Monday, August 9, 2010

"Gay Marriage" Judge Bashed The Pope In His Ruling

William May, chairman of Catholics for the Common Good (not to be confused with the left-wing "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good") commented on a portion of Vaughn Walker's ruling that casts an ominous shadow over freedom of religion in this country.  The ruling's 77th "finding of fact" states that "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."  Quotes that "support this fact" include statements of Pope Benedict XVI.  Lifesite News carries more detail

Walker also quotes statements from other Christian denominations.  Interestingly enough, there are no citations of Muslim prohibitions against homosexual relations.  I wonder if he ever saw this video of Iraninan President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University (click here if you can't see embedded video).

So why are only traditional Christians targeted by Walker?  It is not Christians who are tacitly advocating executions of gays, as seems to be the case in Iran, but it is we who are vilified. As I said before, we are being treated as Niggers of the New Age.  We are the targets of the current acceptable bigotry.

Will we stand for it???


  1. Muslims did not write Proposition 8. The initiative proponents are Christians. The defense council (those seeking to keep Prop 8 on the books) did not call any Muslim witnesses, nor (to the best of my knowledge) did they present any Muslim texts as evidence. In fact, one of their two expert witnesses was Dennis Hollingsworth, a Christian California State Senator who was one of the initiative proponents for Proposition 8. Your inclusion of Ahmadinejad's speech is a non-sequitur.

    I must also comment on your use of an ethnic slur, arguably one of the worst words in the English language, to trumpet your delusions of persecution. While you may find some kindred spirits who will champion such inflammatory language in some corner of the Internet, most people that might be won over to your argument on its other merits (however dubious I may find them to be) will be quickly put off by sentences such as the ante-penultimate one of your post. While you are certainly free to do as you wish on your own blog (as free as I am to comment on it, should you see fit to approve this comment), I would suggest that a logical argument can be advanced by not using such a loaded word. Most sensible people find it offensive and would say it has no place in reasonable discourse, even as hyperbole.

  2. What is "offensive" is the way we're being treated in ever-increasing boldness. Let all these sensible folks start demanding that such treatment desist and the need for that all-too-accurate language will no longer exist.

    It's ugly language, but that is what is needed to describe an even uglier reality - a reality that becomes uglier as time passes. If my readers are shocked, then I hope it shocks them enough to stop tolerating such treatment.

  3. From the other end of the earth, I take the liberty of commenting on the post by Anonymous, not on the basis that we have thousands of miles between us, but on the basis that we appear to be living on different planets. Allow me to explain, briefly...

    He/She takes exception to just about everything in the blog article (based on political correctness, not on any academic, theological or other argument of weight) and manages to shoot plenty of criticism from the hip, without, however, stating his/her own position. Cute.

    As a Scot, with a proud legal system separate from our English brothers and sisters, I am appalled that Judge Walker would legislate in favour of "gay" marriage, making such a fundamental change in social mores, with few eyebrows raised, and despite the fact of his own self-evident personal interest, as a homosexual man himself. This is an affront, not only to our alleged democracies, but to our intelligence. Did he think nobody would put two and two together and come up with four?

    And, with respect, Anonymous, if you think the inclusion of the Iran video/speech is a non-sequitur then I suggest you read the article again. There is a clear link, since the writer notes that Walker, while citing non-Catholic sources makes no reference to the teaching of Islam on the subject of homosexuality. In that context, the video is both relevant and very useful indeed.

    May I also commend the administrator on an excellent blog. Assuming I'm not banned, I'll visit again!

  4. EditorCT, the inclusion of the Iran video is a non-sequitur. Walker makes no mention of Islam and it's views because Islam is not the target. Bringing Islam into this debate simply because "non-catholic sources" have been quoted is a terribly concealed attempt to distract from the main point of the article.

    Further to this, I assume you would have seen no problem if this argument was about a heterosexual Catholic judge that had legislated against gay marriage? Despite the obvious logical conundrum this would leave you in? (Given the content of your third paragraph).

    ...and (sorry to ramble) I also notice that you put academic and theological arguments next to each other as "arguments of weight". Please explain to me how arguments based on a dab of (mostly outdated) philosophy and texts written thousands of years ago in anyway compare to those based on modern academia?

    I sincerely hope this post doesn't promote dissent from the "Magisterium" you mention in the comment area, I am only contesting the immense logical flaws in my Scottish brother's argument.

  5. If Christian morality is to be savaged at every turn (homosexuality, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, you name it) then it stands to reason that any informed person will wonder why, when the teachings of Islam on these same issues is identical (if much more stringently enforced) than it is in Christianity, why is Islam never criticised for being “homophobic” etc? I think that’s a very fair (and very obvious) question – nothing “non-sequitur” about it.

    Judge Walker saw fit to criticise Pope Benedict, so why not the President of Iran? It’s a straight (if you’ll excuse the pun) question – can you explain the discrepancy between the criticism of the Pope and Catholic teachings, with the silence regarding the President of Iran (and other Islamic leaders) and Moslem teachings on the same subject? I’m listening...

    The bottom line is this: it is not up to any individual, whether Judge or not, to decide to change the elementary basis of society. Marriage is, by definition, between one man and one woman. Every attempt to change this, whether by the introduction of divorce and permission to remarry or contraception, has proved disastrous for society. For a legislator to take it upon himself to decide that the very basic, most fundamental tenet of marriage should be cast aside - that is, that marriage must be between a man and a woman, is nothing short of outrageous. I know you folks attend shrinks much of the time, so let’s hope Judge Walker’s shrink tells him to take a good, hard look at his ego. I mean, does he have the right to change the social mores of America?

    Sorry if my comment on qualitative arguments misled you. Not my intention. There ARE no arguments, whether old or new, that can possibly justify elevating what has been regarded in every civilised society on record, as a major vice, a serious disorder, a most unnatural activity, to the level of a “marriage.” I made my comment in the sure and certain knowledge that there ARE no “arguments of weight” to support homosexual activity. That’s why the homosexual lobbyists don’t argue; they demand, with ever strident voices, their imagined “rights.”
    But, for the record, there is a distinct difference between tried and tested arguments, philosophical and theological, posed by truly intellectual minds and the shallow thinking, or lack thereof, which passes for intellectualism these days. I speak as one with two degrees to my humble name.

    Societies down the centuries have always valued the wisdom of those who went before. The classics will be read and will be a treasure trove of information, wisdom gleaned from human experience, divine revelation and the thought of genius minds, long after the pseudo-intellectual pap that passes for “academia” in our times has been consigned to the dustbin.

    Supporting homosexuality is, of course, to dissent from the Magisterium, but this blog is for explaining and defending the teaching of the Church so I imagine your post has been released to that your errors can be corrected.

    Signed, Your Scottish Sister....

  6. Unfortunately I cannot remove that offensive language, but on the other hand, maybe there are some benefits. Anonymous of 10:02 this morning displays the moral and intellectual vacuity that is inherent in the left-wing mental paradigm.

    I have posted this sorry excuse of a commment so that all can see that the mind of one who opposes traditional Judeo/Christian morality will eventually become both irrational and irascible. Anonymous, I could not have asked for better proof!

  7. "Anonymous of 10:02 this morning displays the moral and intellectual vacuity that is inherent in the left-wing mental paradigm."

    Now THAT is an ad hominem attack made for a class in rhetoric. Rather than dismiss 10:02's comment as pointless profane name-calling, RDCC says that 10:02 is morally and intellectually vacuous because s/he is a left winger, which RDCC has no way of knowing. RDCC is attacking the speaker to advance an argument rather than attacking what was said, which is the definition of ad hominem (from the Latin meaning "to the man", but you probably knew that). On another post RDCC insisted that s/he doesn't make ad hominem attacks. This was too much of a textbook example of one to pass up.

    Incidentally, if I may address RDCC directly, if you cannot remove offensive language, why or how do you "reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy"? If that statement is true, the comment is on your blog because you want it to be. Did you approve it so you could engage in some name-calling of your own, albeit with a more florid vocabulary?

  8. Moderator
    Please remove the comment of August 11, 2010 10:02am as on reflection it violates common courtesy.
    Thank you.

  9. Editor,
    The description (August 11 10:02am) of EditorCT by your blogger Anonymous is quite out of order, and demeans the quality of this blog. Please exercise your Editorial right and remove it.

  10. Pursuant to these last two requests, I have removed the anonymous comment from 8/11, 10:02am. I did debate whether or not I should post it, but did want to exemplify the corrosive impact that divergence from traditional Christian morality will have on an individual's mental abilities. Go to any left-wing blog, such as the pharyngula blog from which many readers of this post hail, and you will see profanities peppered throughout the thing - mostly in reference to Christians. I apologize for any discomfort caused to good people here, but such are the forces with which we must contend.

    Thomas, to answer your last question, you touch upon a limitation of Blogger's, with which I'm most unhappy. I can publish a comment in its entirety, or reject it in its entirety, but I cannot alter the contents of the comment to weed out offensive language.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.