.
Senator – does this mean that your own Archbishop is a bigot for supporting this amendment? Does this mean the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Catholic Church – both in the US and in the Vatican – are bigots for insisting that the traditional definition of marriage should be enshrined in law worldwide and that homosexual marriage should be rejected wherever it rears its head?
Is it your belief that the Catholic Church is an un-American, anti-civil rights church? If so, do you now repudiate the supposed lessons of the 1960 presidential election, which supposedly dispelled for all time the notion that one cannot be a good Catholic and a good American at the same time? In short, do you repudiate the position taken by your late brother, President John F. Kennedy, and instead take the position held by the KKK and other religious bigots of that day?
If yes, do you now declare that you are taking a formal act to separate yourself from the Catholic Church – an institution which your words appear to brand as bigoted and opposed to American values?
After all – you cannot have it both ways. Either you believe in and embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church, or you reject both them and the Church.
Decide – and speak out as clearly and forcefully as you did in the quotes above.
Oh, and by the way, Senator – in every state -- 19 in all, most likely 20 after a vote in Alabama tomorrow -- in which the people have been given a chance to speak directly on the matter, they have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual marriage and embraced the traditional definition of marriage this amendment would promulgate. In several cases, judges have thwarted the clear will of the people. In all, 45 states have acted to prevent homosexual marriage from being imposed upon them by renegade courts or the actions of other states. No state has ever voluntarily adopted homosexual marriage – and Massachusetts was forced to do so by a court which ruled that for over 200 years the people of Massachusetts, including the generation that adopted it, misunderstood their own constitution when they repeatedly adopted the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Given the evidentiary weight of such facts, how can you possibly make the claim that those who support efforts to protect the definition of marriage from judicial reinvention are un-American?
1
Umm, yeah, the Catholic church will eventually come around and realize that its position on this issue is, in fact, borne of prejudice and bigotry. The Church's right to be anti-homosexual within its own theology is, of course, beyond question. But for the Church to seek to support state bigotry is something they will regret as surely as they came to regret their persecution of Galileo.
Just one Catholic's opinion, of course.
Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 5 08:48:58 2006 (aSKj6)
2
As soon as we get ride of all the Liberal Roman Catholics,(including Kennedy's and their kind) the Church will right itself and be back on track. Perhaps it will start all over on it's own new path. The Liberals have destroyed what was the Roman Catholic Rite and made it a liberal Protestant party place. Try to find a {real}Latin Mass- pre Vatican II style, anywhere. Altar railings are gone, the Tabernacle is moved, the words of the mass have been changed, the crusifix cross is replaced by a 'risen christ' or a modern picasso painting of some sort, we now have altar girls, and it seems like any Jane, Dick or Harry can distribute communion, we now have Holiday shows - in church- at Christmas time, all of the Saints Statues are missing. It's all to similar to cooking a frog: cold water and turn up the heat- you'll get use to it!
The B/S has to stop. Where are the real Roman Catholics?
Posted by: JimBD at Mon Jun 5 09:59:33 2006 (GoE0N)
3
So it's impossible to be a member of an organization and disagree (strongly) with something it's doing?
Posted by: John at Mon Jun 5 12:40:47 2006 (Fzf0K)
4
If one rejects the teaching authority of a Church which claims to be teaching unambiguous moral truth, one really cannot remain a member -- if one has any integrity.
This isn't your local chamber of commerce, after all.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 5 22:50:34 2006 (PEFrQ)
5
Also, is there not a difference between remaining part of a group with which one disagres and remaining part of a group that one considers to be both bigoted and un-American?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 5 22:52:46 2006 (PEFrQ)
6
Well, the church also at one point persecuted people who said that the earth revolves around the sun; I'm sure the argument that "they teach unambiguous truth and if you don't like it, get out" (or at that time, be executed) was used then.
The Church has a history of changing its teachings.
Posted by: John at Mon Jun 5 23:12:01 2006 (Q3hKh)
7
RWR -
You ask whether there is a problem in remaining part of a group that one considers to be both bigoted and un-American. There you go again, putting words in people's mouths. I would not call the Church bigoted and un-American, and Ted Kennedy didn't do that, either. We are saying that one of its positions is bigoted and un-American, but there is a difference.
To put the shoe on the other foot, if you wrote that this artificial debate on an amendment which is going nowhere is nothing but moronic pandering to cultural conservatives who ought to be waking up to the fact that the corporate conservatives are using them and laughing at their stupidity - that would be an enlightened and informed position for you to take. But it wouldn't necessarily mean that you are always enlightened and informed! ;-)
Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 5 23:46:29 2006 (aSKj6)
8
I actually read an excellent article on the difference between believing that being gay is "sin" and being bigotted against gay people.
Is an Orthodox Jew who very strongly believes that people should remain Kosher biggoted against those of any religion who do not follow a Kosher diet? However can you imagine how absurd it would seem in our society if we amended public policy to FORCE everyone into a Kosher diet (which is only so outlandish if you consider many Muslim theocracies do have such laws)? In today's American society I think it's reasonable to suggest that strongly held religious beliefs on homosexuality can be respected as privately held convictions while the holder is not particularly bigotted. However when one seeks to actively hurt people they disagree with by writing those private religious convictions into public policy it becomes a very different thing.
Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 6 07:06:54 2006 (dvSGO)
9
Hmmmmmm....
So you believe that holding positions that are "bigoted" and "un-American" does not make a person or an organization bigoted or un-American. Is that sort of semantic gamesmanship sort of like arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is?
Would you accept the argument that someone who holds racist positions is not a racist? Under your argument, would membership in the Klan in no way be indicative of racism on the part of a member? Is that how you guys justify keeping Robert Byrd around?
And dolphin -- under your argument, I'm more than willing to accept your privately held beliefs that homosexuals should be permitted to marry each other, but is it not bigorty to force everyone to accept that position by writing it into law -- especially over the objection of a clear majority of Americans? After all, you will be actively hurting those who are forced to recognize such marriages by forcing them to actively participate in and cooperate with what they believe to be immoral activity -- thus imperilling their imoprtal souls!
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 09:44:42 2006 (ZktbQ)
10
Also, i've never met anyone who held that a homosexual orientation is a sin -- and that certainly is not Catholic teaching.
On the other hand, I know many who argue that same-sex sexual relations -- and heterrosexual relations outside of marriage -- is immoral. And that would, in fact, be Catholic teaching.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 09:47:28 2006 (ZktbQ)
11
John Dan and Fish have adopted Moral Relativism -THAT is not promoted by the real church.
Keep blurring the lines of right and wrong, good and evil, proper and improper, respect and disrepect, self respect and ..... the list goes on.... The rules have evolved over time. What the heck does 2000+ years of development have that 50-60 years of 'know it alls' can replace in a snap
Posted by: .JimBD at Tue Jun 6 14:03:34 2006 (GoE0N)
12
Jim -- Dolphins are mamals. :-)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 14:27:06 2006 (qqHbr)
13
Jim -
You make me laugh. Have you ever read anything about moral relativism, or is it just a phrase you overheard and decided to work into a conversation?
Please don't use phrases you don't understand.
Your knowledge of philosophy rivals your knowledge of zoology.
Posted by: Dan at Tue Jun 6 15:01:07 2006 (aSKj6)
14
Dan wrote: ".. the Catholic church will eventually come around and realize that its position on this issue is, in fact, borne of prejudice and bigotry."
The Church's position on this issue is based on common sense and natural law as well as theological truth. Not prejudice. There is no "pre-judgment" on homosexuality. It's been very thoroughly thought through and condemned. This is not a new issue. The first letter to the Romans deals with it plainly enough.
Dan wrote.."The Church's right to be anti-homosexual within its own theology is, of course, beyond question."
The Church is not "anti-homosexual" any more than it is "anti-heterosexual". The Church looks at a person as more than their sexual identity. Homosexuals are sinners like the everyone and need to renounce their sin and seek a relationship with God that will enable them to get to Heaven, not Hell. Homosexual behavior like adultery or fornication are all mortal sins and will all suffice for damnation. Chastity employed by all is the solution.
Dan wrote: "But for the Church to seek to support state bigotry is something they will regret as surely as they came to regret their persecution of Galileo."
The Church puts God's law above the state and demands that they have the right to influence society. Separation of Church and State is a liberal anti-religiously bigoted fiction and an error that religion should have no impact in the public square. But men and women who are religious and live according to those tenents cause family units to spring up of high moral fiber and consequently communities and larger societies will develop better with a religious foundation than without.
There was no persecution of Galileo by the way. The Church never condemned the Copernican system. It was Galileo's insistence on "the facts" (that have since been proven wrong such as tidal effects being proof of planetary rotation) regarding his hypothesis that "proved the Bible wrong" that was censured. Galileo was prideful and arrogant in his attitude and he'd promised to continue his research as a "hypothesis" until better proof could be determined. Had he done this, he would have continued prudently and enjoyed the patronage and support of the scientific ecclesiastical authorities such as Cardinal Schaumberg and Bishop Tiedemann Giese who had supported him previously. Galileo broke this promise in his later fictional publications and provoked a confrontation.
The Catholic Church was actually the greatest and at times the only advocate of the sciences and acted prudently in the Galileo affair.
Galileo's total punishment consisted in his recitation of seven psalms once a week for three years, he spent a total of 21 days in the apartments of the Holy Office which were very comfortable and his confinement was spent in the homes of friends and family. He died with a papal blessing being given at his funeral.
Posted by: Gerard at Wed Jun 7 02:50:07 2006 (rkwwV)
15
Also, i've never met anyone who held that a homosexual orientation is a sin -- and that certainly is not Catholic teaching.
I've met you and way to many others who believe just that, and you know it. Secondly, the argument is just as strong if you limit it to behavior (I always find it funny when the hate brigade claims that marriage is about absollutely nothing except for sexual behavior, but then wants to "protect it").
And dolphin -- under your argument, I'm more than willing to accept your privately held beliefs that homosexuals should be permitted to marry each other, but is it not bigorty to force everyone to accept that position by writing it into law
And the point goes over your head again. You don't understand the difference between religious beliefs and public policy. Either that or you are saying you WOULD support legislation to enforce a Kosher diet on the populace.
fter all, you will be actively hurting those who are forced to recognize such marriages by forcing them to actively participate in and cooperate with what they believe to be immoral activity -- thus imperilling their imoprtal souls!
Again, the line that marriage equality will hurt straight people. This line is always brought out, but never backed... I can guess why.
Oh, and I will stand right there with you if the state ever forces someone to "actively participate in and cooperate with what the believe to be immoral activity." We're simply asking for the government of which we are a part to treat us like every other citizen. We don't really care if you approve of our existence. You can hate whomever you wish and I defend your right to do so.
Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 7 04:06:06 2006 (dvSGO)
16
Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. The etymology of "marriage" presupposes a complementarity.
Just as their are no homosexual "couples" they are "pairs" if anything.
The problem today is most advocates of calling homosexual pairings "marriage" don't understand the words they are using.
Posted by: Gerard at Wed Jun 7 07:16:18 2006 (rkwwV)
17
Dolphin -- You will not call me a liar again. Consider it a case of me imposing your own rules on you. Ancd certainly do not ever -- AND I MEAN EVER -- contradict me as to what my religious beliefs are, you asshole.
Now dolphin, you miss a point in your "religious belief/public policy" argument. Most folks attempt to enact public policies that are in keeping with their moral codes -- moral codes which are often directly tied to religious beliefs. Your argument effectively (though I do not believe you mean it to) excludes from participation in the public policy process any sincere religious believer. After all, they do not -- indeed cannot -- separate their "personal beliefs" regarding right and wrong from what their public policy preferences.
But let's take your Kosher food argument. Such a thing would not happen in the US for many reasons -- not the least of which being that those who keep kosher are such a miniscule part of the populace. Israel, on the other hand, might legitimately respond to the will of the majority of its citizenry by requiring that non-kosher food be labeled as such, be separated from non-kosher food, or even forbid kosher and non-kosher food being sold or served in the sam establishments. I know that it might offend your sensibilities, but the majority does have rights that merit respect -- including the right to order society in a manner that conforms with their beliefs, so long as it be just, whether or not such decisions are always "rational".
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 11:32:12 2006 (YMOL3)
18
First of all, if you tell untruths, I will point them out. Don't like it, ban me.
Secondly when your so-called religious "beliefs" contradict statments you have made directly in the past (or even in the actual post), I will also point that out. Again, don't like it, ban me. Actually, don't like it, just ask me to leave. I'm respectful enough of others to honor their wishes on their own property.
Finally, you have finally made yourself consistent in your last paragraph by acknowleging that you would not be opposed to a theocracy if it was what "the majority" wanted. I have a hunch you only feel that way because in your mind you believe "the majority" follows the same twisted version of Christianity. You would be wrong on that, but at least by admiting you've no problem with turning the United States into a theocratic government you have brought your views into consistency.
Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 7 12:48:10 2006 (R1q+a)
19
Dolphin -- Your untruths and misrepresentations of my religious beliefs will stop NOW. I do not believe homosexual orientation is immoral, and I challenge you to find any statement of mine to that effect. If you cannot, you WILL retract your libelous falsehood. You have 24 hours.
Also, what I suggest would be reasonable and appropriate is NOT theocracy -- it is democracy. I realize you do not believe in such a thing when religious individuals are permitted to participate and win, but that simply is evidence of your failure to grasp and embrace the fundamental nature of a democratic system. But if you really believe that it is inappropriate for me to support and work for laws consistent with my religious beliefs and values, then I suppose you won't be upset if I have to call for the repeal of laws against murder, sexual assault, theft, perjury, etc.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 13:06:44 2006 (9RvvR)
20
Isn't RWR cute when he's mad?? Especially when he starts issuing ultimatums and bossing the rest of us around.
Posted by: Dan at Wed Jun 7 14:45:24 2006 (aSKj6)
21
Fish, you passed biology almost- you shouldn't screw with the fish -or other men. If your pull your head out of your arse and pretend to be human and Christian, you're suppose to "love" your wife, not get your rocks off with a 'special friend' or other animal.
STOP changing the definitions of words to fit your micro world, that the rest of the world has to- all of the sudden- accept because YOU don't like the meaning & we have to accept it, and I won't change the meaning of dolphin to Tuna or Chicken of the Sea or Crabs!
Your kind of action and belief is EXACTLY what the radical muslims label the rest of the country as - AND DESPISE US FOR LETTING YOU EXIST - they therefore would like to KILL US.
Thanks!
Posted by: JimBD at Wed Jun 7 15:07:04 2006 (GoE0N)
22
Dan -- as you well know, I am pretty tolerant of things folks say around here. Dolphin is a special case with a long history of misrepresentions, false accusations, and hysterical hissy-fits -- and that is just the stuff on my site.
If he is going to make claims that i have said X, then he can damn-well put up or shut up.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 15:10:14 2006 (9RvvR)
23
Jim -- pretty reprehensible stuff. Could you dial it back a bit?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 15:15:27 2006 (9RvvR)
24
Strong, yes. Reprehensible? I think it means un - forgivable. What I said was the truth. I guess Ann Coulter misted my day and I was under in influence. But I'll dial it back and be more PC - a little.
As for Dan, he better look up Moral Relativism himself. There are rules of right and wrong, even if you disagree. They are time tested. You can't define the rules as different for each instance. Try applying different rules to each child! Sounds like a typical liberal who let's it blow in the wind, Whatever, Who cares, Free Love, therefore probably anti-war, anti- administration, anti-pro life, a Liberal Catholic ( which I could never really comes to terms with, another oxymoron) which, if you trace back, has trashed the real Roman Catholic Church into the mess it is today.
Posted by: JimBD at Thu Jun 8 13:48:26 2006 (GoE0N)
25
JimBD - where did I deny that there are rules of right and wrong?
And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling my Church a mess. And even if you think it is, don't blame the liberals - they're certainly not in charge of the Church these days . . .
Posted by: Dan at Fri Jun 9 00:21:19 2006 (aSKj6)
26
Dan wrote: ,
"And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling my Church a mess. And even if you think it is, don't blame the liberals - they're certainly not in charge of the Church these days . . ."
The current Holy Father believes the Church is a mess. Just read his Stations of the Cross meditations from Easter 2005 when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. He described the Church as "full of so much filth" and "like a boat that is sinking".
What makes you think that the current heirarchy is not liberal by Catholic standards?
Posted by: Gerard at Fri Jun 9 02:09:13 2006 (rkwwV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
