<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The hundreds of churches in Iowa that you should avoid</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 21:35:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karen Nichols</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-70794</link>
		<dc:creator>Karen Nichols</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-70794</guid>
		<description>I am upset that Trinity Episcopal in Iowa City is included in this list. The person who signed the petition on Trinity&#039;s behalf is not a lay leader in our church; she isn&#039;t even officially a member. Trinity is a very gay-friendly church, and our pastors do perform gay marriages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am upset that Trinity Episcopal in Iowa City is included in this list. The person who signed the petition on Trinity&#8217;s behalf is not a lay leader in our church; she isn&#8217;t even officially a member. Trinity is a very gay-friendly church, and our pastors do perform gay marriages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69690</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:46:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69690</guid>
		<description>TJ: thanks for your kind words. This was just a portion of a much longer piece i wrote.

June 18, the last I heard.

And no, from what I could tell, the one subject O&amp;B avoided was religious prejudice. But I didn&#039;t follow every muinute of the hearing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TJ: thanks for your kind words. This was just a portion of a much longer piece i wrote.</p>
<p>June 18, the last I heard.</p>
<p>And no, from what I could tell, the one subject O&amp;B avoided was religious prejudice. But I didn&#8217;t follow every muinute of the hearing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T.J.</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69651</link>
		<dc:creator>T.J.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69651</guid>
		<description>Desiree - as a Christian gay man, even I can laugh out loud at that one ;)

Ben - well written piece, it certainly comes from the heart.  The founders were so wise with the first amendment. The irony of it all is that it is the people who stand to benefit most from its being upheld that so often want to trample it.  I&#039;m hoping for a decision from Judge Walker sometime soon on the Prop 8 law.  Does anyone know when that decision is expected?  Also, I hope Boise and Olson make the case you&#039;re making, Ben.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Desiree &#8211; as a Christian gay man, even I can laugh out loud at that one ;)</p>
<p>Ben &#8211; well written piece, it certainly comes from the heart.  The founders were so wise with the first amendment. The irony of it all is that it is the people who stand to benefit most from its being upheld that so often want to trample it.  I&#8217;m hoping for a decision from Judge Walker sometime soon on the Prop 8 law.  Does anyone know when that decision is expected?  Also, I hope Boise and Olson make the case you&#8217;re making, Ben.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Foreman</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69592</link>
		<dc:creator>David Foreman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:58:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69592</guid>
		<description>Désirée,
Great comment!  
And I say that as a man happily married in a monogomous heterosexual relationship.
Kudos.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Désirée,<br />
Great comment!<br />
And I say that as a man happily married in a monogomous heterosexual relationship.<br />
Kudos.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69591</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69591</guid>
		<description>TJ--thank you for your kind words. I wrote this (part of a larger piece) after Prop. 8 passed.

&quot;I&#039;m not a lawyer, but I do have my 58 years of life, and 37 years as an out, proud, and happy gay man to guide me. Very frankly, it seems to me that these lawsuits are being conducted from the closet as well, and in exactly the same way as the campaign was. Once again, I see these three words being avoided: children, religion, and prejudice. And if this is indeed the case, then I truly fear that result will be the same. It will allow our opponents to say once again, &quot;We don&#039;t hate you. We&#039;re just trying to preserve heterosexual marriage/the family/traditional values,&quot; by which they mean the myth of heterosexual superiority and the realities of heterosexual privilege and prejudice. It will also allow them to continue to claim that somehow, if gay people are protected from discrimination, whether in marriage or the usual employment/housing/accommodations, that their freedom of religion is compromised, by which they mean their freedom to discriminate against gay people on the basis of their religious belief.


The closet is about living a lie. It IS a lie, it is based on lies, and it engenders lies. It distorts, perverts, and debases everything it touches, as the sorry life of Ted Haggard will attest. And like all lies, the bigger it is, the longer it is told, the more damage it ultimately causes. One lie, that the Jews were responsible for Jesus&#039; death, as told in the Gospel of John, ultimately led to centuries of anti-Semitism, the murder of six million Jews, and 250,000 murdered gay people as an afterthought. John was, of course, justifying the Jewish heresy that became Christianity, and was sticking it to the Jewish authorities of the time. The Christians won and the Jews lost. Another lie, that gay people are responsible for child molestation, has impeded so much progress in the battle to protect our children. After all, if you can blame it on the queers, you don&#039;t actually have to look at child molestation and where it actually occurs most often-- the family. 

As a Jew, I&#039;m weary of losing. As a gay man, I have no use for the closet. 


There is only one answer to a lie, and that is the truth. By hiding us, hiding our families, we are complicit in this lie. Jesus said &quot;Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.&quot; So when do we start telling the truth? I, for one, wish to be free.


For 2000 years or more, gay people have been subject to a vicious, virulent, and consistent prejudice , a veritable avalanche of outright falsehoods, made up &quot;facts&quot;, agenda-based &quot;research&quot;, and distortions of religious teaching. We have been imprisoned, slandered, criminalized, degraded, pathologized, and murdered for being different. There are many people who deem it a good thing to make our lives as difficult and unpleasant as possible, often under the guise of &quot;We love you&quot; and &quot;This is for your own good&quot;. That this prejudice exists is beyond all doubt. The bulk of the Yes on 8 campaign was a conglomeration of known lies, distortions, and the-gays-are-gonna-get-your-children fear mongering, all very consistent with the existence of a prejudicial mindset. Prejudice and bigotry are not good bases for either law or public policy, and as we have progressed as a society, we have consistently rejected them. 


So why is prejudice apparently not a part of our legal and strategies? Are we still afraid to call the people prejudiced who have slandered us for two millennia-- or for twelve months straight-- especially since we know it is true? Whether it is presented as sincere religious belief, or admitted for what it is, it is still prejudice. Why can we not say that absent a compelling, factual, and real reason, our equality before the law cannot be compromised by someone else&#039;s prejudice? I know the argument goes that we win no converts by calling people bigots. As far as I am concerned, if we are willing only to be silent about it, we are consenting to it. We can be polite, but we have to start being truthful. The closet depends on both lies and silence for its power over gay people and its support from heterosexuals. We don&#039;t have to call people bigots. We do have to start talking about bigotry. We are not responsible for how people to react to us. We are only responsible for who we are, and to tell the truth.

and...

It has been documented over and over again that the Catholics and the Mormons, along with other religious conservatives, were the primary organizers, financiers, movers, and promoters of Yes on 8. In fact, they are proud of it. Their arguments were primarily religion based: it&#039;s against our religion, God ordained that marriage is between a man and a woman, ministers will be jailed, churches will be taxed and/or sued, religious freedom violated. The President of the Mormon church sent out a letter encouraging Mormons to &quot;do what they can&quot;, resulting in millions in out of state donations. Pastoral letters from the Catholic Bishops were read in church; Bishops Niedeaur and Mahoney have trumpeted their parts in this, claiming that they are only doing their Catholic duty. Brigham Young university students were encouraged to phone bank. All of this to enforce a certain, conservative religious view about homosexuality, and place a religious view about same-sex marriage onto the civil contract of marriage. The state, by virtue of the First Amendment, is supposed to be neutral in religious matters. By enforcing 8, the state is not being neutral. My marriage is a civil matter, with nothing to do with anyone&#039;s religion but my own. We don&#039;t have to attack people&#039;s religion. But we to have to start talking about religion, freedom of religion, and the difference between religious belief and civil society.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TJ&#8211;thank you for your kind words. I wrote this (part of a larger piece) after Prop. 8 passed.</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;m not a lawyer, but I do have my 58 years of life, and 37 years as an out, proud, and happy gay man to guide me. Very frankly, it seems to me that these lawsuits are being conducted from the closet as well, and in exactly the same way as the campaign was. Once again, I see these three words being avoided: children, religion, and prejudice. And if this is indeed the case, then I truly fear that result will be the same. It will allow our opponents to say once again, &#8220;We don&#8217;t hate you. We&#8217;re just trying to preserve heterosexual marriage/the family/traditional values,&#8221; by which they mean the myth of heterosexual superiority and the realities of heterosexual privilege and prejudice. It will also allow them to continue to claim that somehow, if gay people are protected from discrimination, whether in marriage or the usual employment/housing/accommodations, that their freedom of religion is compromised, by which they mean their freedom to discriminate against gay people on the basis of their religious belief.</p>
<p>The closet is about living a lie. It IS a lie, it is based on lies, and it engenders lies. It distorts, perverts, and debases everything it touches, as the sorry life of Ted Haggard will attest. And like all lies, the bigger it is, the longer it is told, the more damage it ultimately causes. One lie, that the Jews were responsible for Jesus&#8217; death, as told in the Gospel of John, ultimately led to centuries of anti-Semitism, the murder of six million Jews, and 250,000 murdered gay people as an afterthought. John was, of course, justifying the Jewish heresy that became Christianity, and was sticking it to the Jewish authorities of the time. The Christians won and the Jews lost. Another lie, that gay people are responsible for child molestation, has impeded so much progress in the battle to protect our children. After all, if you can blame it on the queers, you don&#8217;t actually have to look at child molestation and where it actually occurs most often&#8211; the family. </p>
<p>As a Jew, I&#8217;m weary of losing. As a gay man, I have no use for the closet. </p>
<p>There is only one answer to a lie, and that is the truth. By hiding us, hiding our families, we are complicit in this lie. Jesus said &#8220;Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.&#8221; So when do we start telling the truth? I, for one, wish to be free.</p>
<p>For 2000 years or more, gay people have been subject to a vicious, virulent, and consistent prejudice , a veritable avalanche of outright falsehoods, made up &#8220;facts&#8221;, agenda-based &#8220;research&#8221;, and distortions of religious teaching. We have been imprisoned, slandered, criminalized, degraded, pathologized, and murdered for being different. There are many people who deem it a good thing to make our lives as difficult and unpleasant as possible, often under the guise of &#8220;We love you&#8221; and &#8220;This is for your own good&#8221;. That this prejudice exists is beyond all doubt. The bulk of the Yes on 8 campaign was a conglomeration of known lies, distortions, and the-gays-are-gonna-get-your-children fear mongering, all very consistent with the existence of a prejudicial mindset. Prejudice and bigotry are not good bases for either law or public policy, and as we have progressed as a society, we have consistently rejected them. </p>
<p>So why is prejudice apparently not a part of our legal and strategies? Are we still afraid to call the people prejudiced who have slandered us for two millennia&#8211; or for twelve months straight&#8211; especially since we know it is true? Whether it is presented as sincere religious belief, or admitted for what it is, it is still prejudice. Why can we not say that absent a compelling, factual, and real reason, our equality before the law cannot be compromised by someone else&#8217;s prejudice? I know the argument goes that we win no converts by calling people bigots. As far as I am concerned, if we are willing only to be silent about it, we are consenting to it. We can be polite, but we have to start being truthful. The closet depends on both lies and silence for its power over gay people and its support from heterosexuals. We don&#8217;t have to call people bigots. We do have to start talking about bigotry. We are not responsible for how people to react to us. We are only responsible for who we are, and to tell the truth.</p>
<p>and&#8230;</p>
<p>It has been documented over and over again that the Catholics and the Mormons, along with other religious conservatives, were the primary organizers, financiers, movers, and promoters of Yes on 8. In fact, they are proud of it. Their arguments were primarily religion based: it&#8217;s against our religion, God ordained that marriage is between a man and a woman, ministers will be jailed, churches will be taxed and/or sued, religious freedom violated. The President of the Mormon church sent out a letter encouraging Mormons to &#8220;do what they can&#8221;, resulting in millions in out of state donations. Pastoral letters from the Catholic Bishops were read in church; Bishops Niedeaur and Mahoney have trumpeted their parts in this, claiming that they are only doing their Catholic duty. Brigham Young university students were encouraged to phone bank. All of this to enforce a certain, conservative religious view about homosexuality, and place a religious view about same-sex marriage onto the civil contract of marriage. The state, by virtue of the First Amendment, is supposed to be neutral in religious matters. By enforcing 8, the state is not being neutral. My marriage is a civil matter, with nothing to do with anyone&#8217;s religion but my own. We don&#8217;t have to attack people&#8217;s religion. But we to have to start talking about religion, freedom of religion, and the difference between religious belief and civil society.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Désirée</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69578</link>
		<dc:creator>Désirée</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 07:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69578</guid>
		<description>I &quot;disagree&quot; with the &quot;Christian lifestyle&quot; and think all Christians should be forcibly divorced to prevent them from breeding and creating more Christians.

But I don&#039;t hate them.  It&#039;s because I love them that I want to make them miserable.

So yeah...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I &#8220;disagree&#8221; with the &#8220;Christian lifestyle&#8221; and think all Christians should be forcibly divorced to prevent them from breeding and creating more Christians.</p>
<p>But I don&#8217;t hate them.  It&#8217;s because I love them that I want to make them miserable.</p>
<p>So yeah&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Trouten</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69571</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Trouten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 03:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69571</guid>
		<description>I checked over the list for local churches.  I wonder how many of the churches listed actually support this amendment.  Trinity Episcopal Church of Iowa City, for example, is a gay-friendly church with a large GLBT membership.  In fact, their church is listed in the local Gay Pride calendar for an event of GLBT spirituality.

Some of the signers on that petition have religious titles.  Others don&#039;t.  It would be interesting to see how many church members have gone rogue and included their gay-friendly churches on this anti-gay list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I checked over the list for local churches.  I wonder how many of the churches listed actually support this amendment.  Trinity Episcopal Church of Iowa City, for example, is a gay-friendly church with a large GLBT membership.  In fact, their church is listed in the local Gay Pride calendar for an event of GLBT spirituality.</p>
<p>Some of the signers on that petition have religious titles.  Others don&#8217;t.  It would be interesting to see how many church members have gone rogue and included their gay-friendly churches on this anti-gay list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Regan DuCasse</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69567</link>
		<dc:creator>Regan DuCasse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 02:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69567</guid>
		<description>Kel has a good point. If the complaint is about not being forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies, how does it square to force gay couples to divorce?!

    I think the question of religious freedom is a lot like the comment I make often about organ donation and contraception.

  These are aspects of medical intervention, cooperation between people (donor/receptor/doctor) and although such medical practice is unacceptable to several faiths, no one OF these faiths complain that their religious freedom is denied when other people accept such practices.

   And there are no political actions to interfere in the ability for other people to have such an option.

  That is to say, this is a coexistent matter.
So, how can claims that religious freedom is compromised by marriage equality?
  There are already a lot of things that people do that contradict someone&#039;s religion.

    Making same sex marriage exceptional to this already evident coexistence requires a lot of denial of facts, doesn&#039;t it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kel has a good point. If the complaint is about not being forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies, how does it square to force gay couples to divorce?!</p>
<p>    I think the question of religious freedom is a lot like the comment I make often about organ donation and contraception.</p>
<p>  These are aspects of medical intervention, cooperation between people (donor/receptor/doctor) and although such medical practice is unacceptable to several faiths, no one OF these faiths complain that their religious freedom is denied when other people accept such practices.</p>
<p>   And there are no political actions to interfere in the ability for other people to have such an option.</p>
<p>  That is to say, this is a coexistent matter.<br />
So, how can claims that religious freedom is compromised by marriage equality?<br />
  There are already a lot of things that people do that contradict someone&#8217;s religion.</p>
<p>    Making same sex marriage exceptional to this already evident coexistence requires a lot of denial of facts, doesn&#8217;t it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TampaZeke</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69565</link>
		<dc:creator>TampaZeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 01:53:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69565</guid>
		<description>Well, Pastor Steven Jewett of the New Horizons UCC in Akron will be getting some SERIOUS flack over this.

The UCC absolutely does NOT support this position.  He will be hearing from UCC members all across the country.

I did notice that New Horizon was the ONLY UCC on the list.  I think he is pulling a Palin and &quot;Going Rogue&quot; on this one.  I wouldn&#039;t be surprised if his own congregation doesn&#039;t call him out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Pastor Steven Jewett of the New Horizons UCC in Akron will be getting some SERIOUS flack over this.</p>
<p>The UCC absolutely does NOT support this position.  He will be hearing from UCC members all across the country.</p>
<p>I did notice that New Horizon was the ONLY UCC on the list.  I think he is pulling a Palin and &#8220;Going Rogue&#8221; on this one.  I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if his own congregation doesn&#8217;t call him out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tim</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/01/23143/comment-page-1#comment-69559</link>
		<dc:creator>tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23143#comment-69559</guid>
		<description>Gee - according to Focus on the Family the definition of marriage never changed in Iowa because, according to them, only the Legislature can change the definition and since the Legislature never acted - there is no same sex marriages happening in the state.  So this letter is not needed.

(I really wish the wingnuts could keep their talking points straight)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gee &#8211; according to Focus on the Family the definition of marriage never changed in Iowa because, according to them, only the Legislature can change the definition and since the Legislature never acted &#8211; there is no same sex marriages happening in the state.  So this letter is not needed.</p>
<p>(I really wish the wingnuts could keep their talking points straight)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
