Jesus wouldn't turn away gays
I read a news story in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 31 stating that the First Baptist Church in Gravel Ridge has revoked the Charter of the Boy Scouts and will no longer allow these young men to meet in the Church because the Scouts are permitting openly gay Scouts to join the Troop.
The pastor, Tim Reed, stated that the troop would be falling short on its responsibility to respect the aims of its chartering organization, the First Baptist Church.
Pastor Reed, in my opinion your church has fallen short on your organization's promise to Jesus. Jesus would never turn away a gay man or woman for any reason. Jesus welcomed all into his presence.
What are you afraid of? If you think that otherwise heterosexual boys will become gay because they meet and interact with a gay boy you are ill-informed.
Gay is not a choice.
By your logic there should be no men coaching a girls' sports team, lest the girls be tempted to have a sex change.
I am a Christian. I believe that God is the Father of all human beings, red and yellow, black and white, gay and straight, rich and poor. I also believe that Jesus is his son and that he was sent to teach us how to live our lives in a way that brings us closer to God.
It is not enough just to believe this, it is important that we live our lives guided by the teachings of Jesus. So, Pastor Reed let me remind you of the teachings of Jesus:
Judge not lest you be judged. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Welcome unto me the children. Love your enemy.
May God bless and open your heart.
From the web:
In response to the Arkansas Reporter "Sister who opposed Faubus dies" by Roy Reed:
Roy Reed is pretty good with facts, but not so good when he tries to explain them, which I suppose is the difference between a journalist and a historian.
The Faubus family had, as we all know, a socialist upbringing, which taught racial equality. This Faubus daughter then married a man who was not white. Why, then, does Reed attribute her "sensitivity to issues of race and ethnicity" to her marriage? Why not assume instead that sensitivity, as well as her willingness to marry outside her ethnicity, originated with her socialist upbringing? Reed's very sympathetic (maybe a little too sympathetic) biography of Faubus makes it clear that Faubus himself was not a raving racist like Fob James or Jim Johnson but, like George Wallace, an opportunist who abandoned core principles for political gain.
Possibly this is of a piece with his characterization of Commonwealth College as "a self-help school popular mainly with Socialists." Commonwealth was founded by socialists and spent its history working for the labor movement. Such collective action is precisely the opposite of self-help.
Reed does not tell an accurate story when it comes to the virtues of socialism.
John A Arkansawyer
What Orval Faubus did in 1957 was not a governor gone all mavericky. He was doing exactly ... EXACTLY ... what his constituency wanted him to do. The majority of those who elected him governor six times did not want their schools integrated. They were just fine with the "separate but equal" approach. Studied in context with the times, Faubus was a hero for those favoring racial segregation in the schools, the lunch counters, the movie houses, and so on. Was it right? Of course not and certainly not in retrospect, but those were different times. It's really unfortunate that transitional period was so awkward in Arkansas as in many other Southern states, but Faubus is hardly the evil Satan he's made out to be by egg-headed historians who are just fine with hanging the racist label on him. Faubus was not a racist. Far from it. What he was was a consummate politician who was thrust into a no-win situation.
And now the descendants of that constituency that favored Faubus' actions make themselves feel good by castigating the man at the center of the crisis. They're happy to place the blame for the entire sordid Central High affair squarely at his feet, and certainly there was no place for him to pass the buck. But let's not fool ourselves into forgetting that it was our parents, our grandparents, our aunts, uncles and assorted cousins whose bidding Faubus was doing. He and his legacy wear the mantle but it is all of us, or at least our ancestors, who equally share the blame for this scar on Arkansas. Orval Eugene Faubus just put a face on it, and his memory will forever be tainted by it.
That's truly a shame.
In response to Max Brantley's column, "Tom Cotton: too extreme for Arkansas?":
As someone from one of the earlier Tea Party groups in NWA, Cotton has some sound ideas that are just what the country needs. Things like his handling of the debt problem were excellent. Sooner or later it will crash, unless there are some hard considerations of the waste that is inherent in any state endeavor. His sandbagging of the relief efforts was a worthy cause, as it showed that DC liberals cannot find a penny to cut from their favorite programs to help folks in need. Libs make a nice play about supposed GOP heartlessness, but libs like Max don't show any heart when they cannot find a program worthy of cutting to fund disaster relief.
On the other hand, Cotton has some truly despicable values regarding his disgracing of the U.S. Constitution. His latest wish to punish family members for the crimes of their fathers and uncles is an epic failure of the first order. This kind of idiocy puts him in the same vein as Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" belief.
If there was someone running with brains enough and sense enough to avoid Cotton's rank stupidity, we might just be able to gut union thuggery, hopefully tighten controls on immigrants from troubled countries, such as Iran, Chechnya and other terrorist havens.
Sadly, neither side has any stellar examples of thinking politicians, which has always been the problem.
Submit letters to the Editor via e-mail. The address is firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include name and hometown.