• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Family: Lakewood church stops woman's funeral because she was gay

Cardinal said:
Absolutely it was their right, and like the church that fired the pregnant daycare employee for not getting married in a timely manner (again, the church's right), it paints a vivid picture of Christians as cruel and devoid of empathy.

I, for one, have zero problems with them showing their true colors.
Click to expand...

You have to remove those colored glasses to actually see the true colors. :mrgreen:
 
Lursa said:
I agree and I dont understand it. I can think of a few reasons but find them mostly shallow and knee-jerk. One might do it to please their family I guess.

But those are just my personal and yes, judgmental, opinions.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your honesty, Lursa.
 
clownboy said:
You have to remove those colored glasses to actually see the true colors. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The church's actions stand for themselves. All we need do is watch and be thankful we don't live under theocratic rule.
 
VanceMack said:
The story sounds very incomplete. It would be interesting to know when this conversation occurred "Certain events were not going to be allowed to take place according to the church," Campanella said. "In talking with family we decided it would be best to have the services here."

The church didnt prevent the ceremony from continuing...the family and friends decided to move it. The church allowed the ceremony to be conducted but with the guidance photos of the deceased should not be allowed that showed her living the lifestyle that is in opposition to their faith.

The article mentions the Church offers 'hope' to drug addicts. I think thats noble. Now...if a family decided they wanted to place pictures at the ceremony of an individual shooting up because thats what the individual loved, that would be disallowed. And no...the two obviously arent the same but without question, the concept is the same. The church does not condone homosexuality. It does not condone what it believes to be sinful behavior. I can only assume that the church is going on the FULL doctrine presented by Christ.
Click to expand...

Very well said. At the same time, though completely with in his ethical authority to order the pictures not to be displayed, the pastor should have allowed the photogrpahs to be shown once the funeral had started. Rather, he should have simply exited the room to avoid giving affirmation to what was being presented.

After the funeral, he could then explain to the church membership what happened and explained why he exited the room rather than interrupt a funeral in progress. Then, he could develop a procedure where families are informed in advance that not all aspects of every deceased person's life can be actively presented during funerals held at that church.

Cardinal said:
And that's why the most terrifying thing I can think of is for religious people to determine anything about my life "for my own good." What religious fundamentalists will do to other human beings under the guise of "merciful" and "for their own good" is the strongest reason for a secular political system I can think of. If it weren't for the behavior of the church in this regard and the one with the pregnant daycare employee Americans might forget that, and so the church has done us all an enormous favor.
Click to expand...

Churches vigorously standing up for their first amendment rights always do us an enormous favor.

That aside, I just applied the secular / atheist ideaology of communism to the concept of harm done under the guise of "mercy" and "for their own good"- and realized that not all secular poltical systems do people enormous favors. In fact, I would rather live as a Christian under the present day Ayatollah of Iran than as an atheist under Stalin.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
And that's why the most terrifying thing I can think of is for religious people to determine anything about my life "for my own good." What religious fundamentalists will do to other human beings under the guise of "merciful" and "for their own good" is the strongest reason for a secular political system I can think of. If it weren't for the behavior of the church in this regard and the one with the pregnant daycare employee Americans might forget that, and so the church has done us all an enormous favor.
Click to expand...

Your problems and hatred of religion aren't the issue here. You won't be asking for a Christian burial now will you?
 
vesper said:
That's a lie painted with such a broad brush that it would take more than two hands to hold it.
The Church, and I mean the body of believers not a denomination, is not viewed as a house for Saints but rather a hospital for Sinners. You will never experience forgiveness in this world like you do among true believers.
Click to expand...

As shown by this fine Christian pastor. :roll:
 
Lursa said:
I never said the church couldnt do it. I pointed out why it was selective, intolerant in the face of tolerance of other sins, and cruel.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In order for it to be 'selective' they would have to allow pictures of a junkie with a needle in his vein, or an alcoholic throwing down a fifth, or an adulterer hooked up in a 3 some. Homosexuality is, to them, the sinful behavior. Celebrate the individual...but dont endorse the sinful behavior. And for those that dont believe it is a sinful behavior, happily find a place more agreeable to your beliefs to hold the ceremony. Life is good, easy solution.
 
Cardinal said:
The church's actions stand for themselves. All we need do is watch and be thankful we don't live under theocratic rule.
Click to expand...

What's with the we, got a mouse in your pocket? You can watch all you want and you'll always see just what YOU want to see.
 
Jerry said:
Private property, they can do what they want.
Click to expand...

You are confusing "can" with "should"....there are a lot of things that people "Can" do....but just because you can doesn't always mean that you should.....just sayin.
 
clownboy said:
Your problems and hatred of religion aren't the issue here. You won't be asking for a Christian burial now will you?
Click to expand...

Not hatred...gratitude...that I don't live under theocratic rule. What the church has demonstrated is a microcosm of society in their own image if given complete power.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Look, I could understand the pastor refusing to do the funeral when they first approached him. But if he has this kind of bias, he should do the homework up front to find out if the dead person is gay or not.

Once the funeral is underway - there is no way he should have stopped and demanded that that pictures be removed. That is a gross dereliction of his pastoral duties in my opinion.

Family: Lakewood church stops woman's funeral because she was gay - The Denver Post
Click to expand...

Uhh. I'm not going to even claim I'd understand if the guy said no to giving the Eulogy.

Funerals are not for the deceased.

And for a minister to say no based on that individuals lifestyle choices - that's just ridiculous. Is a minister supposed to be a leader that follows the path of God or a piece of ****?

My father would not have said no - I know that much.
 
Cardinal said:
And that's why the most terrifying thing I can think of is for religious people to determine anything about my life "for my own good." What religious fundamentalists will do to other human beings under the guise of "merciful" and "for their own good" is the strongest reason for a secular political system I can think of. If it weren't for the behavior of the church in this regard and the one with the pregnant daycare employee Americans might forget that, and so the church has done us all an enormous favor.
Click to expand...
You want to cherry pick incidences and paint everyone with the same brush. You can't get more unfair than that. The true believer is in the business of forgiveness because their Lord taught them to be.
 
Seems a little misleading, it appears that the church asked them not to display pictures of her and her "wife" in the church, which is a completely reasonable request for a religious institution to ask those using their space not to portray items items or things that promote what the church believes is sinful. They didn't shut down the funeral, those attending decided to move it because they refused to comply.
 
VanceMack said:
I disagree. In order for it to be 'selective' they would have to allow pictures of a junkie with a needle in his vein, or an alcoholic throwing down a fifth, or an adulterer hooked up in a 3 some. Homosexuality is, to them, the sinful behavior. Celebrate the individual...but dont endorse the sinful behavior. And for those that dont believe it is a sinful behavior, happily find a place more agreeable to your beliefs to hold the ceremony. Life is good, easy solution.
Click to expand...

I gave similar examples, except mine were more ambiguous...as is kissing someone. Kissing someone is not inherently sinful....is there lust inherent in kisses? No. If the congregation chooses to attach that value to it then it's no different than them attaching sin to a woman kissing a man not her husband or someone toasting friends (in a congregation against drinking).
 
Somehow....I think if Jesus were sitting at this funeral he would have been appalled at the actions of this pastor.....just sayin.
 
digsbe said:
Seems a little misleading, it appears that the church asked them not to display pictures of her and her "wife" in the church, which is a completely reasonable request for a religious institution to ask those using their space not to portray items items or things that promote what the church believes is sinful. They didn't shut down the funeral, those attending decided to move it because they refused to comply.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

It's not reasonable. It's insulting and vial for anyone to dare have the balls to stick their nose into the private affairs of a family in that way and muss things up.

No way in hell does any of that get a flag from me.
 
VanceMack said:
What if the sky turned green and pooh stopped smelling like pooh?

The simple fact is the church and family disagreed on what should be allowed and the family, rather than comply, chose to take their party elsewhere. Why is this a problem? Is it just because gawdammit....they didnt get their way?

I dont think the family should have edited out people that were important to her. If they wanted to leave the pics in there then they should certainly be free to do so. Just hold the ceremony someplace else. Win win.
Click to expand...

I think the pastor should have told them upfront he wasn't comfortable with doing them and sent them elsewhere, instead of deciding right before the ceremony that he didn't like the pictures. Perhaps it was a question of interpretation - what he feels are "too celebratory of a lesbian lifestyle" (or whatever) they may have seen as just "depicting a loving relationship".

I think the way he did it was cruel and contrary to his profession. Was it his right? Sure. But was he right to do it? No.
 
vesper said:
You want to cherry pick incidences and paint everyone with the same brush. You can't get more unfair than that. The true believer is in the business of forgiveness because their Lord taught them to be.
Click to expand...

"Cherry picking?" So are you condemning the church's actions then? Because if an atheist committed a crime that I obviously condemned and you (as just an example) said that the crime represented atheistic behavior, then I could safely say you were cherry picking. But if you and several other Christians gather to defend the church's actions in this case, then it can't be said that I'm cherry picking, but that I'm taking note of a very real Christian trait when taken to fundamentalist levels.
 
disneydude said:
Somehow....I think if Jesus were sitting at this funeral he would have been appalled at the actions of this pastor.....just sayin.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, perhaps he would have went the other way and gone all moneylenders in the temple on them, condemned them to hell.
 
digsbe said:
Seems a little misleading, it appears that the church asked them not to display pictures of her and her "wife" in the church, which is a completely reasonable request for a religious institution to ask those using their space not to portray items items or things that promote what the church believes is sinful. They didn't shut down the funeral, those attending decided to move it because they refused to comply.
Click to expand...

I do think that's more of a reality and correct. I mean, if your college age daughter was in that casket, would you demand that they show the pick of her in a wet t-shirt contest on Spring Break? The parents may love that pic (hey, it's possible, lol) but I can see the church objecting.

I guess it's just that kissing a loved one is integral to who that person was, so I find their objection....objectionable. But I have not said that I didnt believe they couldnt make that decision. I just find it a sad deforming of actual Christian values.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No it's not.

It's not reasonable. It's insulting and vial for anyone to dare have the balls to stick their nose into the private affairs of a family in that way and muss things up.

No way in hell does any of that get a flag from me.
Click to expand...

It's completely reasonable for an organization that owns the building and is permitting them to use it to set standards for what goes on on their property. What's insulting is using a space, completely disrespecting and disregarding the beliefs and rules of the establishment and being unwilling to comply when a host makes a reasonable request like "please don't display this picture because we find it violates X." Just because someone died and they are mourning doesn't give them license to disrespect the property of others nor is anyone or any institution under obligation to bend their morals or rules to accommodate others that don't want to respect such things. I wouldn't expect to have my funeral in a mosque and have the imams and clerics allow my family to display crosses or images depicting Christ as the Son of God or things that they find blasphemous.

Lursa said:
I do think that's more of a reality and correct. I mean, if your college age daughter was in that casket, would you demand that they show the pick of her in a wet t-shirt contest on Spring Break? The parents may love that pic (hey, it's possible, lol) but I can see the church objecting.

I guess it's just that kissing a loved one is integral to who that person was, so I find their objection....objectionable. But I have not said that I didnt believe they couldnt make that decision. I just find it a sad deforming of actual Christian values.
Click to expand...

I would agree, I think from a Christian perspective, if expectations weren't given prior to the funeral that out of mercy they should have allowed it while not condoning such a lifestyle or marriage. However, as far as the request or decision of the church being unreasonable, I don't think that it was. I think they were within their rights and the fault is on those refusing to comply with the rules or requests of the host.
 
Texmex said:
As shown by this fine Christian pastor. :roll:
Click to expand...
Maybe you should be asking yourself why those insisted in violating the pastor's rules for the church he shepherds were not respected by the deceased's family? If they wanted the funeral in his church they had to follow his rules and they did not showing no respect for the beliefs of the pastor that they chose off the Internet because they couldn't muster up one between all the friends and family present.
 
clownboy said:
What's with the we, got a mouse in your pocket? You can watch all you want and you'll always see just what YOU want to see.
Click to expand...

Why are you confused by my use of the word "we?" Are you under the impression that I'm the only person here who wouldn't want to live in a society dictated by the church's views of right and wrong?
 
Yeah we all know the constitutional technicalities and blah blah blah...

In terms of the common trust and the moral fabric between every day people, what the pastor did was morally reprehensible and cruel. Too many Christians think that it's their job to carry out God's scorn. It's unfortunate that this brand of delusional thinking continues to lead to so much heartache and grief in our world.

With any luck the pastor's reputation will be ruined and he will go through his own deep reflection process about how he can be a better person for humanity -- fat chance though.
 
vesper said:
I've read the article.
The lesbian couple evidently had no pastor or friend or members of their families who could provide a pastor to perform a Christian burial but instead found Pastor Ray's church off the Internet because it was a convenient location. That's rather odd that none of their many friends couldn't cough up the name of a minister in the area that they personally knew.

Second, anytime a pastor does a funeral for someone he does not know, if he is a good pastor, he spends several hours interviewing family and friends as he wants to get to know the deceased so that he/she can comfort those in mourning of their loved one in remembering the good of the life of the deceased. Sounds like Pastor Roy did just that and found out that the deceased was in a same sex relationship and told them that part of the deceased's life he could not highlight. And they blew him off by highlighting it anyway and the funeral was then moved from the church and held at the funeral home.

There's a lot of folks out there that want a church wedding and a Christian burial but they don't want anything else required of them in between. A lot of ministers/pastors find funerals and weddings an opportunity to preach the Gospel. I think the time has come for pastors/ministers/preachers to limit themselves to those in their congregation or a loved one associated with their congregation instead of hiring out for a fee to perform a ceremony for just anyone. Hopefully Pastor Roy has learned that lesson.
Click to expand...

So what your saying is that no one who acts unchristian cannot have church wedding or burial? By my experience that is every "Christian" I have met. There has been and will be no human that lives up to the Christian ideal. You just choose believe one sin is more egregious than others and use that to defend cruelty. I could see if the family placed pictures of the woman having sex with her partner being a problem. That is not the case. It was showing her in her best moments as all people want to be remembered. Some of those best moments were with her chosen partner...big surprise. The minister showed a wantonness thinly veiled as religiosity simply because he does not like their lifestyle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom