Slipping up on the slippery slope
Monday, May 4, 2009
By Bryan Cones
Comments (3)
Having posted on what I think is overheated and, in the final analysis, completely counterproductive rhetoric on abortion, I ran across an instance of an overzealous concern for the slippery slope that I think has the same effect. The two Catholic bishops of North Carolina are encouraging Catholics to oppose an anti-bullying bill pending passage in the state legislature because it might lead to same-sex marriage--a big leap in the minds of many.
The bishops point out that the law mentions sexual orientation and gender identity as categories of people who might suffer bullying, and go on to argue that the "categories" section of the bill (which includes race, national origin, disabilitiy, and so forth) be removed altogether because similar inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity have been used in court cases to legalize same-sex marriage. To their credit, the bishops insist that they are against bullying, including bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (You can read their Web alert here.)
Now, I'm not saying that I think the bishops are crazy. It's certainly true that proponents of same-sex marriage have used non-discrimination laws in the arguments to courts. Their fundamental argument is, after all, that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is discriminatory.
At the same time, I think the bishops underestimate the effect on public opinion that their position may have. If people read in a likely unnuanced newspaper account that the state's Catholic bishops oppose a section of anti-violence legislation just because it names sexual orientation and gender identity, I think it's likely that they'll think the bishops are nuts, especially since we're talking about bullying kids here, and kids perceived to be gay or who identify that way are victimized a lot.
To my mind the likely outcome is not only that the language will remain but that the bishops may undermine their positions in the future on more central issues because they're seen as either hung up or just unreasonable on this issue, just as I think intemperate rhetoric about abortion turns off people who might otherwise be your allies on the issue.
In this case it might be better to come out in favor of an anti-bullying bill that includes the language in question, which they certainly could do, and leave the same-sex marriage fight for another day.
And now I wait patiently to be eviscerated...
Posted in: In preview mode
hate crimes bill
By crystal (not verified) on Monday, May 4, 2009This reminds me of the Hate Crimes bill that was just passed by the House ...
classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability. The current law, enacted four decades ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion or national origin.
Many conservative Christian groups, including the Catholic League, argued against the bill, saying it would impair their religious freedom. I disagree.
I wish a Catholic had said what Jim Wallis, who supports the bill, said .....
A fundamental Christian belief is that every person is created in the image of God. Too often in our country when violence has been directed against gay and lesbian people, most Christians have been painfully silent. The hate crimes legislation now in the House is designed to strengthen our society's ability to prosecute these crimes. It contains additional explicit protection for free speech and religious liberty, rights which are already guaranteed by our Constitution, and allows for continued free expression of speech about controversial issues around homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. Regardless of the theological differences we may have on these issues, Christians should all agree on the fundamental protection of human rights. That is why I support this legislation.
Homosexuals
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Tuesday, May 5, 2009Greetings,
An American has the right to live the way he sees fit and another American has the right to say that he is wrong for so doing without preventing his will from so doing it, anyway. The last right is becoming less clear, as the holder of the right is bullied into accepting the totalitarianism of relativism. Ironically, in the end, in will be he who needs a hate law to protect himself from the proponents of relativism, as; if he is faithful, he will be compelled to proclaim the truth, anyway, and he wll surly be made a martyr for it. In fact, he will be compelled to proclaim the truth because of the homosexuals themselves. I see a clash a coming.
For a Christian, all lifestyles cannot be considered morally equal, because all sinners are equal in God’s eyes but all sin is not nor does all sin have the same degree of consequences for all of society. A Christian has a duty to protect marriage and to especially order society according to God’s laws-- natural and otherwise.
How does an American, based on his religious liberty, call a homosexual act an abomination without the homosexual claiming he is a bigot for so doing and then try to get him arrested for it? Or how does an American, based on his religious liberty, hate the sin because he loves the sinner without the sinner claiming he is trying to take away his personal liberty to do what he wants to do?
And that is what all of this hate crime stuff is. Don’t fool yourself. It is a way to validate and mandate the homosexual lifestyle as being morally equivalent to any other lifestyle.
A Christian must always love and never do harm to any homosexual while simultaneously telling him that he has serious disorder that in all but rare cases can be treated psychologically. He has a sickness. That is to love him: to want to see him well. The last Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders diagnosed it exactly the same way: a psychiatric disorder. Is that hate?
I hope not. If progressives want to redefine morality towards all inclusiveness, all permissiveness, how do you deal with someone like me and still claim to be inclusive? Well, try to shut him up.
In the end, liberalism is a self-imploding construct because it cannot be inclusive to all ideas. It becomes what it claims it wants to avoid: absolutism.
How far will it go? Is not the simple truth better?
For a loving explanation of how WE Catholics are to MINISTER to homosexuals see: http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Ministry.pdf
Sorry to be out of step with "ordinary believers", as Blair would calim, but no believer defines reality. He assents to it as a means to transcend himself so as to get to heaven-- homosexual or not. Or did we forget about people’s souls with all of this truncating of reason to suit our own ideas of what is right and wrong?
“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith” (1 Tim 6:20).
Timothy+
Homosexual “marriage”.
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Monday, May 4, 2009Greetings,
No evisceration necessary.
I would just caution you to keep in mind that words could be used persuasively whether there is falsehood or not. The individual, through the law of God written on his heart informed by the natural light of reason and a continuing formation of his conscience, has the sole responsibility to judge the vacuity or veracity of what he apprehends.
Here is to the forming…or to trying to conform our intellects to reality, which is truth.
Some things are black and white. And they ought to be realized as such. Granted, sometimes we must try to stop the slime from causing a slip in the first place.
I trust the bishops, as further evidence of their continuing zeal that they must do just that: be very, very active. Look at them go…we are breathing again. Call it proactively being an apostle and diffusing the Spirit.
Not to lose the tone, but you seem like you would be happier if the bishops hadn’t said anything, not because of the way they said it but because you are for homosexual “marriage”. You will have to work on that; I mean if your not, indeed, for homosexual “marriage”. It does get confusing for me.
Timothy+
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
