I heard the transcript of the interview with Craibe of the Salvation Army. The only way he could have satisfied his questioners was to disavow his Christian beliefs. I think those beliefs are unreasonable. However, I think asking him to abandon those beliefs is also unreasonable.

One of the prerequisites of living in a civilised society is to get along with people whose views one disagrees with. Those who interviewed Craibe wanted him to accept their views.

I see no reason that Craibe should have accepted their views. I also see no reason that they should have accepted Craibe's views.

Let us live together in peace and disagreement.

The well funded Salvation Army, went into PR panic mode on hearing that broadcast and the media comments.
Indicating that they were disturbed, by their spokepersons responses.

The passage that Craibe was defending as 'Christian doctrine' was Romans 1:18-32 which can be found here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32&version=NIV

I fail to see the metaphorical intent you and the Salvos attribute to St. Paul. His words on the subject seem quite clear and unambiguous to me: those who do such things deserve death. Not spiritual death: just death. Bear in mind that St. Paul wrote those words along time ago - ideas that seem shocking to you or I might not have been so shocking to him. He speaks of the spiritual death and poor afterlife prospects of homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

>>He's guilty of being clumsy, not of inciting a riot.<<

Well obviously: riots get reported. And I'd say he was bit more than clumsy: I've never seen a man digging so furiously to get himself out of a hole. In the face of repeated questions along the lines of 'so you think homosexuals should die' you don't continue to defend the proposition because it's in the bible and so it's part of Christian doctrine, you reject it out of hand because it is a contemptible proposition regardless of your faith and because it is counter to mainstream Christian moral teaching. Which you would expect a Major in the Salvation Army to know.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony, you are obviously a more subtle reader than me. Can you point out which phrase or sentence you are referring to, because I cannot see it?

.

Dear diver dan,

.

"It is no secret that atheists and the homosexual lobby, are joined at the hip in their relentless attack on religion".

While I have no way of verifying that statement, it merits examining in context. The context, I understand, is not so much the general relationship of religion and homosexuality but, more precisely, the question of same-sex marriage.

Marriage is probably not the most appropriate term, the word marriage deriving from the Latin "mater", mother. Perhaps "wedlock" (pledge-giving condition) would be more appropriate.

Of course, most religions disallow and condemn same-sex wedlock. Civil same-sex wedlock is possible in 11 countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden) and 6 states of the USA. Israel recognizes same-sex wedlock but does not allow it to be performed within its borders. Six religions condone and practice same-sex wedlock (Quakers, Liberal Jews, Wiccans, Druids, Episcopalians and Unitarian Universalists).

Legal same-sex partnerships other than wedlock is practiced in 29 countries and 12 states of the USA.

In 2009, the UK Hindu Council issued a statement declaring "Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality". The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution in 2011 officially recognizing LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) rights.

Opposition to same-sex wedlock is increasingly seen as a homophobic attitude, qualified by some as heterosexism or heterocentrism, similar to sexism or prohibition to interracial marriage during apartheid in South Africa.

Perhaps it would be fair to conclude that it is something of a chicken and egg dilemma as to who of "the homosexual lobby" and "religion" is "relentlessly attacking" whom. The media may not be the principal battlefield. Jousts on the media may be just the tip of the iceberg. The main theatres of war may be disseminated throughout the country, in every little crook and cranny, in every preach and sermon, in every schoolroom where religious instruction is dispensed, in every local, state and national election meeting, in clubs and reunions, in every decent family gathering.

Also, many homosexuals may be atheists but many atheists are probably not homosexuals.

.

Didn't the BibleGateway link work either? That's a pity: BibleGateway is a really good website for looking up stuff in the bible. The sentence I'm referring to is Romans 1:32.

Romans 1:32 NIV
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.