Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitution

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bones_IV said:
Which is the same thing as saying they didn’t do enough. Pius XII did what he could. How do you explain how Pius ordered monasteries and convents to shelter Jews from the Nazis? How do you answer that?

How about this?

catholicleague.org/pius/piusxii_faqs.html
Click to expand...
I didn’t take vern humphrey’s point to be any attack on Pius XII’s efforts.

As to the author he quoted, I don’t believe the Vatican only cared about property and tax exemptions when it was faced with fascism in the 1930s and 1940s, nor do I think it is concerned about property now when it is so delicate toward Muslim regimes. I think the Popes cared about the Catholic people in those countries who would have been punished if the Church was too critical of those regimes.
 
flazor1 said:
I didn’t take vern humphrey’s point to be any attack on Pius XII’s efforts.

As to the author he quoted, I don’t believe the Vatican only cared about property and tax exemptions when it was faced with fascism in the 1930s and 1940s, nor do I think it is concerned about property now when it is so delicate toward Muslim regimes. I think the Popes cared about the Catholic people in those countries who would have been punished if the Church was too critical of those regimes.
Click to expand...
You are very wrong. The CC actually cares about ALL people, they don’t care if you’re Jewish, or Muslim or whatever. The CC opens its arms to everyone.

Do you have proof that the Vatican only cared about monetary issues during those times??
 
yessisan said:
You are very wrong. The CC actually cares about ALL people, they don’t care if you’re Jewish, or Muslim or whatever. The CC opens its arms to everyone.

Do you have proof that the Vatican only cared about monetary issues during those times??
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon. I never said the Vatican only cared about monetary issues, so I find your reply quite strange. In fact, what I wrote was in defense of the Vatican.
 
WARNING

This thread is drifting off topic and is becoming a bit uncharitable. Please return to the original topic and be nice. It’s the Christmas season, you know.
 
didymus said:
Thanks to those who posted the texts of the resolution and the judge’s ruling. At first I figured the resolution was just political BS but now I’ve got my Irish up. “A foreign country”? Do those good liberals realise they are taking a page from the Know-Nothing’s playbook?

And as for His Honor calling preaching one’s faith a “provocation” res ipsit loquitur. Too bad bishops can’t issue fatwas. [that is sarcasm, people]

Not necessarily. An anti-discrimination law is the law whether there is a contract or not.

The ACLU is in sad shape, once upon a time it was truly libertarian. As late as the '60s they might have defended the Chuch in a case like this. Sice then they’ve mortgaged their soul to “ploitical correctness” and turned into a purely leftoid organisation.

People will learn when it is too late – “First they came for the Catholics and the pro-lifers, then they came for the Baptists . . .”
Click to expand...
The ACLU was founded by a man who is/was a Communist.

I will post a book title that will provide more insight.

amazon.com/ACLU-vs-America-Exposing-Redefine/dp/0805440453/sr=1-1/qid=1166907290/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-0570520-3408412?ie=UTF8&s=books

Check out this book. Buy a copy.
 
Al_Masetti said:
The ACLU was founded by a man who is/was a Communist.

I will post a book title that will provide more insight.

amazon.com/ACLU-vs-America-Exposing-Redefine/dp/0805440453/sr=1-1/qid=1166907290/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-0570520-3408412?ie=UTF8&s=books

Check out this book. Buy a copy.
Click to expand...
Another good expose book on the ACLU is “ACLU: The Devil’s Advocate” by F. LaGard Smith.

Unfortunately, the title doesn’t seem to be available for purchase from the big book sellers (e.g., Amazon and Barnes and Noble).
 
WanderAimlessly said:
Does that mean the Catholic Church is now a “hate group” under the Constitution? :mad: This ruling is disgusting and needs to be overturned immediately. In addition, this judge must be removed from the bench by ANY LEGAL MEANS POSSIBLE.

In the mean time, any Catholic who comes in from of this judge must demand that she recuse herself from the case due to her bias.
Click to expand...
What is disgusting is the position that the city was objecting to: i.e., “…the teaching of the Catholic Church that homosexual adoption does “violence” to children since they would be placed in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.” The article does not suggest that the Church is denying that this is their position so I’m assuming that it is. If so, it is a ridiculous and discriminatory position and should be objected to.

I didn’t see anywhere that either the city or the court was saying that the Church itself is hateful, but just that their position on this issue was hateful:

"The resolution blasted the teaching as "hateful and discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.’’
 
Hasn’t Canada also put the Bible on the prohibited list for the same “hate speech” reason?
 
Al_Masetti said:
Hasn’t Canada also put the Bible on the prohibited list for the same “hate speech” reason?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of passages in the Bible that promote discriminatory and objectionable behavior. Case in point, the Canadian example to which you may have been referring (it wasn’t the whole Bible):

2001—A one-woman board of inquiry of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission declared that four Biblical passages used in a Saskatoon newspaper advertisement in 1997, published by The StarPhoenix and paid for by Hugh
Owens, were hate speech. Cause of objection—The excerpts, combined with a drawing of two stick-men
holding hands surrounded by a circle with a slash through it, tended to expose homosexuals to hatred and ridicule.
Update—The StarPhoenix and Hugh Owens were each ordered to pay $4,500 to the complainants; Owens was forbidden from publishing similar messages in the
future. In 2003, a provincial court refused to hear Owens’s appeal.
 
Imagine23 said:
There are a lot of passages in the Bible that promote discriminatory and objectionable behavior. Case in point, the Canadian example to which you may have been referring (it wasn’t the whole Bible):

2001—A one-woman board of inquiry of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission declared that four Biblical passages used in a Saskatoon newspaper advertisement in 1997, published by The StarPhoenix and paid for by Hugh
Owens, were hate speech. Cause of objection—The excerpts, combined with a drawing of two stick-men
holding hands surrounded by a circle with a slash through it, tended to expose homosexuals to hatred and ridicule.
Update—The StarPhoenix and Hugh Owens were each ordered to pay $4,500 to the complainants; Owens was forbidden from publishing similar messages in the
future. In 2003, a provincial court refused to hear Owens’s appeal.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a country doesn’t have to outlaw criticism of government to act like a dictatorship. If San Francisco isn’t challenged and stopped, it will be the first step of the US following in Canada’s footsteps.
 
vern_humphrey said:
First of all, this is an action not by an individual, or even a private organization, but by a government. Suppose the same governmental entity were to re-issue their resolution, but substitute “Jews,” or “Blacks” or “Gays” for Catholics. We could all see the impact that would have.
Click to expand...
This is a horrible analogy and completely misses the point. The city is not condemning Catholics for their Catholicism it is condemning the discriminatory policy of Catholics regarding the adoption of children by Gay people.
 
Big_Slick said:
Another good expose book on the ACLU is “ACLU: The Devil’s Advocate” by F. LaGard Smith.

Unfortunately, the title doesn’t seem to be available for purchase from the big book sellers (e.g., Amazon and Barnes and Noble).
Click to expand...
Is this book Catholic?
 
Imagine23 said:
This is a horrible analogy and completely misses the point. The city is not condemning Catholics for their Catholicism it is condemning the discriminatory policy of Catholics regarding the adoption of children by Gay people.
Click to expand...
The Catholic teaching is only binding on Catholics, not on Protestant Christians (although I think most would agree with the Catholic Church’s position of adoption by gays) nor on non-Christians. There is no constitutional guarantee to gay adoption, but there is a constitutional right to freedom of worship and the city’s resolution, however “weak” it might be, is trying to attack that Constitutional right. That might be acceptable in other countries that don’t have free speech or freedom of worship, but here in the U.S. that is completely unacceptable.
 
Imagine23 said:
This is a horrible analogy and completely misses the point. The city is not condemning Catholics for their Catholicism it is condemning the discriminatory policy of Catholics regarding the adoption of children by Gay people.
Click to expand...
This seems to relate to the recent decision by the Boston Archdiocese to get out of the adoption service area.
 
Imagine23 said:
This is a horrible analogy and completely misses the point. The city is not condemning Catholics for their Catholicism it is condemning the discriminatory policy of Catholics regarding the adoption of children by Gay people.
Click to expand...
IOW: “The city is not condemning Catholics for their Catholicism; it is condemning Catholics who follow Church teaching.”

IOW, yes, the city is condemning Catholics for being Catholic.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top