BOB JONES UNIVERSIT

>>Can churches be sued for refusing to marry a man and a woman of different races? Of course.

No, they can't. I don't know who is feeding you this line of anti-American bull, but that's what it is. Bull. No church in the United States has ever been sued for this. No one who had the least bit of understanding or respect for the American way of life would even allege it.

>> is a Civil Right, as gay marriage supporters proclaim, then whom is it "smearing" and and "libeling" to suppose there MAY, some time in the future, come a day when a gay couple might sue a church for refusing to marry them? 

Don't be ridiculous. Legal marriage is a civil right. Religious marriage is not. That's why you don't see atheists suing to marry in the Catholic church. And why interracial couples do not sue to get married in churches.

I'm sorry you that religious marriage means so little to you that you think it is exactly the same as government marriage, and do not understand the difference between the two. I really can't help you with that, hope. Your fear of losing your exalted legal status has warped your ability to reason or understand basic facts about the country you live in. But it will pass. People just like you felt just as threatened by the idea of black people being able to vote and own property and go to school with white people. They got over it, mostly. You will survive even if you no longer enjoy the legal advantages you crave over people whose demographic you look down your nose at. Really, you will. You don't have to have the government grant you special privileges it withholds from others for the world to keep spinning and keep revolving around the sun.

>I barely skim

And that's how you ended up not knowing the Church's position on abortion 40 years after Roe v Wade. You "barely skimmed" and thought that Catholics were free to do whatever they please, because in your mind, anything you can imagine is more compelling than what reality can offer. You simply have no respect for anything that does not conform to your prejudices.

You're just as wrong about the US Constitution as you were about the Church's position on abortion. Hence, you're a useful idiot to anyone who throws a little bit of race-baiting and anti-American propaganda in front of you.

-- Edited by conyat on Monday 22nd of April 2013 09:43:46 PM

So now we're back on money-making businesses run by churches.........I guess that's a tacit admission that your smear was just what I said it was---anti-American bull.

Think about it hope, the Church already refuses to marry people who have a legal right to enter into a marriage contract--the Church would be getting sued left and right for church weddings if it were really possible. Gay couples would be suing to have their children baptised if it were really possible.

Bob Jones' money-making venture choosing to allow inter-racial dating rather than pay taxes is an entirely different situation. Let's see if you can figure out the difference between a church and a school, and between being forced to do something and choosing to do it rather than pay taxes.

>Can churches be sued for refusing to marry a man and a woman of different races? Of course.

I still can't believe you tried to allege this. Name ONE case. ONE. Heck, it doesn't even have to be a lawsuit; show me a sternly worded letter from a lawyer threatening to sue a church for this. There was a case where a Justice of the Peace got sued, but he was a government official NOT a church.

“After the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, there was never the suggestion that private religious groups that wouldn’t perform interracial marriages would be shut down,” Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow points out. “Or lose their tax-exempt status.” 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/gay_marriage_churches_synagogues_and_mosques_won_t_be_forced_to_conduct.html

If you think you know more about the law than Harvard's Law School Dean--let's see your evidence.

I wonder if you will have the courage and the integrity to admit your claim is the anti-American bull that it is. 

-- Edited by conyat on Monday 22nd of April 2013 07:55:59 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Monday 22nd of April 2013 07:56:36 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Monday 22nd of April 2013 08:00:44 PM

I knew that Hope was trying to spread the libel that legalizing gay marriage would force the church to conduct them. --You know in the same way that allowing Jewish people to get married forces the church to conduct wedding ceremonies for Jewish people, and allowing people to divorce forces the church to conduct weddings for divorced people.

I'm glad at least she finally got her false accusation out in the open, so everyone can see how frivolous it is. The truth is, in the US, the Church can't even be forced to marry straight, previously unmarried Catholics in good standing. The couple goes through something called pre-Cana, and if the priest decides they are not ready for marriage, that's it. They can't go run to court to force him to marry them any more than hope could run to court to force the priest to give her communion once he finds out about her long-standing defiance of church teaching on abortion.

Does hope know enough about the Constitution to know she's spreading a lie or is she merely a useful idiot? Hard to say at this point. After all, she harps so much on being Catholic, but was not aware of the Church teaching on abortion, so maybe she's managed to miss the part about their being a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, and thinks its merely dumb luck that atheists aren't suing to get married in the Cathedral.

But now that honest, informed people know what she was hinting at, we can dismiss it for the idiocy and bad faith that it is.

Why the Catholic Church and Gay Marriage Cannot Coexist In recent months, I have heard some Catholics ask why the Church is so concerned about the definition of civil marriage. After all, they say, changing the definition of civil marriage to include gay couples would have no consequences on the definition of the sacrament of Matrimony, so changing the law will not harm the Church, right? Unfortunately, this is not the case. In addition to the numerous implications that a redefinition of marriage would have on society and children, the Church is gravely concerned about the legal redefinition of marriage because it would threaten its fundamental ability to exist and exercise its ministry fully. We can already see the effects that the push to redefine marriage has had on Christians trying to live out their faith. A Christian baker in Lakewood, Colo., is facing jail time because his conscience would not allow him to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Although he made it clear that he was not anti-gay and would be happy to bake a birthday or graduation cake for a gay individual, he is still facing the threat of imprisonment for refusing to affirm “gay marriage.” Sadly, this case is not unique. In New Jersey, a Methodist church was sued because it would not allow its facility to be used for a same-sex “wedding.” The judge ruled against the church. Catholic Charities has been forced out of the adoption business in Massachusetts, Illinois and Washington, D.C., because it would only place children in homes with a mother and a father. The list goes on. In Massachusetts, a father was arrested for trying to pull his son out of a kindergarten class where he was being taught about homosexuality and “gay marriage;” a doctor in California was punished by the courts because he would not use artificial insemination to create a fatherless child; a photographer in New Mexico was faced with legal action because his conscience would not permit him to photograph a gay ceremony; a Vermont bed and breakfast owner and a New York farm owner were sued because they did not want to host gay “weddings” in their privately-run facilities. These examples offer a response to those who think that redefining civil marriage will leave the Church free to use its own definition of marriage. Catholic adoption agencies were not free to simply use “their” definition of marriage – they were required by law to comply with the legal definition. Even the Methodist church was not permitted to use “its” definition of marriage. The Danish government recently determined that “gay marriage” includes a right to get married in any church in the country, even if that church objects to such unions. Churches throughout the country will now literally be forced to conduct marriages they believe to be invalid and sinful. This could happen in the U.S. – government regulations forcing Catholic churches to conduct “gay marriages” with the justification that they are not required to recognize them as sacramental. The ongoing debates over the HHS mandate show us that the current government views religious freedom so narrowly as to remove nearly all of its meaning. If the government can force religious institutions – such as hospitals, schools and charitable agencies – to facilitate birth control against their beliefs, it can certainly force them to accept “gay marriages.” The erosion of religious freedom is further seen in Colorado, where lawmakers recently passed a gay civil union bill – described by its supporters as a stepping stone to “gay marriage” – that intentionally left out a religious exemption for faith groups that object to recognizing gay unions. In a heated hearing over this purposeful exclusion, gay advocates argued that religious groups do not have the right to adhere to their own beliefs on marriage as they conduct their affairs and carry out the various services that they provide for the community. Colorado senator Pat Steadman had a message for those who object to recognizing “gay marriages” on religious grounds: “get thee to a nunnery. Live there then. Go live a monastic life, away from modern society.” Steadman argued that there is no room in the public square for those who hold religious beliefs that object to “gay marriage.” He even went so far as to argue that they should live “(a)way from the stream of commerce” because it is intolerable for them to bring their religious views into the world of business. The exemption-less Colorado law passed, and gay advocacy groups around the country applauded it as a victory, with virtually no mention of the impact it will have on religious groups. We see this on a national level too, as discussions over redefining marriage routinely fail to include any mention of allowances for religious freedom. Yes, it is possible in theory to envision a way in which society could allow gay couples to have the civil benefits of marriage while respecting the rights of religious individuals and groups to follow the beliefs they have held for millennia. But in reality, this is not what is being proposed. The current debate is not simply one of civil benefits. In the words of Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of gay activist group Family Equality Council, “marriage is more than just benefits and protections.” Rather, Chrisler explains, marriage is “an institution that carries with it a universal definition of family” and “communicates society’s acceptance of a loving relationship” (emphasis added). This is not simply a debate over civil benefits. It is a question of society – all of society – being required to accept and affirm same-sex relationships as being equivalent to the sexual union of a man and a woman, the only type of union from which children come into the world. But the Catholic Church simply cannot affirm this. Since its very beginning, the Church has taught that there is a natural and intrinsic connection between sex and babies, and this teaching – rooted in biology – influences the Church’s unchangeable positions on contraception, marriage and a host of other “reproductive issues.” The reality is, civil marriage affects well over 1,000 provisions in the law, and the Catholic Church would be required to abide by them, in ways that could reach within the four walls of the church building itself. In effect, legalizing “gay marriage” is at the same time criminalizing the Church’s view on marriage, wherever it is expressed. It does not leave the Church free to operate under its own definition of marriage. Rather, it forces religious groups to adhere to the state’s definition or shut down, pushing the Church and its understanding on marriage further and further out of the public square. A society with “gay marriage” is a society without Catholic adoption agencies, marriage counselors or wedding halls. It is a society in which Catholic homeless shelters cannot provide rooms or programs for married couples and Catholic colleges cannot offer married student housing. It is a society in which the Church’s view on marriage is criminal. In this critical time, Catholics must not be naïve. Make no mistake, the legalization of “gay marriage” is the criminalization of Church teaching on marriage. And to the extent that the Church cannot comply, there will be consequences. The Church and “gay marriage” cannot coexist.

Folks, please note that Hope has yet to demonstrate any existential threat to the Church if gay people get the same legal rights she has. No one can seriously claim that the existence of a 2000 year old religion depends on the actions of a 200 year old government to enforce its teachings about who is entitled to legally contract with whom. If the US or the individual states granting gay people legal status equivalent to Hope's is going to cause Hope to leave the Catholic faith, that's entirely her problem, and the Church will go on without her. They manage to have Communion every Sunday even though she isn't eligible, so I doubt her leaving is going to stop priests from being able to absolve sins or turn the host into the body and blood of Christ, or keep the Pope from being infallible.

DOMA has absolutely nothing to do with forcing churches to conduct same sex wedding ceremonies. It has to do with federal benefits, such as tax deductions, inheritance, the spouses of gay soldiers in the military being able to live on base, use the base hospital, and be notified by the government if their spouse is killed in action. The President was right to stop defending it, and it's highly likely that the SCOTUS, which includes at least 5 Catholics, will strike it down. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Now, can you provide any evidence whatsoever to support your little foray into blood libel? Can you show even one itsy-bitsy lawsuit by a gay couple demanding to be married in a Catholic Church? Heck, I'll even take a lawsuit by an atheist couple or a Jewish couple or a divorced but not-annulled couple or a Methodist couple or a Catholic-but-didn't-pass-pre-Cana couple.

I suspect that deep down, you know you were trying to pull a fast one on the members of this board. Hence, your refusal to actually engage on the topic, and your copying and pasting things totally unrelated to your allegations. Unless of course you believe it's the role of government to arrest gay Catholics for praying so you won't feel frightened that the Holy Spirit might listen?

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 21st of April 2013 07:55:59 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 21st of April 2013 08:02:08 PM

Hope, those cases are about money-making businesses. Even the Methodist church that got sued, got sued over the use of a beach pavilion it was making available to all comers for a fee--till some of those comers just weren't the right demographic. It's no different than if they wanted to exclude blacks or Jewish people from being patrons of their rental business.

Where's the threat to the Church? Are you suggesting that if the money-making businesses run by the Church aren't allowed to discriminate, the Church will shrivel up and die? That's all your religion is to you, an economic conglomerate?

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 21st of April 2013 05:58:21 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 21st of April 2013 06:01:57 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 21st of April 2013 06:02:17 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 21st of April 2013 06:03:28 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 21st of April 2013 06:07:19 PM

One wonders why you would spend so much time and energy vilifying an idiot. 

Your only Sacrament is gay marriage, Conyat.  Your posts illustrate the lengths you will go to achieve that end. I did not want to open that can of worms, but there it is.   You will stop at nothing to achieve your goals--God only knows what you are capable of in the real world--and you are by far not the only one out there. You have no sense of decency. Your thinking is disordered. If I cared enough, I'd urge you to seek help.

Hope, you're a Catholic in name only. Exactly the thing you are accusing the Catholic clergy of. And yes, compared to you, I am an expert.

I called what you are doing smears, because that's what it is. When challenged to name who it is you were accusing of attempting to destroy the church, like all bully blowhards, you backed down. If there were any substance whatsoever to your charges---if there were anyone trying to destroy the Church other than you by misrepresenting its doctrine--you would have been very happy to name them.

I've been laid up with a bad back the last few days. Out of boredom, did a little research.   CC, November, 2006: clarification for the four or five people having read this thread. :)

e. I have been to services in both Catholic and Protestant churches in the last year and find this not to be true. Here is a link to the Roman Catholic version:http://catholicism.about.com/cs/pray...ordsprayer.htm 

and an explanation that might help you understand better:

"In the Catholic mass today, the "power and glory" text is recited by the congregation, but not in the same place as in the Protestant Lord's Prayer. The traditional Catholic prayer ends with "but deliver us from evil." The priest then says a few more sentences before the congregation recites the phrase. (The concluding phrase is not used outside of mass, for instance when praying the rosary.)"http://westwing.bewarne.com/queries/various.html 

Though I've been a member of a non-denominational Protestant Church for about 15 years now, I frequently listen to the Rosary (which includes several repetitions of the Lord's Prayer) on the radio in both Cajun French and in English. In both contexts, the prayer ends with "but deliver us from evil" and the doxology is omitted. These are live broadcasts, not old recordings from some time ago.

Any more misinformation about Catholics you'd like to tell the class?

-Conyat

When you actually try to live as a Catholic in the modern world, as I have for most of my 60 some years, instead of leaving the Church and posing as an expert, then you can lecture Catholics about their own faith.

In the meantime, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for all of your assertions of my "bigotry," "smears," "libel," and worse, on this thread.

Not holding my breath for that to happen.

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 20th of April 2013 05:43:00 PM

Hmm... I missed this up thread:

Protip: When you've been trying to unsuccessfully to spread the same smear (or is it blood libel?)

I get it now, conyat: you're answering your own questions and sourcing yourself at the same time. That's pretty neat.

Ok, Conyat...have it your way...and feel free to get the last word after this post, because I'm done.

Maybe I will go to hell for not working to repeal Roe v Wade, who knows?  I am open to the possibility. But I sure as heck doubt you are open to the same, because you know better than we lesser Catholic sinners What is good for the Church.

And I know one other thing (through personal experience): where there are lies and distortions, there is the Devil's work. 

Ciao.

Hope, are you under the impression that a state marriage license is the same thing as the sacrament of marriage? Do you also imagine that a birth certificate removes Original Sin?

And no, I don't have to explain my religion to you, because unlike you, I do not aim unsolicited attacks on other people's faith. I pointed out what you are doing only because of your repeated attacks on the genuinely devout.

Oh I read it -- twice in fact.

One needs to distinguish between personal matters of conscience, and attempts from within and without the church to bring it "up to date."

Again, not my business how you manage, as a self-professed "spiritual" and devoted Catholic ,  to vote for liberal prochoice, pro-gay marriage candidates exclusively.  Is my business when you pretend that there are "bishops and priests and nuns" who get to decide Church doctrine. You are misleading the uninformed entirely-- and purposely at that-- hoping to persuade people that there is a "liberal" (good) and "conservative" (bad) Church.  Nope. Wrong.

Vatican makes the rules, and how/when/why/where I fall short is no one's business.

This most applies here, and to Rudy's position as well. After all, Roe is not about to be overturned 

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

And hey, Conyat-- how 'bout you worry about your immortal soul and I'll worry about mine?  Hope you spend half as much time worrying about those Catholic Democrat prochoice candidates you vote for!
 

You should read that link I posted, hope. In the Church's eyes, there is no freedom of conscience for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate over an anti-choice one. Period. You don't have to follow the Catholic faith, but you could at least stop misrepresenting it to others.

Bravo, Conyat! I would have expected nothing less from you!!!!

YOU and YOU alone do not have to "explain my religion to you" - fabulous! Truly

no, I am not at all under that impression, but I know how you revere the sacraments.

birth certificates (not even getting that farfetched analogy)as well as divorce and many other examples you will no doubt comes up with are irrelevant. They are not based on natural law, and are not doctrinal.

Hope, johndoe didn't say what you think he did. And even theologians talk about this Pope or that Pope having a more conservative or less conservative outlook on doctrine than another. There are very few infallible pronouncements for a reason.

As to "sinking to my level" -- you must think no one can read the thread. You were dispensing your smugly bigoted attacks on other people's faith long before I showed up. Not to mention the "powerful forces" blood libel. Looks like the only "force" trying to destroy the Church is YOU.

-- Edited by conyat on Friday 19th of April 2013 08:11:29 PM

>One needs to distinguish between personal matters of conscience

The Catholic Church teaches that there IS no personal matter of conscience on the abortion question. Period. A Catholic is forbidden to facilitate or support direct abortion even to save the mother's life. Read all the way to the end of what the bishops said. You don't get the wiggle worm for your self-serving rationalizations that you imagine.

Hilarious that you think that secular legal rights should be forbidden to people on your say so, simply because they aren't eligible for a similarly named sacrament in your church--yet you don't any compulsion to follow any church teachings yourself. I at least appreciate you being so honest about your contempt for the Pope's authority when it comes to you personally. But it would have been better if you had divulged that before you started your attacks on johndoe and the clergy.