Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

I thought I was quite clear about this. Anything that trivializes or weakens marriage destabilizes a society. Gay marriage would just be the last straw, as the whole Sexual Freedom fiasco has pretty much done it in already. Gay marriage is an obvious travesty of the purpose of marriage, which certainly trivializes it. Any child can see that, except that as in the case of the Emperor's New Clothes nobody is supposed to notice but just play along with the hoax.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 03:44 AM

What are you talking about? For all I know the incidence of such molestations was half provoked by the sexual license of the culture that has been growing over the last few decades. Once you have an atmosphere in which "whatever turns you on" is treated as a Constitutionally protected right and freedom, in which porn is a right for instance, what's to stop every kind of sexual predation from coming out too? Human fallenness has some pretty vile depths in some people, a lot more of us than anyone wants to admit, and those who think porn is just "good clean fun" are seriously deluded. Celibacy was never a good thing but sexual control or suppression might have been maintained in most cases without the clamoring for porn rights and gay rights and what have you. All sorts of previously hidden murk would surface in such an atmosphere it seems to me. But I'm not sure what your question meant. I'm just musing.

I don't want to read an article I have to register for, but I would guess it's simply putting in positive terms the attacks on marriage I've been describing as occurring over the last half century that have just about destroyed it. Certainly this atmosphere of marriage-trashing makes it easy for gay marriage to be considered.

I thought I was clear that celibacy is not a good thing, but I added that nevertheless it may have taken the growing permissiveness in teh culture to bring out the evils that had been dormant or suppressed. I think it was a decent point and clear enough as is, Augustine notwithstanding.

Thank you for the summary. It wasn't what I thought it might be, but if you'd represent me fairly, you'd acknowledge that I didn't criticize what it says but only suggested that it might mean what I had been saying all along. If it doesn't it doesn't. I don't have Firefox.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 06:14 AM

Not only do I not see that there is a contradiction I very consciously made both statements in light of each other. It's not that hard to resolve. I support businesses rejecting the business of anyone for any reason; nevertheless I may think their choice unjust and that people's beliefs are none of their business, without desiring that they be legally prevented from rejecting people of such beliefs. There is no contradiction. It isn't rocket science.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 09:03 AM

I guess I'm not being clear. One more attempt. Augustine doesn't like repressing sexual sins. Fine. I said something similar when I said celibacy has never been a good idea. Maybe you didn't grasp the implication that what's wrong with it is that it forces repression of sexuality. So I'm agreeing with Augustine. Nevertheless priests of all kinds of sexual persuasions may succeed at suppressing it to an extent that makes doing their job without eruptions of their inclinations at least outwardly possible. Since all this molestation seems to have come down in the last few decades (I'm assuming this as the evidence is accumulating for this particular period and not so far for any previous periods -- presumably earlier generations could now be liberated to get their two cents in, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty year old victims coming forward to report on elderly or deceased priests, no?) ANYWAY since all this testimony has come out about sexual molestations of children over the last few decades I thought, well perhaps the general Sexual Liberation mentality of the last few decades MIGHT have something to do with egging it on, that is, provoking what they might otherwise have successfully suppressed and controlled, Augustine notwithstanding. It's simply a conjecture. Seems to me it couldn't be proved one way or the other.If you still don't get it I give up.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 08:43 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 09:03 AM

Any time before the 60s anywhere on earth it was in better shape than it is now since the 60s in the West.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 08:54 AM

Look, I have NOT "analyzed the last century." I am confining my remarks to ONE particular trend, a highly identifiable trend, of explicit ideology-driven Sexual Liberationism which has had a destructive effect on the status of marriage.I have not claimed that things were hunky-dory at any previous time. I haven't even MENTIONED *how things used to be* for that matter. You brought that up.My topic has been specific trends SINCE THE 60s. These are identifiable. They are the result of the specific LIBERATIONISMS that were aggressive, belligerent and vociferous starting in the 60s, all the "RIGHTS" movements -- Sexual "Freedom" in a variety of expressions including militant feminism, gay rights, and abortion. Divorce statistics started growing. People started living together without marriage openly to an extent that had never previously existed. "Blended" families have become just about the norm by now. They were an oddity in the 50s. Promiscuity has escalated, and teenage promiscuity particularly.There has always been pre and extramarital sex, and unwanted pregnancies and homosexuals living together, and the whole works, but IT WAS NEVER SANCTIONED BY SOCIETY UNTIL RECENTLY. Now it is all openly flaunted and made the subject of RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACTIVISM. THIS IS BRAND NEW ON PLANET EARTH. IT HAS NEVER BEFORE EXISTED AND IT IS WIDESPREAD, AFFECTS EVERYBODY.One thing I think may have also increased a great deal in this period is child molestations and rapes and sexually inspired murders but I don't know the statistics. Do you?You gave statistics that purport to show no big change from 1957 but that makes no sense. Something is wrong with that picture and I don't know how to track it down. In 1957 unmarried mothers were ostracized. There were a few in every high school, but they were whispered about. They often got married and hid their pregnancies somehow, or went away somewhere to have the baby and give it up.Yet a couple of decades later women were starting to openly SEEK to have babies without benefit of husbands and that's a trend that has been growing since. This is an ENORMOUS SEA CHANGE in the basic moral worldview of our culture.Again, I have NOT claimed that such things never previously existed. Considering my emphasis on human fallenness why would you think I'd think anything was ever perfect? What I am claiming is that what we have now is the result of an ideology-driven attack on traditional morality that has become the rule of the land, is openly expressed. This is absolutely new.Since you have mischaracterized my argument you can hardly declare it weak. You haven't even grasped what it is yet.P.S. Demonizing patriarchy is part of what has given the current state of affairs its big boost.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 09:50 AM

I make a conjecture that can't be proved and you carry on as if I'd violated a basic tenet of science. Then you go on and make your own assertions without one iota of proof. That this is all hysteria and not reality. Well prove it.

No I did not.Look, you are ideologically disposed in exactly the direction I'm complaining about and I give up. There's no arguing this after a point. You like the new order, I think it is leading us to destruction. This is not to say everything prior was "ideal" by a long shot, but it sure is to say that the "solution" of the last half century is a disaster.

I'm afraid that's more like logic-chopping or nitpicking than logic.All kinds of petty injustices occur all day long between people. If we prosecuted them all, we'd all be in prison. I am in favor of people's right to commit what in my opinion may be injustices, because in their opinion they are not injustices and I don't want to make an issue of it. The bigger injustice would be to force the business to serve those they'd rather not. People must have the right to be wrong, as I've said many times here. So let the businesses do as they please, unjust or not. I care more about FREEDOM for people to have whatever opinion they have. You can't have perfection in this life and whenever anybody tries they end up creating totalitarian tyrannies. Save prosecution for serious harm to others, but people have a right to do as they please with their own businesses and their own property short of criminal activity. THAT's my position. I hope that's clear but if not, have a good day anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-06-2005 05:12 AM

I think it's the God-ordained form of society. Nevertheless, people being fallen, men have abused it. But people, being fallen, will abuse any system. The problems of life are from fallenness, while a particular system may be good in itself -- or bad. The one we have now is bad. It's basically chaos, and it can only lead to more chaos. It gives license to fallenness without restraint. I don't think any society can survive that for long.

But I think this idea is being used in more than one sense or in a different sense than I would use it. I believe there have been better times as far as the basic tenets or laws a society observes go, but even in those better times things may in fact be worse for the citizens in many ways. I was just saying something along these lines about patriarchy to Schraf. What it threatens is not any particular marriages, but the IDEA of marriage, the CONCEPT of marriage, the MEANING of the concept of marriage. The ideas a society is based on have more impact than any particular situation or event or actuality. The consequences of such ideas probably won't show up right away. It may take a generation or two. But the PRINCIPLE is always there in the traditional view of marriage, the ancient view, the crosscultural view. The principle of natural reproduction has always been central to the idea of marriage, however many variations in fact may occur by necessity or choice. The principle does not exist at all with gays.I think there is a much biggeer CONCEPTUAL change going on here than many are willing to recognize, as well as the impact of such changes.

It IS raging out of control. Despite your subtitle, the information you give is not about pregnancy but about live births. If you add in abortions, the number of pregnancies must increase enormously, and I have been including the increase in abortions among the negative consequences of the sixties ideology. Abortions and STDs have risen enormously in the last few decades. On the increase in STDs: On the dismantling of marriage, and its contribution to other social ills, a book review: On abortions, there's not really anything to say. The above-quoted website has a number of articles on abortion but there doesn't seem to be one that focuses on statistics.Just put "abortion statistics" into Google. The numbers are staggering, but here are a couple of references:Page not found – AbortionFacts.comFamily Policy Alliance