'The Stranger' magazine puts up with anti-gay bias in Seattle!!

[icymist]

What else can I make of this article?
This link
Cross Purposes
As older Seattle churches struggle to stay afloat, new churches are attracting urban hipsters with club-like venues, punk rock, and joke-filled sermons—and a social agenda that would make Jerry Falwell proud.
BY ERICA C. BARNETT

It's 10:00 on Sunday morning, the light is just beginning to climb the brick walls in a small, high-ceilinged room in the back of the Capitol Hill Arts Center, and church is getting under way. The congregation—an unlikely mix of twentysomethings in T-shirts and jeans, middle-aged men in overalls and sweats, and one elderly couple in casual sportswear—arranges itself in four rows of folding chairs as Pastor Jason Hudson, a fresh-faced 29-year-old with a crew cut, gray pullover, and an acoustic guitar, takes his place behind a music stand at the front of the room. A whiteboard, balanced on a rickety easel in the front of the room, says, "Welcome to Church on the Hill." On the far wall, a heavy wooden cross and a half-dozen partially burned white candles teeter precariously on an upholstered bench. The whole tableau looks temporary, like a church in exile.

(snip)

"Acceptance is about saying, 'I love you, but you need to change,'"
(Mine)
This is towards gay people. Read the article and realize that this is going on within a gay neighborhood in Seattle Washington. Capital Hill has historically been a gay neighborhood in Seattle. The preachers in this church on Capitol Hill that preach hate to wards homosexual peoples is a bigot practicing bigotry through scripture, the worst sin of all.

I am out-raged that The Stranger printed this with a rebuttle from the community in attack, (gay community) It's almost as if the Stranger had pre-approvied it's agendia via verbal communication. To Hell with the rest of you. Has The Stranger become a tool of the far right?

[UncleSepp]

1. Did you read the whole article?

It describes emerging churches. The first ones described are intolerant, the later ones described are tolerant. The article doesn't advocate one point of view or endorse one church over another.

I really don't see what you're going on about here. Should the paper not describe this phenomenon at all, or only describe it in an editorialized fashion?

[icymist]

2. Yes I did read the entire article.

I find this article 'trying' for The Stranger. As you read this article, I hope you notice the slant towards the right with little rebutle from the left,. I find this political slant new for The Stranger, and very pro- Christian in it's reasoning that gays give up the 'life-style' that they (Christians) have diceded for themselves are detrimental to the health and well-being of the rest of us. This approach sounds more alarmist than pracital.

[UncleSepp]

5. I didn't see any slant, just information

I'm damned good at picking up spin, and also at creating it. I think you're seeing something that isn't there.

[icymist]

3. Letting the religious right have a say in The Stranger....

Isn't that saying enough? I'm disgusted that this 'newspaper' has allowed the 'religious right' to display their propaganda in such an unabashed manner?! Isn't it enough that that this faction upon us working toward womens' rights would go better without your medaling in the matter? Intolerant churches or tolerant churches, which one do you adhere from? Tell me why you want to 'get on me' for speaking the truth?
There are some clues out there why they would want to suppress gay rights,

[UncleSepp]

6. There's no propaganda in that article

Don't lecture me on propaganda. I've forgotten more about it than you'll ever know.

This was a straight-ahead reporting piece on emergent churches. Would you rather have such papers ignore the existence of the religious Right, or report on them? What meddling are you talking about? Why do you assume I adhere to a church at all? Why do you think I am "getting on you" for speaking the "truth"? I am responding to your opinion with mine. Presenting one's opinions as the truth is propaganda, Icymist.

What "they" would want to suppress gay rights - the Stranger? What clues are you talking about?

[transeo]

4. It was very informative, not a shill piece

I'm sorry, but I think you're overreacting a bit. It's a very detached, informative article that let's us know what is going on without taking a position and no position needs to be taken. It's an attempt to be unbiased about a rather odd situation in such a progressive town. Regular Stranger readers know what the paper's position is already. The Stranger has always supported the gay community and other progressive causes. They are also famous for pissing people off, so in your case, mission accomplished.

[insleeforprez]

7. And to accuse "The Stranger"

of being slanted to the right is sheer nonsense. Hell, it's probably further to the left than I am (on some issues, anyway).

[Guy Fawkes]

8. Do you know who edits The Stranger?

Dan Savage. You may as well accuse The Daily Show of being far-right propaganda. Don't jump to conclusions because of an imagined bias.