Think About It...

There's a position going around that says that freedom of speech only protects you from being arrested by the government, but doesn't protect you from being forced out of your place of employment. Basically, a position of justifying the ostracism against people holding positions which are unpopular among the cultural elites.

As it currently stands, this view is used to justify the harassment of anyone who holds the position that marriage is, by nature, to be between one man and one woman with the openness to the possibility of children.

Now, I have written before that whether or not a person's public actions justify termination of employment depends entirely on the nature of the employer. To summarize, I said that when a place of employment is explicitly established as holding that certain public behaviors running against the beliefs of the company, the violation of said behavior can justify the termination of employment. But, when the controversial behavior does not run against the established values explicitly, termination is not justified.

For example, if a person thinks Catholicism is wrong and publicly denounces it, as much as I would find such a person offensive, I would not think such a position justifies him or her being fired from a job as a pizza delivery person.  However, if that person taught at a Catholic School, such a public position does justify termination because it would explicitly run afoul of the nature of the employer.

Likewise, when Brendan Eich was forced out of his position at Mozilla, his support for traditional marriage in no way violated the policy of the company, because it had nothing to do with the essence of what Mozilla is.

However, we now have a situation where a mob can agitate to get a person holding an unpopular view ostracized and believe such a position is justified because of the unproven position that thinking a thing is wrong means the person holding it must be a bigot.

Now the danger is: if those opposed to these values can legitimately force the ostracism of the person with unpopular views, then when political fortunes change, those who wind up on top will have the same right to ostracize those who are now on the bottom.

In other words, perhaps in 2020, those people who worked against the Defense of Marriage Act might suddenly find their employer pressuring them to resign... and they will be able to make no objection without sounding hypocritical.

The key thing to remember is this: If you are unwilling to let the tactics you use against your enemies be used by your enemies against you, that is a good sign that you are behaving hypocritically and your tactics are unjust.

Think about it...

Think About It...

There's a position going around that says that freedom of speech only protects you from being arrested by the government, but doesn't protect you from being forced out of your place of employment. Basically, a position of justifying the ostracism against people holding positions which are unpopular among the cultural elites.

As it currently stands, this view is used to justify the harassment of anyone who holds the position that marriage is, by nature, to be between one man and one woman with the openness to the possibility of children.

Now, I have written before that whether or not a person's public actions justify termination of employment depends entirely on the nature of the employer. To summarize, I said that when a place of employment is explicitly established as holding that certain public behaviors running against the beliefs of the company, the violation of said behavior can justify the termination of employment. But, when the controversial behavior does not run against the established values explicitly, termination is not justified.

For example, if a person thinks Catholicism is wrong and publicly denounces it, as much as I would find such a person offensive, I would not think such a position justifies him or her being fired from a job as a pizza delivery person.  However, if that person taught at a Catholic School, such a public position does justify termination because it would explicitly run afoul of the nature of the employer.

Likewise, when Brendan Eich was forced out of his position at Mozilla, his support for traditional marriage in no way violated the policy of the company, because it had nothing to do with the essence of what Mozilla is.

However, we now have a situation where a mob can agitate to get a person holding an unpopular view ostracized and believe such a position is justified because of the unproven position that thinking a thing is wrong means the person holding it must be a bigot.

Now the danger is: if those opposed to these values can legitimately force the ostracism of the person with unpopular views, then when political fortunes change, those who wind up on top will have the same right to ostracize those who are now on the bottom.

In other words, perhaps in 2020, those people who worked against the Defense of Marriage Act might suddenly find their employer pressuring them to resign... and they will be able to make no objection without sounding hypocritical.

The key thing to remember is this: If you are unwilling to let the tactics you use against your enemies be used by your enemies against you, that is a good sign that you are behaving hypocritically and your tactics are unjust.

Think about it...

Just a Pinch of Incense...

In ancient Rome, there was an obligation to burn a pinch of incense before the statue of the emperor. Doing so was essentially an act of worship of the emperor as a god. The monotheistic Christians could not do this without denying their beliefs in one true God... or give scandal by appearing to do so. But if they refused, they would suffer consequences for standing up for what they believed.

To the morally lax pagans, the Christians doubtlessly were viewed as intolerant. However, by insisting that the Christians burn this incense and do what they believed was morally wrong, the pagans were the intolerant ones. They thought the Christian beliefs were either a threat or something so insignificant that the Christians shouldn't make a fuss about it.

Fast forward some 1700 years to the present. The Christians who, because of their belief in one God, find themselves in a dilemma. Either let your business acknowledge the so-called "gay marriage" (or cause the scandal of appearing to do so), or suffer the consequences.

Again, to a good many people, the Christians are viewed as either intolerant or fussing over something "not important."  Laws seeking to protect Christians have been proposed, but they have been portrayed as discriminatory laws.

What makes it so sickening now is the First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from coercing someone into doing what they believed was morally forbidden. But now, it is the defense of these religious rights that is considered unconstitutional.

Once again, Lincoln's words have shown themselves prophetic:

"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

I first posted these words in 2007. Each year, they seem more amd more reflecting our government.

Just a Pinch of Incense...

In ancient Rome, there was an obligation to burn a pinch of incense before the statue of the emperor. Doing so was essentially an act of worship of the emperor as a god. The monotheistic Christians could not do this without denying their beliefs in one true God... or give scandal by appearing to do so. But if they refused, they would suffer consequences for standing up for what they believed.

To the morally lax pagans, the Christians doubtlessly were viewed as intolerant. However, by insisting that the Christians burn this incense and do what they believed was morally wrong, the pagans were the intolerant ones. They thought the Christian beliefs were either a threat or something so insignificant that the Christians shouldn't make a fuss about it.

Fast forward some 1700 years to the present. The Christians who, because of their belief in one God, find themselves in a dilemma. Either let your business acknowledge the so-called "gay marriage" (or cause the scandal of appearing to do so), or suffer the consequences.

Again, to a good many people, the Christians are viewed as either intolerant or fussing over something "not important."  Laws seeking to protect Christians have been proposed, but they have been portrayed as discriminatory laws.

What makes it so sickening now is the First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from coercing someone into doing what they believed was morally forbidden. But now, it is the defense of these religious rights that is considered unconstitutional.

Once again, Lincoln's words have shown themselves prophetic:

"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

I first posted these words in 2007. Each year, they seem more amd more reflecting our government.

Reflections From Morning Readings

When Ahab saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is it you, you disturber of Israel?” He answered, “It is not I who disturb Israel, but you and your father’s house, by forsaking the commands of the Lord and you by following the Baals.  (1 Kings 18:17-18)

When people who seek to remake morality to make their own vices seem acceptable, they try to accuse the people standing up for the traditional morality of being disruptive to the moral order.

But in fact, it is not the defenders who seek to disrupt or impose.  It is those who disobey and try to impose their disobedience as the new normal who disturb the land.

These people who try to remake morality try to cast themselves as the aggrieved party, defending themselves from injustice. But they are in fact the aggressors, imposing and disrupting.  They are the ones who behave in the way they accuse us of acting.

Reflections From Morning Readings

When Ahab saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is it you, you disturber of Israel?” He answered, “It is not I who disturb Israel, but you and your father’s house, by forsaking the commands of the Lord and you by following the Baals.  (1 Kings 18:17-18)

When people who seek to remake morality to make their own vices seem acceptable, they try to accuse the people standing up for the traditional morality of being disruptive to the moral order.

But in fact, it is not the defenders who seek to disrupt or impose.  It is those who disobey and try to impose their disobedience as the new normal who disturb the land.

These people who try to remake morality try to cast themselves as the aggrieved party, defending themselves from injustice. But they are in fact the aggressors, imposing and disrupting.  They are the ones who behave in the way they accuse us of acting.

Tablet Thoughts: Hypocrisy and Hooters

"We believe women should be treated with respect."

--Statement made by San Diego restaurant,  Hooters

There's no denying the mayor of San Diego is a major sleaze in his treatment of women. Nothing can justify harassment

But I found it bizarre that the local franchise of Hooters issued the statement it did in barring him from their establishment.

Hooters, is a restaurant which uses scantily clad women as a selling point. Essentially turning women into sexual objects..

...which is how the San Diego mayor views women.

Again, nothing justifies the mayor's behavior. The existence of businesses who use sleaze does not exempt people from acting like decent human beings.

But businesses like Hooters have to recognize their role in pandering to Lust which reduces women to the level of sexual objects for men to fantasize over... and sometimes harass... or worse.

Blessed (soon to be Saint) John Paul II once said, “There is no dignity when the human dimension is eliminated from the person. In short, the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but that it shows far too little.”

The mayor of San Diego eliminates the human dimension of women. But so does Hooters.

Perhaps each person should consider this well when considering what businesses to support...

Tablet Thoughts: Hypocrisy and Hooters

"We believe women should be treated with respect."

--Statement made by San Diego restaurant,  Hooters

There's no denying the mayor of San Diego is a major sleaze in his treatment of women. Nothing can justify harassment

But I found it bizarre that the local franchise of Hooters issued the statement it did in barring him from their establishment.

Hooters, is a restaurant which uses scantily clad women as a selling point. Essentially turning women into sexual objects..

...which is how the San Diego mayor views women.

Again, nothing justifies the mayor's behavior. The existence of businesses who use sleaze does not exempt people from acting like decent human beings.

But businesses like Hooters have to recognize their role in pandering to Lust which reduces women to the level of sexual objects for men to fantasize over... and sometimes harass... or worse.

Blessed (soon to be Saint) John Paul II once said, “There is no dignity when the human dimension is eliminated from the person. In short, the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but that it shows far too little.”

The mayor of San Diego eliminates the human dimension of women. But so does Hooters.

Perhaps each person should consider this well when considering what businesses to support...

The Hypocrisy of Modern Moral Relativism

There's an old saying.  What's mine is mine.  What's yours is up for grabs.  The person who coined it was obviously a cynic, but the saying does capture the hypocrisy of the modern moral relativism.  Put basically, champions so-called "tolerance" demand that their views be accepted that even if a person disapproves of a view, he or she should respect the right of the individual to live in accordance with that view without being judged for it.

BUT, this champion of "tolerance" will not practice what he or she preaches.  This person will not accept the right of the individual who believes in Christian morality to live in accordance with that view.  On the contrary, he or she will quite harshly judge and condemn these views, trying to suppress them.

In other words, this so-called champion of "tolerance" is not tolerant at all.  Rather, he or she is trying to force through changes in morality while arguing that those following traditional Christian morality are forcing their views on others.

Since the modern moral relativist is arguing tolerance as a virtue.  He or she is obligated to live according to that virtue if this person is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy.  If, as they argue, people with unpopular stances should be permitted to hold these views and that we should all treat these views as equally acceptable; then it follows that they should practice what they preach, by tolerating the holders of traditional Christian morality when they are now unpopular with the political and media elites in this country.

Moreover, if they have a right to speak openly about what they disagree with on other views and expect to be treated civilly in doing so, then it is quite reasonable for those who hold conflicting views should also be treated with respect when they are open with what they disagree with.

But this is what they do not do.  Instead of tolerating the traditional Christians who speak out to defend their views, instead of treating them with respect when it comes to disputes on what is right, what we see is savage attacks and insults.  We see demonization of opponents.

Thus we see the proponents of modern moral relativism do not practice the tolerance they demand their opponents follow.

What becomes apparent from this fact is that the issue is not an issue of fairness at all.  It is an issue of trying to forcibly changing morality through intimidation and coercion, refusing to tolerate their opponents seeking to defend their views, and then blaming their opponents for the tactics they themselves are using (such as "forcing beliefs on others").

Since the definition of hypocrisy is, "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case," and the practitioner of modern relativism claims the standards of "tolerance" while refusing to grant any to views they oppose, it stands to reason that such a person is a hypocrite.

To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, such persons must immediately cease their slanderous attacks on the traditional Christian values and start… tolerating them.  They must recognize that they must give the same free and open practice of Christianity in the public square that they insist be given to their own beloved causes.

The Hypocrisy of Modern Moral Relativism

There's an old saying.  What's mine is mine.  What's yours is up for grabs.  The person who coined it was obviously a cynic, but the saying does capture the hypocrisy of the modern moral relativism.  Put basically, champions so-called "tolerance" demand that their views be accepted that even if a person disapproves of a view, he or she should respect the right of the individual to live in accordance with that view without being judged for it.

BUT, this champion of "tolerance" will not practice what he or she preaches.  This person will not accept the right of the individual who believes in Christian morality to live in accordance with that view.  On the contrary, he or she will quite harshly judge and condemn these views, trying to suppress them.

In other words, this so-called champion of "tolerance" is not tolerant at all.  Rather, he or she is trying to force through changes in morality while arguing that those following traditional Christian morality are forcing their views on others.

Since the modern moral relativist is arguing tolerance as a virtue.  He or she is obligated to live according to that virtue if this person is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy.  If, as they argue, people with unpopular stances should be permitted to hold these views and that we should all treat these views as equally acceptable; then it follows that they should practice what they preach, by tolerating the holders of traditional Christian morality when they are now unpopular with the political and media elites in this country.

Moreover, if they have a right to speak openly about what they disagree with on other views and expect to be treated civilly in doing so, then it is quite reasonable for those who hold conflicting views should also be treated with respect when they are open with what they disagree with.

But this is what they do not do.  Instead of tolerating the traditional Christians who speak out to defend their views, instead of treating them with respect when it comes to disputes on what is right, what we see is savage attacks and insults.  We see demonization of opponents.

Thus we see the proponents of modern moral relativism do not practice the tolerance they demand their opponents follow.

What becomes apparent from this fact is that the issue is not an issue of fairness at all.  It is an issue of trying to forcibly changing morality through intimidation and coercion, refusing to tolerate their opponents seeking to defend their views, and then blaming their opponents for the tactics they themselves are using (such as "forcing beliefs on others").

Since the definition of hypocrisy is, "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case," and the practitioner of modern relativism claims the standards of "tolerance" while refusing to grant any to views they oppose, it stands to reason that such a person is a hypocrite.

To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, such persons must immediately cease their slanderous attacks on the traditional Christian values and start… tolerating them.  They must recognize that they must give the same free and open practice of Christianity in the public square that they insist be given to their own beloved causes.

Fifth Anniversary Post: Lincoln was Right

In my first post, written September 22nd, 2007, I quoted Abraham Lincoln who had written:

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy.

In that post I had written about my concerns that America was in danger of passing unjust laws in which "the just who are constrained and the unjust are free."

Fast forwarding five years to today, September 22nd, 2012, it is no longer a theoretical question about the danger of passing unjust laws.  They are now passed, and the fate of the First Amendment is much more dubious than it was when I first wrote.  The propaganda of the current presidency and his supporters are in fact blaming people who are trying to defend their religious freedom for "imposing their views on others."

I find that curious.

The Catholic who believes abortion is wrong and uses his or her rights as an American citizen (freedom of speech, the right to vote etc.)  regarding this moral conviction is told he or she is "imposing views on others."  The atheist who believes abortion is a right and uses his or her rights as an American citizen to expand the legality and reach of abortion is praised for "protecting freedom."

Both the Catholic and the atheist in this case are acting according to what they believe.  But one is vilified for doing so and the other is praised.  One is harassed when speaking while the other is protected.  This is an arbitrary application of law, of media reporting calculated to favor one group and denigrate another.

I believe Lincoln was right.  America is a nation where there is a pretense of loving liberty, but no longer an actual love of liberty.  It is the alloy of hypocrisy to praise freedom when the HHS mandate is telling religious institutions that their schools and hospitals must choose between going against what they believe God commands them to do and being fined/taxed out of existence.

People of good will should think about that.  On one hand we have the the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On the other hand, we have a government prohibiting the free exercise of religion by telling religious hospitals and schools that they must pay for insurance coverage for abortifacients and contraception – even if these hospitals and schools think it wrong and refusing to consider the petitions for the redress of grievances.

When the Church (and other denominations) speak out on this, it draws the accusation of "violating the separation of Church and State" and potential legal sanctions.

So we see again Lincoln's point.  America claims to love liberty, but is willing to set it aside when seeking to suppress someone who takes a stand and says "What America is doing is wrong here."  That is "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case" as the Oxford English Dictionary defines hypocrisy.

The sad thing is, once the principle is accepted (which at this time seems to depend somewhat on the results of the November 2012 elections and the Supreme Court challenges), it becomes easy for any future government to use this to their own ends.  It doesn't have to even be the scenario of Obama who makes the United States into a dictatorship.  A future presidency could take the premise Obama established and use it to further his or her own ends, using the force of government to silence opponents.

So with this in mind, what are we to do?  The individual Christians seems weak.  The Church is attacked in a way that seeks to silence her.  The courts seem indifferent to these violations.  The government is actively involved in promoting this violation.  Are we doomed to suffer the violation of religious freedom?

At a time like this, I am reminded of the words of St. Augustine:

God therefore does not command impossibilities; but in His command He counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do.

Augustine of Hippo. (1887). A Treatise on Nature and Grace (P. Holmes, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume V: Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings (P. Schaff, Ed.) (138). New York: Christian Literature Company.

We need to both pray concerning what is outside of our control, and do what God wants us to do.  We can't hide in a bunker and complain loudly about bishops being at fault because we're still under fire.  All of us who profess to be Catholics have a role to play.  It might be something like informing people on a national scale, but it also might be a matter of informing a co-worker who speaks about the so-called "war on women" how things really are.

God does have a role for each one of us to play.  We do have the free will to cooperate with God or to ignore that role He calls us for.  However, we must remember that God doesn't always use spectacular miracles to make His will known.  Sometimes he calls on the little people – like how he called a collection of tax collectors, fishermen and the like to bring His message to the whole world.

How far would those twelve men had gotten if everyone else in the Church had, instead of taking part in the mission of the Church, instead sat around and complained about how terrible these Apostles were for not getting more done?

In 2007, I don't think anyone foresaw this coming.  Now that it is here, we have to remember that all of us: Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, non-believers – all people seeking to do right – need to make a stand against a government which is choosing to do wrong.

If we don't, the words Cardinal George uttered in 2010 will be prophetic:

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr"

Fifth Anniversary Post: Lincoln was Right

In my first post, written September 22nd, 2007, I quoted Abraham Lincoln who had written:

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy.

In that post I had written about my concerns that America was in danger of passing unjust laws in which "the just who are constrained and the unjust are free."

Fast forwarding five years to today, September 22nd, 2012, it is no longer a theoretical question about the danger of passing unjust laws.  They are now passed, and the fate of the First Amendment is much more dubious than it was when I first wrote.  The propaganda of the current presidency and his supporters are in fact blaming people who are trying to defend their religious freedom for "imposing their views on others."

I find that curious.

The Catholic who believes abortion is wrong and uses his or her rights as an American citizen (freedom of speech, the right to vote etc.)  regarding this moral conviction is told he or she is "imposing views on others."  The atheist who believes abortion is a right and uses his or her rights as an American citizen to expand the legality and reach of abortion is praised for "protecting freedom."

Both the Catholic and the atheist in this case are acting according to what they believe.  But one is vilified for doing so and the other is praised.  One is harassed when speaking while the other is protected.  This is an arbitrary application of law, of media reporting calculated to favor one group and denigrate another.

I believe Lincoln was right.  America is a nation where there is a pretense of loving liberty, but no longer an actual love of liberty.  It is the alloy of hypocrisy to praise freedom when the HHS mandate is telling religious institutions that their schools and hospitals must choose between going against what they believe God commands them to do and being fined/taxed out of existence.

People of good will should think about that.  On one hand we have the the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On the other hand, we have a government prohibiting the free exercise of religion by telling religious hospitals and schools that they must pay for insurance coverage for abortifacients and contraception – even if these hospitals and schools think it wrong and refusing to consider the petitions for the redress of grievances.

When the Church (and other denominations) speak out on this, it draws the accusation of "violating the separation of Church and State" and potential legal sanctions.

So we see again Lincoln's point.  America claims to love liberty, but is willing to set it aside when seeking to suppress someone who takes a stand and says "What America is doing is wrong here."  That is "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case" as the Oxford English Dictionary defines hypocrisy.

The sad thing is, once the principle is accepted (which at this time seems to depend somewhat on the results of the November 2012 elections and the Supreme Court challenges), it becomes easy for any future government to use this to their own ends.  It doesn't have to even be the scenario of Obama who makes the United States into a dictatorship.  A future presidency could take the premise Obama established and use it to further his or her own ends, using the force of government to silence opponents.

So with this in mind, what are we to do?  The individual Christians seems weak.  The Church is attacked in a way that seeks to silence her.  The courts seem indifferent to these violations.  The government is actively involved in promoting this violation.  Are we doomed to suffer the violation of religious freedom?

At a time like this, I am reminded of the words of St. Augustine:

God therefore does not command impossibilities; but in His command He counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do.

Augustine of Hippo. (1887). A Treatise on Nature and Grace (P. Holmes, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume V: Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings (P. Schaff, Ed.) (138). New York: Christian Literature Company.

We need to both pray concerning what is outside of our control, and do what God wants us to do.  We can't hide in a bunker and complain loudly about bishops being at fault because we're still under fire.  All of us who profess to be Catholics have a role to play.  It might be something like informing people on a national scale, but it also might be a matter of informing a co-worker who speaks about the so-called "war on women" how things really are.

God does have a role for each one of us to play.  We do have the free will to cooperate with God or to ignore that role He calls us for.  However, we must remember that God doesn't always use spectacular miracles to make His will known.  Sometimes he calls on the little people – like how he called a collection of tax collectors, fishermen and the like to bring His message to the whole world.

How far would those twelve men had gotten if everyone else in the Church had, instead of taking part in the mission of the Church, instead sat around and complained about how terrible these Apostles were for not getting more done?

In 2007, I don't think anyone foresaw this coming.  Now that it is here, we have to remember that all of us: Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, non-believers – all people seeking to do right – need to make a stand against a government which is choosing to do wrong.

If we don't, the words Cardinal George uttered in 2010 will be prophetic:

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr"

TFTD: Pulling a Fast One

Chico Marx: I make you proposition. You owe us $200, we take $2000 and we call it square.
Groucho Marx: That's not a bad idea. I tell you ... I'll consult my lawyer. And if he advises me to do it, I'll get a new lawyer.

(Horse Feathers)

The tragic thing about the current battle of the Culture Wars being fought is the fact that one faction is being given leave to decide the terms without observers even questioning the fact that this faction is not impartial, not reasonable and not logical.

In the current debates about abortion, gay "marriage" and the HHS contraception mandate, we see the faction in favor attempting to introduce their views as both personal choices AND fundamental rights.  The traditional Christian views on these issues are rejected on the grounds that moral values are "relative" and can't be imposed on others.  At the same time, it is also claimed that these issues are fundamental rights and those who oppose them are opposed to the rights of women or persons with homosexual inclinations.

It can't be both.  If it morality is relative, a person can't be compelled to accept abortion, gay marriage and contraception.  But if these things are "rights," then morality can't be relative and the proponents of these issues are obligated to make a case for their attempting to legitimize them.

It is hypocritical to condemn Christians for "pushing their values on others," when believers oppose innovations made to the moral beliefs which contradict long held values while at the same time imposing these new "rights" on society in the name of "human dignity."

During this time, coming up to the elections, we need to be aware of these hypocritical double standards which demand that Christians place their moral beliefs on hold while pushing their own moral beliefs.  We do not need to be ashamed of our faith.  As Americans we have the same rights as anyone else to speak out on when the country goes in the wrong direction.

We are not the ones pushing beliefs on others.  They are pushing their beliefs on us, telling us to shut up when we speak out, telling us we are anti-woman or homophobic when we say the unborn are persons and marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

We need to stand up for the truth and not let the lies and propaganda pass unchallenged.  We cannot let them intimidate us into silence.

TFTD: Pulling a Fast One

Chico Marx: I make you proposition. You owe us $200, we take $2000 and we call it square.
Groucho Marx: That's not a bad idea. I tell you ... I'll consult my lawyer. And if he advises me to do it, I'll get a new lawyer.

(Horse Feathers)

The tragic thing about the current battle of the Culture Wars being fought is the fact that one faction is being given leave to decide the terms without observers even questioning the fact that this faction is not impartial, not reasonable and not logical.

In the current debates about abortion, gay "marriage" and the HHS contraception mandate, we see the faction in favor attempting to introduce their views as both personal choices AND fundamental rights.  The traditional Christian views on these issues are rejected on the grounds that moral values are "relative" and can't be imposed on others.  At the same time, it is also claimed that these issues are fundamental rights and those who oppose them are opposed to the rights of women or persons with homosexual inclinations.

It can't be both.  If it morality is relative, a person can't be compelled to accept abortion, gay marriage and contraception.  But if these things are "rights," then morality can't be relative and the proponents of these issues are obligated to make a case for their attempting to legitimize them.

It is hypocritical to condemn Christians for "pushing their values on others," when believers oppose innovations made to the moral beliefs which contradict long held values while at the same time imposing these new "rights" on society in the name of "human dignity."

During this time, coming up to the elections, we need to be aware of these hypocritical double standards which demand that Christians place their moral beliefs on hold while pushing their own moral beliefs.  We do not need to be ashamed of our faith.  As Americans we have the same rights as anyone else to speak out on when the country goes in the wrong direction.

We are not the ones pushing beliefs on others.  They are pushing their beliefs on us, telling us to shut up when we speak out, telling us we are anti-woman or homophobic when we say the unborn are persons and marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

We need to stand up for the truth and not let the lies and propaganda pass unchallenged.  We cannot let them intimidate us into silence.

TFTD: Hypocritical Champions of 'Tolerance.'

Introduction

A friend brought to my attention the campaign being used by certain homosexual activists to attach the name of Rick Santorum to a rather repugnant substance.  This article was conceived while reflecting on the utter hypocrisy of the action from people who claim to champion "tolerance."

The Scenario

Case #1: Homosexual activists try to stamp out the teenage use of "That's so gay!" (used as an equivalent of "that's bad") as an intolerant statement.

Case #2: Homosexual activists seek to promote the term "Santorum" as a neologism involving some pretty disgusting things as revenge for Rick Santorum speaking out against homosexual acts as a moral wrong.  They are so successful that the #1 and #2 Google hits for "Santorum" [at the time of this writing] involve this repugnant action, and it is not until the #3 hit that we are directed to any entry about Rick Santorum himself (the Wikipedia entry).

It is an interesting contrast.  In the first case, people are seeking to eliminate a pejorative meaning to a word commonly associated with homosexuality.   In the second case, the same people are seeking to create a pejorative meaning for a name belonging for a man they despise.

Now, if I were to campaign to make a pejorative meaning to "homosexual" (such as, "Oh man, I stepped in some homosexual… it's all over my shoes!"), I have no doubt that this action would be widely denounced (assuming anyone actually reads the site) as hateful.

So why is it that such people who campaign against "That's so gay" as being intolerant also make use of intolerance when it suits them?

Definitions

These people certainly do not practice what they preach.  If they did, they would recognize that, if it is wrong to give the term "Gay" a negative term, then it reasonably follows that it is wrong to give other terms a negative connotation.

Given that the term 'Tolerate' means:

allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

It seems that the person who claims tolerance is a virtue must accept the existence of views they disagree with.  Otherwise, they are not tolerant.  They are hypocrites, defined as:

The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

The Syllogism

SYLLOGISM:

1. [Tolerance] [Allows the existence of something one dislikes or disagrees with without Interference] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Homosexual Activists] do not [Allow the existence of something one dislikes or disagrees with without Interference] (Some [C] is not [B])
3. Therefore Some [Homosexual Activists] are not [Tolerant] (Therefore Some [C] is not [A])

I use the weaker [Some] and not the stronger [No] in recognition of the fact that some activists have human decency and do not act like these barbarians.  The use of [Some] limits the argument to certain people and does not attempt to lump all people into one category.

This courtesy is unfortunately not returned, as it is common to see Catholic teaching compared with being no different than the Westboro Baptist Church and their hateful activities.

The Inescapable Reasoning

The accusation of hypocrisy on the part of these activists is just and cannot be denied.

Since Tolerance is the virtue preached by these activists, but they will not apply to others what they demand for themselves, we can reasonably conclude that these activists claim a moral standard to which their behavior does not conform.  Since that is the definition of hypocrisy, those activists are hypocrites.

Absolute Values, Absolute Truth

There is only one way to attempt to escape the charge of hypocrisy, and that begins with recognizing that tolerance is not a universal value, but it is relative to an absolute truth.  Since one can refuse to tolerate something on the grounds that it is, by nature, dangerous to others and therefore cannot be permitted to exist without causing harm, one can attempt to argue that the Christian opposition to homosexuality is harmful to others.

Universal truths would be true in all times, for all people in all circumstances.  So if it is universally true that I cannot murder a person arbitrarily, it would be true a thousand years ago, now, and a thousand years from now.  It would be true whether I lived in America, Afghanistan or Australia and whether I was rich or poor.  Asian or Caucasian etc.  Even if some cultures utterly rejected this truth, it would not change the fact that it is universally true.

This is why Tolerance cannot be a Universal Truth.  If it was, one would have to give equal tolerance to the Jews and the Nazis who persecuted them.  It would have to give equal tolerance to the view that child molestation is wrong and to the views of NAMBLA.

Sane people recognize that these views cannot co-exist.  If it is wrong for the Nazis to persecute the Jews, one cannot tolerate the view of the Nazis.  If child molestation is wrong, the views that it is acceptable cannot be tolerated.  The person who tries to tolerate both views would have to be overlooking some serious issues.

This is also why Islam and Christianity cannot both be true.  If Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the fulfillment of Revelation, then the claim of Islam that He was merely a Prophet but lesser than Muhammad must be false.  Likewise, if the claim of Islam be true, then Jesus cannot have been the Son of God.

The point is, truth cannot contradict truth.  So if one view is seen as truth, a view which contradicts it cannot also be truth.

"Tolerance" and Truth

What this comes down to is this.  If Christians say that homosexual acts are wrong, and certain activists say homosexual acts are morally acceptable, both views cannot be seen as true.  Both must demonstrate why their views are true.  Christianity has done this, and one can look up the teachings on the matter.  Those who reject the Catholic teaching as being false need to demonstrate why it is false and provide reasons for why their view is true.

Yet this is exactly what is not done.  It is argued that the Catholic teaching is "intolerant," without showing why homosexual acts need to be tolerated as morally acceptable behavior.  Instead, logical fallacies are used, notably the appeal to fear and pity, to lead one to think that if Gay "marriage" is not made law, the Westboro Baptist Church and people murdering homosexuals will become the norm; and that the denial of the "right to marry" means homosexual persons will be forced to live alone without love.  We are told that we must either sanction "gay marriage" or else sanction the "persecution" of homosexuals.

The Position of Catholics Must Be Distinguished From Popular Distortions

It only makes sense to invoke the Westboro Baptist Church or those people who assault homosexuals against the position of the Catholic Church, if the Catholic Church accepts their actions as valid.  If they do not, the comparison is invalid.

Of course since the Catholic Church condemns treating persons as less than persons, this sort of argument is a slander.  Blessed John XXII wrote in 1963:

158. It is always perfectly justifiable to distinguish between error as such and the person who falls into error—even in the case of men who err regarding the truth or are led astray as a result of their inadequate knowledge, in matters either of religion or of the highest ethical standards. A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity; and that is something that must always be taken into account.

So the right thinking Catholic recognizes that even though we must condemn homosexual behavior, we must still treat the person with homosexual tendencies as a person and not as a sub-human who may be mistreated.  However, one can still believe homosexual behavior is wrong without contradicting the view that persons must be treated as persons:

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,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² 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.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. 

—Catechism of the Catholic Church

In other words, persons are to be treated with respect as persons even though we must oppose homosexuality as wrong.  There is no justification to the accusations of "homophobia" or bigotry against us, and to say our beliefs are wrong requires one to prove what beliefs are right and why.  Otherwise it is an ipse dixit claim.

Conclusion

This is the dilemma for the activist which rejects the Christian moral teaching and calls us "intolerant."

On one hand, if one wants to invoke Tolerance as an absolute value, they must either tolerate the views they disagree with (including us Christians) or else be labeled Hypocrite. 

On the other hand, if they want to avoid the hypocrite label while condemning our view as wrong, they must stop hiding behind the label of "tolerance" and acknowledge that universal and absolute truths exist and are knowable, and they must demonstrate the truth of their claims and not claim that their views must be true on the account that they reject our views.

If they will not, if they will simply continue on in personal attacks, using labels like "homophobe," "bigot," or "intolerant," then we can see that such activists are motivated by emotion and hatred, not by reason and logic and that they are guilty of the behaviors they accuse us of possessing.

TFTD: Hypocritical Champions of 'Tolerance.'

Introduction

A friend brought to my attention the campaign being used by certain homosexual activists to attach the name of Rick Santorum to a rather repugnant substance.  This article was conceived while reflecting on the utter hypocrisy of the action from people who claim to champion "tolerance."

The Scenario

Case #1: Homosexual activists try to stamp out the teenage use of "That's so gay!" (used as an equivalent of "that's bad") as an intolerant statement.

Case #2: Homosexual activists seek to promote the term "Santorum" as a neologism involving some pretty disgusting things as revenge for Rick Santorum speaking out against homosexual acts as a moral wrong.  They are so successful that the #1 and #2 Google hits for "Santorum" [at the time of this writing] involve this repugnant action, and it is not until the #3 hit that we are directed to any entry about Rick Santorum himself (the Wikipedia entry).

It is an interesting contrast.  In the first case, people are seeking to eliminate a pejorative meaning to a word commonly associated with homosexuality.   In the second case, the same people are seeking to create a pejorative meaning for a name belonging for a man they despise.

Now, if I were to campaign to make a pejorative meaning to "homosexual" (such as, "Oh man, I stepped in some homosexual… it's all over my shoes!"), I have no doubt that this action would be widely denounced (assuming anyone actually reads the site) as hateful.

So why is it that such people who campaign against "That's so gay" as being intolerant also make use of intolerance when it suits them?

Definitions

These people certainly do not practice what they preach.  If they did, they would recognize that, if it is wrong to give the term "Gay" a negative term, then it reasonably follows that it is wrong to give other terms a negative connotation.

Given that the term 'Tolerate' means:

allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

It seems that the person who claims tolerance is a virtue must accept the existence of views they disagree with.  Otherwise, they are not tolerant.  They are hypocrites, defined as:

The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

The Syllogism

SYLLOGISM:

1. [Tolerance] [Allows the existence of something one dislikes or disagrees with without Interference] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Homosexual Activists] do not [Allow the existence of something one dislikes or disagrees with without Interference] (Some [C] is not [B])
3. Therefore Some [Homosexual Activists] are not [Tolerant] (Therefore Some [C] is not [A])

I use the weaker [Some] and not the stronger [No] in recognition of the fact that some activists have human decency and do not act like these barbarians.  The use of [Some] limits the argument to certain people and does not attempt to lump all people into one category.

This courtesy is unfortunately not returned, as it is common to see Catholic teaching compared with being no different than the Westboro Baptist Church and their hateful activities.

The Inescapable Reasoning

The accusation of hypocrisy on the part of these activists is just and cannot be denied.

Since Tolerance is the virtue preached by these activists, but they will not apply to others what they demand for themselves, we can reasonably conclude that these activists claim a moral standard to which their behavior does not conform.  Since that is the definition of hypocrisy, those activists are hypocrites.

Absolute Values, Absolute Truth

There is only one way to attempt to escape the charge of hypocrisy, and that begins with recognizing that tolerance is not a universal value, but it is relative to an absolute truth.  Since one can refuse to tolerate something on the grounds that it is, by nature, dangerous to others and therefore cannot be permitted to exist without causing harm, one can attempt to argue that the Christian opposition to homosexuality is harmful to others.

Universal truths would be true in all times, for all people in all circumstances.  So if it is universally true that I cannot murder a person arbitrarily, it would be true a thousand years ago, now, and a thousand years from now.  It would be true whether I lived in America, Afghanistan or Australia and whether I was rich or poor.  Asian or Caucasian etc.  Even if some cultures utterly rejected this truth, it would not change the fact that it is universally true.

This is why Tolerance cannot be a Universal Truth.  If it was, one would have to give equal tolerance to the Jews and the Nazis who persecuted them.  It would have to give equal tolerance to the view that child molestation is wrong and to the views of NAMBLA.

Sane people recognize that these views cannot co-exist.  If it is wrong for the Nazis to persecute the Jews, one cannot tolerate the view of the Nazis.  If child molestation is wrong, the views that it is acceptable cannot be tolerated.  The person who tries to tolerate both views would have to be overlooking some serious issues.

This is also why Islam and Christianity cannot both be true.  If Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the fulfillment of Revelation, then the claim of Islam that He was merely a Prophet but lesser than Muhammad must be false.  Likewise, if the claim of Islam be true, then Jesus cannot have been the Son of God.

The point is, truth cannot contradict truth.  So if one view is seen as truth, a view which contradicts it cannot also be truth.

"Tolerance" and Truth

What this comes down to is this.  If Christians say that homosexual acts are wrong, and certain activists say homosexual acts are morally acceptable, both views cannot be seen as true.  Both must demonstrate why their views are true.  Christianity has done this, and one can look up the teachings on the matter.  Those who reject the Catholic teaching as being false need to demonstrate why it is false and provide reasons for why their view is true.

Yet this is exactly what is not done.  It is argued that the Catholic teaching is "intolerant," without showing why homosexual acts need to be tolerated as morally acceptable behavior.  Instead, logical fallacies are used, notably the appeal to fear and pity, to lead one to think that if Gay "marriage" is not made law, the Westboro Baptist Church and people murdering homosexuals will become the norm; and that the denial of the "right to marry" means homosexual persons will be forced to live alone without love.  We are told that we must either sanction "gay marriage" or else sanction the "persecution" of homosexuals.

The Position of Catholics Must Be Distinguished From Popular Distortions

It only makes sense to invoke the Westboro Baptist Church or those people who assault homosexuals against the position of the Catholic Church, if the Catholic Church accepts their actions as valid.  If they do not, the comparison is invalid.

Of course since the Catholic Church condemns treating persons as less than persons, this sort of argument is a slander.  Blessed John XXII wrote in 1963:

158. It is always perfectly justifiable to distinguish between error as such and the person who falls into error—even in the case of men who err regarding the truth or are led astray as a result of their inadequate knowledge, in matters either of religion or of the highest ethical standards. A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity; and that is something that must always be taken into account.

So the right thinking Catholic recognizes that even though we must condemn homosexual behavior, we must still treat the person with homosexual tendencies as a person and not as a sub-human who may be mistreated.  However, one can still believe homosexual behavior is wrong without contradicting the view that persons must be treated as persons:

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,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² 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.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. 

—Catechism of the Catholic Church

In other words, persons are to be treated with respect as persons even though we must oppose homosexuality as wrong.  There is no justification to the accusations of "homophobia" or bigotry against us, and to say our beliefs are wrong requires one to prove what beliefs are right and why.  Otherwise it is an ipse dixit claim.

Conclusion

This is the dilemma for the activist which rejects the Christian moral teaching and calls us "intolerant."

On one hand, if one wants to invoke Tolerance as an absolute value, they must either tolerate the views they disagree with (including us Christians) or else be labeled Hypocrite. 

On the other hand, if they want to avoid the hypocrite label while condemning our view as wrong, they must stop hiding behind the label of "tolerance" and acknowledge that universal and absolute truths exist and are knowable, and they must demonstrate the truth of their claims and not claim that their views must be true on the account that they reject our views.

If they will not, if they will simply continue on in personal attacks, using labels like "homophobe," "bigot," or "intolerant," then we can see that such activists are motivated by emotion and hatred, not by reason and logic and that they are guilty of the behaviors they accuse us of possessing.

Apologia: Religious Faith Free of Government Interference

Introduction

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

—The First Amendment (Emphasis added)

America was founded with religious freedom recognized as a primary right.  The state can neither compel people to belong to one faith, nor to persecute a faith because of what they believe.

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis Humanae, speaks of religious freedom in this way:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The two stances are remarkably similar – the State does not have the authority to force a person or a group to do what they believe is morally evil.

Unfortunately, the modern stance of the US Government and the political elites is one which seeks to compel the Catholic Church and the institutions affiliated with her to participate in behaviors she finds contrary to what she believes to be right.

CREDO: Right Belief and Right Practice

Doctrine is what is professed by the Church as believed, and denial of the doctrine is to deny what we believe to be true.  A person who denies the Trinity cannot be said to believe what the Catholic Church believes, even if he or she is a part of the Catholic Church.  Indeed, throughout the centuries, holy men and women have been martyred because they would not deny what the Church professes to be true and would not agree with what the Church teaches is false.

This point must be understood.  Even under the threat of punishment, we cannot go against what we believe.

In the Catholic view, we can know of God through Divine Revelation and through reason.  Through reason, we can grow in understanding about why the commands of the Lord are as they are and understand what reasonably follows from what we believe.

We believe God is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good.  From this we recognize that His moral law is not based on an imperfect understanding of human nature and is not arbitrary (it isn't a case of "whatever God feels like is good").  God is perfectly good and His moral law reflects His goodness.  God's law also reflects what is good for persons.  He does not command us to do what is harmful for ourselves and does not forbid what is good for us.

Because our Lord has made it clear that to love Him is to keep His commandments, we who profess to love the Lord must obey Him.  It isn't a matter of merely following rules legalistically.  When you love a person, you act in a way which has the good of that person in mind.  The beloved can forgive actions done which are offensive.  However, a habitual contempt for the good of the beloved demonstrates a lack of love.

We believe that right practice (orthopraxy) depends on right belief (orthodoxy).  For example, a person who believes people are nothing more than cogs in a machine to serve a higher purpose will treat persons differently than those who believe people need to be treated with dignity and cannot have this dignity taken away for the sake of expedience.

From this we can see that Catholics – at least those with a proper understanding of the faith – believe that to love God is to behave in a way that is in keeping with what He commands, and that to act in opposition to His commands is not only to treat God wrongly but also are harmful to ourselves.

Non-Catholics may disagree with us and claim we have a wrong understanding about what God intends.  However, it cannot be denied that under the Constitution, Catholics and Catholic institutions are free to act according to what we think right.  We harm none by refusing to take part in abortion, homosexual "marriage" and other things we believe to be against what God commands.  We do not violate anyone's rights.  Rather, those who come to a Catholic group and insists we accommodate their demands against what we believe violate our rights – especially when they take us to court to force us to act against our faith.

Moreover, we do have the right as American citizens to seek to reform our nation and to reach out to others to teach them why our beliefs are true, just as every other American citizen does.

The US Government and Political Elites Are Behaving In A Way That Contradicts the Constitution and our Inalienable Rights

Now, our rights are being infringed upon.  A Catholic individual, a Catholic school, a Catholic hospital are no longer protected when it comes to living according to what our conscience demands.  Catholic institutions are told that they must take part in things we call evil or cease to function.  Moreover, members of the political elites are speaking out against us, claiming our beliefs are harmful and must be opposed.

Governor Andrew Cuomo, when asked about the arguments against homosexual marriage, replied, "There is no answer from the opposition. There really isn’t.  Ultimately, it’s, ‘I want to discriminate.’ And that’s anti-New York. It’s anti-American."  He has also been on record as saying, "The laws would have to be paramount, and would have to be paramount to your religious beliefs."

That's chilling.  Either Cuomo misspoke or he is saying that law trumps religious belief.  I have found no evidence of the former (no clarifications or retractions).  If it is the latter, then it is Cuomo who is anti-American, because it is he who violates the First Amendment, not us.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chair of the DNC, describes beliefs that the informed Catholic holds protecting the personhood of the unborn as, "an extreme and radical step."  She says that it is, "divisive, dangerous, and destructive laws which would cripple a woman’s right to choose, limit access to birth control, and put the lives of women with difficult pregnancies at risk."

There is no respect for our rights here.  Instead the motives for our beliefs are characterized as being motivated by hatred and by wanting to deny women their "rights."  Essentially the constitutional guarantees of our religious freedoms in America are being undermined, and the political elites are misrepresenting our motives to permit their violations of our freedom.

In the name of "fairness" we are treated unfairly.  Apparently all people are free to live out their lives in accord to what they believe to be right – unless those beliefs are religious beliefs which say certain actions are immoral.

Absolutes and Relativism

I've gone over this theme before, but it is important: If there are no absolutes, then there is nothing wrong with Catholics living as we do without interference.  However, if there are absolutes, and we Catholics are in the wrong, then we are justified in demanding that proof be shown to us that we are in the wrong and how this truth is known.

But if our accusers want to do this, they must be honest.  We are not "homophobes" because we believe homosexual acts to be wrong.  We are not "misogynist" or "anti-women" because we oppose abortion and contraception.  We believe that both homosexual persons and unborn infants must be treated as human persons with the rights belonging to all persons.

We condemn the view which says a person with homosexual tendencies may be treated as less than a person, but this does not mean we must support and promote homosexual acts as being morally acceptable acts.

Extremism, By Nature, Is Not the Norm

Our accusers must be honest and recognize that the extremist does not represent the Catholic position.  The person who assaults persons with homosexual tendencies and the person who shoots abortionists does not act in accord with the Catholic faith, but AGAINST the Catholic faith.  So it is either ignorance or dishonesty to label such persons as being inspired by our beliefs – such a person clearly overlooks the prohibition against murder for example.

The extremist, by definition, is: "a person who holds extreme political or religious views" according to the Oxford English Dictionary.  To label the Catholic position as extremist, is to declare a knowledge of what the norm is.  The norm is the standard and the further one deviates from the norm, the more extreme it is.

So to call us "extremist" means the accuser claims to know the truth (eliminating the claim of relativism) and then is obligated to prove their claim of what is the truth that we deviate from.

Our Guilt is to be Proven, Not Assumed

The fact is the US Constitution lists freedom of religion as part of the Bill of Rights.  If one wishes to argue that the Catholic faith is an ideology which is harmful to others, then it falls to that person to prove the charge.  Our rights cannot be taken away until we are proven guilty of a crime for we are innocent until proven guilty.  Yet people like Cuomo assume our guilt is proven and the state can compel us to act in a way our religion forbids.

We are accused of hatred and bigotry as our motives for opposing homosexual "marriage."  However, nobody actually looks to see if these are our motives.  In fact we explicitly reject this accusation as slander.

Our detractors dismiss our reasons and our faith, ipse dixit, as being without merit – but they cannot be bothered to learn our reasons.  They merely assume that because our views reject theirs we must be motivated by hatred.

Is it reasonable or just to condemn us out of ignorance?  Is it just to lump us together with those who commit crimes without investigating  whether we share their beliefs and motivations?

Not only is it unjust, it is actually bigotry.  The same sort of bigotry which assumes all Hispanics are "Illegals," that assumes all Jews are "misers" and all Blacks are "dishonest."  An entire group is accused of possessing a trait on account of a few people who fit that trait.

Conclusion

The Constitution of the United States gives us freedom to live as we feel obligated to live in the Freedom of Religion.  Yet today, the government and political elites would deny us our rights and would compel us to do things we have believed to be immoral far longer than the United States was a nation.  Not only do they infringe our rights, but they refuse to listen to our defense, insisting we must be motivated by bigotry because we believe their views to be wrong.

Americans will need to ask serious questions about justice and who is really being deprived of it.  The charge of being "anti-American" and the charge that we are dangerous because we consider homosexual acts to be immoral and personhood to begin at conception are unjust charges.

However, since the freedom of religion is enshrined in our Constitution, the charge of "anti-American" and "dangerous" does not apply to us, but rather to those who would restrict our rights to practice our faith and operate institutions according to our faith.

Postscript: Can This Apologia Be Applied Against Us as Well?

Some may argue that we do not practice what we preach, that we demand rights for ourselves and deny them to others.  We would reject this as a false charge.  We do not argue that homosexual persons should be denied the rights due all human persons.  We do not demand they be denied the rights they possess in the Constitution.  Rather we say certain actions are not rights to be recognized (abortion, homosexual "marriage") but the demand of recognizing a self-gratification now in vogue by misusing titles.

Homosexual persons can of course marry a person of the opposite gender.  But if our beliefs (that marriage is between a man and a woman) are true, then the whole concept of Homosexual "Marriage" is an oxymoron.

On the other hand, religious freedom is not a self-gratification in vogue, but a right which the Constitution recognizes that all people are entitled to.  Denying us this right is not denying us a privilege but denying us what is our due.

In other words, we deny nobody their rights by saying homosexuality and abortion are wrongs and refusing to accommodate these wrongs by having our religious institutions take part in them.  But people who do force us to accommodate what we believe to be wrong or else close up our institutions are denying us our rights. 

Apologia: Religious Faith Free of Government Interference

Introduction

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

—The First Amendment (Emphasis added)

America was founded with religious freedom recognized as a primary right.  The state can neither compel people to belong to one faith, nor to persecute a faith because of what they believe.

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis Humanae, speaks of religious freedom in this way:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The two stances are remarkably similar – the State does not have the authority to force a person or a group to do what they believe is morally evil.

Unfortunately, the modern stance of the US Government and the political elites is one which seeks to compel the Catholic Church and the institutions affiliated with her to participate in behaviors she finds contrary to what she believes to be right.

CREDO: Right Belief and Right Practice

Doctrine is what is professed by the Church as believed, and denial of the doctrine is to deny what we believe to be true.  A person who denies the Trinity cannot be said to believe what the Catholic Church believes, even if he or she is a part of the Catholic Church.  Indeed, throughout the centuries, holy men and women have been martyred because they would not deny what the Church professes to be true and would not agree with what the Church teaches is false.

This point must be understood.  Even under the threat of punishment, we cannot go against what we believe.

In the Catholic view, we can know of God through Divine Revelation and through reason.  Through reason, we can grow in understanding about why the commands of the Lord are as they are and understand what reasonably follows from what we believe.

We believe God is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good.  From this we recognize that His moral law is not based on an imperfect understanding of human nature and is not arbitrary (it isn't a case of "whatever God feels like is good").  God is perfectly good and His moral law reflects His goodness.  God's law also reflects what is good for persons.  He does not command us to do what is harmful for ourselves and does not forbid what is good for us.

Because our Lord has made it clear that to love Him is to keep His commandments, we who profess to love the Lord must obey Him.  It isn't a matter of merely following rules legalistically.  When you love a person, you act in a way which has the good of that person in mind.  The beloved can forgive actions done which are offensive.  However, a habitual contempt for the good of the beloved demonstrates a lack of love.

We believe that right practice (orthopraxy) depends on right belief (orthodoxy).  For example, a person who believes people are nothing more than cogs in a machine to serve a higher purpose will treat persons differently than those who believe people need to be treated with dignity and cannot have this dignity taken away for the sake of expedience.

From this we can see that Catholics – at least those with a proper understanding of the faith – believe that to love God is to behave in a way that is in keeping with what He commands, and that to act in opposition to His commands is not only to treat God wrongly but also are harmful to ourselves.

Non-Catholics may disagree with us and claim we have a wrong understanding about what God intends.  However, it cannot be denied that under the Constitution, Catholics and Catholic institutions are free to act according to what we think right.  We harm none by refusing to take part in abortion, homosexual "marriage" and other things we believe to be against what God commands.  We do not violate anyone's rights.  Rather, those who come to a Catholic group and insists we accommodate their demands against what we believe violate our rights – especially when they take us to court to force us to act against our faith.

Moreover, we do have the right as American citizens to seek to reform our nation and to reach out to others to teach them why our beliefs are true, just as every other American citizen does.

The US Government and Political Elites Are Behaving In A Way That Contradicts the Constitution and our Inalienable Rights

Now, our rights are being infringed upon.  A Catholic individual, a Catholic school, a Catholic hospital are no longer protected when it comes to living according to what our conscience demands.  Catholic institutions are told that they must take part in things we call evil or cease to function.  Moreover, members of the political elites are speaking out against us, claiming our beliefs are harmful and must be opposed.

Governor Andrew Cuomo, when asked about the arguments against homosexual marriage, replied, "There is no answer from the opposition. There really isn’t.  Ultimately, it’s, ‘I want to discriminate.’ And that’s anti-New York. It’s anti-American."  He has also been on record as saying, "The laws would have to be paramount, and would have to be paramount to your religious beliefs."

That's chilling.  Either Cuomo misspoke or he is saying that law trumps religious belief.  I have found no evidence of the former (no clarifications or retractions).  If it is the latter, then it is Cuomo who is anti-American, because it is he who violates the First Amendment, not us.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chair of the DNC, describes beliefs that the informed Catholic holds protecting the personhood of the unborn as, "an extreme and radical step."  She says that it is, "divisive, dangerous, and destructive laws which would cripple a woman’s right to choose, limit access to birth control, and put the lives of women with difficult pregnancies at risk."

There is no respect for our rights here.  Instead the motives for our beliefs are characterized as being motivated by hatred and by wanting to deny women their "rights."  Essentially the constitutional guarantees of our religious freedoms in America are being undermined, and the political elites are misrepresenting our motives to permit their violations of our freedom.

In the name of "fairness" we are treated unfairly.  Apparently all people are free to live out their lives in accord to what they believe to be right – unless those beliefs are religious beliefs which say certain actions are immoral.

Absolutes and Relativism

I've gone over this theme before, but it is important: If there are no absolutes, then there is nothing wrong with Catholics living as we do without interference.  However, if there are absolutes, and we Catholics are in the wrong, then we are justified in demanding that proof be shown to us that we are in the wrong and how this truth is known.

But if our accusers want to do this, they must be honest.  We are not "homophobes" because we believe homosexual acts to be wrong.  We are not "misogynist" or "anti-women" because we oppose abortion and contraception.  We believe that both homosexual persons and unborn infants must be treated as human persons with the rights belonging to all persons.

We condemn the view which says a person with homosexual tendencies may be treated as less than a person, but this does not mean we must support and promote homosexual acts as being morally acceptable acts.

Extremism, By Nature, Is Not the Norm

Our accusers must be honest and recognize that the extremist does not represent the Catholic position.  The person who assaults persons with homosexual tendencies and the person who shoots abortionists does not act in accord with the Catholic faith, but AGAINST the Catholic faith.  So it is either ignorance or dishonesty to label such persons as being inspired by our beliefs – such a person clearly overlooks the prohibition against murder for example.

The extremist, by definition, is: "a person who holds extreme political or religious views" according to the Oxford English Dictionary.  To label the Catholic position as extremist, is to declare a knowledge of what the norm is.  The norm is the standard and the further one deviates from the norm, the more extreme it is.

So to call us "extremist" means the accuser claims to know the truth (eliminating the claim of relativism) and then is obligated to prove their claim of what is the truth that we deviate from.

Our Guilt is to be Proven, Not Assumed

The fact is the US Constitution lists freedom of religion as part of the Bill of Rights.  If one wishes to argue that the Catholic faith is an ideology which is harmful to others, then it falls to that person to prove the charge.  Our rights cannot be taken away until we are proven guilty of a crime for we are innocent until proven guilty.  Yet people like Cuomo assume our guilt is proven and the state can compel us to act in a way our religion forbids.

We are accused of hatred and bigotry as our motives for opposing homosexual "marriage."  However, nobody actually looks to see if these are our motives.  In fact we explicitly reject this accusation as slander.

Our detractors dismiss our reasons and our faith, ipse dixit, as being without merit – but they cannot be bothered to learn our reasons.  They merely assume that because our views reject theirs we must be motivated by hatred.

Is it reasonable or just to condemn us out of ignorance?  Is it just to lump us together with those who commit crimes without investigating  whether we share their beliefs and motivations?

Not only is it unjust, it is actually bigotry.  The same sort of bigotry which assumes all Hispanics are "Illegals," that assumes all Jews are "misers" and all Blacks are "dishonest."  An entire group is accused of possessing a trait on account of a few people who fit that trait.

Conclusion

The Constitution of the United States gives us freedom to live as we feel obligated to live in the Freedom of Religion.  Yet today, the government and political elites would deny us our rights and would compel us to do things we have believed to be immoral far longer than the United States was a nation.  Not only do they infringe our rights, but they refuse to listen to our defense, insisting we must be motivated by bigotry because we believe their views to be wrong.

Americans will need to ask serious questions about justice and who is really being deprived of it.  The charge of being "anti-American" and the charge that we are dangerous because we consider homosexual acts to be immoral and personhood to begin at conception are unjust charges.

However, since the freedom of religion is enshrined in our Constitution, the charge of "anti-American" and "dangerous" does not apply to us, but rather to those who would restrict our rights to practice our faith and operate institutions according to our faith.

Postscript: Can This Apologia Be Applied Against Us as Well?

Some may argue that we do not practice what we preach, that we demand rights for ourselves and deny them to others.  We would reject this as a false charge.  We do not argue that homosexual persons should be denied the rights due all human persons.  We do not demand they be denied the rights they possess in the Constitution.  Rather we say certain actions are not rights to be recognized (abortion, homosexual "marriage") but the demand of recognizing a self-gratification now in vogue by misusing titles.

Homosexual persons can of course marry a person of the opposite gender.  But if our beliefs (that marriage is between a man and a woman) are true, then the whole concept of Homosexual "Marriage" is an oxymoron.

On the other hand, religious freedom is not a self-gratification in vogue, but a right which the Constitution recognizes that all people are entitled to.  Denying us this right is not denying us a privilege but denying us what is our due.

In other words, we deny nobody their rights by saying homosexuality and abortion are wrongs and refusing to accommodate these wrongs by having our religious institutions take part in them.  But people who do force us to accommodate what we believe to be wrong or else close up our institutions are denying us our rights. 

TFTD: Bigotry By The 'Tolerant'

Anyone ever notice that the most intolerant people out there are the people who champion tolerance? 

When it comes to dealing with views they dislike, they are perfectly willing to spew invective demonizing their opponents and seeking to prevent themselves from operating any sort of "public" ministry (such as hospitals and orphanages) because of their "intolerance," even though tolerate itself means:

1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

We have a denial that there are any sort of absolute moral right and wrong.  Therefore opposition to certain acts are claimed to be arbitrary and imposing beliefs on others – which is seen as morally wrong….

Wait… what?

If there is no sort of moral absolute in terms of right or wrong, then there is nothing right about being tolerant and nothing wrong about being intolerant.  Indeed, under the rhetoric of "tolerance," and protecting people from those who are "pushing their views on others," they are in fact intolerant and pushing their views on others.

America should wake up and realize that a major religion which has often praised America for the religious freedom which allowed her to practice her faith unhindered now feels she must prepare for a growing wave of religious intolerance in America.  This growing wave is not from fundamentalist anti-Catholics, but from the policies of the United States government.

Archbishop Dolan writes:

The federal Department of Justice has ratcheted up its attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as an act of bigotry.  As you know, in March, the Department stopped defending DOMA against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that decision.  But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice.  If the label of ―bigot sticks to us—especially in court—because of our teaching on marriage, we’ll have church-state conflicts for years to come as a result.

So let's cut to the chase here.  If tolerance is the rule of the game, you'll tolerate us as we try to bring to the attention of the world the teachings of Christ making sober, reasoned appeals as to why our view is correct.  If you believe we are morally wrong in our stance, then you are just as obligated to show the objective basis for your position as we are for ours.

The person who refuses to do either is certainly behaving hypocritically.  The government which refuses to do either is behaving in a tyrannical manner.

TFTD: Bigotry By The 'Tolerant'

Anyone ever notice that the most intolerant people out there are the people who champion tolerance? 

When it comes to dealing with views they dislike, they are perfectly willing to spew invective demonizing their opponents and seeking to prevent themselves from operating any sort of "public" ministry (such as hospitals and orphanages) because of their "intolerance," even though tolerate itself means:

1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

We have a denial that there are any sort of absolute moral right and wrong.  Therefore opposition to certain acts are claimed to be arbitrary and imposing beliefs on others – which is seen as morally wrong….

Wait… what?

If there is no sort of moral absolute in terms of right or wrong, then there is nothing right about being tolerant and nothing wrong about being intolerant.  Indeed, under the rhetoric of "tolerance," and protecting people from those who are "pushing their views on others," they are in fact intolerant and pushing their views on others.

America should wake up and realize that a major religion which has often praised America for the religious freedom which allowed her to practice her faith unhindered now feels she must prepare for a growing wave of religious intolerance in America.  This growing wave is not from fundamentalist anti-Catholics, but from the policies of the United States government.

Archbishop Dolan writes:

The federal Department of Justice has ratcheted up its attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as an act of bigotry.  As you know, in March, the Department stopped defending DOMA against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that decision.  But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice.  If the label of ―bigot sticks to us—especially in court—because of our teaching on marriage, we’ll have church-state conflicts for years to come as a result.

So let's cut to the chase here.  If tolerance is the rule of the game, you'll tolerate us as we try to bring to the attention of the world the teachings of Christ making sober, reasoned appeals as to why our view is correct.  If you believe we are morally wrong in our stance, then you are just as obligated to show the objective basis for your position as we are for ours.

The person who refuses to do either is certainly behaving hypocritically.  The government which refuses to do either is behaving in a tyrannical manner.