Religious Persecution Begins in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoltan_Cobalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
“The word marriage has, and will always have, an objectively true meaning—no matter how many times it has been degraded by sinful societies (usually by its legal institutions but more lately by its mass media) and by many recalcitrant individuals (including some religious leaders).
Justice Kennedy’s atrocious prose in Obergefell can no more deprive marriage of its meaning than, say, Barney’s insipid theme song (“I love you, you love me, we’re a happy family”) can deprive family of its meaning. Instead, Kennedy the Judge and Barney the Dinosaur teach something seriously false about marriage and family. But while Barney’s lyrics simply make one queasy, Kennedy’s words are now the pretext to throw people who do not accept his lie into jail.”

–Dr. Ed Peters

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/save-in-one-respect-renos-essay-on-kim-davis-is-excellent/
Click to expand...
In the linked article in First Things, the author writes, “The way forward is clear: She must obey her conscience. She must act, as she puts it, “under God’s authority.” That’s exactly right.”

So if the Rowan County clerk happened to be a Muslim, would conservative Christians be cheering them on for obeying their conscious if they started trying to issue more than one marriage license to people who practiced polygamy since this is accepted in Islam and would in their opinion be “under God’s law”? Would the author of the First Things article have written “That’s exactly right” about such a thing? Would all these conservative Christians say that such a person should not have to resign their post for obeying their conscience?
 
Thorolfr said:
In the linked article in First Things, the author writes, “The way forward is clear: She must obey her conscience. She must act, as she puts it, “under God’s authority.” That’s exactly right.”

So if the Rowan County clerk happened to be a Muslim, would conservative Christians be cheering them on for obeying their conscious if they started trying to issue more than one marriage license to people who practiced polygamy since this is accepted in Islam and would in their opinion be “under God’s law”? Would the author of the First Things article have written “That’s exactly right” about such a thing? Would all these conservative Christians say that such a person should not have to resign their post for obeying their conscience?
Click to expand...
Even those who practice polygamy recognize marriage as between man and woman. Several wives, but not same sex marriages. That’s because marriage is at root based on the fact of man and woman as sexually complementary beings. Anatomy and anthropology precedes religion.

In any case, the Court, having undermined all of Western Civilization when it comes to marriage, will be required by its own logic to authorize polygamy soon enough.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
It’s interesting how most liberals and homosexuals preach “Live and let live and anything goes”… until someone is living a life that contradicts theirs.

Liberals and homosexuals are the real hypocrites.
Click to expand...
And, from what I can see, religion is not “infringing” on any secular rights. I would say, for the most part, it appears the secular world is now infringing on religious rights. I suppose this lady will be the most hated person of the year:rolleyes: All over something so stupid, that should never have become a law to begin with. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and, sacramentally, that cannot change. God would be the only authority on that, and I don’t really think He’s going to ever change His mind. We have clowns in charge of things now. There is no dignity left in the world. It’s like handing over America to a group of children to decide which laws are made.
And, talk about letting “men in dresses” tell you what to do. They call the Pope, disrespectfully of course, “A man in a dress.” So are those Judges.:rolleyes: And apparently, they are now telling us what to do, and everyone is just tickled pink over that. But as for the Pope? Hardly…
 
Crown_of_Stars said:
Marriage is between a man and a woman, and, sacramentally, that cannot change. God would be the only authority on that, and I don’t really think He’s going to ever change His mind.
Click to expand...
Many Christians, including Lutherans, do not consider marriage to be a sacrament. Lutherans, for example, have only two sacraments, baptism and communion.
 
JimG said:
Even those who practice polygamy recognize marriage as between man and woman. Several wives, but not same sex marriages. That’s because marriage is at root based on the fact of man and woman as sexually complementary beings. Anatomy and anthropology precedes religion.

In any case, the Court, having undermined all of Western Civilization when it comes to marriage, will be required by its own logic to authorize polygamy soon enough.
Click to expand...
Sounds like that will make you exceedingly happy. Unfortunately, there is presently no logical or legal basis for polygamy to be a recognized marriage. There were about 60 positive court decisions for SSM in the two years prior to the historical Supreme Court decision. How many have there been for polygamy? Just one which decriminalized polygamous cohabitation and allows them live in adultery. However, it is still illegal to obtain multiple active marriage licenses. But don’t fret the prediction is that 'Muslim will outnumber Christians by 2050, so who knows what will happen in the future.
 
Mike_Dye said:
Actually you are incorrect. Kim Davis is doing just what her job demands. The Constitution of her State states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. By not issuing a permit for same sex couples she is simply enforcing the laws of her State. Just because some idiot in a robe erringly thinks that it his job to legislate doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...
liberals
 
teeboy said:
This is true. We are taught that civil disobedience is legitimate in situations such as this.
Click to expand...
We’ve had same-sex marriage in the US for 11 years now, ever since it became legal in Massachusetts in 2004, and in another 10 years, it will be routine. As several Catholic authors have pointed out, before long the Catholic Church will probably treat same-sex marriage like they’ve been treating divorce.

At U.S. Catholic:
I’m no theologian, but the comparison of same-sex marriage with the issue of divorce and remarriage seems theologically apt. Catholic teaching states that any sexual relationship outside of the sacrament of marriage is wrong. Hence, those in same-sex relationships and those remarried without annulment are in pretty much the same position from the perspective of the church. The parallel in the context of public policy is also apt, since American law recognizes the legality of divorce and remarriage and the church does not.
Click to expand...
The comparison of same-sex marriage with divorce is also very telling from the perspective of the church’s own practices. Over time Catholics have gradually found prudential ways to deal with the public legality of divorce in America. Divorced and remarried individuals, both Catholics and non-Catholics, are widely present in many of our faith-based organizations and institutions—as teachers, doctors, social workers, and administrators and on parish councils, school boards, boards of trustees, and so forth. Catholic adoption agencies have placed children into the homes of divorced and remarried couples. Within our institutions, divorced and remarried Catholics, far from being treated like pariahs, are today treated with the same respect and dignity that our faith demands from us for all people.
Click to expand...
uscatholic.org/blog/201507/catholics-and-same-sex-marriage-different-comparison-30228

At National Catholic Reporter:
The legal status of gay marriage is similar to that of remarriage after divorce. Divorce and remarriage is legal in every state of the union, but if a church is against remarriage after divorce, its ministers are not required to perform such weddings, and its preachers can continue to denounce divorce from the pulpit. If a minister gets divorced, his church can fire him or her.
Click to expand...
The divorce analogy is apt. The bishops would do well to look at the record of their predecessors who opposed legalizing divorce but lost. These bishops eventually accepted divorce as the law of the land while not permitting remarriage without an annulment in their churches.
Click to expand...
Today, Catholic institutions rarely fire people when they get divorced and remarried. Divorced and remarried people are employed by church institutions, and their spouses get spousal benefits. No one is scandalized by this. No one thinks that giving spousal benefits to a remarried couple is a church endorsement of their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
If bishops in the past could eventually accept civil divorce as the law of the land, why can’t the current flock of bishops do the same for gay marriage? Granted all the publicity around the church’s opposition to gay marriage, no one would think they were endorsing it.
Click to expand...
It is time for the bishops to admit defeat and move on. Gay marriage is here to stay, and it is not the end of civilization as we know it.
Click to expand...
ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/how-bishops-should-respond-same-sex-marriage-decision
 
Thorolfr said:
Kim Davis is hardly practicing “live and let live” when she denies marriage licenses to people in Rowan County who want to get married. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m sure Kim gladly issues marriage licenses to couples who want to be married.

But…come on, Thoro…you know deep down in your heart that two men (or two women) cannot really “marry” each other.

Kim is prevented from doing such a thing because of her Christian beliefs. You don’t expect her to VIOLATE her religion do you?

I am sure that the gay men and women who want to call their same-sex relationship a “marriage” could be tolerant and understanding of her convictions and drive 10 minutes to the next county where the clerk would be happy to issue them a license.
 
Thorolfr said:
We’ve had same-sex marriage in the US for 11 years now, ever since it became legal in Massachusetts in 2004, and in another 10 years, it will be routine. As several Catholic authors have pointed out, before long the Catholic Church will probably treat same-sex marriage like they’ve been treating divorce.

At U.S. Catholic:

uscatholic.org/blog/201507/catholics-and-same-sex-marriage-different-comparison-30228

At National Catholic Reporter:

ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/how-bishops-should-respond-same-sex-marriage-decision
Click to expand...
We haven’t had it in all 50 states.

I doubt same sex marriage will enter the Catholic Church. However, I do recall something similar to this occurring in the Episcopalian Church.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
I am sure that the gay men and women who want to call their same-sex relationship a “marriage” could be tolerant and understanding of her convictions and drive 10 minutes to the next county where the clerk would be happy to issue them a license.
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument, if a county clerk was also against interracial marriage based on their religious beliefs and convictions (I’m sure that some Evangelicals still are), would you also say that interracial couples should respect that clerk’s convictions and go to the next county?
 
Thorolfr said:
At National Catholic Reporter:
Quote:
I’m no theologian, but the comparison of same-sex marriage with the issue of divorce and remarriage seems theologically apt. Catholic teaching states that any sexual relationship outside of the sacrament of marriage is wrong. Hence, those in same-sex relationships and those remarried without annulment are in pretty much the same position from the perspective of the church. The parallel in the context of public policy is also apt, since American law recognizes the legality of divorce and remarriage and the church does not.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thorolfr said:
For the sake of argument, if a county clerk was also against interracial marriage based on their religious beliefs and convictions (I’m sure that some Evangelicals still are), would you also say that interracial couples should respect that clerk’s convictions and go to the next county?
Click to expand...
Gay marriage is against the natural law. It is contrary to nature and to what right-minded people know as right.

Not allowing certain classes from voting based on skin color is also agasint the natural law.

Marriage amongst races is not contrary to the natural law.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
I would remind the writers that the divorced and remarried employees of Catholic institutions have had their former marriages annulled.
Click to expand...
The first article specifically says, “Divorced and remarried individuals, both Catholics and non-Catholics, are widely present in many of our faith-based organizations and institutions.”

So exactly how did these divorced and remarried non-Catholics who work for Catholic organizations get their marriages annulled? Does the Catholic Church do that for non-Catholics, too?
 
Thorolfr said:
For the sake of argument, if a county clerk was also against interracial marriage based on their religious beliefs and convictions (I’m sure that some Evangelicals still are), would you also say that interracial couples should respect that clerk’s convictions and go to the next county?
Click to expand...
That would depend if the interracial couple were same sex or opposite sex…
 
teeboy said:
Gay marriage is against the natural law. It is contrary to nature and to what right-minded people know as right.

Not allowing certain classes from voting based on skin color is also agasint the natural law.

Marriage amongst races is not contrary to the natural law.
Click to expand...
You’re not answering the question. The question is whether an interracial heterosexual couple should go to another county** if their marriage is against the religious beliefs of the county clerk**? The county clerk might not be a Catholic who believes in natural law, so bringing natural law into this is irrelevant. The only important thing according to many of you is respecting the religious beliefs of the county clerk.
 
Thorolfr said:
The first article specifically says, “Divorced and remarried individuals, both Catholics and non-Catholics, are widely present in many of our faith-based organizations and institutions.”

So exactly how did these divorced and remarried non-Catholics who work for Catholic organizations get their marriages annulled? Does the Catholic Church do that for non-Catholics, too?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has no say in the marital status of non-Catholics. Although it can legally fire a non-Catholic for not complying with morality standards. ( Abortion, living together, same sex marriage. etc.)

The Church does not annul previous civil marriages between non-Catholics unless one or both wish to join the Church.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
The Catholic Church has no say in the marital status of non-Catholics. Although it can legally fire a non-Catholic for not complying with morality standards. ( Abortion, living together, same sex marriage. etc.)

The Church does not annul previous civil marriages between non-Catholics unless one or both wish to join the Church.
Click to expand...
So should the Catholic Church fire any divorced and remarried non-Catholics who work for its organizations? After all, by Catholic standards they are living in an adulterous relationship unless they are refraining from having sexual relations with each other.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
The Catholic Church has no say in the marital status of non-Catholics. Although it can legally fire a non-Catholic for not complying with morality standards. ( Abortion, living together, same sex marriage. etc.)

The Church does not annul previous civil marriages between non-Catholics unless one or both wish to join the Church.
Click to expand...
It can legitimately fire if it has a contract allowing it to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top