An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[CreedIsChrist]

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

That's the text of the bill. It's about the actions of any religious organization as a 501(c) non-profit and the way such should be set up to be legal. Pay particular attention to Section (h).



...so, basically, it doesn't say what is being claimed. It doesn't restructure the religious hierarchy, applies to any religious group that functions as a corporation (not just the Catholic Church), and generally isn't an evil conspiracy.

Primary sources FTW.

are you serious? I mean really....

Did you even read the rest of the article? Of course its gonna say that at the end for "crowd control". Did you even read the "dutys" of the board of directors? Its putting the "board of directors" in authority over the Bishop. Anyone with some intellect could read between the lines in the statement.


Wow...

 

[sidhe]

And your point being?

The OP said that the bill put theological matters in the hands of boards appointed by the government - that the government was taking over the church. Anything that demonstrates a contrary point to that is valid.

I think the bill is an awful idea, save that I think lay oversight is a good move.

The point being this: this isn't an example of the nefarious "gay agenda", the originally posted blog was bearing false witness, and the whole situation is pretty pathetic.

 

[sidhe]

are you serious? I mean really....

Did you even read the rest of the article? Of course its gonna say that at the end for "crowd control". Did you even read the "dutys" of the board of directors? Its putting the "board of directors" in authority over the Bishop. Anyone with some intellect could read between the lines in the statement.


Wow...

*headdesk*

Finance <> Theology. An elected board of directors - in a conservative area - is going to be conservative. They'll likely do what the bishop wants anyway. Furthermore, if you read the beginning of the law, the bishop/vicar has to sign off on there being a board in the first place.

 

[sidhe]

To demonstrate such:

(a) A corporation may be organized in connection with any Roman Catholic Church or congregation in this state, by filing in the office of the Secretary of the State a certificate signed by the archbishop or bishop and the vicar-general of the archdiocese or of the diocese in which such congregation is located and the pastor and two laymen belonging to such congregation, stating that they have so organized for the purposes hereinafter mentioned.

The bold in general, the red in particular.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Yes, it messes up the church. Yes, it was purposed by homosexuals. How does this actually make it an attack by homosexuals (as a general group) on the church? Yes, this can be seen as two homosexuals attacking a church, but how do you conclude this means the majority, homosexuals (as a general group) will do this?

because they represent and are a face. The gay community is a very small community, and thus it is much more centralized than you think. So yes 2 people out of a percentage of only 3&#37; is kinda big, especially when they naturally just come together in harmony when this bill suddenly pops up. And with a community that small it is probably just not "a coincidence"


Are you honestly gonna tell me, that if gays had the power to silence the church they wouldn't? Come on..Bills like this just show they are waiting for the chance to squash the Church and silence religious freedom.

Since when is a church a corporation?

Does the Catholic church actually organize itself like a corporation?

listen. No temporary power can take over any part of property that belongs to the Apostolic See and the See of Rome. It belongs only to the Holy See. That is where the Church belongs to and all of its authority(including all temporal and financial). No secular authority can take that unto themselves. What these lawmakers have commited is an extremely GRAVE sin to try to take that authority unto themselves. I would not want to be them on judgment day

*headdesk*

Finance <> Theology. An elected board of directors - in a conservative area - is going to be conservative. They'll likely do what the bishop wants anyway. Furthermore, if you read the beginning of the law, the bishop/vicar has to sign off on there being a board in the first place.

you know I find it funny how certain people are quite quick to yell out separation of Church and State. Yet in this case... *silence*.. If people honestly cannot see the general usurping of the authority of the bishop in that article then I feel sorry for they're comprehension skills.

 

[sidhe]

because they represent and are a face. The gay community is a very small community, and thus it is much more centralized than you think. So yes 2 people out of a percentage of only 3% is kinda big, especially when they naturally just come together in harmony when this bill suddenly pops up. And with a community that small it is probably just not "a coincidence"


Are you honestly gonna tell me, that if gays had the power to silence the church they wouldn't? Come on..Bills like this just show they are waiting for the chance to squash the Church and silence religious freedom.

Let's say that 3% is accurate.

There are approximately 300,000,000 people in the USA.

3% of that is 9,000,000.

2 people out of 9,000,000 is 2x10[sup]-5[/sup]%, or .000002%.

...that's not a lot.

 

[mpok1519]

well, the church tries to silence gays all the time; why wouldnt gays do the same?

Treat others as you are treated.

You want to squash gay marriage; whats different about you squashing one groups rights, and another group trying to squash your rights? You're the one who said "gays shouldnt be allowed to marry" but you think theres not gonn be a consequence?

Its funny how its okay to squash certain freedoms of certain people...hypocritical, sick and twisted, but funny in that sad ironic way.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

well, when one's religious freedom imposes upon one's civil freedoms, its not good either.

lol religious freedom? What does that mean? Theres absolutely no such thing; one cannot be free to believe anything they wish without consequences; if you believe that you are an angelic warrior sent here to defeat/kill those of demonic lineage on earth, then you should be thrown in jail where your freedoms of religious practice are ultimately compromised.

There is no such thing as freedom. Freedom is a cultural construct imagined by people that doesnt really exst.

Also, I'm tired of our congressmen and statesmen using their religiou beliefs to influence their decision-making abilities and legislative powers.

just like one cannot be free to trample upon marriage and change it the way the want to in order to suit they're hedonistic lifestyle..


And I do agree, there is no such thing as true freedom in the fullest sense. We have a conditional freedom. But I don't want to get into a Calvinism-free will debate...

 

[Matthewj1985]

Can someone please tell me where to sign up for the "Gay Agenda". I would like to give them my support for the total homoification of America, and a law forcing all churches to be painted a FABULOUS shade of pink.

Basically if a fundamentalist Christian is for it, there is an 80% chance I will be against it.

 

[mpok1519]

just like one cannot be free to trample upon marriage and change it the way the want to in order to suit they're hedonistic lifestyle..


And I do agree, there is no such thing as true freedom in the fullest sense. We have a conditional freedom. But I don't want to get into a Calvinism-free will debate...

Ah, but marriag cannot be trampled as marriage itelf is subjective, as it is subject to the will of the cultural constructs existing geographiclly. There is no objectivity in marriage as well, as such things have definitions that change culture to culture. You cannot say "My culture is better than yours, and therefore you must adhere to our culture's standards".

Marriage isn't monopolized by the church. Mriage is a cultural construct moreso than a religious construct, therefore, it is the culture, not religion, that dictates such things. Religion is an aspect of culture, but not a dominating force behind it necessarily.

Its hypocritical to whine about your rights while not caring about everyone elses'.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

well, the church tries to silence gays all the time; why wouldnt gays do the same?

Treat others as you are treated.

You want to squash gay marriage; whats different about you squashing one groups rights, and another group trying to squash your rights? You're the one who said "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" but you think theres not gonna be a consequence?

Its funny how its okay to squash certain freedoms of certain people...hypocritical, sick and twisted, but funny in that sad ironic way.

I think its funny how liberals try to equate marriage with freedom. It isn't. Marriage is a special right with special requirements. It would be like saying that people are going against your freedom because you refuse to play baseball with a bat and they won't let you play. Please. There are many things in life that are contingent upon what you do..

However trying to usurp any type of authority from the Holy See is a totally different story. The Church is as a whole and if one body is effected the whole body becomes effected. And the reason the bill didn't pass is because the Holy Spirit would not let it, as Christ said "the gates of hell will not prevail". So while they're efforts are fruitless it still shows they're true intentions if they are in power to do so.

 

[PsychMJC]

I think its funny how liberals try to equate marriage with freedom. It isn't. Marriage is a special right with special requirements.

That have changed plenty of times over the course of its existence.

 

[mpok1519]

I think its funny how liberals try to equate marriage with freedom. It isn't. Marriage is a special right with special requirements. It would be like saying that people are going against your freedom because you refuse to play baseball with a bat and they won't let you play. Please. There are many things in life that are contingent upon what you do...

Marrage's requirement and special attributes are assessed by the cultures in which they are constructed.

The only thing that makes it special in YOUR eyes is YOUR cultural standards. Such standards are geographcally, and culturally constructed and are not subject to your special requirements.

Life works exactly how you think it does not.

 

[Chazemataz]

I am against this bill, personally. I would be against it if it were 2 conservative protestants trying to get it passed, it has nothing to do with who it is trying to pass it.

I think it's funny how you talk about this conspiracy you call a 'gay agenda'. I wonder if there exists a "men who like thick woman" or a "black men who like white women" agenda? They're the same thing. in fact, it is people like you who are taking away your own religious freedoms. If you gave them equal rights, they'd be content and stop marching in the streets, stop the outspoken critisism of Christianity. They do this because they (rightly so) feel rejected by mainstream christians, and they retaliate by making threatening moves back against Christians, a group who wants to penalize them for loving someone simply because of their gender.

Why do you insist on compromising your own freedoms? You are a citizen, and want to take away rights of other citizens. I'd support almost any movement to give more rights to us the people, but that's just me.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I am against this bill, personally. I would be against it if it were 2 conservative protestants trying to get it passed, it has nothing to do with who it is trying to pass it.

I think it's funny how you talk about this conspiracy you call a 'gay agenda'. I wonder if there exists a "men who like thick woman" or a "black men who like white women" agenda? They're the same thing. in fact, it is people like you who are taking away your own religious freedoms. If you gave them equal rights, they'd be content and stop marching in the streets, stop the outspoken critisism of Christianity. They do this because they (rightly so) feel rejected by mainstream Christians, and they retaliate by making threatening moves back against Christians, a group who wants to penalize them for loving someone simply because of their gender.

Why do you insist on compromising your own freedoms? You are a citizen, and want to take away rights of other citizens. I'd support almost any movement to give more rights to us the people, but that's just me.

Well like I said, marriage isn't a right. It is a special right. Like owning a handgun and becoming a doctor. Am I gonna yell in the street that I have no rights because the state won't let me practice as a doctor without a license? Am I free to become a doctor with a license? Of course not. Its all subjective

They are marching in the streets because of they're unwillingness to make the sacrifices marriage requires. That is they're problem they have to deal with, not marriage.

 

[Shane Roach]

Marrage's requirement and special attributes are assessed by the cultures in which they are constructed.

The only thing that makes it special in YOUR eyes is YOUR cultural standards. Such standards are geographcally, and culturally constructed and are not subject to your special requirements.

Life works exactly how you think it does not.

Well, in that case it's been voted down multiple times, is not a civil right, and you should oppose the APA asserting, completely outside the scope of its profession, that a society that looks at homosexuality as a bad thing is somehow at fault for homosexuals recorded social and emotional issues.

 

[sidhe]

(a) A corporation may be organized in connection with any Roman Catholic Church or congregation in this state, by filing in the office of the Secretary of the State a certificate signed by the archbishop or bishop and the vicar-general of the archdiocese or of the diocese in which such congregation is located and the pastor and two laymen belonging to such congregation, stating that they have so organized for the purposes hereinafter mentioned.

I just thought I'd mention that again since, y'know, it makes it clear that this is merely a guide as to the legal specifications of setting up a corporate entity to manage the funds of a particular congregation with the permission of their bishop to allow greater oversight to prevent embezzlement by unscrupulous clerics...not some kind of mad power grab by the Gay State to CONTROL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!ELEVENTY!!!1!

More math!

Since the RCC is a worldwide enterprise, that puts there being 6 billion people on earth. I'll do the generous thing of there being 10% of the population being LGBT.

That leaves 600,000,000 LGBT individuals.

Two congresspeople in New Jersey are 0.00000003% of that population.

Much like the FOCA (which doesn't exist), this is an invented problem to manipulate a large group of people into being very angry.

 

[mpok1519]

Well, in that case it's been voted down multiple times, is not a civil right, and you should oppose the APA asserting, completely outside the scope of its profession, that a society that looks at homosexuality as a bad thing is somehow at fault for homosexuals recorded social and emotional issues.

A homosexual couple should get the same tax breaks and legal recognition of their relationship as having an official status as a heterosexual couple, or an inter-sex couple.

The church's position on marriage is more about scripture than it is about a loving, consenting relationship to two individuals devoted to each other, and when we base things on ancient, primitive and superstitious doctrine, we are only proving to the world we are stuck in the dark ages.

To the church, marriage is more about the sex of two people moreso than the relationshipthey have with each other.

Yes; a society that sees something harmless as something harmful, it is bad, and society is responsible for its persection of these people. If you were persecuted and treated as inferior, you would hav issues too, and your insensitivity to this shows.

 

[Skaloop]

Well like I said, marriage isn't a right. It is a special right. Like owning a handgun and becoming a doctor. Am I gonna yell in the street that I have no rights because the state won't let me practice as a doctor without a license? Am I free to become a doctor with a license? Of course not. Its all subjective

But you are free to go through the steps required to get a license.

They are marching in the streets because of they're unwillingness to make the sacrifices marriage requires.

Which marital sacrifices are gay people unwilling to make?

 

[Maren]

In an attempt to try and steer this back to the OP: a little research shows this has absolutely nothing to do with any "gay agenda". In fact, this bill was proposed by Paul Lakeland, a former Jesuit priest who is chairman of religious studies at Fairfield University -- a Jesuit University -- and Thomas Gallagher, an attorney who regularly attends a Catholic parish. And the bill was written because of these Catholics concern over an ebezzlement epidemic in Catholic dioceses (85&#37; of dioceses were found by Villanova University to have had money embezzled in the last 5 years). And the reason Sen. McDonald and Lawlor were co-sponsoring the bill is that they co-chair the Judicial committee, where the hearings on this bill would occur and also because Sen. McDonald is from Darien, a community that recently had a massive scandal where a priest of a local Catholic church plead guilty to embezzling over 1.3 million dollars from his parish.

Now, per a press release from Sen. McDonald, he was sponsoring this bill because he was asked to by a group of faithful Catholic parishoners. His idea in sponsoring this bill was to hold hearings to allow these parishoners to make their case as to why the bill was needed. He goes on to say, "Despite what has been portrayed, we have not endorsed nor are advocating for this proposal."

This has nothing to do with any gay agenda but instead appears to be an attempt by some Catholics to introduce accountability in response to the problems the church is seeing with embezzlement.

In fact, if one were as big a conspiracy theorist as some on this board, I'm sure we could say this is part of the Fundamentalist/Conservative Christian anti-gay agenda. That you get some gay legislators to introduce a bill that is supposedly to help solve embezzlement problems in the Catholic church but then turn around and use their introduction of the bill to claim gays are trying to destroy religion.