White House posts video of bishop saying 'demonic spirit' is behind homosexuality during sermon attended by Mike Pence

[laylalex 7,245]

Quote

 

The White House has live-streamed a church service which saw the US vice-president speak and a bishop claim “the devil” causes homosexuality.

After Mike Pence addressed the congregation in Tennessee, the preacher took to the pulpit to talk about same-sex relations in a sermon still available on the administration’s Youtube channel. 

“It is a demonic spirit that causes a woman to want to live with another woman,” he said. “It is a demonic spirit that causes a man to be attracted to another man.”

The preacher, who has been named as the bishop Jerry Wayne Taylor, claimed the “devil” is trying to “destroy the foundation of marriage” and “cut off the reproduction process”. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-demonic-spirit-church-homophobia-sermon-tennessee-a9296571.html

 

I looked for a Daily Mail version of this for Boiler but could not find one.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

It's a religious bishop and they believe homosexuality is a sin, and sins derive from Satan.. big shocker.

 

Basically, gaslighting what's largely a Christian population to be outraged by Christianity.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,245]

Yes, but is that appropriate to post on the White House website? Why not just end at the end of Mike Pence's little homily? I would personally have no problem with that. I think we get into murky waters when an arm of the government posts content like this that is offensive to many people. It has nothing to do with Christianity -- a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or whatever faith sermon that isn't part of an official government proceeding probably should not be publicized like this. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

A bishop citing his religious beliefs at a church service has nothing to do with that religion? Funny.

 

And don't publicize Christian views, because they're offensive. Check.

 

Not gonna happen, you'll get over it.

[laylalex 7,245]

Why should a governmental body post this though? It is news for Pence to speak, which is fine by me. But why include a sermon from a person who is not a member of government? What does it add?

 

I'm not saying don't publicize Christian views, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying: what is the purpose of including provocative religious views on an official government publication? It could be provocative statements flowing from any religion. I was very clear on that. What is the point of including these statements which are offensive to many? Imagine this is a Muslim cleric speaking on precisely the same topic -- would that be okay, too? I don't think it is.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

5 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why should a governmental body post this though? It is news for Pence to speak, which is fine by me. But why include a sermon from a person who is not a member of government? What does it add?

 

I'm not saying don't publicize Christian views, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying: what is the purpose of including provocative religious views on an official government publication? It could be provocative statements flowing from any religion. I was very clear on that. What is the point of including these statements which are offensive to many? Imagine this is a Muslim cleric speaking on precisely the same topic -- would that be okay, too? I don't think it is.

Much ado about nothing.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

18 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why should a governmental body post this though? It is news for Pence to speak, which is fine by me. But why include a sermon from a person who is not a member of government? What does it add?

 

I'm not saying don't publicize Christian views, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying: what is the purpose of including provocative religious views on an official government publication? It could be provocative statements flowing from any religion. I was very clear on that. What is the point of including these statements which are offensive to many? Imagine this is a Muslim cleric speaking on precisely the same topic -- would that be okay, too? I don't think it is.

 

  You probably have to find an example of a Democrat VP doing something like that if you want an actual answer.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  You probably have to find an example of a Democrat VP doing something like that if you want an actual answer.  

Nope, would get the same answer (Christianity and their views on homosexuality isn't a novelty), but then again, the outrage would be absent.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Nope, would get the same answer (Christianity and their views on homosexuality isn't a novelty), but then again, the outrage would be absent.

 

  Are you missing the point or just choosing not to answer? It is not about Christianity's views on homosexuality. It's about the White House endorsing them. Substitute "Pence" and "Christianity" for "Obama" and "Islam" and answer the hypothetical. We have actually seen some examples of the reaction.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Substitute this for that, and this for that! What an adventure of irrelevance. The fact that this person's views derive from Christianity are completely relevant because the US has been full of Christians for over 200 years, it's been a Christian nation. That Christians associate homosexuality with Satan is well known, and as long as those views are kept within the constraints of someone's subjective views and not something enforced by the government, who cares. The application of other irrelevant scenarios are clearly done to justify pointless outrage, which is, of course, the prerogative of outrage culture. Find something to get offended by, target things that are associated with US customs and norms. Next.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Substitute this for that, and this for that! What an adventure of irrelevance. The fact that this person's views derive from Christianity are completely relevant because the US has been full of Christians for over 200 years, it's been a Christian nation. That Christians associate homosexuality with Satan is well known, and as long as those views are kept within the constraints of someone's subjective views and not something enforced by the government, who cares. The application of other irrelevant scenarios are clearly done to justify pointless outrage, which is, of course, the prerogative of outrage culture. Find something to get offended by, target things that are associated with US customs and norms. Next.

 

 

   I don't see any outrage. As far as substituting, you seem to be substituting the content of the article for something else so that it fits your answer. We actually do have a constitutional separation of church and state in this country. We are a secular nation. It's difficult to answer and avoid a question at the same time, but kudo's on your effort.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Yes, but is that appropriate to post on the White House website? Why not just end at the end of Mike Pence's little homily? I would personally have no problem with that. I think we get into murky waters when an arm of the government posts content like this that is offensive to many people. It has nothing to do with Christianity -- a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or whatever faith sermon that isn't part of an official government proceeding probably should not be publicized like this. 

I agree that it shouldn't be coming from the White House.  Just like I didn't like it when Obama supported islam from his position as president.  Religion is a freedom we are all able to enjoy (or disavow altogether), and should remain free from government influence.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

31 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

   I don't see any outrage. As far as substituting, you seem to be substituting the content of the article for something else so that it fits your answer. We actually do have a constitutional separation of church and state in this country. We are a secular nation. It's difficult to answer and avoid a question at the same time, but kudo's on your effort.

You don't? 😂 That's funny, I see it in post 3.

 

The religion was mentioned in the article, the location of the event in the article was at a church, also mentioned, and it was a religious service, mentioned as well in the article. The person in question derived the things they said from their religion. Can't "substitute" things that are completely material to the very event we're discussing. At the same time I read about "substitution", I can't help but be intrigued by all this whataboutism of "Islam", "Muslims" "Hindus", "Jews", "Democrats" (which your first post comprised entirely of, "substituting"), etc.

 

Also, good try on the secularism bit, you're clearly mangling separation of church and state/secularism with having nothing whatsoever to do with religion. That basically means people can't share their personal beliefs whatsoever. You're in for a shock then:

 

Here's Obama on the WH blog speaking from a church.. secularism!

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/01/17/martin-luther-king-and-challenges-a-new-age

 

Here's Obama on the WH blog delivering a Christian eulogy at a Christian church:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/06/06/president-obama-delivers-eulogy-honoring-life-beau-biden

 

Here's a video on the WH blog talking up and down not about secularism curing fear, but "faith".. what kind of faith? Faith in secularism? Nah, Christian faith.:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/04/president-obama-faith-great-cure-fear

 

Clearly wrong. Kudos for the effort though.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

40 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I agree that it shouldn't be coming from the White House.  Just like I didn't like it when Obama supported islam from his position as president.  Religion is a freedom we are all able to enjoy (or disavow altogether), and should remain free from government influence.

Calling Lesbians inspired by satan is very wrong. Should not have been replayed

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Calling Lesbians inspired by satan is very wrong. Should not have been replayed

Christians will be christians.  Whatchoo gonna do?  They feel the same about queers.