Court Allows San Fran City Resolution Condemning Catholicism as 'Insulting,' 'Hateful'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My sister lives in a housing development with Covenants.

The old people drive around looking for violations. They’re called the Covenant Police by the residents.

They’re retired and have nothing better to do.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn
 
irishpatrick said:
It is called sarcasm. I do not believe there is any such thing as “homophobia,” and was using the word “Catholicphobia” to make that point. I guess you missed that.
Click to expand...
Beau misses a LOT of things we tell him here. 🤷
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
No, the rules are always applicable so I did not ‘bring up’ a new subject.
Click to expand...
Ah…a little semantics game. When did I say you brought up “a new subject?”. All I said is that you brought up the use of smilies in the forum rules. You, indeed, brought that up. I’m not sure why you see that as a point of contention. 🤷
 
“The board urged San Francisco archbishop George Niederauer and the local Catholic Charities “to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada,” whom they dubbed “a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city.” The resolution also lashed out at the Vatican’s teaching role in the Catholic faith as an instance of “meddling” by a foreign country.”

The real “meddling” is from the city government of San Francisco. They’re attempting to have archibishop Niederauer go against a Cardinal of the Catholic church. This shows that they are aware of Church teachings and are feeling threatened by them.
It’s so ironic that this city is named for one of the greatest of Catholic saints. Maybe we should start a movement to take his name back!
 
rlg94086 said:
Ah…a little semantics game. When did I say you brought up “a new subject?”. All I said is that you brought up the use of smilies in the forum rules. You, indeed, brought that up. I’m not sure why you see that as a point of contention. 🤷
Click to expand...
Next stop, the whole thread is being derailed and we need to get back to the topic, please!!!😃

AND take off our “victim cloaks.”:rotfl:
 
rlg94086 said:
Ah…a little semantics game. When did I say you brought up “a new subject?”. All I said is that you brought up the use of smilies in the forum rules. You, indeed, brought that up.
Click to expand...
No, I cited forum rules as to sarcasm. That’s not bringing anything up.

Why is there some ‘can you top Beau’ contest?
livnlern said:
It’s so ironic that this city is named for one of the greatest of Catholic saints. Maybe we should start a movement to take his name back!
Click to expand...
Right after Los Angeles and Corpus Christi.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
No, I cited forum rules as to sarcasm. That’s not bringing anything up.

Why is there some ‘can you top Beau’ contest?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of. I just can’t figure out why you are having trouble understanding that you brought up the “forum rules as to sarcasm.” It’s simple English really, but for some reason you decided it was an important thing to take issue with.
 
I always appreciate instances when the abject and loathsome hatred of the enemies of the Faith is exposed for all to see and hear, rather than when it is couched and hidden in the shadows, driving the assaults and attacks, while shielding the venal source from direct culpability.

Radical homosexuality, and the new aggressive, activist atheism, when they drop the masks and show themselves, always appear lurid and grotesque, and yes…demonic. It is always startling to me (and a bit frightening) that I live in an age where the Satanic aspect can be so easily encountered within our culture.

It truly does appear as if open warfare has been engaged by the forces of darkness against all which is holy and sacred; not just metaphorically, nor in the abstract, but in clear and obvious actuality. It is as though a new age has begun. Somehow things are darkly changing, and when I read or hear about such things they make me shudder.
 
I was hoping by this time we would have a statement from the Catholic League or the Thomas More Law Center, but they have been silent so far.
 
Digitonomy said:
I took both at face value. I usually don’t spend too much time on the posts that veer more toward the chatty and sarcastic, unless there are issues of fact or logic. While the first post had an obvious logical flaw equating “Catholicphobia” with “Christophobia,” it seemed a little out there (now I know why) and also seemed off-topic enough that I didn’t bother contesting it. The second post seemed like a straightfoward explanation to clear up the confusion of the first post, except that it seemed at odds with common sense. That’s what prompted my reply.
Click to expand...
I think what is being implied here is that the term, “homophobia”, along with myriad other labels, catchphrases and coloquialisms have been cynically choreographed into a way of speech used to obfuscate truth, and propel specific agendas by the radical left.

However, once again, the “Big Brother Propagandists” have run into that nasty little thing that always trips them up: the common sense of the masses. People never stay fooled, at least not when they have enough liberty to assemble, express ideas and seek out truth.

The fact that a term like “homophobia” has lost that gravitas intended by those who nefariously have exploited it, well, frankly, should not be at all surprising. If a thing is misused often enough it usually loses credibility over time.
 
unafraid said:
I think what is being implied here is that the term, “homophobia”, along with myriad other labels, catchphrases and coloquialisms have been cynically choreographed into a way of speech used to obfuscate truth, and propel specific agendas by the radical left.

However, once again, the “Big Brother Propagandists” have run into that nasty little thing that always trips them up: the common sense of the masses. People never stay fooled, at least not when they have enough liberty to assemble, express ideas and seek out truth.

The fact that a term like “homophobia” has lost that gravitas intended by those who nefariously have exploited it, well, frankly, should not be at all surprising. If a thing is misused often enough it usually loses credibility over time.
Click to expand...
Good show. I totally agree with you. 👍
 
I can see (unfortunately) a feeding frenzie (more than in the past) at January’s Walk for Life. 😦
 
unafraid said:
I always appreciate instances when the abject and loathsome hatred of the enemies of the Faith is exposed for all to see and hear, rather than when it is couched and hidden in the shadows, driving the assaults and attacks, while shielding the venal source from direct culpability.

Radical homosexuality, and the new aggressive, activist atheism, when they drop the masks and show themselves, always appear lurid and grotesque, and yes…demonic. It is always startling to me (and a bit frightening) that I live in an age where the Satanic aspect can be so easily encountered within our culture.

It truly does appear as if open warfare has been engaged by the forces of darkness against all which is holy and sacred; not just metaphorically, nor in the abstract, but in clear and obvious actuality. It is as though a new age has begun. Somehow things are darkly changing, and when I read or hear about such things they make me shudder.
Click to expand...
This is so true. We go about our daily lives and things seem to be pretty normal. Until you look at things from a spiritual and moral perspective. Then you see all the evil that’s pressing in on us. The worst and most effective source for this is the media. All the movies, TV shows, magazines, blogs,etc. that promote these anti-Catholic and anti-Christian ideas are all around us and are unrelenting. It’s a constant fight to not give in and go with what’s popular.I feel overwhelmed by all this until I remember that prayer is so powerful and that our Lord will see us through this time if we give Him the chance.
 
jackangelo1 said:
Throwing names around towards the Vatican and the Catholic Church is and has been in the homosexual Agenda from the 1950s when they took o ver the Seminaries. …and over 40 % of our bishops are homosexual.
Click to expand...
HEY! You watch your accusations! I’ve only met a handful of bishops, and some of them have been a bit liberal, but not one of them is homosexual.

And you just try accusing someone here at Sacred Heart Major Seminary here of being homosexual, and you’ll meet with some very upset people. I would like to think we have one of the best darned seminaries in the country here and I’m darned proud of the faculty, clergy, and seminarians we have here. These are my brothers and fathers and teachers here you’re insulting.

So engage your brain before you start throwing mud.
 
From the article: “…it was decided that the Supervisors ‘have the right to speak out in their official capacities on matters of secular concern to their constituents, even if their statements might offend the religious feelings of some of their other constituents,’ according to the Courthouse News Service.”

Even if, hypothetically, the speaking out offends Muslims?

One minor point: In their official capacity, government officials do not have “rights”; they have authority. If we recognize this distinction, perhaps a lot of problems would go away.
 
sedonaman said:
Even if, hypothetically, the speaking out offends Muslims?
Click to expand...
Obviously. Plenty of public officials have said things which Muslims found offensive.
40.png
sedonaman:
One minor point: In their official capacity, government officials do not have “rights”; they have authority. If we recognize this distinction, perhaps a lot of problems would go away.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand your distinction. If government officials (and the government bodies they make up) have authority, they are apparently authorized by law. Which is to say, they are entitled to do whatever. I’m not a true legal scholar, so I’m not sure if there is some subtle distinction between an entitlement and a right. Regardless, the Supreme Court recognized that government bodies have such rights in the Summum case a couple years ago:
Page 5:
A government entity has the right to “speak for itself.” Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 229 (2000). “*t is entitled to say what it wishes,” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833 (1995), and to select the views that it wants to express. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 194 (1991); National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U. S. 569, 598 (1998) *
Click to expand...
 
Digitonomy said:
Obviously. Plenty of public officials have said things which Muslims found offensive.I’m not sure I understand your distinction. If government officials (and the government bodies they make up) have authority, they are apparently authorized by law. Which is to say, they are entitled to do whatever. I’m not a true legal scholar, so I’m not sure if there is some subtle distinction between an entitlement and a right. Regardless, the Supreme Court recognized that government bodies have such rights in the Summum case a couple years ago:
Click to expand...
We’ll see about “Obviously” after CAIR gets involved. AND the Left-Leaning Media. And maybe even Obama. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top