So if I was a schoolteacher, and I felt that based on my religious beliefs, I could not, as a Christian, justify not going to a Franklin Graham revival because I felt that God was asking me to go, and the school system denied me unpaid leave to go to the festival and so I resigned, the Federal government would step in and sue the school system and say that the system was compelling me to choose between my job and my religious beliefs? As Colonel Potter would say on Mash, "horsehockey." Why is this so? You dont think the president's support of Muslims has anything to do with it do you? According to many here, our constitution says that the federal government isnt supposed to support any religion. Isnt it supporting this woman's religion by suing the school district? Why wouldnt it support a Christian? Because it isnt politically correct to be one for one thing. It wouldnt be bending over backwards for some nation so they will sell us oil and not bomb us. It wouldnt result in any political gain. When the GOP controls both houses and the White House in two years things will change. Also, as a Christian, I can get close to God anytime I need to. He wouldnt ask us to go to a certain city to worship and He isnt asking these people to do so. They dont know who God is, and they dont know His Son and the Holy Spirit.

Clay,

You need to brush up on your Constitution. The First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." accords you the same protections it does Ms Khan. In the scenario you described, in which you were denied permission to skip school to attend your Graham-a-palooza, you might well have a case. Two factors, though, would, it seems to me, make your case weaker than that of Ms Khan:

- the Hajj is a tenet of Ms Khan's faith; attendance at Mr Graham's tent show is not a tenet of yours.

- Mr Graham's circus comes to town many times in the course of a year; the Hajj occurs once a year at a specific time. You could probably get a ticket for some time during the summer, for example.

Your delusions regarding the President are just that -- ravings of an ill-informed man.

What the tenet's are is supposed to be up to God and no one else. If someone feels that God is asking them to do something, how can anyone else decide if it is necessary or not, regardless of how many times a year they feel they should do it? As far as myself being ill informed, I say horsehockey. We will see what happens at election time in two years. God bless.

Clay, what are you trying to say?

"Tenets" are basic principles of one's faith. Yours might include full-immersion adult baptism, for example. Ms Khan's tenets include the hajj. I don't think packing the bleachers at Mr Graham's dog-and-pony show rises to a "tenet." The Courts don't take kindly to frivolous suits.

Clay Muslims believe that is what God wants you do not. That is the difference. That is why your example is not the same as the other.

Anon, I understand. But Christians do have times when they really feel that God wants them to do something, and we cant always plan for that in advance. And Bankstreet, you seem to have respect when you speak of the Muslim faith, yet you refer to a Christian man and his faith and for all that he has done to help people all over the world as a dog and pony show. Why is that? It seems to be a politically correct thing for some to do. Mr Graham's ministries do the most important thing and that is to witness for Christ. They also provide food and help for people in need in many places. Thanks.

Clay,

I hope you are not pinning too much hope on the ascent of your idol Mr Romney to the Presidency. Even he is beholden to the Constitution. The law aside, any President who denied civil rights (or even common courtesy) to Muslims would be a very foolish President. The election of Mr Romney would, most assuredly, not transform this country into a "Christian Nation." That would require considerable change to our culture ... and would would, I am afraid, come at the cost of some blood. Some of us value our freedom to highly to allow that to happen.

Clay,

I am respectful of legitimate faith traditions, such as the hajj.

My respect for Mr Graham is tempered by his rabid anti-Islamic rhetoric and by his $416,987 salary as CEO of the very political Samaritan's Purse.

My reference to "dog-and-pony shows" is informed by my long-standing suspicion of tent/stadium "revivals," with their frenzied manipulation of the gullible and documented history of feigned cures and miracles. From Billy Sunday, Elmer Gantry (yes, fictional but so true to form), and Oral Roberts, right up to Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberson, and the Bakkers, that band of rogues has done little to instill much true faith and, yes, respect.

? I heard on the radio today about the bible saying that the new government will be here when Christ returns to rule for 1000 years. The government will be on His shoulders. That will be what transforms us into a Christian nation. I certainly wouldnt expect someone like Romney to do that. I just stated that he would be better than what we have now. We are paying the price for overpartisan politics by having a judge declare the Obama health plan unconstitutional. Thanks.

I think Clay has a point.

Maybe this lady should not be granted unpaid leave for the hajj. And in keeping with that spirit, we should take Christmas off the official holiday list so that everyone will be required to work. that day. Because, though the hajj is a time honored and very specific tenant of Islam, celebrating Christmas is NOT a tenant of Christianity.( Too bad Easter always falls on a Sunday).

Anyway, whatever happened to Christian charity?

I dont see Mr. Graham's postion on the Muslim faith as being any different than what the bible tells us. That is, Christ is the Son of the only true God. Muhammed was a prophet who married an underage girl and supported the writings in the Koran that call for violence against those who deny their religion in certain ways. Due to hundreds of thousands who have come to know the Lord by Mr. Graham's preaching, along with his father's, I certainly cannot see where they have done little to instill much true faith. If some preachers have been phonies, that is unfortunate. That is no excuse for not knowing the Lord. You also dont seem to be that respectful of "legitimate faith traditions" such as Christ returning after he had been crucified. You always seem to be quick to put down this while not doing so with other religions. Now I will tell you why, and you may not want to hear it. Satan knows that if we follow traditions that lead us away from Christ he laughs. However he knows that he must put down Christ and His teachings, because he knows that Christ is going to return and after reigning for 1000 years, throw him into the pit of hell. I would be sure that you dont get caught up in it. As far as my point goes on the lady going to Mecca, I didnt say that she shouldnt be allowed to go. My position is that I probably wouldnt be allowed the same courtesy. As far as celebrating Christmas goes, I obviously as a Christian believe that we should celebrate it. From what I heard, Obama balked at putting up decorations for it in the White House. So if you dont want this holiday to be celebrated anymore, it seems that the right man is in there for your cause. Thanks.

Clay it sounds like you are looking for a reason to make an issue where there is none. The problem here is how does one prove they are doing something God wants and not simply looking for a way to skip work? In the case of the hajj it is a basic tenet of the Muslim faith. It can be proven that her constitutional rights are being violated. If in your example there was a way to prove what you said then yes the same rights apply.

Clay the Bible did not tell us to comment on other faiths but to spread the news of Christ. That can and should be done without being disrespectful to anyone else or their beliefs. You have been rather disrepectful towards Catholics with your constant attacks on tradition. Now you seem ok with "faith traditions". Who determines what is a "legitimate faith traditions" You seem willing to do it most of the time. You also seem willing to cast judgement on a man (Obama) you know little about. Disagreeing with his political views is one thing, however, questioning the faith of another is hardly acceptable Christian behavior. In my experiences that is the one flaw most fundamentalist make.

Speaking of the truth one hears on the radio, today I heard a plea for monogamy by a Midwestern Jehovah's Witness about a young lady who had many men friends called "Little Red Corvette." It was on the radio. So I must include it in my worldview.

Well if I have done something to lead someone farther from God then I am sorry. I do know that Christ wasnt afraid to make comments on other faiths. He called people hypocrites quite often. The bible also says to convince, rebuke and exhort. Rebuke to me means not being afraid to tell someone that they are doing something that God may not agree with. I also wasnt saying that I agree with the tradition of people going to Mecca. I was saying that someone should be allowed to go if they feel that it is part of their faith. As far as the president goes, when someone is on fire for God you cant help but hear it coming out of them. What I have heard come out of him is going in the other direction, at least as far as Christianity goes. I have heard quite a few say that he is a Muslim. I dont believe that he is because you dont always hear that coming out of him either. It seems that he isnt strong for God one way or another. Thanks.

Clay Christ only commented on the Jewish leaders. He called no one else hypocrites. That had do to with saying one thing and doing another.

The Bible also speaks of love, charity humility. The problem with your definition of rebuking is it pridefully assumes the person doing the rebuking knows what God wants. Considering Christ's words on judgeing and throwing stones I believe God wants us to look inward before looking outward. It's always easier pointing out the flaws in others as opposed to looking inward at our own flaws. Ask yourself how did Christ and the apostles convince others. It was usually by their own acts or kindness, compassion and love not by commenting on other beliefs.

As for the president since you do not know the man other than the public image presented in the media to presume far too much. The job of president requires one to be faith nuetral when addressing the nation since we are a nation of many different faiths as well as bo faith. You do not know the man and even if you did it is not your place to judge him. To be honest your posts don't really sound like someone on fire for Christ. They are lacking in the humility, compassion and understanding of Christ. Perhaps you should focus more attention inward at your own faith and less looking at the faith of others.

Well you have to remember that there werent any Catholics or Protestants at that time either. Yes, we all should look inward and have acts of kindness and compassion. If a woman came to you and said that she just had an abortion and that she would probably have a few more, would compassion be the best answer? I think someone should let her know what the word of God says about it, along with being kind. Anytime we witness to someone and present the word of God, someone can say that they are offended. I said here what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, and gays were offended. So I am supposed to not tell them that? I dont think so. Yes we are supposed to be compassionate. I said here that a friend of mine from high school was homosexual, but it wasnt very well heard because I was also saying what the bible has to say about homosexuality. I dont regret witnessing to people. As far as the president goes, if he dies and stands before Christ, and Christ asks him why he didnt stand up for Him while he was in office, and the president says that the office of president is supposed to be religion neutral, what do you think Christ would say? Thanks for your comments.

Clay what exactly do Catholics and Protestants have to do with compassion? To answer your question yes compassion would be the best answer and the only way of getting her to listen. Certainly your version of witnessing would accomplish nothing. It is possible to discuss the issue using the scriptures and still be compassionate. You can witness and still be compassionate. Did Christ go around lacking compassion? The greatest way any of us can witness is by how we live our own lives. People aren’t won for Christ by calling people sinners, but calling people to reject sin and understand we are all sinners. That Christ is the way out of sin. My comments regarding the president are directed at you not God. You have no right to judge him or comment on his faith or what you believe is a lack of faith. It’s no Christian’s place to speculate on how others will be judged. That’s about as far from the message of the Bible as you can get. That is the problem with far too many fundamentalist. Instead of concerning themselves about how their actions will be judged they spend far too much time looking at the actions of others. Instead of concerning yourself with the faith of us you would be better served looking at your own. Look at the message preached by Christ and compare it to what you are saying here.

Clay, what happened at Sodom and Gommorah was that old Lot had a bad day and then raped his daughters. You can read whatever else into it that you please but you can't escape that simple fact. Oh, yeah. He was drunk, that's supposed to excuse it.

No woman has an abortion and then says that "that she would probably have a few more." Your understanding of how people hurdle difficult decisions is way too shallow, as are you.

I absolutely agree that we should witness and have compassion at the same time. The problem is when people have either without having the other. We can show tons of compassion for homosexuals for example, but not letting them know what God says about their behavior does them a tremendous injustice. I believe the bible says several times that they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. What gays want to believe is that since Christ specifically never addressed homosexuality, that it is therefore ok. They also say that the words used to address them in scripture really dont refer to homosexuals. They also say that God made them that way. I never said that I didnt have compassion for them. How am I supposed to show that here? By saying that I have had friends who were homosexual? I already have. By saying that what they do is no different than any other sin that God doesnt want us to do? Already have. By saying that what they do is ok? Cant do that. By not saying anything about homosexuality? If that is the subject of the blog I cant do that either if I choose to respond. So leave here what you want me to do to show more compassion for homosexuality. I am interested to hear your responses. I have a feeling that the responses will try to get a little closer to homosexuality and farther from Christ. Thanks.

Clay why are you discussing homosexuality? That was never part of our discussion? Why are you now changing the subject to that instead of addressing the topic of your judging other's faith especially the president. That and the orginal topic of the Muslim workers rights were the issues. Please try and stick to the topic at hand.

I mentioned it when saying that compassion isnt they only thing that we need to have. We need to present what God says along with it. When we do, someone is often offended, as are homosexuals. They often dont want to hear what happened at Sodom, etc. That doesnt mean that we shouldnt tell them, especially if we have compassion. I asked how I am supposed to show compassion here when I have already mentioned having gay friends from high school, etc and it didnt seem to make any diffence. I suppose compassion would be when I ask a guy how his boyfriend is doing? I am not against that as long as the idea is still to spread what God has to say. How can you tell someone to reject sin and leave it at that if they think that what they are doing is ok with God? You have to let them know what God says about what they do. To do differently is to do them a huge injustice. And when you mention to the Muslim lady or to anyone that what they do isnt what God wants them to, you are going to offend them in some way. It isnt possible not to, and that doesnt mean of course that we shouldnt be loving. And when we dont mention what God says about their sin, that certainly doesnt do anything for them. And I am not saying that mentioning their sin is all we should do. It isnt very easy to counsel someone here, and I wouldnt try to. When I mention my beliefs about what would make the Catholic church a better church in which to worship, I am trying to help. You cant do it without offending someone. Thanks.

Clay I know why you mentioned homosexuality. You seem to want to mix compassion with not offending people. I believe homosexuals to be a sin. But I view them as no more of a sin than adultery, heterosexual fornication, lying, stealing, or any other sin you care to mention. None of this has anything to do with the original issue. You seem to want to divert the discussion off topic.

If we can get back to the original issue how much service are you doing anyone, including yourself, by commenting on the faith of the president or any one else? Doesn’t that come off as being prideful to you? What would you think if someone started questioning your faith?

I also realize you believe what you say is to help the Catholic Church. The problem is that it is simply your opinion and it is based on a great deal of misinformation. Until you have a true understanding of the Catholic Church and its worship you really aren’t in a position to offer suggestions. It comes off as being prideful that the way your church worships is the right way. I don’t believe that is your intent, but that is how it comes out.

What I am doing by mentioning the president in relation to faith is to point out that he has lied when he says that he is a Christian and yet says that a cross should be covered before giving a speech etc. It isnt possible to be on fire for Christ and insist that a cross be covered. It is either one or the other. I dont see it as being prideful. I see it more as an effort to keep non-Christians out of the White House. I dont want this man to be re-elected and he probably wont be. If he isnt and we get a real Christian in there next time then that is doing a huge service for the country in my opinion. After all I am a Christian. I dont know why I havent learned enough about the Catholic church to make the comments I am making. Sure, there are many things that many dont know about this church, even those who attend it. I believe that I have learned and seen enough however to make the statements that I make. Anyway everyone have a great Christmas.

Anonymous. Explain for me what you mean when you write “I believe homosexuals to be a sin. But I view them as no more of a sin than adultery, heterosexual fornication, lying, stealing, or any other sin you care to mention.”
Usually Christians trumpet the old dictum that they condemn the sin but not the sinner. But you refer to “homosexuals,” not particular acts, and you refer to “them” as opposed to particular behaviors. Yet when you describe what you believe to be other sins (adultery, heterosexual fornication, lying, stealing) you are very clear in describing behaviors rather than persons.
Is this a Freudian slip, or do you truly believe that LGBT folk are sinful because of who they are while adulterers and others are sinful because of what they do. Isn’t this hypocrisy?

Well Dana, when LGBT folk have nothing to do with having sex with someone of the same sex then maybe no one will accuse them of it. They are pridefully assuming an identity as such. I havent know any adulterers who consider themselves to be one, let alone assume an identity and say that they will continue in the behavior. If that makes LGBT people assumed as sinners and not based on what they do, then they need to stop having sex with people of the same sex. Yes I realize, that because of their physical differences of hormone non use and sometimes gene differences that they can consider themselves to be different than others without even having sex with anyone. Perhaps then they need to call themselves the hormone non use and sometimes gene different people instead of LGBT. Then perhaps not as many people will assume that they are sinning by having same sex relations. It doesnt make sense for someone who is a member of the VFW to get angry because someone says that he is a veteran. Most homosexuals I have met are quite veterans of same sex relations. God bless.

Where on earth did you come up with your theory of “physical differences of hormone non use” Clay?
Gay people are not physically different than straight people, nor are they “gene different.”
Have you been reading those comic books again?

Hi Clay. I’m curious to know how you know what sexual conduct gay people are involved in simply by the fact that they identify as LGBT.
I knew my brother was a heterosexual when he was an adolescent. He never actually came out and said “I’m straight!” But he was dating the Episcopal Pastor’s daughter and they kissed a lot. So one day I just had to come out and ask him, “Hey Richard, I know it’s none of my business, but people are saying they think you are a hetererosexualist.” And so he finally admitted it.
He is my brother, after all, so I just had to come to terms with the fact that he liked girls. We each have our own cross to bear, I suppose. But what I didn’t do, Clay, was to pretend that I knew that he was having sexual relations with the Pastor’s daughter. It never would have occurred to me to presume such a thing merely because of his “straight” identification. Nor did I conclude that he was “prideful” by acknowledging his straightness.
Yet you and your ilk seem to think you have the right to make assumptions about a person’s intimacies based solely on their acknowledgement that they are LGBT.
You call yourself a Christian, but in the best sense of that word you could not possibly be a follower of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me a very sick kind of person who would bother to think about what strangers do when they leave the public arena of kissing and holding hands. Who are you to have the nerve to think about my genitals or those of the other LGBT posters here?
How insufferably rude of you.
Do you think it would be fair if I were to see you kiss a woman and assume you were having sex with her because you are “straight?” Or what if you were to kiss your daughter? Should I assume that you intend to drag her into a cave, get drunk, and have your way with her, like the biblical Lot did with his daughters?

If someone is not having sex with anyone, why bother to label ourselves as homosexual, straight or anything? Because that is what your interests are but you dont necessarily act on them. Well all the gay people I have met have been quite bold about thier relations with the same sex and have acted on them according to what they have said. Christ said that if someone lusts after a woman then he has committed adultery with her already. You cant have it both ways. If you never think about having relations with someone of the same sex, then why do you identify with LGBT people? If you do think about it, then you are a sinner for two reasons. One is because you arent married to them. The other is because God doesnt want people of the same sex marrying and having sexual relations and having an interest in that department. If I lust after a woman than I am a sinner for one of those reasons. Yes, having an interest in same sex relations is a sin, even if not acted upon. If you dont want to be a sinner than dont act upon it or think about it as something that interests you. If someone is a friend of people who are LGBT and considers themselves one of that crowd in a general sense then that wouldnt be sinful if it didnt interest you to do it. But that wouldnt be very easy to do without supporting it, which God doesnt want. It is no different than hanging out with drunks and raising your glass of water to them when they raise their glasses to drink. Yes it is quite a different act, but both support things that God doesnt want us to do. Thanks.

Clay, gay people, like straight people, simply are who they are. In both cases self identification is nothing more than what people do socially in order to be better understood. It is the same as you identifying yourself as a fundamentalist Christian. I tend to doubt the truthfulness of your assertion that “all” of the gay people you have met have been bold about asserting their sexual intimacies, especially to you. Most people, gay or straight, don’t talk about their sex lives. And your statement that they would do so to an avowed homophobe is simply ludicrous.

That said you missed my point. I was not suggesting that gay (or straight) people should be assumed to be celibate. Rather I was saying that your perverse concern for what your neighbor is doing with his or her genitals is evidence of a sick and depraved mind. Normal people don’t second guess the sexual behavior of their neighbor’s Clay. In the rare case that one would think such things it merely adds to the depravity by writing about it in the local newspaper.

Your pitiful assertions that because people have identified themselves as gay that it is o.k. to imagine their private moments is disgusting. Do you assume that people who belong to Parents Without Partners are hitting the sack after their social meetings?

Clay, you wrote that “having an interest in same sex relations is a sin, even if not acted upon.”

That idea is unique to you. It isn’t taught by any established church or sect, and it isn’t reflected in the bible. It is very sad that you try to represent your unusual opinions as though they are “Christian.” They are not.

You clarify your confusion when you confess that “If I lust after a woman then I am a sinner….”

It is not biblically correct to equate lust with sin. I believe you have misunderstood what Christ meant when he said “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” It is clear in context that Christ is speaking of either a sin against the woman or a sin against her husband akin to coveting one’s neighbor’s property. The sin of which Christ speaks is adultery, not lust. You have erroneously taken it to mean that sexual arousal is a sin. It isn’t. It is as normal as hunger, the desire to protect one’s young, and the fight or flight response.

You are confused in comparing this mental adultery, or sexual covetousness, with normal intimate relationships. For most people, gay and straight, relationships evolve over shared kindness, tenderness, and concern for the other’s well being.

I have come to learn in life that with some people, it doesnt make any difference what Christ or anyone has said. Their mind is made up. God bless.

That’s true Clay. No matter what Christ has said you will ignore what he said and substitute your own prejudices.

Clay how exactly do you know the president has lied about his faith. Didn't Peter deny Jesus three times? Didn't Thomas doubt Christ's resurrection at first? Are you perfect Clay? If not who are you to judge the acts or faith of another? It’s hard to believe you can be so blind to just how un-Christian you are acting? All I can do is pray for you Clay that someday your eyes will be opened to how far from the teaching of Christ your comments are.

Dana I should have said homosexual acts that was my error in failing to proof read before posting. I don’t believe anyone is sinful for who they are. It’s what we do and how we live our life that determines that. Since none of us our perfect I have no right to judge anyone else. I have more than enough of my own sins that require forgiveness to fixate on the sins of anyone else. Again my apologies for not being more clear with that post.

Anonymous, I suspected it was an error or another "anonymous" You usually get the CCC interpretation right on the money.

That said, I find the Church's view ignorant of the nature of human sexuality much as science was a few decades ago. Just as I feel no animosity toward Richard von Krafft-Ebing or Havelock Ellis I feel no animosity towards the Church. Eventually they will be admitting their mistake just as they did for Galileo and Joan of Arc.

Dana I can't see the Church changing on this. Romans 1:26-27 is pretty specific.

The passage you cite is about lust and excess, not sexual orientation in my view. But even if your view were correct it would not prevent the church from changing. it's view. It has done so in the past and will do so again.

Dana I have to respectfully disagree with your view on the passaage. I've read many different versions of the Bible. For simplicity I'm only listing three

New American
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

Douay-Rheims
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error

King James
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Frankly I don't see how one could see it except as a condemnation of homosexual acts. In my opinion any attempt to see it any other way is simply wishful thinking or trying to bend it to fit ones own desires. That's my view on it.

It's probably best if we agree to disagree and move on. I don't suspect either of us is likely to change our view. I'll let you make the last comment if you wish.

We may never agree Anonymous. There is no need to copy and post Bible versions for me; I have all three in hard copy in my bedroom. I am hardly a stranger to hermeneutics.

One cannot read Paul’s letter to the Romans without acknowledging that it was specifically addressed to a first century Roman culture that practiced ritual prostitution as a religious practice. To fail to see this would be as intellectually lazy as to not recognize that Hitler was writing to a Germany that was angry about its ignominious defeat in WWI, or that Marx was writing to a Europe where a class of capitalists had virtually enslaved the majority. I am not suggesting that Paul was similar to Hitler or Marx, but only that he was writing to a particular audience that was ready to respond to a particular appeal.

That appeal was not against gay and lesbian couples in love, it was against idolatry. That is what made it “unnatural.” That is what made it “depraved.” In my view Paul was admonishing the Romans in the same way I recently admonished a young friend who had attended an orgy in the woods as part of her newfound religion (Wicca). I believe the historical context of Paul’s letter requires that it be seen in light of the ancient practice of shrine prostitution.

The “wishful thinking” is yours. Rather than reading the scripture in context of first century Rome you read it as though Paul were writing about the people you might meet at the Hippo or Leon’s or those depicted on Queer as Folk. Such an interpretation is without merit.

Quoting Paul’s comments to the Romans is no different, intellectually, than quoting Paul to support slavery. That, too, was done in the past and slavery here in the Archdiocese of Baltimore was commonplace among the clergy as well as the laity. But we got past that error and we’ll get past this one.

But heck, we can disagree here yet still share a sign of peace at Mass.