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!

Friday, December 23, 2005

Christians Accused of Homophobia [UK]

This is just getting out of control. The mere expression of the belief that homosexuality is immoral and shouldn't be promoted by government gets one a visit from the police in Britain. Unbelievable in a supposedly human rights-observant nation! And these people were 73 and 68 years old -- do they remotely present a threat to public order? This is so unnecessary, and such a waste of police resources.

Charles S.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Gay-wed Supporters Post Foes’ Names on Web Site

Gay activist thugs in Massachusetts follow through on their threats of intimidation against traditional marriage supporters. Image the hue and cry were traditional marriage supporters to post the names of gay marriage supporters!

Charles S.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

MP Faces Jail over Anti-Gay Comments [France]

Yet more European stifling of freedom of speech when it comes to homosexuality, this time in France.

Charles S.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Chilling of Free Speech in England

Police warn author over gay comments

Charles S.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Mark Shea has Andrew Sullivan's Number

Greg Popcak, who is usually right all along, is wrong. Along with a number of other readers, he thinks ASCII should not be expended on Andrew. As a rule, I think he's right, but I plead special circumstances.

Last week, as my readers know, I remarked on Sullivan's incredibly cheap shot at Pope Benedict, in which he as much as said that the man was a medieval Jew hater, because he made a couple of comments about usury. This latest in a long line of low slanders is due to one thing and one thing only: Benedict's refusal to edit Catholic teaching so that Andrew can homosexuality is compatible with the Catholic faith.

My irritation at him stems from the fact that I think he's done some very good work critiquing the Bush Administration on the matter of torture. The problem is: I know as well as my readers that part of what drives Sullivan to attack Bush is his hostility over Bush's "betrayal" of gays by supporting the FMA. So every time I cite him, I can be guaranteed that any reader capable of reading will point out that Sullivan does such a sleazy job smearing the Pope, he can hardly be relied upon as an objective critic of Bush. It's hard to gainsay that.

Now, when I pointed this out, Sullivan, the 800 lb. gorilla of the blogsophere, did what he has frequently done in the past to little bloggers who dare to cross him, he posted an edited link back to my blog and sicced a bunch of his angriest, most obscene readers on me. Some of them called me an anti-semite (somehow under the mysterious impression that I had declared Jonah Goldberg a Christ-killer or something. Don't ask). Another guy amazed some of my readers by declaring that this blog is predicated on "blind faith in the Bush Administration". So you can tell that these are close readers. Others just did the usual stuff that trolls do, dropping F bombs and speculating about my sex life.

Now, the name in English for Sullivan's behavior is "bullying". He has a readership that is orders of magnitude larger than mine. And I am not the only small blogger that Sullivan has done this to. In addition, first Opinion Journal and then NRO picked up the controversy. So it seemed to me I had an obligation to challenge Sullivan on his dishonesty. Because, as I say, I'm not the first person he's done this too. Amy Welborn, for instance, has been slimed by him and then ignored when she responded with facts. So I took the temporary spike in readership and challenge Andrew to retract his slander of Benedict (he ignored it) and to point out places where he himself had admitted that his journalism was colored by his homosexuality.

My assumption is that this week, my readership has resumed roughly its original size. This being so, I think I've done my bit as the Little Guy blogger to say to the 800 Gorillas that they can't, on the one hand, blather about the blogosphere as the new Democratic Media that gives the little guy a voice while, on the other hand, acting like the most arrogant NY Times editor, twisting the words of good men like Benedict, creating like journalistic jihads against critics, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of opposing views which inconvenience them. I may not be able to get Andrew to post a link to my challenge that he retract his slander of Benedict. But I can certainly continue to blog here--and now that I'm on the radar for a few more people than last week, I can do a little bit to turn up the heat on Sullivan's dishonesty when he attacks the Catholic faith. That seems worthwhile to me.

Charles S.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Redefining Hate

Zenit has a good summary and roundup of the current attacks on freedom of speech and religion by gay activists and Western governments subservient to them:

STOCKHOLM, Sweden, DEC. 4, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Public critics of homosexuality increasingly run the risk of being penalized with sanctions. Laws designed to punish so-called hate crimes mean that opposition to homosexual behavior, even when based on moral grounds, is often risky.

The Church carefully distinguishes between judgments about acts and the person involved. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in Nos. 2357-8, clearly states that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," and that "under no circumstances can they be approved."

At the same time, the Catechism asks Catholics to treat men and women who have homosexual tendencies with "respect, compassion and sensitivity." The text exhorts: "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

This distinction by the Church regarding homosexual behavior, nevertheless, is lost on many critics. A case in point is this week's publication of the Vatican document regarding candidates for the priesthood who have homosexual tendencies.

The document, issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education, cited the numbers from the Catechism quoted above and stipulated that persons with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect and sensitivity."

Reacting to the document, South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu said: "For me, to make someone suffer penalties because of their sexual orientation is on the same level as making people be penalized for their gender, or race," Reuters reported Tuesday.

"It's incitement to hatred," claimed Eoin Collins, director of policy change with the Irish group Gay and Lesbian Equality Network. He was quoted by the Irish Examiner. "It goes back to this continuing prejudice and hatred that the official Church has for gay people."

Swedish pastor finally acquitted

Accusations of hatred can have serious legal consequences, as one Swedish pastor found out the hard way. Ake Green was accused of hate speech for having criticized homosexuality in a 2003 sermon. The Pentecostal pastor reportedly told the congregation that homosexuality was "a deep cancerous tumor on all of society."

In 2004 a court declared Green guilty of violating Swedish hate-crimes laws, sentencing him to a month in prison. The ruling was later overturned by an appeals court, but Sweden's chief prosecutor appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, the Sweden's Supreme Court decided that his comments were protected by the guarantees of freedom of speech and religion present in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Associated Press reported that day.

Green is not the only one to run foul of Sweden's hate laws. According to the October 2004 issue of the U.S. evangelical magazine Charisma, another pastor, Ulf Ekman of the Uppsala World of Life Church, was told he would be prosecuted for alleged hate speech.

Authorities subsequently decided not to proceed with the accusation, but Ekman told the magazine: "There is a deliberate political move in all of Europe toward restricting the freedom of religion, with Sweden serving as a sort of European Union pilot project."

Canada's tribunals

Also on Tuesday, in Canada, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decided that a Catholic group, the Knights of Columbus, was within its rights to reject a request by a lesbian couple who wanted to hold a wedding reception in its property.

The tribunal accepted arguments made by the Knights of Columbus that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protected it from using its property for a purpose that contradicts its beliefs.

But the decision had a sting in its tail. The tribunal held that the group had offended the couple's "dignity, feelings and self-respect," for which it was ordered to pay $1,000 to each woman, the national newspaper Globe and Mail reported Wednesday.

The couple, Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith, decided to wed after same-sex marriage became legal in British Columbia. They booked the Knights of Columbus hall in the Vancouver suburb of Coquitlam for a reception. The women alleged that they were unaware the hall was operated by a Catholic organization and said they would not have rented the hall if they had known. Those who accepted the booking were unaware it was for a same-sex couple. The booking was canceled once the Knights realized it was for a homosexual couple.

The matter might well not be over, the Edmonton Sun newspaper reported Thursday. The couple announced they are planning to appeal the decision.

Another human rights commission, this time in Alberta, received a complaint, subsequently withdrawn, about comments made by Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, reported the National Post on April 4. The complaint came after Bishop Henry published a letter in January explaining Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. The article noted that when Parliament debated last year, adding sexual orientation to the hate law bill, religious organizations warned it could lead to restrictions on religious freedom.

Homosexual activists also have the tax status of churches in their sights, according to a report published June 22 on the Canada.com Web site. Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 was one of the first to be married in a same-sex ceremony, said that churches opposed to same-sex marriage should lose their tax status of charitable organizations, awarded by the federal government.

Churches on edge

Concern over hate crimes legislation exist in a number of other countries. In France, late last year legislation was approved curbing insults against homosexuals.

The law put anti-gay and sexist comments on an equal footing with racist or anti-Semitic insults, the British newspaper Guardian reported Dec. 24. In theory courts could fine offenders up to €45,000 ($52,800) and hand out jail sentences of up to 12 months.

Critics of the law warned that Christians who denounce homosexuality as "deviant" could be prosecuted, the Guardian reported. And the Catholic Church in France expressed concern that the law might prevent it from opposing same-sex marriage.

In Britain, meanwhile, a bank forced an evangelical group to close its account because of its opposition to homosexuality, the BBC reported June 24. The Co-operative Bank, based in Manchester, said the opinions of Christian Voice were incompatible with its support for diversity.

"It has come to the bank's attention that Christian Voice is engaged in discriminatory pronouncements based on the grounds of sexual orientation," a spokesman for the bank said.

In the United States, anti-homosexual views got a Christian fired from an insurance company. The Chicago Tribune reported Aug. 18 that J. Matt Barber, wrote an essay, published online, denouncing same-sex marriage.

Afterward, his employers at Allstate Corporation told him he was suspended without pay and had him escorted from the company grounds in Northbrook, Illinois. He was fired three days later, setting off a legal dispute that is still unresolved.

Barber said he never mentioned his Allstate affiliation in the biographical information that accompanied his articles. But the Web site included the information without his permission when it published his article.

On Nov. 23, Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley published a pastoral letter on the theme of homosexuality. "The Church's efforts to defend the institution of marriage," he noted, "has been interpreted by some as an indication of the Church's hostility toward homosexual persons."

The Church, the archbishop explained, is not motivated by any such hostility, and regards all persons as equal in the eyes of God. He also argued that the Church must strive to eradicate prejudices against homosexuals.

"At the same time the Church must minister to all people by challenging them to obey God's commands," he explained. "It is important to express the moral teachings of the Church with clarity and fidelity," and with "compassion and humility." A combination that is increasingly running into legal barriers.

Charles S.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Religious Freedom Must Trump Anti-Discrimination Law

Here's John Leo:

...Some campuses elevate anti-discrimination rules over religious freedom in large part because gays are very powerful on campus and Christians are not. In effect, evangelicals are being punished for failing to have the views of the dominant campus culture. Someone should explain to the campuses [...] what religious freedom means.

Charles S.

Lesbians Want More Than Just Fine for Knights of Columbus: Launch Appeal

British Columbia: Knights of Columbus held not legally required to rent out hall for lesbian wedding, but fined for being discourteous about it.

Charles S.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Same Sex "Marriage" Watch: South Africa

South African Court Approves Same-Sex Marriages

Charles S.

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