jump to navigation

Politically Correct Hypocrisy (Updated) December 6, 2007

Posted by Maddog in Catholicism, Politics and Law, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

judgement01.jpgRecent wrong-headed legislation allegedly designed to protect homosexuals from discrimination and to promote tolerance and equality, may actually oppress other groups. Christians, it seems, are becoming the targets of such “reverse” discrimination, inequality, and intolerance. This is truly tragic since homosexuals themselves are children of God and deserving of the compassion, justice, and mercy that the more militant pro-gay advocates are so willing to deny to those who disagree with them.

In what would appear to be a mad scramble to pander to the interests of homosexuals, laws are being passed — or implemented in such a manner — that effectively, place limits on freedom of religion and suppress dissent against the homosexual agenda. Father John Flynn, LC, notes this in the article, Imposing “Tolerance”: Christians Obliged to Approve Homosexuality:

ROME, OCT. 29, 2007 (Zenit.org).- State laws on homosexuality are increasingly creating conflicts for Christians who wish to follow their conscience. In recent days, news came from England of a Christian couple who face being forced to give up their role as foster parents because they were not prepared to promote homosexuality, reported the Telegraph newspaper Oct. 24.

Vincent Matherick and his wife Pauline are registered as foster parents in Somerset County. They are also ministers at the non-conformist South Chard Christian Church. They were recently informed by authorities that they must obey laws that require them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.

Discrimination Against Religious Belief

Secularists have long sought to remove religious belief from public life, seeing it as irrelevant or even counterproductive. But that in itself involves a value judgement, and assumes the superiority of a secular ideology over contrary ideas. It ultimately results in supression of religion and democratic freedoms. Fr. Flynn recognizes the same and quotes Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor who spoke out against such unjust treatment:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor strongly criticized the ideology inspiring such laws shortly after their approval, during a lecture given March 28 at Westminster Cathedral Hall. In his address titled “The Kingdom of God and This World: the Church in Public Life,” he maintained that, “freedom of religion is much more than the freedom to worship; it is the freedom to act according to that belief in the service of others.”

He also warned against a model of a secular state that seeks to totally exclude religious principles. “The choice of the state to side with the secular is said to be neutrality; and it is usually justified by an appeal to equality,” Cardinal Murphy O’Connor explained.

“But this is in itself ideology, divorcing religion from the public realm on the pretext that religion is divisive,” he continued.

“If equality can only be promoted at the expense of the freedom to manifest our religion, we have reason to question the nature of that equality,” the cardinal observed. “It is not, surely, an equality which adequately recognizes the common dignity of all.”

Pro-Gay Intolerance

Unfortunately, this hostility to religion is also being used to turn homosexuals into a politically protected class, using laws that have real teeth against those who dissent. The consequences for Christians and others who disagree with the homosexual agenda can be dire, as pointed out in the article, Churches fear British hate crimes law could silence Christians:

LONDON, ENGLAND (CNA) – British churches have expressed concern that legislation punishing hate crimes based on sexual orientation could be used to silence Christian disapproval of certain sexual behaviors.

Both the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and the Church of England have issued a memorandum concerning an amendment to the Public Order Act of 1986 that would make incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation an offense punishable by law.

“Christians engaged in teaching or preaching and those seeking to act in accord with Christian convictions in their daily lives need to be assured that the expression of strong opinions on marriage or sexuality will not be illegal,” the memorandum says.

Update: Free Speech for Homosexuals Only?

Homosexuals and similar groups rightly demand that they be allowed to speak freely, The problem, is however, they often do not give the same respect to the rights of others. Take, example, a recent incident at an American college where lesbians forced Ryan Sorba to cut short his speech on what he calls the “Born-Gay Hoax”. Lifesite, in “Lesbian Break-in and Riot During College Speech on ‘Born-Gay Hoax’ Forces Cancellation”, reported as follows:

NORTHAMPTON, MA, May 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” cried a group of lesbians at Smith College Tuesday night in the midst of a riotous protest that met little resistance from on-looking police and security officials and forced scheduled speaker Ryan Sorba to prematurely end his “The Born-Gay Hoax” talk.

Shortly into his speech, the protesters tried to drown out Sorba’s words with loud chants and clanging of pots and pans. As Sorba strove to continue his lecture, protesters invaded from a back window, flooded the podium, and began noisily dancing and clapping in front the speaker.

The report also noted:

The conservative organization Mass Resistance decried the Tuesday night fiasco as an example of “how the homosexual movement views free speech and civil rights in their march to force their social and sexual agenda on others and intimidate and terrorize anyone who would criticize or disagree. Truth and freedom become subjected to the whims of thought police and rioters.”

It is ironic how those who so loudly demand tolerance and respect are so ready to deny it to others with whom they disagree.

Discriminatory Legislation in the Philippines

Closer to home, Senator Ramon Revilla Jr. has filed Senate Bill 11 (“An Act Prohibiting Discrimination On the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Providing Penalities Therefor”), also known as the “Anti-Gender Discrimination Act”. The bill rightly prohibits the denial of human and civil rights purely on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. But as written, it actually does more than that.

Some of the seemingly innocuous — but possibly dangerous — provisions of the bill follow, along with some analysis and important questions that must be asked.

SEC. 4. Discriminatory Practices. – It shall he unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to:

(b) Include sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as the disclosure of sexual orientation, in the criteria for hiring, promotion and dismissal of workers, and in the determination of employee compensation, training, incentives, privileges, benefits or allowances, and other terms and conditions of employment.

This seems an admirable provision to eliminate injustice in the workplace, as homosexuals must also earn a living and receive equal and fair treatment in the workplace. But what if a person’s sexual orientation and practices — in this case, homosexual practices — precisely contradict the fundamental principles of an organization? Will that not undermine the goals of said organization? The above provision is a blanket prohibition. The text contains no exceptions for such cases.

One example of this, of course, is the priesthood and other forms of work in religious institutions. How can the Church’s valid teachings against homosexual acts be credible if those who preach, teach, and support the same are themselves engaging in practices that contradict such teachings? Clearly, one’s sexual orientation does affect the successful performance of such work. And yet the bill has no provision recognizing this fact.

(d) Refuse or revoke the accreditation, formal recognition, andlor registration of any organization, group, institution or establishment, in educational institutions, workplaces, communities, and similar settings, solely on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of their numbers and leaders or oftheir target constituencies.

Again, what if an organization or group promotes or advocates things that are contrary to the fundamental principles of an institution? Will the Church be forced to accredit and support homosexual groups — whose advocacies may be in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching — in Catholic schools? The bill makes no provision to prevent such outrageous contradictions.

(g) Deny a person access to or the use of establishment, facilities, utilities or service, including housing, open to the general public on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. There is a denial when a person is given inferior accommodations or service than what is normal.

Will religious institutions (Catholic or otherwise) be forced to make their facilities available to homosexual groups to carry out activities that oppose the teachings of the Church? The bill can easily be interpreted in such a manner.

(h) Deny an application for a license, clearance, certification or any other document issued by government authorities or other entities, on the basis of the applicant’s sexual orientation or gender identity, as provided by existing laws.

Can this provision be used to compel the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

These are all valid concerns,. They involve the basic right of all persons (not just Catholics) to practice and promote their beliefs. They also involve our right to dissent, to disagree with what may be politically correct or fashionable at the moment.

In other words, if the rights of homosexuals to clamor for certain principles and to promote their “lifestyle” is to be protected, then others should be free to disagree and challenge their opinions — and be likewise protected while doing so.

Media Discrimination, Homosexual Hypocrisy

Sadly, this is often not the case. It is not only governments that have taken to discriminating against those who disagree with the homosexual agenda. Even the media in some countries have taken a decidedly pro-homosexual stance, at least in practice if not in stated principle.

Witness, for example, the sensationalism surrounding stories of discrimination against homosexuals in contrast to the sparse coverage given to pro-homosexual discrimination and crime. One case in point: the disgusting assault, rape, and murder of Mary Stachowicz by a homosexual teen. This was covered by Catholic World News in the article Prosecutor traces brutal murder of Mary Stachowicz:

Oct. 27, 2006 (CWNews.com) – An Illinois prosecutor told a Chicago court that Mary Stachowicz, a 51-year-old mother of 4 children– was raped, beaten, and strangled before she was finally stabbed to death in November 2002 by a homosexual man who resented her efforts to convince him that he should curb his promiscuous sexual behavior.

“There is a monster in the courtroom today,” said prosecutor Jim McKay. He was referring to Nicholas Gutierrez, the man accused of killing Stachowicz. The prosecutor gave jurors a graphic description of the brutal crime, in which the devout Catholic woman was stabbed so often that the blade of the assailant’s hunting knife was damaged. The killer then wrapped his victim’s body in plastic and hid it under the floor of his apartment. Gutierrez later confessed to the crime.

The Concerned Women for America (CWA) , however, in the story “‘Gay’ Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause“, noted that:

In the three weeks since Mary Stachowicz was murdered by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez in Chicago, some pro-homosexualists have reacted with much more sympathy for the ‘gay’ killer than for his Christian victim. In fact, several even have gone as far as saying that Mrs. Stachowicz deserved to die for questioning the man’s lifestyle.

Predictably, the mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz’s murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising’s torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it. As of December 4, no formal condemnations of Mrs. Stachowicz’s murder have been issued by leading groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Anti-religious Intolerance

The horror doesn’t end there. It’s one thing to ignore an outrage, but another to actually be happy about it. The same CWA story also carried angry quotes posted on various online fora vicously attacking the victim and religion in general:

“Iris” wrote to the ACLU Online Forum: “I am in no way condoning this man’s behavior. Murder is murder. He should receive life or the death penalty for his actions. But one fact remains … if she would have been minding her own [expletive] business instead of attempting to ram her religion where it didn’t belong, none of this would have ever happened. I really don’t feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her.”

“Silence Dogood” agreed: “I won’t go so far as to say that she deserved what she got, no one deserves to die, but I won’t exactly be shedding any tears for her. Quite frankly, if anyone in this case was being ‘persecuted’ it was Mr. Gutierrez. Unfortunately for the victim this was a lesson that she learned too hard and too late. Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to ‘help’ homosexuals.”

Perhaps the cruelest comment of all was this from a San Francisco man on Yahoo: “The b—- had it coming to her. I’m glad he killed her. Too bad he’ll probably spend the rest of his life in prison getting his little butt pounded, but still, I’m glad he killed her. The b—- deserved to die.”

Personal Experience

I too have experienced intolerance from militant homosexuals. An earlier post in this blog (The Absurdity of Same-Sex Marriage) generated a wave of hostile text messages from one lesbian friend who read it. All of a sudden, I was “closed-minded” and someone from whom her friends had to be “protected” simply because I do not agree with the legalization or promotion of same-sex marriage. And yet this same person yearns for tolerance and acceptance of her views!

A careful reading of my article will reveal that I stated rational reasons for my opposition to same-sex marriage. Although the arguments were sometimes couched in religious terms, the fact is that they could stand as purely secular arguments as well that sought to prevent the erosion of the meaning of marriage (since other groups, such as pedophiles, could use the same arguments as those used by homosexuals to demand accommodation for their sexual orientation). But my lesbian friend refused to see that and instead chose to engage in strawman and ad hominem arguments.

Still, the bottom line for me was that we could simply agree to disagree. I have no problem with disagreement. After all, I had never criticized her, and I kept my misgivings about her advocacy to myself for the sake of our friendship. But that was not to be. She absolutely refused to tolerate any disagreement and after a short exchange of messages online, she chose to end our friendship.

That was sad. But what is sadder still is the fact that this person — who ought to understand the value of respect for others and tolerance for contrary beliefs — had totally closed her mind to any meaningful dialogue with those who disagreed with her political agenda. Apparently, only those who agree with her are “worthy” to be her friends.

I have chosen not to do the same. I still consider her to be a dear friend, intolerant as she is. And I will still pray for her. That is because the answer to discrimination from a pro-gay “Taliban” isn’t more discrimination. The answer is to try to stand up for the truth and try to love even if it hurts.

Easier said than done… but being a Christian was never easy.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Ishmael Fischer Ahab - March 21, 2010

Hello,

I am glad to find this space of yours. It is rare to find a site that has cohesive arguments on the popular issues that affects our faith. Many of us Catholics are caught in this “equality” frenzy and many of us can not argue to protect what we believe.

We are affronted on many sides and I for one feel that it is hopeless. It is hopeless to seed this country from falling to continuous state of immorality.

I glad to have read your piece. The only thing I could do now is to stand my ground, write my piece on my own little space, and trust in the Lord that He will do everything to reverse this trend.

It is really hard to be a Christian. May our Lord grant us the strength to persevere in standing up for Him.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: