Now You Can Be Sued For Being Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeedImprovement
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NeedImprovement said:
…Might need a break for a day or two. Anyhow, it’s nice and short - have a look. Get some ideas.

You deserve one with those great postings of yours!! Here is an article by a wonderful evangelical person here in Australia(he was born in the States)
Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day…
billmuehlenberg.com/2011/10/27/the-tolerance-police-are-at-it-again/
It’s a good thing the tolerance brigade are tolerant; just imagine if they were not tolerant! But I jest of course. The tragic truth is, there is a no more intolerant lot on earth than those who ramble on the most about tolerance. In the name of tolerance they have become the most intolerant, censorious, narrow-minded and bigoted bunch around.
As I document on almost a daily basis, the tolerance police are ever on the prowl, always looking to impose their coercive utopian agendas on anyone who dares not embrace their radical agenda. Anyone who not only dares to act differently, but think differently as well, will be in the crosshairs of the PC police.
Consider one of the latest examples. An Englishman was demoted and had his pay docked by 40 per cent. How come? Did he steal from the company? Cheat in his work? Run off with the office secretary? Nope, far worse: he simply said he thought homosexual marriage was just not on.
Here is how the press covers this episode: “A housing manager has been demoted, and his salary slashed, after he criticised a controversial new gay rights law. Adrian Smith, a Christian, was found guilty of gross misconduct by his publicly funded housing association for saying that allowing gay weddings in churches was ‘an equality too far’.
“He posted the comment in his own time, on his personal page on the Facebook website, which could not be read by the general public. But after a disciplinary hearing, he was downgraded from his £35,000-a-year managerial job to a much less senior £21,000 post – and avoided the sack only because of his long service. Mr Smith, 54, is now taking the association to court, arguing that his punishment was out of proportion and his right to free speech was ignored.
“Friends said last night the father of two had been ‘shocked and distressed’ by his treatment and would now face financial hardship. Campaigners attacked the housing association’s decision – the latest in a series of cases in which Christians have clashed with employers – as a ‘complete over-reaction’ by an organisation ‘drenched in political correctness’.”
Have you noticed how in the great majority of cases here Christians are the ones being targeted? It seems Christianity is the number one object of the PC thought police, and an unofficial war has been declared against any Christian who dares to act on his faith in the public arena.
The tolerance police have declared open season on Christianity, and a full-fledged purge now seems to be underway all over the western world. Communist Russia had the KGB and East Germany had the dreaded Stasi, and now in the once free West we have the PC thought police, imposing their totalitarian version of tolerance upon the rest of us.
Indeed, this is nothing other than a new witch hunt as one English expert has warned: “British government officials and employees have become the new witchfinders general, ‘obsessively’ searching for the slightest deviation from the doctrines of political correctness, a legal expert has told LifeSiteNews.com. ‘The obsession with hate crime and hate speech has created a new generation of publicly paid heresy-hunters,’ said Neil Addison, an expert in religious discrimination law.”
Indeed, he and others have roundly – and rightly – condemned this latest case of “tolerance”: “Addison, a practicing barrister and the author of a textbook on hate crimes legislation, said, ‘When I was a child, people in England used to say “I can say what I like, it’s a free country”. That is certainly no longer the case in Britain today. The Adrian Smith case is only the latest and possibly the most extreme example of the fact that British public bodies have ceased to have any respect whatsoever for the principle of freedom of speech.’
Click to expand...
 
article continued.
On November 15th an employment tribunal in London will begin to hear the case of Margaret Forrester, who was sacked from her job as a mental health worker because she had shown a pro-life booklet that said women suffer from mental health consequences after abortions to colleagues.
“Addison is representing Forrester in his capacity as Director of Thomas More Legal Centre, an organization that assists Christians suffering from officially endorsed religious discrimination. ‘She, like Mr. Smith,’ Addison said, ‘was disciplined and ultimately sacked simply for expressing an opinion. I think Stalin would feel quite at home here.’
“The Smith case has generated outrage among some media commentators, even some on the left, who have said the trust’s action is a case of political correctness gone too far. Ally Fogg, writing on the far-left Guardian’s website, said that Trafford Housing Trust ‘couldn’t have got things more badly wrong.’ An editorial in the Daily Mail accused the trust of ‘despotic behavior.’
“Cristina Odone, a novelist and columnist for the Daily Telegraph, noted that in today’s Britain, dominated by secularists, it is the ‘brave soul’ who admits publicly to being a Christian. Expressing a dissenting opinion based on religion, she noted, ‘can ruin your professional life even when it is expressed in private.’
“‘Nonconformists [Puritans] more than 400 years ago found that they could not express their beliefs in a country where the established Church brooked no argument. Today, the Establishment is made up of secular individualists ready to run nonconformists out of the public space, if not yet out of the country,’ Odone wrote. ‘Being taken for a cretin, a creationist and a chauvinist is not much better than a spell in the stocks’.”
Yes quite right. This is at bottom a diabolical assault on everything Christian and decent. The PC tyrants are determined to wipe out every last vestige of Christian thought and influence in the Western world. And one of the greatest driving forces of this is the militant jackboot brigade, the homosexual lobby.
They will stop at nothing to push their agenda, and silence anyone who dares to offer a contrary voice. These new champions of “tolerance” are the most intolerant and Stalinesque group of thought police around. The case of Adrian Smith is simply one of the latest examples of this.
Many, many more such cases will emerge, unless the rest of us start getting a bit of backbone, start speaking out, and refuse to be intimidated by the PC police.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052319/Adrian-Smith-demoted-backing-gay-marriage-criticising-new-law-Facebook.html
www.lifesitenews.com/news/government-officials-the-new-witchfinders-in-hate-crime-obsessed-britain-le?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ef6580484c-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines10_24_2011&utm_medium=email
 
John21652 said:
That story is being reported in Australia as -

Lesbian couple want to help boy become girl.

The article tells us that -

One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that children model the behaviour of their parents. Now here we have a boy, parented by two lesbians, who supposedly needs time to make up his mind about whether he wants to be a boy or a girl and are going to use drugs to control the situation until he makes up his mind. Isn’t that a little weird, considering mother nature has worked quite well for millions of years in helping us to decide what we are?

A professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Dr Paul McHugh, got it right when he said -
You don’t really need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the truth of that statement either.

This is where the so called “equality” that gays sought is leading us. It is an issue that is far wider than the simple issue of gays wanting to be left alone and to be not discriminated against. They wish to normalise their perversion and this is now leading to messing with kids minds, all because they want to play mummy’s and daddies like normal people.
Click to expand...
You are correct John in quoting " that one does not need to be a rocket scientist" to see that Chrisians & Catholics are being undermined and attacked!!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8502337&postcount=174
 
These were posted by karoleck on another thread and then someone decided to write 10 rules of another nature based on their thinking these rules were “problematic” . Well the other rules are arguably more problematic - in several senses. However, these rules provided by karoleck quoted below deserve a home on this thread because they are pertinent to its central theme and can serve to stimulate some useful, informative discussion.

Below is the text as it appeared on the other thread minus the quotes. I noticed though, a while back that the ninth rule seems to be missing. For now, I continue to go with my addendum - Rule 9 b) :*Pray at least a rosary every day *(🙂 ) . Whenever the Spirit moves him , karoleck is more than welcome to fill us in on rule number 9 a) …
karoleck said:
From the Reedeeming The Rainbow,I think that his ten debating rules might be a good reply to your postings – I suggest that you reflect on them.
TEN RULES FOR DEBATING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY

First. Never leave unchallenged any argument in which sexual orientation theory,
homosexual immutability or the equivalency of heterosexuality and homosexuality
is assumed (which is just about any argument you will ever have
on this issue).

Second. Always make the advocates of the “gay” position define the critical
terms.

Third. Stay on track. Sophists will** always change the subject to avoid having
to admit error. **The trick is to stay focused until the term in question is defined.
Don’t allow yourself to be baited into switching topics. Promise to address
new topics after your main question has been answered. (Also, watch out
for the **“tag team” tactic **in which a third party will interrupt your discussion
to help your opponent change the subject. Make these parties address your
question.)

Fourth. Don’t allow your opponent to place the burden of proof upon you to
disprove one of his or her assumptions. The **burden of proof is on him **or her.

Fifth. Always address the aspect of conduct, which by nature is volitional.
“Gay” Advocate: “They’re out there. But gay people don’t have to prove themselves to deserve

Sixth. Keep the discussion on what can be objectively observed and measured
and away from the subjective. Don’t be diverted into a discussion of abstractions.

Seventh. Use affirmative statements to reclaim the initiative in the discussion.

Eighth. Make the opponent face the flaws in his or her logic.

Ten.** Measure your success by the degree to which you have illuminated the
truth for those listening in to your discussion,** not by the willingness of your
opponent to change his or her mind.”

Analysis. --------one can never truly come to a common understanding with a “gay” sophist, since
**he or she cares only about winning and not about the truth. **Yet there are many people who merely
parrot “gay” rhetoric and who are really victims of sophistry, not sophists themselves. These people
are persuadable.
The only value in arguing with a true sophist is to hone your debate skills. Usually,
however, you will have an audience. In that case, take the opportunity to educate your audienceand don’t be discouraged that your opponent refuses to see reason.
When all is said and done, the only real solution to the problems created by “gay” sophistry
is to restore a truthful standard in every institution where the sophists now hold sway. That means
that we who have learned how to defeat “gay” sophistry must actively compete for influence in
those institutions and **to persuade others who share our love for the truth **to do the same.
Click to expand...
 
NeedImprovement said:
These were posted by karoleck on another thread and then someone decided to write 10 rules of another nature based on their thinking these rules were “problematic” . Well the other rules are arguably more problematic - in several senses. However, these rules provided by karoleck quoted below deserve a home on this thread because they are pertinent to its central theme and can serve to stimulate some useful, informative discussion.

Below is the text as it appeared on the other thread minus the quotes. I noticed though, a while back that the ninth rule seems to be missing. For now, I continue to go with my addendum - Rule 9 b) :*Pray at least a rosary every day *(🙂 ) . Whenever the Spirit moves him , karoleck is more than welcome to fill us in on rule number 9 a) …
Click to expand...
No,I will leave your Rule 9 "Pray the Rosary every day’!!–This tool is the best weapon!!:gopray2:–Our Blessed Mother Mary wins over the hearts of men.

So here is Rule No.11 “Follow the flaw to it’s illogical conclusion”!

However,I am only the messenger that posted these ten rules of engagement.It is Dr.Scott Lively through the grace of God who provided these wonderful insights.This extract can be found in his wonderfully written book called Reedeming The Rainbow and the Doctor has generously provided this book free of charge as a PDF which can be downloaded.

Here is the Link and I do hope that people will make use of this informative book on the “gay rights” push.

massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/

.May I just add that DR.Scott Lively is a very christian person and loves and accepts a person with a same sex attraction.He proved this by his actions in bringing a homeless man suffering from AIDS into his own home and looked after him until the man died.Never the less,as a Christian he warns our society about swallowing a “gay rights” pill.I wish that I could quote the whole book in fact!!

I know this has not addressed your criteria of discussion but I first thought that an acknowledgement was due to Dr.Scott Lively.
 
TEN RULES FOR DEBATING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY(Quote from Redeeming The Rainbow Chater 8 Understanding Gayspeak page 108)

(As applied during a hypothetical conversation).

"First. Never leave unchallenged any argument in which sexual orientation theory,
homosexual immutability or the equivalency of heterosexuality and homosexuality
is assumed (which is just about any argument you will ever have
on this issue).
“Gay” Advocate: “Can’t you see that denying gays the right to marry is discrimination.

Why shouldn’t they have the same basic rights as heterosexuals?

You: “I’m a little confused by your argument. Are you saying that you think homosexuality
is equivalent to heterosexuality?”

So from the start the “gay” person attacks with a two pronged fork! Firstly we who support Christ’s teachings are accused of uncharitableness on the grounds of discrimination.By all means all persons with a same sex attraction should be treated with respect and given all their due rights.But is disagreeing with a person who is acting out a homosexual lifestyle against The Ten Commandments, discrimination?

The second attack tries to equate a marriage union between a man and a woman for life, with the begetting and raising up of children; having the same end as sterile sexual activities between persons of the same sex ? The answer is an obvious,no.A hetrosexual person is naturally open to the possibility of creating new life;where as a homosexual person is closed to procreation.
 
karoleck said:
No,I will leave your Rule 9 "Pray the Rosary every day’!!–This tool is the best weapon!!:gopray2:–Our Blessed Mother Mary wins over the hearts of men…

Here is the Link and I do hope that people will make use of this informative book on the “gay rights” push.

massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/

May I just add that DR.Scott Lively is a very christian person and loves and accepts a person with a same sex attraction.He proved this by his actions in bringing a homeless man suffering from AIDS into his own home and looked after him until the man died.Never the less,as a Christian he warns our society about swallowing a “gay rights” pill.I wish that I could quote the whole book in fact!!

I know this has not addressed your criteria of discussion but I first thought that an acknowledgement was due to Dr.Scott Lively.
Click to expand...
Thankyou karoleck 👍

Regarding criteria for discussion , what you have posted is surely pertinent. Background information on the author is helpful if his 10 rules are to make this thread their home. We only need consider for a moment that here at CAF, as we have witnessed on so many other threads dealing with the subject of homosexuality, that accusations of *hatred, discrimination *and lack of charity have become commonplace - to the point where it almost appears rote on the part of the posters because it often has no logical connection to what it is being said in reply to.

That is why we needed a thread to discuss these tactics, and sophistry , the overall militant homosexual agenda – and this whenever possible through comparative analyses ; which is precisely what Dr. Scott Lively’s contribution provides for us.

Some of us may not have all the time or resources necessary to download and read his entire book , so if you come across any other quotes in the book that you think may be of further benefit to us who like to check in on this thread , please feel welcome to post them at any given point.

I’m sure our Blessed Mother is pleased that we could include her request as rule # 9 ( 🙂 ) -particularly in light of the fact that this is a Catholic forum.

… have to go and do my part now .
 
pat_mc said:
Its discrimination not because they are Catholic.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Catholic Answers,could you possibly expand on your posting a bit more, as I am not sure what you are getting at.

Do you mean that you think a non-catholic person with a same sex attraction is being discriminated against ;because they do not know that what they are doing is against the natural moral law, written in their hearts?

Or are you saying Catholic persons should not engage in warning of the negative social effects and consequences in achieving a “gay rights” legislation?And do you think that a catholic should not engage within the social order, because this might be percieved by some as being a homophobic act?(discriminated against–though in it’s original meaning,the term homophobic is—a person who feared of having a same sex attraction)
The “gay” movement changed it’s meaning in recent times to refer to a person who hates a person with a same sex attraction!!

As you can see, I am struggling with your retorical statement ,so until you kindly decide to offer the forum a longer explanation;it stands as a statement,rather than as a meaningful discussion.(that is ok though,you are welcome to spell it out)
 
Second. Always make the advocates of the “gay” position define the critical
terms.

“Gay” Advocate: “Of course they are equivalent. One person is no better than another just
because of whom they happen to love.”

You: “I still don’t get it. How do you define homosexuality and heterosexuality? It’s more th
than a question of romantic feelings isn’t it?”
 
Third. Stay on track. Sophists will always change the subject to avoid having
to admit error. The trick is to stay focused until the term in question is defined.
Don’t allow yourself to be baited into switching topics. Promise to address
new topics after your main question has been answered. (Also, watch out
for the “tag team” tactic in which a third party will interrupt your discussion
to help your opponent change the subject. Make these parties address your
question.)“

Gay” Advocate: “Homosexuality is just your sexual orientation. It’s the way you’re born.

Some people are straight. Some are gay. You don’t think gay people should be discriminated against just
because they have a different orientation, do you?”

You: “I’d like to answer that question after we talk about what sexual orientation is,
but I’m still not clear on what you mean by homosexuality. How do you know that it’s just the way someone is born?

The third advise that Dr,.Scott Lively gives us is so true.I noticed that someone objected to the use of the term “a person with a same sex attraction” as they prefered the term “gay”.It was more of an arguement about words ,as homosexuality needs to be defined.

The Homosexual Message(Chapter 8,quotation from Redeeming The Rainbow)

"The disordered nature of homosexuality is self-evident; therefore any effort to normalize or
legitimize homosexuality must use lies and deception to gain public support.
The homosexuaL appeal for public support includes several standard falsehoods that are repeated constantly by its
spokespersons and presented to the public as proven facts:

“Homosexuality is innate and normal” (often called the “born that way” argument).

“Homosexuality cannot be changed.”

“Heterosexual children cannot become homosexual.”

“Homosexuals and heterosexuals are separate but equal sexual types.”

“All disapproval of homosexuality is motivated by hate and fear.”

“Homosexuality is equivalent to race, and disapproval of homosexuality is like racism.”

“Homosexuals are helpless victims who need special legal protection.”

“Toleration of homosexuals requires approval of homosexual conduct.”

“Homosexual suicides and mental health problems are caused by social disapproval.”

An essential task of pro-family advocates is to expose the falsehood of these assertions.
People, especially social and political leaders, need to know the truth, and it is our job to
inform them. Fortunately, there is a wealth of authoritative documentation to support the
pro-family position on these topics; many useful resources are provided in Section Four.

Another factor that helps us articulate the pro-family position is that most of the
prohomosexual arguments are patently illogical. They so completely fail the test of honest
scrutiny that the resort to scientific evidence is unnecessary to prove the argument."
 
That’d be awesome if you could be sued for being Catholic I would 100% agree with the suers. 😛 😛 😛
 
I know I comment much about these issues, but I feel like I have to make it public. There are things that are going on in Catholic schools in Ontario, and parents are having their rights taken away. There has a petition about it. Also Christian prayers and symbols have been taken away from public institiutions, but "The Hajib is encouraged in the Toronto Police Force/muslim prayers are allowed in public schools. Is it God’s will to accept this?
 
LoyalChristian said:
I know I comment much about these issues, but I feel like I have to make it public. There are things that are going on in Catholic schools in Ontario, and parents are having their rights taken away. There has a petition about it. Also Christian prayers and symbols have been taken away from public institiutions, but "The Hajib is encouraged in the Toronto Police Force/muslim prayers are allowed in public schools. Is it God’s will to accept this?
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Is the whole school forced to do Muslim prayers?
 
If you want to Google Credit Valley School in Toronto. This was also discussed in the election campaign by the Freedom Party.
 
LoyalChristian said:
If you want to Google Credit Valley School in Toronto. This was also discussed in the election campaign by the Freedom Party.
Click to expand...
I have read the article here. huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/toronto-muslim-school-prayers_n_896434.html

Perhaps there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here.

I don’t live in America, but i have always understood the ban of religion in schools as being applied to the idea that it is the schools duty to have all children (regardless of belief) partake in Christian prayer during assembly or a lesson. The ban refers to using public schools as a place to spread the gospel. I have always understood it as being the issue of one belief using a school to directly teach, dictate, and spread Christianity or religion in general to all children despite their beliefs or the desires of the parents. Public schools are not christian schools, hence there is no reason why christian prayer ought to be imposed on the students or included as a part of school teaching. In the case of the Muslim prayer, there is a slight difference. It is not something that includes all children, only the children of that faith. The imam has not come to indoctrinate your children, they have come to partake in prayer with the Muslim children. Unless the prayer time itself is imposed upon children of other faiths or divisions in belief or upon parents who do not want their child to partake in Muslim prayer, i really don’t see any grounds for being upset about the fact that Muslims are using school facilities for prayer. Its not something that is being included as compulsory for all students. The acceptance of Muslim prayer taking place in the cafeteria seems to be allowed in the sense of being the lesser of two problems, because the Muslim child has to pray at specific times set by their religion, unlike Christians. The teachers want the children in school, and so the school has chosen to accommodate them, and that is reasonable. What ever unfairness may be occurring, Christians should be very careful that this issue doesn’t turn in to a veiled excuse to rouse up hatred against Muslims. Veiled racism and irrational fear of Muslims is not what it means to be a Christian and God will not tolerate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top