Campaign Life Coalition is very real.

They are Canada's equivalant to what is feared in the US, yet Canadian tend not to know about their own groups, their beliefs, and the power they weild.

The Campaign Life Coalition is a very politically active conservative Christian pro-life organization out of Toronto.  They are also opposed to same-sex maggiage and other things.

They run LifeSiteNews and that too is no parody.

chemgal, as SG answered, yes, Campaign Life is for real.

Rich blessings.

---

Jae

mc wrote:

Community Information Package wrote:

The public school health curriculum from 2010 includes instruction about gender identity issues in primary grades (you may be a boy but later choose to be a girl), personal pleasure in grade 5 (mutual masturbation and vaginal lubrication), and alternative forms of sexual gratification in grades 7 (anal and oral sex)

So kids will get taught mutual masturbation and vaginal lubrication when they are ten years old, and anal and oral sex when they're twelve.

At what age will they get taught things like love, caring, compassion, romance, faithfulness, and fidelity?

Will post more later.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae
"

seriously?.


if that is so, and there is a petition link or something , post it.


i have a question.

why ,if it is, does the school feel it needs to teach those things to children? (10-12 ) (younger in next set of changes next decade?)

...because of people like you Stephenbooth ..........

Regards

Rita

Jae, do you agree with the points that Campaign Life makes?

chemgal,

One thing I don't like is the hostility I sense in the Campaign Life presentation. Surely we can have a civil discussion over such important matters without that.

As I'm against bullying of any kind, it would be difficult to argue against student-driven clubs fighting bullying of any kind. If the only purpose of these clubs was to encourage people to stop bullying gays, I wouldn't personally have an issue.

At the same time, I cannot say that I support the promotion of same-sex marriage. I must say that I believe that marriage is properly an institution between one man and one woman.

As I find time over the course of this weekend I will share with you how I feel about each of the CL points.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Campaign Life is a front orgaisation for a group of right wing Catholics. Beside their political activities they are known for going after mainstream catholics, Cathlic Universities and Catholic politicians. They seems to speand alot of time writing the Vatican, trying to get the Pope to excommunicate other Catholics, fire Professors at Catholic Universities,  In fact among Catholics I know , claim that the hate other Catholicis even more than abortions, Currently I know of a least one Priest who is suing them in civil courts for what they published in their  other website, Lifesitenews for slander.   They often twist and misrepresent the view of Catholic revisionists (likely the majority of Professors at Catholic Universities), who they claim are not even Catholics or Christians.

There is only one truth religion, the Catholic Church, but they setup this so called coalition in order to raise money from non Catholics, as well as hoping to get them to cross the Tiber.   Ultimately they are opposed to things like birth control, LGBT people, Jesuits, education, (Think of US politicician Rick Santorium)

They are becoming more powerful in the Catholic Chruch due to their defense of Bishops who deny and coverup the problem of child abuse in the church.  They back it up with organisation and threats against other Catholic groups. Howevr they have no problems attacking Bisops that they see as being too tolerant of others. 

First of all, I'm a little confused.

They speak of the 6 gender theory, then later they suggest it's 6 + 2 (male and female) = 8, but then they also say it's 2 (male and female) + 8 (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Two-spirited, Intersexed and Queer) = 10.

*gives head a shake*

At any rate, I think the real fear being expressed here is that the teachers will make some of the students queer. Little Johnny may choose to be transgender, little Suzie may choose to be a lesbian, that kind of thing.

If we accept that those things are not decided by choice, or at least there is an element of non-choice in them, than their fear is all a little silly. Little Bobby can't choose to be gay any more than he can choose to be a diesel train.

If we believe rather that they are decided by choice, than the moral and theological question becomes how wrong and sinful is it to make the various choices. I would suggest that the exploration of that question is better left in the hands of parents and ministers than teachers in the public school system.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae 

uote=MC jae]

At any rate, I think the real fear being expressed here is that the teachers will make some of the students queer. Little Johnny may choose to be transgender, little Suzie may choose to be a lesbian, that kind of thing.

---

MC jae 

[/quote]

I really don't understand either how or why a teacher might make some of the students queer. 

I also don't think that being transgender or lesbian is a matter of choice.

seeler, some fear that queers turning queer is part of the gay agenda.

Which is nonsense. 

Judging by interactions that I've had on here, the members of the queer community are the ones who are arguing most that gender is not a choice. They are the ones who are firmest in the belief that it can not be changed.

Why then would they seek to change others instead of wanting them to be authentically themselves.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae  

We are talking about what is taught in public schools where our kids go. We want our kids taught something, and we want our kids to be safe in school, and to reduce the amount of misery and suicides that is instigated by bullies.

They're arugment is that we want to change their kids, Howevr the only thing we want to change about there kids (and ours)  is that they stop bullying.  If the parents are autentically bullies and there kids are too, than that is what is not acceptable.

Update.

http://www.globaltoronto.com/gay-straight+alliances+allowed+under+new+on...

A pastor in my area wrote in our local newspaper that Bill 13 protects every student except for Christians. Where in this Bill does it say Christians can be bullied for their beliefs? Anyway this clown feels he is going to change things by running for trustee for the Public School Board in my area.

By the way, I've talked to our colleagues about this. The United Church of Canada GCO doesn't usually speak out on issues that are not national. But there are plans to ask the executive secretaries of the Ontario conferences to encourage their committees, presbyteries, or Conference itself to speak out in support of the anti-bullying legislation.

Thank you Aaron.

dreamerman...

Did you write a letter to the editor stating what you said? I would.

It's good to see they plan to ask them soon.  Howevr it is too late. One of the Bills is going to be past this week.

They would have to decide which of the two Bills to support, and which admendments to support, The biggest issue is not the law but an admendment that would reguire all schools to allow theri students to call their clubs by a name of their choosing. WHich is opposed by the seperate school board becasue many of their students want to set up and call their clubs Straight Gay alliances, while the seperate boards believe that they should be allow to ban gay straight alliances.   This has been and issue for a least a year, perhaps two, and has been covered by evry major news orgainsation in the country. It is being driven by students, and the only opposition is from other religions and organisations affiliated to other religions.  So it is a provincial issue with a human rights dimension and a religious one.  Yet the UCC as an organisation is silent up to now, but at some point after the law is passed and it is no longer in the news some in the UCC is going to ask other people to take a stand.  This is a shame became while the bill did not need our support, we missed an opportunity to be in the press time and time again. It is no wonder that many people know nothing about the UCC or even heard about it when we are vitually silent in Canada's largest province.

This drives home the fact that our structure has no ability to deal with bills that arise at Queen's Park. Nor does it seem anyone wants to have an Offical UCC voice in Ontario that will speak to both the press and politicans.  In effect the UCC is usually absent at Queens park on issues ranging from Housing, Social Welfare, Disability issues, labour, the environment,(energy production is a huge issue). Meanwhile Queens Park politicans and news organisations  hear regularly  from the Catholic and Anglican Churches as well as serveral other religious groups which are much smaller than the UCC in membrship.

Around the time when WC was started it was revealed in a poll  that a lot people had no clue that the UCC existed. It was not asked in the poll that, but I bet we can assume that many more people believe that the UCC does not care about what happens to the rest of society,   Because if by chance some court some where of the UCC takes a stance on these issues, it's is only after news organisations have stopped covering them.

I write this because inside the UCC, I believe that many people are concerned about these issue, but that they live in denial when they say social justice is important to the UCC. They are lieing to themselves I believ becasue the stances we take on global issues which do not provoke any strong opposition from within UCC churches. 

So personally I am left asking myself, "{Is the reason we are absent from participation in the major domestic political discussion of the day is so we can  lie to ourselves?  

Do we avoid setting up a group or other mechanism, so that people who believe that Christianity has a social and community dimension can continue to lie to themselves, because we can avoid the hard questions that might reveal something else about the UCC?

 As well as those who believe that Christianity only has a personal agenda can be allowed to believe that others agree with them in the UCC? 

For myself after growing up in the UCC and goinmg to Sunday schools and having listen to thousand of sermons and being given the impression that Christianity has a social dimension and than having to wacth local churches to the opposite. 

I would just like to see us accept the idea that lieing, either to ourselves or others is not right?

Have anyone  here ever  spoken in Church or in the courts that  the idea that truth telling and not lieing is a good thing?

Do we have anything in the basis of union that supports the principle of tbeing honest.

Now I will admit that I see lies where others do not.  Being in the Autism spectrum, and being more literal, and not being able to read body language well. I encounter what I see as lies evrywhere in society.   Evreything from people saying come up to my place for a coffee (when really they want to do something else besides drink coffee)  or when people say, "We must have lunch sometime" when they don;t really mean that.

So for me saying that we care as a church about bullying being stopped, after the law has passed and after the news have covered it, is not acttually showing that we care. It is just another way that we sayone thing and do another.

Perhaps my conclusion in the above post is wrong, but I see lieing evrywhere in our churches. I walk by many UCC churches that have signs that says "Everyone is Welcome" To me that is a lie, because if everyone was Welcome in these churches than I assume that that means the memebrs would make an effort to welcome anybody, or move towards being able to wlecome everybody.

SO perhaps instead of spending resources to address social needs and social jsutice, perhaps we should spend them on deciding if tell the truth is a part of CHristianty.

On the contratry Alex our structure has plentiful ways to respond to teh world.  What is missing is people choosing to make that response happen.

Personally I  find it way more important that congregations respond than Presbytery or Conference write a letter.  And even more important that incivicual members and adherents of congregations respond.  The church's task is not to respond on people's behalf.  The task is to empower and inform people to respond.  In the end the response means more that way.

But the optics are terrible.  The only person from the UCCan that the media cares to speak to is probably your moderator.  CTV and CBC and other media outlets are not going to go looking for what one minister says.  What they would love to get, is another religious leader to oppose what Toronto Archbishop Thomas Cardinal Collins has said about legislation that "overrides" deeply held religious beliefs.  What the Catholic kids who want to start GSAs would love to get, is another religious leader to oppose what Toronto Archbishop Thomas Cardinal Collins has said about legislation that "overrides" deeply held religious beliefs.

Cardinal Collins is trying to play the "persecution" card, and the best way to trump it would be for another religious of his supposed "importance" to correct him, publicly, and say that a deeply held religious belief (really, a biblically-based intolerance) is not more important than a student's right to feel included in his or her own school.

The Catholic groups are also trying to say that the "GSA" name does not address other forms of bullying, which is just a smokescreen.  Of course there are other forms of bullying, but this one bit of one bill focuses on allowing Gay-Straight Alliances, because that's what they say their bible tells them is wrong, the kids be damned (literally).  Nobody has every prevented a "Nerd-Jock Alliance", because the idiot author of Leviticus at least didn't write about athletes talking to book worms being an abomination.

dreamerman, My pastor has suggested that it discriminates against Christians because those who use schools as meeting places will have to sign a paper saying that they are in agreement with the policies put in place by the Bill. Since they believe that they can't in good conscience do that, they will be forced out of their meeting place. Perhaps this is also the concern of the pastor in your local paper.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Which courts or which congregations.  My church is the only UCC that presents briefs on issues at Ottawa City Hall. We can do that. Howevr to present briefs to the province, we would need partners, as it requires greater resources than we have.  First we would need money to pay for trips Toronto. As well we would either need a volunteer capable who can take two days off work to go to Toronto, or pay someone.

Ontario is one of the few (or only, I don't know ) provinces that has multiple conferences and that two of them include 2 other provinces. The Ottawa Montreal Conference which is the only one I know, includes the entire provence of Quebec, they do not deal with Ontario issues, howevr they did once present a brief to the Taylor commission in Quebec about religious accomadatrion issues.

At a conference I attended Cheri Dinova blamed our lack of activity in Ontario on our structure.   I am not as cynical as you are about people in church. I actually think many membres do care, but can not act alone on issues that are divisive l;ike wind farms, or equality for LGBT, without becoming targets by a minority who actually do not care about anything other than diverting attention away fromt heselves and there own behaviours.

Another huge issue right now are wind farms being buik for OIntario Hydro . Our moderator has been very active in helping see that taking care of the environment is an obligation of the Christian, and she has modeled for the rest of us by actively particpating and taking stands federally and internationally.      No one has followed her example (by linking Christian beliefs to the environment) in ONtario.  Many people are fighting wind farms etc  . What is the right thing to do as Christian. If the church would explore this issue it may help people move forward.

Well MC Jae ..... if those groups are not willing to show respect and tolerance for the GSA groups then perhaps it is best that they not meet there.

This is not requiring agreement with LGBT issues or the GSA group.   It is about respecting the right of the GSA group to exist in a public venue and simply pledging to treat each other accordingly.   In my opinion that should be a no brainer for any Christian......

The paper that would be signed is the same as any standard agreement to abide by the provisions of the law .... nothing more.....

This is why we need laws like this .... because people which happens to include those that call themselves Christian are not mature enough to do so on their own...

I welcome your comments.....

Rita

Hi MC jae,

This is what Bill 13 says about third party agreements:

Bill 13 does not, as far as I can tell, alter the Code of Conduct Section of the Ontario Education Act.

For the edification of all:

So, unless a school board actually puts into place a policy which prohibits the condemnation of individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation there is very little which appears to apply to a Church renting space from School Boards.

The guides of conduct are specifically targetting the responsibilities of school board members.

In essence no rental group will interfere in the business of the School Board or oppose the School Board in fulfilling its mandate to comply with the Ontario Education Act.

Since Churches tend to meet when classes are not in Session there is very little concern that the activities of the Church will actually interfere with the business of the school.  The only "issue" that I can see that would be a potential for conflict would be if the Church met in the cafeteria and the school's GSA put a poster up advertizing the GSA.  If members of the Church removed the poster or even covered the poster then technically they have interfered with the business of the School.

The school administration could avoid that conflict by limiting where posters can be placed.

Churches could avoid problems by not touching stuff that doesn't belong to them.

At any rate this would not constitute discrimination because the ruling applies to all third party rentals.  It treats all third parties equally.  It would be up to the third party to determine, as the always do, if they can abide by the terms of the rental agreement.

Now the Minister of Education has the capacity to introduce mandatory elements into the codes of conduct that School Boards are accountable too.  The Minister of Education is not going to write separate codes of conduct for every school board operating in the Province.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Yes MC jae that was one of his concerns also. This was a Penecostal minister so I gather we are not talking about the same guy. Although they both seem to be on the same page. So the groups that rent school property for meetings are concerned about the Bill because they won't be able to shine a negative Biblical light on homosexuality? Is this what your pastor is concerned about Mc jae?

[quote=Jobam]dreamerman... Did you write a letter to the editor stating what you said? I would.[/quote

No I did not. He does welcome comments at thevalleypulpit@gmail.com. It would be interesting to see someone who is more articulated than myself give a good rebuttal.

Maybe so Rita, but you can imagine why the churches are crying foul -- they see it as a challenge to their freedom of religion. They feel they should be able to express their religious views against homosexuality without penalty.

Well that's the thing isn't it. Some Christians don't respect the right of such clubs to exist. Some Christians feel they even have biblical grounds for holding that view. And so the question comes down to who to have respect for -- the GSA clubs or God.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

dreamerman, I'd say that's essentially it. The people who are against homosexuality on religious grounds want the freedom to speak out against it as part of the freedom of religion without being penalized for doing so.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Except that there is no "right" to meet in the local school.  That is a privlege that can be granted or withdrawn.  Therefore no rights are being infringed upon.

I am thinking that the current court structure isn’t working – provincial issues can be just as important as national – this one will have national implications as time goes on.

If our M&S monies can’t do anything provincially, I would suggest that we start doing something different….take a look at our court system – start cutting M&S support until important “local” issues are looked at – we are not at the table – or are to late – on many issues within our own country.

Even at our conference level a Transmit with Concurrence: “Responding to the Palestinian Call for Solidarity” without any “national” representation to help explain/discuss the issue made it hard for delegates to “debate” said motion so we don't really have any "plan" in place.

While I don’t want to take on M&S – someone has to look at what’s going on.  It’s interesting that the powers that be say this is a provincial issue – and yet, the whole bullying campaign is national…hmm…guess they don’t see the connection.  Kids need safe spaces……kids are dying…..

I am sure that  the Program Coordinator, Media and Public Relations of The United Church of Canada (416-231-7680 or 1-800-268-3781 ext. 2016) mdenis@united-church.ca would love to hear from you about the “national response” to a provincial issue.

Hi GordW,

That's right.  The rental is a third party contract.  Most School Boards treat such contracts on an "as needed" basis meaning that rental parties pay as they go.  Most contracts are terminated by a call to somebody at the board office saying that the space is no longer needed.

Getting into a contract with the typical School Board is tricky getting out of one is like falling off a log.  Except for the splinters.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Except the rights of equality. One can not allow Scotish Clubs to meet but than refuse to allow First Nations clubs to do so.

No one is seriously proposing to ban all students clubs, so if they have any (like a debate club, or a Glee club) the studendents have a right.

Alex, do the students also have the right to form religion-based clubs? What about those kids that are being bullied for expressing their religious views. Can they start school-sponsored clubs to encourage them.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Hi MC jae,

Such clubs are already permitted under existing legislation.

Still, the language of bill 13 appears to allow it if such are not already in place. 

Now onto a very important question.  Are there school boards which prohibitted religion based clubs anywhere in the Province?

Here's a story of that appears relevant:

http://www.theinterim.com/2004/may/12hamilton.html

Grace and peace to you.

John

I hope we will not do this and that cooler heads will prevail. The issue of Roman Catholic education is doubly guaranteed in both the Charter and the BNA Act. As this is a matter of Roman Catholic education policy, it is absolutely none of our business. I have already seen  a United Church person refer to Cardinal Collins as a bigot in social media, which he most certainly is not.

That is not true. Maritime Conference covers three provinces (NB,NS and PEI) Montreal and Ottawa, covers three (Quebec, Nunavit and part of Ontario), Manitoba and Northest Ontario two (MB and ON) and Alberta and Northwest four, (AB, BC, YT and NWT).

My colleague is somewhat misinformed. It is more complex than that, including money, human resources and time, as well as the extreme complexity of many issues which have absolutely no relationship to the ministry and mission of the United Church.  

Are you suggesting that the UCCan has nothing to do with Ontario students?  The UCCan certainly does take positions on Israel and Palestine.

Here's the thing:  While churches like the UCCan won't take a position against the Catholic  Church and their biblically-based bigotry, secular groups will.  Christianity, including your version (or multiple versions) of Christianity will continue to look more and more archaic and out-of-touch to today's students, and they'll have a point.  The UCCan isn't nearly as bigoted as the Catholic Church is, and it's not like your spectrum of beliefs are going to attract the more extreme religious nutcases anyway, so you might as well actually try to do some good and stand up for the kids and stand up against the religious arguments of people who don't want to see GLBT teens feel included because that would offend their ridiculous religious sensibilities.

There is nothing to lose by the UCCan telling the Catholic Church that their thoughts on sexuality are null and void until further notice.  You'd have teens across the country cheering.

I think this may be the first step in the dismantling of the two school boards in Ontario.

I hope it is.

All Ontario students should have the right to a safe environment. As tax payers we should demand it.

The RC church has the right to become private or to go back to religious education related to church at church As we do.

Then I would like to see all schools at least offer a religions course, most do anyway I think. That would get kids talking about world religions, lack of religions, history of religions, and hopefully broaden everyone's ideas to include other options.

The way it is now, the government appears to be telling the catholic church that they must change their beliefs. That does feel like an infringement on their religious freedom.

It needs to be clear that it is about the safety and acceptance of all kids in school.
Teach your children your religion at church and let them form their own opinions by being exposed to other ideas at school

The one thing I feel concerned about is that bullying is about more than gay kids. Fat kids, unathletic kids, poor kids, uncool kids, smart kids, dumb kids, kids with acne, kids whoe parents wont let them dress in the right styles.........

I hope that in all the uproar over a name that the others are not forgotten.

It does. And there is signifciant disagreement over the appropriateness of ttaking that position within the constituency.

Stop right there. You have just proved that you have absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand and both the complexity of the matter and its substance. This is not about bigotry. It is about who has authority in a particular education system. Nothing more.

That is unlikely, given that the right to a Roman Catholic Education is guaranteed in law in the BNA  (Constitution) Act and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is far more likely that the matter will end up before the Supreme Court.

Actually Maritime Conference covers three provinces, part of another, and another country, and at least one pastoral charge (and therefore, its presbytery and conference) has a church in the USA.

Maritime Conference:  NB, NS, PEI, the south shore of Gaspe in Quebec, Bermuda, and the McAdam, NB/Vanceboro, Maine pastoral charge.

Thank you for the reminder. As I recall from the minister at McAdam/Vanceboro, that is, in fact, a dual United Church/United Methodist appointment.

And Catholic school leaders want public funding, but don't want to adhere to public laws.  They also think their belief system is more important than the well beling of kids.  They have a biblically-based bigotry against homosexuality, but infinite love and patience for child rapists.

Here's an excellent opportunity for the UCCan to do some good, make an impact, and be widely applauded across the province for being a church that cares about kids more than doctrine.  Let's watch this opportunity pass by.

Indeed they do. They, like many Christians, have a different path to the same end.

No, their beliefs are what bring about a child's well-being.

Both of those statements are lies. And deny the reality of Roman Catholic teaching and theology. Like you and me (well, at least me) they are not perfect.

Sorry, that's completely wrong. Just as the Roman Catholic Church did not speak of us critically when we were involved in our sexuality debates, we should not be pouring oil on what is essentially a disagreement on decision-making power between the Roman Catholic Church and the Province of Ontario.

Nope.  There are Vatican documents about how to treat priests who were accused of child rape, and there are examples of undeserved patience and understanding and moving priests to new areas, and not reporting them to the authorities.  The way for a priest to get excommunicated is to advocate for women priests, or gay marriage.  Raping a child gets you a Greyhound ticket out of town.  Unless someone else reports you or you're caught, then the Catholic church will come down on you for embarrassing them.

But, the UCCan will weigh in on the Quebec student protests, and Israel.  You do weigh in on matters outside the UCCan.  You're just too timid, as an organization, to say anything about GSAs and against the Catholic church.  Secular groups will have to go it alone.

My point was that Ontario has more than one conferecnes, including conferences that include other areas. Thus no one takes the lead in Ontario affairs.  We saw this week the Montreal Ottawa conferecne take a position on the Quebec law 78. Because it is obvious that the Montreal Ottawa Conferecne has responsibility to speak to the Quebec governement. No other conference has a mandate, except perhaps the Maritime one which has a few churches in the Gaspe. 

No equilivant conferecne exists in Ontario.  Thus liek chansem saws we will take positions on human rights in Canada, the middle east etc, but not in Ontario.

Which is a shame becausem our provincila governements have a lot more responsibilities than does our federal governement.

While that has happened in the past (and has happened in the United Church of Canada, as well) that is no longer the case.

The United Church of Canada can speak on the state of the weather, too. Whether is is advisable to do so is another question. As I said, there is disagreement within the denomination itself about the church speaking out on all these issues. And if secular groups want to go charging after the Roman Catholic Church, they are free to do so.

Lastpointe - my thoughts exactly. I think in order for schools to be publicly-funded, it's essential that they adhere to the Constitution and laws of the land. If "religious values" are so important to parents, they need to put their kids in religious schools on their own tab, IMHO
It's high time we move to a truly public system

ninjfaery, what about those parents who cannot afford to educate their kids as you so speak. Is it fair to coerce them to send their kids to a public school which teaches against the parents' religious values? What we truly need is a voucher system imho.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

I'm not as familiar with the skeletons in the UCCan's closet.  But the skeletons in the Vatican closets are still falling out at an alarming rate. If there are real changes afoot, they aren't coming because of concern for kids - they're trying to look good for the cameras.

The Catholic Church is an organized crime ring, and it should be spoken of in those terms.  If you're a teenager in today's world, and you're plugged into the news and current events, what would you think?  You've got the largest Christian church in child rape, corruption and financial scandals, all the while trying to alienate your gay friends and trying to prevent them from getting married.  Meanwhile, you've got all the other Christian churches saying next to nothing, while secular groups actually have the balls to stand up and say that the Catholic Church is wrong, and that it has a lot of explaining to do, and people to hand over to police.

If you're a teen looking at this today, why do you want to be associated with the Catholic Church?  Why do you want to be associated with other churches that say stuff about Israel, but don't stand up for your friends?

If anyone here is a young person reading this, consider who your friends are.  Christianity doesn't give a damn about you or your friends - not really.  Christianity is more interested in dogma and not offending other Christians.  You're better than Christianity.  There are reasons the other people you know are leaving.  Look around, say goodbye, and leave Christianity behind.