The members of the Church hierarchy are our *spiritual *leaders. We laypersons must band together to fight, withdraw, or whatever, ourselves, not because the Church has abandoned us but because leading us in areas other than spiritually is outside their purview and in many cases their qualifications.
So who is the designated signal callers of advance, retreat or stand ground?
The Left has adopted a world view where majority populations do not have the same rights as minority populations. They have changed the standard for judging behavior from that of the ‘reasonable person’ to that of the ‘reasonable minority’. Thus if a man is accused of raping a woman the woman’s perception of what happened is all that matters. If both are drunk, only she is raped if they have sex because her intoxication prevents her from giving consent and the mans consent is irrelevant.
“Lol, you will know when you need to know.”
Why does it have to be from the clergy? Their area of expertise is the spiritual life. Some, like some of us, may be qualified to lead, but otherwise, this is an issue in the world, and we laypeople will need to deal with it.
That is a very important Biblical point that Vatican II really made explicit for our own age. The laity have an essential role to play in the Church that they are often much better suited to lead in that the clergy. Expecting the clergy to lead in everything is like expecting the head of the church to do the job of the heart of the church, or the hands or the feet of the church for that matter.
You cannot serve two masters. The secular left has an agenda, and the Catholic Church stands in the way of that agenda - so they hate the Church and want to destroy (or neutralize it). Think about it - the secular left believes that the government should be all-powerful, centralized, and have a bureaucracy of elites who basically make the important decisions - there is no room for people who are religious, who believe in a different master (God). Certainly you believe that to be a Christian means more than just going to Church once a week and then going along with whatever secular culture is doing the rest of the week? I agree that the left is probably okay (for now) with the kind of faith that doesn’t extend beyond the home. But that kind of faith would never have helped abolish slavery or campaign for civil rights. Seems like an empty faith to me.
There are many, many more Christians in American than Muslims, so Christianity would seem to be the bigger threat (than Islam). Also, the left doesn’t mess with Islam because it regards Islam as an oppressed minority. And the left loves pitting different groups against each other. Also, Islam hates Israel / Jews and so does the left (ultimately). So for now, the left doesn’t bother Islam. There are any number of muslim owned bakeries that do NOT bake cakes for gay weddings, e.g. But the gay/left mafia doesn’t bother them. They go after the Christian bakers. The irony is, if the Muslims ever take over, the secular leftists / gays will be the first to go.
You pose questions that have already been answered. Will “diversity” be extended to people of faith? The answer is no, because the left does not value diversity, it only values obedience and conformity to their agenda. Why don’t they criminalize Christianity now, you might ask. The answer is because they don’t yet have the power to do so. Nor do they want to do anything so drastic as to wake people up to what their goals are. One thing is pretty clear from your post - I don’t think you really get the nature of the left and its goals. I certainly hope enough Christians wake up in time.
It is impossible for a man to know what constitutes a"reasonable woman". Besides that,
:sad_yes:
I think it was Nietzsche who said something like that.
His last paragraph is very interesting. Also, I hope someone pursues the angle that SH rules in practice create a hostile work environment. I have observed that when a man is merely accused, everyone else avoids him like people avoided Jews in Nazi Germany. A man is even intimidated into remaining silent and not ask questions in SH training classes for fear of being targeted. I also hope someone eventually pursues the bill of attainder angle.
Good Afternoon RGCheek" This is typical political rhetoric. Because people are allowed to practice one way of life doesn’t mean that way of life is being forced on people who choose another way of life, for instance Christians. A lot of right wing conservative Christians seem to think that they’re being persecuted simply because they can’t tell everyone else how to live. Christians are allowed to shun any type of lifestyle they like. What we can’t do is tell everyone else what to believe or how to live, and insofar as the sanctity of marriage is concerned, I think most people should worry about how they conduct their own affairs with regard to their marriages and stop worrying about other people’s marriages. Your own house is always a good place to get in order.
Being told that we must pay for abc and abortion coverafe is indeed being forced on us.
Good Afternoon St Francis: Well, I have also paid for a couple of wars in my lifetime that I disagreed with, and lots of executions in my lifetime that I have disagreed with but I don’t see the religious right (which is neither religious or right actually) complaining about any of that. With regard to the future of society, I am also familiar with the rather curious idea that we are facing something a declining population crisis. If half the population turned gay (which they won’t) and if there was no such thing as artificial insemination, there would still be 6 billion people on this planet right now, and 91 billion in 45 years.
Tell that to the lady fined 135,000 for not baking a cake
Well, the “religious right” in the US is a pretty diverse group, don’t you think? But the church which is the largest, the cleaest in its teaching, the least likely to change, is the Catholic Church. Wow, and the Left just happened to pick two of the biggest issues for orthodox Catholics…
I didn’t mention a population crisis and it has no relevance to what I said.Well, that may be the case, but it doesn’t mean that Christianity is *not *under attack, does it?
Duh. Those in SSMs are also not consummating anything, which means no marriage actually exists.
It is a diverse group but what they all have in common is the desire to legislate their ideas on everyone else in a country where there is freedom of religion, and freedom of religion also means freedom *from *religion.
People killing people is the same whether it’s war, homicide, execution or abortion.
It;’ usually the next reply in these discussions.
I think a lot of children are better off being raised by someone who loves them and has a reasonable amount of common sense. which means a lot of children would be better off never having met their real parents.
Just because someone’s paranoid also doesn’t mean that people aren’t out to get them. It just means they have a state of paranoia overlaying any aspect of their existence. Most people could care less about the religious right (except for a good laugh every now and then) as long as they don’t try to foist their ideas on everyone else’s way of life.
Well then, the religious right should breath a real sigh of relief, because by that definition, there are only heterosexual marriages anyway. So what is the complaint, other than shoving ones beliefs on everyone else?
There hasn’t ever been a law decreed or enacted that didn’t represent someone’s beliefs being “shoved” on everyone else. The Left is notorious for that. It’s the reason they work so hard to get elected; and when they do, they force beliefs like obamacare on the rest of us. Isn’t that the whole idea behind elections? I vote for candidate “A” because I think forcing his beliefs on society will be better than those of candidate “B” being forced on society. You vote for “B” instead of “A” for the same reason.