2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton silent on her church's schism over equality and yet openly
lobbied it passionately to not join the BDS movement. As chance would have it, these two issues came to a head in the same time period over the past couple of weeks.
These are real people being discriminated against by her church. Clearly she has no problem speaking about church issues, as is evidenced by her open letter against BDS. And this is a stark illustration of Hillary's lack of leadership on, and lack of commitment to progressive causes.
Heeding Hillary Clinton Plea, United Methodist Church Rejects BDS Push
Read more: http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/340829/heeding-hillary-clinton-plea-united-methodist-church-rejects-bds-push/#ixzz498sI9dHO
The church has been debating this for decades and their position is still that "homosexuality is incompatible" with church teachings. That is how it remains and clergy still face scheduled trials and the possibility of being defrocked.
(I've heard about this for years as two of my siblings have been very active in the movement of church members to end the discrimination. My brother left the UMC over it a few years back)
http://www.kansascity.com/living/religion/article78633827.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/lgbt-rights-2016-united-methodist-church-same-sex-marriage-commission-formed-over-gay-2371216
http://www.newnownext.com/111-methodist-clergy-come-out-as-gay-protest-church-ban/05/2016/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/divided-methodist-church-lgbt/483396/
http://m.ajc.com/news/lifestyles/man-says-he-lost-methodist-church-job-because-hes-/nrN4w/
MADem
(135,425 posts)issue, or the issue of choice? I never saw anyone go after Ted Kennedy or all the other Roman Catholic politicians for not yelling at the Pope about those issues, either.
Her church KNOWS--unless they eschew the daily newspapers-- she stands with the equality crew. They're gonna have to work it out from there.
Apparently, you want her to quit politics and get involved in church leadership, in order to force a resolution somehow?
Her views are not a secret to the leadership of her church.
smh.
cali
(114,904 posts)Why not do the same on this?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)opposition to marriage equality on a personal basis as she did for a number of years. That is a big difference.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Really? Issues where churches disagree with liberal policy should only be addressed in election years by POTUS candidates? Is that where you're trying to go? Could you possibly be more restrictively specific?
Gee, why didn't Bernie carry some pro-choice/equality water to Rome when he spent hundreds of thousands because he was "invited by the Pope?" Hmmmmmm?
Your fauxrage is situational. Blatantly so, too.
10. I must have missed John Kerry's presidential campaign this year. Can you enlighten me?
I'm certainly "enlightened."
cali
(114,904 posts)And trying to obfuscate using Kerry is lame. You are unable to explain why it's legitimate for her to lobby against BDS and just fine for her to keep silent on equality
MADem
(135,425 posts)separation of the two. She (unlike you quite clearly) understands that the leadership of her church is bifurcated on this issue--we don't have to be geniuses to figure out which side of the bifurcation she supports. Apparently, you need to have it spelled out.
Her views on equality are quite clear and well articulated. You trying to make something of her church's current fight is frankly craven.
When you point to all the posts you made busting Teddy Kennedy for going to mass and taking communion in a church that covered up pedophilia, that denies equal representation to women, that objects to choice and denies LGBT people rights, I'll believe you're sincere.
But you can't do that, can you?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Some one which are very conservative post colonial nations where being gay is illegal. In several of which, being out or supporting gays publicly can cost one's life.
Also in these countries colonialism is understandably very unpopular, which explains the support for BDS.
Not excusing her position. Not excusing the UMC's position. Just giving some context. The world's politics is a lot different than the just the US.
cali
(114,904 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I doubt that. I'll need a link.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)I disagree with her on the BDS issue, but it is not a theological issue that hinges on complex biblical interpretation concerns. I happen to disagree with the conservatives in the church who consider homosexuality sinful, but I also recognize that it is a complex theological issue. My own church took years to come to a resolution about that (we now ordain LGBTQ people). Hillary can weigh in on something that is more political like BDS, but she isnot qualified to weigh in on the LGBTQ issue in the church, except as a lay person.
cali
(114,904 posts)or that equality is about discrimination, not theological.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)but they are issues of quite a different nature. Both are highly controversial issues, but quite different in nature.
BDS is primarily a mix of social teaching and church governance issue: in my own church it was decided to disinvest in some companies who provide equipment that is used to destroy Palestinian homes. This was done for ethical reasons, even though the church also emphasized Israel's right to exist, and has not called for a total disinvestment. Although emotions ran high about this, it does not hinge on a fundamental issue like biblical interpretation - it is more a matter of difference of opinion. So it is a theological issue, but it is not rooted in a foundational question such as the nature of the Bible.
The issue of accepting LGBTQ persons is far more complex. The essential difference driving a lot of the debate is the question of how the Bible is to be interpreted. Since the Bible is the foundation of all Protestant churches, this is a highly contentious issue. (In the Roman Catholic Church the issue is debated more along the lines of natural law than biblical hermeneutics). So yes, one can argue that it's just a matter of discrimination, and there would be some truth to that. But it is also a foundational issue because it is premised on the foundational issue of the nature of the Bible and how it is interpreted and used in the life of the church. To be sure, many Christians are just homophobic, but there are also serious people in the church who are concerned about the implications of reinterpreting longstanding interpretations of particular biblical passages, and of longstanding teachings on marriage and sexuality. I'm a liberal Christian, including on these issues, but I also recognize that the matter is quite complex from a theological viewpoint. I would not want a politicians weighing in on something so foundational.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I assume your rights are entitled by God's Own Warrant, but mine are up for debate? Is that about the size of it?
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)I don't see why you feel the need to attack me. Just because I happen to know something about the intra-church debate, does not mean that I agree with the conservative perspective on this. In fact, I don't.
unc70
(6,128 posts)Church policy is put to a vote of the laity worldwide. The US laity is far more liberal than certain other regions, particularly Africa.
Methodist bishops do not set policy.
BTW the world headquarters for the UMC is in NC.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)But the government should stay out of it. As I said above, Hillary might have something to say about this as a private church member, but given her high political profile, she risks putting political pressure onto the church in this debate. That would backfire big time.
cali
(114,904 posts)And they have enormous influence