K
- Status
L
ljubim
Guest
Here’s the declaration: (fyi 
)
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
**1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty. **
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
)Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
**1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty. **
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
K
Kendy
Guest
5,831 signers as of 1O a.m. EST. Let’s keep it going and do pass it on to your friends.
L
ljubim
Guest
Wow! It was something like 4000 last night. That’s incredible
I
IHeartAquinas
Guest
It’s up to some 26,000 now. Word is spreading fast! 
And there’s an atheist on the facebook page deriding it.
Of course.
And there’s an atheist on the facebook page deriding it.
Of course.
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
28437 signatures including mine 
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
What it means to the original signatories:
Example #1
Rev. Peter J. Akinola
Primate, Anglican Church of Nigeria (Abika, Nigeria)
Akinola is the Anglican Primate of the Church of Nigeria. He is also Bishop of Abuja (Nigeria’s capital) and Archbishop of Province III, which covers the northern and central parts of the country.
He supported a 2006 Nigerian bill which: would provide for five years’ imprisonment to anyone who “goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex,” “performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage” or “is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private.”
In response to the rioting resulting from the Danish Cartoons about Mohammed, Archbishop Akinola issued a statement in his capacity as President of the Christian Association of Nigeria: “May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation.” Some criticized this statement as inciting Christian counter-riots against Muslim targets in Nigeria (for example, Christian mobs in Onitsha retaliated against Muslims, killing 80 persons, burned a Muslim district with 100 homes, defaced mosques and burned the corpses of those they had killed in the streets, forcing hundreds of Muslims to flee the city )
At the press conference Iain Baxter of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) from the UK asked the Archbishop how he reconciled his faith with his support for jailing lesbian and gay people, which had led to cases of rape and torture.
He also asked why the Archbishop had refused to speak out against such incidents which had taken place in his country.
In response Archbishop Peter Akinola said that he was not aware of any such incidents anywhere in Africa. He also said he was unaware that anyone had been imprisoned for being gay or lesbian.
When given the example of a lesbian women from Uganda who had applied for asylum in the UK after being jailed, raped in the police station, and marched for two miles naked through the streets of Uganda, Archbishop Akinola said: “That’s one example. The laws in your countries say that homosexual acts, actions are punishable by various rules. I don’t need to argue.”
His only comment on the abuse of children in Nigeria accused of witchcraft has been to say “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”.
Next time, before signing such a document, please investigate the people behind it. What you think it means, and what it actually means, may be quite different.
Example #1
Rev. Peter J. Akinola
Primate, Anglican Church of Nigeria (Abika, Nigeria)
Akinola is the Anglican Primate of the Church of Nigeria. He is also Bishop of Abuja (Nigeria’s capital) and Archbishop of Province III, which covers the northern and central parts of the country.
He supported a 2006 Nigerian bill which: would provide for five years’ imprisonment to anyone who “goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex,” “performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage” or “is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private.”
In response to the rioting resulting from the Danish Cartoons about Mohammed, Archbishop Akinola issued a statement in his capacity as President of the Christian Association of Nigeria: “May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation.” Some criticized this statement as inciting Christian counter-riots against Muslim targets in Nigeria (for example, Christian mobs in Onitsha retaliated against Muslims, killing 80 persons, burned a Muslim district with 100 homes, defaced mosques and burned the corpses of those they had killed in the streets, forcing hundreds of Muslims to flee the city )
At the press conference Iain Baxter of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) from the UK asked the Archbishop how he reconciled his faith with his support for jailing lesbian and gay people, which had led to cases of rape and torture.
He also asked why the Archbishop had refused to speak out against such incidents which had taken place in his country.
In response Archbishop Peter Akinola said that he was not aware of any such incidents anywhere in Africa. He also said he was unaware that anyone had been imprisoned for being gay or lesbian.
When given the example of a lesbian women from Uganda who had applied for asylum in the UK after being jailed, raped in the police station, and marched for two miles naked through the streets of Uganda, Archbishop Akinola said: “That’s one example. The laws in your countries say that homosexual acts, actions are punishable by various rules. I don’t need to argue.”
His only comment on the abuse of children in Nigeria accused of witchcraft has been to say “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”.
Nice company you keep.
Next time, before signing such a document, please investigate the people behind it. What you think it means, and what it actually means, may be quite different.
F
fix
Guest
So, you cannot argue against the contents of the statement. Thanks.
C
Captain_America
Guest
I have just finishing reading it and will join in signing the Manhattan Declaration.
People really do need to speak up against the nonsense being foisted on us.
People really do need to speak up against the nonsense being foisted on us.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Some questions about the scope of “Civil Disobedience”
Assume someone shoots an abortionist on some church steps - not that you’d do that, nor would you approve of it. But would you co-operate with the police in trying to prosecute them?
Assuming someone drives out the devil in a possessed child by baking them alive. Not that you’d do that, nor would you approve of it. But would you co-operate with the police in trying to prosecute them?
Assuming a gang goes out and beats a homosexual into a “persistent vegetative state”. Not that you’d do that, nor would you approve of it. But would you co-operate with the police in trying to prosecute them?
The originators of this document would all answer all three questions in the negative. They would not advocate violence, nor would they approve of it. They’d just do absolutely nothing whatsoever to hinder it, nor see it punished.
Assume someone shoots an abortionist on some church steps - not that you’d do that, nor would you approve of it. But would you co-operate with the police in trying to prosecute them?
Assuming someone drives out the devil in a possessed child by baking them alive. Not that you’d do that, nor would you approve of it. But would you co-operate with the police in trying to prosecute them?
Assuming a gang goes out and beats a homosexual into a “persistent vegetative state”. Not that you’d do that, nor would you approve of it. But would you co-operate with the police in trying to prosecute them?
The originators of this document would all answer all three questions in the negative. They would not advocate violence, nor would they approve of it. They’d just do absolutely nothing whatsoever to hinder it, nor see it punished.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
The way I’d interpret it - no I wouldn’t argue with it too much.
I’d say that the religious freedom of the Unitarian and other churches to marry same-sex couples are under concerted attack by other religious groups, and that their religious rights should be defended.
I’d say that the definition of “husband and wife” needs work when it comes to Intersexed people.
And I’d say that human life includes those you find icky - intersexed, transsexed, gay… and that persecuting them is wrong. Killing them for being what they are, as the new christianist laws in Uganda now command, is certainly wrong. My own personal belief is that abortion in the first trimester is tragic, but not infanticide, and in the third trimester is exactly the same as killing a newborn infant.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Zoe,
I could come up with some horrific things that homosexuals have done, and yet the intersexed ally themselves with them. Frankly, I think that your picking out one of over 26,000 people who is really out there is kind of out of line.
Marriage is not about sex; it is not about loooooove; it is about maintaining society. Homosexual “marriage” is something that makes no sense; it is an absurdity. I am not for beating up homosexuals or anything like that, but the protections of marriage are there for the children and not for adults. If we make any changes in marriage in this country (USA), it should be towards strengthening heterosexual marriage rather than reducing it even closer to meaninglessness.
I am for making the types of accomodations that homosexuals and others could benefit from: people already have the capacity to leave their money and property to whom they choose; and certainly people ought to be able to choose who counts as “family” when only family is allowed to visit at hospitals (2 of the major issues I have heard of wrt the “need” for homossexual “marriage”). But other issues, such as health insurance benefits are set up not because of sex or looooooove, but for those who are contributing to our society by committing to relationship the end of which is having and raising children.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Like? Seriously. How many Catholics were murdered in 2007 for being catholic. Zero. How many gays were murdered in 2007 for being Gay. Five. How many Trans people were murdered for being Trans. Twenty-One.
Let’s look at a Gay Group. It has confessed that between one in 20 and one in 60 of its management have molested children. It has confessed to a systematic and official organisation policy of non-co-operation with law enforcement to prosecute its members. Here’s one prominent gay psychiatrist, high up in the organisation,
Oh wait… that’s not a Gay organisation… that’s the Catholic Church. And the psychiatrist isn’t Gay, he’s Dr Paul McHugh, who was named to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church in 2002 to look into sexual abuse by priests. In 2007 he was ordered by Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison to stop making public statements about physician George Tiller’s work. McHugh disapproved of Tiller’s work providing abortion services. Tiller was later murdered by a fanatic who was influenced by public statements made about Tiller.
Fair enough. So argue on that basis, not (only) on the basis of religious belief.
The trouble is that objective observers have repeatedly found that there is no rational basis for this belief, based on the evidence presented before them. That while having two parents is advantageous to children compared with one, the mix of genders of those parents appears to be irrelevant. The few data points we have suggest that lesbian couples are just slightly better for children than heterosexual ones, but the sample sizes are too small to claim that.
If that is the case, then prove it. Surely you should be able to. There are enough countries by now that permit same sex marriage, and enough that permit “marriage-like relationships” that we should have a basis for comparison. Please have a look at the summary opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court on this issue.
That’s at iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/40209Varnumsummary.pdf
I believe you. I would be absolutely astonished if you were. I’d even be astonished if any but a relatively small proportion of those signing the Manhattan Declaration thought otherwise.
What about my son? Would you have my marriage of 28 years be dissolved just because both his parents are biologically female? My son would object, strongly. Have you ever actually talked with a child from a same-sex couple?
(I freely admit that my own case in anomalous, and that my boy might just be the only boy in the world where both biological parents are biologically female… even intersex conditions aren’t usually that confusing…)
By making divorce illegal, one assumes. Or at least, much harder to get. I wouldn’t argue there. Though sometimes divorce is the only humane solution to marriage breakdown, there are far too many broken and dysfunctional fragments of family out there.
Neither of those rights are granted to gay couples, not even if there’s a will and a medical power of attorney. That is because the Church has stated that to allow such rights could have the appearance of “accepting homosexuality”.
*An opponent of same-sex marriage, Rhode Island Governor Carcieri has vetoed bill that would have added "domestic partners’’ to the list of people authorized by law to make funeral arrangements for each other.
In his veto message, Republican Carcieri said: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue.*
Charity seems in short supply. I’m reminded of the parable of the Catholic Bishop, the Baptist Preacher, and the Jew, who were confronted by a semi-conscious man with torn clothing in the gutter. Though the original tale was of a Priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan.
Appearances are deemed too important by the Church.
St.F - While I may criticise the institution, it’s people like yourself, people of integrity, honesty and goodwill who are its true strength. Yes, we disagree. Yes, we may never agree. But I do not doubt for a single second your charity, honesty, and goodwill.
Blessings,
Zoe
J
JReducation
Guest
This is not a competition about who did what and who was worse. This is about the fundamental right to be born and to remain alive until God calls you home. I normally don’t rant on these threads. But Respect Life is the one ministry to which I have dedicated my life as a religious and it burns me when people distract from fundamental issue, the right to life.
The right to life is not negotiable and it’s not about who is more or less sinful. It is about human beings whose lives are diminished and exterminated when someone decides that man has a right to choose who lives and who does not. When did God give man this right?
A year ago I was asked to teach a class on the UN Declaration of Human Rights to a group of high school students who have learning disabilities. Keep in mind that these kids allegedly do not learn like other kids and allegedly they are academic underachievers. During the conversation a 16-year old boy made this statement, “If you take away the right ot be born, why bother discussing any other right?”
If we ignore this question, all other rights are irrelevant.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The right to life is not negotiable and it’s not about who is more or less sinful. It is about human beings whose lives are diminished and exterminated when someone decides that man has a right to choose who lives and who does not. When did God give man this right?
A year ago I was asked to teach a class on the UN Declaration of Human Rights to a group of high school students who have learning disabilities. Keep in mind that these kids allegedly do not learn like other kids and allegedly they are academic underachievers. During the conversation a 16-year old boy made this statement, “If you take away the right ot be born, why bother discussing any other right?”
If we ignore this question, all other rights are irrelevant.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
St_Francis
Guest
The comparison is not between homosexuals and Catholics or even intersexed people. You were upset that some who signed the Manhattan Declaration were allying themselves with an Anglican minister who has said obnoxious things and not decried horrific crimes. I said that homosexuals have also perpetrated horrific crimes, and yet the intersexed ally themselves with homosexual groups.
My point was that proximity does not equal agreement. The fact that someone who has signed the Declaration has spoken in a way which is bad does not mean that every signer of the Declaration agrees with him, just as you probably do not agree with homosexuals who commit horrific crimes.
OK, I do not want to get thoroughly into the homosexual issue, but I will if you want me to. Suffice to say that what those men did was against the teaching of the Church, and I am quite sure that almost every Catholic feels as enraged by the scandal as you are.
The issue of who raises children is separate from who has them, and any way you look at it, the natural means of reproduction involves a man and a woman. Single-sex couples may end up raising a child, but they did not create the child on their own.
The Iowa Court is not looking at marriage in the correct way, nor is it considering the issue of equal protection correctly. Just because a person is a judge does not mean that he is correct.
Would you say that if a man and a mouse showed up at a JP to be married, that that would be absurd? Yes. Would you base that solely on the fact that the mouse cannot sign her name, or give consent? Or would you base it on the fact that they are different species?
(continued)
S
St_Francis
Guest
So you think that very few who signed the MD would agree with the minister who said all those horrible things?
Well, that is confusing. For one thing, it seems that despite the fact that you are biologically female that you were able to father a child. I am not sure that you could consider yourself 100% female in that case.
The main thing is that when society sets up institutions, those institutions are based on the norm rather than on the exceptions. While we can make exceptions in those cases, we certainly cannot base our institutions on those cases.
I would not make divorce illegal, but much more difficult. I agree, as does the Church, that there are times when a situation is so bad that a separation must occur. However, I also believe that people marry with a wrong understanding of marriage, and that our society does not support marriage in any way. That along with the concept of no-fault divorce and the acceptance of artificial means of birth control, have weakened marriage in this country to the point where people can consider homosexual “marriage” to be anything other than absurd.
I ma not sure about what this law entailed, but I would say that quoting a governor does not show what the Church teaches, even if he is Catholic.
I would say (totally personally) that in the USA today, any adult should have the right to choose any other adult to be his or her heir, medical agent, or maker of funeral arrangements. However, if this is *linked *to homosexuality or domestic partnerships by saying that someone *automatically *can do these things, then I agree with the governor.
For example, should my husband predecease me, I would give a friend of mine power-of-attorney, because she is Catholic and would make sure that I was treated according to my wishes. Do I think that my aunt should have the same option to choose to put her romantic partner in that place? Yes. But this would all be *not *because of relationship but a consideration of who would best serve in that position. My aunt and I would go through the same procedure to have that happen.
I am not sure why you are saying that appearances are deemed all too important by the Church…?
Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues and have learned a lot from you.
I have a vision of what Catholicism offers; I aim for that (but I don’t always have a good aim) that but I also want others to gain what I have gained. I see that you suffer from your situation and that you have a great deal of compassion for others, so I hope that you too can gain the easing God has given me.
What you call “my” integrity, honesty and goodwill come from the Church, the institution which you criticise. Rather than the poor little efforts of myself and others being the strength of the Church, as you put it, it is the Church which is the strength of us. Where there is room for criticism comes from those actions which are away from the Church.
God bless you, too!
I
imkingdad
Guest
Yes I have! TY for making it available here for others.
Stand up for God! Stand up of Decency! Stand up for Life!
I would urge others to sign it as well.
Regards
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
That’s because although 1 in 3 of Gays are virulently Trans- and Intersexed-phobic, they’re far less likely to commit violence upon us.
Delete “probably”. I think though that there may be a difference in kind here, not just a difference in degree.
4 Catholics were physically hurt, one seriously, in 2008, just for being Catholic. It would not surprise me if at least one was the victim of a homosexual attacker. Regardless of reason, I condemn publicly and in the strongest possible terms all such attacks, and will do everything I can to see them stopped. This doesn’t make me Pro-Catholic, or even Pro-Christian, just Pro-Human. If others misinterpret what I do as being partisan support for Catholicism, let them. Appearances don’t matter, only substance.
Homosexuals were victims of 5 murders, 6 rapes, 232 aggravated assaults,and 501 simple assaults. 744 were physically hurt, 241 seriously, with spikes in the violence against them after every Church-sponsored anti-gay political campaign.
19 Trans and Intersexed people that we know of were murdered over the same period, but until recent Hate Crimes legislation, legislation the Church condemned as “infringing on their religious rights”, the FBI was forbidden to count them.
The vast majority? Yes. “Almost every”? I wish.
Based on consent.
Because otherwise, a bureaucrat or Church official could just declare someone to be legally a mouse or other non-human. That has happened to Intersexed people in the past, as they were neither men nor women, and legally, all “natural persons” have to be one or the other, so were classed as “fictitious persons” like corporations etc. As were slaves before the 14th amendment, they used the same case law. As owners of their own bodies, they could bring a suit for criminal damage to themselves, but charges of murder or assault could not be brought when they were the victims.
I should add that the law was changed rather hurriedly to remedy the anomaly in Philadelphia, where the case took place, and South Africa, where the case was used as precedent. The SA govt actually changed their constitution as a result. No harm resulted, common sense prevailed, and this is best classed as an interesting legal quirk, soon mended, rather than a real cause for concern.
I have to say that I can’t be objective here. At one point, it was seriously argued by members of the medical profession whether I was H.Sap or not. My ability to interbreed with a Human was the deciding factor, despite my peculiar genetics. I’d really need a complete gene sequence to find out how far I drift from the norm, genetically.
History is replete with examples of people being declared non-human, not of the same species, regardless of the evidence.
At least my medics had a good excuse. As a scientist, I have to admit that there’s a case. As a woman, yes, it causes me to shed a few tears at the memory. But only a few, I’m too busy living.
All the best, it’s good to know that there are people of goodwill out there, like yourself. It would be all too easy to believe otherwise, sometimes.
Zoe
S
St_Francis
Guest
Here is an article about what the institution of hate crimes laws has led to in other countries.
The Catholic position, afaics (ie, I may be wrong) is that adding an additional penalty due to some aspect of the crime based on what the criminals may have been thinking is wrong. Is is more wrong to kill someone because you are against something about him than it is to kill him because you want to get his money? Is it more wrong to kill someone because he is a homosexual than it is to kill him because he is an engineer? Is it more wrong to kill someone because he is Hispanic than it is to kill someone because he has a jacket you want?
Similar to the situation of the unborn humans who are classified as non-humans
It would seem that none of these issues relates to the Catholic Church. Governments seem to have created a loophole (That was weird!), and those who claimed the non-humanity of blacks during the time of slavery in the US were Protestants. In fact, Catholics evangelised among slaves. The Catholic Church condemned this form of slavery 400 years before that.
The Church views consent as a very serious aspect of marriage, and lack thereof can render a marriage non-sacramental. However, that is not the only aspect of marriage. Ability to marry, ability to marry the person one proposes also enters in. For example, two people cannot marry if one is already married. Since cases of bigamy and even polygamy occur, we can see that people do try to marry when the marriage simply does not occur.
- Status