Posted on 01/20/2005 2:30:09 PM PST by Catholic54321
TORONTO, January 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an editorial appearing on the website of the homosexual activist group, “Equal Marriage,” members of the lobbyist organization, EGALE, (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) have revealed their intention to make illegal the public practice of Christianity or teaching of Christian moral doctrine.
Bishop Fred Henry, in his recent pastoral letter on homosexuality, openly recognized that the purpose of the “gay marriage” push is the destruction of the traditional family and of any religious opposition. Bishop Henry wrote, “The goal (of changing the definition of marriage) is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.”
The authors of the EGALE editorial, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, in an enraged attack on Henry, admitted that the purpose behind the move to approve Gay “marriage” is the suppression of traditional Christianity. They wrote, “We predict that gay marriage will indeed result in the growth of acceptance of homosexuality now underway, as Henry fears. But marriage equality will also contribute to the abandonment of toxic religions, liberating society from the prejudice and hatred that has polluted culture for too long.”
Bourassa and Varnell, apparently oblivious to the irony, indulge in a tirade of abuse, calling Bishop Henry a “religious extremist,” “bigot,” and “bishop of bigotry,” and calling his preaching “toxic and prejudiced.” They conclude with what has become one of the most common anti-Catholic slurs. “It’s good to remember that bishops like him supported Hitler.”
The group’s assessment has been endorsed, albeit in more measured terms, in an editorial in the Toronto Star, Canada’s most widely circulated newspaper, that said Henry had “disgrac(ed) his office and the Catholic church.”
The Star editorial said, “This is a stand the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops should promptly distance itself from. So should leading individual Catholic prelates.”
The Star editorialist, however, seems unaware that Bishop Henry has thus far stood alone in his defence of Catholic teaching on human sexuality. While the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops organization, has said that each bishop is free to say what he wants in his own diocese, no public endorsement or support has so far come to Henry from the heads of any of Canada’s remaining 71 dioceses and eparchies.
While a few Ontario bishops have published altered versions of a generic pastoral letter encouraging their flock to ask MPs to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, unlike Henry, the bishops have all so far conspicuously avoided any mention of Catholic teaching on homosexual activity, its sinfulness and its harm to both the persons engaged in it and to the general society.
To send a note of support to Bishop Henry bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca
Read editorial appearing on Equal Marriage website: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/toxic180105...
Can't happen here in the U.S. short of amending the Constitution. Canada? Dunno.
This can't be allowed to happen. Liberals are willing to do anything they can to eradicate Christianity.
Oh it can so happen here, and they dont need to ammend anything just re-intepreting existing laws to enact it via judicial legislation.
The pink mafia has already gotten enough clout within the US Justice Dpt that they ahd several Christians arrested in Philthadelphia recently.
Oh, yeah ... just like the right to keep and bear arms will never be infringed short of amending the Constitution.
6 Christians and 47 years in prison, wasn't it?
ping
Hmmm, I don't think Christianity could be outlawed in america, though american churches are vulnerable to 'infiltration', as has happened to the ECUSA. I've heard it said that it could be, in the future, that churches be forced to stop discriminating against homosexuals when appointing members of their clergy. Let us pray it never comes to that. Let us pray real fricken hard.
It is already a received wisdom in most US jurisdictions that public property cannot be used for religious practice. From this point on the freedom of religion is dead as a fundamental right, although, of course, we are allowed, for now, to practice in our churches.
After the Ball--Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
"A partial explanation of the homosexual movement's success can be traced to the 1989 publication of 'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s'. Published with little fanfare, this book became the authoritative public relations manual for the homosexual agenda, and its authors presented the book as a distillation of public relations advice for the homosexual community. A look back at its pages is an occasion for understanding just how successful their plan was."
Full article at: http://www.gendernews.net/other.php?id=19
Hey Canada........you nimrods.............you allow this, you will get precisely what you deserve.
"Can't happen here in the U.S. short of amending the Constitution."
No? Fast-forward to the future:
From the U.S. S.Ct. Reports (2009), affirming a Pennsylvania court's conviction of the "Philadelphia 4" for disrupting a gathering of gays and lesbians:
Excerpts of Opinion (by Chief Justice KERRY, joined in by the other Justices and Circuit Judge GUINIER, sitting by designation in place of Justice SCALIA, disqualified):
"Defendants were arrested on public property and charged with the crime of inciting hatred against a minority group under the laws of Pennsylvania. Their actions included the repeated statement of verses of the Bible which sought to disrupt a peaceful gathering of gays and lesbians. Despite being invited to leave by representatives of the gay groups, the defendants refused to leave the area and were subsequently arrested by the police. After a trial, the defendants were sentenced to terms ranging between 24 and 36 months for their actions.
*****
The Bill of Rights's provisions regarding religious practices do not authorize disregard of otherwise neutral laws enacted for the general good under the police power. (Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith.) Discrimination against gays and lesbians, in any form, is hateful and despicable in this great country of ours which welcomes diversity in all its forms. Any organization which advocates hatred and violence against a protected minority group violates the religion-neutral criminal law of Pennsylvania and is not entitled to any protection under the First Amendment.
*****
The record in this case amply demonstrates that the defendants in this case sought to incite violence and hatred against gays and lesbians by misquoting verses of the Bible to the effect that homosexual conduct is somehow "sinful," or "wrong." Not only does this contradict scientific fact, the amicus briefs of the National Council of Churches and Americans United for Separation of Church and State demonstrate that such statements reflect a mistaken reactionary view of Christianity which is not supportable from an accurate reading of the Bible under today's enlightened standards.
The First Amendment has no application here. Would we uphold a lynching by the Ku Klux Klan if they asserted they had a religious basis for their beliefs? Of course not. Similarly, here, an asserted religious basis can be no defense to expressions of hatred against members of a minority group.
This Court further gives deference to the trial court's finding that the defendants' messages were so inflammatory that members of the gay and lesbian groups felt they were subject to immediate attack, and were forced to take a non-violent and purely defensive action by surrounding the defendants and seeking police assistance to stop the threats of imminent harm. The charge of incitement of hateful conduct virtually proves itself.
The defendants' response that at no time did they physcially threaten or harm anyone is without merit. It is clear that their words could reasonably have been interpreted by a hearer as seeking to incite others to take actions against the protected group. This is sufficient to consitute an offense under the statute.
*****
The Court finds that there is no valid religious practice implicated in this case that is entitled to any protection of the laws. We emphasize that this case does not involve punishment of freedom of religious belief. Defendants are free to believe as they wish. They may not, however, engage in conduct on public property which constitutes acts of hatred towards minorities or incites others to similar acts. Words themselves are acts and can have untoward consequences if they encourage others to violate the law. Indeed, the Bible itself states that words can be sharper than a two-edged sword.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is
AFFIRMED."
Yep.
Why do you axe dat?
Where I am from 'several' could be anything half a dozen or less. Just a small amount you dont bother to count exactly.
Was that it?
Well then, as much as I might have thought the Constitution was as close to perfection as could be hoped for from mortal men, biblewonk is probably right; after all is said and done and, especially when it's left in the wrong hands, maybe the Constitution really is just a worthless rag.
Bring on the revolution.
I feel chills up my spine just thinking about it. But it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
I wouldnt say the Consitution is a worthless rag, but it is being treated as a merely symbolic document.
But that would be the case with any consitution that is written IF the judges are allowed to engage in judicial legislation by making absurd rulings that are not based on the exact wording and the context of the writing of the text.
The Constitution is fine, it is the judges that need taken to the woodshed.
ping
I don't mean to say I told you so, but...
Less than two years after the court-ordered legalization of gay marriage in parts of Canada comes word that the Next Big Fight is on the horizon:
"In order to best prepare for possible debate surrounding Canada's polygamy policy, critical research is needed," says a Status of Women Canada document. "It is vital that researchers explore the impacts of polygamy on women and children and gender equality as well as the challenges that polygamy presents to society."
Conservative party justice critic Vic Toews says there is a direct link between the Status of Women concern and the same-sex marriage legislation due to be introduced by the government in February.
"This government understands it has a problem on its hands," said Mr. Toews, a former Manitoba constitutional lawyer. "What they are looking for is evidence to demonstrate that polygamy is inconsistent with Charter and Canadian values. If I was a lawyer prosecuting a polygamist that's the type of evidence I would be looking for."
Sayd Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said he opposes same-sex marriage but said if it is legalized in Canada, polygamists would also be within their rights to challenge for their choice of family life to be legalized.
"This is a liberally minded country with regards to equal rights," said Mr. Ali. "And literally millions live common law."
Multiple marriage is legal in most Muslim countries, he said, but a Muslim man who takes more than one wife must prove to a court that he is capable of treating them all equally.
He said he knows of some "but not too many" Muslims who live in Canada with more than one wife but knows of no situation where the wives are unwilling, or unhappy, participants in the arrangement.
The legal challenge is coming, I'm telling you it's coming, and it's going to be based on either religious freedom (Muslim or fundamentalist Mormon) or the right to privacy. So what's the response of an increasingly libertarian society to it?
Athanasius on 01.20.05 @ 10:00 PM EST [link] [2 Comments]
The big black train is building steam. Polygamy has been predicted as next on the agenda for some time, as well as lowering the age of consent. They want marriage to be almost anything. Man/woman marriage has, IMHO, been the worldly bedrock for Christianity.
They've cracked the media. They've cracked public education. They've cracked charitable organizations. They've cracked the Christian church. They've cracked the Democrat Party. They've cracked the medical/psych fields. They're now cracking marriage.
Any Christian who doesn't realize that the hostile gays in our churches, schools, universities, local government and the ACLU have declared war on Christians and marriage, has lost contact with reality.
I might have thought the Constitution was as close to perfection as could be hoped for from mortal men
That strain of thought seems to be quite common is some branches of American evangelical Protestantism. They (perhaps you?) seem to view the Constitution as almost-but-not-quite Scripture, and that it outlines the "perfect" government. They are analogous to the Catholic monarchists, who seem to view a Christian King as the ideal form of government. I will grant that either a Republic strictly as outlined by the Constitution or a King truly ruling according to Christian principles would be a fairly decent form of government. Problem is, in reality men are marred by original sin. Kings have a fairly spotty record and the Constitution is toothless.
maybe the Constitution really is just a worthless rag.
I wouldn't go that far. It outlines some really nice ideals. It just provides no effective means of enforcement. Some would say that the Second Amendment was supposed to be a means of enforcement; if so, it has failed.
Bring on the revolution.
No thanks. Not without knowing the goal of the 'revolution'. Revolutions have a nasty habit of bringing tyrants to power. See France, 1789; Russia, 1918; Germany, 1932; China, 1949 for some examples.
Errant judges need to be impeached by another branch. Balanced. Of course, those fellows would need bigger certain somethings to do it. Could happen, I guess, but only if pushed hard.
No way; I hate even the sound of that comparison. It's ridiculous on so many levels.
Still, I know what you mean. I'm sure they're out there.
> Bring on the revolution.
No thanks. Not without knowing the goal of the 'revolution'.
The one I welcome has the same goal as the last one.
Revolutions have a nasty habit of bringing tyrants to power. See France, 1789; Russia, 1918; Germany, 1932; China, 1949 for some examples.
Think only of America, 1776. Unfortunately, there's a small problem of armament. Hopefully by then, we'd have better numbers than now. A peaceful revolution is not out of the question but, before that can happen, a lot of sheeple will need to get a clue.
At any rate, it's in the Lord's hands. Only by His mercy do we still have Dubya (and not Kerry) in the White House. Only He knows whether this Bush will also be followed by a Clinton. Maybe that's just what we need. His will be done.
Think only of America, 1776.
The more I think of that, the more I think it was an historical anomaly. I'm not sure we'd 'get lucky' twice. And even if the goal is the same (strictly limited, republican form of government) the method will have to be differeint. The Articles of Confederation led to chaos; the Constitution unable to control the government. However:
At any rate, it's in the Lord's hands.
Amen.
I agree. We can't trust put our trust in the constituion. Communist Russia had freedom of religion in its constitution, but it was interpreted away to allow persecution. Our's will also be interpreted to bring persecution.
In Russia, when persecution hit, the average church fell from 300 to 15 members. A great falling away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.