Blimey, this is a stretch

The Christian community where Amy Coney Barrett has previously served as a female leader – or handmaid – expels members who engage in gay sex, according to a 2018 interview with Craig Lent, the group’s current head.

Lent told the South Bend Tribune that the People of Praise, a charismatic Christian community that has counted Barrett as a member, would end the membership of a person who discloses gay sex or any other “ongoing, deliberate, unrepentant wrongdoing”.

Barrett, an appellate court judge who has been nominated by Donald Trump to serve on the supreme court, said in a confirmation hearing on Tuesday that she had “never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference”.

The Guardian’s getting very close to – or actually maybe – making the claim that a church expelling what it sees as a sinner is discrimination. Which, well, yes, it is, in one sense of making a discrimination. But probably not in the sense of the law or anything.

Barring David Starkey from Twitter for the “so many damn blacks” thing is discrimination and it’s also, in a wide-ish sense, the expulsion from a belief group for belief violation.

All that’s changed is which belief system.

25 thoughts on “Blimey, this is a stretch”

  1. My “church” in my home town expelled so many members in the 19th century for marrying out, damn near the entire rest of the membership followed them in protest!

  2. Barrett was criticized on Tuesday after she said in response to a question that she would not discriminate based on a person’s “sexual preference”, a term that the Democratic senator Mazie Hirono said was used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation was a choice and not a key part of a person’s identity.

    Mirriam-Websters Dictionary changed their definition of ‘preference’ right after this accusation was made by Senator Hirono:

    https://twitter.com/SteveKrak/status/1316223349719216128

    But you’re deluded if you think the media is protecting the Democrats.

  3. Hmmm… If “expelling a member who indulges in gay sex” makes a member of such a group inadmissible to political / legal circles, surely being a member of a group that advocates chucking gayers off high buildings must be a teensy, weensy bit worse… So should all our muslim politicians and judges resign / be ejected?

  4. expels members who engage in gay sex

    I have no idea, yet simultaneously am completely confident, that they also expel members who are unrepentant adulterers or abortionists. Amazing how these damn Xtians have kept their bigotry hidden by openly proclaiming it everywhere for the past 2,000 years.

    All that’s changed is which belief system

    Disagree, Tim.

    Christianity is a way of bringing order out of chaos. It’s a generative force. The inversion of morality – worshipping black criminals and sexual perversion, transgendering or euthanising children, stirring up hatred and calling it tolerance – is designed to achieve the opposite. It’s about creating uninhabitable disorder, a kind of Hell on Earth. That’s why they attack the very structure of language itself.

    Judge them by their fruits*, y’see.

    *Not a homeophobic joke

  5. Err, duh…. the word they’re looking for is “choice” not “preference”. In terms of sexuality preferences are innate, choices are through agency. A male prisoner may prefer pussy, but may be constrained to choose an alternative. Kenneth Williams prefered young men, but societal constraints prompted him to consider choosing a hetro marriage. Alan Turing chose the poisoned apple.

  6. The identity politicians imagine that everyone thinks about race and sex all the time. In fact, normal people have normal lives. Sure, me think about sex a lot. But it’s imagining doing it, not thinking about what someone else is doing.

  7. @steve a sharia law state achieves all the things you claim for Christianity, but you’re not in favour of that. Christianity is a rather nebulous concept, and doesn’t exactly have an unblemished history. There have been whole centuries where the Inquisition effectively made the whole of Europe a Police state, and many Popes were no better than genocidal maniacs.

    I’m against the same things you are, but sometimes you need more than a sound bite to make an argument.

  8. Ian Reid

    The hyperbole is strong in you. Funny police state that kills c.3,000 in over three hundred years – given the rates of executable offences in the criminal law at the time, the Inquisition was barely noticeable.

    The ‘Black Legend’ lives!

  9. @recusant we’ve read two different histories then. My main point is that Christianity in it’s historical form was very far from benign, and led to the slaughter, either through wars fought in it’s name or inquisitions, of many people. So what does Steve mean by Christianity?

  10. Ian – sharia law state achieves all the things you claim for Christianity,

    I dunno, my views on Islam are probably roughly the same as Edward I and Winston Churchill, but I don’t care enough about Sharia to have a particularly nuanced opinion of it. At least it’s an ethos, dude.

    but you’re not in favour of that.

    True, I am in favour of Christianity and Christendom.

    Christianity is a rather nebulous concept,

    Not really. It’s a very simple concept which contains fractal complexity.

    and doesn’t exactly have an unblemished history. There have been whole centuries where the Inquisition effectively made the whole of Europe a Police state, and many Popes were no better than genocidal maniacs.

    I agree with Recusant, but also Milton Friedman, who used to ask:

    “Well, compared to what?”

    The cruelest Pope wouldn’t have dreamed of making human sacrifices, or exterminating entire cities, or building gulags or concentration camps, or firebombing cities, or killing millions of unborn babies and permitting tens of thousands of children to be sexually enslaved by Mohammedans.

    So what does Steve mean by Christianity?

    Short answer: Logos.

    Exoteric answer: the salvation of man

    Esoteric Mandelbrot Set answer: a system for generating empathy, purpose and self-sustaining social structures, which seems to be important to sentient bipedal mammalian species who are continually tempted by nihilism, dissolution and despair.

  11. Dennis, Pointing Out The Obvious

    Funny that the Guardian doesn’t go out of its way to notice that Muslims consider homosexuality to be a mortal sin, or that they often prefer hanging gays to excommunicating them.

  12. Bloke: That line near exactly came up on Star Trek last night:
    “There’s innocent people in there!”
    “Can’t we just phaser them all and sort it out later?”

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    bloke in spain October 15, 2020 at 1:37 pm – “But a Papal Legate would.”

    Well a Papal Legate might have. But probably did not. He did not mention it in his own account. In fact he did not even say that he ordered an assault. He said that they were negotiating when the lower orders rushed the walls and began massacring people. The story comes from decades later and even then report the *rumour* that he said it.

  14. BiS, SMFS – It’s a cracking turn of phrase, and one I think of often when I’m standing in a queue outside the pharmacy

  15. @SMfS
    Beziers was just one incident in The Albigensian Crusade. I was all very much of the same thing. The Cathars were excommunicated as a whole. Catharism was proscribed as a heresy. The penalty for heresy, by the church’s rule, was death. And they took it seriously. The only argument’s about whether or not to call it a genocide as they weren’t out to kill everybody in the Languedoc, just some of them. France does have a history of this sort of thing. See the Vendee.

  16. Keep in mind that these people distinguish between being homosexual – fine – and having gay sex – a sin.

    While I’d say it’s unrealistic to expect gays to never have sex with each other, otherwise if you can refrain from doing so they’ll accept you.

  17. BiS – The penalty for heresy, by the church’s rule, was death.

    Dunno if that holds true for most of history, see for example:

    “Of 5,400 people interrogated in Toulouse between 1245–1246, 184 received penitential yellow crosses (used to mark repentant Cathars), 23 were imprisoned for life, and none were sent to the stake.”

    Most heretics got a slap on the wrist (or the medieval equivalent – a whipping, some gaol time, a spot of torture, or a fine). The goal was to get them to stop being heretics, not brutality for its own sake.

    Also the Church itself didn’t kill people (priests and monks are forbidden to kill). If found guilty*, they might be handed over to the secular** authorities to be burnt at the stake, but even this was somewhat rare and easily avoided through penitence.

    *And note, unlike modern punishments for political crimes such as making racially offensive jokes on YouTube, they received a proper and speedy trial

    **Given the high degree of religiosity at the time, this could be seen as a distinction with little difference, but then again, you could be legally mutilated for petty theft by His Majesty’s courts, they were brutal times in general

  18. ‘He said that they were negotiating when the lower orders rushed the walls and began massacring people.’ This sounds remarkably like arse covering to me.

    Still, I’m willing to admit it could have been a stuff up. So many things are.

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    Steve October 15, 2020 at 3:38 pm – “It’s a cracking turn of phrase”

    It is indeed. Which makes it less likely to be true. Staircase wit as the French would say.

    bloke in spain October 15, 2020 at 4:41 pm – “Beziers was just one incident in The Albigensian Crusade.”

    And WW1 was a long war. Doesn’t mean the Germans were turning people into soap. In that war. In either war actually.

    “I was all very much of the same thing.”

    So they didn’t do it but it was the sort of thing they did? An interesting argument.

    “The Cathars were excommunicated as a whole.”

    You think that means what? This is equivalent to burning people?

    “The penalty for heresy, by the church’s rule, was death.”

    Citation needed.

    Agammamon October 15, 2020 at 6:35 pm – “Keep in mind that these people distinguish between being homosexual – fine – and having gay sex – a sin.”

    Well yes, isn’t that true of everything? I think most of us would say it is sort of acceptable to think inventive and original thoughts about the neighbour’s 17 year old daughter. I am sure a lot of us do. It is doing something about it that is the problem.

    “While I’d say it’s unrealistic to expect gays to never have sex with each other, otherwise if you can refrain from doing so they’ll accept you.”

    Oddly I have never had sex with the neighbour’s 17 year old daughter.

    Boganboy October 15, 2020 at 7:06 pm – “This sounds remarkably like arse covering to me.”

    It does. He goes into a defensive mode and tries to cover his arse. Which means he knew that it was a mistake he might get in trouble for.

    But that means the Church was not lusting for blood. He did not expect his bosses to be pleased he killed so many people. Which contradicts the intent of the story.

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    philip October 15, 2020 at 9:33 am – “But it’s imagining doing it, not thinking about what someone else is doing.”

    The enormous success of the Daily Mail and other assorted rags – including the Guardian – suggests you are very much a minority.

    We spend an awful lot of time thinking about what other people are doing. As a nation.

  21. The Popes were enthusiastically on the side of the Catholic princes in the 30 Years War, and Spain vs Dutch, etc. The death and suffering was not an issue then. Massacres like the Sack of Antwerp were celebrated.

    The war ended when the Catholic powers got sick of it all. The Popes would have gone another 30 years.

    And that was killing Christians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *