Liberty and Virtue

A person who experiences same sex attraction and who endeavors to live chastely in accordance with his religious beliefs keeps an eye out for examples of gay activists' (1) showing intolerance and hatred of traditional religious and moral beliefs and believers, (2) attempting to deny freedom of speech, assembly and religion to others, and (3) trying to cause the government to impose liberal views on sexual morality on society. Other stuff of interest to blogger may also occasionally be posted.

Gay activists do not speak for all those who experience same sex attraction!

Not all those with SSA reject traditional sexual morality!

Not all those with SSA support promiscuity!

Not all those with SSA believe the gay activist ideology of “gay pride”!

Not all those with SSA believe in making their sex drive their primary public identity!

Not all those with SSA support public indecency in “gay pride” parades!

Not all those with SSA support government promotion of homosexual activity!

Not all those with SSA support same sex marriage!

Not all those with SSA support biased teaching in public schools on homosexual matters!

Not all those with SSA demonize traditional religious believers!

Not all those with SSA wish to deny basic freedoms of speech, religion and association to those who disagree with the gay activists’ ideology and agenda!

Christian charity for persons does not require affirmation of sinful or immoral activity!

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Spain Rejects Pope's Criticism of Gov't

Spain's defense minister on Tuesday rejected Pope John Paul II's criticism of its Socialist government, which wants to legalize gay marriage and streamline laws on divorce and abortion, and he said some church positions go against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

``Faith is not something a government can impose. It is not something that it is up to the state, but rather to people,'' Defense Minister Jose Bono told Spanish radio, the news agency Efe reported.

He said some of the church's positions, such as its opposition to homosexuality and use of condoms, go against the message of Jesus Christ, according to the report.

Me: The irony and the arrogance of this government official telling the Church what to believe and not believe is astounding.

Charles S.

The Meaning of Religious Freedom [Trouble is Brewing in Illinois]

Last week, Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed into a law a bill that would force churches and synagogues to hire those openly practicing sins characterized by both Christian and Jewish scriptures as "abominations" – heinous transgressions in the sight of God

So, as I read this law, if a church or synagogue had a policy, based on its holiest, divinely inspired doctrines, to avoid hiring pastors who were adulterers, practitioners of group sex, homosexuals, bisexuals, "transgendered," cross-dressers, advocates of incest or child sex or even those partial to bestiality, that institution would be in violation of the law.


An Illinois law firm that analyzed the measure pointed out:

"While many such municipal prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage, the new amendment to Illinois' Human Rights Act does not."

This puts the Illinois law on a collision course with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards as an inalienable right the free exercise of religion.

Me: If the courts are doing their job, such a restriction on freedom of religion, particularly if it relates to volitional action, like promoting and practicing homosexual activity, and not just homosexual orientation, should be overturned.

Charles S.

Monday, January 24, 2005

Gays Want Children Taught "Queer Issues"

Gay activists in British Columbia are suing to force the government to teach the gay activist ideology in public schools, regardless of the moral or religious beliefs of children or their parents.

Charles S.

Alberta Premier, Anti-Catholic Groups Criticize Bishop Henry and Cardinal Ambrozic

Apparently in Canada, leaders of the State feel they have every right to tell religious leaders what to believe and say. So much for freedom of speech and religion:

The Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, told the Calgary Herald that he disagrees with Bishop Fred Henry's likening of homosexuality to pornography and prostitution and hopes the comments do not result in a "new wave of hatred towards gays."

Bishop Henry dismissed accusations of "hate," however, saying that everything he said came straight out of the Catholic catechism. He told the Western Catholic Reporter, (WCR), "There is nothing in what I have said that is hateful. I'm simply teaching the faith of the Catholic Church." He added, "That's just an attempt to demonize me and to silence me and all the threats in the world are not going to do that."

Two letters from brave, faith-defending, Canadian, Catholic prelates here and here.

Charles S.

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Group Aims to Stop Same - Sex Marriage Bill

According to the Associated Press:

As gay-rights activists head to Ottawa for the final stage in their long battle to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, Roman Catholic clergy are crossing the line that separates church and state to demand that legislators defeat the proposition.

They have pledged to bring the debate to their pulpits on Sunday and have called on Prime Minister Paul Martin to consider the moral consequences of allowing homosexual unions nationwide. Gays and lesbians can already marry in seven provinces and one territory, including Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec.

Me: The Associated Press is here displaying the utter contortion of logic pursued by the liberal media in its single-minded promotion of homosexual "marriage" at all costs. Catholic prelates are human beings with as much freedom of speech as anyone else. And freedom of speech is a human right, not a civil right, and cannot be taken away, even by the extreme left-wing gay activist thought-controlling Canadian government. A clergyman has a right to speak out on any and every subject, and indeed has a religious duty to speak out on moral issues that implicate teachings of the Church. This is in no way a breach of "separation of church and state." In fact, the efforts of the media, the left and the gay activists to deny freedom of speech to clergy on false grounds of "crossing the line of church and state" is reprehensible, totalitarian and anti-freedom, and is itself a breach of the separation of church and state. But this seems about par for the course for gay activists and their intolerant left-wing supporters in the governing establishments of North America and Europe.

Charles S.

Friday, January 21, 2005

'Philly 5' Win 1 in Court

A minor procedural victory in the "Philly 5" free speech case.

Charles S.

Religion and the Human Rights Movement

According to the apparently misnamed group "Human Rights Watch," the Signore Buttiglione affair is an instance where religion is in opposition to human rights:

Is there a schism between the human rights movement and religious communities? Essential disagreements appear increasingly to pit secular human rights activists against individuals and groups acting from religious motives. The list of contentious issues is growing: on issues such as reproductive rights, gay marriage, the fight against HIV/AIDS, and blasphemy laws, human rights activists and religious groups often find themselves on opposing sides. As illustrated by the Muslim headscarf debate in France and Turkey, controversies linked to religion also have confused many in the human rights movement and even led some activists to express strong reservations about certain public expressions of religious conscience.

Western Europe, the most secularized continent in the world, has been in the eye of the storm. The controversy that hit the European Union in October 2004 around the proposed appointment to the European Commission of Italian conservative Catholic Rocco Buttiglione illustrates some of the issues at stake. Unperturbed by the furor he was arousing, the candidate for Commissioner on Justice, Freedom, and Security—who in that function would have been in charge of fighting discrimination—affirmed in front of bewildered members of the European Parliament that “homosexuality is a sin” and that “the family exists to allow women to have children and be protected by their husbands.” Although he insisted that he would nonetheless uphold the equality of all citizens, he was invited to withdraw his candidacy by the Commission’s president-elect.

Me: I guess Rocco Buttiglione's human rights to freedom of speech and religion are none of Human Rights Watch's concern. These newfangled religious tests for public office that the left is more and more advocating, even in this country, are apparently perfectly acceptable to the so-called "human rights" community as they are all to the good of the left's favored "victim" classes. The Tablet has an article here.

Charles S.

Jeff Jacoby: An American Conservative in New England

Justin Katz interviews Jeff Jacoby, and the latter states the following (among other interesting things):

Same-sex marriage, like the mainstreaming — even celebrating — of homosexuality generally, is one of those ideas that you have to believe in to be in the media or opinion elite, especially in a blue state. Just as you have to believe that the United States is a rogue nation led by a crazed cowboy, just as you have to believe that there is no more fundamental qualification for a federal judge than unblinking support for easy abortion, so you have to believe that the understanding of marriage that has prevailed for 5,000 years is a manifestation of ignernt redneck bigotry. Maybe it's a question of DNA. Or maybe it really is true that we come from utterly different origins: Conservatives are from Mars, liberals are from San Francisco.

As someone who has to endure the Globe on a daily basis, I can say that truer words were never spoken.

Charles S.

Homosexual Advocacy Group Reveals Vicious Anti-Christian Program

Some Canadian gay activists show that their goal is to outlaw freedom of speech and religion:

Bishop Fred Henry, in his recent pastoral letter on homosexuality, openly recognized that the purpose of the “gay marriage” push is the destruction of the traditional family and of any religious opposition. Bishop Henry wrote, “The goal (of changing the definition of marriage) is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.”

The authors of the EGALE editorial, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, in an enraged attack on Henry, admitted that the purpose behind the move to approve Gay “marriage” is the suppression of traditional Christianity. They wrote, “We predict that gay marriage will indeed result in the growth of acceptance of homosexuality now underway, as Henry fears. But marriage equality will also contribute to the abandonment of toxic religions, liberating society from the prejudice and hatred that has polluted culture for too long.”

Charles S.

Minister Appeals Gay Bias Verdict

Apparently there is still some hope for the Swedish Pentecostal pastor who was sentenced to one month imprisonment for exercising his human rights to freedom of speech and religion on the topic of homosexuality. Let's hope the superior court is protective of his rights.

Charles S.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Gay History Month to 'Out' Newton and Nightingale

As with so much of the depressing gay activist ideology currently being shoved down students' throats in public schools, this whole trend of arbitrarily identifying historical figures as "gay" or "lesbian" is so wrong on so many levels. First, to the extent that there is no clear evidence one way or another about a person, it is slanderous to make an accusation of homosexual proclivity when the person around is not around to defend himself or herself. Second, a famous person sexual activity or proclivity may not have the slightest thing to do with that person's historical achievement. Should we celebrate some famous person solely because they had red hair? Third, even if a person did experience same sex attraction, they may not have acted on it, or wished it to be publicly known or a publicly identifying characteristic, or would support an ideology that glorifies homosexual activity rather than seeing it as sinful. At least one known historical figure who experienced same sex attraction, Oscar Wilde, died fully repentant of sinful homosexual behavior in the bosom of Mother Church. Tchaikovsky, about whom there have also been rumors, may have had similar religious qualms about homosexual activity. We have no way of knowing whether any of these historical figures alleged to have experienced same sex attraction would, even if they had such a proclivity, have consented to becoming poster children to the modern gay activist ideological movement. I would speculate that a number of them might just be horrified to see that their names are being used to push the gay agenda.

Charles S.

Friday, January 07, 2005

'Philadelphia Four' Drawing Nat'l Attention

More on the case of the four Christians in Philadelphia being punished by law for exercising their Constitutional right of free speech at a gay activist event. I love the following two quotes:

"From a First Amendment perspective, it does appear to be overreaching," said the ACLU's Larry Frankel. His group has not been asked to intervene, he said.

"As far as the convention is concerned, we believe those people were properly arrested and charged," said D.A. spokeswoman Cathie Abookire. "Every case is unique; every case has its own set of facts." Abookire added, "We don't see [the "Outfest" case] as a freedom-of-speech issue at all."

I'm glad the ACLU sees a freedom of speech issue here, even if the City of Philadelphia district attorney's office doesn't. However, ACLU has never been shy before on issues of free speech, so I wonder why it is not getting involved here.

Another article on the matter here.

Charles S.

Monday, January 03, 2005

Tempers Flaming Hot over 'Gay Ski Week'

An online tourist website gave the following warning about Telluride ski resort's "gay" ski week:

"Although this week should be fun for those not offended by alternative lifestyles, with scheduled events including: The Pleasure Hunt, The Blue Ball Dance, Drag Races and more, we are strongly suggesting that families concerned with exposing their children to the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual behavior schedule their vacations another time.

"Events are planned throughout the week in both towns celebrating and promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

"Due to the intense controversy this year in regards to this week, the public display of homosexual pride and behavior will most likely be greater than last year. If this offends you, this is not the time to visit Telluride."

This innocuous bit of consideration for those who object to the promotion of homosexual activity raised the ire of the ski resort owners, who responded as follows:

"Telluride Ski Resort does not discriminate against any skiers or visitors to Telluride," the resort's marketing vice president, Pete Woods, told Heirich in an e-mail. "Obviously your website does not reflect that same message.

"Please remove any and all links to the website on the site immediately."

Me: Apparently one is not allowed in this day and age to warn people who may be offended by the promotion of homosexual activity of events that do just that. Notice that this message is not even calling for a boycott, merely informing those who might object to homosexual behavior that they might want to avoid this event. The fact that such a warning would be objectionable demonstrates that part of the purpose of an event like is this is precisely to promote the moral validity of homosexual activity. Obviously the ski resort owners WANT the evil Christian rubes who dare to think homosexual activity immoral to be confronted with the blatant practice and promotion of this activity. Can we dispense once and for all with any illusions that the gay activist and their leftist supporters are at all committed to freedom of thought or speech or to "diversity" in any way shape or form, or respect for differences of opinion on the complicated issue of homosexuality? Obviously they merely want to impose their orthodoxy on sexual morality on everyone and demonize anyone who disagrees. And as for the substance of such an event, why should practicing and promoting homosexuals be singled out as a group for such an event? Can one imagine an "African American Ski Week" or, horror of horrors, a "Christian Ski Week." Why should those with same sex attraction be shunted into a "gay ghetto" like this?

Charles S.

Sunday, January 02, 2005

Criminalized Thoughts?

A great article on the creeping infringement of freedom of speech on homosexuality. Some extracts:

"In the '40s, '50s, '60s and even '70s, we were taught that the difference between the free world and the communist bloc was that in the free world if you committed a crime, you were going to go to jail for what you did, but in the Soviet Union and other countries, you would go to jail for what you thought," Mr. Murray said.

"Hate-crimes laws are not really hate-crimes laws — they are really hate-thought laws," Mr. Murray says. "We have a movement in the entire Western world ... for people to go to jail for what they think."

And Hallelujah! At last a gay activist who speaks out in favor of free speech for those who don't agree with the homosexual activist agenda:

Joe Perez, owner and contributing writer of the Gay Spirituality & Culture blog ( says he understands that every person has a right to speak what he or she thinks to be true, even if it makes him uncomfortable.

"Hate speech is not a behavior that I ... want to see made illegal. The line that's drawn in the United States is generally between the speech that is simply offensive to a great number of people and speech that incites violence within a group — and that's a line that I feel comfortable with," Mr. Perez says. "If someone says that I think a group is wrong, or a group is acting immorally, or a group is wicked, or evil or condemned to hell, I may find that offensive and objectionable, but I don't think it should be illegal."

In fact, as Mr. Perez argues that condemning Christians for speaking against homosexuals is no different than condemning homosexuals for speaking against Christians.

"Can you imagine the outrage if a Christian fundamentalist intruded in a private gathering of queer activists, overheard a speaker say, 'Fundamentalism represents an abnormal, a horrible, cancerous tumor in the body of society,' reported him to the authorities, and then the laws of our land permitted the speaker to be arrested and imprisoned for a month?" he writes on his Web log. "That speaker would become a martyr and hero to the cause, a victim of the unjust, evil times in which we live and rage would ferment against our 'enemies' and all that they represent."

Mr. Perez also warns that laws that punish ideas are not only unfair, but are counterproductive.

"Using the laws of a state to imprison folks who do not understand or agree with us, or who say mean-spirited things, cannot create a culture that makes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks safer and more secure," he says. "Instead, it will taint all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activism with the stench of extreme political correctness gone amok."

Me: Now only if an article like this would appear in the Washington Post and not the Washington Times, I would feel much better about the media and political elite in this country!

Charles S.

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>