On Wednesday, January 27, 2016, Mitchell Gold wrote a letter to the editor in the Taylorsville Times, concerning his personal goal to “stop religious institutions from teaching that being LGBT, or homosexuality, is a sin”. I encourage you to get a copy of the Times and read his letter for yourself. After you have read his letter, it will give you a better understanding of the rebuttal I have submitted which should be published in the February 10th edition of the Taylorsville Times. My rebuttal was as follows:
On January 27, 2016, Mr. Mitchell Gold published a letter, and there are several issues concerning this letter I would like to address for the general public. Mr. Gold began by saying it was his personal “goal to help stop religious institutions from teaching that being LGBT… is a sin”. The issue is the taking away the constitutional right of those who practice a religion that teaches mankind is guilty of sin. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Mr. Gold also makes the following statement, “I thought God didn’t love me, that I was a sinner”. The issue with these two statements is that Mr. Gold is presuming that according to religious teachings in the area, Christian teachings, that homosexuality is the only sin mentioned in the Bible, and also that it is being taught that God does not love sinners. According to Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. The actual teaching of Christianity is that all people are sinners; there is no singling out of homosexuals. The Bible also clearly teaches that God loves sinners. “But God shows His love for us in that while we still sinners Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8). Mr. Gold’s statements reveal his misunderstanding of Christian teachings regarding sin and the love of God. He is requesting, not only that religious organizations be forced to stop teaching against sin, but by connection they also be forced to stop teaching the love of God. If there be no sinners, then the love of God displayed in the death of Jesus is for no one. Another issue with Mr. Gold’s argument is the following statement: “It was wrong to use religious teaching to justify slavery and deny equal rights to women. And it is wrong now to promote teachings that cause so much harm.” Mr. Gold is making a claim to a moral absolute, presumably with himself as the one who determines morality, and yet wanting to put an end to religious organizations for appealing to a moral absolute. He is also comparing apples to oranges with the comparison of ethnicity and gender to sexual orientation. Sexual desire must be acted upon, while gender and ethnicity are inherent traits. Mr. Gold also uses the phrase “evangelical” to refer to men who now “affirm” LGBT people. Despite the vagueness of this claim, this is a definitional error. By definition, evangelicals are those who derive their teachings from the Bible, and who see it as authoritative. When someone affirms something that is not affirmed in the Bible, they cease being evangelical by definition. The issues I see here clearly disqualify the arguments presented by Mr. Gold by revealing inconsistencies, unfairness, bias and a desire to trample the constitutional rights that make the USA the country that it is. ”
I also plan to write a follow up letter, concerning the actual teaching of the Christian sexual ethic, and it’s applications. It is my prayer that you will read this, share it, have your friends share it, and even write your own letters to the editor, showing that we have the same rights as Mr. Gold, all of which are endued to us by our “Creator”. Share, share, share.