May 10, 2008

Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human-rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United States First Amendment grants absolute freedom of speech.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. On its face, it prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibit free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Freedom of religion is the freedom of an individual or community, in
public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. Freedom of religion is a human right...the right to practice any or no religion without persecution by the government.

The University of Toledo President, Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, violated both the Freedom of speech and the Freedom of religion when he suspended and recently terminated the employment of the associate vice president for Human Resources, Crystal Dixon. Dr. Jacobs stated in the Toledo Free Press that, “her comments do not accord with the values of the University of Toledo. It is necessary, therefore, for me to repudiate much of her writing and to make this attempt to clarify our values system.”

Dr. Jacobs must realize that Crystal Dixon did not discriminate against anyone, but rather expressed her views in regard to the homosexual lifestyle. In her article in the Toledo Free Press, she spoke based on her opinions and religious beliefs. The First Amendment of the United States, protects the human rights of individuals and permits them to speak openly. Dr. Jacobs violated this right, by terminating Crystal Dixon based on her views on homosexuality. This is blatant discrimination.

Dr. Jacobs recently wrote a letter to the legislatures of the state of Ohio, on behalf of the University of Toledo, to support Senate Bill 305 and House Bill 502. Those legislative initiatives extend to domestic partners a number of rights and privileges.

Dr. Jacobs, it is my Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. It is a choice that individuals make. There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God’s words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. It goes against the
created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they
are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This has been the definition of marriage in Western culture, and it is the only marriage ordained by God (Genesis 2:18-22; Matthew 19:3-9; Ephesians 5:22-33). Recent events and trends in Toledo have threatened to undermine this definition.

It is my Christian belief that marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards and the means for procreation of the human race. I affirm that God established the moral definition of marriage, and that it should not be changed according to the dictates of culture, tradition, or personal preference. I strongly and whole-heartedly deny that the morality of marriage is a matter of mere custom, or that it should be allowed to shift with
the tide of cultural opinion or social practice. I reject the claim that homosexual (domestic partnership) unions should be granted equivalent moral status to heterosexual monogamous marriage, regardless of the terminology used to describe those unions. I affirm the biblical model of marriage, the union of one man and one woman as the only appropriate model for uniting people in marriage. I strongly deny that
this conviction is incompatible with redemptive ministry to homosexuals. Homosexuals need the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they need the ministry of the church, just like everyone else.

Sin is sin no matter what people try to dress it up as. Domestic partnership is nothing more than sin. According to scriptures, God loves the sinner but He hates the sin. I encourage my fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord to reach out in redemptive ministry to homosexuals, while at the same time opposing the unbiblical concept of homosexual marriages and domestic partnerships.

As a community activist, but more importantly as a Christian...I must publicly denounce the University of Toledo and the actions of it's President Dr. Lloyd Jacobs. I stand in agreement, support, and commend Crystal Dixon for having the courage to stand for what is biblically and morally right.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Sin is sin no matter what people try to dress it up as. Domestic partnership is nothing more than sin. According to scriptures, God loves the sinner but He hates the sin. I encourage my fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord to reach out in redemptive ministry to homosexuals, while at the same time opposing the unbiblical concept of homosexual marriages and domestic partnerships.

The ostracization of organized religion in my life is because of "radical" views such as this.

Well done and keep up the good work of divisiveness in society in the "name of God".

Brian, God is an equal opportunity deity. His grace and forgiveness is available to anyone repentant of his sins and with a desire to follow Him. What he is not, however, is unclear. Homosexuality is a sin. That does not mean that I think homosexuals are sub-human entities. What that does mean, however, is that I do not condone their behavior. As a Christian, those are the beliefs that I am required to hold. This does not mean that God's love, grace, and forgiveness are not available to homosexuals: it is just as available to them as it is to me. But still on the condition of repentance, which includes fleaing from your sin. That's how it works for everyone, why shouldn't it work that way for them?

Also, what makes you think that God is not divisive? I'm kind of sensing the idea that the Christian God is a weak, whimpy God who doesn't care about what we do or say or believe. Quite the opposite, Jesus himself came with the intention of being a divisive factor in the world. One is either for Him or against Him. You can't ride the fence, no one can. That's about as divisive as it gets, so if you're accusing Christians of being divisive, thanks :)

Ms. Dixon has chosen to be for Him. Sometimes that means persecution. That doesn't make it right what Dr. Jacobs did here.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

For reasons best known to himself, Michael S. Miller, Editor in Chief of the Toledo Free Press, self-published an inflammatory article entitled Gay Rights and Wrongs. The article calls attention to the purported difficulty of being a homosexual forced to live within an intolerant, homophobic society. Mr. Miller begins by claiming that some of his best friends and at least one relative are homosexuals, and concludes that he doesn't understand their plight but he's willing to learn.

I suspect that the motivations behind Mr. Miller's personal opinion piece have more to do with circulation than a desire to publish a philosophical, thought provoking editorial about freedom and homophobia, but that's just my own opinion.

In response to this, Crystal Dixon wrote Gay Rights and Wrongs: Another Perspective which piece was subsequently published in the Toledo Free Press. Ms. Miller begins her article, "I read with great interest Michael Miller's April 6 column, 'Gay Rights and Wrongs.'" I hope she's kidding about the "great interest" part. I suspect this is hyperbole, and that Ms. Dixon was bored one afternoon and decided to write a reply, but I may be wrong. Ms. Dixon continues, "I respectfully submit a different perspective..." Ms. Dixon, get over yourself. You aren't respectfully submitting anything. You are about to tell your audience that Michael S. Miller is up to his eyes in stable dressing and that homosexuality is morally repugnant and Biblically wrong, no more nor less. Organize your thoughts, cite your sources and get it done.

Outside of being poorly written, I see absolutely nothing that's discriminatory about Crystal Dixon's article. She doesn't advocate discrimination or abuse of anyone because of their sexual proclivities. I suspect my beliefs make me a minority.

I cannot even begin to guess why Dr. Lloyd Jacobs would fire Crystal Dixon over something this trivial. I suspect that there's a lot more to Crystal's termination than one article published in a weekly paper with a circulation well into the triple digits. Could it be that Dr. Jacobs doesn't like Ms. Dixon personally, and was looking for an excuse to fire her? It's likely that we'll never know.

What I do know is that the inalienable right to freedom of speech doesn't apply here. Free speech applies to individuals, and the freedom is protected by the US Government. The freedom of speech is not an absolute; certain speech is prohibited by law.

Crystal Dixon wasn't arrested or charged with a crime for her speech, nor was she prohibited from speaking her opinion. Like everyone else, her words carry consequences.

Do I think it was wrong for Dr. Jacobs to fire Crystal Dixon for her published opinion? Yes, beyond the shadow of any doubt I believe it was morally wrong for Dr. Jacobs to fire Crystal, but in Ohio that doesn't matter. Your employer has the right to fire you for what ever reason that amuses them. I'm sorry to learn about Crystal Dixon's undeserved, unfair termination, but I'm sure she'll find another, better position in the future.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If Congress can make no law PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE of religion, what makes the Supreme Court think IT CAN MAKE A LAW PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE of religion?

And FURTHERMORE, the Supreme Court has defined ATHEISM AS A VALID "BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING" and therefore a RELIGION.
(See U.S. Vs. Seeger @ ol=163)

"These cases involve claims of conscientious objectors under 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 456 (j) (1958 ed.), which exempts from combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States those persons who by [380 U.S. 163, 165] reason of their religious training and belief are conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. The cases were consolidated for argument and we consider them together although each involves different facts and circumstances. The parties raise the basic question of the constitutionality of the section which defines the term "religious training and belief," as used in the Act, as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."


Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

Fortunately for homosexuals, there are religious factions other than Bishop's, in which their marriage can be authenticated by religious authorities.

UNfortunately for homosexuals, we're in about 41 thousand square miles (i.e. Ohio) where their marriage cannot be authenticated by secular authorities, given that Ohio's population of religious dingbats and other bigots passed a law against it.

Bishop, I'm looking directly at YOU. If that law had said that "a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman of the same race", you'd have lost your fucking mind. But lacking just those last 4 words, and according to your Medieval (well, more "medium evil") philosophy, you're OK with the result. Hypocrisy much?

Remember this quote from somebody you might know about?:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Maybe YOU need to spend some time in a Birmingham jail before you understand what justice and equality are all about.

P.S. We called them the Dark Ages for a very good reason. Humanity is supposed to move forward into a future of greater liberty and prosperity. Socially we should be Liberal, since each person is supposed to be valued as an individual with differences ... you know, differences like having varying skin color, or sexual practices, or education level, or being a loudmouth in some newspaper.

Religious dingbats? That's the best you can do? Come on, GZ, don't hold back on my account. Tell it like it is!

GZ makes one good comment, which I particularly like: If that law had said that "a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman of the same race", you'd have lost your fucking mind. I think that hits pretty close to the bull's eye.

Mr. Bishop, what do you suppose your reaction would be if a group of middle aged homosexual men and women showed up at your Church building in time for Sunday morning services? How would your congregation react? Maybe more to the point, how do you hope your congregation would react?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Bishop had a secondary agenda that was far more important to him than the "1st Amendment", and that agenda is his fear of gays having equal rights. He uttered a few words pertinent to the freedom of speech, which he of course would NOT have defended had the tables been turned. Then he rapidly launched into the tirade against gays, using the god-as-boogeyman argument as they always do, and on and on. Read one, you've read them all.
The job was not with a church who teaches those values(?). In a secular job, personal bias using religion as an excuse cannot be tolerated. And a Supreme Court without a burr in its eye, as this one has against gays, women, blacks, etc., would also recognize that religious arguments against secular gay marriage should NOT be upheld. But they really can't find a GOOD reason why gays shouldn't marry, so they grab the god boogeyman again. They are unconstitutional in their rulings based on religion because we have a separation of Church and State.


Your comment makes it seem as though you have very little understanding of the Constitution. Firstly, can you tell me where the Constitution necesitates a "separation of church and state"? It doesn't. What it does specify that the government may not make any laws infringing the free practice of religion. That's it, that's the end of what the Constitution says about religion. (Trivia Question for anyone: Where does the phrase "separation of church and state" originate?).

Furthermore, the conversation here doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Gay rights should be recognized. Pay attention and you will find that this thread is about whether or not it was morally and ethically correct for Dr. Jacobs to have terminated Ms. Dixon's employment on the basis of her personal beliefs. Wanna chime in with something productive, or are you more comfortable spewing inaccuracies about the Constitution and bashing Christians?

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

While the constitution may not cite to the verbaige "Seperation of Church and State" it was surely the intent of our founding father Thomas Jefferson whose concern over this matter led to the "Establishment Clause". The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction - his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical truths as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state. Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as favors granted. Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase wall of separation between church and state which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today; "Separation of church and state". __________________________________________

- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

Learned some thing new/more about my home town, Danbury, thanks.

Crusie, what is it like to know something and then intentionally avoid the logical conclusions of that knowledge?

What I mean here is that you know this:

US Constitution, Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [....]

... yet you conclude that there's no separation of "church and state".

It only stands to reason that if the federal government (and all states that copied the First Amendment into their own constitutions) cannot make laws either establishing or restricting any religion, then ANY religion cannot be a part of public policy as a driver. In other words, the government must remain religiously-neutral. In yet other words, church (or mosque or synagogue or whatever) and state must remain separate.

I was at a seminar in Canada some years ago when one of the Canadian students said to me how much he admired the concept of freedom of speech in the United States. I chuckled and told him it is a right we Americans in the United States do have, but I also told him those who speak freely must speak wisely and smartly. There are consequences to every spoken word and who is speaking those words. If a homeless person calls a woman a slut, most likely it will be ignored. If the mayor of the City calls a woman a slut, its lawsuit time. People should understand who they are. Even though I disagree with her firing, I understand why she was fired.Its more about who she is and what she is supposed to represent thats the issue.

I'm not really sure how to take your post, Bishop. Here are a couple of reactions:

It's interesting that you call Dr. Jacob's firing of Crystal Dixon blatant discrimination, yet most of your post goes on to advocate the outright discrimination of other human beings. That is hypocrisy of the nth degree. You say you are for freedoms of Americans, yet want to take away those away from other citizens. I don't know what's up with that. I admit that it does make me think about your other posts in a very different light.

Dr. Jacobs is well within his rights as the head of a major educational institution. And I will go farther - it is explicitly his responsibility to take action based on her article in the Free Press. Her article is rife with bigoted speech, and honestly quite repugnant. As a representative of the University, if her public statements go against the institution's core values, then by gosh she should be let go. As an employer, you have the right to establish the core values of your own institution.

From her own article, "At the same time, one's personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative." Exactly.

I do not want to make this posting about the bible and homosexuality, perhaps that should be another thread, but I went and re-read the bible passages you quote, and in no way do they define marriage as between a man and a woman. If that is your predetermined notion, then of course they will support that argument based on how vague they are.

I assume, though, that you are against the possibility of divorce and remarriage, as that IS explicitly listed in your passages as being considered adultery in the eyes of God.

I stand firm on my convictions and moral beliefs. I will not waiver, I will not falter...but I will stand steadfast and unmovable. Even if that means that I must stand alone for what I believe to be right. I must continue to preach the gospel in season and out of season. To live is Christ and to die is gain...I am willing to die, to lay down my life for the uncompromising Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am not a political person, I am a preacher. And while society may make laws and accept immoral standards of for me, I will serve the Lord.

Therefore, society may make all the laws that they choose to make...BUT if it does not line up with the Word of God...I stand against it.

We are living in the season as recorded in 2 Timothy chapter 4. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

I know Toledo may be use to churches, pastors and religious leaders being silent on issues such as this...but I will not, and I challenge others not to compromise but to stand on the Word of God as well.

I commend Crystal Dixon for standing firm on her convictions.

The Bishop and others are doing just that, and that is good and admirable.

But what I do wonder, and answers really do not come, but reflections on faith do, how is a gay marriage effecting my heterosexual marriage.

How does granting a partnership, union of two people, marriage, call it what ever, influencing heterosexual marriage, other than people say it says this here or there.

Reading and reciting the words is great, and I mean no ill will to any, but how is my marriage or that of my oldest, marrying a man someday that she has lived with for over 5 years, influenced or hurt by the joining of a gay couple.

OK....Not really sure what you mean by your last post there....Those are wonderful statements to make, but those are vague generalities that really mean nothing without the context of action and specificity. If you feel that society is making many immoral laws, what are the top 10 or so laws that are incompatible with your beliefs?

Does that mean (a) that you are for literal interpretation of all Bible passages, and/or (b) enactment of societal law that is in line with the Bible?

Absolutely, commend Crystal for stating her convictions, she has a right to be able to state her beliefs, and I applaud Lloyd Jacobs for taking action to demonstrate that the University is a place that is safe for people of different races, religions, and lifestyles to come together and learn (ah, at least in theory). And perhaps throw a party or two.

And mayhap other religions leaders are silent on "issues such as this", because (a) they agree with this action and/or (b) do not feel that religion (or Christianity) is inherently anti-homosexual as you seem to state it is.

If Ms. Dixon worked in almost any other department but Human Resources, her opinion piece wouldn't even be an issue. She could exercise her freedom of speech, and while the University may not have liked it, they likely wouldn't have disciplined her.

However, she does work in Human Resources, and because of that her article (even though it was just her own personal opinion) does reflect on how she may be able to do her job. She should have thought about the consequences before making a public statement like that.

If an HR person had written an opinion piece for publication disparaging certain races or ethnic groups, the masses would have been calling for their heads. Ms. Dixon's firing is no different.

I think, Sarah, that your point would be valid if there were any evidence that her personal opinons were conflicting with her duties at work. I have not heard or seen, however, any allegations that Ms. Dixon actually discriminated against someone, then she does not deserve to be fired.

That is not simply my opinon, that is the law. And I'm sure that the University has some sort of a non-discrimination clause (I'm involoved extensively in Student Governance at my University) that also prevents this, if not explicitly then implicitly.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

The first thing I have to say to Bishop is that there is a "Christian version" of the ACLU, and it's the American Center for Law and Justice ( If you're interested in these issues, visit their website. There are a lot of interesting things as far as legislation and stuff going on, and they know all about it.

Secondly, I agree with what Bishop has said. I think that your assessment of the proper interpretation of the First Amendment is one of the most concise and correct definition that I have ever heard.

More to the point, Dr. Jacobs has no legal or moral right to have terminated Ms. Dixon (apologies if she deserves a different title). Her opinions were expressed as her own, not those of the University. Furthermore, it is no business of my employer what my personal opinions on any subject are and how I express them (unless it begins to affect the way I do my job in some way).

It would be one case in my mind if Dr. Jacobs were just trying to be fair and impartial. But instead, he is expressing his own opinon from the platform of University President and wiping out everyone who disagrees with him. That is no way to act as a decent human being or a University President.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

Would you like a Christian, religious post Wombat? Fine.

If we believe Michael S. Miller, Editor in Chief of the Toledo Free Press, Ms. Dixon confessed her position as "Associate Vice President for Human Resources, University of Toledo and Elder/Minister, End Time Christian Fellowship, Toledo."

Ms. Dixon would lecture the rest of us on Holy Scripture, Christian behavior and The Lord, she being an elder and minister in the Church. How Ms. Dixon accomplishes this while sitting quietly next to her husband I can't quite guess, but she must do so, because as you can see in Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: 34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

Then I have a quote from Mr. Bishop, I am willing to die, to lay down my life for the uncompromising Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm reminded of Peter and his pride at the last supper, as related in Luke.

Luke 22:31 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

33 But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death."

34 Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."

Anyone can die. That's easy. If anyone has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, when that person dies he or she will go to Heaven and have eternal happiness. While I don't court death I certainly don't fear it, nor should Mr. Bishop if he, in fact, has accepted the Lord. Death is easy. Living and serving the Lord is the hard part, working away at whatever tasks are in front of you, day after day, year in and year out. Now that's tough!

Peter said what he did because of pride. He wanted to be recognized as a great follower among the apostles because of pride. When I read Mr. Bishop's posts, I tend to see a good deal of pride being expressed.

Finally I am repeating my questions to Mr. Bishop:

Mr. Bishop, what do you suppose your reaction would be if a group of middle aged homosexual men and women showed up at your Church building in time for Sunday morning services? How would your congregation react? Maybe more to the point, how do you hope your congregation would react?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

MadJack...if a group of homosexuals showed up at a worship service, I would welcome them with open arms.

I don't mean to mess with your theology, but the church is not a building...the church are those who have a relationship with Jesus Christ...those that He is coming back for.

We are nothing more than sinners saved by grace, through the blood of Jesus Christ. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. All of us...myself included!

No sin is greater than any other sin...homosexuality is a sin just like lying is a sin. Thank God for His grace and mercy.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that a person is born a homosexual. I believe that is a choice that they choose...I also believe that there are some who may have been violated when they were younger, which caused them to struggle in their sexuality later on in their life. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is able to heal us all and reconcile as back to Him...if we cast all our burdens on Him. We cannot stop sinning on our own. That is the fleshly desire of mankind since man was seperated from God by the sin of Adam and Eve.

God did not send His son to condemn the world, but to set people free from the bondage of sin.

Mark 2:17, "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

I think when it comes to homosexuality and the church...

The church is at fault for handling sexuality so poorly. We have too often been silent and failed to offer families guidance in an area which is part of the image of God in each of us, male and female. Our sexuality was created by God to be good, but has been distorted by the Fall.

We must realize what homosexuality is, so that we can accurately address it. I divide homosexuality into four parts.

First is sexual behavior; second is the desire for a person of the same sex. Homosexual identity is the third part. Lastly, lifestyle is what I call the clothes, parades, bars, and organizations we often associate with homosexuality. Some, such as men in prison, exhibit the behavior without the desire. Others struggle with the desire, but never "act out" the behavior. Some are closeted; others are openly in the homosexual or lesbian lifestyle. The degree to which the struggle with homosexuality becomes a central part of one's identity also varies from person to person.

The woman's son or daughter be might be a teenager struggling with questions of sexual identity who has never acted on those desires. Her son or daughter might have been in the gay or lesbian lifestyle for quite a while, just now coming out to their family. Her daughter could be a lesbian after sexual or physical abuse by men, such as a father, brother, boyfriend or husband. Another person in the church might have a spouse who is secretly acting out in a homosexual manner. Some would call this person a bisexual. Two women in the church might be living together for companionship; today's climate might cast suspicion that they are lesbians. What makes them lesbians?

As you can see, the variety of behavior, desire, identity and lifestyle makes homosexuality complex. I even wonder if we do well to use the name "homosexuality." Obviously this is not just an urban problem, but is widespread in our sexually permissive society.

Secondly, the church needs to make information about homosexuality available. We need to keep homosexuality in perspective. All sin separates us from God—no matter if it is homosexual or heterosexual. Many gay men and lesbians lead productive lives and contribute to society. We are all sinners; there is good and bad in all of us.

The father in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son has a most difficult position as he waits for his son to come home. We can search for lost sheep and lost coins, but people must come home on their own. We need to ask God for patience.

When homosexual persons do come home, the church should give them welcome.

However, in giving them a welcome...the church should not agree with the sin of homosexuality, but should love the person enough to give them God's Word, and through prayer, fellowship and God's grace, the person will someday change.

All of us sin, therefore, all of us need to be delivered from something.

The Word of God, and the love of God will never leave you where you are. An encounter with the love of Christ will change your life forever.

The beautiful thing is that as long as you have life, you have another opportunity to get it right.

God's mercies are new every day!!!!!!

The Word of God, and the love of God will never leave you where you are. An encounter with the love of Christ will change your life forever.

Amen to that! This is your best post so far, Mr. Bishop. Lord bless you!

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

what would a " group of middle aged homosexual men and women" look like? Would they have on signs or what?

what would a " group of middle aged homosexual men and women" look like? Would they have on signs or what?

Only the ones in front wear the sandwich signs.

The men are portly with short graying hair. They wear suits made of hotel drapes, white shirts, narrow ties and wingtip shoes. No socks are worn. They skip along the sidewalk, holding hands and singing a chorus of, "I'm a Lumberjack and I'm Ok"

The women are militant. They wear Levi's jeans, cowboy boots, wife beater tee shirts and subdued urban camouflage headbands. They follow in the wake of the men, defiantly singing "I am woman, hear me roar".

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

The constitution calls for the separation of church and state. Reading theses blogs confirms the reason why. The Puritans didn't separate church and state and look at the sick things they did to people accused of witchcraft.

Meaning that the State will not have an officially recognized religion.

The Salem witch trials occurred in 1692 under British rule. US law would prevent anything like the witch trials from happening. Naturally enough, US law was also supposed to prevent the activities of the KKK, but I don't think the law slowed those murderers down much at all.

My point here is that the Salem witch trials and the Puritans have the same relationship as the infamous activities of the KKK and the Christian church. Persecutors all claim to be one thing - Puritans and Christians - while their actions declare them to be something completely different.

We have the same thing today. People declare themselves to be good Christians, and in the same breath decry another group as sub-human servants of the evil one.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Its very difficult to determine who is a religious zealot and who is not. Just recently a so called minister revealed to me he is prepared to shoot someone if they broke into his house. Without pausing he went on to anoint my desk with olive oil so he could save my soul because my religious beliefs, although Christian, are quite different than his own. My point is, when people mix their rligion with their work or play its going to cause problems. They should be prepared to accept the consequences.

Joe, the problem with what you have said is that as a Christian, my "religious beliefs" are separate from nothing in my life. So I'm not sure how much of the Bible you are familiar with, since Paul exhorts Christ followers to do everything to God's glory.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

Joe. You are incorrect in your assessment of what the Constitution says. A cursory read of the Bill of Rights (not even the whole body of the Constitution itself) will reveal your mistake. The Constitution does NOT call for a separation of church and state.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

Nor does it anywhere say "separation of powers". But that's what we clearly have (or had). Or would you also suggest that we don't have separation of powers because the Constitution does not contain the exact phrase?

Pink Slip

Pink Slip, it has become clear from what you have said to me and to others in this thread that you are not interested in an actual conversation, so I am done with you. Your understanding of Constitutional theory is lacking such that I can't have this conversation with you.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

Your understanding of Constitutional theory is lacking such that I can't have this conversation with you

Haha. This coming from someone who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. None the less, I agree with you---you can't have this conversation.

Pink Slip

Haha. "believe in," like it is some diety that I could deny the existence of.

The end of my paying any attention to you or your ridiculously inflamatory comments...

Anyone interested in a real convo?

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

Hey - can you show me where the separation of church and state are in our Constitution, Bill of Rights - or heck - let's go all the way. IN ANY DOCUMENT?

The only thing that is in our documents is the clear restraint of government having the right to establish a religion.

The next pertinent mention would be the PROHIBITION of the government having an opinion on how people practice their faith. That's because people are bigots against Christians and it isn't new. They were experiencing the same ignorance and intolerance when the founding documents were being drawn up.

People who are intolerant, such as some who post here, of any viewpoint that is different than their own are as old as time.

Our founding fathers just wanted to be extra certain that the government mandated and controlled religion would not happen here. And those controlling type personalities just can't stand that we're allowed to have our own beliefs. And without their permission! Of all the nerve!!!!

I don't know a whole lot about the bible, but I do know this. There are a lot of things which are probably true and there are a lot of fairy tales in the book

Anyone else confused as to the pertinence of this comment other than to inflame Christians?

This one isn't biting.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...


rescue me

".if a group of homosexuals showed up at a worship service, I would welcome them with open arms."

They would be welcome as they are, or looked at as if in need of help or something else.

"what would a " group of middle aged homosexual men and women" look like?"

Great question... :-)

Bishop, I submit that you are not welcoming them with open arms. A hug and an invitation to a pot luck is a great start, but that falls short of being truly welcoming. You are fairly adamant that something that is fundamental to their very being is flawed and needs to be corrected. You are outright saying that they are, well, wrong at the core. Which they obviously would disagree with, with good reason.

You say we are all sinners, and who would disagree with that. Not me. Thou shalt not steal - check. Covet thy neighbor's wife, possessions, etc. - check. Many of us will agree with rules to live by such as these, and that we all commit sins against God all the time, and are in the process (hopefully) of growing to be better humans and closer to God. I'm pretty down with what you're saying there. But you equate homosexuality as a sin on par with these and others like these? I think you do this to make it appear as if you're not making a big deal of it, that it's just another thing to overcome on the path to God. Wow. Can you not see how offensive that is? I went back and re-read your Toledo View article on Chitterlings, house/field negros, and your:
"struggle to uplift black people in modern day America"
I'm having a hard time reconciling your words in that column with the words you are putting together in this post.

""Persecutors all claim to be one thing - Puritans and Christians - while their actions declare them to be something completely different.
We have the same thing today. People declare themselves to be good Christians, and in the same breath decry another group as sub-human servants of the evil one""

That's a beautiful statement! Just had to restate it. And this reminds me of how the Bible was used to support slavery and segregation. It's pretty easy to quote the Bible in support of many discriminatory practices. I mean, heck, you just need to pull out some pretty explicit passages that are pretty clear. Wrong...Despicable. I'm curious as to why THIS type of cherrypicking re: intolerance&homosexuality is ok, while the other are not? And I don't speak this as a condemnation of the Bible, in fact I support our study and discussion of it, in its historical and religious context and in application to our current lives, but our own beliefs are made manifest in how we interpret and use the Bible as a tool to further our own agendas.

And perhaps the visiting GLBT would have those goofy T-Shirts with arrows on them that say "I'm with..." on them ;)

""We must realize what homosexuality is, so that we can accurately address it.""
You say it's a choice, but many would argue that it is not really. Science indicates that there appears to be a significant biological component, in confluence with a number of other factors, that would suggest that it isn't a mere choice like what you want to be when you grow up, or what haircut you want to have. You define four elements of homosexuality, but really haven't shed any light on what homosexuality is. You just describe four elements you associate with homosexuality. I wonder how much time you actually spend with homosexuals in a commited, lasting, loving relationship. I would imagine not very much.

The thought has crossed my mind that those who demand tolerance from Christians are not themselves particularly tolerant. For instance, Dr. Jacobs thinks that Ms. Dixon ought to be tolerant of homosexuality. How is it, then, that someone who touts tolerance is so very intolerant of Christians and their worldview?

Any thoughts on this?

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

In this case it is a place of business and staff is expected to follow the corporate mantra.

She surely was aware of the possible repercussions about expressing a personal view point, contrary to the statements of her employer.

The collage was being intolerant because of her faith?

Christians do not all share the same views as one another, some think Polygamy is perfectly acceptable, some do not.

Some welcome GLBT as members and some do not.

Ah...crusader09 pulls out the old "Abbott & Costello" defense. That is---"I will be intolerant of others. But it's ok, because those are my beliefs. You on the other hand must tolerate my intolerance, or else you are intolerant.. Third base". Classic. It's common wordplay used to justify bigotry.

Pink Slip

that others expect and receive is intolerance? Where do you get that from?

Can this man fire someone based upon the color of their skin (leave the Mayor out of it)? No.

Can he fire someone for ANY reason that violates any of the Federally protected classes? INCLUDING religion?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects you if you are a person of "any color, gender, national origin, race, or religious belief, and you work for an employer with at least 15 employees".

Where do you people get this stuff? Obviously it's illegal to have fired this woman for writing about her religious belief on her own personal time. Heck - it is a violation of her Civil Rights.

Obviously it's illegal to have fired this woman for writing about her religious belief on her own personal time

Was it her own personal time? Anytime someone in a postion of hers at a public university, makes such a public declaration which explicitly describes the business of said university----it can easily be construed that this person is representing the university. If the president of Wal-Mart writes an op-ed about their employees benefits, and mixes in a few bigoted statements, it starts to blur the line between what is company policy and what is personal opinion.

Pink Slip

The news report I heard when it started said that she was writing on her own time. And you just overlook the Civil Rights aspect?

It is indeed an amazing thing to see how some people feel about Christians. They even want to see their Civil Rights violated and have them unemployed because they don't think the way you say they should. Because they have their own beliefs.

Do you think you're a tolerant person? Because that is not a tolerant position.

I know what the news report said, but you didn't comment about representing the university's business publicly.

To reply to your Civil Rights aspect, people here are saying she was fired because of her religious beliefs. UT never said that. We don't know exactly why she was fired. If she was fired for being a Christian, then by all means it would be wrong and she should sue for a bunch of money.

Do you think you're a tolerant person?

Of course. If I wasn't tolerant of religious people, I'd never get anything done. They're everywhere....

Pink Slip

I am concerned about wasting time and curious about your motives. 'They're everywhere....' emphasis on everywhere. That could be construed (quite easily) to be a bigoted statement. We shall see.

This is a violation of the lady's civil rights. If you haven't read the Civil Rights Act you may do so here; "" it was a wonderful piece of legislation introduced by President Kennedy. If you don't know who he was, you can look him up while you're visiting wiki.

The Supreme Court has ruled over and over that you do not leave your right to your faith while you are at work or at school - however it was publicly stated that she had penned this on her own time. If you have evidence to the contrary it would be prudent to state it. Otherwise it might be believed you're being devious in your debate by suggesting unsustainable and immaterial offshoots in an attempt at derail honest debate on the topic.

And far as why she was fired, the President of UT made his own public statement. If you cannot figure out why she was fired by reading her letter and his following public response then I haven't any business speaking with you about it. It's obviously over your head and I could be sleeping.

Good night.

Thanks popeye for citing wiki for me. I have heard of this President Kennedy of which you speak. However, rather than just citing wiki pieces, I would rather discuss these issues with you. I have already conceded that, IF she was fired for being a Christian (or Muslim, Jew, etc.) that she indeed would have had her civil rights violated. I just don't feel that was the case. If she does, she's more than welcome to use our courts to prove it. That's what they're there for. The truth is, we don't know what happened in the time between her suspension and her firing. If you have knowledge of what happened in this time, I would invite to you share it.

You also seem to have a hard time understanding the concept of representing your employer, when you make public statements. It is not an "immaterial offshoot". It is EXACTLY what happened. She represented herself as someone working on benefits for UT, and then made statements that might suggest she regard one minority group over another.

Pink Slip

I said nothing of the sort. You are reading your own biases into what I have said. I'm not interested in conversation with you, because it will be inherently flawed and dishonest. Your "bigotry" against Christians with a Christian worldview blinds you from being able to have productive debate or even simple discussion.

Those of you who have read my post and wish to respond in an attempt at real conversation, I'm game for that.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

That is EXACTLY the question you asked. Don't go lying about it now. And not all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. If you think all Christians do, then perhaps it is you that has the problem.

Pink Slip

I'm sorry that your faculties seem to have failed you, but I am not responsible for your inability to read what I have said accurately.

I asked whether anyone found it absurd that Dr. Jacobs, in the interest of being "tolerant" of homosexuality, was directly intolerant of Christianity.

That actually says nothing about what I think or believe.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

One- there are many Christians who do not find homosexuality wrong or a sin. So to say that Dr. Jacobs is intolerant of Christianity and its worldview is inaccurate.

Two - Dr. Jacobs does not state what Ms. Dixon should or should not believe in his letter to the Free Press. He does, however, state what the University's position is on GLBT issues, and of promoting an atmosphere of diversity and tolerance. In fact, on campuses these meaty discussions are prominent as young 'ens (and not-to-young-ens) try to come to grips major life issues. And that free exchange in that forum is important and wonderful. And to be clear, I would say that the issue would be not that her own personal beliefs run counter to the University's policy, or that she has a right to speak about them in appropriate venues, but that those statements were willfully submitted and published in a newspaper. And in fact the job of Human Resources peeps is to help promote healthy and adjusted workplaces. When you are relatively high in a major institution's food chain, your words and deeds reflect back upon your place of employment and the culture it attempts to engender.

Well said, wombat2...

Pink Slip

sarah said it best - amen. Dixon was in Human Resources - which means, working with people - students. And those students are a mix of different races, genders, religions, most are straight, but many are gay. IF I was a gay student at UT, and needed to talk to somebody or had business to do in Human Resources - and I'd read Dixon's comment, I would assume there'd be a negative bias to me. It's bad business to put somebody in a high level job in Human Resources who blatently speaks out against one segment of society as being evil & wrong. It has nothing to do with Dixon's religious beliefs - this is a place of employment, that prides itself on diversity & Dixon spit in the face of that core value, publicly. I don't believe for a minute that Dixon didn't know she'd be putting herself into the job fire over shooting her mouth off.

bishop - 1- Is it possible for you to ever just say what you think, without dressing it up in scriptures? Believe it or not, people do check out the scriptures, and more often than not, the ones I've checked out that you've quoted, were so far off from the point you used them to make, it was laughable. I've also caught you several times plagerizing from religous sites. At least credit the source.
2 - Still waiting to hear your response about the scripture about women not being allowed to speak in church.
3- You are so ignorant about homosexuals it'd be laughable, if it weren't so sad, being that you're a bishop & all. There are so many gays that will tell you, that they always knew they were gay, even as kids - and nobody violated or abused them. Medical doctors have shown that people's sexuality is pretty much determined by age 5 - it's how they are made. And while some young people may experiment with being bi-sexual, it rarely lasts if they are hetersexual. (personally, I think bi-sexuals are just greedy). Nobody chooses to be gay - why on earth would anybody choose a lifestyle that sets them up for so much misery & hard times? There's been too many kids who've killed themselves, rather than admit to their parents or church that they were gay. You are preaching hate, and that anti gay mindset is one main reason kids go hang themselves in the attic. Their deaths are on the hands of the church. This mindset, this zealot view is why I have problems with religion. Christians think they are the only right religion - but there's so many others that came before Christianity. Some religions (the Blade today about Afganistan) believe women can be killed or beaten if they are raped - and they thiink they are the only true religion. Believe what you want - but it's an arrogant mindset, that breeds hate.

With no intention of infringing upon Bishop's right to respond, I'm gonna field the women should be silent question from my perspective.

The Bible is a historical document, written in a context. Without the context in which it was written, Scripture becomes confusing and, often, meaningless. So let's start with the context surrounding the verse in question:

Paul wrote to the church at Galatia about several issues, one of which was the fact that they were on the verge of being discovered. Were the Christians there to have been found out, they would have been almost certainly killed, leaving no one to preach the Gospel there. (Death wasn't a fear to them, because they knew where they were going). One of the things that was making the church so dangerously visible was the practice of the women preaching. So Paul told them to tone it down. "They are not allowed to speak, but should remain in submission, as the law says." He refers to the law of the land, which maintained that women were sub-standard humans and should never be in a position of authority over a man.

If the idea that women were not to be leaders period was what Paul was trying to convey, why would he not hhave put it that way? Why wouldn't he have taught it to oother churches? And, more importantly, why would Paul have left women in charge of congregations all over the place?

That's the answer, I'm sure you don't like it since it kind of tears down your picture of God as this horrible being who hates Gays and Women. That's just not true and I'm sorry you have been taught that.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

that a person can be fired for writing their own personal opinion about matters of faith in the United States of America.

I hope she contacts the What is this bash Christianity week on swampbubbles?

You all come out of the woodwork when there is an opportunity to bash someone for their faith. Just so long as it is Christianity. In America people don't need other people's approval to have their own beliefs and right to speak about it.

And since she did not identify her work role and wrote on her own time - her employer gets to fire her?

how a gay student might feel at UT. Funny no one thinks about how it would appear for all the world that Christians are not wanted.

How would a Christian student feel? Christianity is the last socially acceptable bias. At least the last one people feel safe to bash people with in public and feel like Christians should lose their jobs if they write on their own time.

I agree , and I would have a safe place too.
But many do desire to leave the homosexual life.
And Dr Nicolosi started his work responding to this need

The Homosexual Who Wants to Change Can
"This well-written book by a courageous clinician addresses an important societal and clinical issue: How can a homosexual male deal with his orientation without succumbing to the extremes of a gay life style? Nicolosi makes an all important distinction: Being homosexual does not mean being gay. He sees that the usual rite of coming out of the closet can be an enforced trauma, preventing further psychological growth. Instead, Nicolosi sees the quiet spaces of privacy as a growth-producing environment that can foster meaningful insight followed by change and genuine, instead of coerced, decision making. In addition, he stresses the father as an important role model and cites many vignettes in which men have found their full masculine selves during therapy. Nicolosi is to be congratulated for taking up the gauntlet for a much neglected population: The homosexual male who experiences his sexual orientation as ego dystonic and wants to change."

-Elaine Siegel, Ph.D.

The problem began when Ms. Dixon identified herself as an executive employed at the university. If she hadn't done that, I think she'd have a valid argument based on free speech as a private citizen.

Wombat2: Thanks for the compliment.

From Joe Glotz: ...just recently a so called minister revealed to me he is prepared to shoot someone if they broke into his house. Without pausing he went on to anoint my desk with olive oil so he could save my soul

Ok, my curiosity is getting the best of me here. First of all, I, like that minister in your story, am prepared to protect my life, home and hearth with my firearm. Or arms, as the case may be. Not everyone thinks the same way I do, but there it is. Secondly, are you serious about this olive oil business? I've never heard of anything like that, ever. Why was the man using olive oil, what did he do to your desk, and what was his motivation? I know I'm asking a lot here, but the story you relate is pretty strange.

Starling: If you'll restate your question about women being silent in Church, I'll try and provide you an answer. I think we should probably move that question to a new thread, yes?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I think MadJack is right, I got carried away with my answer to that question. I won't take it down, but I won't take it further here. If the thread starts somewhere else, I can repost my answer. Sorry for the off-topic comment :)

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

I want to make this specific point. I consider myself a devout Christian. Christianity practices tolerance. I take pride being tolerant. I have run into very few people who call themselves Christians and also practice tolerance. Just about every place you go in Toledo people want to know what church you go to. If you are not of the same faith or Christian sect they will immediately tell you that you are going to hell and they need to help you get saved. I don't think we can call that tolerance. Most of the people I run into who call themselves Christians are not Christians. They are "Church People" (CP). Us true Christians do everything we can to avoid them. Last week someone anointed my chair with cooking oil because I said that Catholicism was a Christian faith. I'm not a Catholic but I recall that the Emperor Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire and from that came the Catholic Church, and from the reformation by Martin Luther came the non-Catholic Christian denominations. I can blog on and on about this, but the issue is, did Ms. Dixon deserve to be fired? My feeling is no., but I will say this. People put too much church in their work and play. As demonstrated by Ms. Dixon, people say things that get themselves into trouble. I also notice that Toledo is infested with homophobia. Us guys who are comfortable with our masculinity don't get intimidated by homosexuals. And you women. If you were doing the right things with your men you wouldn't be paranoid about some woman trying to make your eyes bobble around in your head.

Joe, I am a Christian as well. And I myself am a tolerant individual. My strong feelings on the subject do not mean that when I meet someone I want to know their alliances and sexual persuasion so I can judge them. In fact, I know and have gone to school and been involved in activities with many people who were openly gay. I do not judge them, and a couple of them are actually friends of mine. If they were to ask me, however, what I thought of homosexuality, I wouldn't not lie. I love them, I don't think that God approves of what they're doing.

I'm not sure what part of that would make me intolerant. I know people of different faiths, different nationalities, different music tastes. I don't think I have ever told anyone they were going to hell-for any reason. I have no problem saying that all men deserve hell and explaining the Gospel of Jesus to them.

I also understand and can appreciate your evaluation of "Church People." They annoy me as well, and give Christians a bad name much of the time. I do not, however, think that it is possible to have an encounter with God and not be changed. And the Bible says that those changes extend to everything we do. So I think that it is important that we behave as Christians no matter what we're doing: worshipping, working, playing. That doesn't mean screaming things about hellfire at everyone, or telling them they're going to hell. But that does mean tolerance (to an extent) and love.

It becomes challenging, however, to remain tolerant when you yourself are not being tolerated...

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

*Sorry, that last post posted twice so I'm just deleting it here.

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

If you are not of the same faith or Christian sect they will immediately tell you that you are going to hell and they need to help you get saved.

I know. I've seen this, and it can get to the Saturday Night Live stage in thirty seconds. You stand there, listening to someone's diatribe and wonder if you've suddenly taken a U-turn into the twilight zone, or you're on Candid Camera, or something.

Someone at work put vegetable oil on you chair? You're not making this up? I'll tell you what, you've got more tolerance than I would likely have.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Here's the latest from The Blade:

A letter to Ms. Dixon informing her of her termination, stated "The public position you have taken in the Toledo Free Press is in direct contradiction to university policies and procedures as well as the core values of the strategic plan which is mission critical."

It went on to say her position calls into question her ability to continue in her role as an administrator in charge of personnel actions and decisions and that "the result is a loss of confidence in you as an administrator."

Pink Slip

If she wrote this as an personal opinion and made no mention of UT or her position then she shouldn't have lost her job but if she mentioned the U or her position then she opened herself to losing her job. You can't go around acting like a representative of an organization and then cry foul when that organization nixes you for the bad light you are shining on them.

Personally I think that UT is better off without a homophobic person working in HR.

I've read that a couple of times, she says "As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner".

The benefits issues I already knew about from local media - so that wasn't inside info. She mentions some social issues - then some economic data. I interpreted when I first read it that she wasn't sending out a UT press release and she was talking about matters of personal faith.

So if you aren't somebody who's looking to club Christians - would you relook and how does it strike you?

I agree if it was written on company time on the company network then she was on the clock and must stick within the guidelines her employer has given. Also, two times I heard the news reports say that this was on her personal time.

I agree with popeye, Ms. Dixon was speaking on matters of her personal faith. Dr. Jacobs had no right in firing that woman, she spoke only of personal life, and nothing of her position at UT. It makes me sick to my stomach to see such hate Christians. Myself being a Christian, and having friends who attend UT, know Christians are not welcome there. One of these friends failed a class because he/she would not admit that there is some chance his beliefs are not true. The problem is not only Dr. Jacobs, it is the clearly stated agenda on campuses across the country.

As far as those who are just bashing Christians in their posts, think about this. If there is no God to believe in, what exactly is there to believe in?

your time will come, and you will be judged


If there is no God to believe in, what exactly is there to believe in?

Pick up a few books that are not the bible and read them, and you'll have your answer.

Pink Slip

I have read many books Pink. 1984, Animal Farm, Face of the Enemy, just to name a few. Those book all have fallacies within them. There are thousands of "good" books, but they are whimsical and give people a false sense of reality. I would never give a child one of those books as a guide and expect them to behave like a person should. The Bible on the other hand, is the only book I would give as a guide and believe that a child would grow to be a well behaved, normal human.

Sorry, lightsoldier--my response was only to the question "what else is there to believe in". Obviously, there are countless other things to believe in. As far as being a guide for children, that's a parent's job--not a book.

Pink Slip

I'm a proud parent and I'm raising my kids and showing them the ways to behave, in society, at home, etc. But I did not mean you should go hand your kids the Bible and expect them to function like a normal person, I merely meant that one could give a child the Bible and that child would know right from wrong, and have upstanding morals.

As far as these other "things" to believe in, I would love to hear what you believe in. Myself being a Christian, I would be tolerant, whether or not I agreed with you.

Other than being way off topic here, I stand by my decision in saying Crystal Dixon was wrongly fired she obviously was supporting a personal belief on her own time. Only mentioning that she was an alumnus of UT, gave Dr. Jacobs no reason to fire her.

I would love to hear what you believe in

That's pretty open-ended. I'm non-religious, but I don't discount personal spirituality. The Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination greatly interests me. But mainly I try to look at things from a common sense perspective---the goal of sentient beings is to find happiness & avoid suffering, we're all made from the same stuff, cause and effect, do unto others....

Pink Slip

So, if you are non-religious, and are interested in Buddhism, why do you have such a problem with Christians? If Ms. Dixon would have been fired for being Muslim, and her paper was about hating Christians would it have been an issue for you?

Is it that you have a problem with Christians, and them being prideful, or trying to force their beliefs on you? If so you've been wronged. But being a Christian my job is now to try to get as many people saved that I can.

In my eyes, you are going along with the Bible, God said he would rather have you completely deny Him than be on the fence. I believe you have a right to say what you have, and not trying to sound cruel or snotty, but you say you are a tolerant person, and there is no reason to bash Christians, when you can a friendly debate over your beliefs.

At the end of the day you would still have your beliefs and Christians would not be at your throat. Just a suggestion, you can take it, or leave it.

I don't have a problem with Christians, only with the belief of homosexuality as a sin. I think this belief leads to discrimination. I think it's better to treat people equally.

Pink Slip

Well I do believe homosexuality is a sin, but I don't treat a person different cause of that. You are right you should not discriminate against someone because of their choice, you don't have to agree with it though.

Thank you for clarifying what your problem was, and now that I understand why you were upset, you do have a legitimate complaint. I don't know about others on this thread but you shouldn't discriminate because someone's choice.

That being said, Ms. Dixon never had a record of discrimination while doing her job. The real reason we are here is because someone was discriminating against a woman for her belief, and let that blind his choice. If she had a history of discrimination against homosexuals then I could see her letter being a problem.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.