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

[Imagine23]

It’s prayer and action. The Church doesn’t do pipeline theology.

I don’t know what “pipeline theology” is.

Why do you need action if you pray? Does prayer not work? And if prayer does work, why do you need to take action?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Ok fine, just because some people don’t follow some laws that does not make those laws bad. This is true, although that’s not what I’m saying so I’m not sure where that gets you.

If the laws are in opposition to the Natural Law of God, it is our right and duty to ignore those laws.

 

[Imagine23]

Your opinion on this topic (I presume, since you keep asserting it) is just as much without evidence or justification. We have already agreed that discrimination is required in this situation, if the interests of the child are to be served.

tee

Right, as I replied to someone else, the burden of proof is on the one doing the discrimination. The Church said that placing kids with homosexuals “does violence” to them.

If someone were to say placing kids with Catholics does violence to them, I would also demand that person to put forth evidence of such a correlation. Until they were able to, I would also consider such a statement to be representative of arbitrary discrimination.

 

[Imagine23]

If the laws are in opposition to the Natural Law of God, it is our right and duty to ignore those laws.

You’re not addressing the issue. The allegation of the Church is that placing children with gays does “violence to the children”. Where is the evidence to support this statement?

 

[Imagine23]

Absolutely, we should prevent arbitrary discrimination which is why the judge’s ruling should be overturned. Glad we’re in agreement.

I really don’t think you would want the judge’s opinion to be overturned. Think of other scenarios that would apply here.

Assume a Saudi Arabian cleric encouraged Muslim congregations in San Francisco to preach (in accordance with the Holy Koran) that there women should be subservient, not allowed to drive, go to school etc. and the city passed a resolution encouraging the Saudi Arabian cleric to withdraw its directive. Muslims in San Francisco then bring a suit against the city alleging violation of the Establishment Clause. I’m sure you’d want their suit dismissed, a dismissal that would follow this court’s line of reasoning.

 

[LRThunder]

I really don’t think you would want the judge’s opinion to be overturned. Think of other scenarios that would apply here.

Assume a Saudi Arabian cleric encouraged Muslim congregations in San Francisco to preach (in accordance with the Holy Koran) that there women should be subservient, not allowed to drive, go to school etc. and the city passed a resolution encouraging the Saudi Arabian cleric to withdraw its directive. Muslims in San Francisco then bring a suit against the city alleging violation of the Establishment Clause. I’m sure you’d want their suit dismissed, a dismissal that would follow this court’s line of reasoning.

All I want is for the government to not show open hostility to Constitutional principles…by showing hostility to religion, it opens the possibility of the infringement of the right to worship.

I can understand the government shouldn’t be in the business of promoting religion, but neither should they be following the examples set by 1930’s Germany or Soviet Russia either.

If a council member, as a private citizen, in the context as a citizen, wants to criticize the Catholic Church, fine…as long as he’s not operating as a government official when he does so. The First Amendment is a two-way street, not just the Establishment Clause.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t know why you sensed any anger. I’m not angry, just pointing out a discriminatory Church policy.

This post shows a lot of anger and bitterness. For example:

You have suggested prayer as a substitute for taking action. I find this strange and I wonder if it is actually consistent with your beliefs, I wonder if you truly believe in prayer.

Why on earth would you say something like that? That amounts to an uncharitable accusation at best and a direct attack at worst.

There are certain religious people that are true believers, but most Catholics I have met are not.

And your point is?

If you were gravely ill, would you pray instead of going to see a physician? Would you pray for a loved one instead of taking them to the doctor? There are certain religious people that would answer yes to both of those questions.

Why would you think it’s an either-or proposition? I have done both – taken loved ones to the doctor and prayed for them.

Isn’t what what everyone else does?

If you are not one of those types of religious people, then you are not qualified to recommend prayer as a substitute for human action.

Once again, a bitter, angry comment – amounting to almost a direct personal attack.

 

[nico1089]

Blessed are those who are maligned and persecuted for rightiousness’ sake.–nicolo

 

[vern_humphrey]

I really don’t think you would want the judge’s opinion to be overturned. Think of other scenarios that would apply here.

Assume a Saudi Arabian cleric encouraged Muslim congregations in San Francisco to preach (in accordance with the Holy Koran) that there women should be subservient, not allowed to drive, go to school etc. and the city passed a resolution encouraging the Saudi Arabian cleric to withdraw its directive. Muslims in San Francisco then bring a suit against the city alleging violation of the Establishment Clause. I’m sure you’d want their suit dismissed, a dismissal that would follow this court’s line of reasoning.

Why would I want their suit dismissed?

Suppose a Jewish Rabbi was preaching that pork is unclean, and the hog farmers complained? Would it be proper for the city or country or state to demand the Jews stop preaching what they believe?

Suppose the Hindus preached that beef is not to be eaten and the cattle ranchers complained? Would it be proper for the city or country or state to demand the Hindus stop preaching what they believe?

Note that even in your example, all the Muslims would be doing is preaching. They wouldn’t be attacking people on the streets, blowing up buildings or anything like that. Their preaching is mere words – binding only on the believers.

That’s exactly what the First Amendment protects.

 

[Imagine23]

Why would I want their suit dismissed?

Suppose a Jewish Rabbi was preaching that pork is unclean, and the hog farmers complained? Would it be proper for the city or country or state to demand the Jews stop preaching what they believe?

Suppose the Hindus preached that beef is not to be eaten and the cattle ranchers complained? Would it be proper for the city or country or state to demand the Hindus stop preaching what they believe?

Note that even in your example, all the Muslims would be doing is preaching. They wouldn’t be attacking people on the streets, blowing up buildings or anything like that. Their preaching is mere words – binding only on the believers.

That’s exactly what the First Amendment protects.

You need to read the lawsuit. The city wasn’t demanding that the Church stop preaching its discriminatory beliefs. The city asked the Vatican (a foreign soveriegn entity) to not issue discriminatory directives affecting its citizens.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

You need to read the lawsuit. The city wasn’t demanding that the Church stop preaching its discriminatory beliefs. The city asked the Vatican (a foreign soveriegn entity) to not issue discriminatory directives affecting its citizens.

Sounds like the same thing to me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You need to read the lawsuit. The city wasn’t demanding that the Church stop preaching its discriminatory beliefs. The city asked the Vatican (a foreign soveriegn entity) to not issue discriminatory directives affecting its citizens.

I read it – and the original document on which the suit is based.

1. The United States (and all subordinate divisions) are forbidden to have a state religion. To characterized “The Vatican” as “a foreign soverign entity” this way is simply an end run around the First Amendmdent.
2. It is the duty of “The Vatican” to speak on Faith and Morals for the Catholic Church. For any element of government to inject itself into this area is a violation of the First Amendment.
3. The resolution has a chilling effect on Catholics, and signals to all in the city that Catholics are inferior, and to be discriminated against.

 

[Imagine23]

Blessed are those who are maligned and persecuted for rightiousness’ sake.–nicolo

Thank you. I do feel blessed.

 

[Imagine23]

I read it – and the original document on which the suit is based.

1. The United States (and all subordinate divisions) are forbidden to have a state religion. To characterized “The Vatican” as “a foreign soverign entity” this way is simply an end run around the First Amendmdent.
2. It is the duty of “The Vatican” to speak on Faith and Morals for the Catholic Church. For any element of government to inject itself into this area is a violation of the First Amendment.
3. The resolution has a chilling effect on Catholics, and signals to all in the city that Catholics are inferior, and to be discriminated against.

The court went through the three part test used by the Supreme Court to decide these issues. You have not gone through and supported why your analysis of the three part test would demand a different result. So legally, you have not analyzed the case.

You also have not answered (and neither has anyone else) what evidence supports the assertion that placing children with homosexuals “does violence” to them. Simply pointing to Church teaching is insufficient. If a Muslim told you that women should not be able to drive and that is morally wrong for them to do so, he should provide evidence that women driving is harmful (no jokes here please). For him to simply point to the Koran is not sufficient.

 

[rlg94086]

The resolution clearly has a secular purpose (preventing discrimination), the primary purpose (preventing discrimination) does not inhibit religion and it does not foster excessive entanglement. Adoption counseling and placement is primarily a secular function. As the court essentially said, the fact that a religious group is involved in such an activity does not make it a religious one.

This is only true when adoption counseling and placement is done by a secular institution, as in a government office. If it’s done by the Catholic Church, it is not a a secular function.

That would be like telling a Catholic school that they can’t teach about Jesus because education is primarily a “secular function.”

If Gay couples want to adopt, they can go to a secular adoption agency. Problem solved.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The court went through the three part test used by the Supreme Court to decide these issues. You have not gone through and supported why your analysis of the three part test would demand a different result. So legally, you have not analyzed the case.

I haven’t read all of “Mein Kampf” either, but that doesn’t mean I can’t say anti-Semitism is wrong.

What’s wrong is the court applied standards meant for private citizens to a governmental entity. As a citizen, one can say that Blacks, or Jews or Catholics are inferior and ought to be discriminated against – as reprehensible as that is, it’s protected.

But a government entity cannot say that.

You also have not answered (and neither has anyone else) what evidence supports the assertion that placing children with homosexuals “does violence” to them.

I haven’t explained the Big Bang, either, or written a paper on String Theory. The issue here is the anti-Catholic action of a city government, not a sociological experiment.

Simply pointing to Church teaching is insufficient. If a Muslim told you that women should not be able to drive and that is morally wrong for them to do so, he should provide evidence that women driving is harmful (no jokes here please). For him to simply point to the Koran is not sufficient.

Wrong. He is entitled to his belief, however much I may disagree with it. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

 

[mlchance]

The burden of proof is on the creator of the arbitrary, discriminatory policy to show that the benefits outweigh the discriminatory affect.

Ignoring the flamebait language, you’re still wrong. The burden of proof rests with whomever makes a claim. For example:

The Church’s opinion on [homosexual people adopting children] is without evidence or justification and is discriminatory. It should therefore be fought.

Where’s the evidence for this claim? Please present the hard data showing that children raised by a homosexual couple are not disadvantaged compared to those raised by a married heterosexual couple.

You do have hard data to back up your assertion, don’t you?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Imagine23]

I haven’t read all of “Mein Kampf” either, but that doesn’t mean I can’t say anti-Semitism is wrong.

This is one of the funniest things you’ve said so far. First, you claim to have read the court’s opinion. Then, when I point out that your position on the court’s decision did not involve any analysis of the applicable legal test, you imply that you didn’t actually read the decision by making a Nazi reference.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is one of the funniest things you’ve said so far. First, you claim to have read the court’s opinion. Then, when I point out that your position on the court’s decision did not involve any analysis of the applicable legal test, you imply that you didn’t actually read the decision by making a Nazi reference.

No, M’lad, I didn’t say I hadn’t read it. I simply pointed out that there are some things that are so wrong that even a cursory glance is enough to reveal the flaws. A detailed disection of “Mein Kampf” isn’t required of everyone who considers Nazism evil.

The court’s error was in applying the free speech criteria to a governmental statement. Free speech is a right reserved to the people, not to the government.

 

[Imagine23]

No, M’lad, I didn’t say I hadn’t read it. I simply pointed out that there are some things that are so wrong that even a cursory glance is enough to reveal the flaws. A detailed disection of “Mein Kampf” isn’t required of everyone who considers Nazism evil.

The court’s error was in applying the free speech criteria to a governmental statement. Free speech is a right reserved to the people, not to the government.

The court does mention free speech once in the last page of the opinion, but that is not the test they apply and their decision does not rest on it.

The court lays out the three part test to be used in accordance with United States Supreme Court precedent on page 5 to decide this issue, which is whether a state actor violated the Establishment Clause. The test looks at whether the action (1) has a secular purpose; (2) has a primary effect which neither inhibits nor advances religion; and (3) does not foster excessive entanglement with religion.

I know that you would like the court to come out the other way because you have some unsubstantiated misconceptions about the ability of gays to be parents, but this really is the only outcome that makes sense under the law.