Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

Hatred and Bigotry?

May 20th, 2012, Promulgated by Ben Anderson

I noticed this sign while riding the bus to work the other day. It’s in front of the First Universalist Church in downtown Rochester. If you can’t make it out, it says “Hatred and Bigotry Wrapped in Religion are still Hatred and Bigotry”

There’s little doubt as to the issue to which this sign refers. Is anyone else getting tired of being called names? And it pretty much sums up the gay marriage debate, does it not? The side that claims to be for the justice and fairness refuses to acknowledge that there exists a legitimate argument for traditional marriage. Instead they choose to paint the other side as so morally depraved leading to the assumption that there is no debate. I’ve linked to a paper multiple times on this blog and I’ll continue linking it because it is so important for all Catholics to know this argument well. The question is:

“What is marriage?”

Read it a few times and you’ll be able to argue quite well against those who claim you are a hater and a bigot… at least you’ll be able to show them their own hypocrisy.

So how do they get away with it? Why is there not a well-spoken defender of marriage with a microphone or a column in the D&C? I believe one of the biggest reasons that the left can get away with such nonsense is because the leader of the largest religious organization in the area agrees with them… or at least is so weak on the issue that he rolls over and surrenders. Remember when the NYS congress shoved SSM legislation down our throats? Bishop Clark’s response was so mum as to be hardly convincing that he cared, or if he did care it was in support of the legislation. Recently, I was pointed to a quote you can find on www.thereoughttobealaw.net:

March 8, 1997 – [Bishop Clark] was the key speaker at New Ways Gay Conference in Pittsburgh. On the topic of same-sex marriage, Clark stated: “My best fallible, pastoral judgment at this time is that most places we’re not there yet, but I hope one day we will be.”.

I know nothing about that site or the accuracy of that quote, so take it for what you will. I also heard it suggested that the above quote is in Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda. Perhaps someone with that book can confirm or deny this?

Hopefully soon a new bishop will take up this fight and speak the truth… and loud enough and convincing enough that the broader audience cannot pretend to ignore the actual debate at hand.  For those that think this issue is over – it is not.  It has only just begun.  For a chilling view of what it might mean if marriage revisionists are able to make the gay marriage debate an issue of civil rights, read RR Reno’s The Selma Analogy

We have a large body of civil-rights law as well as countless legal clinics and nonprofits staffed by lawyers trained to apply and extend its influence. We also have a large bureaucratic apparatus to monitor many aspects of society and to intervene if discrimination is detected. Federal, state, and local agencies have civil-rights divisions and commissions. Nearly all large corporations, universities, and nonprofits have affirmative-action officers and diversity consultants.

That’s why the widespread use of what we can call the Selma analogy does not constitute an idle threat. As the imposition of homosexual rights on a recalcitrant society becomes “the great civil-rights issue of our times,” this large and powerful apparatus will swing into action against those it considers the equivalent of racists, as it already is doing. The courts have used reasoning from historic civil-rights decisions to redefine marriage. They are likely to use the same reasoning to empower Equal Opportunity Employment Commission lawyers and others to add sexual orientation to their lists.

Moreover, as was the case with racial discrimination, informal social sanctions play a crucial role. The liberal consensus now sharply censures those who fail fully to affirm the moral rightness of homosexual acts, making opposition to innovations such as same-sex marriage akin to racism, and thus career-ending.

|
Share this article

11 Responses to “Hatred and Bigotry?”

  1. avatar Mary-Kathleen says:

    I can confirm the March 8, 1997 quote of +Clark at the New Ways Ministry conference: It’s on page 66 of my hardcover copy of AMCHURCH COMES OUT. Chapter Four is titled “Bishop Matthew Clark & Gay Activism”.

    At that conference he also “blamed the Holy See for not accepting demands for a change in the Church’s moral teaching on homosexuality, and urged more agitation from the ‘holy people’ in front of him”.

  2. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    That’s why he suppressed the Catholic Physician’s guild when they promoted Church teaching on the issue.

  3. avatar Hopefull says:

    SIN WRAPPED IN SMILES IS STILL SIN.

  4. avatar Abaccio says:

    atheism and horse-hockey wrapped in religion are still atheism and horse-hockey.

  5. avatar Raymond F. Rice says:

    “urged more agitation from the ‘holy people’ in front of him”.

    If he believes in it, why can’t the agitation come from him??

  6. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    If he believes in it, why can’t the agitation come from him?

    Because he walks the line… he’s a type-2 Catholic.
    http://cleansingfiredor.com/2011/07/3-kinds-of-catholics/

    The problem with type-2 Catholics being in the episcopate is that their job is to defend the Catholic faith, but in reality they are doing exactly the opposite… Satan’s work as Mike has said. It’s kind of like if the CEO of Coke decided to run advertisements for Pepsi. CS Lewis says it better here:
    http://cleansingfiredor.com/2011/11/you-must-change-your-profession-cs-lewis/

  7. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    People who can “dish it out but can’t take it” wrapped in Type I Catholicism are still people who can “dish it out but can’t take it.”

  8. avatar Scott W. says:

    People who can “dish it out but can’t take it” wrapped in Type I Catholicism are still people who can “dish it out but can’t take it.”

    I’m not sure what you mean, but speaking personally, I expect to be called names and I do my level best not to take it personally, but that doesn’t mean I am going to docilely nod if it is an untrue accusation. I’m going to look at the name-caller’s actual evidence, weigh it in the balance, and if it comes up wanting, I’m going to say so and challenge the name-caller to produce a better argument. Usually at this point they either double-down on the stupidity, or flee for the hills. I’ve been on this blog for a long time, and while the folks here sometimes react badly (we are human after all), on the whole they do pretty much the same.

  9. avatar SALLYANNE says:

    Is anyone else getting tired of being called names?

    Is Ben’s name on that sign?

  10. avatar Scott W. says:

    Is anyone else getting tired of being called names?

    It comes with the territory. It can get frustrating at times, but if one can cut through that to the substance, real progress can be made.

    Is Ben’s name on that sign?

    No. There is not a shred of evidence that Ben or any of the regulars here are haters or bigots.

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-