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

[sedonaman]

Obviously. Plenty of public officials have said things which Muslims found offensive.

Got an example that they didn’t later back-pedal on?

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. …

Look at it this way: the church teaches that we have an obligation to obey lawful authority; it does not say we have an obligation to obey lawful rights. I am sure the court meant “authority” when it said “right” because there is nothing in the Constitution that says government bodies have rights as it does people, but there is plenty that grants government authority, like the part that establishes the Supreme Court for example.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

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?

There is no one head of Islam, unlike Catholicism. I have heard of folks criticizing the ayatollahs.

 

[sedonaman]

There is no one head of Islam, unlike Catholicism. I have heard of folks criticizing the ayatollahs.

We’re talking about a governmental body speaking out, not individuals.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

We’re talking about a governmental body speaking out, not individuals.

You never heard of a government official criticizing someone like Khomeini? Google Reagan.

How do you think San Francisco would comment on Ahmadinejad stating there are no homosexuals in Iran? I guess that would be constitutional, too.

 

[sedonaman]

You never heard of a government official criticizing someone like Khomeini? Google Reagan.

How do you think San Francisco would comment on Ahmadinejad stating there are no homosexuals in Iran? I guess that would be constitutional, too.

Let’s compare apples with apples. The court said it’s OK for the government to criticize Catholicism, and Catholics have to lump it; but Muslims go ballistic and start busting up the place if someone, anyone, criticizes Islam, as opposed to criticizing individual Muslims; so that’s not OK, and consequently, you can’t find a case where a court said it’s OK to criticized Islam because some animals are more equal than others. Capische?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Let’s compare apples with apples. The court said it’s OK for the government to criticize Catholicism …

Actually the court stated that no law bars it.

… and Catholics have to lump it; but Muslims go ballistic and start busting up the place if someone, anyone, criticizes Islam …

Well, that’s the activity of the ‘Muslims’ you cite. That activity would be wrong.

… you can’t find a case where a court said it’s OK to criticized Islam because some animals are more equal than others.

I think that one would be hard-pressed to file suit in the US claiming a city council resolution impermissibly insulted Islam. One would be laughed out of court since the suer would have to be personally affected to file suit.

 

[Digitonomy]

Got an example that they didn’t later back-pedal on?

Well, there’s this Congressman, who implied that it was a bad thing that Muslims were being elected to office. I’m confident there are many more lower level politicians that have expressed sentiments offensive to Muslims in even stronger terms, but it doesn’t make a big splash news-wise when the Mayor of Podunk shoots off his mouth about something that isn’t very relevant to city business, and that most citizens agree with.

sedonaman:

I am sure the court meant “authority” when it said “right”

That’s fine. As for me, I trust that the justice who wrote the opinion, one of the more meticulous justices on the court in parsing the exact language used in laws, meant what he wrote. Likewise the justices who joined that opinion.

 

[sedonaman]

Well, there’s this Congressman, who implied that it was a bad thing that Muslims were being elected to office. I’m confident there are many more lower level politicians that have expressed sentiments offensive to Muslims in even stronger terms, but it doesn’t make a big splash news-wise when the Mayor of Podunk shoots off his mouth about something that isn’t very relevant to city business, and that most citizens agree with.That’s fine. As for me, I trust that the justice who wrote the opinion, one of the more meticulous justices on the court in parsing the exact language used in laws, meant what he wrote. Likewise the justices who joined that opinion.

“Right” has been such an overworked word that it has become abused, much like “discrimination”.

 

[Cojuanco]

It’s not a legal act, per se, and the First Amendment means that even Supervisors can say whatever they want if it is not treasonous - even if their speech is to mock us and castigate us. The Court decided rightly on this issue. We may consider what they say absolutely reprehensible, but they have a right to pass as many non-binding resolutions in an anti-clerical tone as they wish. We also have a right to call them stupid idiots about it.

 

[Digitonomy]

It’s not a legal act, per se, and the First Amendment means that even Supervisors can say whatever they want if it is not treasonous - even if their speech is to mock us and castigate us…they have a right to pass as many non-binding resolutions in an anti-clerical tone as they wish.

This is not entirely true. Here are a couple relevant excerpts from the ruling linked back in post #17.
page 17365

The City and County conceded standing, arguing that “the individual plaintiffs have successfully pleaded standing, having alleged that they are members of the community who have had contact with the resolution and have suffered spiritual harm as a result.” Were the result otherwise, the municipality concedes, a resolution declaring Catholicism to be the official religion of the municipality would be effectively unchallengeable.

page 17371

[4] One has to read the whole Valley Forge sentence quoted, and not stop at “psychological consequence,” to understand it. A “psychological consequence” does not suffice as concrete harm where it is produced merely by “observation of conduct with which one disagrees.” But it does constitute concrete harm where the “psychological consequence” is produced by government condemnation of one’s own religion or endorsement of another’s in one’s own community. For example, in the school prayer and football game cases, nothing bad happened to the students except a psychological feeling of being excluded. Likewise in the crèche and Ten Commandments cases, nothing happened to the non-Christians, or to people who disagreed with the Ten Commandments or their religious basis, except psychological consequences. What distinguishes the cases is that in Valley Forge, the psychological consequence was merely disagreement with the government, but in the others, for which the Court identified a sufficiently concrete injury, the psychological consequence was exclusion or denigration on a religious basis within the political community.

As the Lemon test is described in that opinion,

Under Lemon, government action must have a secular purpose, “its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,” and it “must not foster excessive entanglement with religion.”

So the Ninth Circuit held that a city council or other government body can’t just rant against any given religion or declare it unwelcome (would that be culto non grato?), any more than it can rant in favor of a religion or declare it an “official” religion. Rather, it can rant only in a limited way that is relevant to the government’s secular goal. In this case, the court (or at least the prevailing minority) decided that that is exactly what happened.

Other examples I can imagine:
A government that determined that female genital mutilation was contrary to public health could criticize particular Muslim groups that practiced it and their leaders, and encourage them to change their practice.

Extrapolating, I can imagine a government broadening that stand to male circumcision, and criticizing Jewish groups that require it.

Similarly, many governments that have restricted underage drinking could rant against the Catholic Church for encouraging this activity during mass.

Note that while I think these actions would be legal, that would not necessarily be the case for any legislation that enforced these positions and thus inhibited religion or fostered excessive entanglement with it.

 

[losh14]

I just think the geographical imperative of it all makes for a good laugh:

“It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city’s existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need”

quoth the city supervisors, even though the diocese predates the founding of these ‘established customs and traditions’.

Look, Frisco is the odd duck when it comes to U.S. cities. It behaves according to its own warp of space and time. Constitutionally, the supers can condemn the actions of one individual (ie, Archbishop Levada) but I think it’s a really thin line when the city condemns an organized and visible religious entity like the Catholic Church. It amounts to the difference between “Levada is wrong to say …” and “The Church doctrine is incorrect when …”

This isn’t the end of the debate, though I think that the funds used to pursue the action would be better spent elsewhere. Frisco and D.C. will object to Catholic social teaching. That much has been proven in the past year. When they start blocking the Church from carrying out humanitarian missions, that’s when it’s time to sue.

 

[losh14]

Look at it this way: the church teaches that we have an obligation to obey lawful authority; it does not say we have an obligation to obey lawful rights.

That’s an important distinction. From the language of the City resolution, it’s not a command but rather a non-binding declaration. There are express penalties for compliance - and indeed I don’t know if the City has authority - has the right - to ask the Diocese to change its ministry or hiring in defiance of the Archbishop.

Now if it came down to “Your priests aren’t allowed to teach that homosexual sex is a sin”, that would be a very different story. Would the authority be lawful in the first place (since this is arguably denying freedom of belief)? Even if it were, would we have to obey, by Church teaching, a law that contradicts Church teaching?

 

[St_Francis]

Easily said. Throw in a ‘for instance’.

onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=482316

unreasonablefaith.com/2011/02/28/homophobes-barred-from-fostering/

bilerico.com/2011/04/homophobes_want_prop_8_ruling_thrown_out_because_j.php

Hey Beau,
Here are a few examples of people being called homophobes simply because they disagree with certain aspects of the activist homosexual agenda.

 

[chief714]

Another reason why I will never step foot within their town or spend 1 cent within that city’s borders.

We (Neo-Catechuminal way) went on a pilgrimage thru san fran last year and marched up and down the streets singing Psalms and praying. Stopping in various parts to dance and celebrate Christ. They kicked us out of one place and quite a few people gave us horrible looks. But some people joined in the march with us.

But we had it easy. I heard the last pilgrimage a year before had things thrown at them, homosexuals exposing themselves and a whole slew of other things…

but we didn’t spend any money there.

[SIGN]Yes, I know it’s off topic, but I wanted to share. [/SIGN]

 

[losh14]

Hey Beau,
Here are a few examples of people being called homophobes simply because they disagree with certain aspects of the activist homosexual agenda.

Such is the problem with rhetoric. You cannot actually prove something interior - antagonism towards homosexuality - and so “homophobe” is a rhetorical device, a conjecture, unless substantial proof is offered. For example, the sign-carriers from Topeka.

And to be honest, the gay rights movement likes to argue that they’re not hurting anyone, but then we see that straight people are harmed or infringed as a direct result of the movement …

The second link is really disturbing, that a couple is denied becoming foster parents because they “would not teach their children that homosexuality is acceptable”. The point the blogger makes is that the couple wouldn’t be ready to support a child who is coming out - which isn’t necessarily a forgone conclusion. Also, how many Christian parents would not teach their children the same? Does that make them unfit? And is it relevant if the child is not gay? By the same token, could a foster couple who does not want to raise a child in a religious tradition be fit to foster a child who had thus far been so raised?

Perhaps it’s different in the UK, but in the US we can’t find enough foster parents. The local news features a child who wants to be adopted once a week - and it’s heartbreaking to hear them say “We last talked with Jessica 6 months ago, and she’s still hoping for a ‘Forever Family’”. I just have a hard time accepting this as a valid criterion for turning away a family.