Comments on: Civil rights reform in Illinois

By: Stuart DiNenno

Stuart DiNenno — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:44:45 +0000

Laws such as this one in Illinois would not cause a problem in a biblically structured and regulated church, in which all of the unbiblical trappings of institutionalized religion have been abandoned.
As long as so-called Christians make their “churches” into business organizations by erecting and maintaining buildings and accommodations for full public access, incorporating themselves with the secular state, filing with the IRS for tax exempt status, and insisting on maintaining a permanent, full-time “staff” of career “clergy” and other employees, then they will have to bear the consequences of regulation and oversight by heathen governments, which will only become more oppressive and demand more concessions as time goes by (you just wait and see, if you don’t believe it).

By: John at Blogotional

John at Blogotional — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:42:55 +0000

The Alliance Defense Fund seems to think that the is an amendment to an existing law and the amendment while adding sexual orientation DOES NOT remove the basic exclusion for churches. I've posted links to their press releases at my site.

By: Foltz

Foltz — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:52:20 +0000

Concerning the church perhaps, as I still wouldnt take a black friend to a Southern Baptist event, but when it comes to employement I’ll stick with the end of segregation. Although you could argue other starting points.
When someone actually files a lawsuit that has a chance of winning to force a church to hire a gay or female member of the clergy I would be outraged right along with you.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:01:30 +0000

I believe that began with the end of segregation, but I could be mistaken.
Concerning the church, you are wrong. And let’s be clear on the definition of the word, “tolerance.” When the state forces a church to accept sin in the face of their own Biblical views, they call it “tolerance.” I call it facism and it’s just the beginning.
See the Liberal party for further clarification.

By: Foltz

Foltz — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:30:13 +0000

Absurd. This is just the beginning of state-imposed “tolerance.” Good post Josh.
I believe that began with the end of segregation, but I could be mistaken.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:08:03 +0000

Absurd. This is just the beginning of state-imposed “tolerance.” Good post Josh.

By: Evangelical Underground

Evangelical Underground — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:05:34 +0000

S.B. 3186

…Illinois does not expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage. What does this mean, practically speaking? The bill may very well compel religious organizations to set aside convictions about homosexuality when hiring clergy and othe…

By: RazorsKiss.net

RazorsKiss.net — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:46:48 +0000

Tuesday Edition

Updates:
A good essay concerning the Russian anti-semitism issue.
Apologetics:
Eric of Evangelical Underground is examining the darker side of “blogfathering”, in his continuation to yesterday’s post on “Finding a Niche Within a Niche.” He’…

By: jpe

jpe — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:44:08 +0000

This just puts the onus on the Church to go to court, and they’ll doubtlessly get all kinds of good publicity out of it (that’s what they’ll think, anyway). Everyone wins.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:51:30 +0000

The United Methodist Church does officially ordain and appoint celibate homosexuals to be clergy, as the church doesn’t consider homosexual orientation to be sinful.