What do Social Radicals really mean by Tolerance?

In another show of tolerance from those who support the “gay” agenda, A Chicago Alderman, will seek to prevent Chick-fil-A from establishing a new franchise in his ward. As has been well reported, the owner of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, a Christian, when asked if he supported the Biblical definition of marriage, indicated that he did.

According to press reports:

Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A’s effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood….

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday…

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emmanuel the mayor said in a statement when asked about Moreno’s decision. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents….”

Welcome to tolerance as defined by secular radicals. In their lexicon “tolerance” is “your right to agree with me.” Live and let live” means, “you have the right to live only where I say.” “Bigotry” applies only to the classes they say are oppressed. “Phobia” (as in Homophobia) applies only to those who oppose their  agenda. “Hate” only exists against the classes they I say who are “protected” and have defined as oppressed. It is never possible for religious or social conservatives to be the object of hate since hate only comes from social conservatives.

Yes, welcome to the tolerant utopia founded by proponents of gay sex, gay “marriage” and other social inventions.

Pope Benedict has spoken frequently of the “tyranny of relativism.” What this means, essentially, is that when a culture decides that there is no fundamental basis of truth, (whether of Scripture or Natural Law), the result is that there is no real basis for discussion or resolution of issues. Thus who “wins the day” is not based on reason, but on who shouts the loudest, and/or who has the most power, money or political influence.

The way forward in a relativistic world is not to appeal to reason by reference to Natural Law (in philosophy), or to constitutional principles (in political discourse) or to Scripture and Tradition (in Theology). Rather the “way forward” is to gain power and to implement an agenda that binds.

Farewell to reason rooted in agreed upon principles, hello to tyranny rooted simply in opinion and power.

Revolutions which ride in on the train of “freedom” more frequently usher in a reign of terror, as those who claimed to be oppressed and repressed take up their new power and then, themselves, turn to oppress, suppress, and repress any whom they thought, or think, to be on the wrong side of the issue.

Expect more “tolerance” from social radicals. The tyranny of relativism has ushered in a very poisonous and dangerous climate which has little basis for any discussion or true tolerance. And remember, what a social radical means by tolerance has nothing to do with tolerating you,  if you do not belong to a class or group favored by them.

It will require greater and greater courage from those of us who still think of truth as something higher than ourselves. And if you think that an exaggeration, just point to Natural Law, the Constitution, or (gaad zooks) Scripture, and just brace yourself for the immediate scorn you will experience. “Oh, what harm can that cause?” you may wonder. Just ask Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A.

A heavy post needs a little levity. Enjoy this video from a Christian Humorist.

105 Replies to “What do Social Radicals really mean by Tolerance?”

  1. This intolerance towards Chick-Fil-A coming from several officials is greatly disturbing! It means that politicians and other city officials are now openly discriminating against Christians and their businesses and even trying to put them out of business (robbing Chick-Fil-A and those who work there of their livelihood)! I pray that Chick-Fil-A will have legal right to challenge these officials trying to block their business efforts. Freedom of religion in this country is truly under attack, as the US Catholic Bishops have been saying. I pray all Catholics can come together to fight against this injustice and right now, support Chick-Fil-A in their lone stand against gay activists.

    1. Equal human rights are being attacked. Woman fought for equal rights, blacks fought for equal rights, why can’t gays….they are HUMANS too! So called Christians throw religion into places it does not belong. Not everybody is religious but everyone should be able to use equal civil law to get married and to be happy. Most so called Christians commit adultery, molest children, and only use the Bible when it benefits them. Look at the divorce rate in America, thats forbidden right? It says in the Bible, God hats figs….but I bet you Bible thumpers eat them, why not boycott figs? 20+ years ago interracial marriage was illegal, but guess what? Wake up to the 21st century, they got equal marriage rights! So why can’t gays? Such hypocrites I say!

      1. Chick Fil A does not discriminate against gays–do you know of any gay refused service there? The issue of SSM is a personal one. I gather you would refuse the owner of the chain his riGHt to his own belief?

      2. Women and blacks fought for the right to vote and sit in peace at a restaurant and eat like everybody else. Buggering a man’s backside is not a human right. If that’s the kind of filth you wish to engage in, you have always been free to do so. But what is now being demanded is that society proclaim that such perversion is normal, and even healthy, which it is not. We’re supposed to applaud now while you disgrace yourself and jam your perversion down the throat of everyone else.

        The only real human right involved here is the right not to be assaulted by disgusting behavior of buggers and perverts.

  2. Thank you, Msgr. Pope, you have spelled out exactly what’s happening. It’s taking more and more courage to express the truth. Please continue.

    1. I always found the equivocation that God is love, to be amusing at best, and mostly harmless as a belief, but how did bigotry become truth without consequence?

      1. We conduct ourselves, in the Holy Spirit, in sincere love as men with the message of truth and the power of God; wielding the weapons of righteousness with right hand and left, whether honored or dishonored, spoken of well or ill. We are called imposters, yet we are truthful; nobodies who in fact are well known; dead, yet here we are alive; punished but not put to death; sorrowful, though we are always rejoicing;  poor, yet we enrich many. Men of Corinth, we have spoken to you frankly, opening our hearts wide to you. There is no lack of room for you in us; the narrowness is in you. In fair exchange, then (I speak as a father to his children), open wide your hearts! (2 cor 6 varia)

        1. “… in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.” Matthew 15

          1. The Holy Spirit authored all scripture and there is no inconsistency in what he wrote. You show yourself a poor scripture scholar and clearly speak of what you do not understand.

          2. “If one’s faith has to be protected from the truth, it has already died.” – J.S. Spong

          3. Quoting Mr Spong shows your true colors. Res ipsa loquitur? It is also interesting that you would quote a bishop of a Church that follows your views which is in fact all but dead. The episcopalian denomination supports your entire post christian agenda and largely empty, having lost almost two thrids of its members in the past twenty years. Now since you see death as a symptom, whose agenda leads to that? It looks like yours. The Catholic Church looks quite robust in comparison to the little and dying church of the Bishop you quote.

      2. How is the direct declarative statement God is love, an equivocation? A commonplace, yes, perhaps nearly platitudinous, but an equivocation?

  3. Interesting thoughts in this http://www.mikechurch.com/daily-clip/business-regulation-and-chick-fil-a/ I thought about it too thinking well the Constitution doesn’t have anything to say about what a city does (there are only 18 enumerated powers….. & I’m all about what Pope Leo XIII says of americanism in his encyclical) but like the right of NYC to ban or not ban the NYC mosque if Chicago or Boston want to ban a business & opt out of gaining money from the business & kill jobs that it produces then let those communists do it.

    They are just showing the planet their colors. They are fine keeping Farakan in their city

  4. I’m tryeing my best to type with one hand becuz….I have a chickn biskit in the other. I can’t typre type well with my mouf full.

  5. My first thought is to wonder if the mayor of Chicago is committing an illegal act of libel and/or slander against Dan Cathy in saying that Dan Cathy is discriminating. Is Mr. Cathy refusing to hire, buy supplies, select who can stand in line to purchase or doing any other discriminating act? Or, is he merely stating a belief?
    If an elected US politician can get away with degrading the freedom of expression (as guaranteed by the Constitution) to push a private agenda into dominance is any freedom safe?
    When the mayor says that there is a disrespect he is merely stating an opinion, which would be a right for many people but, is it a responsible act for an elected administrator; especially when elected to such a significant position as mayor to such a large city as Chicago. I mean putting forth an opinion as if it were a proven fact. To sum up this part, does the mayor secretly see himself as mis-using the term discrimination and that he is stating an opinion as if it’s a proven fact? If so, is he selling his political knowledge down the river for votes and, if not, how did he ever manage to rise to such an office?
    As for who shouts the loudest, if physical violence isn’t allowed to trash democracy well then, wouldn’t it be good military tactics to make a slight, and strategic, withdrawal so as to resort to other weapons in what seems to be a growing coup?
    All the politicians who hop on the band wagon of the latest popular agenda that a conspicuous majority can get endorsement for make me wonder how many voters are falling for a giving up their ethics by small stages until they’ve passively supported an agenda that they will regret having supported largely due to a lack of direction by elected representatives?
    As an example, many people perceive that homosexuals have a right to go to church the endorsement by those who say that no sinner should be excluded, merely due to their sin, because, then all sinners should be excluded and the church would have to shut down. Then, somehow the sin is not only forgiveable but, somehow is no longer seen as a sin. In Matthew 9:10-13 Christ says that the physician is for the sick and that there should be mercy. He does not say that the sinner should not be encouraged to use denial to add to their sin. A competent physician does not use denial to help the sick get sicker.
    Reminds me of a quote that I once read about the difference between a politician and a statesman, (perhaps statesperson in case the politically correctors try to censor me by euphimism?) A politician thinks of the next election and a statesman thinks of the next generation.

    1. On “physical violence” and “coup” I forgot to mention emotional violence and, although some may scorn its impact, scorn neither disproves any statement nor does it prove that the person making the statement is wrong – as if it’s possible for anyone to be inherently “wrong”

  6. I get frustrated reading articles like this because they never mention the reason why, with no reference to religion, sex outside of marriage is wrong. Gay sex, unmarried sex, are all part of a worldview that says that its good to have sex whenever you feel like it. I have seen this philosophy take over in my 71 years of life. The result is disastrous. I just read an article that said that the percent of illigitimate births among young white women has gone from 7% in l970 to 44% today. This huge amount of fatherless children is tragic for the individual children and disastrous for society. It’s not enough in todays world to just say “it’s wrong.” We need to explain what natural law means, where it comes from and the what happens when we ignore it.

    1. Your point is well taken. But I can assure you the issues you have raised have been well discussed on this blog. Brevity has its place and this is not really a posat about sex, it addresses an issue in the news related to the hypocrisy of social radicals

  7. I think the real issue is misunderstanding human dignity. A Catholic could never tolerate discrimination against homosexuals, which being against offenses to marriage – like homosexuality – certainly is not since the defense of marriage includes the defense of homosexuals and all peoples, so we have to remind people of what human dignity is: the worth and respect owed to a human person, which is unlike worthiness and human respect but is like love and justice, even if some people think love is just superficial emotions and other people think justice is just superficial niceness, whereby one could see that homosexuality is really an offense one must fight against in defense of marriage and human dignity, not just a condition one must accept and equate with human sexuality.

  8. I wonder if Dan Cathy has considered the idea of printing up little cards that would come with every meal — The Chick-Fil-A Grace Before Meals? What a great evangelization opportunity this would be!

  9. Might I offer an alternative analysis of tolerance? A political structure committed to tolerance clearly is not purely relativistic. It is a little contradictory to simultaneously complain that a structure is taking a hard-line stance against something (namely, your religion), and yet to also say that such a structure has no particular commitment to claims about reality. Clearly, the structures do recognize certain things as politically relevant truths, such as the concept of rights and what constitutes prosecutable harm of another individual. It is also contradictory to complain about the notion of tolerance while simultaneously complaining that one needs to be tolerated.

    I believe what the Church is discovering (and what in this country it is interpreting as persecution) is that it simply no longer exercises the social privileges and powers to which it had become accustomed in western political structures since Constantine. While real persecution exists in many places, the Church in America, which enjoys protection against taxes, provides the pulpit with the power of indirect campaigning for their favored political candidate (by making it a mortal sin to vote for the other guy), and its members are allowed to be politically active in government, even to the point of voting on measures in accordance to their religious codes. Modern, pluralistic, secular regimes do not accord special privileges such as defining social institutions and moral codes to religious institutions.

    Tolerance does have boundaries or limitations, precisely because it is a coherent political philosophy (and as Christians are fond of saying, something without boundaries is an example of nearly incoherent license). Tolerance stops being tolerant when someone takes concrete actions to limit the rights of another individual or group of individuals or otherwise harms those individuals. It protects an equal opportunity to acquire primary goods and services and participate in social institutions to all and it rejects attempts to disrupt this equality.

    1. Tinker, you just proved each of Msgr Pope’s points. Particularly, the tyranny of relativism, no appeal to reason, Natural Law or even the US Constitution, First Amendment. The Free Exercise clause is exactly that.
      Unless, of course, you are quoting from 1984 by George Orwell, where you see the logical outcome as Msgr Pope mentioned.

      1. “Particularly, the tyranny of relativism”

        Interesting, considering my specific rejection of relativism. Would you mind explaining how the concept of rights is “relativistic?” Or the notion of primary goods and services? Or, indeed, anything I said?

        “no appeal to reason”

        The political structure of tolerance (which we can label more broadly as “liberal democracy”) is a highly rational system. Basically, it assumes (as is reasonable) that the accomplishment of any higher goals is dependent upon access to certain primary goods and structures. The government’s duties are not the enforce particular visions of the highest good but rather to ensure both equal access primary goods and services as well as prevent one citizen or group of citizens from hindering another citizen or group of citizen’s access to these goods and services. It is a procedural sort of justice.

        “Natural Law”

        Natural law is sadly defunct, however proud and interesting its history might be, primarily because of its lack of empirical justification. If natural law were true, then it would be possible to discover the primary principles of that law through empirical anthropology (the primary principles of natural law being those precepts which are not subject to loss through time or sin). However, studying actual anthropology reveals that in order for such precepts to be truly universal would require them to be so hopelessly vague as to be unhelpful for any practical ethical purposes. When people invoke natural law today, they typically mean by this “the assumptions of my Western-Roman-Christian culture,” which they assume is universally accepted and applicable.

        “US Constitution, First Amendment.”

        The U.S. Constitution does NOT protect religious actions insofar as they impinge upon the rights of others. The most extreme example of this would be human sacrifice: if I sacrificed my neighbor to the Aztec gods, I could not hope to avoid the rule of law by reference to the first amendment. The First Amendment does not read “religious activities and institutions are free from the rule of law.”

        1. Responsible Thinker –

          I’m not exactly sure what you’re driving at, however, I don’t object to your rejection of relativism regarding tolerance. Would you agree that the argument might be better understood and addressed by defining the differences between democracy and republic and understanding which political philosophy our Country was constituted and once rooted in?

          1. ” Would you agree that the argument might be better understood and addressed by defining the differences between democracy and republic and understanding which political philosophy our Country was constituted and once rooted in?”

            I think you are confusing Constitutional form with political philosophy. For example, the Constitutional form of our (present) government is now and has always been a representative republic. However, the political philosophy primarily driving that government has changed. We began with a government that was primarily aristocratic in nature even while representative in form – that is, one where only the “best” members of society (very carefully defined as white male – and occasionally, only Protestant – landowners) were allowed to participate. Over time, this aristocratic philosophy has been supplanted by a more broadly democratic philosophy, in which all are permitted to participate, and in which the notion of “rights” found in the Constitution has been expanded in deference to that philosophy. Today, liberal democracy best represents the guiding political philosophy of our state, instantiated still in a representative republic.

          2. I thought I might be confused, but maybe you confirm I’m not. I may not understand, or possibly I’m in denial, your distinction between form and philosophy, but it seems to me and maybe we agree that our gov’t and media masquerade and portend a false belief that we are a democracy. Our society no longer knowing the difference is being encouraged to also believe we are a democracry when in fact we are still a republic.

            I’m not very smart about stuff like this and therefore always over simplify things in order that I might understand, but I think you have a point when you reject relativism. This may have nothing to do with relativism. Possibly it’s just a lie, a false belief foisted on and adopted by the moral majority rooted in not understanding that we are not a democracy and the moral minority either willing or unknowingly pretending we are not a republic

            Whatever the case, I believe it’s important for our country as a whole to become aware of the differences between democracy and republic, including myself. Possibly a catechism on the Pledge of Allegiance.

            “and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

        2. Tinker, Your argument is based on, “Because I say so.” a complete lact of logic. Just like Msgr says. You have no other arguments than the way you feel, deny any history, set up straw men and garbage on the lawn. Have you ever read 1984?

          1. “Tinker, Your argument is based on, “Because I say so.” a complete lact of logic. ”

            As opposed to your own? Cheap shots aside, I believe that I logically reasoned each of my points. I would appreciate you specifically pointing out where my reasoning is shoddy. Do you disagree that the pursuit of the so called “higher goods,” however those may be defined, requires access to primary goods and services? Do you disagree that people should have access to primary goods and services regardless of their vision of the higher goods? Do you have empirical evidence supporting natural law, or do you disagree with my treatment of natural law (the definitions I provided are from St. Thomas Aquinas)? Or do you believe the first amendment protects religious actions which harm others or violate their rights?

        3. How about the simple common sense? You know – homosexuality is not good for one’s health, what with AIDS, anal cancer, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, intestinal infections because of oral-anal contact (the so-called “Gay Bowel Syndrome”), incompetence of the sphincter, etc., etc.?

          1. “You know – homosexuality is not good for one’s health”

            This is a blanket statement that unreasonably applies specific health problems to all homosexuals. Using this reasoning, I could say that heterosexuality is not good for one’s health considering the myriad of medical problems that can arise from straight heterosexual intercourse. Or I could say that people shouldn’t become pregnant. Or eat. Or any of the other activities that can and do lead to health problems even if performed “safely.” Are you willing to argue that ectopic pregnancies mean that women should not become pregnant?

            Even if I granted you the your statement (which I would not without a large number of caveats), there is no clear connection between “an activity is potentially unhealthy” and “an activity is unethical,” unless you are willing to say that full-contact football, mountain climbing, and BMX are unethical activities due to the clear and imminent risk they place participants in.

          2. “This is a blanket statement that unreasonably applies specific health problems to all homosexuals.”

            Wrong. Many of these health problems are SPECIFIC to homosexual “lifestyle” and your obfuscating tactics are not going to change this fact.

            “…there is no clear connection between “an activity is potentially unhealthy” and “an activity is unethical”.

            Wrong again, not only because in the Catholic perspective dangerous sports are considered sinful but also because you are comparing apples with oranges. I am not aware of any mountain climbers clamoring for the right to get married BECAUSE they are mountain climbers. Homosexuals want to marry one another because they are homosexuals and in marriage they want of course to have sex which is unhealthy and dangerous by its very nature (somehow I don’t think they’re into “platonic” unions). Thus supporting same-sex marriage is equal to supporting multiple health risks. QED.

          3. “Wrong. Many of these health problems are SPECIFIC to homosexual “lifestyle” and your obfuscating tactics are not going to change this fact.”

            I did not deny that the health problems you mentioned are related to homosexuality. I did point out that not all homosexuals have these health problems. As with anything, there are more and less safe homosexual practices, and there are healthier and unhealthier homosexuals. Yet again, I must point out that your are unjustified in generalizing these health problems to all homosexuals.

            “Wrong again, not only because in the Catholic perspective dangerous sports are considered sinful”

            I have never heard that before. The Catholic answers people don’t seem to agree with you (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=6669096). Maybe the Magisterium should do a better job keeping the laity informed that mountain climbing, BMX, skateboarding, and boxing are sinful.

            “I am not aware of any mountain climbers clamoring for the right to get married BECAUSE they are mountain climbers.”

            Irrelevant. In fact, the analogy would be more that a group would deny them the right to be married because they are mountain climbers. In any case, the analogy is pretty stretched and unenlightening.

            “Homosexuals want to marry one another because they are homosexuals and in marriage they want of course to have sex which is unhealthy and dangerous by its very nature (somehow I don’t think they’re into “platonic” unions).”

            Am I to assume married heterosexual couples don’t want to have sex? Or are you saying that there is nothing dangerous about heterosexual sex (yes, by the way, there is plenty that can go wrong even if you do everything “right.”)? And again, even if it were the case that heterosexuality is more “dangerous” it is clear that you are wrong that things are sinful simply because they are “dangerous.”

            “Thus supporting same-sex marriage is equal to supporting multiple health risks. QED.”

            Hey, do you want to see really poor logic (I mean, other than the line of reasoning you just used)? Did you know that around 1000 women die every day as a direct result of their pregnancy? Thus, supporting heterosexuality is equal to supporting women dying. QED.

            Now, clearly that argument doesn’t make any sense. It is, however, the same line of reasoning that leads you to conclude that since homosexuality carries health risks, supporting homosexuality equals supporting health risks. Clearly, the health risks of both homosexuality and heterosexuality are undesirable side effects of the mechanics and biology involved. What is perhaps more positive is taking steps to address the health problems for both through education and medicine.

          4. You call yourself “Responsible Thinker” but a better name for people like you is an ancient one – a sophist. Suffice to say that your logic is not my logic. I don’t have the time to twirl convoluted sylogisms in abstract spaces, good-bye.

          5. “a sophist.”

            Do you mind being more specific instead of throwing around insults? What do you believe is flawed, and in what way?

        4. Pick it apart, pick it apart, pick it apart.
          Every comment. Please go read the Constitution. Then tell us Catholics we have no right to our religion.

          1. ” Then tell us Catholics we have no right to our religion.”

            No one here (especially not me) would ever suggest that you have no right to your religion, whatever that religion may be. Nor do you have the right to use that religion to hinder the rights of others. You see, rights are a double edged sword: they are both the basis and boundary of freedom.

          2. I don’t understand our response so if you could help. My understanding is society makes laws that limit the freedom and rights of individuals for the “greater or common good”. We limit free speech with slander laws to protect the rights of others. Laws are passed daily that limit someones rights. Government agencies issue new rules constantly again to protect the common good. So since by your statement I cannot use my religion to hinder the rights of others, I am now stuck. My values and beliefs that form my political opinions and how I exercise my political rights are formed to a great extent by my religious beliefs. So do you mean that I am therefore unable to participate in the political process because I would be using my religious beliefs. I believe very strongly that abortion is a wrong in large part because my faith has taught me that this harms the greater good. We can get way off in the weeds about abortion so please use this only as a reference point that my religious beliefs form my political opinion. I believe as a result that we should have laws that limit/restrict abortion to a significant degree. These limits are again in my opinion for the greater good. Do you mean by your statement that I should not be allowed to vote for politicians that support my political beliefs because these are based on my religious beliefs?

            This leads us down many roads but your answer would help me greatly because I find this discussion difficult to understand. If your answer is no, then I have no freedom of religion or speech because you have said the source of my beliefs are unacceptable. If you answer that I have the right to my political beliefs no matter how they are formed then I miss your whole point.

            Clearly the history of our country (sorry assumed you are American if not sorry) is built on a tradition of balancing the rights of individuals and the common good and of compromises to achieve the larger common good. If the political majority believes and votes that people with same sex attractions should be allowed to have civil marriges then that will be the political decision and the law. It just seems to me that at this time in the US, there is a vocal and active portion of the population that generally want to limit the religious rights of others in so far as these are expressed outside of the strict boundaries of a religious service. This is not new of course, history shows people able to defend anything and willing to oppress those who disagree.

          3. “My understanding is society makes laws that limit the freedom and rights of individuals for the “greater or common good”

            That’s a perfectly good explanation. I think it is ultimately the same as my own: that is to say, rights may only be limited inasmuch as it is necessary to protect the rights of all.

            “So do you mean that I am therefore unable to participate in the political process because I would be using my religious beliefs.”

            No. I mean you cannot use your religious beliefs as protection for harming someone else or hindering their rightful access to a good, service, or status. So, for instance, you are free to express your opinion and participate in legal political processes in ways guided by your religious beliefs. You are not free to discriminate against homosexuals in your hiring practices due to your religious beliefs.

            ” Do you mean by your statement that I should not be allowed to vote for politicians that support my political beliefs because these are based on my religious beliefs? ”

            Of course you should be able to vote as you wish for whatever reasons you wish, religious reasons included. Your voting does not in itself violate the rights of another human being. However, there are things you might wish to vote for that have been rendered unconstitutional because of our expanding understanding of human rights. Homosexual marriage is not protected currently by the constitution, so this is a purely hypothetical situation: imagine you vote for a law preventing homosexuals from marrying even though either an amendment or judicial precedent established homosexual marriage as a right. You would not be doing anything wrong from the public standpoint to have voted for such a (hypothetical) law, but if (as it should be) it is struck down as unconstitutional, then you do not have the right to interfere in extra-political ways.

            ” If you answer that I have the right to my political beliefs no matter how they are formed then I miss your whole point.”

            You have a right to your beliefs, whatever they may be, however they may be formed. You have a right, for a completely hypothetical example, to believe that all races other than your own are inferior scum who should be turned into a gelatinous food for you to feast on. You may vote according to these feelings, run for office, etc. You may believe this, you can even write books about it and have group meetings with other like minded individuals. What you may not do is interfere with the rights of others based upon such a belief. The same with religious beliefs.

            “Clearly the history of our country (sorry assumed you are American if not sorry) is built on a tradition of balancing the rights of individuals and the common good and of compromises to achieve the larger common good.”

            Actually, the history of our country is built on a slow and painful tradition of slowly recognizing that various people were humans deserving of rights regardless of differences. From Massachusetts, where Catholics were once barred from public office, to the issue of black and women’s rights, the predominant or powerful have consistently shown resistance to recognizing the rights of others, a resistance often only overcome through struggle (both violent and non-violent). Or, to use your own description, the powerful and predominant have consistently shown resistance to compromising their own social power and status in order to extend rights to others.

            For example, the matter at hand: homosexual marriage. I could care less that Chick-Fil-A’s leadership opine the way they do. I love Chick-Fil-A wraps, they have a right to their opinion, and so long as they are not actively interfering in their practices with the rights of others, so be it. They have freedom of speech and freedom of political participation. What they are not free to do is discriminate in their actions, harm others, or violate law (including if that law outlines rights which they disagree with, including the rights of homosexuals to marry).

          4. Fair enough. So you would then agree that the Chicago Alderman who wants to bar Chick-Fil-A from his ward based solely on the speech of the CEO would be wrong if there is no evidence of illegal practice by the compan itself in its hiring practices in Illinois. The company has shown that it complies with all applicable hiring laws and should be free to operate.

          5. Yep, totally would agree. My comments about this article have been directed at the disparaging of the notion of tolerance that I have seen in this article and comments, not in defense of what is clearly an intolerant action on the part of Chicago government.

          6. For my side, there seems to be a huge gulf between definitions of tolerance. Somewhere down the blog you wrote more about civil marriage between people with same sex attractions at some length. I am guessing we would be on opposite sides of this issue. If the political process results in civil marriage becoming legal for people with same sex attraction then we will have to live with it to some sense. This would be tolerance in my mind. I comply with the applicable laws but I am free to voice my opinion that this is harmful to society. I retain my right to work within the legal structure to change the law to reflect what I believe to be best for the common good. Because of my beliefs I also find it necessary to treat others with respect regardless of the sexual preference and would to be treated that way as well. This is where I start to run into issue with the current notion of tolerance. If I comply with the law but voice an opinion that some behavior is morally wrong or try to change to legal process from within then I am a bigot. Someone with same sex attractions do not see their behaviors as immoral but I do. Why is it hate speech and bigotry if I express my opinions in a respectful manner? Without a doubt opinions expressed without respect can easily become hateful but there must be some place in the discourse to openly oppose one another without it automatically becoming hate. You may find that my over eating is bad for the country because I will raise everyone’s insurance costs. If your present your opinions in a respectful manner, I may not like them but that doesn’t make this hate speech. You weave a thread throughout much of your comments that same sex attraction is a fact of life and of course it is. I do not agree with your moving from to the position that it is settled that therefore everyone must see it as good. What a person chooses to do is of only limited interest to me as long as they do not hurt the common good or me. You I believe do not see homosexual activity as harming the common good but I believe that it can. Is there a point where I have to stop expressing my opinion or be drowned out by shouts of bigotry?

          7. Steve:

            “Is there a point where I have to stop expressing my opinion or be drowned out by shouts of bigotry?”

            People do have a right to drown you out by shouting you are a bigot. You have a right to express your opinion (so long as that opinion is not a specific threat against a specific person). So long as you obey the law and respect others’ rights in your actions and dealings with them, you should be just fine.

    2. Tolerance is not a virtue, prudence is a virtue. The social left has simultaneously embraced tolerance and dismissed prudence. Christians use prudence as tool to decide when to be tolerant. The left uses tolerance as a way to push out competing ideas. Prudence would dictate that the religious believers who comprise a large segment of the population, and in many ways carry out their mission to the benefit of the entire society (with schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, pregnancy centers all in my mid-sized community alone) should have a voice in the shaping of a cultural dialogue.

      James Madison, when asked to edit the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom _specifically removed the word tolerance_ from it in favor of language used in the Edict of Milan, when the church enjoyed the social privileges and powers you spoke of under Constantine. Under this language, the church supports religious freedom because it is the duty man owes his God, to allow each person to come to him in freedom and love. Christians do not however owe a duty to our God to allow the definition of marriage and the meaning of sex to become altered to suit a particular demographic’s preferences.

      Likewise, @ Mr. Patton as well, I find that the words of Jesus on divorce in Matthew 19 also provide a framework for the actual structure of marriage…”Haven’t you read,” he replied,” that at the beginning the Creator made them _male_ and _female_,” he said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”?

      1. “Tolerance is not a virtue, prudence is a virtue.”

        Why not both? Tolerance clearly has political advantages, especially in a pluralistic society. It is precisely through tolerance that you and I can disagree, yet I have no intention of putting you on the rack until you recant (and I hope vice versa).

        “Christians use prudence as tool to decide when to be tolerant.”

        Tolerance (and its associated philosophical basis, rights) would be meaningless if their enforcement is revokable by the peculiar tastes of individuals. You are protected by rights that are not subject to the “prudence” of others’ judgment about how much they should allow you to worship.

        “The left uses tolerance as a way to push out competing ideas.”

        Really? The entire premise of toleration is to allow the free expression of ideas. Leftist principles protect Westboro Baptist Church when it spews out some of the most hateful rants imaginable. Conservative regimes are historically far quicker to use coercion to squelch diversity. When was the last time one of your Christian friends in the U.S. was tortured until he recanted?

        Here, too, is a great irony: I hear Christians simultaneously complaining both that the liberal regime is far too open-minded, allows to many things to be said, is relativistic, etc. etc. And yet, simultaneously, the liberals are closed-minded, aren’t allowing things to be said, is absolutely set against them, etc. etc. Liberalism actually simply lets a kind of marketplace of ideas flourish. If Christianity isn’t a very successful member of that marketplace (and the truth is, it is still quite successful), you’ve no one to blame but yourself.

        I couldn’t give two beans what James Madison did in editing a document that has no weight in the current discussion.

  10. Well, I avoid fast food on general principle. As a liberal, I also acknowledge that occasional other liberals are not immune from the contortions the occasional conservative employs to bend neck, hip, and knee and place a foot deeply in the mouth.

    If the occasional outlier from good sense was enough to sink the argument of an entire ideology, the human race would have long ago confined its discussion to “What’s for lunch?” as most every other topic would have been declared a forfeit loss.

    My sense is this is less a tyranny of any sort of relativism and more people just getting angry because that’s just what Americans do these days. Maybe my mother had it right when she counseled that people shouldn’t discuss religion or politics.

    That said, there are two problems with the application of Natural Law and Biblical marriage.

    1. Some SSA persons might be born that way, that is: they were “created” gay by God. In other words, there might well be flawed human presumptions about what is divinely created.

    2. For at least the first half of the Old Testament, bigamy was an accceptable and moral and, if you were rich, an expected practice. Divorce was relatively easier than it should have been, according to Jesus. As a Catholic, I’d prefer a sacramental approach to marriage rather than a Biblical one.

    1. People are usually born or raised with a tendency to some sin or other. The ‘born that way’ claim doesn’t justify people going off in raging fits of anger in public. The ‘born that way’ argument taken to its extreme is really a claim that homosexuals and lesbians do have have a nature in common with other humans, and that is ultimately a claim that they aren’t actually human, as our human nature is what makes a human. I think it is cruel and obviously untrue to claim that people are ‘born that way’.

      1. Actually, it is obviously true that people are born with homosexual preferences. While I agree that the “born this way” formulation is crude and open to a number of criticisms, I believe it to be a rather poorly expressed version of a much better argument, which is simply that deviation from reproductive sexuality is not unethical, as it harms no one, does not prevent anyone else from access to their own rights, and does not prevent anyone else from believing as they wish.

        1. It is a selfish way of life, a way of life contrary to the commandment that is prior to the ten commandments: be fruitful and multiply, in much the same way that a life predicated on masturbation and pornography or a life predicated on artificial birth control is a selfish way of life. You don’t have to have kids to have something to bring to the table, but if you build your life on the above numerated sins, you will run out of things to bring to the table.

          1. “It is a selfish way of life,”

            I believe selfishness is a trait that can be found in many different types of relationships, just as selflessness can be found in a variety. In many ways, it is no more intrinsically selfish to commit to a same-sex relationship than it is to commit to a heterosexual relationship or to remain single.

            “a way of life contrary to the commandment that is prior to the ten commandments: be fruitful and multiply,”

            No more so that remaining single.

            ” You don’t have to have kids to have something to bring to the table, but if you build your life on the above numerated sins, you will run out of things to bring to the table.”

            Really? Homosexuals do nothing but masturbate, look at porn, and use birth control (?!) and don’t have things to bring to the table (as opposed to heterosexuals, who never masturbate, look at porn, or use birth control?)? What about these people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people
            See anybody on the list who has “brought something to the table?”

        2. Actually, there is no evidence whatsoever anybody has ever been born with homosexual preference. There is overwhelming evidence to show people can choose, be manipulated, groomed, forced, coerced, indoctrinated, brainwashed (taught to believe they are homosexual) and prostituted into a gay lifestyle, relationship or experimental one night stand. There is no gene, no chromosome, no brain shape, no psychological or any other scientific condition that has been demonstrated to exclusively happen to people who have gay or straight relationships.
          It is because of this fact, the scientists now argue that the social and welfare conditions people are in or have been reared in can affect their sexuality.

          1. “Actually, there is no evidence whatsoever anybody has ever been born with homosexual preference.”

            You are correct if by this you mean that no one is born with a single factor that determines sexual preference. You are incorrect if by this you mean there are no known factors that contribute and correlate with sexual preference. Clearly, sexual preference is not a simplistic matter either of genetics, biology, parenting, or socialization; factors from any of these can contribute. Nevertheless, sexual identity is established quite early in a person’s life (indeed, usually quite early) and is rarely a matter of a person’s “choice.” This is what is commonly meant by “born homosexual;” natural processes result in various sexual preferences.

            “There is overwhelming evidence to show people can choose, be manipulated, groomed, forced, coerced, indoctrinated, brainwashed (taught to believe they are homosexual) and prostituted into a gay lifestyle, relationship or experimental one night stand.”

            Actually, scientific bodies like the Royal College of Psychiatrists have established that, like I mentioned before, sexual identity is usually established quite early (and often in the absence of the factors you mention; this is why, for example, very strict heterosexual households who control their children’s socialization can still produce children with homosexual preferences). It is also true that socialization, which is what you are crudely referring to, is a two-way street. Some children who do have homosexual tendencies often face overwhelming social pressure to conform, and even face violence if they do not.

            “There is no gene, no chromosome, no brain shape, no psychological or any other scientific condition that has been demonstrated to exclusively happen to people who have gay or straight relationships.”

            There are a number of complex factors, just like heart disease and whether you are left or right handed. But, unfortunately for you, the general consensus is that everything you mentioned does play a contributing role, in addition to socialization.

            “It is because of this fact, the scientists now argue that the social and welfare conditions people are in or have been reared in can affect their sexuality.”

            Of course they can, because socialization does play a factor. But this is neither a necessary nor a sufficient explanation for sexuality.

        3. I believe the “born that way” idea lost favor amongst the radical left years ago because someone discovered that if there were a genetic link to homosexuality and thereby a real possibility of determining a homosexual genetic link before birth, women might ABORT their homosexual fetuses. Well, that didn’t sit well with the homosexuals. So, since that didn’t work, they moved on to other, more palatable avenues to force-feed the general public.

    2. The fact that SSA may be innate proves nothing. People are born with all sorts of abnormalities; this does not mean their conditions are not disorders.

  11. When you say, “In their lexicon ‘tolerance’ is ‘your right to agree with me,'” you really nailed it. We have to accept them, but they don’t have to accept us. They are the victims of hate and by definition cannot perpetrate hate and no one can be a victim of theirs. The same sort of thing with being “open minded” — which means agreeing with them.

    I find it connected also to relativism — “It’s wrong to tell others what’s right and wrong,” really means, “It’s wrong for you to tell me what’s right and wrong, but I can tell you.”

    This sort of thinking is turning ethics and politics into an exercise of finding ways to shut up the opposition, with tactics including ridicule and making people feel guilty about being mean to unfortunate folks. I’m pushing back when I hear it. It’s difficult to do so charitably, since it seems like a contradiction to be charitable and at the same time not affirm my interlocutors’ opinions and not support all the victims of hate and intolerance and all that. And we have to be careful not to cause scandal in that way. But push back charitably I will.

    1. “Woe to those times when evil is perceived as good and good is perceived as evil.” (Isaiah 5)

  12. Ask the question, why are our religious liberties threatened today? The proximate cause of this problem is the fact that the Constitution is a virtual dead letter in Washington, and as a result, we do not enjoy the protections that we should under the Bill of Rights. This situation has been caused by generations of Catholics, other persons who identify themselves as Christians, and virtually all Americans, by electing candidates in election-after-election who do not respect the basic requirements of the oath of office.

    Unfortunately, virtually no one seems to consider the constitution when the go to the polls ( eventhough it is a short document which can be read-through studiously in 2 to 3 hours — about as much time as it takes to watch the Superbowl). As a result of this negligence of voters and persons in leadership who have emphasized only the duty to vote, but not the duty to be well informed and study the Constution, our constitutional republic is being rapidly swept away. Catholics, by failing to give good example, and by merely following various political trends, have set themselves up for a persecution, which could be around the corner.

    Ave Maria!

  13. interesting, except the real distinction for me is about the majority dictating how the minority must live and the use of state an federal benefits to make LGBT people feel less than whole and human to maintain majority control over the minority. We “social radicals” have “tolerated” enough hate & homophobia in our life in America, trust me on this one …

    1. What do you think about the Chicago situation? As for the other things you mention, recall the demand of gays are relatively new in this regard. I suppose some legal framework can be found to assure equal protection under law, however remember that the legal benefits that accrue to traditional marriage are not to favor heterosexuals per se, but to benefit children and to strengthen the nuclear family.

      1. I’m unconvinced that the good of children and the nuclear family are at the root of legal marriage benefits. I’m not sure the swing from extended family to nuclear family has been all that good for Western culture. And for most of the past several centuries, children received very few benefits in the culture at large. Perhaps only in the past two generations. But not on all fronts, not even today. Adoption is one prime example. It is seem less of a solution for over 500,000 American children, and more a benefit for a somewhat smaller number of childless couples.

        If religious conservatives were serious about adoption as a family value, they would be doing more to provide a remedy for young people who lack parents rather than as a charitable act that happens to solve childlessness.

        Legal marriage seems to be more rooted in men being able to establish limits on paternity obligations and for the aristocracy to determine inheritance rights.

        Frank is spot on here. This is a majority who sees the operation of society as some kind of zero-sum game. If legal protections or benefits are given to committed same-sex couples, there will be less for heterosexual couples. This is a kind of anti-Christian principle in itself. Kindness and generosity is not the sort of economy that spends itself, as the example of Christ shows us.

  14. ““Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emmanuel the mayor said in a statement…” That’s really funny – to me the best known Chicago “value” is political corruption…

    1. I am a native Chicagoan and I love my city. However, in no way does the current mayor or this foolish alderman represent the people of Chicago. Yes, political corruption is an unfortunate reality in Chicago–and has been for most of her history. Like the rest of the country, Chicagoans have beome complacent in eradicating corrupt politicians who seek only greater and greater power and money. There is going to be a civil war again. Only this time, the war will be over the soul of this country. God alone knows the outcome.

      1. “There is going to be a civil war again.” My thoughts exactly. A society as polarized as the American one is now cannot stay peaceful for long. Let me know if you need Canadian volunteers on the side of the angels, eh? 8)

    2. AND one of the highest murder rates in the country. “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.” That’s supposed to be an insult? No slur on the remnant of decent folks hanging on in Chicago, but I take that as a compliment. LOL.

  15. I don’t know why everyone is saying that he’s discriminating. All he did was state his opinion. Gay people are not being fired from chick fil a. They’re not refusing to serve gay people. There is no discrimination going on. He was just stating his opinion. That has nothing to do with how he runs the business.

    1. And therein lies the rub. This is the new persecution. The thought police are alive and advancing, make no mistake about it. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We are entering into a real and insidious epoch of “Big Brother” on steroids. The real persecution of Catholics and other Christians (and any other group which opposes the radical left agenda) is on the horizon. We all need to pray–pray constantly for Divine help.

  16. It is not Don Cathy who is being intolerant or discriminating. He was *asked* for his opinion on a most
    controversial and hot topic. All he did was answer the question according to his own values. He was
    *asked* and he answered. No where in his business has this *opinion* reflected discrimination against
    the gays. He serves all patrons with equal dignity and hires indiscriminately across the wide spectrum
    of society. So…who is really being intolerant and discrimnatory here? Who is refusing the other the
    freedom of choice? How does the gay community suddenly become the arbitrator of what is disallowed
    and allowed? And those politicians who are siding with one against the other? Are they not elected and
    paid to represent all factions? Who gave them the power to make decisions that affect all? Should only
    the gay minority amongst the voters be considered here? If this is all about equal rights how is it that
    those who openly support traditional marriage and family life are given short shrift? Traditionalists far
    outweigh those who would defy tradition. It seems equality is not the object of the gay society but rather
    favoritism for their ” alternative lifestyle”!

  17. The meaning is, pure and simple, “my way or the highway”….if right minded people don’t agree with the so called “tolerance” folks, then they can “hit the road jack”! Nice…and all too often the right mined people capitulate and do just that….STOP IT NOW! Stand UP for the correct and moral thing to do and pooh-pooh those intlorent “tolerant” folks!
    lja/JMJ

  18. It’s not Christians who are doing the discriminations; the discrimination rest with those who are intolerant of Christian beliefs. The message is not to deny gay people rights and privileges like tax benefits and legal protections for their union, but to maintain the sanctity of the term ‘marriage’ which is the union of a man and a women, out of love, for the purpose of procreation. It is not a legal term as some may try to re-define it for the purpose of property rights. They are mistaken in connecting Christian beliefs to discriminating against gay people. The self-victimization of gay people and the misguided attacks on Christians is discrimination. It is not Christians who are attacking, but rather it is their beliefs that are under attack. If I don’t like seafood, even if I find it repulsive, that does not mean I hate fish. If a gay person doesn’t like the Church’s stance on a matter doesn’t mean he should attack the Church. Differences in opinions should be respected, and if the gay community eats a Chick Fil-A sandwich does not mean you are supporting an anti-gay business, it means you are respecting their rights to have their beliefs and that you like a good chicken sandwich. Just as if a conservative eats a Ben and Jerry’s treat, it doesn’t mean that conservative supports anything but freedom and good ice-cream.

  19. “And those politicians who are siding with one against the other? Are they not elected and
    paid to represent all factions?”
    An excellent question. And the answer is – don’t vote for them.

  20. Chick-Fil-A should certainly be allowed to open its restaurants regardless of its owners attitudes on same-sex marriage. Believe it or not, a number of “social radicals,” even atheists, continue to believe in freedom of speech …

    This atheist, for one.

  21. Equal human rights are being attacked. Woman fought for equal rights, blacks fought for equal rights, why can’t gays….they are HUMANS too! So called Christians throw religion into places it does not belong. Not everybody is religious but everyone should be able to use equal civil law to get married and to be happy. Most so called Christians commit adultery, molest children, and only use the Bible when it benefits them. Look at the divorce rate in America, thats forbidden right? It says in the Bible, God hats figs….but I bet you Bible thumpers eat them, why not boycott figs? 20+ years ago interracial marriage was illegal, but guess what? Wake up to the 21st century, they got equal marriage rights! So why can’t gays? Such hypocrites I say!

    1. Civil rights has focused on identity rather than behavior. The gay lobby seeks approval for a behavior, it is the behavior that is in question, not their humanity or things extraneous to that behavior. Words like marriage have a meaning and a history, and for a person or group to simply step on the scene usurp a word and demand everyone play along will gnerally get some reaction. You dont corner the market on being disgusted, alot of reasonable americans who oppose you are also disgusted.

      1. I’m not so sure this is about behavior. Few voices have argued for the criminalization of homosexual intercourse. The civil rights effort on same sex unions seems to be about rights involving tax structures, visitation, adoption, legal privileges, plus the usual discrimination issues.

        In order for conservatives to get my respect on this front, they will have to argue the immoral part–the sexual act is the problem. Most of what I read and hear from SSA people that they aspire to achieve are moral goods, or at worst, morally neutral.

        1. Most of what I read and hear from SSA people that they aspire to achieve are moral goods, or at worst, morally neutral.

          Good intentions don’t change objectively bad acts. Homosexual acts are always and everywhere evil acts.

          1. I’m convinced this is true for those whom God made with opposite-sex attractions. But civil benefits are not sexual acts. Nobody is disputing the legality of homosexual acts. However, visiting loved ones in hospitals, schools, prisons, being able to cover a partner with one’s medical insurance: none of these are immoral.

  22. REDIRECT — to a great extent I have appreciated the civil discourse on the topic that has largely taken place here. However, just to note that the conversation is turning increasingly to gay sex, which is only incidently the point of this post. The main point recall is the question of tolerance, or lack thereof shown by proponents of radical social movements once they gain power. The biblical and Church teaching on homosexual acts and illicit heterosexual acts isnt going to change and stands clearly opposed to the social revolution that, among other things advocates and support approval for gay sex. I wonder, now that social radicals have elevated gay sex acts to the level of a sacrament in their social order, and as they gain power in the secular utopia that is forming if they will find room for those of us who say their sacrament is a sin? The Chicago incident suggests they will not.

    1. “social radicals have elevated gay sex acts to the level of a sacrament in their social order”

      This is what surprises me most as a completely unexpected development in human history. No famous dystopian writer has ever tried to suggest that a sexual perversion would become the rallying cause for the “progressivists” aiming at a total restructuring of human reality. Homosexuality is an archetypal satanic inversion (I use the word “satanic” also – but not only – in its etymological sense) which turns upside down the most basic notions: lust becomes “love”, unnatural and awkward coupling becomes “sex”, sex becomes a “right” and procreation becomes completely unimportant. The utter arbitrariness of these manipulations is just astonishing. Even more astonishing is the fact that so many people are fooled by them. That’s what happens when individualism takes precedence above everything else. But individualism inevitably leads to, first, spiritual and then to the physical death.

    2. Of course they will not be tolerant Monsignor – bullies never are.

      While gay sex might be incidental to your fine post, it is in fact foremost with regard to marriage. Heterosexuals (well, at least in times gone by) married for sex and procreation. Anyone who says different is kidding themselves. Of course there’s more to it than that, but marriage is about sex and procreation and everything that goes along with that.

      Even if one does not believe in God or any kind of greater power, the fact that sexual intercourse normally results in pregnancy can only mean that it was meant to be so much more than recreational. And no, I”m not lumping infertility in with gay sex.

      I won’t pretend to speak for anyone else about gay marriage, but because the sex organs are used in a distorted manner and there is absolutely no chance of procreation, but merely recreation, it’s wrong. In the history of the world, homosexuality has been quashed repeatedly because it’s corruptive – it’s only rearing it’s head right now because of the warped time we live in…but I don’t doubt that history will repeat itself and it will not last.

    3. Still a skeptic on the importance of radicals in the mainstream debate on issues like these. People murdering abortion doctors don’t (and shouldn’t) sink the pro-life effort. Biblical prohibitions against charging interest on loans, tattoos, and eating shellfish seem to have lost their luster. Plus the going-out-of-fashion of debt-forgiveness, bigamy, and women’s hats and there’s a lot of looseness in the non-shalt-nots of the Bible.

      I suspect that at some point, the assumption that God made every human being suitable for a heterosexual relationship will fade and some degree of indifference to same-sex unions will take root. Still contrary to natural law would be sexual promiscuity, heterosexuals misrepresenting themselves as gay, and the generally selfish approach to sexual gratification.

      Meanwhile, I also suspect that extremists on all ideological fronts will continue to do silly or stupid things to shoot themselves in the foot.

    4. I wonder, now that social radicals have elevated gay sex acts to the level of a sacrament in their social order, and as they gain power in the secular utopia that is forming if they will find room for those of us who say their sacrament is a sin?

      Sacrament? I’m sorry … no. From where I sit, gay sex is not a sacrament. It is simply an act. If there is a “sacrament,” is it in two people willingly committing to each other for the sake of love, dedication … something that transcends mere physicality. But that, I would argue is not the province of government and society, but that of the individuals involved.

      , and as they gain power in the secular utopia that is forming if they will find room for those of us who say their sacrament is a sin?

      Yes, there is room for you. Have you followed the reaction to the Chicagoans? Did you see newspaper after newspaper — pillars of the “social radical” society you envision — defending the right of Chick-fil-A to sell its sandwiches? Have you not read of activists who defend Chick-fil-A’s rights even as they decry its owners bigotry?

      Do not be so quick to take the worst behavior of those you oppose, then project that behavior on them generally. I suspect you do not appreciate those who do the same to you.

  23. Can someone tell me just what this “gay agenda” is that nobody but heterosexuals talk about?

      1. I for one would like to hear an answer. It would be interesting if Msgr. Pope would make explicit what he believes everyone “knows” is the “gay agenda.” After all, if everybody knows it, then what’s the harm in saying?

        1. The gay agenda, is no less than the insistence of the widespread approval of homosexual acts as both normal and praiseworthy. What gay activists want is more than mere tolerance, they want complete approval for the behavior they choose to identify themselves by. When this approval is not forthcoming, the tendency of most of them is to accuse those of us who do not approve, for biblical, and natural law reasons, of being homophobic, intolerant, hateful, unkind, et cetera. I think, most Americans, including Christians, Are willing to tolerate the obvious fact that certain people engage in these behaviors. But the gay agenda does not consider this enough, we must approve of it, otherwise we are intolerant. Yet classically, tolerance is only possible, where there is disapproval for the said behavior, And the one who does not approve nevertheless endures the existence of this behavior for some greater good, say, not living in a police state where private behaviors are monitored and punished by big brother.

          Another aspect of the gay agenda, is for the approval of something known as gay “marriage”. Nevermind, that the word marriage is never been applied to such unions, ever in 5000 years of human history. Still, we are supposed to snap to and immediately yield to the gay agenda which demands this word be used to refer to gay union. Otherwise, we are hateful, intolerant, homophobic, bigoted, closeminded, etc.

          As I said, this is not really a post about the gay agenda, or gay sex. These issues have been discussed and rejected before on this blog for reasons of biblical, and natural law. I am under very little illusion, to think, that those who demand that Christians consider gay sex wonderful and something to be celebrated, are going to be a bit pleased by any of the things I have written here. What this blog post is about, is that those who often like to march under the banner of tolerance, in this case, Two particular politicians, are themselves intolerant. And so are those who support what they are doing. I realize, as some have commented here, not all advocates of the gay agenda support what the mayor of Chicago and the alderman have said. That point is a worthy addition to this blog post, and worth celebrating. But too many in this debate who love to talk about tolerance, really have no intention of showing it once they are in power and have shown they are ready and willing to use the punitive power of the state to punish anyone who does not celebrate and approve what they want to do. All-American should be open and sober about the popes teaching on the tyranny of moral relativism.

          1. Homosexual acts are a part of human experience. No one on either side of the current political discussion seems interested in the actual immoral act: sexual intercourse.

            It seems the so-called gay agenda involves other things: visiting one’s partner in the hospital, leaving one’s worldly goods to one’s partner at death, participation in health insurance, and such. All of these sorts of commitments exist outside the realm of sexual intercourse. And indeed many family members of different generations share in many of these moral goods.

            I appreciate Msgr Pope’s acknowledgement that many if not most of those who disagree with him, also join him in not aligning with critics who have gone overboard. I do think it’s important to actually listen to what people are saying from “the other side.” It’s good for us. Helps us avoid relativism on our side of the void.

          2. Simply saying that homosexual acts are part of the human expereince is not helpful. No one denies that. But biblical and traditional Christianity regrads them as sinful, that is the point. Wrathful Anger is also part of the human experience etc. The question is, is it good. I surely do not oppose that unreasonable legal obstacles be removed from Same sex couples, but calling their unions marriage is a brdge too far. And while I do support that traditional Marriage can have some prerogatives for the sake of children, I also understand the concerns for equal protection under law.

          3. Not helpful? Not sure about that. It’s an important reminder that people have had same-sex urges in all cultures and for millennia. That fact tends to sink the notion that this generation or Western culture now has a particular problem in this regard.

            Speaking for myself, I’ve not ever referred to gay marriage. I understand that such lingo permits SSA activists to gain an appropriate raft of benefits without going at things piecemeal in law, medicine, civil rights, and such. My own sense is that same-sex unions are at worst a morally neutral solution to a civil rights problem. And many aspects of them embody moral virtues of commitment, permanency, providing for loved ones, and the like. The sinful aspect in the Church’s view is the sexual act. And nobody’s talking about outlawing that.

          4. “The gay agenda, is no less than the insistence of the widespread approval of homosexual acts as both normal and praiseworthy.”

            Sure. I follow you here – although wanting to be recognized as something other than deviant or sub-standard is not uncommon for groups excluded from civil institutions. That being said, I think “praiseworthy” is not necessarily a universal agenda so much as simply being included in those legal institutions.

            “What gay activists want is more than mere tolerance, they want complete approval for the behavior they choose to identify themselves by.”

            Here I don’t follow. I don’t think the majority care whether you (or anyone in particular) approve of what homosexual marriage; they simply want the legal ability and protection do engage in homosexual marriage and relations. There are probably outliers who do want you specifically to change your mind, but that hardly represents a universal agenda.

            “But the gay agenda does not consider this enough, we must approve of it, otherwise we are intolerant.”

            Again, I don’t think they are looking for your personal moral approval, but rather politically recognized rights.

            “Another aspect of the gay agenda, is for the approval of something known as gay “marriage”. Nevermind, that the word marriage is never been applied to such unions, ever in 5000 years of human history.”

            Of all the arguments against homosexual marriage, I believe this is the only one that has any real bite. Many civilizations say homosexual relationships as normative, and yet there was no need for homosexual marriages. Marriage was seen as relating to procreative functions.

            Nevertheless, this is not how marriage is seen now – and the reason for the change is not because of homosexuals, but because of a change in heterosexual marriage. Marriage is no longer viewed primarily or essentially in terms of procreative function, but is rather seen as a civil and legal recognition of a couple’s commitment to live together and care for one another. You can frown over this or be happy over this as you like (and I suspect you have a big frown because of it), but this is simply the way things have changed. In view of this change, denying marriage to homosexuals becomes the arbitrary result of prejudice rather than – as it was – a reasonable conclusion from the nature of marriage.

            “Otherwise, we are hateful, intolerant, homophobic, bigoted, closeminded, etc.”

            I suspect you are probably homophobic to some degree (that is, you are genuinely afraid of the effects of homosexuality on both a personal and a social level). I don’t know if you are hateful, but you don’t seem so. I hope that, all other things being equal, you would prefer not to see civil authority used to prosecute homosexuality as it was in many Catholic nations for much of the history of the West. I may, perhaps, be wrong; maybe you think it was right to punish homosexuals by, say, shoving a red hot poker up their rectum. I hope and think this is not the case.

            “that those who demand that Christians consider gay sex wonderful and something to be celebrated, are going to be a bit pleased by any of the things I have written here.”

            No, and I don’t think you are being terribly effective by addressing what is likely a minority of gays, even gay activists. I suspect most have no hope or intention of making you personally approve of what they do. But their struggle is not about having your personally approve of their morality any more than the civil rights movements was primarily about making white people in general accept blacks as equals. It was primarily about political recognition.

            “not all advocates of the gay agenda support what the mayor of Chicago and the alderman have said. That point is a worthy addition to this blog post, and worth celebrating.”

            This is the best thing you say, and it gives me hope that the dialogue is not useless. You see, There are plenty of Christians who do the exact thing you condemn homosexuals for: they are not content with the right to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but they really do wish that everyone agreed with them. Some would even be fans of using government power to enforce these moral views (as I mentioned, this has been the MO of many Christian governments, and I have come to discover that most self-identified traditionalist Catholics would actually not have a single qualm living in a government in which homosexuals were targeted by law). But, I suppose that you would not want your position judged by the more extreme radicals on your own side? Then perhaps what is needed is a healthy dose of recognition that there is not a unified “gay agenda” proceeding under the banner of “make all Christians love gay sex” just as there is not a unified “Christian agenda” of “burn all gays.” There are more moderate, reasonable people; and perhaps it is their voices that should be taken the most seriously.

  24. The last time I heard, we live in a country that provides for free speech. It seems to me that anyone who believes in traditional marriage as Mr. Cathy does and all those who believe as he does, and as I do, are having our right to free speech challenged unless of course you and those who think as you do, all of us agree with your worldview. Proponents of same sex so-called marriage are a perfect example of what Msgr. Pope has articulated is so disturbing about this twisted view of tolerance. Those of us who disagree with the redefining of marriage are entitled to be heard in the public square without being called hateful people because the reality is, we are not. Christianity is not a religion of hate. Christianity is based upon loving our neighbor. God also hates no one. God still loves us even if we stray. What He doesn’t love is the sin and homosexual behavior is a sin.This means Christians cannot sit by idly while attempts are being made to redefine marriage into something that we believe is immoral. I don’t understand the hate and rage that comes from homosexual activists. The one thing they keep repeating over and over again is tolerance. Ask yourselves, where is your tolerance for someone who thinks differently? The hate mantra being used by homosexual activists is getting really old and not very effective either.

  25. I find it amazing that Cathy did not bring up the topic in his interview. He simply answered the question honestly. He’s not even a well known person to most Americans (nor are these local officials jumping on the intolerance band wagon). None of the articles on the matter list the many many great works he has done for his 60,000 employees. That is the state of today’s media. One sound bite will characterize you forever.

  26. Selective intolerance to freedom of speech is not the work of the Holy Spirit. This requires prayer.

  27. Even God saw to it that the words of St. John the Baptist, as righteous yet untolerated as they were at the time, made it into written form for all to see even thousands of years later; indeed, all of the prophets God treats this way. Indeed, Herod tried to stop his speech by beheading St. John, but it was God’s Will for St. John to be heard. And he was, and he is to this day.

    Though Herods may abound even today, what God will’s is done, and no “Herod” can stop that – not really.

  28. Let’s say Dan Cathy said to Mayor Emmanuel: Mr. Mayor, because you support “gay marriage” you aren’t welcome in my establishment.” Imagine the uproar, cries of bigotry/intolerance and let’s get a lawsuit going …. However, the mayor can say to Mr Cathy, “Because you support traditional marriage, you aren’t welcome in our city.” And, apparently, that’s ok. Seems to be a bit of a double standard, don’t you think?

  29. Here ya go, “Mayor” Emmanuel, right from the UN. Look it up for yourself if you’ve got the moxy. I invite your attention especially to the last sentence wherein even a purely secular organization can figure out the obvious.

    “It means that one is free to adhere to one’s own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.” Here, let me repeat that for your benefit: “IT ALSO MEANS THAT ONE’S VIEWS ARE NOT TO BE IMPOSED ON OTHERS.” Got it?

  30. After watching the major debate presented by supporters of SSM, a few things come to mind. I am reminded first of the old folk tale about the Emperor’s New Clothes. Politicians are lining up to support SSM and are eager to condemn those of us, especially the Church, who will not accept it. Is the Tailor who made to clothes to be condemned, of the small, honest child who openly stated that the Emperor was actually naked? God forbid that we should differ from everyone else. If everyone wants it, it can’t be that radical or bad. (Major fallacy of itself).

    I have to admit that in my time growing up, and I’m 60 years old and have worked in the music industry and theater for 4 decades, I knew many people who were gay and in relationships, but not that it was hushed up; they were comfortable with it, accepted themselves and we accepted them, although we did make it clear to our children that we do love them and accept them into our homes as friends, but cannot accept their lifestyle as morally and ethically sound – not love the sinner but hate the sin – rather love the sinner in spite of the sin – that is the real message of Christ. Whether it be religion, political views, or any other situation, wearing your position on you sleeve and adopting a holier-than-thou attitude is a psychological sure-fire that 1) one isn’t really sincere about it in the first place; 2) one is doing it for effect rather than conviction; 3) if one can scream the loudest, more people will believe one is right and a victim. Considering my long time friends in alternative lifestyles, most have opted not to pursue such pseudo-activism because of what I have mentioned. Considering their integrity, I can accept that their lifestyle is not the same as mine and I can accept that in others as well. But the band-wagon posturing that is going on socially and politically indicates that the attempts to “burn down the establishment” is not an attempt to augment change, but an attempt to simply burn down the establishment.

    The adamant statements from advocates of SSM that we who hold the Christian stand are intolerant reeks of what they claim to condemn in us. Totally, it is an attempt to turn perpetration into victimization. And yet, the Church has never condemned homosexuals, but have condemned the behavior, as it does all sin, especially that which either seriously conflicts with Divine or Natural order, or takes undiminished liberty of privilege without the sacramental validation. To see politicians lining up to condemn Chick-Fil-A when they can’t do something positive about drug and human trafficking in the inner city, huge national companies outsourcing jobs AND resources to other countries, the rise in spousal and domestic abuse (and incidentally it is considerably high in same sex relationships), child prostitution, child abduction, and an assortment of other underworld activities that they have looked the other way on for too long, or have little motivation to change. In all those cases, perpetrators see themselves as the victims. It’s far easier and a path of least resistance to avoid controversy, but saber-rattling at an easy target like mob-lynching, is never an act of bravery and takes no guts or conviction. I think Mr Cathy has modeled for us that real integrity comes from standing by one’s genuine conviction, and integrity is always lost when one tries to live one standard on Sunday and another during the week, regardless of venue.

  31. I live and vote in Chicago, and I can assure you, Rahm Emanuel is no social radical. Although he worked in the Obama administration, he is a Clintonian Democrat, a Republican Lite. While Alderman Moreno may have begun this misguided action out of some genuine concern for the citizens of his ward (and of course, their votes), the mayor’s posturing will eventually resolve itself around who represents the most lucrative source for re-election contributions. In seeing this as an example of some kind of “war on religion,” one dignifies the actions of these politicians by ascribing motives of principle to mere political pragmatism–which, by the way, they seem to have misread in this case.

  32. why can’t just go back to the good ol’ days when gay people stood in the closet, women stayed in the kitchen and didn’t meddle in politics, non-whites couldn’t vote, unions weren’t bankrupting cities, you know the good ol’ days when proponents of same-sex relationships knew their place and wouldn’t dare to think of such craziness as same-sex marriage. Of course I’m being facetious, but civil marriage is a civil right, businesses that actively seek to impede the civil rights of individuals OR groups SHOULD be rebuked.

  33. Yeah, if people listened to what the Church has said for years, STD’s wouldn’t exist.

  34. Things are heating up as the American Civil Liberties Union get involved.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/politician-plan-to-block-chick-fil-is-unconstitutional-legal-experts-say/
    Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel became the second big-city mayor to blast the company over president Dan Cathy’s comment last week that he is “guilty as charged” for supporting the traditional definition of marriage.
    The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.
    “But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’ think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”
    Wilson Huhn, a professor and associate director of the Constitutional Law Center at The University of Akron School of Law, echoed Turley’s stance, saying that a denial on behalf of Moreno regarding a second Chick-fil-A restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood would “absolutely” violate the First Amendment.
    Despite the emotional issue of same-sex marriage, Cathy’s position is not out of the mainstream. A USA Today/Gallup Poll in May showed 50 percent of Americans approved of gay marriage and 48 percent opposed it.
    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/politician-plan-to-block-chick-fil-is-unconstitutional-legal-experts-say/#ixzz22UJXWpEC
    All this for stating a belief and being told that one is “guilty as charged” by a mayor who is elected by democratic process, and without the accused having a chance to decently defend himself from the accusations.
    Is this what America is becoming? Believe what you’re told or the thought gestapo will send activists to assault your place of business! http://news.ca.msn.com/world/gay-rights-activists-plan-chick-fil-a-kiss-in

Comments are closed.