Church won't hold funeral for gay Navy vet

[Temporal Renegade]

Christian 'love' at work, again:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081007dnmetgayfuneral.3617689.html

[geni]

Churches are not required to support random funerals (closest would be that the catholic church policy is that everyone who is confirmed gets a catholic funeral).

[Spiro]

Well pointed out, geni. The last thing we expect from Christians is compassion. What's all this crucifixion stuff? Good grief! The man's gay. We don't want him in our funeral services. We love our neighbours as ourselves. Please don't bring any dissonance into our comfortably dumb view of live.

[Dumbledore]

No kidding, what a surprise Christians using yet another way to push their views. I think the entire world is well aware of their views on homosexuality, the man is dead for @#$%^! sake, would it really hurt their stance on homosexuality to admit he was gay and @#$%^&!@# bury him, no I don't think so. Wouldn't it be the compassionate thing to do, to let bygones be bygones and just bury the man, gay or not. Or is being gay and acknowledging it the worse thing you can do, does this override any need to be compassionate, from a people who claim to practice compassion!:)

[geni]

Well pointed out, geni. The last thing we expect from Christians is compassion. What's all this crucifixion stuff? Good grief! The man's gay. We don't want him in our funeral services. We love our neighbours as ourselves. Please don't bring any dissonance into our comfortably dumb view of live.

The man was not a member of their church. Did you offer to help with the funeral service?

[kerikiwi]

Why do people want to associate with religious groups whose teachings they reject?
If people don't like a church's beliefs about homosexuality, but still feel the need for a deity, they should start their own church --- as has been done down the ages.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

As if the man's mother and brother didn't already have enough to deal with, without the church pulling this crap.

Nice thing to do to two people who've just lost their son and brother.

[kerikiwi]

As if the man's mother and brother didn't already have enough to deal with, without the church pulling this crap.

Nice thing to do to two people who've just lost their son and brother.

Don't churches have the right to follow their own beliefs?
The dead man didn't even belong to the church.
The bereaved have not had anything 'done' to them.
If they don't accept the theology of the church, they shouldn't be a part of it in any way.
Why should the church change its theology to suit them, bereaved or not?

[vincent1555]

A lot of you are being very unfair to the church in question. Anytime someone seeks the services of an organization there is a tacit understanding that the service will not require the organization to violate its own beliefs. For instance if someone has a family member die and secures the promise of a local synagogue to bury him, it is not unreasonable for the synagogue to back out if the family asks them to play a video at the service highlighting the relative's stellar career in the SS. Furthermore the church did offer to pay for an alternate service and still did provide some logistical support. For a community that seemingly values intellectual honesty why do you attack a church for refusing to compromise their beliefs by tacitly endorsing practices they believe to be sinful. And as for saying they are being unloving, they are being just the opposite. To a Christian, sin has the effect of separating man from God, and the purpose of the church is to facilitate the reconcilliation of man and God (which for Christians is a command and the most loving thing they can do for others). Thus for a church to give the appearance of accepting or trivializing sin is the most unloving thing they could do.

[The Fool]

I have no problem with this church refusing to deal with Gays, they can do this because we don't care enough to do anything about it. I just wish they would decide to have nothing to do with black people so we could see it for what it is and (hopefully) remove these idiots from any position where they get to run something.

[ShowerComic]

Why do people want to associate with religious groups whose teachings they reject?
If people don't like a church's beliefs about homosexuality, but still feel the need for a deity, they should start their own church --- as has been done down the ages.

Or better yet -- Just join a church they could agree with. What confuses me about this story is why on earth the family wanted a Christian Service in the first place, or a Conservative Christian Service anyway.

Wasn't there another more open Church he could have gone to? Unitarian, maybe or UCC if for instance he wanted a Christian themed service?

[Safe-Keeper]

Churches are not required to support random funerals (closest would be that the catholic church policy is that everyone who is confirmed gets a catholic funeral).That's the problem exactly, that his sexual preference alone reduced his status to honored serviceman to 'random funeral'. It's downright sickening how they judge him not by his good deeds, but by one of his personal traits which he has no control over.

For a community that seemingly values intellectual honesty why do you attack a church for refusing to compromise their beliefs by tacitly endorsing practices they believe to be sinful.We attack the church because they're refusing to honor a serviceman fighting for their protection and freedom, just because of his sexual preference.

'Watch us honor this brave man fighting for the freedoms and safety of this great natio-- oh, was he different from us? Er, never mind, then. He wasn't a member of our church anyway. Leave the random, unimportant funerals to the goddamned libs. Oh, and keep supporting our troops!'

I honestly can't understand this whole 'but they shouldn't be made to do something they consider sinful!' deal either. If someone's doing something wrong, they're doing something wrong, their dogmas notwithstanding. No one stands up for racists and go 'oh, that blacks are inferior is his belief. You shouldn't have to make him do something that goes against his beliefs'. Yet when religious people are intolerant we need to respect them for it, otherwise we are the bigots for daring to be obnoxious enough to criticize their ways. Boggles the mind.

What confuses me about this story is why on earth the family wanted a Christian Service in the first place, or a Conservative Christian Service anyway.Apt point. In fact, this calls for a quote from my favorite philosopher, Nemi Montoya: I don't really understand homosexual Christians either. They come across as Negroes who want to join Ku Klux Klan.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Don't churches have the right to follow their own beliefs?
The dead man didn't even belong to the church.
The bereaved have not had anything 'done' to them.
If they don't accept the theology of the church, they shouldn't be a part of it in any way.
Why should the church change its theology to suit them, bereaved or not?

You really don't think the mother and brother had their feelings hurt?

I see what you're saying and I agree it's a tricky situation but it's a slap in the face to his memory and to his relatives.

[JoeEllison]

None of this makes sense. Of course, I've a feeling there's more to this story than meets the eye.

[ShowerComic]

None of this makes sense. Of course, I've a feeling there's more to this story than meets the eye.

This story definitely takes careful reading. (Can I quote the story, can't remember the forum rules). -- For instance: The brother is an employee and member of a Church that preaches homosexuality a sin, while he accepts his brother as a homosexual. That's how the Church got involved.

The Church offered to pay for another service, would there have been some kind of 'employee discount' or was the money needed? Interestingly the video images were edited by the Church according to the story. This tells me the family didn't have the memorial they wanted, since it had to go through a censor in the form of the Church officials. (Not however the membership).

Anyway I hope the family has kept copies of the pictures they wanted.

[vincent1555]

That's the problem exactly, that his sexual preference alone reduced his status to honored serviceman to 'random funeral'. It's downright sickening how they judge him not by his good deeds, but by one of his personal traits which he has no control over.

We attack the church because they're refusing to honor a serviceman fighting for their protection and freedom, just because of his sexual preference.

'Watch us honor this brave man fighting for the freedoms and safety of this great natio-- oh, was he different from us? Er, never mind, then. He wasn't a member of our church anyway. Leave the random, unimportant funerals to the goddamned libs. Oh, and keep supporting our troops!'

I honestly can't understand this whole 'but they shouldn't be made to do something they consider sinful!' deal either. If someone's doing something wrong, they're doing something wrong, their dogmas notwithstanding. No one stands up for racists and go 'oh, that blacks are inferior is his belief. You shouldn't have to make him do something that goes against his beliefs'. Yet when religious people are intolerant we need to respect them for it, otherwise we are the bigots for daring to be obnoxious enough to criticize their ways. Boggles the mind.

Apt point. In fact, this calls for a quote from my favorite philosopher, Nemi Montoya: I don't really understand homosexual Christians either. They come across as Negroes who want to join Ku Klux Klan.

Don't disguise the issue with flag waving. They were perfectly willing to honor his service to the country. They were not willing to honor his homosexuality. The article made quite clear that the church would have done the service if the family had not decided to emphasize that part of his lifestyle. The same would be true if he were an alcoholic, drug addict or involved in incest. The church would have most likely given him a funeral so long as those aspects of his life were not celebrated. Their refusal had nothing to do with him being a soldier and being a soldier while laudable does not automatically sanctify every aspect of one's lifestyle. If a soldier comes home and beats his wife and the judge throws him in jail, should we yell at the judge for not "honoring a veteran."

Also I am not suggesting any sort of moral equivalence between the aforementioned, I am merely making the point that the only reason you are upset with the church in this instance is because they disagree with your stance on homosexuality, not because they dishonored a veteran. If he had done something you believed immoral (hopefully one or more of my examples fall in that category, hence the broad net) I doubt you would have found the church's actions objectionable.

[This Guy]

Sounds to me like the result of poor communications between the family and the church.

I suspect that if the two groups had more fully discussed what was expected up front, either other arrangements would have been made, or changes to the services could have been made, that both the church and the family could have lived with.

While I have no love for any church, I do feel that at least in this case, they have every right to decide what type of service they are willing to perform, and to refuse to perform a service that would be so opposed to their beliefs and teachings. Even if I do disagree with those beliefs and teachings.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Yeah it sounds like a misunderstanding but if they already agreed to it, they should have held up their end of the bargain instead of adding to his mother and brother's trauma.

[pchams]

Pathetic.

How unchristian (according to what I read in the new testament),
or unfortunately, how typically christian presently.

How is it, that an atheist such as myself, understands the message of Jesus better than these so-called christians?

Since their savior preached love and forgiveness, how is this basic tenet lost on so many of these followers?

Pathetic.

[kerikiwi]

Pathetic.

Since their savior preached love and forgiveness, how is this basic tenet lost on so many of these followers?



I see no reason why other people must follow your interpretation of a religious text. I haven't read much of any religious texts. Are you sure that everything attributed to Jesus is about 'love and forgiveness'?
If a church has a belief (of any kind ),it should be entitled to follow that belief.
If other people do not share that belief, they should not be required to follow it, but nor should they expect those who do follow it to ignore it.

[Safe-Keeper]

Don't disguise the issue with flag waving. They were perfectly willing to honor his service to the country. They were not willing to honor his homosexuality.You can perfectly well bury a soldier who has passed and happened to be gay without directly honoring said homosexuality.

The article made quite clear that the church would have done the service if the family had not decided to emphasize that part of his lifestyle.According to the diseased's partner, that's an utter lie. (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/08/11/639)

First of all, no pictures showed the man (shock and horror:eek:!) showing affection for the person he was in love with, nor was there any pushing for a 'honoring' of his preferences:On Tuesday morning, we gave the church a total of 83 various pictures of Cecil that were forwarded to us by various members of his family. Of those, not a single one showed a man hugging or kissing another man, nor were there any overtly homosexual references. Cecil’s sister Kathleen sat and worked with the two people preparing the video and went through all of the photos with them. There was only one photo which would be considered offensive, as it was a picture of him in his early 20s making a rude gesture at his best friend who was taking the photo. We removed it and never asked that it be included. It was just overlooked in the rush to get things done.
Secondly, no compromise was even attempted:To me personally, I have no problem with the church turning us away. My problem is with the method in which they did it. I happen to know several other members of that church who are also gay, and they had no idea that their church held that opinion on this topic either. If they had told us right away, or even on Tuesday that they were not comfortable with the service, we would have been more than willing to try and come to some sort of compromise, or we could have changed venues. We were never given that option. Someone in a position of power made the decision to cut us off, and didn’t even have the moral courage to tell us the truth to our faces.
The article also states that the brother of the diseased was a member of the church, and that church officials acted very disrespectfully when asked why the funeral had been canceled. The family was simply served a little collection of excuses, and then, when the list was expended, the church simply hung up.

The same would be true if he were an alcoholic, drug addict or involved in incest. The church would have most likely given him a funeral so long as those aspects of his life were not celebrated.Surely you're not implying there are people out there who celebrate a loved one's alcoholism or drug addiction, right? And again, the claim that they wanted to 'celebrate' his homosexuality is a lie. A direct violation, as a matter of fact, of a Commandment handed down to the Church, according to their own beliefs, directly from God.

Their refusal had nothing to do with him being a soldier.Exactly. It's irrelevant to them that the man fought for his country. It didn't matter to them what he'd given. He didn't cow to the church's intolerance, so no funeral to him. Support our Troops - so long as they're not different from us.

[...] and being a soldier while laudable does not automatically sanctify every aspect of one's lifestyle.Homosexuality is not a 'lifestyle' more than heterosexuality is. It's a sexual preference he had no control over. Christians suppressing a person's sexual preferences are no better than Muslims suppressing a person' left-handedness.

Having a relationship can possibly be qualified as a 'lifestyle', but your basic sexual preference can not.

If a soldier comes home and beats his wife and the judge throws him in jail, should we yell at the judge for not "honoring a veteran."No. People who do wrong should be punished. Then, upon passing away, given a worthy funeral. Loving your neighbor and forgiving your enemies are major pillars of Christianity.

Also I am not suggesting any sort of moral equivalence between the aforementionedGood. You had me worried there.

I am merely making the point that the only reason you are upset with the church in this instance is because they disagree with your stance on homosexuality, not because they dishonored a veteran.No. Your Mind Reading-over-ISP skills needs work.

If he had done something you believed immoral (hopefully one or more of my examples fall in that category, hence the broad net) I doubt you would have found the church's actions objectionable.I would find the church's position objectionable. He could've been a murderer and I'd still object.

I know once knew a 17-year old who had been caught hanging a guy. I met him in the psychiatric hospital and he turned out to be a good person. I know several people who have struggled with drug problems. They're great friends of mine.

'Cause guess what? Criminals and people who are unlucky enough to have strayed into narcotics - are still people. They all deserve respect in life and a worthy funeral come death. That's why there are Prison Watch volunteers out there. That's why there are people keeping criminals in prison company. Because they're humans. Look, I get as furious as you do when I hear of rapes and of criminals going free. But I realize they're people, and I don't want them to be unfairly treated. Not giving them a funeral is unfair treatment. What do you want us to do, throw all people we don't like in one big mass grave and be done with it?

I see no reason why other people must follow your interpretation of a religious text.So now love and forgiveness aren't Christian anymore, just his 'interpretation of a religious text'? But no, they needn't be tolerant. By all means. Let them sit there in their cold stone buildings and hate each others and see how much I care.

When I think of it... is there as much as a single passage in the Bible that instructs followers on who to bury or not bury? I just searched BibleGateway for 'funeral' and 'burial' and found nothing. Can anyone educate me, please?

[Foster Zygote]

I never even knew there was a gay Navy.

[Safe-Keeper]

I see no reason why other people must follow your interpretation of a religious text. Oh, and... doesn't this argument shoot your position down anyway? If it's not required to follow interpretations, fine, then the church should give the soldier a funeral even though he didn't follow said church's interpretation of the Bible. Right?

[kerikiwi]

Oh, and... doesn't this argument shoot your position down anyway? If it's not required to follow interpretations, fine, then the church should give the soldier a funeral even though he didn't follow said church's interpretation of the Bible. Right?

Some very scrambled reasoning there. The church should not be required to act in ways opposed to its own beliefs. People who do not accept those beliefs are free to go elsewhere.
It has nothing to do with 'love and forgiveness', other than the fact that some people might take that from their favourite religious text. People should be free to have whatever beliefs they like, as long as they do not impose them on others. And no, the church is not, by its actions, imposing its beliefs on others. They are not prisoners. They are free to leave.
Neither do I think it is incumbent on the church to compromise. Again, people who do not share the beliefs are not compelled to belong to that particular church.
It is also astonishing that people can be members of a church without even knowing what it believes. Several members of the church were also gay and had no idea of the church's opinion on the topic? Words fail me...

As they seem to have failed someone else:
the deceased may have been diseased before he deceased, but he is diseased no longer. ;)

[Darth Rotor]

I never even knew there was a gay Navy.
Consider finding a copy of a song by the Village People called

"In The Navy."

DR

[Safe-Keeper]

the deceased may have been diseased before he deceased, but he is diseased no longer. :wink:Right. Thanks.