is a sin. But denying civil unions only penalizes the relationship, not the sex. Two gay people can still meet and have all the sex that they want to. And they can go out night after night and have a new partner every day, and they will never be penalized for their behavior. And yet if they meet just one person and spend 50 years of their life with that person, they can be denied the ability to make decisions for that person, be kicked out of their funeral, or have the home that they built together taken away because it was in only one person's name and goes to the family of the one that died. I see this as a subtle encouragement for gay people to only engage in random, meaningless sexual encounters. Is a stable relationship between two gay people less sinful than a random encounter? I don't know the answer to that, but I tend to think it is less disruptive to society.

I don't think that we will ever regain any control on this issue. The problem is not that gay people want to be married, it is that somehow we have lost the ability to speak with authority about sin. I suspect that it has a lot to do with people who understand sin as a list of no-no's that they are willing to yell and scream about in a usually hypocritical manner. If we lived the lives that we preach about, and if we understood why certain things are sins rather than just repeating a list of sins, I think we would have a much easier time convincing others. As long as there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church out there, all Christians have a more difficult time proclaiming the truth and being believed.

I don't think being permissive will help us to teach others, but I think that going after the wrong targets only takes away our voice on moral issues. I would rather see everyone that believes in an anti-gay marriage amendment take some time to explain to some people why homosexuality is a sin in a rational, loving, and thoughtful way. In the long run, I think it would be more helpful.
I can understand that and can generally agree with you.

[SpyridonOCA]

I see what you're saying. But you do realize that the reason the amendment was never mentioned or made part of the Constitution at the time was because it was a given what marriage meant. So, there was no need to explain it. Because of the recent past decade or so with the aggressive homosexual movement, it has forced those of the Christian belief to have to defend their beliefs, and because of that, it looks like what you have said.

A true Reaganite is libertarian in orientation, wanting the government off our backs. The government isn't the solution to our problems, the government is the problem.

[rusmeister]

Please forgive me, but I think the most dangerous thing one can do is to encourage someone who is suffering from some kind of passion. I imagine we do it a lot, and that includes me. If you know of someone who goes loopy on a particular topic (after having attempted reasonable conversation) it is best not to say anything.

Again, please forgive me!:bow:

[Xpycoctomos]

.

[SpyridonOCA]

Please forgive me, but I think the most dangerous thing one can do is to encourage someone who is suffering from some kind of passion. I imagine we do it a lot, and that includes me. If you know of someone who goes loopy on a particular topic (after having attempted reasonable conversation) it is best not to say anything.

Again, please forgive me!:bow:

If politics were my career, would you consider it a passion?

[rusmeister]

If politics were my career, would you consider it a passion?
This is a good question, but my response would be that it depends on the person.

In your case, Spyridon (we can only go with the naked context we see online), what I see is political statements to Orthodox Christians that stem from an ideology that is not that of the Church. You started this thread with a political attitude that does not reflect how the Church sees same-sex attraction, for example, but parrots what (mostly) non-Christians wish to believe about it.

In the American tradition, we pride ourselves in celebrating diversity and free choice. The right to self-determination and personal autonomy is one of our greatest virtues and a source of our strength. Having said that, why would we deny freedom and individual rights to gay people? As an Orthodox Christian, I don't want the government interfering with my lifestyle choice.

You are right in saying that some sins should not be legslated, but as soon as you start speaking about a 'lifestyle choice' you have stepped outside of the Church. It is true that God gave us free will...but look at your words! These are words that Adam could have said as he took the fruit and ate thereof!

But that's only an example, not the main point. I realize that you are trying to reconcile Orthodoxy and politics, but the fact is, they do collide, and when they do it should be so much the worse for politics, not so much the worse for the Orthodoxy.

I may have misunderstood you in places, but it looks like a lot of secular political attitudes uninformed (or poorly informed) by the Faith. You need more Church and less politics.

Please forgive me (I don't wish to seem arrogant)! :bow:

[Lotar]

Individualism is our greatest vanity and stupidity. There is no virtue in it. The family is the building block of society, not the individual.

[SpyridonOCA]

In your case, Spyridon (we can only go with the naked context we see online), what I see is political statements to Orthodox Christians that stem from an ideology that is not that of the Church.

Is the Constitution of the United States a document of the Church? No, my friend. And I have no intention of making this country an Orthodox Christian theocracy. My faith is that of the Orthodox Church, not the United States government.

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, you sure as heck talk about Obama and the US government more than the Church... and in an Orthodox forum at that!

[nikolayalexandroff]

In the American tradition, we pride ourselves in celebrating diversity and free choice. The right to self-determination and personal autonomy is one of our greatest virtues and a source of our strength. Having said that, why would we deny freedom and individual rights to gay people? As an Orthodox Christian, I don't want the government interfering with my lifestyle choice. Religious faith is just as much of a choice as homosexuality, but I don't see any gay people trying to stop me from attending church. While I find homosexual sex to be an immoral act, I'm not going to prevent gay couples from doing whatever it is they do in the privacy of their own homes. Republicans, if they truly are libertarian Reaganites, should want the government off the gay man's back just as they want government off their own. That's all I have to say about that.
What a strange dichotomy promotes Spyridon. I believe, that an Orthodox Christian should be Christian above all - in any circumstances. And an Orthodox politician too. I believe that the non-intervention policy would be UnOrthodox in this situation - in the face of aggressive attack on the Christian values. And if some measures can delay the process of sodomization of the world, Orthodox Christians should support them, imho.

[JustinHesychast]

At my school this past week, the Gay Straight Alliance has posted many posters all over school. In a central, crowded area of the school is a GIGANTIC poster taking up almost half of the giant wall... it reads:

"THAT'S SO GAY
Is not OK!
think before you speak"

[rusmeister]

At my school this past week, the Gay Straight Alliance has posted many posters all over school. In a central, crowded area of the school is a GIGANTIC poster taking up almost half of the giant wall... it reads:

"THAT'S SO GAY
Is not OK!
think before you speak"
You'll notice, Justin, that the cardinal virtue of the people who posted that is to not offend others.

One thing our faith does is offend those who would do wrong and justify it (make it OK). Jesus said, "Blessed is he who is not offended by Me" (Luke 7:23), with a clear implication that many will be offended. This means that sometimes we may have to offend. And then, look out for persecution - that's the way of the world.

[SpyridonOCA]

What a strange dichotomy promotes Spyridon. I believe, that an Orthodox Christian should be Christian above all - in any circumstances. And an Orthodox politician too. I believe that the non-intervention policy would be UnOrthodox in this situation - in the face of aggressive attack on the Christian values. And if some measures can delay the process of sodomization of the world, Orthodox Christians should support them, imho.

Politicians should be more focused on upholding the public good than what grown men in their own homes do with their wee wees. The Sermon on the Mount could be public policy if our politicians only cared to follow the Gospel.

[nikolayalexandroff]

Politicians should be more focused on upholding the public good than what grown men in their own homes do with their wee wees. The Sermon on the Mount could be public policy if our politicians only cared to follow the Gospel.
I think it is the question of the public good - supporting the family and bounding the expansion of immorality. I think, a legislative act defining a family as a union of a man and a woman, would be a positive step now. Don't forget please, that the good of nations depends on their morality. Though this dependence is not strict, and God is "long-suffering", His patience is not endless. During the years of communism, America was heading the struggle against atheism and for the liberty and traditional values, and God blessed your country, but it may change shortly. All depends on you.

[SpyridonOCA]

Do you honestly believe that the police should search house to house, making sure that grown men aren't committing sodomy?

[rusmeister]

Do you honestly believe that the police should search house to house, making sure that grown men aren't committing sodomy?
Spyridon, no one here suggested that. You inferred it - made it up in your head - based on the political rhetoric you have heavily indoctrinated yourself with.

If you would consider yourself able to see - not blind - yhen read their actual words and consider what other possible conclusions could be drawn from them.

Otherwise, see my pms.

[SpyridonOCA]

The Orthodox Church hasn't the right nor the authority to exert its will on the United States government without the consent of the American people. The Church does have the responsibility to teach the world the truth. Free people in a free society should then have the free choice as to whether they are to follow the Church.

[Khaleas]

Does anyone else here have a clue which foot we're standing on today??? :confused: :scratch:

[nikolayalexandroff]

Do you honestly believe that the police should search house to house, making sure that grown men aren't committing sodomy?
I never suggested that. But ban gay propaganda in public schools - what's wrong with it? If religion is banned, why not the propaganda of sodomy? If your children have no right to know "whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise", why must they be obliged to be indoctrinated with sodomy? And why Orthodox citizens should pay for this propaganda?
Seems to me, you have not understood my previous post properly. My approach was more ontological than practical. Our rights and laws are only human invention. But our sins or our virtues can change "the whole face of the earth".

[nikolayalexandroff]

The Orthodox Church hasn't the right nor the authority to exert its will on the United States government without the consent of the American people. The Church does have the responsibility to teach the world the truth. Free people in a free society should then have the free choice as to whether they are to follow the Church.
God respects a free will and a right to choice of the American people and of the every man on Earth to such a degree, that He allows to chose Hell to everyone who wants. But if you love your country, you'll do everything in your power to correct a wrong choice.

[Philothei]

where did you rep sign go Nikolai?

[seashale76]

But ban gay propaganda in public schools - what's wrong with it? If religion is banned, why not the propaganda of sodomy? If your children have no right to know "whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise", why must they be obliged to be indoctrinated with sodomy? And why Orthodox citizens should pay for this propaganda?


Exactly. Not to mention that the gay propaganda in the public schools that I've seen is explicitly anti-Christian.

True story: Two years ago I was at a middle school where we were told to turn on the classroom televisions after the announcements to watch a high school round table discussion about multiculturalism. It was divided into multiple parts. The first couple of days it was okay. The students were all talking about being an American and were all from different races and represented a cross section, etc. The last day, however, it was revealed that two of the students were gay and atheist and they both went on anti-Christian rants disguised as, 'Poor me. Why does Christianity promote hatred? I'm just being me. I'm not a sinner.'

So, the true agenda was revealed at last. Not only do they want to encourage homosexuality in the general population, they certainly don't want anyone being a Christian.

Of course, my principal claimed not to know about the ending of the video, and it was explained to me that it had been heavily promoted to them from the state department of education as a benign video on multiculturalism. Apparently, not one person had been encouraged to preview an approved video before airing it.

[Philothei]

The Orthodox Church hasn't the right nor the authority to exert its will on the United States government without the consent of the American people. The Church does have the responsibility to teach the world the truth. Free people in a free society should then have the free choice as to whether they are to follow the Church.
There are many ways to "lead" in a secular society respecting one's individual rights.... I think it is called "wittnessing"?

The EO church has any right to take a position on social ethic issues and demand social action it is part of Christians witnessing to their faith. You cannot be an EO with a "lukewarm' social ethics.. except if you want to be doing 'situational ethics' like the Goven't does... which is fine with me but do not call yourself Christian.


Advocating Christian morals, standards and policy should have nothing to do with 'taking away the freedom' rather helping society from becoming demoralized.... IMO. Since the state has as its aim the 'well being' of its citizens it has a moral obligation to do that...

Why there are laws that one cannot take his own life? IMO then these law should be taken away as it takes away my freedom of choice to decide for my own life... How is this any different from murder, abortion, or stealing? You decide... it is a sleepery slope after that...

[Sacrum Silentium]

America will definitely accept homosexuality, just like it accepts paganism, hedonism, nihilism, the new age movement, parents having no rights over their children, etc...

[JustinHesychast]

America will definitely accept homosexuality, just like it accepts paganism, hedonism, nihilism, the new age movement, parents having no rights over their children, etc...

Eh? I've heard of everything else, but last I checked my mom ruled over me with a painful iron fist. Two, in fact. :P

[Philothei]

http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/3star.gif http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/ThumbsUp.gif http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/ThumbsDwn.gif“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith”http://en.thinkexist.com/i/sq/as4.gif Alexis de Tocqueville quote (http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/liberty_cannot_be_established_without_morality/182428.html)

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/Alexis_de_Tocqueville/

good ol' french man....

[Dorothea]

I think it is the question of the public good - supporting the family and bounding the expansion of immorality. I think, a legislative act defining a family as a union of a man and a woman, would be a positive step now. Don't forget please, that the good of nations depends on their morality. Though this dependence is not strict, and God is "long-suffering", His patience is not endless. During the years of communism, America was heading the struggle against atheism and for the liberty and traditional values, and God blessed your country, but it may change shortly. All depends on you.
Yes, I believe moral decay has been the downfall of nations in the past, and will be in the future.

[Philothei]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikolayalexandroff http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43856929#post43856929)
I think it is the question of the public good - supporting the family and bounding the expansion of immorality. I think, a legislative act defining a family as a union of a man and a woman, would be a positive step now. Don't forget please, that the good of nations depends on their morality. Though this dependence is not strict, and God is "long-suffering", His patience is not endless. During the years of communism, America was heading the struggle against atheism and for the liberty and traditional values, and God blessed your country, but it may change shortly. All depends on you.

Yes, I believe moral decay has been the downfall of nations in the past, and will be in the future.



I will second that.... The state should do what is good for its people... and be responsible for its society.

[Xpycoctomos]

Eh? I've heard of everything else, but last I checked my mom ruled over me with a painful iron fist. Two, in fact. :P
Teaching in a public school, I can tell you that this is increasingly true.

[nikolayalexandroff]

Eh? I've heard of everything else, but last I checked my mom ruled over me with a painful iron fist. Two, in fact. :P
Reading your posts sometimes I feel pity that your dad didn't help her with his belt, when you were younger.;)

[SpyridonOCA]

I never suggested that. But ban gay propaganda in public schools - what's wrong with it?

What qualifies as gay propaganda? If teaching six year old children how to perform homosexual sex is gay propaganda, I agree with you. If it means teaching tolerance of those who live differently from us, despite how sinful they may be, then that's a good thing. We are all, after all, grave sinners.

[SpyridonOCA]

You cannot be an EO with a "lukewarm' social ethics..


I wholeheartedly agree with you, which is why I believe that our government should dedicate itself to upholding the Golden Rule through promoting the general welfare of the American people, rather than exploiting such issues as gay marriage and abortion to win the votes of white, middle class, Evangelical voters.

It's no surprise to me that while most black and Hispanic Americans are churchgoers, they overwhelming vote Democrat. It's no surprise to me either that most Orthodox politicians in this country are not Republican, or are at least not part of the hard right that's taken over politics in the past seven years.

The presidential candidate whose social and economic policies I support the most is Ron Paul. I would prefer abolishing the income tax for all working Americans, rather than just favoring the very wealthy. I would prefer a president who opposes abortion, unprovoked war, and the death penalty, a president who is genuinely pro-life, to one who tortures terrorism suspects and kills thousands of innocent people, all while paying lip service to the religious right. But since the Republican Party was too stupid or too stubborn to give Ron Paul a chance, I'd prefer a tax and spend Democrat to a tax cut for the rich and spend Republican.

[SpyridonOCA]

Yes, I believe moral decay has been the downfall of nations in the past, and will be in the future.

The Republican Party, the so-called "moral majority," has accelerated the moral decay of our country through favoring the rich and powerful, tolerating corruption, waging wars of unprovoked aggression, and dividing our culture for the pettiest of reasons. Abraham Lincoln would not be proud. Teddy Roosevelt would not be proud. Ronald Reagan would not be proud.

[rusmeister]

Spyridon, I now doubt that you can hear me, or more accurately, hear my intent, but I'll say again, perhaps futilely, that your politics are informed by non-Orthodox sources. When you speak of 'tolerating' the actions of those who 'live differently from us', it certainly looks like you are advocating the support of teaching of approval of their choice to openly rebel against God by embracing their particular passion (same-sex attraction).

You are steeped in political debate that is not led by Orthodox Christians, and that is your problem. Tell me what Fr Thomas Hopko or any other authoritative figure in the Orthodox Church says about these topics, rather than what Chris Matthews (or whoever) says. I think maybe you really don't know. No one doubts that we are all grave sinners. But none of us support the teaching of 'tolerance' of sin.

I don't think anything I said has really registered with you.

[Dorothea]

The Republican Party, the so-called "moral majority," has accelerated the moral decay of our country through favoring the rich and powerful, tolerating corruption, waging wars of unprovoked aggression, and dividing our culture for the pettiest of reasons. Abraham Lincoln would not be proud. Teddy Roosevelt would not be proud. Ronald Reagan would not be proud.
And the liberal democratic party had nothing to do with the corruption in politics or the moral decay of this country. It was all those nasty republicans. Let me ask you these questions, Spyridon:

What movement was the "make love, not war" who had all the orgies, promiscuity, free sex, and drugs galore?

What movement has pushed the right for gays to be married?

What movement pushed through Roe vs. Wade? Defends partial-birth abortions?

What movement believes in feminizing men?

What movement wants the government to control our lives more than the citizens controlling their own lives?


Think about that.

The truth is, both parties have corrupt and slimy people in them because they're human. The truth is, we live in a world full of sin, and we shouldn't have to hop on the bandwagon.

[SpyridonOCA]

Spyridon, I now doubt that you can hear me, or more accurately, hear my intent, but I'll say again, perhaps futilely, that your politics are informed by non-Orthodox sources.


It is the Orthodox teaching to love the sinner. When have I not stated that homosexuality is a sin? Gay people aren't any worse of sinners than you and I, and almost every gay person I've known has been a genuine, honest, and well meaning person. I can't always say that for most straight people I've been acquainted with, especially those who always claim the moral high ground.

Oftentimes, the victims of intolerance are the ones who best understand tolerance. Exploiting homosexuality to win votes isn't going to solve the moral problems of our country. It will only exasperate them. The state hasn't the responsibility to do that which only Christ can only do for the human heart.

[SpyridonOCA]

The truth is, both parties have corrupt and slimy people in them because they're human. The truth is, we live in a world full of sin, and we shouldn't have to hop on the bandwagon.

Am I saying that most Democrats are morally superior to Republicans? Of course not. But it's not like the Republicans have been the knight in shining armor for defending the lives of the unborn, of people overseas who happen to look different from us, and of those on death row who committed no crime other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. We should have a new politics based on our hopes, rather than our fears and hatreds.

[Dorothea]

I don't think anybody here has said the Republicans were kinghts in shining armor or clean as the driven snow. I think what we've tried to point out that neither party is perfect. Your last statement tells me you have been reading left-winged propoganda sites instead of reading more mainstream or a bit more objective sites, news or otherwise. Hopefully, when you grow older, you may see things less narrowly.

[SpyridonOCA]

Your last statement tells me you have been reading left-winged propoganda sites instead of reading more mainstream or a bit more objective sites, news or otherwise. Hopefully, when you grow older, you may see things less narrowly.

Please don't insult my intelligence. College educated people should easily see through the Republican pandering to Christian voters. I don't even consider myself a liberal and I've recognized it. My priest is not a liberal and he's recognized it. I'm actually conservative on most issues, and yet I'm able to see through the lies of the GOP.

Republican politicians don't care about the unborn any more than their Democratic colleagues. You should know that. Which party, over the past, seven years, has been the most destructive to the common good? Which has violated the Golden Rule the most? I think you know the answer.

That you've pigeonholed me as a liberal shows that you don't have a reasoned argument.

[Xpycoctomos]

Please don't insult my intelligence. College educated people should easily see through the Republican pandering to Christian voters. I don't even consider myself a liberal and I've recognize it. My priest is not a liberal and he's recognized it. I'm actually conservative on most issues, and yet I'm able to see through the lies of the GOP.

Republican politicians don't care about the unborn any more than their Democratic colleagues. You should know that. Which party, over the past, seven years, has been the most destructive to the common good? Which has violated the Golden Rule the most? I think you know the answer.

That you've pigeonholed me as a liberal shows that you don't have a reasoned argument.
Spyridon,

What you say is true (in general) and what we are saying about the dems is true in general. However you fail to recognize the practical issue that the Democrats on the whole WILL and have worked to FURTHER abortion "rights". Republicans, on the whole, do NOT work for this. Is it out of Morals? maybe. Or out of wanting to be re-elected by their constituents. Probably. The latter is not the most respectable reason, but it brings about practical results.

So, yes, i do NOT believe that McCain cares about the pro-life movemnet anymore than it will get him votes. I believed the same thing about Bush. I never thought that he was some great Christian man. the fact is, I know nothing about his personal life. For me, he is nothing more than a polititian to be used like an object. The fact of the matter is that he put in two supreme Court Justices that will (according to their records, and what else can be don) do all they can to be sure that abortion rights are not furthered in the US if it passes their desks. The reality is that they will probalby never be able to outlaw Roe V Wade and even if it is, somethign will happen to reverse their ruling because we are adddicted to death a solution like an untreated alcoholic reaches for the bottle when he or she has a bad day. I can guarentee you that both Hillary and Barack, if given t he chance WILL give us Justices that will not only support the disgusting rights recognized by our homicidal and dying nation (quite literally) but that will welcome "progressive" moves in this. McCain will be LESS likely to do that and ANYONE would agree with that, I don't care how liberal or conservative they are.

Now, if there are other moral issues that compel you to go democrat, that's a personal issue that is between you and God. But don't act like republicans and democrats have no effect on this issue. Sure, you and I don't know what's in their hearts and it is a billion times preferable that we have a candidate in office who actually cares about what he or she fights for, especially if that is for saving innocent human lives a, but if we can't have that I would at least like someone who is not going to make the problem at hand worse.

[Xpycoctomos]

Am I saying that most Democrats are morally superior to Republicans? Of course not. But it's not like the Republicans have been the knight in shining armor for defending the lives of the unborn, of people overseas who happen to look different from us, and of those on death row who committed no crime other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. We should have a new politics based on our hopes, rather than our fears and hatreds.
I hope that one day we are never given the option to end the life of a born baby that survived botched abortion.

I hope that one day our nation as a whole will fail to see abortion as an option and a right.

If bringing up the realities of abortion and how that affects each one of us and how you and I may very well have to answer for that one day as being part of a democratice society is fear-mongering, fair enough.

[Dorothea]

Please don't insult my intelligence. College educated people should easily see through the Republican pandering to Christian voters. I don't even consider myself a liberal and I've recognize it. My priest is not a liberal and he's recognized it. I'm actually conservative on most issues, and yet I'm able to see through the lies of the GOP.

Republican politicians don't care about the unborn any more than their Democratic colleagues. You should know that. Which party, over the past, seven years, has been the most destructive to the common good? Which has violated the Golden Rule the most? I think you know the answer.

That you've pigeonholed me as a liberal shows that you don't have a reasoned argument.
Ok, I'm done discussing issues with you, Spyridon. You are extremely disrespectful to me, and you're just a young man. I don't have to take this type of treatment from you or anyone else.

Good afternoon.

[Philothei]

Spyridon, both parties use ethical/moral issues to win votes depending where you are... if you are a homosexual you "side" with democrats... if you are pro-life you go rebublican ... They both play the game...You cannot say that Rebublicans are to blame... here less than the democrats who are ready to "sell out " to the minorities... hoping for votes. It happens the same in all Europe too. Now the rightists in Greece are in favor of minority rights ... they were not for it five years ago....

[SpyridonOCA]

What you say is true (in general) and what we are saying about the dems is true in general. However you fail to recognize the practical issue that the Democrats on the whole WILL and have worked to FURTHER abortion "rights". Republicans, on the whole, do NOT work for this. Is it out of Morals? maybe. Or out of wanting to be re-elected by their constituents. Probably. The latter is not the most respectable reason, but it brings about practical results.


As long as abortion remains legal, Republicans can exploit it to win your vote. When you consider a consistent life ethic, which includes the poor, the innocent on death row, and those in far away countries that look different from us, which party has been the most detrimental to human life?

At least most Democrats admit, while they recognize that Roe Vs. Wade is the established law of the land, that abortion is a horrible tragedy that should be dealt with by providing equal access to childcare and contraception. Not only have Republicans failed to end abortion, they've failed to even address the real causes of the problem.

Again, the Republicans have been the greatest failures, in the past seven years, in consistently upholding life. What has John McCain done to deserve my vote? I can name you many things, for the good of human life, and in upholding the sanctity of life, which Obama has done. Therefore, as a Christian humanitarian, not as a liberal, I choose Obama.

[SpyridonOCA]

Ok, I'm done discussing issues with you, Spyridon. You are extremely disrespectful to me, and you're just a young man. I don't have to take this type of treatment from you or anyone else.

Good afternoon.

You accused me of listening to the liberal bloggers, and I responded with facts and well reasoned arguments. I'm sorry if you are offended, but you should understand why your words would offend myself and others.

[SpyridonOCA]

Spyridon, both parties use ethical/moral issues to win votes depending where you are... if you are a homosexual you "side" with democrats... if you are pro-life you go rebublican ... They both play the game...You cannot say that Rebublicans are to blame... here less than the democrats who are ready to "sell out " to the minorities... hoping for votes. It happens the same in all Europe too. Now the rightists in Greece are in favor of minority rights ... they were not for it five years ago....

Out of both parties, which is the least detrimental to the cause of upholding all human life? While Republicans use abortion to pander to voters, at least Democrats are more likely to deliver on their promises.

[rusmeister]

Spyridon, both parties use ethical/moral issues to win votes depending where you are... if you are a homosexual you "side" with democrats... if you are pro-life you go rebublican ... They both play the game...You cannot say that Rebublicans are to blame... here less than the democrats who are ready to "sell out " to the minorities... hoping for votes. It happens the same in all Europe too. Now the rightists in Greece are in favor of minority rights ... they were not for it five years ago....
It's obvious he can't hear us, Philothei. He picks things to respond to out of our posts based on the thinking he's been taught in college and ignores the points that he can't answer. Like a classic politician.

All I can recommend to the regular TAW'ers is to not respond to his political posts, but to ask what his priest, major Orthodox thinkers like Fr Alexander Schmemann or whoever, and the Church Fathers have to say on specific topics. It's obvious he doesn't know. His ECF is Chris Matthews and his gospel is the NYT.

Any person seriously attempting Orthodoxy is going to, at some point, have to tackle the difficult issue of humility. Please forgive me, Spyridon, I am no master at it, but I don't think there's any more point in talking to you at all unless it's about the Faith (minus politics). From your talk you'd think you were the only person who had ever been to college. (I more and more consider that more of a minus than a plus, anyway - something that (frequently) actually detracts from the intellect.)

[SpyridonOCA]

It's obvious he can't hear us, Philothei. He picks things to respond to out of our posts based on the thinking he's been taught in college and ignores the points that he can't answer. Like a classic politician.


Most of what I believe and say about politics has been against the best wisdom of my professors. Therefore, I reject your contention. If I believed everything my teachers taught me, I wouldn't watch Fox News, I wouldn't admire Ronald Reagan, and I certainly would not be an Orthodox Christian.


All I can recommend to the regular TAW'ers is to not respond to his political posts, but to ask what his priest, major Orthodox thinkers like Fr Alexander Schmemann or whoever, and the Church Fathers have to say on specific topics. It's obvious he doesn't know. His ECF is Chris Matthews and his gospel is the NYT.


I have to reject your contention that I have neglected the Church in my political concerns. As I've consistently stated, I do not support an ideology or a political party, but whatever candidate would do the most to uphold the Golden Rule. Our president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, which promises to promote the general welfare.



Any person seriously attempting Orthodoxy is going to, at some point, have to tackle the difficult issue of humility.

There is an obvious lack of humility in anyone who would suggest that by supporting a man like Barack Obama, I am any less of an Orthodox Christian. It's been suggested on this forum, and I'm tired of it. I am willing to admit my own faults, and I hope that other members of this forum can do the same.

[Philothei]

Most of what I believe and say about politics has been against the best wisdom of my professors. Therefore, I reject your contention. If I believed everything my teachers taught me, I wouldn't watch Fox News, I wouldn't admire Ronald Reagan, and I certainly would not be an Orthodox Christian.



I have to reject your contention that I have neglected the Church in my political concerns. As I've consistently stated, I do not support an ideology or a political party, but whatever candidate would do the most to uphold the Golden Rule. Our president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, which promises to promote the general welfare.



There is an obvious lack of humility in anyone who would suggest that by supporting a man like Barack Obama, I am any less of an Orthodox Christian. It's been suggested on this forum, and I'm tired of it. I am willing to admit my own faults, and I hope that other members of this forum can do the same.
Trying to see in a more lighter angle.... What are you going to do once elections are over? Are you studying political science? it seems you would be good at it... I want you to know that it does not bother me we do not see eye to eye... I know you are searching and that is good... maybe you see something we do not...

[SpyridonOCA]

Trying to see in a more lighter angle.... What are you going to do once elections are over? Are you studying political science? it seems you would be good at it... I want you to know that it does not bother me we do not see eye to eye... I know you are searching and that is good... maybe you see something we do not...

What I think you should realize is that, on most political positions and values, we agree. I consider myself a disaffected conservative, sickened by what the Republican Party has done in the past seven years.

What I wanted is Ron Paul to be president, but the Republican Party was too stupid or too stubborn to give him a chance, because that would be an admission that they were wrong about the Iraq war. Not that the idea of the war was especially wrong, but it has been a strategic failure from the beginning, causing the loss of thousands of innocent lives that could have otherwise been avoided, and the Bush administration has sole responsibility for that fact.

Under the Geneva Conventions, occupying powers have the responsibility to restore safety and stability. What the administration has done is not only reckless and immoral, it is a violation of international law.

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1


Conservatives are supposed to be dedicated to upholding the rule of law. What has President Bush done, over the past seven years, to accomplish that goal? Under the Constitution, our government is required to follow all its treaties, including the Geneva Convention.

The fact of the matter is, it's not me who is a liberal, but that I am more conservative than our Republican president. That Barack Obama speaks the language of a conservative Christian, and is willing to reach out and work with conservative Christians, is a good thing.

Barack Obama has received the endorsement of the Greek lobby, because of his pledge to defend the rights of Orthodox Christians:

Giannoulias Expands Reach of National Greeks for Obama Committee
http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=8076

[Philothei]

Thanks for taking the time for this. Will read it later.

In his program is there a bla bla frame story of when he will end the war? I am sure he does ... sure.. but the war will go on... so why would anyone should trust him? Clinton bombed Belgrade... Spyriodon... Don't you think the American public is not that blind anymore?

[SpyridonOCA]

Thanks for taking the time for this. Will read it later.

In his program is there a bla bla frame story of when he will end the war? I am sure he does ... sure.. but the war will go on... so why would anyone should trust him? Clinton bombed Belgrade... Spyriodon... Don't you think the American public is not that blind anymore?

Have you forgotten Ronald Reagan? He was our president only twenty years ago. That we could have someone that brilliant in office, who was able to cause the fall of the Soviet Union despite the opposition of Republicans and Democrats, shows that good can be accomplished through our political officials. When I think of the freedom that Reagan's policies provided overall, it makes me shed tears.

It Was Reagan Who Tore Down That Wall
He was the prime mover behind the Soviet collapse.
By Dinesh D'Souza
http://media.yaf.org/commentary/dsouza-reagan.cfm

George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama, however, portrays having that same brilliance and dedication to the common good.

[Thekla]

Have you forgotten Ronald Reagan? He was our president only twenty years ago. That we could have someone that brilliant in office, who was able to cause the fall of the Soviet Union despite the opposition of Republicans and Democrats, shows that good can be accomplished through our political officials. When I think of the freedom that Reagan's policies provided overall, it makes me shed tears.

It Was Reagan Who Tore Down That Wall
He was the prime mover behind the Soviet collapse.
By Dinesh D'Souza
http://media.yaf.org/commentary/dsouza-reagan.cfm

George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan.

:sigh:

Central America
homelessness spike
S&L
upwards redistribution of wealth

[SpyridonOCA]

:sigh:

Central America
homelessness spike
S&L
upwards redistribution of wealth

I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of all of Reagan's policies. But overall, they were good for our economy and foreign policy. The Soviet Union fell, despite nobody thinking that it would, and we experienced an economic boom with great job growth for the next twenty years.

Did Reaganism work? I believe it did. Most Americans did too, which is why he won by a landslide both times, and left office with the highest approval rating of any president since World War II. How can you not love the Great Communicator?

When will it be morning in America once again?

[Thekla]

I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of all of Reagan's policies. But overall, they were good for our economy and foreign policy. The Soviet Union fell, despite nobody thinking that it would, and we experienced an economic boom with great job growth for the next twenty years.

Did Reaganism work? I believe it did. Most Americans did too, which is why he won by a landslide both times, and left office with the highest approval rating of any president since World War II. How can you not love the Great Communicator?

When will it be morning in America once again?
makin' the world free for Citibank ... as long as someone else's kid pays the price:

http://www.markdanner.com/books/show_review/17

etc., etc., etc....

[SpyridonOCA]

makin' the world free for Citibank ... as long as someone else's kid pays the price:

http://www.markdanner.com/books/show_review/17

etc., etc., etc....

Reagan's policy in Latin America, no matter how disgusting it may seem, helped cause the fall of the Soviet Union, and freed the people of Latin America from its influence. Remember, Reagan's Latin American policy was a continuation of Jimmy Carter's.

[Philothei]

The means always jutifies the ends.... policy... blah

[SpyridonOCA]

The means always jutifies the ends.... policy... blah

In the Orthodox tradition, there is the doctrine of justifiable war. What did the Byzantine emperors do to defend the lives and freedom of their people?

[Thekla]

Reagan's policy in Latin America, no matter how disgusting it may seem, helped cause the fall of the Soviet Union, and freed the people of Latin America from its influence. Remember, Reagan's Latin American policy was a continuation of Jimmy Carter's.
yup, and it didn't start with Carter. Wasn't it FDR who said of Samoza, "He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB." ?

so all the people who died in Central America, including the hundreds of children under the age of 12 who were massacred at El Mozote -- thats acceptable to you ?

[SpyridonOCA]

yup, and it didn't start with Carter. Wasn't it FDR who said of Samoza, "He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB." ?

so all the people who died in Central America, including the hundreds of children under the age of 12 who were massacred at El Mozote -- thats acceptable to you ?

No, it is not. But when I look at the greater good that was accomplished, I can't help but give Mr. Reagan credit.

[Thekla]

No, it is not. But when I look at the greater good that was accomplished, I can't help but give Mr. Reagan credit.
the greater good: owning a Bible in Guatemala being punishable by death without trial (proof of being a "Communist")

okay

[Philothei]

In the Orthodox tradition, there is the doctrine of justifiable war. What did the Byzantine emperors do to defend the lives and freedom of their people?
These wars were defensive... they took place to protect the Empire... They did not take place in order to "bring another Empire down"...Anyways to compare the two is seriously an uneven paradigm... as the "games" played in the international trade arena in those days have not too much bearing in our today's standards...

[Hoankan]

Funny isn't it. He compliments Reagan for atrocities improving the common good and yet rails against the people that rose to power at the same time as Reagan, the powerful conservative groups.

[Thekla]

Reagan's policy in Latin America, no matter how disgusting it may seem, helped cause the fall of the Soviet Union, and freed the people of Latin America from its influence. Remember, Reagan's Latin American policy was a continuation of Jimmy Carter's.
yup, and it didn't start with Carter. Wasn't it FDR who said of Samoza, "He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB." ?

so all the people who died in Central America, including the hundreds of children under the age of 12 who were massacred at El Mozote -- thats acceptable to you ?

[SpyridonOCA]

the greater good: owning a Bible in Guatemala being punishable by death without trial (proof of being a "Communist")

okay

Have you read the article which I provided on Ronald Reagan? I ask you again, what would have the Byzantine emperors done to defend the lives and freedom of their people? What would King David have done?

[Philothei]

I agree somehow with Reagan, up to the point that there was a "better good" but ...still by far there was no change in American foreign policy...

Wait a minute this thread is about Homophobic... yikes we are way off topic....

[SpyridonOCA]

These wars were defensive... they took place to protect the Empire... They did not take place in order to "bring another Empire down"...Anyways to compare the two is seriously an uneven paradigm... as the "games" played in the international trade arena in those days have not too much bearing in our today's standards...

Ronald Reagan, like St. Constantine, gave freedom to millions of Orthodox Christians living under persecution. Are you going to attack St. Constantine?

[SpyridonOCA]

Funny isn't it. He compliments Reagan for atrocities improving the common good and yet rails against the people that rose to power at the same time as Reagan, the powerful conservative groups.

I don't believe the conservative movement truly failed us until President Bush became president, because he has betrayed all conservative principle, with movement conservatives standing idly by and supporting him along the way.

[Thekla]

Have you read the article which I provided on Ronald Reagan? I ask you again, what would have the Byzantine emperors done to defend the lives and freedom of their people? What would King David have done?

how did the average person in Central America figure into threatening your life ? what happened to the "freedom" of most people in Central America under the strong-arm bullies that we supported. Whose freedom do you care about -- your freedom is more important ? Does it matter to you that Christians were being killed for the crime of existing ?

[Philothei]

lol... you seriously compare the two? RR was a movie star ... he had the charisma of talking and "acting"... St. Constantine was a military man and an Emperor. He was a visionary who conquered in the sign of a Cross. He was a Christian leader with a Christian empire... RR was a secular leader in a secular state. Just because he introduced the prayer at school it ain't makes him a Christian leader... by far.

[Thekla]

I don't believe the conservative movement truly failed us until President Bush became president, because he has betrayed all conservative principle, with movement conservatives standing idly by and supporting him along the way.
the conservative movement mistook an economic system for a political one. And ended up paying to martyr their own brothers and sisters in Christ.

[SpyridonOCA]

how did the average person in Central America figure into threatening your life ? what happened to the "freedom" of most people in Central America under the strong-arm bullies that we supported. Whose freedom do you care about -- your freedom is more important ? Does it matter to you that Christians were being killed for the crime of existing ?

This isn't a discussion that we need to continue. I've already stated my position.

[SpyridonOCA]

lol... you seriously compare the two? RR was a movie star ... he had the charisma of talking and "acting"... St. Constantine was a military man and an Emperor. He was a visionary who conquered in the sign of a Cross. He was a Christian leader with a Christian empire... RR was a secular leader in a secular state. Just because he introduced the prayer at school it ain't makes him a Christian leader... by far.

Please don't make a joke out of this. Orthodox Christians, despite his flaws, are in debt to Ronald Reagan.

It Was Reagan Who Tore Down That Wall
He was the prime mover behind the Soviet collapse.
By Dinesh D'Souza
http://media.yaf.org/commentary/dsouza-reagan.cfm

[Thekla]

This isn't a disc