https://www.christianpost.com/news/presbyterian-church-canada-issues-letter-repentance-lgbt-community-219764/

"Presbyteries and sessions fail to hold church members and church leaders accountable for their hateful acts. For our failure to protect those attacked and brutalized, we are sorry, and we repent. For our ongoing failure to hold people accountable for abuse and hatred, we are sorry, and we repent."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2018 06:34PM by anybody.

True principles understood change attitudes and behavior. It's amazing to me that the principle of treating members the LGBT community with dignity and respect is so difficult for many religious organizations. This news from the Presbyterian church is a move in the right direction that other organizations can follow.

Too little too late.

Religions in general (most, not all- we can all dig up some exceptions) have been on the wrong side of history for every civil rights issue. Then at the end, they typically claim they were instrumental for people getting their civil rights after hundreds of years of indoctrination against them. They don't repudiate their holy writs, but rather make excuses for the new interpretation they need to fit the times.

They never seem to learn from their history and hold out until many lives are damaged. Then, when the social tide changes, they have to get on board or become irrelevant. They usually either act like they never did anything wrong or take credit for the change.

Religion is a regressive mechanism that is intended to keep tradition and the status quo, which can be e a stabilizing influence. The churches that at least have the spine to apologize deserve kudos, however you have to wonder how they can repeatedly make the same mistakes.

I've been interested to see how they are making Billy Graham into some kind of civil rights hero when his other hand was stroking the Southern Baptists and Evangelicals which have been among the biggest obstacles for civil rights of gays, blacks, and women. To me, it is too little too late.

Yeah, like Gandhi, Martin.Luther King, the Quakers, the clergy who marched for Civul Rights, William Wilberforce in England, the abolitionists and on and on

I suppose Dagny gets most of his/her information from popular media and/or can't think beyond his own anecdotal experience.

Explain "popular media".

Also, Billy Graham was not a Presbyterian and he did change many of his views as he got older. Even though am not a big fan of his, he deserves credit for reconsidering his old prejudices which,btw, were pretty common in the 1950s

Attack and repent. Yup. pretty good strategy. what could possibly go wrong .

Why does religion, which claims to speak for God, predominantly follow social norms? Why are they last to get it?

Why aren't they leading the charge?

Church is just a social aide to enable people to rationalize what they do during the week. Beat your slave on Saturday--Praise Jesus on Sunday!

It boils down to this. "I have proof I am a good person. I praise Jesus!"

***Yes, I know there are exceptions to the rule. There are some good ones out there. Somewhere. But the people who stood by our side when we were fighting hard way back when weren't the church people. Gavin Newsom. Andrew Cuomo. So many others including the arts and the media. They made a difference and they weren't Pastors or Prophets or Bishops. They weren't following social norms. They were bucking them.

There are a lot of liberal religious people now and in the past who have fought for important social issues. Some were famous and some just ordinary people. Many actually were at the forefront. I agree that Mormons and many evangelicals have to be dragged into the 21st century but they are hardly representative of all religion.

Yes bona dea. Already know that. That is why I said there are exceptions to the rule.

You implied there arent many by your use of the word 'somewhere'. There are actually a lot and many at the forefront.

The issue for me is distinguishing an activist individual who leads a change and the religion or individual's group catches on. Then it changes its practices, focus, interpretations, or views. In these cases, the religion is going with the social change and not the other way around.

We see examples in real time to see the process. Religions are now going along with gay rights, based on the social expectations. Sure, there are some religious individuals who were outspoken but it is not the religion itself because if the religions were always pro gay or abolitionists for example, they wouldn't be have to adapt. Currently Catholics are an obstacle for women's rights (birth control, male priesthood) so even when/if Catholic activists become socially important that the Church finally changes, I'm saying it is not correct to say the Church deserves any credit for female equality.

In the case of abolitionists, I can agree there were religions like the Quakers (an admirable group) who stood up earier than others. But mostly this happened in the religious revivals of the 1800s when the issue was brewing not just among the religious. It didn't seem that hard to predict the Civil War was coming (even JS saw that coming). Yes, there were prominent religious individuals organizing using their religions, but what holy teaching did they change? Nothing. They reinterpreted for the times at hand. That's what religions do.

I would not say the Hindu religion was all about civil rights just because Gandhi was an activist. I would not credit Christianity for abolition just because people were seeing injustice and because activists surfaced like MLK. The religion jumped on board. This is what happened with Graham. The religion he claims to have followed (S. Baptists) is now comically claiming how important they are here in Alabama for civil rights.

I'm not disagreeing that there are churches and groups who became leaders for civil rights. But in general, why are they just now deciding gays and women have rights if the source was the dogma from religion itself? Are they repudiating what was written in their holy writs about women as property and rights of slave owners? No. They just cherry pick to find validation using other verses and teachings they need to justify whatever is needed to stay relevant.

If there is one thing religion does well, it's knowing what they have to change to stay relevant. Individuals within the religions precipitate the change. The religion then may or may not become an instrument for the changes.

Religion itself is proof of the concept of evolution. One can see evolution of religion even within the Old Testament. One of the biggest difficulties in the world relates to practitioners of religions who insist on a certain time that set the rules forever.

All religions are not top down like the Morg and many religious people make their own choices.Evsn Catholics tend to do their own thinking and, despite birth control, have progressive views on some issues such as the death penalty and immigration Most leaders are not prophets and dont have a direct line to God. They are people who are not infallible.Therefore people make their own choices. I stand by what I said in response to dagny. I agree that religion evolves and that is a good thing. So is not blindly following. As far as gay rights, fifty years ago being gay was considered by science as being a mental illness.I dont hear much about science being condemened although that isnt true of religion even though both said the same things

I feel religion should be held to a higher standard for two reasons:

1. It typically claims to have a better knowledge of what a god wants, with no proof whatsoever.

2. Religions claim to be a source of truth and moral standards. Therefore they should not be changing views when science discovers something. Changing means they were not, in fact, a moral standard since they were wrong.

Science does not claim to be a moral authority and the whole premise of science is change and clarification as new information becomes available. This impacts all aspects of society. Science provides information that the religions have to somehow fit into their mythology.

If a religion claims to have a direct line to God then should be held to a higher standard, but most religions do not other than Mormons. They evolve with the times as do other groups.They dont claim to be perfect or have all the answers.All members do not believe the same about social issues.Many times religion is at the forfront of social change, but not always. They dont have a central authority so people arent in lockstep.Even Catholics do not think the pope talks to God and protestants,Jews and others dont either.tThey dont think God tells them everything down to the minutest detail. They get to figure out stuff for themselves without God micromanaging them.Thenalso down o notnsee thenBible as infallible.You seem to have the Mormon view of God and religion