Laws against homosexuality?

[godisgood77]

sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57543268-80/gay-church-catholic-bishops.html.csp

Came across this article this morning…

I, for one, think it is quite unfortunate that government would intrude in to private life to the point of making laws like the ones referenced in the article. I find it disturbing that our Church would come out in praise of such a set of laws which clearly lead to violence.

If we look at this on a broader scale, we would have to compare and see similarities between legislation like the abortion promoting HHS mandate to the anti-gay laws that are popping up in Africa. Both attempt to legislate morality and both infringe on liberty and freedom of an individual to choose their path. In the case of the HHS mandate and individual is being forced to pay to morally objectionable acts - against their conscious, like abortion and related drugs. In the case of the anti-gay laws, an individual is not allowed to freely exercise their right to their own conscious. The Church is acting hypocritical by condemning government overreach in one cast and praising it in another…

I pray that our Church leaders get it right and apply the conscientious objection consistently.

 

[Corki]

Those aren’t laws against homosexuality. They are laws against certain deviant sexual behaviors. Opposition to those behaviors is the clear Catholic position. Advocating violence is not.

 

[godisgood77]

Those aren’t laws against homosexuality. They are laws against certain deviant sexual behaviors. Opposition to those behaviors is the clear Catholic position. Advocating violence is not.

Opposing those behaviors -Yes absolutely. Doesn’t change the fact that gov’t shouldn’t legislate morality and the Church shouldn’t support gov’t overreach in any case.

 

[robertkchacon]

The Church’s position on supporting laws against homosexual acts is NOT hypocritical. It may not be wise to try to criminalize actions that require severe intrusions into personal privacy, but that is not hypocrisy. Either way, the Church will never support following ones conscience to do immoral acts and should not, even regarding secular laws. Freedom to follow ones conscience to do anything is NOT true freedom! Its licentiousness. And do you really expect the Church to support even secular laws that give support to licentiousness? Of course not. Living in the US, the Church simply tolerates such secular laws that no longer try to restrict adultery ,or sodomy or other immoral acts. But the Church does not actually SUPPORT simply following ones conscience when that leads to sin! Your conclusion that the Church is hypocritical is wrong because you do not have a proper understanding of a properly formed conscience and the true meaning of freedom.

Furthermore, you are being deliberately confused by those who would have you believe all the anti sodomy and anti gay laws are laws simply against being gay, and that the Church would support ANY violence against any homosexual for any reason. As another poster pointed out , not all of these African laws criminalize simply being gay. They simply reinstate traditional anti sodomy laws that we had here in the US up until the 60s or so. While such laws seem intrusive in our 21Century Western culture, other countries have every right to use the secular civil powers to enforce morality. We still have all kinds of laws that enforce morality in the US! So its a complete fallacy to say we should not try to legislate morality! We do it all the time! You cant lie in court! You cant rape, you have to educate and take care of your children, you cant commit suicide, you cant steal, and you cant take certain drugs. Those are ALL laws enforcing moral beliefs regarding others and ourselves alone.

Again, your belief the bishops in Africa are hypocritical is mostly off base because you do not fully understand both Church teaching on conscience , nor do you fully understand the legal structure in this country.

 

[christus_vincit]

The Church is acting hypocritical by condemning government overreach in one cast and praising it in another…

I don’t understand this. The HHS mandate forces people to pay for moral evils, so the Church opposes it. Engaging in homosexual activity is morally evil, so the Church supports civil laws that oppose homosexuality. Where is the hypocrisy? The Church is simply reaffirming what it teaches by condemning where condemnation is due and supporting where support is due. When a government advocates something that is morally evil, the Church can and should protest. When a government implements a law that attempts to preserve society from sin, the Church will show support.

 

[manualman]

sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57543268-80/gay-church-catholic-bishops.html.csp

…
Both attempt to legislate morality and both infringe on liberty and freedom of an individual to choose their path. In the case of the HHS mandate and individual is being forced to pay to morally objectionable acts - against their conscious, like abortion and related drugs. In the case of the anti-gay laws, an individual is not allowed to freely exercise their right to their own conscious. The Church is acting hypocritical by condemning government overreach in one cast and praising it in another…

You’ve unwittingly adopted the secular humanist assessment of how legal systems should be based and it is fatally flawed. Defining “liberty” in law as “Do whatever you want unless it causes someone else direct physical or economic damages” ignores the fact that humans are NOT just individuals that happen to live in proximity to each other. Rather, we are innately communal creatures and unable to thrive without healthy social relationships.

ALL law is an imposition of morality. I literally can’t think of one law that isn’t the imposition of a moral principle on the citizens. What you’ve found is that democracy and pluralism has an Achilles heel. As long as the society as whole shares basic Christian moral values, plurality works. But once historical Christian values have been discarded, it becomes absurd to try to draw the line between what morals can be legislated and which ones can’t.

We’ve been conditioned as a society to see all religions and worldviews as having innately equal value and dignity. That’s frankly nuts. It’s not remotely hypocritical for the church to urge government leaders to conform civil law to Natural Law and to oppose civil laws that are in conflict with Natural Law. It’s completely consistent.

Sadly, we’re rapidly moving in the direction of license in law except in the case of economic or direct physical harm. An example are the laws against polygamy that have been in place in the western world for millennia now. Those will soon fall because they are based on a moral recognition that polygamy is innately ordered to the exploitation of women by men (among other serious problems). This approach will not survive the new libertinism embraced by our devolving culture. It will be declared an invasion of privacy and overturned in the next 10 years. Watch and see (note that I predict it and deplore it at the same time).

Does this mean that we as catholics need to work to pass laws forcing everyone to behave according to our values? No. Civil law has to be consented to by the populace. A law banning contraception, for example, would be a poor allocation of efforts right here and now in America because the people mostly haven’t been convinced of the principle first. A law banning abortion, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate because the harm done is far greater then contraception and the vast majority of people even today would never choose to have an abortion precisely because even most of those nominally pro-choice know deep inside that it’s wrong (Ever met a pro-choice woman who suffered a miscarriage and didn’t mourn?).

Hopefully, in my rambling manner, I’ve demonstrated how it is NOT hypocritical to both oppose the HHS mandate, but support legal proscriptions on sodomy. It’s only hypocritical if you first accept the assertion that morality is an arbitrary human construct, not a summary of objective reality.

 

[Convert2013]

sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57543268-80/gay-church-catholic-bishops.html.csp

Came across this article this morning…

I, for one, think it is quite unfortunate that government would intrude in to private life to the point of making laws like the ones referenced in the article. ** I find it disturbing that our Church would come out in praise of such a set of laws which clearly lead to violence**.

If we look at this on a broader scale, we would have to compare and see similarities between legislation like the abortion promoting HHS mandate to the anti-gay laws that are popping up in Africa. Both attempt to legislate morality and both infringe on liberty and freedom of an individual to choose their path. In the case of the HHS mandate and individual is being forced to pay to morally objectionable acts - against their conscious, like abortion and related drugs. In the case of the anti-gay laws, an individual is not allowed to freely exercise their right to their own conscious. The Church is acting hypocritical by condemning government overreach in one cast and praising it in another…

I pray that our Church leaders get it right and apply the conscientious objection consistently.

laws don’t lead to violence. People’s actions in opposition to laws lead to violent acts sometimes.

How hypocritical would the Church be if they teach one thing and then turn around and agree with converse teaching in case someone might get upset and disagree and commit violent acts? Homosexual ACTS are evil, the Church opposes that. The Church can agree and disagree with government on a variety of separate issues. Because the Church disagrees on one matter, doesn’t mean the Church must therefore never agree with the government on any matters.

 

[Convert2013]

You’ve unwittingly adopted the secular humanist assessment of how legal systems should be based and it is fatally flawed. Defining “liberty” in law as “Do whatever you want unless it causes someone else direct physical or economic damages” ignores the fact that humans are NOT just individuals that happen to live in proximity to each other. Rather, we are innately communal creatures and unable to thrive without healthy social relationships.

ALL law is an imposition of morality. I literally can’t think of one law that isn’t the imposition of a moral principle on the citizens. What you’ve found is that democracy and pluralism has an Achilles heel. As long as the society as whole shares basic Christian moral values, plurality works. But once historical Christian values have been discarded, it becomes absurd to try to draw the line between what morals can be legislated and which ones can’t.

We’ve been conditioned as a society to see all religions and worldviews as having innately equal value and dignity. That’s frankly nuts. It’s not remotely hypocritical for the church to urge government leaders to conform civil law to Natural Law and to oppose civil laws that are in conflict with Natural Law. It’s completely consistent.

Sadly, we’re rapidly moving in the direction of license in law except in the case of economic or direct physical harm. An example are the laws against polygamy that have been in place in the western world for millennia now. Those will soon fall because they are based on a moral recognition that polygamy is innately ordered to the exploitation of women by men (among other serious problems). This approach will not survive the new libertinism embraced by our devolving culture. It will be declared an invasion of privacy and overturned in the next 10 years. Watch and see (note that I predict it and deplore it at the same time).

Does this mean that we as catholics need to work to pass laws forcing everyone to behave according to our values? No. Civil law has to be consented to by the populace. A law banning contraception, for example, would be a poor allocation of efforts right here and now in America because the people mostly haven’t been convinced of the principle first. A law banning abortion, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate because the harm done is far greater then contraception and the vast majority of people even today would never choose to have an abortion precisely because even most of those nominally pro-choice know deep inside that it’s wrong (Ever met a pro-choice woman who suffered a miscarriage and didn’t mourn?).

Hopefully, in my rambling manner, I’ve demonstrated how it is NOT hypocritical to both oppose the HHS mandate, but support legal proscriptions on sodomy. It’s only hypocritical if you first accept the assertion that morality is an arbitrary human construct, not a summary of objective reality.

+1,000,000,000…

 

[jinc1019]

sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57543268-80/gay-church-catholic-bishops.html.csp

Came across this article this morning…

I, for one, think it is quite unfortunate that government would intrude in to private life to the point of making laws like the ones referenced in the article. I find it disturbing that our Church would come out in praise of such a set of laws which clearly lead to violence.

If we look at this on a broader scale, we would have to compare and see similarities between legislation like the abortion promoting HHS mandate to the anti-gay laws that are popping up in Africa. Both attempt to legislate morality and both infringe on liberty and freedom of an individual to choose their path. In the case of the HHS mandate and individual is being forced to pay to morally objectionable acts - against their conscious, like abortion and related drugs. In the case of the anti-gay laws, an individual is not allowed to freely exercise their right to their own conscious. The Church is acting hypocritical by condemning government overreach in one cast and praising it in another…

I pray that our Church leaders get it right and apply the conscientious objection consistently.

I too find it disturbing. However, it is and has often been the teaching of the Church to get involved in such affairs. Only after the Reformation has this been somewhat toned down.

In the Syllabus of Errors, written by Pope Pius (I believe IX) in 1864, the Church clearly stated that the concept of separation of Church and state was error and that anyone who supported it should be anathematized.

Further, at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, the Pope and the Catholic bishops agreed that:

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the
holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained;
condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known…
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished
and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as
they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the Faithful, so for the
defense of the Faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will
strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the
territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the
Church… If [a ruler] refuses to [comply] let the matter be made known
to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved
from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics,
who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance
and preserve it in the purity of faith

Here you have the Pope AND the bishops in agreement at one of the 21 ecumenical councils that not only do secular authorities have a duty to the Church to enforce Church teachings, they should exterminate those who disagree. Any ruler who “refuses” could lose their kingdom in the eyes of the Church.

The Church’s position on liberty has never been what it should be. In more recent years, it has liberalized, but only when it makes sense for them.

 

[jinc1019]

You’ve unwittingly adopted the secular humanist assessment of how legal systems should be based and it is fatally flawed. Defining “liberty” in law as “Do whatever you want unless it causes someone else direct physical or economic damages” ignores the fact that humans are NOT just individuals that happen to live in proximity to each other. Rather, we are innately communal creatures and unable to thrive without healthy social relationships.

ALL law is an imposition of morality. I literally can’t think of one law that isn’t the imposition of a moral principle on the citizens. What you’ve found is that democracy and pluralism has an Achilles heel. As long as the society as whole shares basic Christian moral values, plurality works. But once historical Christian values have been discarded, it becomes absurd to try to draw the line between what morals can be legislated and which ones can’t.

We’ve been conditioned as a society to see all religions and worldviews as having innately equal value and dignity. That’s frankly nuts. It’s not remotely hypocritical for the church to urge government leaders to conform civil law to Natural Law and to oppose civil laws that are in conflict with Natural Law. It’s completely consistent.

Sadly, we’re rapidly moving in the direction of license in law except in the case of economic or direct physical harm. An example are the laws against polygamy that have been in place in the western world for millennia now. Those will soon fall because they are based on a moral recognition that polygamy is innately ordered to the exploitation of women by men (among other serious problems). This approach will not survive the new libertinism embraced by our devolving culture. It will be declared an invasion of privacy and overturned in the next 10 years. Watch and see (note that I predict it and deplore it at the same time).

Does this mean that we as catholics need to work to pass laws forcing everyone to behave according to our values? No. Civil law has to be consented to by the populace. A law banning contraception, for example, would be a poor allocation of efforts right here and now in America because the people mostly haven’t been convinced of the principle first. A law banning abortion, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate because the harm done is far greater then contraception and the vast majority of people even today would never choose to have an abortion precisely because even most of those nominally pro-choice know deep inside that it’s wrong (Ever met a pro-choice woman who suffered a miscarriage and didn’t mourn?).

Hopefully, in my rambling manner, I’ve demonstrated how it is NOT hypocritical to both oppose the HHS mandate, but support legal proscriptions on sodomy. It’s only hypocritical if you first accept the assertion that morality is an arbitrary human construct, not a summary of objective reality.

Based on your view, would you support burning or exterminating heretics if the Church supported such a proposition? They have, in the past, forced secular authorities to adopt that stance.

 

[jinc1019]

You’ve unwittingly adopted the secular humanist assessment of how legal systems should be based and it is fatally flawed. Defining “liberty” in law as “Do whatever you want unless it causes someone else direct physical or economic damages” ignores the fact that humans are NOT just individuals that happen to live in proximity to each other. Rather, we are innately communal creatures and unable to thrive without healthy social relationships.

ALL law is an imposition of morality. I literally can’t think of one law that isn’t the imposition of a moral principle on the citizens. What you’ve found is that democracy and pluralism has an Achilles heel. As long as the society as whole shares basic Christian moral values, plurality works. But once historical Christian values have been discarded, it becomes absurd to try to draw the line between what morals can be legislated and which ones can’t.

We’ve been conditioned as a society to see all religions and worldviews as having innately equal value and dignity. That’s frankly nuts. It’s not remotely hypocritical for the church to urge government leaders to conform civil law to Natural Law and to oppose civil laws that are in conflict with Natural Law. It’s completely consistent.

Sadly, we’re rapidly moving in the direction of license in law except in the case of economic or direct physical harm. An example are the laws against polygamy that have been in place in the western world for millennia now. Those will soon fall because they are based on a moral recognition that polygamy is innately ordered to the exploitation of women by men (among other serious problems). This approach will not survive the new libertinism embraced by our devolving culture. It will be declared an invasion of privacy and overturned in the next 10 years. Watch and see (note that I predict it and deplore it at the same time).

Does this mean that we as catholics need to work to pass laws forcing everyone to behave according to our values? No. Civil law has to be consented to by the populace. A law banning contraception, for example, would be a poor allocation of efforts right here and now in America because the people mostly haven’t been convinced of the principle first. A law banning abortion, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate because the harm done is far greater then contraception and the vast majority of people even today would never choose to have an abortion precisely because even most of those nominally pro-choice know deep inside that it’s wrong (Ever met a pro-choice woman who suffered a miscarriage and didn’t mourn?).

Hopefully, in my rambling manner, I’ve demonstrated how it is NOT hypocritical to both oppose the HHS mandate, but support legal proscriptions on sodomy. It’s only hypocritical if you first accept the assertion that morality is an arbitrary human construct, not a summary of objective reality.

The purpose of liberty is not to say that “anyone should do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.” The purpose is to allow morality to develop organically without the State shoving it down our throats as they have in the past. On one day you may support the intrusion, but on the next, you may be targeted. The point is…We shouldn’t trust the government to be involved in these personal issues.

 

[manualman]

I should clarify that in the case cited here, there may be a bit of unhealthy emphasis, if not actual hypocrisy. I’m not sure it’s the best use of resources in poor African nations to jail a man for sodomy for years when said government can’t even provide clean water, roads or safety against insurgents. Sure, spend money locking up gay men? Seems rather off…

Why not discourage it in law via fines or public service penalties instead? Would seem to make a lot more sense in context.

Recognize too that Nigeria isn’t New York. The culture there already innately disapproves of acting on same sex impulses. They just want their law to reflect their cultural values.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57543268-80/gay-church-catholic-bishops.html.csp

Came across this article this morning…

I, for one, think it is quite unfortunate that government would intrude in to private life to the point of making laws like the ones referenced in the article. I find it disturbing that our Church would come out in praise of such a set of laws which clearly lead to violence.

If we look at this on a broader scale, we would have to compare and see similarities between legislation like the abortion promoting HHS mandate to the anti-gay laws that are popping up in Africa. Both attempt to legislate morality and both infringe on liberty and freedom of an individual to choose their path. In the case of the HHS mandate and individual is being forced to pay to morally objectionable acts - against their conscious, like abortion and related drugs. In the case of the anti-gay laws, an individual is not allowed to freely exercise their right to their own conscious. The Church is acting hypocritical by condemning government overreach in one cast and praising it in another…

I pray that our Church leaders get it right and apply the conscientious objection consistently.

King Henry VIII, yes the one who founded the Anglican Church and had Thomas More & Co. executed for refusing to recognize his remarriage, enacted the first civil sodomy law in England in 1533. His daughter, Queen Mary, who returned England to Catholicism also got rid of the sodomy laws. Queen Elizabeth I, who came to the throne after Mary died without issue, again removed England from the Catholic Church and reenacted the sodomy laws.

In the US sodomy laws were abolished in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, long after most Catholic countries (many were abolishing them in the 19th and early 20th centuries), even Malta which only allowed divorce of any kind in 2011 abolished it less than a decade after independence from the UK.

The Vatican officially condemned sodomy laws and urged their repeal in 2008.

Urging for the repeal of sodomy laws is as much a Catholic position as urging the end to the death penalty.

 

[manualman]

Based on your view, would you support burning or exterminating heretics if the Church supported such a proposition? They have, in the past, forced secular authorities to adopt that stance.

Actually, it’s quite the opposite. If you actually knew history, you’d know that the church has always had LESS extreme forms of punishment than the civilizations in which she resides. The church pretty much always is a moderating influence.

Even in the dreaded age of Inquisitions, the accused desperately preferred to be tried by church tribunals rather than state prosecutors.

We today find it quite easy to condemn those of an earlier age who participated in burnings at the stake and such. Of course, we generally prefer not to notice the implicit support WE give to horrendously immoral things (Chinese products made by political prisoners, medicines developed with aborted baby tissue, etc.) Humans are always fallen and always like pointing to people doing things worse than we are. Makes us feel smugly superior, no?

 

[manualman]

The purpose of liberty is not to say that “anyone should do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.” The purpose is to allow morality to develop organically without the State shoving it down our throats as they have in the past. On one day you may support the intrusion, but on the next, you may be targeted. The point is…We shouldn’t trust the government to be involved in these personal issues.

Yes, that’s the libertarian mantra. I’m not convinced it’s true. It’s a totally recent idea that would have appalled our Founding Fathers, heck would have appalled beloved leaders as recent as Lincoln, FDR, JFK, etc. Only recently has it become fashionable in America to deny law any place in upholding communal values upon which civilization depends.

I agree that there is risk in government over-reach. But there is also risk in government libertinism. We’re living out the consequences of that more and more daily. I suppose time will tell which is worse.

Morality doesn’t develop organically. Humans are social creatures and will be subject only to our own whims and appetites without strong community influence. I’m not persuaded that we have any future as a country without any sort of common worldview and identity to hold us together. Time will tell, I suppose!

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yes, that’s the libertarian mantra. I’m not convinced it’s true. It’s a totally recent idea that would have appalled our Founding Fathers, heck would have appalled beloved leaders as recent as Lincoln, FDR, JFK, etc. Only recently has it become fashionable in America to deny law any place in upholding communal values upon which civilization depends.

I agree that there is risk in government over-reach. But there is also risk in government libertinism. We’re living out the consequences of that more and more daily. I suppose time will tell which is worse.

Morality doesn’t develop organically. Humans are social creatures and will be subject only to our own whims and appetites without strong community influence. I’m not persuaded that we have any future as a country without any sort of common worldview and identity to hold us together. Time will tell, I suppose!

Yes, I’m sure many Founding Fathers would have been upset by the state no longer punishing people for deviant such as the government eventually allowing Catholics to run for office.

 

[jinc1019]

Actually, it’s quite the opposite. If you actually knew history, you’d know that the church has always had LESS extreme forms of punishment than the civilizations in which she resides. The church pretty much always is a moderating influence.

Even in the dreaded age of Inquisitions, the accused desperately preferred to be tried by church tribunals rather than state prosecutors.

We today find it quite easy to condemn those of an earlier age who participated in burnings at the stake and such. Of course, we generally prefer not to notice the implicit support WE give to horrendously immoral things (Chinese products made by political prisoners, medicines developed with aborted baby tissue, etc.) Humans are always fallen and always like pointing to people doing things worse than we are. Makes us feel smugly superior, no?

I suggest you read the Fourth Lateran Council and Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull of 1520. Both make it very clear the Church supports killing heretics (the Papal Bull specifically states “burning.”)

Further, I never once stated that the Church had more extreme forms of punishment. I said they supported “exterminating” heretics. That is a historical fact. You are promoting a revisionist view of history.

 

[jinc1019]

Actually, it’s quite the opposite. If you actually knew history, you’d know that the church has always had LESS extreme forms of punishment than the civilizations in which she resides. The church pretty much always is a moderating influence.

Even in the dreaded age of Inquisitions, the accused desperately preferred to be tried by church tribunals rather than state prosecutors.

We today find it quite easy to condemn those of an earlier age who participated in burnings at the stake and such. Of course, we generally prefer not to notice the implicit support WE give to horrendously immoral things (Chinese products made by political prisoners, medicines developed with aborted baby tissue, etc.) Humans are always fallen and always like pointing to people doing things worse than we are. Makes us feel smugly superior, no?

And no, it doesn’t make me feel “smugly superior.” It saddens me.

I am not pointing this out to be a jerk to the Church or to hold my head up as if I am better…I am pointing it out because it’s fact and I want to ensure it doesn’t happen in the Church ever again. Your insults directed at me (saying I don’t know anything about history) are unfounded. My assertion is 100% factual. The Church has done some pretty awful things and the faithful should be aware of it so it doesn’t happen again.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I suggest you read the Fourth Lateran Council and Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull of 1520. Both make it very clear the Church supports killing heretics (the Papal Bull specifically states “burning.”)

Further, I never once stated that the Church had more extreme forms of punishment. I said they supported “exterminating” heretics. That is a historical fact. You are promoting a revisionist view of history.

There is a major difference between those who are heretics and those who spread heretical teaching.

 

[manualman]

I suggest you read the Fourth Lateran Council and Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull of 1520. Both make it very clear the Church supports killing heretics (the Papal Bull specifically states “burning.”)

Further, I never once stated that the Church had more extreme forms of punishment. I said they supported “exterminating” heretics. That is a historical fact. You are promoting a revisionist view of history.

Tone is difficult on the web and I meant no hostility. Just to challenge the assertion made.

I did not intend to deny that church leaders have at times endorse the use of the death penalty for heresy and similar offenses. That would be not only revisionist, but Bizarro World Dan Brown revisionism. What I tried to convey was that the people in the church usually reflect the sentiments of the culture they reside in, but slightly improved due to the influence of Grace. If you really knew the era that stake burning occurred in, you’d know that executions occurred in that society for an amazing variety of offenses. That’s hardly a peculiar characteristic of Christianity, is it? History in every culture I’m aware of is just awash in blood. Humans all need a Savior, you know…

My ‘smug’ comment wasn’t intended to be peculiar to you. It’s another universal human temptation. In fact, it’s precisely the temptation that leads many to brand homosexuality as the “uber-sin” deserving of special contempt. Handy to label sins one doesn’t oneself commit to be especially heinous, isn’t it? Same goes for judging leaders from 800 years ago, I’m afraid though. In other words, I’m NOT saying it’s only you.