1) Last night began the US Bishops' Fortnight for Freedom, as Catholics nationwide fight against Obama's HHS mandate:
The fourteen days from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome. Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action will emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country have scheduled special events that support a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.Find out what your diocese or parish is doing and GO!
{From Sharon, in the comments: "Hot tip for anyone who is having trouble finding Fortnight for Freedom activities in your area: Text the word FREEDOM in all caps to 377377. You will get a response asking for your e-mail address and zip code and they will send you information on local activities that you can participate in."}
Last night, I attended my neighborhood parish's Fortnight for Freedom Holy Hour, and it was awesome. The crowd was so large that the priest had to move us from the chapel to the main church! They are having a Holy Hour every single night (with rosary, special prayers and a litany for liberty) until July 4. There might be something similar going on near you.
2) As we have just celebrated the Feast of the martyrs St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher, consider watching the Academy Award winning movie about St. Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons. One of the best movies of all time, very deserving of its Best Picture Oscar.
I wonder what Roger Ebert thought of that movie, considering that he finds dying for one's faith unseemly -- and worthy of a bad movie review? (See #3 on my previous Quick Takes if you are confused by my Ebert reference.)
3) This is an amazing and bizarre story -- and utterly heartwarming! Pro-lifers and adoption advocates will find it especially moving:
4) Read at your own risk:
Yeah, well, get in line behind the pedophiles.
5) The wonderful C.S. Lewis:
6) I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed reading all of your comments on the last Just Curious post! Thank you for sharing your own wonderful blog links; considering what they've said about social media, Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict would be proud of you! Also, I was so grateful for all of your kind words of support! Sometimes when I am in the thick of a long and difficult comment thread, I wonder if I am making sense, or if anyone is being edified. I now know that lot of you are out there finding it worthwhile, and I am thrilled to know it! Again, thank you!
I hope those of you who doubt your eloquence would throw out a comment once in a while anyway. You might be surprised at how well-spoken you really are, and ultimately we all need the practice defending our Faith as our nation becomes increasingly hostile to Catholics.
I am going to take off the option for anonymous commenting now, so if you want to keep commenting but don't know how to make a profile, get a tech savvy friend to do it for you. It will only take a minute or two, and then you can join in the fun.
7) Ah, yes, orphan time. I fancy myself a pretty strong woman, a tough cookie. And I think I am in a lot of ways. But there are some things that get me right in the gut. Five-year-old Andrew is my Achilles' Heel. I have advocated for him on my Orphan Report blog, and talked him up far and wide. I cannot rest until this boy has a family and is taken out of the horrible orphanage where he is not cared for or fed sufficiently, and where he is literally caged up all day… all for the crime of being blind! There are other pictures of Andrew still wearing the same jumper that he wore at age two. Not acceptable.
Below is a video of Andrew that will give you a glimpse of what he does all day, every day. A little boy who should be home, in a warm bed after a hot meal, with a loving mama to kiss and hug him. A little boy who should be running outside with the sun on his face and the wind in his hair. But instead, this is what little Andrew does all day long, day after day, year after year (please, you all watch it, because I physically can't):
Please, if there is anyone out there who wants to adopt Andrew, you will have a whole slew of people who love him and who are already fundraising for him. We will do everything in our power to help chip away at the costs! If anyone has advice on how to spread the word to new people (we have already had his info placed on some blind advocacy forums), let me know. Email me. I'm not kidding when I say that finding Andrew a family has become one of my most pressing thoughts. He needs to get the hell out of that crib.
Oh, and if you prefer some good news and a happy story with great surprises and beautiful pictures, then go here to my current Orphan Report.
:) :)
Thanks to Jen for hosting Quick Takes!
I loved Dom Moceanu when I was a kid!!! She was my favorite gymnast. That story is amazing and it made me so happy.
ReplyDeleteThen I had to go to the story right under it, and I almost vomited on myself. Seriously??? What the (bleep) is going on?!?!?!?!? This is the kind of crap that I read and go "it's not real...it can't be real." Seriously??? I'm starting to become an advocate for castration for these weird sexual deviants. Pedophilia, bestiality...it's all the same. They've lost their mind. :(
Once I got over the absolute nausea, I wondered exactly how an animal expresses consent: "Zoophiles would have asked her to draft the bill to differentiate between those who rape animals and those who consider sex with them consensual."
ReplyDeleteI found a few other things very telling, particularly that the gay rights community wants nothing to do with this group. I don't think same sex attraction and "attraction" to animals is the same, but I do think that a society that embraces an anything-goes attitude toward sex and marriage is not far from social acceptance of bestiality. The fact that we would even need laws against it is quite telling. I think I've heard this statement before to try to justify gay marriage: "God is more concerned with how we treat others than what sex we have."
Interesting how many people can speak for God. Now I have to try to sleep without this grotesqueness in my brain.
LT, but how will we argue against it if "sexual orientation" is a protected legal class? Why do people think that the protection will/should end with homosexual orientation? I don't see the logic, and I've asked. If one is born with an "orientation", shouldn't they have the right to practice it and be proud of it? What gives? I'm seriously asking. Anyone? (And if someone brings up "consent", I will say that we can legally kill animals and make them servants, without "consent"… so why would we need to get consent for sex acts? This one guy in the article insists that the animals are the ones who make the first move!)
ReplyDeleteColleen, great points. You know, if I were a zoophile, I honestly would feel that my status were quite unfair. No joke. Why do some get to follow their "orientations" and even be lauded for it, but other groups with different "orientations" can't? As soon as the procreative aspect of sex is ignored as irrelevant, then anything sexually pleasurable should be allowed for its own sake, no?
ReplyDeleteUm, by the way…. Remember Peter Singer, the renowned and lauded (by liberals) bioethicist who hold a chair at Princeton? He is a proponent of infanticide, and Wiki has this regarding his views on bestiality:
ReplyDeleteIn a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals…"
And he is, I emphasize, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
He is much revered and much honored by many on the secular left. 'Nuff said?
The problem originates in the decision to no longer label non-heterosexual attraction as disordered. Everything goes as long as it makes someone happy. That guy who think animals make the first move is sick in the head...he needs psychiatric help. Gays don't want anything to do with these people bc even they see that intercourse with an animal is unnatural. Their argument is based in two consenting HUMAN adults being free to do what they want. The won't touch animal relationships with a ten foot pole. Engaging with an animal is akin to abuse, rape, and any other form of cruelty. I'm not even sure how those people think its a civil rights issue. im flabbergasted. But I'm curious to know: do those people convicted have to register as sex offenders?
ReplyDeleteSinger is crazy but at least he his consistent in his views on immorality. He basically thinks anything goes.
ReplyDeleteLT, how does one counter the secular/atheist left's view that humans are the same as other animals? Because if that's true, then sex with animals should not pose any problem in their minds. Yes, I think Singer is very logical. He is consistent.
ReplyDeleteThe Church is consistent and logical -- and so are people like Singer, who stands for the other side. It's the people in the middle that don't have a leg to stand on when trying to argue their acceptance of one "orientation" and their rejection of another.
The proponents of pedophilia and bestiality use the same arguments that the gay rights activists use. Are the former two groups yuckier and more extreme? Yes. But the arguments for acceptance of their disordered orientation are the same. And both pedophiles and zoophiles are making headway. As is to be expected!
Ugh, the fact that this issue is even debate worthy in society right now is making me perturbed. But I know exactly the point you are making. I'm just not looking forward to the day when I have to protect my children from molesters and my dog from rapists, who will all say it was consensual. Blah :/
ReplyDeleteAs awful as the subject is, I hope someone joins in and tries to defend the limiting of sexual orientation protections to adult heterosexual and homosexual humans only. I want to see what they consider the logic behind denying some people the "love" they desire. This ties in with the Fortnight for Freedom because the blatant attempt to deny freedom of conscience is one more major example of the direction our country is headed. The brakes have to go on now before it's too late, and it is very, very close to being too late already. "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is far distant history, but I often feel that we are in the sad position of being living witnesses of the decline and fall of our own great country. The second verse of My Country 'Tis of Thee is as essential to our nation as the first verse is. I don't believe we can forget that and still survive.
ReplyDeleteHot tip for anyone who is having trouble finding Fortnight for Freedom activities in your area: Text the word FREEDOM in all caps to 377377. You will get a response asking for your e-mail address and zip code and they will send you information on local activities that you can participate in. More use of modern technology that JPII and BXVI would approve of!
As far as Andrew, I have a little suggestion. Can you get access to home school groups somehow and send the message about Andrew? Having belonged to a large one in our area, I know there is great openness to life and a real sadness when God gives only a few children to parents who were prepared to welcome many. Even some of the mid-forties parents are still open to more children, and I think you may find some who would open their hearts and homes to children like Andrew, especially if the financial barrier could be very much reduced. I'll post about him on FB. Maybe Home School Legal Defense or another home school group with a magazine would do a story on a family that has adopted a child like Andrew. Maybe that would help!
Sharon, I totally agree with you, and wow about the texting to find out about the FFF events!!
ReplyDeleteI love the idea about sharing Andrew with homeschooling groups!! I wonder if everyone who is part of one (and who is reading this) would consider emailing or posting my Orphan Report about Andrew:
http://orphanreport.blogspot.com/2012/04/meet-andrew-four-year-old-prisoner.html
Thank you!!
And LT, you won't have to worry about them coming after your dog, as I'm sure they will have their own… Did you know there are bestiality farms and have been for a while? I know, I'm sorry… I hate to have to post this crap:
http://www.examiner.com/article/bestiality-farm-raided-washington-state-douglas-spink-arrested
Andrew breaks my heart...
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of emailing your post on to homeschooling groups too. I will forward this to Jerry and Susan (who should be home with Alex by now!)I know that they are on fire to help the orphans (especially older orphans) and I'm sure they will do what they can to help give him some exposure. My sister-in-law is also part of a homeschooling group too.
Becky, that is wonderful! I appreciate it! And, I have LOVED watching their story with Alex unfold! :)
ReplyDeleteI've just added "A Man for All Seasons" to my list of movies I need to see!
ReplyDeleteI love how technology has such potential to enhance our faith. I signed up for that texting thing too. :D So cool!
Christina
Here's something I'm thinking about, though I'm really concerned I won't word it well and it will come out all awful. But I am going to try anyway:
ReplyDeletePedophiles, or those who are attracted to adolescents, try to justify their behavior by saying that the minor came on to them first. In many cases, it's absolute crap, but in some cases - the minor actually does try and initiate sexual contact. But that's what statutory rape laws are all about - even if a minor can experience sexual desire (and they do...I remember being a teenager) they still do not have the mental capacity to consent to sex. It is the adult who is responsible for preventing the contact because the adult should understand what the child does not.
Animals do the same thing - but they don't use words. I had a dog growing up and she would try to hump table legs, other animals, and humans, at times. She definitely had sexual impulses - duh, she was a creature designed to reproduce sexually. But even if she did "come on to you" - how on earth would that imply that it would be OK for a human to go ahead and have sex with an animal? An animal is acting on pure instinct and while domesticated animals, especially housepets, can enjoy having a human relationship there is no way they could ever possibly understand what humans mean by a sexual relationship (though I would argue that those pushing for the legalization of sexual child and animal abuse don't really understand what sexual relationships mean, either.)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that often when arguing against these things I get the impression that people are saying that animals and children don't experience sexual interest or curiosity, which is just not true. If that's what our argument hinges on, it will fail. Adult/child sexual relationships and bestiality are wrong for a lot of reasons, including more than just the reasons that homosexuality or sex outside of marriage are wrong (though these are also present). There is an innate power disparity. One cannot consent to a sexual relationship in which one party will always be able to dominate and overpower the other. There is no sense of a precious gift in that - it's just taking.
silicasandra, yes, you are right, but remember that that is exactly the point that most liberals use to promote homosexual unions as normal, while saying that pedophilia and bestiality are wrong --ONLY because of the consent issue and the power imbalance.
ReplyDeleteBut here's where those liberals are going to run into trouble: Those "sexual-rights" folks who are further down the "progressive" road than they are are gaining headway. The push to lower the age of consent is growing (check the Netherlands, and International Planned Parenthood), as is the concept of children's sexual "rights". Also, the APA came this.close to officially stating that attraction to children is not a disorder (just as they did with homosexual attraction).
So, the sexual left can use the "consent" and "power" issue for a while, but eventually, the progressives in their own camp will have kicked the can down the road garnering more followers as they go. Just like the normalization of contraception (sex separated from its procreative aspect) led to the normalization of fornication, then to the normalization of homosexuality… and now these new "rights" coming up, by groups who don't understand why they are excluded from their "gift" and their "right", that they believe makes them who they are.
Does that make sense?
And, if you are unsure that pedophilia is well on its way to being normalized, consider these facts:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/09/normalizing-pedophilia-next-stop-on.html
By the way silicasandra, you worded it beautifully and I am glad you did! Please keep commenting! :)
ReplyDeleteAndrew is always on my mind. You find a family Leila and I will donate another iPad. I promise. Or the cash. We have just got to get him out of there. I think of my own son being stuck in a cage all day unalbe to see and being so scared. I look at Nelson and die inside thinking that this is someone's BABY left alone and in fear of everything.
ReplyDeleteBrenda, thank you!! You are so generous!! We can do this, I know it. If we find the family, we will get them there… And, the country he's in is cheaper than some of the others, and it's quicker. But his particular orphanage is not a good one. That's all I'm gonna say about that. He needs out.
ReplyDeleteLeila, I think we agree but are just emphasizing differently. I absolutely think it's problematic to focus only on the power imbalance issue for just the reasons you describe; I just don't think it should be ignored entirely or presented as if it doesn't exist (I don't think you are doing that, it's just something I've noticed when this kind of thing comes up.)
ReplyDeleteI suppose that really it is just an extension of the purpose of sexuality (usually described dually as unitive and procreative). Secular society has tried to ditch the procreative aspect of sex, which opens us up to same sex "marriage" and non-married sex, which of course isn't unitive at all if it isn't procreative but we pretend it is because it makes us feel all touchy-feely. And now it's come to be understood by some as "fine" even if those feelings are almost completely one-sided (as one side will only have a limited understanding at best.)
So, basically what you said - just turning it over in my mind out loud. :)
(This actually describes how I came back to Church teaching on sexuality very well - I realized that if I was going to allow one thing, I pretty much had to allow everything else no matter how distasteful or wrong they seemed to me. So for a while I was an "anything goes" type person, not in terms of my behavior but at least philosophically. Then when it got personal - i.e. I had a baby - I realized that it was actually me with the arrogance and presumption problem, not everybody else. Imagine that!)
silicasandra, I agree. :)
ReplyDeleteMy default mode, from speaking to those on the secular left, is to quickly dismiss the "consent" issue as the biggest reason why sex with kids is wrong. Of course consent in sex is part of what makes it moral (two spouses must consent to marry and be intimate), but they seem to say, "Look how obvious… children cannot consent!" And yet, if you push them, even they (usually) can see that consent is not the sole criterion of the good (think how many evil things can be done between two people simply because they "consent" to it… and this does not confine itself just to sexual issues). So, when the "consent" argument tumbles, as it will do as the age of consent gets lower, these liberals will not have an argument left anymore. I try to make them see that consent alone does not make a moral act. They have to think more deeply.
But from our Christian perspective, yes! Consent is an important part of a moral act, but it's not the reason that an act is intrinsically moral or intrinsically immoral.
Thanks for helping me think that out! I do speak differently if I am talking to a Christian who agrees with me, versus a secularist who wants to push "consent" as the only reason that sex with kids is wrong.
Oh, Dominque's Dad is a really class A-hole! He gave one of his daughters up for adoption because he didn't want a handi-capped child. Okay...I get it. The giving up for adoption thing was a plus. But I don't understand how a man can call himself a father and cold-heartedly give up a daughter without letting his wife hold her. As a mother, I would have walked out of the room with the baby and out of that monster's life.
ReplyDeleteI bet he was abusing the whole family. The blessing here is that Jen never had to meet that SOB.
Oh, and yeah bestiality. Gross!!!!!
I stood in a crowd one time for a group that was against gay marriage, and I left disgusted and nauseous. The reason being is that there was no compassion for people that have same sex attraction, and all they could offer at the time was a few Bible verses here and there. I have long said that a few Bible verses are a cold, cold comfort on a lonely night. The thing that frustrated me to no end is that it was a lot of people who would have affirmed contraception. Since they affirmed contraception but not homosexual relationships, they did not have a leg to stand on. On the other hand, had they recognized that sex should be both life giving and love giving, they would have been able to turn to science and other great resources.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm glad that most people are still opposed to zoophilia and pedophilia, they are without a leg to stand on when trying to explain why they should oppose this and not all the other problems (basically any kind of sex that is outside of a marriage between one man and one woman and that is open to life.)
All of this to say, yeah, Leila, totally agree!
Deltaflute, I agree!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd Catholic Mutt, this is exactly right:
Since they affirmed contraception but not homosexual relationships, they did not have a leg to stand on.
I really enjoy your quick takes. I love Dominique M. I love gymnastics!
ReplyDeleteA Man for All Seasons is so awesome. I wonder what's become of the Best Picture award? Man for All Seasons. Titanic. Hmmm. Anywho, if you came away from that movie thinking "Gee that Paul Scofield has a wonderfully lulling voice. I could listen to him read the NY phone book!" then get Focus on the Family Radio Theatre's presentation of The Chronicles of Narnia, narrated by Scofield. Listen to it in your car and I guarantee, you'll be late.
ReplyDeleteI would really stick to polygamy as a parallel to gay marriage and leave this pedophilia and bestiality thing alone.
ReplyDeleteConsent is required for sex
Consent is required for marriage
If a party does not have the capacity to consent they can’t enter into a contract or sexual arrangement, children and animals can do neither.
(And if someone brings up "consent", I will say that we can legally kill animals and make them servants, without "consent"… so why would we need to get consent for sex acts?
Animal abuse. Legally humans have a complicated relationship with animals. We can slaughter cows en mass but go to jail for making dogs fight. Rape would fall under the category of animal abuse.
~CS
Still what exactly is the objective of talking about bestiality? Do you want more legal roadblocks, or just increased stigma against bestiality or perhaps stigma against non-procreative sex generally?
ReplyDeleteBecause while most people think bestiality is gross I don’t think most people want to waste their tax monies on a special victims unit for cows. I once saw an episode of strange sex about a man who loves sex with balloons, while sorta weird, I don’t think there is a big move to illegalize or even really comment on his fetish. Society has the discernment to get involved when men have sex with babies and not when he copulates with a balloon, for reasons I would think would be obvious
~CS
I would really stick to polygamy as a parallel to gay marriage and leave this pedophilia and bestiality thing alone.
ReplyDeleteha ha, thanks CS, I am sure you do wish I would leave pedophilia and bestiality out of it, but even the pedophilia and bestiality proponents won't do that, so we have to deal with it. It's all a part of the discussion of ordered sexual acts vs. disordered sexual acts, and then progressive normalization of the latter.
Anyway, my blog, my choice.
You are all about choice, right? ;)
Animal abuse. Legally humans have a complicated relationship with animals. We can slaughter cows en mass but go to jail for making dogs fight. Rape would fall under the category of animal abuse.
Well, like you said, it's complicated. If we can use them for what we need on the farm, then why not use them for what we need sexually? It's actually more pleasurable for them, after all. The zoophiles treat them with love and tenderness. They love the animals, and do not wish to harm them. Again, consent is not necessary to use animals. Beating them, torture, yes. But what about heavy petting?
If a party does not have the capacity to consent they can’t enter into a contract or sexual arrangement, children and animals can do neither.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, well, there are plenty of people who say that they can. They are trying to lower the age of consent laws. When they succeed, what will you say then?
Also, you have said that consent is not the sole criterion of the good (if I remember correctly). I know you generally like to speak only in terms of legality and not morality, but I talk of morality on this blog pretty heavily. Do we agree that consent alone does not suddenly make an act moral? Meaning, once the law states that certain children or animals can consent, it wouldn't make the sex acts moral, right? There's a little something more to morality than that, right?
Still what exactly is the objective of talking about bestiality?
ReplyDeleteActually, CS, I didn't start talking about it, the bestiality people did. They want their special rights, too, just like other sexual orientations. They feel cheated. After all, they believe they were born that way and that it's a gift. They will likely keep talking about it, and gaining support, just like the pedophilia folks and the gay folks before them. Again, I am not equating the different disorders as being equal. They are not equal. Pedophilia is much more serious than homosexuality, for example, but every disordered sexual act is a mortal sin, and none should be protected as a "civil right" or a "protected class" -- unless you want the others to follow suit (which they will).
Also, not only is the bestiality crowd talking about it, but the secular media is, too (that's where I got my link). I can see why most of you on the sexual left really wish no one would talk about it. But, it's there and it's not going away now. It's only going to grow in popularity as different sexual disorders get more rights and approval. They want their day in the sun, their total acceptance and approval by society, too.
ReplyDeleteWhoa.. Dominique and her sister Jen's story is just wild!! It speaks to the power of adoption too... I mean, what a blessing that Jen was able to be raised by a family that truly loved her and valued her. It's just sad Dominique could not have experienced a similarly loving home.
ReplyDeleteLeila,
ReplyDeleteI don’t want the bestiality and pedophile movement tied with the gay rights movement because I think its non-sensical (and offensive) not because I am frightened people will see them as near equals.
I barely understand your objective in conflating the two
When you talk about how these folks want what the gay’s have are you talking about marriage?
Because I really don’t understand how anyone can argue that parties that don’t have the capacity to contract can enter into a marriage contract.
If you are asking what is keeping us from redefining who can contract, the same thing that is keeping us from changing most laws we have, nothing, or at least not more than the house and senate.
So it seems like a mute point. What is keeping us from changing laws? Only law making process.
~CS
“Well, like you said, it's complicated. If we can use them for what we need on the farm, then why not use them for what we need sexually?.... Again, consent is not necessary to use animals. Beating them, torture, yes. But what about heavy petting?”
ReplyDeleteCouple things. Animal use might not require consent but sex does and always has, so I guess we’d have to qualify where or not sex with an animal was fundamentally animal use or fundamentally sex. I
But again what do the bestiality people want from the rest of us. I do not have particularly strong feelings already developed about bestiality. Do most people? I think it’s weird but I don’t feel like need to bust down peoples doors and arrest them for it. If they keep it to themselves I imagine there is little fallout, so they are asking for what, public acceptance?
There is nothing seeking anyone from trying to get public acceptance for anything and nothing stopping the public from administering it or without holding it at all, so I am not offended if a group petitions for it, also not offended if they denied
Legal protection? Well if you think sex with an animal is fundamentally sex and that sex requires consent and any zoophile is a rapist and thus criminal I can’t see why anyone would expect legal protection to commit a crime.
~CS
I think the adoption story is amazing! Praise God for the birth parents loving their baby enough to chose life! Praise God for the adoptive parents loving their daughter enough to give her a amazing childhood!
ReplyDeleteI love stories like this!!
“But every disordered sexual act is a mortal sin, and none should be protected as a "civil right" or a "protected class" -- unless you want the others to follow suit (which they will).”
ReplyDeleteSo companies cannot fire women who are pregnant through mortal sin. Nor can they refuse to hire someone who is using contraception, which is a mortal sin.
I take it you dislike these laws? People committing mortal sexual sins like divorce, single motherhood, contraception, adultery should not be protected against discrimination right?
~CS
Yes, CS, they want acceptance from society. Whether they want "marriage" next is yet to be seen. The first step is always tolerance, then acceptance. Of course you don't want it tied to the gay rights movement. But you are way too young to have witnessed that this is the same path that the homosexual rights proponents took, starting a few decades ago.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "There is nothing seeking anyone from trying to get public acceptance for anything and nothing stopping the public from administering it or without holding it at all, so I am not offended if a group petitions for it, also not offended if they denied"
Yes, but are you offended if they get it?
Yes I will be, I guess..
ReplyDeletecall it naive but I am just unable to take this beastiality thing seriously. I am not even particularly repulsed by it because it is so out there. It strives me as more bizarre (like the balloon guy) than harmful
~CS
Well, absent a conscience and an innate sense of the natural law, I don't know why any secular person would care what anyone does sexually. It seems like it should be a free for all, and whatever is pleasurable should rule the day.
ReplyDeleteJust remember, no one used to take this homosexuality movement seriously, either. It used to be called "the 'love' that dare not speak its name". Now, we have just moved on to the next thing down the line. Progressive.
So companies cannot fire women who are pregnant through mortal sin. Nor can they refuse to hire someone who is using contraception, which is a mortal sin.
ReplyDeleteInteresting question with real life applications. If a Catholic school teacher is hired to educate and uphold the Christians values that the school espouses, should that school be allowed to fire the first grade teacher who is pregnant out of wedlock? Or what about the male teacher who is living with his girlfriend openly? Or the teacher (male or female) who volunteers at Planned Parenthood on the weeknights and weekends? Do you believe that citizens should have the freedom to hire and fire those who do not represent one's company or organization in the way in which the company wishes to be represented?
There is a woman teacher in a Catholic school who went through multiple IVF treatments. She was fired. I'm pretty sure she had signed a statement upon being hired that she would uphold the school's Catholic values. IVF is a mortal sin. Sad that we even have to deal with those types of situations, but I believe the school has a right to hire teachers who submit to Church teaching, and to let them go when they violate the school's mandate and principles.
I think some anti-discrimination laws are appropriate and others are not. I am not a lawyer, and so that's as far as I can intelligently discuss the law. It's not my area. :)
Eh I don’t know. Laws have to apply to everyone not just Catholics and practically speaking a system that allowed companies to discriminate based on a persons ‘sexual vices’ would just fail child-bearing-age women.
ReplyDeleteI work for a major corporation and have sat in on hiring meetings. It’s illegal to ask women anything about the number of children to have or intend to have. Frankly if it wasn’t illegal to discriminate against new mothers everyone would. From a business perspective they are the worst-they are more distracted, have more excuses and are less ambitious. Coping with maternity leave is just a complete pain in the butt for a company, especially a small one.
I don’t know how we would determine if a company had a genuine moral opposition to an issue or just didn’t want to deal with a certain predicament (like maternity leave because it was expensive.
Furthermore such legislation seems anti-prolife. I am sure there are a lot of environmental organizations that think a woman who has more than 2 children is living immorally and irresponsibly, Do you think it would be permissible for a company to have a one-child policy and fire anyone who was pregnant with a second child because their actions were antithetical to the employers belief system? I think it is a bad idea.
~CS
I think its actually the Constitution that has to "apply to everyone" and to which our laws must be subordinate. So, no one is to prohibit my free exercise of Catholicism, not even the government. In fact, the government in this nation was established to protect my freedom of religion… it's the first thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights for a reason. And, freedom of religion, by the way, is not confined to "freedom of worship". Never has been, never will be.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether or not your scenario is a "bad idea"… I think a lot of decisions of businesses are bad ideas. Lots. But the question is whether or not a religious entity has to do what the government says in these matters, or if religious freedom is paramount. So, is environmentalism a religion? What religion is it? And, even though I don't believe it's a religion, I do think that generally speaking, a private business has the right to decide for themselves who they hire and fire. Otherwise, we are not really free, are we? If the government dictates all aspects of how we run our businesses, and who we can hire, etc.? I find it problematic. There is a private sector and a public sector in life, no? Or is everything now under the thumb of the federal gov't?
Interesting questions, different philosophies.
PS: I would not want to work for an environmental organization. I would not expect them or want them to hire me, and I would not sue them (in a "set up", as some of these lawsuits against conservatives go) to force them to hire me. They can do what they want. I'm cool with that.
ReplyDeleteAt least Andrew doesn't have to suffer the horror of gay parents. In comparison, the crib doesn't look so bad, huh? (I'm not sure I'm ever going to be able to let this go...)
ReplyDeleteInundated with work at the moment, so I probably won't be back for a while. Hope your upcoming month off is good and productive!
Michelle, I never knew so many gay parents were clamoring to go and get him? And remember, it's the formerly-Soviet atheist nations who do not allow gay parents. Again, how do you account for that, since being against homosexual acts and homosexual "marriage" is (according to the left) merely a religious belief, like the Trinity or the Sacraments? Does not compute.
ReplyDeleteAnd I still can't let go that you could look at a murdered baby girl in her casket and still not be able to decide if she was a human being who deserved love, or if she was a piece of trash. You could not decide, because you didn't have enough information on why the adults in her life had killed her.
Thanks! I am so looking forward to taking this break! (Especially after the pictures I saw of the "gay pride" parade in NYC yesterday. Lord, have mercy. And people let children attend by the hundreds or even thousands, and yet the sexual left insists they don't believe in sexualizing children? Puh-leease.)