Another decision that illustrates what social radicals really mean by “tolerance.”

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 7/21/2014 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[markomalley]

In another show of selective tolerance from those who support the “gay” agenda, President Barack Obama on Monday gave employment protection to “gay” and “transgender” workers in the federal government after being convinced by advocates of what he called the “irrefutable rightness of your cause.” However the “tolerance” of the administration does not give religious organizations any exceptions in terms of considering sexual orientation or gender identity. While Churches also are able to hire ministers as they see fit (based in a 9-0 Supreme court decision against this administration which sought even to require churches to hire practicing gays in ordained ministerial positions) there is little leeway in given in the new executive order that permits churches to determine prudentially the employment of openly and practicing “gay” employees.

One might argue that excluding homosexuality oriented people from working as say, a janitor, or cafeteria contractor in a Catholic setting is unjust discrimination. And in this the Catechism does affirm that unjust discrimination against those of homosexual orientation is to be excluded. However, there are many other positions that, while not explicitly “ministerial” (i.e. requiring no ordination), are integral to the ministerial stance of the Church, (e.g. Catechists, Pastoral associates et al.) Letting the courts and the administration determine who should be included in the definition of the category “minister” is intrusive, a violation of religious liberty and intolerant of those who hold a moral stance on homosexual activity long attested in the Judeo-Christian heritage and unambiguously in our sacred texts.  

But, welcome to “tolerance” as defined by secular radicals. In their lexicon “tolerance” is “your right to agree with me.” Live and let live” means, “you have the right to live only where I say.” “Bigotry” applies only to the classes they say are oppressed. “Phobia” (as in Homophobia) applies only to those who oppose their  agenda. “Hate” only exists against the classes they I say who are “protected” and have defined as oppressed. It is never possible for religious or social conservatives to be the object of hate since hate only comes from social conservatives.

Yes, welcome to the tolerant utopia founded by proponents of gay sex, gay “marriage” and other social inventions.

Pope Benedict spoke frequently of the “tyranny of relativism.” What this means, essentially, is that when a culture decides that there is no fundamental basis of truth, (whether of Scripture or Natural Law), the result is that there is no real basis for discussion or resolution of issues. Thus who “wins the day” is not based on reason, but on who shouts the loudest, and/or who has the most power, money or political influence.

The way forward in a relativistic world is not to appeal to reason by reference to Natural Law (in philosophy), or to constitutional principles (in political discourse) or to Scripture and Tradition (in Theology). Rather the “way forward” is to gain power and to implement an agenda that binds.

Farewell to reason rooted in agreed upon principles, hello to tyranny rooted simply in opinion and power.

Revolutions which ride in on the train of “freedom” more frequently usher in a reign of terror, as those who claimed to be oppressed and repressed take up their new power and then, themselves, turn to oppress, suppress, and repress any whom they thought, or think, to be on the wrong side of the issue.

Expect more “tolerance” from social radicals. The tyranny of relativism has ushered in a very poisonous and dangerous climate which has little basis for any discussion or true tolerance. And remember, what a social radical means by tolerance has nothing to do with tolerating you,  if you do not belong to a class or group favored by them.

It will require greater and greater courage from those of us who still think of truth as something higher than ourselves. And if you think that an exaggeration, just point to Natural Law, the Constitution, or (gaad zooks) Scripture, and just brace yourself for the immediate scorn you will experience.

There are some among the Catholic right who will argue that we should never have accepted Government money in the first place. Fine. But there is a long history to the rise of Catholic Charities as a federally funded provider of social services. Frankly we were one of the best providers, and the government recognized this by partnering with us. The poor where the ones who benefited. And as now, as Catholic Charities is increasingly marginalized and excluded from receiving federal funds, it will be the poor who suffer most. That should trouble liberals and even conservatives just a bit that the “rights” of homosexuals trumps the capacity of the poor of the poor to be served by what is arguably the best and most efficient of social service agencies.

Call it “tolerance” if you wish, but at least admit it is selective tolerance.

A heavy post needs a little levity. Enjoy this video from a Christian Humorist.

[markomalley]

Consider this: since FY 2012, there have been 290 federal contract actions between the Federal Government and various Catholic dioceses (valued at $1,269,828) to provide chaplain services.

Now you can talk about how the Church isn't supposed to get in bed with the government on providing social services...and I agree with you fully if you do so.

But "Chaplain Services????????" How can the Church NOT do that?

[markomalley]

Msgr Pope ping

[NYer]

Confirmation of Austin Ruse's article posted to the forum last month.

The Obama Doctrine

Our culture is being destroyed for the sake of 2% of the population.

[Tax-chick]

This is what you want, this is what you get.

It can be reasonably assumed that most people who choose to abandon norms of sexual behavior that endured for millennia did not expect the LBGTQWTH outbreak we’re presently seeing. However, here it is, and very few will seriously oppose it, because it is simply a slightly distasteful manifestation of the sexual license they demand for themselves.

[GreyFriar]

To the political/secular Left, “tolerance” is complete capitulation of those who oppose and/or disagree with their position and beliefs. Only their beliefs are acceptable and “correct.” All others must either convert to their belief or be quiet.

H’mmm, is there much difference between the Left in American and the Muslims of ISIS in Syria & Iraq?

[GreyFriar]

See also this article on American Thinker:

Diversity for Thee, but Not for Me, By Jim Yardley
The Progressive mantra of “diversity is our strength” is one of the most honored catchphrases of the left.
Like all slogans, it is a test to see if common folk are “gun-toting, Bible-clinging” Neanderthals or are they part of the enlightened, educated elites to whom the rest of us must surrender our individual beliefs, opinions, and thoughts.

But as with all that the Progressives say, the meaning of the words being used is warped and misrepresented.

The article continues at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/diversity_for_thee_but_not_for_me.html

[NYer]

Ping!

[MrB]

It’s so simple, there’s no reason to go into a big explanation or analysis of it.

The left is of the spirit of anti-Christ, and all else follows.

[Salvation]

**One might argue that excluding homosexuality oriented people from working as say, a janitor, or cafeteria contractor in a Catholic setting is unjust discrimination.**

And open up the pedophile’s horizon to lots of little children.

Keep them out of ALL schools.

[Salvation]

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[markomalley]

>> **One might argue that excluding homosexuality oriented people from working as say, a janitor, or cafeteria contractor in a Catholic setting is unjust discrimination.**

The issue, more than anything else, is that the behaviors associated with homosexuality are going to be protected.

In other words, it is not a matter of doing a witch hunt, but when a Catholic school teacher posts pics of her so-called “wedding” to her “wife” on her Facebook, there will be no recourse. When a Catholic Music Director brings his “Husband” to the parish Christmas Party and engages in all manner of PDA, anything less than full approval from the other attendees will result in a “hostile work environment” lawsuit.

And so on.

[zot]

Thanks for your post # 5. I agree.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bfl