First Baptist Church members must now sign sexuality oath opposing LGBTQ freedoms

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
User avatar
Baconqueen13
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 6811
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:10 am
Location: In Sanity

Unread post

BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:41 pm
Baconqueen13 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:22 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:18 pm

The first amendment doesn’t give immunity to cover up crimes at all, the police should be going in if that’s the case, not the media.
How would the police be able to go in if it's not reported about first? Are you advocating that police randomly investigate churches for criminal activities?
If the media is tipped off to any wrongdoing like that, the police should be the first people they tell… not let it go on for however long it takes them to do their own investigation without alerting authorities.
Often it is the media's investigation that gives the police the evidence they need in order to conduct a search....so YES, often the story IS held as the investigation is ongoing.
Deleted User 1990

Unread post

Baconqueen13 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:19 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:16 pm
Baconqueen13 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:13 pm

If the churches aren't letting the media in do you really think they're letting the cops in?
The cops go in by force. They’re not just let in.
They can get a search warrant before first contact with the accused.
Again they need a warrant and for that they need probable cause and outstanding evidence. and they can't get that unless someone (like the media) reports on it.
They can’t investigate anything just because the media reported it.

They need a complaining witness. The media can help provide them that witness, but it can’t act as a median between the victim and law enforcement.
User avatar
Baconqueen13
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 6811
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:10 am
Location: In Sanity

Unread post

BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:22 pm
Baconqueen13 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:19 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:16 pm

The cops go in by force. They’re not just let in.
They can get a search warrant before first contact with the accused.
Again they need a warrant and for that they need probable cause and outstanding evidence. and they can't get that unless someone (like the media) reports on it.
They can’t investigate anything just because the media reported it.

They need a complaining witness. The media can help provide them that witness, but it can’t act as a median between the victim and law enforcement.
And the media doesn't typically publish stories based on rumors without evidence. typically these things happen in tandem
mommy_jules
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:47 am

Unread post

SallyMae wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:13 pm They should have to guarantee that what they are teaching is true.
That’s the thing. There’s no guarantee, and it’s why requiring members to sign this statement is such a problem to me. Withdrawing and refusing “care” for members who aren’t sure about their beliefs on gender and sexuality (because let’s be honest the Bible isn’t exactly clear about all that) or who just simply disagree is spirituality manipulative and abusive. This will harm people, and it isn’t acceptable.
Momto2boys973
Princess
Princess
Posts: 20107
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:32 pm

Unread post

And yet we know about it. So something had to happen to investigate a crime. But neither the media nor law enforcement can go around barging everywhere someone finds “suspicious”. You need more grounds for that.
Lemons wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:00 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:40 am
Lemons wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:58 pm

The First Amendment also allows the media to let the public know what goes on in these churches. As long as they remember it goes both ways. They can make their own policies but they need to stop trying to push Christian prayers and other Christian paraphernalia into public schools.
That is not what the first amendment does…

Churches don’t have to let the media in or tell them anything about what goes on behind closed doors.
Churches like the one in Utah marrying 12 year olds to 70 year olds don’t let the media in. Investigative journalists have other sources, verify it and report it.
❤️🇮🇱 עמ׳ ישראל חי 🇮🇱❤️
WellPreserved
Donated
Donated
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9735
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm

Unread post

BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:22 pm
Baconqueen13 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:19 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:16 pm

The cops go in by force. They’re not just let in.
They can get a search warrant before first contact with the accused.
Again they need a warrant and for that they need probable cause and outstanding evidence. and they can't get that unless someone (like the media) reports on it.
They can’t investigate anything just because the media reported it.

They need a complaining witness. The media can help provide them that witness, but it can’t act as a median between the victim and law enforcement.
While I agree with what you stated when it comes to a specific crime, that's not really how investigative journalism generally "works".

If a crime is committed, media generally reports on the crime and gets their information from police crime reports.

Investigative journalists inquire whether the crime is an isolated case or part of widespread institutional corruption. For example, a singular police report of a priest molesting a child turns into wide spread cover up of Catholic priests molestation - Boston Globe. A woman claiming Epstein solicited her for S*x turns into a federal lawsuit and criminal charges against Epstein for traffiking - Miami Herold. A charge of rape against Weinstein turns into charges of systemic rape and sexual assault - Rowan Ferrow. And most recently, charges of sexual assault and coverup by the Southern Baptist Church came to light due to reporting by Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express.

Police are charged with investigating the crimes presented but often don't have the manpower, expertise, jurisdiction, or desire to investigate broader reaching conspiracies. The crime of the break-in at Watergate was investigated by DC police but would the president have been implicated without investigative reporting?

Now in the case of the OP, no crime has been reported or it seems committed. However, that wouldn't necessarily stop an investigative reporter from checking public church financial records, interviewing parishioners, sitting in a service, etc. to establish that no one from this church is paying for or recommending gay conversion therapy which would be against the law in some parts of Florida. This would be good investigative reporting. I'm just using this as an example, not claiming that this is the case in this instance.
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde
Lemons
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 11250
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm

Unread post

Someone talks to the press. They also bring verification with them. Freedom of information act has helped a lot with government agencies. Someone didn’t like this form so they sent it to the presss.
Momto2boys973 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:43 pm And yet we know about it. So something had to happen to investigate a crime. But neither the media nor law enforcement can go around barging everywhere someone finds “suspicious”. You need more grounds for that.
Lemons wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:00 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:40 am

That is not what the first amendment does…

Churches don’t have to let the media in or tell them anything about what goes on behind closed doors.
Churches like the one in Utah marrying 12 year olds to 70 year olds don’t let the media in. Investigative journalists have other sources, verify it and report it.
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

Sounds like it's decision time for those people. That type of congregation would most definitely not be for me.

I'm left wondering how this is going to impact their numbers now, after demanding this.

One of the main reasons I'm not a fan of organized religion. I don't need some guy standing up there telling me to "think right", as the priest said the last time I went to Mass.
🤦🤦🤦
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
Pjmm
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 18971
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:31 am

Unread post

Momto2boys973 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:10 pm Well, I do follow all those. Although Judaism does allow for divorce. I don’t know when Christianity changed that one.
Baconqueen13 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:06 pm
BobCobbMagob wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:22 pm

It’s only Mennonites and Quakers that take that verse literally.

Nobody is following Deuteronomy 22:21 either, so I think it’s safe to say that different churches interpret certain scripture as poetic rather than literally instructive.
No one seems to follow the whole "Love thy neighbor" scripture either or the "don't divorce" or "don't wear blended fabrics or eat shellfish", and especially not the "judge not" and it says to feed the hungry and clothe the poor, look after the sick, and that sure as SHIT isn't followed because "that's socialism" but again MOST churches are full of assholes and hypocrites so.....
Jesus Himself was very much against divorce probably because in those days it hurt the woman. But Christians can divorce. Now in the Catholic Church i can’t remarry because i didn’t get my marriage annulled. It would be like it never existed and i didn’t want to feel that way. So i was considered still married. I had my kids baptized and took all the other sacaraments. I probably can remarry in the church now because my ex died and I’d be considered a widow. But most likely won’t. I think other branches are much more lenient about divorce.
Traci_Momof2
Princess
Princess
Posts: 11091
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 12:32 am
Location: Southwest USA

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:40 am JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Calling the "sexual revolution" a "threat to our church," First Baptist Church in Jacksonville will now require congregants to sign a statement affirming their opposition to LGBTQ+ freedoms if they want to remain members.

In a video message posted on the church website, Senior Pastor Heath Lambert said members will be required to sign a document affirming that people are "either male or female and that this creation is a fixed matter of human biology, not individual choice." They must also affirm that "marriage...is between one man and one woman, and is the only context for sexual desire and expression."

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/ ... 18a5daf383
This seems like it's getting dangerously close to illegal, or at least should be. I understand religious freedom and the right to believe what you want under your religion. But religious freedom doesn't put anyone above the laws of the land. If a church had it's members sign a contract stating "you must go forth and murder in order to be one with God", that member who then murders will still go to prison and that church would be in big trouble for essentially promoting crime.
Well, sexuality and sexual preference are protected groups under the law. You can't discriminate based on sexuality without it being illegal. And this church's contract seems like it's encouraging it's members to do just that. Maybe the actual words of the contract aren't explicitly saying it, but how many of these members are business owners? And how many of them will go out after signing this contract and deny service to those who are not cis-gendered or gay and lesbian couples? Or how many of them even will feel empowered to commit assault or murder on such individuals?

I see lawsuits over this in the church's future, if not straight up criminal charges.
Locked Previous topicNext topic