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!

Saturday, April 30, 2005

Accept No Substitute

Hugh Hewitt is right on the money here on the Orwellian use of the term "mainstream" by the Left to demonize traditional religious believers:

"Out of the mainstream" has become shorthand in the political debate surrounding not just the judiciary, but almost every issue on which the country is divided.

It is a substitute for debate, a label that attempts to brand an opponent as unworthy of reply or, worse, a fanatic and possibly dangerous.

The trouble with "out of the mainstream" is that it has no particular meaning.

So what is the "mainstream?"

Are the 15 million Southern Baptists in the United States mainstream?

Are 20 million Pentecostals in the United States mainstream?

Of the more than 61 million baptized Catholics in the country, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds 80 percent of them approving of the new pope, Benedict XVI. Mainstream media have argued that Benedict is very conservative: Does that make 50 million American Catholics outside of the mainstream if they support their church's teaching on abortion and euthanasia?

Some political positions define their holders as outside of the mainstream. Time and time again, for instance, Americans asked to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage have rejected the idea by overwhelming margins. To advocate same-sex marriage is to declare yourself out of the mainstream by any objective standard.

But that's not what Senate Democrats have in mind when they oppose the confirmation of William Pryor, a Catholic, to the federal bench. Or the confirmation of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rodgers Brown or Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.

If any of these three nominees or their filibustered colleagues were to hold views in keeping with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justices who imposed same-sex marriage on the Bay State—a truly radical move by truly "outside the mainstream" judges—Senate Democrats would probably welcome them onto the bench.

"Outside the mainstream," when used by Senate Democrats and their supporters on the left or in mainstream media, usually means "center-right Christians who lean Republican." The repeated resort to this shorthand is an attempt to camouflage the hard-left politics of Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee like Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer, a deceptive attempt to confuse the public as to what they, and the nominees they oppose, really believe.

Keep that in mind the next time you have to decode a report on the confirmation battles.

Charles S.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Free Speech Watch: California

California Assembly Passes Bill Discouraging 'Anti-Gay Rhetoric'

The California Assembly has passed a bill intended to discourage candidates from using "anti-gay rhetoric" in their political campaigns.

The bill adds "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to California's Code of Fair Campaign Practices -- an "anti-discrimination" pledge that is given to every candidate for public office.

Signing the pledge is voluntary, but failure to sign it could prove difficult for candidates who might risk being judged "unfair."

Critics call the bill an effort to muzzle any politician who refuses to support the homosexual agenda...

Me: What about the incessant demonization of traditional religious believers and conservatives by the likes of Howard "Republicans are Evil" Dean and others? Why isn't that considered "unfair"?

Charles S.

Scary Stuff

Stanley Kurtz has a very important article on how the Left demonizes traditional religious believers. Some excerpts:

The phrase “campaign of hatred” is a strong one, and I worry about amplifying an already dangerous dynamic of recrimination on both sides of the culture wars. I don’t doubt that conservatives, Christian and otherwise, are sometimes guilty of rhetorical excess. Yet despite what we’ve been told, the most extreme political rhetoric of our day is being directed against traditional Christians by the left...

Compare this liberal fantasy of imminent theocracy to the reality of Lawrence v. Texas and Roper v. Simmons (the Supreme Court decision that appealed to European precedents to overturn capital punishment for juveniles). Both of these decisions relied on the existence of a supposed national consensus on behalf of social liberalism. In conjuring up that false consensus, the Court treated conservative Christians as effectively nonexistent. That is the reality of where the law is, and where it is headed. It is completely unsurprising that after a long train of such decisions, conservative Christians have decided they’re tired of being trampled on by the courts. The reality we face is judicially imposed same-sex marriage in opposition to the clearly expressed wishes of the American people.

Meanwhile, as Harper’s levels vicious attacks on conservative Christians, the California assembly has passed a bill designed to prevent politicians from using “anti-gay rhetoric” in their political campaigns. Opposition to same-sex marriage itself is considered by many to be “anti-gay.” So has public opposition to same-sex marriage been legislatively banned? As a secular American, I don’t personally see homosexuality as sinful. Like many Americans, I welcome the increased social tolerance for homosexuality we’ve seen since the 1950s. Yet it’s outrageous to ban political speech by Christians who do sincerely understand homosexuality to be a sin.

Along with the move toward same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and Canada, we’ve seen systematic efforts to criminalize and silence expressions of the traditional Christian understanding of homosexuality. We’ve been told that the American tradition of free speech will prevent that sort of abuse here. Yet now, California’s battle for same-sex marriage is calling forth legislation that takes us way too far down the path toward banning the expression of traditional Christian views. While Harper’s is spinning out fantasies of a Christian theocracy, the California state legislature gives us the reality of a secular autocracy...

Charles S.

Public School Gay Ideology Indoctrination Watch

From Boston, the cradle of liberty, gay indoctrination of kids in public kindergarten???: Lexington School Calls Cops on Dad Irate over Gay Book

Charles S.

Monday, April 25, 2005

Love's Language Lost

An interesting article on the Orwellian uses of language afoot in the campaign to redefine the word "marriage".

Charles S.

Montgomery Schools Revise Sex Ed Course after Backlash

This effort to indoctrinate children in the gay ideology in Montgomery County, Maryland has been mentioned in this blog before. There seems to be some backtracking by the school board.

Charles S.

Faith in Our Future?

Michael Barone is a breath of calm sanity to counteract the shrill, ridiculous antireligious cries of "theocracy" from the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, etc.

Charles S.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Same Sex "Marriage" Watch: Spain

Spain approves gay marriage

Charles S.

Same Sex "Marriage" Watch: Connecticut

Connecticut Approves Same - Sex Civil Unions

Charles S.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Habemus Papam!

May God bless the Church under the leadership of the new Pontifex Maximus, Benedict XVI. Last week I said a prayer in front of the votive memorial to the late John Paul II in my parish church, asking that there be broader acceptance and appreciation of the teaching of the Church with regard to the call for chastity for those with same sex attraction and greater charity and understanding for those with this condition. I pray that the new Pope will find the words effectively to preach the entire Gospel, including with regard to sexuality. I was impressed by his much needed condemnation of relativism in his homily at the mass for the election of a new Pope. Michael Novak had a good analysis of the homily here. Gay activists are apparently already complaining, as "Planet Out" reports here. Andrew Sullivan also appears to be having a hissy fit. How sad that someone who was brought up Catholic should be so brainwashed by the gay ideology that his ffervor for the faith is as nothing to his fervor to obtain the Church's imprimatur for sinful sexual activity. Sigh! I can hope and pray that even Andrew will turn back to the Lord his God.

Blessings to all!

Charles S.

Friday, April 15, 2005

No Catholics Need Apply

Yet more evidence that the Democrats want to impose a religious test for public office:

Washington special interest groups -- notorious for their anti-religious hostility toward conservatives -- are conducting a coordinated smear campaign against Scott Bloch, George Bush's appointee to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which reviews and refers whistleblower disclosures to agency heads. In an interview with TAS, Pete Leon, legislative director for Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), who has called for Bloch's resignation, revealed the fundamental anti-religious bigotry at the heart of the campaign. Articulating his objections to Bloch, Leon said, "He is a devout Catholic," then quickly added, after he realized his gaffe, the famously insincere line from Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that." ...

Charles S.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

My Battle with the Thought Police

Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe's account of his due-process-lacking trial at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas is a chilling reminder of the Stalinist thought police that rule many US academies these days when it comes to any statements about homosexuality or homosexuals that are not politically correct:


Las Vegas prides itself for its tolerance and so does UNLV, its university. At the university, however, tolerance is selective. You may assert that white heterosexual males are responsible for all of mankind’s misery, that Castro’s Cuba is a great success story, that capitalism means exploitation, or that most university professors are liberals because conservatives are too stupid to teach. If anyone should complain about this, such complaint will be dismissed outright.

And rightly so. After all, the university is committed to academic freedom. Its faculty has the "freedom and an obligation … (to) discuss and pursue the faculty member’s subject with candor and integrity, even when the subject requires consideration of topics which may be politically, socially or scientifically controversial. … (a) faculty member…shall not be subjected to censorship or discipline by the University ... on grounds that the faculty member has expressed opinions or views which are controversial, unpopular or contrary to the attitudes of the University…or the community."

None of this applies to professors who dissent from socialist, statist, or culturally left-wing views, however, as I would find out.

In March of 2004, during a 75 minute lecture in my Money and Banking class on time preference, interest, and capital, I presented numerous examples designed to illustrate the concept of time preference (or in the terminology of the sociologist Edward Banfield of "present- and future-orientation"). As one brief example, I referred to homosexuals as a group which, because they typically do not have children, tend to have a higher degree of time preference and are more present-oriented. I also noted--as have many other scholars--that J.M Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some upcoming lectures, had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation and his famous dictum "in the long run we are all dead."


Charles S.

Wrong Question

Ah yes, what a class act these gay activists are:

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke Tuesday night at NYU's Vanderbilt Hall, "The room was packed with some 300 students and there were many protesters outside because of Scalia's vitriolic dissent last year in the case that overturned the Texas law against gay sex," our source reports. "One gay student asked whether government had any business enacting and enforcing laws against consensual sodomy. Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' ...

Charles S.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Public School Gay Ideology Indoctrination Watch

From "Groups Hold Dueling Pro- and Anti-Gay Days," and never was a truer word was spoken:

...the Alliance Defense Fund and other conservatives say GLSEN's agenda is to broaden national acceptance of homosexuality.

"No one is for bullying and harassment," Johnson said. "But that's cloaking their real message — that homosexuality is good for society."

Charles S.

Public School Gay Ideology Indoctrination Watch

An important article from the Concerned Women for America:

The Homosexualists' Plan for Public Schools

Charles S.

Bill Clinton Bashes Man Behind 'Stop Hillary' Push

Former President Clinton shows that he is not a "decent" person (in the Mrs. Cheney sense), since he seems to think that anyone with same sex attraction who doesn't embrace the Democratic Party line and Hillary Clinton must be "self-hating" or else insincere and duplicitous. What intolerant stereotypers these Democrats are! Apparently in Mr. Clinton's liberal universe, all those with same sex attraction must walk in lock step with the gay activists and their liberal fellow travelers. If you dare to disagree, you're just self-hating, don't you know? Heaven forbid anyone with same sex attraction think for themselves and disagree with the Left on anything. Here's what Mr. Clinton said:

"Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in his position or there's some sort of self-loathing there," Clinton said. "I was more sad for him."

Charles S.

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