Religious assertions are not legal assertions

| 02/10/2015 | 136 Comments

Cayman News ServiceDr Leonardo J Raznovich writes in response to the statement from the Church of GodOne important caveat: I am not going to enter into a theologian discussion as to the validity of the assertions contained in the statement. I respect the statement as a religious statement and I defend the right of this church, or any religious denomination, to make assertions of any kind provided that those assertions are not in breach of the law.

The first comment is to highlight the obvious: the assertions are religious assertions; they are not legal assertions. Under Christianity it is sinful to eat shellfish. Under Jewish law it is sinful to eat pork. Nobody expects the Cayman Islands government to ban the sale of shellfish or pork in local supermarkets any time soon. This is simply because when it comes to food and health and safety the government does not follow religious scripture or interpretations thereof by religious leaders. It respects freedom of choice and does not seek to impose a structure or approach on society that is reflective of any one religious denomination.

This is notwithstanding its complicity in the commission of perceived sins under those religions. If religious considerations are not used (and rightly so) to support policies and laws that protect Caymanians from committing sins in an act that we must perform daily to ensure our very existence (i.e. the consumption of food), it is difficult to understand why religious considerations should be used to support policies or laws in matters in which our lives are not at stake. I would assert that far greater numbers of people fall ill or die through the consumption or non-consumption of food, rather than through participation or non-participation in safe sexual acts.

Secondly, the Church of God (similar to Mr Anthony Eden in August at the Legislative Assembly) seems fixated with the need to affirm heterosexual marriage. The constitution of the Cayman Islands defines marriage; any inferior legislation, let alone religious statement, will add nothing to change the constitution. If the statement adds nothing, why is there a need to make it? The real intention in lobbying the government therefore has to be found somewhere else.

From the text of the statement, the Church of God’s intention seems to attempt to perpetuate the current state of segregation against the LGBT people of the Cayman Islands. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs or marriage but it is simply and bluntly an attempt to maintain illegal discrimination of LGBT Caymanian nationals who want to live a full and open life according to their own sexuality or preferences in their own homeland.

Thirdly, I appreciate the endorsement the Church of God seems to be making with its statement of an aspect of my public lecture delivered last January, in which I argued that the problem of Christianity was with sexuality rather than with homosexuality. The Church of God by stating ‘that morally appropriate sexual behaviour is defined by Scripture as being that sexual intimacy which is practised between an adult man and adult woman who are married to each other’ provides a vivid example that masturbation, sexual intercourse outside of marriage and non-vaginal intercourse are all, together with homosexuality, sinful activities. LGBT Caymanians can at least celebrate this statement in that hell is not just for them: straight Caymanians who participate in any of the foregoing acts will join them on the Day of Judgment.

Finally, there are various flaws with serious legal ramifications in the statement. I’ll address three of them. One of those flaws is that the statement purports to express an absolute position on the matter of marriage. Paradoxically, from the legal perspective, such an extreme position has the potential of undermining religious freedom, which the Church of God needs in order to keep preaching against of its own Caymanian LGBT people.

The fact is that there are other Christian churches around the world whose views are as worthy as those of the Church of God, yet on the issue of same sex marriage their views differ completely. For example, the Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ are all examples of Christian churches that have allowed same-sex couples to get married, some of them since 2005.

A second flaw relates to the Church of God’s attempt to define a family. The Church of God seems to understand a family as ‘natural … group unit [with] the ability to procreate as well as nurture offspring within the family unit in accordance with the natural order among heterosexual mammals.’ This definition is under inclusive, over inclusive and flawed as a matter of law.

Firstly, it leaves outside of its definition mono-parental families, i.e. single mothers and fathers. It also fails to explain what policies the Church of God has in place to prevent celebration of marriages between heterosexual couples that are unable to procreate ‘in accordance with the natural order among heterosexual mammals’ (e.g. because of incurable fertility problems or simply age). As a matter of law, the statement is flawed because the legal right of same-sex couples to respect for their family life is protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (Schalk & Kopf v. Austria (ECtHR, 24 June 2010, para. 94)) by which the Cayman Islands is bound.

A final flaw that I should like to highlight is the apparent attempt to defend ‘hate speech’ by rejecting the classification as such of statements whose very purpose is not to object to a particular behaviour or lifestyle but rather to strike an attack on the personhood of the practitioners. There is nothing wrong with a statement whose purpose is simply to object to homosexuality, masturbation or anal sex. As there is nothing wrong with a statement whose purpose is to object to eating shellfish or pork. This is because we live in a society in which the freedom of speech is a fundamental part of it.

However, statements that equate homosexuality with criminal behaviours (e.g. bestiality, paedophilia, etc.) or that contain personal threats of violence towards homosexuals (as those made by Anthony Eden in the Legislature Assembly) are not simply a matter of objection to same sex practices. They are statements, which encouraged the breach of human rights, sexual hatred and violence against LGBT people.

Admittedly, it is a distinction that one may find difficult to see, particularly for those with very strong views, but it is a very real distinction. Furthermore, failure to appreciate the distinction may lead to great harm to society. This is why these statements may potentially constitute the commission of criminal offences under the laws of the Cayman Islands contrary to, inter alia, section 88B of the Penal Code (2013 Revision) of the Cayman Islands, for which religious beliefs are not a defence.

More fundamentally, such statements only serve to segregate society and lead to mental and even physical harm to individuals that are simply trying to live a peaceful and open life with their loved ones in the place they consider as home.

Church of God statement affirming heterosexual marriage

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , ,

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (136)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Rick says:

    “I would assert that far greater numbers of people fall ill or die through the consumption or non-consumption of food, rather than through participation or non-participation in safe sexual acts.”

    Dr., when your arguments are predicated on un-truths, you lose the debate. This statement is incorrect, but a clever attempt to frame your argument, knowing that there is no foundation for justifying this type of behavior. If there is one thing the gay lifestyle is, it is unsafe. And under our constitution and Bill of Rights, such acts can be banned for public health.

    Fact: Compared to other activity, GAY sexual acts are as big a killer as any other mass murderer, and probably more so than most. More diseases have been spread and contracted by the GAY lifestyle than one can name. Therefore, there is nothing safe about GAY sex. In fact, medical professionals warn you that it is a RISKY lifestyle. High risk of death and disease!!!

    Because it is against the natural order of life, there is no safe way to have unprotected gay sex. This is not merely a hygiene issue. I suspect that this is why it is a sin in the first place. For example, ‘…men who have sex with men are at increased risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections, including hepatitis, human papillomavirus (HPV), herpes simplex, gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis…’ (

    In contrast, natural sex is protected naturally, and is not risky in itself, but is only so when accompanied by other risky behaviors, such as promiscuity, which is a sin in itself.

    Please doctor, stop selling your garbage to our young people.

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh dear, did the talking drums only just get news to your cave? Bit behind the times!! Never mind, if you have half a brain you will soon catch up, just pay attention now.

      Having said that and reread your comment, we will ensure the talking drums don’t bother you next time, but if you don’t mind, could we put a nice fence around your cave and show the tourists that despite rumour to the contrary, Neanderthol is alive and well in Cayman???

    • Anonymous says:

      By your logic cigarette smoking should be totally banned. ” it is unsafe. And under our constitution and Bill of Rights, such acts can be banned for public health. ” As should driving a car. Or crossing West Bay Road, even if you use one of the few cross walks.

    • Anonymous says:

      OMG Rick 4.05am….. I cannot believe your ignorance! Leaving aside the arguments about the rights or wrongs Homosexuality completely, – Did it not occur to you that (apart from bad Needles etc), the only time that you are in danger of getting AIDS is when you stray from the bounderies of ‘safe-sex’ (Heterosexual or Homosexual) and become promiscuous, engaging with different partners who may have AIDS or STDs! You then carry the disease/s with you back to your Partner and then stand the chance of infecting them.

      Anyone, Heterosexual or Homosexual, Man or Woman can get AIDS simply by sleeping with a Partner who has cheated on them with an AIDS or STD infected person.

      You don’t get AIDS just because you are gay ! .

      An innocent woman might sleep with her Husband who has cheated on her with another woman (who slept with an AIDS infected Bi-Sexual or Hetereosexual Man – The Husband then stands to contract and pass on the AIDS virus)…..the list and possibilities goes on and on – these are all ‘Un-safe Sex’ practices).
      The opposite can be the case also – An innocent husband whose wife cheated on him and contracted AIDS from another Man – he then contracts it – ( I guess you’d now call him Gay eh? )

      ‘Natural Sex’ is not ‘protected naturally’ if the person you are sleeping with as a Partner/Spouse has had sex with an infected Person and has contracted AIDS himself/herself therefore, the only part of your post which makes any sense are simply two words (from the penutimate paragraph of your post) ‘risky behaviours’ – These can be performed by anyone Man/Woman/Heterosexual/Homosexual. Safe Sex may also be performed by all of those categories.

      I agree with 7.39am, you must not come out of your cave into the real world very often.

      • Anonymous says:

        The fact that there are 17 people who ‘like’ Rick’s comment so far is very worrying – just shows how widespread the ignorance is.
        It is not the ‘gay lifestyle’ that is unsafe (unless one of the Partners became infected before entering into the relationship) – it is when that lifestyle becomes promiscuous (in other words, either of the partners engage with other people but maintain an ongoing relationship together )…. Yes, then the ‘Lifestyle’ is dangerous – in the same way as a Hetereosexual Lifestyle where the ‘Natural Sex’ couple engage in Wife-swapping.

        • Anonymous says:

          Nonsense comments like yours are good examples of gay propaganda. Homosexuals are generally promiscuous (even when in so-called marriages) and their sexual practises place them at much higher risk of STDs and other diseases. The CDC confirms this. Fact.

          • Anonymous says:

            It is probably not a good idea to present your argument to these people using something so inconvenient as facts.

          • Anonymous says:

            So yet more persons totally miss the point of my 8.49 post… (9.04 and 9.35).
            Whether or not Homosexuals are generally promiscuous or not – the point I am making is that the lifestyle only becomes ‘unsafe’ when that promiscuity is practiced. The whole theme of Rick 4.05’s post was to state that the Lifestyle ‘in-and-of’ itself is unsafe just because they are Homosexuals but the same can be said about ANY lifestyle – Heterosexual OR Homosexual – when the partners become promiscuous !
            NOW, do you understand (9.04 and 9.35)….??? and no, I am not promoting or trying to create propaganda and I am a happily married (to a woman) straight man and I am not saying that I necessarily support same-sex relationships – that is besides the point.
            You have to put the emotive comments aside for once and concentrate on the facts.


    I will only agree to support Dr Leonardo J Raznovich’s petition for recognition of his same-sex union IF me (a female Caymanian), my partner (a male Caymanian) and my other partner (a male American) will be allowed to be married as well.

    We are of wealthy means and prepared to file in court also.

    • C. Ferret says:

      Because one man’s shit is not enough for you? Go for it sweetheart.

    • blah blah blah says:

      Seems to me that getting married is the last thing you’d want to do.

    • Anonymous says:

      So glad you’re taking this on! You would not be polygamists, but polyandrists. If you were from a certain tribe in Tibet, you might have a case, as it is part of your culture, but since you’re not, you may have a court fight. Since you have plenty of money I suggest you bring in some really good lawyers, like Dr. Raznovich. Even though it could leave you broke, you will be pioneers in Cayman polyandry – maybe get a National Hero citation! I can hardly wait!

    • Rights says:

      I for one support this. I have always stated that if the LBGT is to be given rights, as mandated by the EUHRC, then it is only fair that all angles, of this marriage issue, be given the same rights.

      To purport to support one stance but not the entire stance is wrong and biased. If you allow one party rights then you must allow all parties the same rights.

      Remember the Polygamists were content with what we had. Now you have changed the game and must allow everyone to exercise their free will. We demand our rights too. We will fight for them.

    • Anonymous says:

      Setting up a straw man now? Desperate times call for desperate measures. Just like when “creationism” was recognised as bunkum and the fundamentalists came up the comedic “intelligent design”.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Thank you. For such a religious place maybe the government should stop recognizing children born to two parents who are not married. That means no rights – similar to LGBT. No rights at all including no birth paper, no passport, no free education from the government, cannot use the children as basis for any government programme, child cannot be added to any health policy, no access to the hospital services. I know this is a bit extreme but maybe that is what is needed to show some people why human rights should not be denied simply because of “moral” rules.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why punish children for the sins of their parents? Your argument makes no sense.

      • Anonymous says:

        Do you remember what “God” allowed to happen to Job just for a bet with the Devil? One sick, sick, omnipotent power we have here.

  4. Anonymous says:

    For a country with so much religiousity I have never come across such non Christian dealings as I have here. The Church of God speaks out about homosexuality but is silent of on the issue of sexual molestation, incest, domestic violemce, poverty, corruption, nepotism and the list goes on.

    • Anonymous says:

      No one is contending that those social/moral evils are really good in fact. That is the difference.

      • Anonymous says:

        No-one is attributing “good” because it is not a moral issue. You attribute “evil” because you are imposing a religious moral code on the behaviour of those who do not accept your religion.

        • Anonymous says:

          If there is a God, then what he says is the rule for everyone. If someone disagrees with it, it doesn’t make the rule invalid. I don’t believe in being governed by people whom I have no power to unelect, but that doesn’t alter the fact that they have authority over me. “I don’t recognise your authority” is the trump card of a 5 year old – you should have grown out of that by now.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yup! Well said. We strain at gnats and swallow camels. Typical churchy stuff.

  5. Anonymous says:

    We are a conservative Christian society, which has been steeped in our own values for many, many, generations.

    We do not take kindly to outsiders coming in and trying to make us like everywhere else in the world, otherwise we will be the same as everywhere else, and we do not want that. Our forefathers out of necessity had to travel the world, and they witnessed what was practiced outside of these islands but the majority chose to return and retire here simply because they preferred our way of life and values.

    If you do not like what we value, then there are several flights a day to several destinations.Here is a suggestion for you Professor. There is an island 180 miles to the south-west that you should try your practices on….I don’t know maybe they will accept your views.

    Oh by the way, have you ever heard of Canon Law? I dare say that quite a bit of law has been derived from religion.

    • Anonymous says:

      I suggest he challenge this one and leave Cayman alone

    • Anonymous says:

      Your own values, really? What a high standard you set! Corruption, nepotism, wife beating, mugging and murder, thieving, many lazy people who do not understand what work is ( but not all, for sure) and you like it? Still nice and warm in the sh1t, isn’t it? Why don’t you try raising the bar a little and you might start to use those brains that you allegedly have? You might be surprised that people have to tolerate idiots like you, so cut some slack!

    • Anonymous says:

      Maybe this professor can go to that island southwest of here, but are you also suggesting that all the gay caymanians had to go and live there as well? Who are you to tell us to move away of our home???

    • Anonymous says:

      Methinks that the more apt take on the issue is that the Cayman Islands are a British Dependent Territory; bound by the rules of law that accompany this status; therefore any Caymanians who are unable to tolerate the ways this impacts their lives are free to leave as well.

    • blah blah blah says:

      Being bound to Britain sort of makes you have to abide to certain standards that other civilized nations follow. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  6. Jordan Seymour says:

    I understand the fact that everyone wants to be loved and everyone wants to be accepted and everyone just wants to live. But at the end of the day, sinners and Christians need to have respect for each other, because even Christians make mistakes and sin, but that’s the beautiful thing about God when you trust him completely, whenever you fall he’ll give you the strength to get back up. However Christians, are not in the position to judge any other human being, that is left for God to do, we are to preach the Gospel, and lead people towards God in love and not hate. Love the sinner and not the sin. Instead of helping lost confused souls get closer with God, were pushing them away judging them of their mistakes, past etc. as if we’re the ones who sit on Heavens Mercy seat. Non-Christians need to have respect for God on a hold, because some of ya’ll can be very disgusting and bluntly disrespectful. How can you compare yourself to a higher power that is beyond your control or beyond your comprehension? Why do some of you believe that you and God are equals? Do you think you’re complex knowledge and fancy state of the art technology can somehow overpower God ? Did you forget where your knowledge came from? Let’s be clear, God doesn’t hate God doesn’t bose, and despite your disrespectful ways towards him he’ll love you regardless, and a lot of people who claim to be a follower of Christ like me, need to have the same mindset as God. But bare in mind of this, it may not be now, but it will definitely be later if not now. God will put you through a situation, that will eventually bring you to your knees and beg for his help and forgiveness. The reason I say this is because I’ve seen it and I’ve witnessed these kind of things and I was a non-Christian who too went through a difficult situation who had no choice but to fall on my knees and pray for forgiveness and help. So just a thought, God is God and God is not man that you can compare yourself to and think you and him are equals.

    • Anonymous says:

      “sinners and Christians” Hmmm pretty egotistical statement. WWJD if he was here and heard that. My guess is pass you by and serve others.

  7. Shabba says:

    Put it to a referendum and ask the people to stand for what they believe in – and let the highest votes win regardless of how many turn up at the poles. For an issue this big there should be a healthy turn out.

    I am against non traditional relationships btw , believe in god and also that church and state should be separate

    What about the rights of persons who want to sexually abuse children or animals should we change laws for them as well?

    • Just Driftwood says:

      There is a history of the majority voting against what might be in the best interests of human rights (ie women’s right to vote in western societies, interracial marriage, etc.). Just because people vote to ban or disallow something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

    • Anonymous says:

      Cayman is already legally obliged.

    • Just Commentin' says:

      The idea of a referendum is silly. The issue will be settled legally by our observance of our legally voted-in constitution and the enjoined Bill of Rights (which must be enacted and must conform to the precepts passed to us by our Mother Country and ultimate governor, the UK.

      In any event, the result of such a vote cannot be in contravention to the laws and rights to which we are subject to according to our status as a British Overseas Territory. Momma owns us; and when Momma is happy, everyone is happy.

  8. Rob says:

    Now that Dr. Raznovich has articulately and thoroughly responded to the church’s argument against his lifestyle, can he tell us whether or not his logic extends to, covers or applies to incestuous relationships also? Because according his belief all that’s required is love and consent. A very lax set of criteria, indeed.

    If, Dr. Raznovich, you want to kick morality out of the door and say “I can do whatever I want because I’m an adult and it is not hurting anyone”, where do you draw the line, sir? If #Lovewins, does it also win in cases of genetic sexual attraction, or if four men and two women want to get married as a group? Does #Lovewin here too, or does that get too complicated so the answer is no?

    What is your criteria? If marriage, according to you, should not be defined as being between one man and one woman only, then who and how many people is marriage for and between. It appears as though the goal is to wrangle the institution of marriage into some kind of free for all.

    • Anonymous says:

      Straw man coming on strong yah. What it appears to rational people is that the argument is whether or not gay marriage is ok. Period. Where do see advocating a matrimonial free for all? The criteria is obvious: gender should be irrelevant when it comes to marriage. To infer otherwise is indulging in mindless fallacy.

      • Anonymous says:

        Actually, it is a very relevant point. If you can alter the definition of marriage so fundamentally that gender is irrelevant why should the number of persons be relevant?

      • Anonymous says:

        Stop using stupid phrases like “straw man.” You know that no one including yourself knows what it means unless of course, you are Worzel Gummidge”.

  9. Rights says:

    Just my two cents on this whole issue.
    If people want to get married then fine, it’s their right.

    So then myself and my 6 young brides want to be married. I love them all and the six of them love me. We are consenting adults of our own free will.

    We can not be denied a license.

    Put up or shut up.

    • Anonymous says:

      No woman in her right mind would put up with this, unless she’s in a country without women’s rights, so Cayman doesn’t need to worry about anyone requesting polygamy licenses anytime soon. Let’s not get carried away, this is not the same as requesting gay rights for marriage. Although, I can hear the polygamous marriage scenario is a fantasy of yours. 🙂

    • Just Driftwood says:

      Following your slippery slope argument: if gay people can’t get married then maybe people of different races or nationalities, or anyone with a significant age difference, or couples in which one person is taller than another, or in which one person makes a lot more money, or only one person drives a BMW, etc. shouldn’t be able to either? Maybe everyone who wants to get married should have to go before the MLA and explain their worthiness so the state can decide to grant permission?

      Gonna “put up” with that?

    • Anonymous says:

      Do it! I dare you. And…er…good luck.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Just go live somewhere else….just a thought.

    • Anonymous says:

      As the Germans said to the Jews in the 1930s.

    • Anonymous says:

      Standard and pathetic Cayman answer 3.05. Rather than look deeply into respect for human rights, or challenging yourselves to do the right thing even if it means change, you tell him to go elsewhere. The dinosaurs could not adapt, didn’t do them much good either. Cayman will grind itself to extinction.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Very well expressed Dr Raznovich. I completely agree that the Church is indeed fixated on sexuality. Not sure what the obsession is, but there you go.

    These Islands have bigger issues to take care of instead of obsessing about what two consenting adults do behind closed door.

    Seriously “…morally acceptable sexual behaviour…?”


    • Anonymous says:

      “Not sure what the obsession is…”

      Sex sell because it is titillating.

      It is easier to sell that the concept of helping homeless people.

      • Anonymous says:

        Who told you that the needy in our community are not being helped by churches? I can assure you that they are. Sound morals and charity are not alternatives. They fit together very well.

        • Anonymous says:


        • Anonymous says:

          Read Matthew 25:41-45 and please tell me how the oh-so-caring church rates in providing for the needs of the poor Cuban boat people who come here needing help in their journey. They are given the choice of going on their way without water or food, or being returned to the godless country they are risking their lives to escape. Where is the outcry from the church on this issue? Where is their help? Where is their love? Where is their righteous indignation? Like the impotent and indifferent tribe they are, and taking a page out of Jesus’ words regarding the love gone cold of those who have fallen away, they are silent on this most horrific contravention of Christ’s command and Christian moral code. 

          In my opinon, about the only thing the so-called “Christians” round yah are good for is disseminating hate and prejudice. Many if not most, damn well deserve the fate spoken of in Matthew 25 in the Book these goats claim to follow so religiously. 

        • Anonymous says:

          Sound morals? Who taught you yours? How about ” love thy neighbour”? How about “forgive those that trespass against you”. You don’t have to like or condone it but it would appear you have to love and respect LBGT folk regardless. Or am I not allowed to point that out in your “moral” arguement? Those that bang on about morals in my experience are those that have the least respect for anyone and are guilty of vanity and taking the Lords name in vain as they try to justify their evil interpretation of what should be a good, loving community.

          • Anonymous says:

            Huh? I am very much in favour of loving my neighbour and forgiving those who trespass against me. But of course those have nothing to do with the issue. Obviously, pointing out that scripture says homosexuality is sinful does not mean that I hate homosexuals.

            Since you have read the bible you should be aware that you should not be making the judgements that you have made about someone whom you do not even know just because they disagree with your views on homosexuality. That is the real meaning of “do not judge”. Contrary to what many liberals think, it doesn’t mean that you must be morally neutral about everything and make no distinction between good and bad.

    • Anonymous says:

      You really need to pay attention. The issue of gay marriage is a public one; it is not about what two (or any number for that matter) do behind closed doors.

      • Just Commentin' says:

        Words are easy to write; however, enlightened words, at least from the haters, seem as rare as hen’s teeth.

        So, in what ways does gay marriage impact the public any differently than, say, two homosexuals living together openly? Just wondering what your rationale is for making so broad a statement.

    • Keeping it real! says:

      This is the problem! What two people do behind close doors is their business, its not the Government business. Keep your sexual life private and to yourself, the whole world don’t need to know who you sleeping with.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Oh dear. I don’t think this fella should make any pronoucements about Christianity since he clearly understands little about it. This one is a doozy: “under Christianity it is sinful to eat shellfish”. Errrr… no, it isn’t. How on earth can a church body exercising its freedom of speech to record its support and maintenance of traditional, orthodox Christian morality be said to be causing mental or physical harm to anyone?

    • Anonymous says:

      Easily, by telling him his Human Rights don’t matter and he has to do what you say. He should sue you as well. That will shut you up quick enough. The law is the law, and stop sticking your nose in other peoples affairs. No-one gave you that right.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well said!!

      • Anonymous says:

        One problem with your argument. That has always been the traditional view of Caymanian society yet it never posed any such threat to homosexuals among us. Cayman is a very tolerant society. People aren’t killed of beaten up simply because they are gay.

  13. Darwin says:

    Faith is defined as “The purposeful suspension of Critical Thinking.”

  14. P. Galore says:

    Everyone loves eating clams…….

  15. Anonymous says:

    So simply disagreeing with him is hate speech or is it because the pastor called it a sin?
    If it is because he called it a sin then he hates us all as we are all sinners.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The Bible; a book written by a bunch of guys that didn’t know where the sun went at night, still has all the answers in the year 2015 according to our Govt. SMH.

    • Anonymous says:

      The Sun continues to travel around the Earth just past the firmament. The Bible tells me so.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Religious people have lower IQs and lower levels of education than atheists do. Just a couple of statistics. Draw any conclusions you want.

    • Anonymous says:

      Indeed, they can only see one point of view, and twist it every time to suit their own circumstances, or to justify their own stupidity, rather than a general understanding that it should be about love. They are one step away from being the Christian “ISIS”.

    • Anonymous says:

      Just because you are an atheist does not mean you have a high IQ. Plenty of stupid atheists.

      • Anonymous says:

        True. But statistically there is a significant average IQ gap and education gap between Christians and atheists. So the existence of stupid atheists or intelligent Christians does not disprove the point.

      • Anonymous says:

        Many more stupid Christians stuck in dogma they never challenge from a church created by equally stupid men, all seeking to control one another rather than be good to your fellow man

      • Anonymous says:

        A mind untouched by the concept of averages but touched by the spirit of the Lord.

        • Anonymous says:

          Actually, I understand averages very well. My point is that people touting such a statistic are hoping to bolster the idea that they are really intelligent by virtue of your non-belief. But of course none of this has anything to do with intelligence, just your world view.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ok buddy, let’s run off a few Fast Fourier Transforms and some differential equations. Thought not. Whenever you are ready. Oh and let’s not forget transfer functions in Control Engineering. Very helpful with servo motors. You know the ones that control robotic arms and missile targeting. If you are up to it, let’s go for some degaussing equations that make military equipment invisible.

      And by the way, Jesus is Lord. And yes, I live in the Cayman Islands.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well done on achieving a basic Physics Degree. Whoopee. It is shame that your statistics studies suffered. There is a measurable average difference between the IQs and education levels of atheists and Christians, so the existences of a smartie-pants believer (self-proclaimed) means nothing. But it is tragic that you believe in a theistic entity despite your education when there is no evidence for that entity and it makes no sense. Typically such believers were either brain washed as a child or found the lord after a personal crisis when they were impressionable and open to suggestion techniques. Either way their “decision” to believe in a theistic entity was not one that was taken freely. But since you are such a smart scientist why don’t you set out your evidence in support for an omnipotent god-being actively and currently controlling the universe.

        • Anonymous says:

          The physics geek couldn’t respond because he was at a Christian Doctor Who convention.

        • Anonymous says:

          Well the fact that I knew I was a sinner in salvation had a lot to do with it. Any scientific knowledge that I may or may not have is a tiny part of the equation of our time here on earth.

          An IQ is not much and sometimes it can be a hindrance because as an intellectual atheist, it seems rather foolish to have to learn from an uneducated Christian, but you are only validating scripture with your stance.

          “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” 1 Cor 1:27

          It’s ok. Anyway, God is most certainly real and it is something you will have to prove to yourself. Why not just close your door and have a little prayer. God will answer any humble prayer.

          Good luck.

          • Anonymous says:

            Is that all you got? “Pray a bit”? Prayer is a well-known self-help tool. It provides benefits without the need for any magical super-being. Come on, you’ve got to give us something to work with here. I suspect that your post shows you were brainwashed as a child and have never been able to apply critical reasoning to the process.

      • Anonymous says:

        Oh so clever!! Perhaps you could design a safe nuclear power plant to give us cheap power? Thought not. Anyone needing to try and demonstrate one skill to prove he is clever generally has a problem with many other skills. I believe the good Lord teaches us modesty? Or did you conveniently forget that as it didn’t suit you?

        • Anonymous says:

          I was merely responding in kind to the original statement. Perhaps I was somewhat immodest. I am prepared to accept that.
          I don’t think nuclear is the way to go. I have studied the disaster at Fukushima and those poor folk had hell to deal with after the accident. Here in Cayman, we would have a hard time mitigating any disaster due to lack of immediate resources. At least the Japanese could get emergency supplies from other parts. Please don’t suggest nuclear.

          Personally, I believe solar (in its many forms, photovoltaic, passive, heliostats, electrolysis etc) is the way and when we get a globally interconnected grid, we will sort it out.

          All the best.

      • Anonymous says:

        Congrats for being on the right side of the curve, but the point the original post made was that the religious bell curve is shifted left relative to the atheist one.

      • Anonymous says:

        It is a shame that Jesus did not say the tools would inherit the Earth. If he had you would be in for a great inheritance.

      • Anonymous says:

        How did your science classes portray things like the formation of stars and planets, creationism and the firmament?

      • Anonymous says:

        Ok, Genius, Game On! I have advanced belts in two forms of martial arts. So get out your pencil and meet me on the mat and we can settle this. When I have my heel on your throat will this prove anything? No.

        Geeze! See how silly your swaggering sounds? Skill sets are utterly irrelevant to the debate.

        BTW: I also possess the skills to solve advanced mathematical problems, and I probably have a different way of working out my religious beliefs than you. In the end, you and I are free to worship as we please.

        Please also bear in mind that in applied calculus, there are often several different ways to approach and solve a complex problem. In theoretical mathematics, there may be several different, equally correct resolutions; or, as you are aware, the solutions may be a range, rather than a discrete number; it might even be an imaginary number, or, an element existing in imaginary time. So, do we face off on the chalkboard, or in the ring? In the end, when the chalkdust settles or the blood dries, what will we have proven that is applicable to the gay marriage debate? Null set? Thought so!

        • Anonymous says:

          The physics guy does not appear close to a genius. Rather he has a physics or engineering degree. Big deal.

  18. 345 says:

    And this is just one example, of why I and the majority of voters said “No” when voting on this constitution. You have to remember that only registered Caymanian voters were allowed to vote, so this is not an expat issue. The bar was set artificially high so it would pass. The churches have as much political power in Cayman, as the NRA has in the US.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hallucinating again? There, there, Bobo, take your meds and you will be ok. Not meaing to further agitate you, but the reason the Constitution was passed is because the majority of votes, over 60%, supported enactment of this new Constitution.

      • coprophagiac says:

        Revisionist history Bobo? The majority of people who bothered to vote said no. But, the bar was set so it would have to be a majority of all registered,, voters, and of course Mac and the Churches knew that would never happen, because most could not be bothered and just wanted the day off.

  19. Anonymous says:

    You can reason with the brainwashed. They can’t even make out a decent case for a theistic deity but they run their whole lives according to bronze age myths.

  20. Anonymous says:

    A very well expressed argument. Any government that allows Church to interfere in its thinking is going to be a government in trouble with Human Rights at some point. History has shown that states that allow religious leaders to shine are generally the ones that start wars. Whilst that is clearly ridiculous in Caymans case, not having a clear separation of Church and State will cause internal strife. Let the Churches have their views, but they should not influence the state.

  21. Elena says:

    And yet Jesus was born out of wedlock.

    • Anonymous says:

      Under Christianity it is NOT prohibited to eat shellfish. That was a matter of pre-Christ Jewish law that Jesus quite clearly did away with as belonging to the era before his incarnation. When you start your piece with a clear and obvious lack of understanding, it’s hard to take too seriously anything that follows.

      And what follows is the usual patronising nonsense that declines to address any pertinent issues but prefers instead to say, in broad terms: ‘obviously Christians are wrong, except for the minority who are right because I’ve decided that they’re right, which proves that there is no wrong or right, and you’re all stupid’.

      OK, thanks for that.

      • Anonymous says:

        But the bit the fundamentalists cite about homosexuality comes from Leviticus too. Which bits count? I am quite keen to stone my mother-in-law to death since I caught her cursing.

        • Anonymous says:

          Errrr…no. it is right there in the NT. Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, 1 Timothy 1:9–10, and Jude 1:7.

      • Anonymous says:

        What about the talking snake? Is that not true either? I really liked the talking snake.

        • Anonymous says:

          How did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? I thought God sprinkled some of his magic dust and poof they were born?

      • Anonymous says:

        I did not read that in the piece. Not sure what you were reading, but he quite clearly states the Church is entitled to its view, however it is not entitled to interfere with his Human Rights under law. And quite right too. So take your self righteous twisted argument and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

      • Anonymous says:

        Are you saying that Seventh Day Adventist are not Christians? They are certainly prohibited from eating shellfish.

        • Anonymous says:

          No, we are saying that Christians are not prohibited from eating shellfish. If SDAs wish to put themselves under the OT dietary laws that is a matter for them but the other 99% of Christians follow the NT.

          • Anonymous says:

            If Christians refrained from eating shellfish, there would be a load more conch for us Atheists to eat on Sunday.

          • Anonymous says:

            Sorry, are you saying you don’t follow the Bible? I thought that was a fundamental part of Christianity. I’m sure I read that somewhere. Oh yeah, in the Bible!

            Jesus said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35).

            Jesus referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13).

            • Anonymous says:

              The NT is in the Bible. The Bible contains two covenants. The first God made with Jews and is contained in the OT. The new covenant, made with Christians is contained in the NT. In the new covenant the only religious dietary prohibitions are (1) food offered to idols, and (2) the meat of strangled animals and blood (Acts 15:20). Jesus himself said it is not what goes into the mouth of a man that makes him unclean and defiled, but what comes out of the mouth; this makes a man unclean and defiles him (Matt. 15:11). Paul amplifies this in 1 Tim 4:4 “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude”. There is no question of scripture being broken, but of two covenants. Stop casting around and taking scripture verses out of context desperately hoping to make some point.

              • Anonymous says:

                If everything created by God is good, then surely homosexuality is as equally good as heterosexuality since we were all created by God?
                Perhaps you’re just not showing gratitude for the diversity of God’s creations?

              • Anonymous says:

                Where does Jesus speak against homosexuals? Could you quote actually Jesus saying anything against homosexuality?

                • Anonymous says:

                  He didn’t need to. Blatantly obvious sin in the context of the Law. He also didn’t say anything about rape or molesting small children. Should we conclude that they are ok?

          • Anonymous says:

            So, you are saying only 1% of Christians fornicate?

      • Anon says:

        Wait what? So your “God” just changed his mind about that bit – but the other bits he is still into?

        You remind me of a kid trying to explain how Santa gets to everyone’s house in just one night.

      • who is whodatiz? says:

        Its actually hard to take your point of view seriously when the first thing that you do is point out one of the most glaringly ridiculous things about following the bible. I.e that it completely lacks consistency and often contradicts itself.

        Can someone who isn’t spouting nonsense from a ridiculous ancient book please try and articulate whether there are any sensible legal arguments against same sex marriage?

        • Anonymous says:

          It is hard to respond to you seriously when the first thing you do is make a brainless assertion about something you clearly don’t understand.

          Can someone isn’t spouting nonsense from a bigoted, ignorant, anti-Christian standpoint please try and articulate whether there are any sensible Biblical arguments for same sex marriage?

    • Anonymous says:

      …but born of the Holy Spirit.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeah Mary sure fooled her simple minded husband with that line which she made up after her belly started to show. And she was fairly amazed that others ran with the story and it became a cult. Meanwhile she was totally relieved that she wasn’t stoned for adultery.

        • Anonymous says:

          Mary did not fool him. He was thinking to break off the engagement when he had his own visitation from the Lord in a dream that the child was of God and that he should marry Mary. Obviously, Mary would have been keenly aware that this was a very unlikely story. (Miracles tend to be unlikely). She could more plausibly have said that she was raped by a Roman soldier. But she didn’t.

      • Anonymous says:

        Any evidence to back that up?

    • Anonymous says:

      Happy day when you get to ask Him for yourself.
      People, PLEASE do NOT disrespect God. We will all stand before Him one day. Religion and denomination is irrelevant. We stand as we are, naked and open. Let us not be arrogant. Hell was made for the devil, not us. PLEASE do not join him.

      • Haley Lujah says:

        Doesn’t have much of a sense of humor, does he?

        His followers convince me he does.

        It will suck if we end up standing in front of Buddha and he says, “You went for that Christian nonsense?”

  22. Anonymous says:

    Well said.

    • Anonymous. says:

      The same God that all of mock will judge you one day. You will cry out for the rocks and the mountains to fall and cover you because you will be trembling with fear to stand before God. I pray for your undying souls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.