Cardinal George: US is adopting 'official religion' on homosexuality that is reminiscent of sharia [CC]

Yes indeed this is the whole idea. These are more or less ‘set ups’ for the Church and society at large in order to cram laws in that make it impossible to express religious beliefs.

BTW…GOD BLESS CARDINAL GEORGE! He is a very brave man in so many ways. (he is my Cardinal) He is fighting cancer and not sure he’s winning the battle, but he has been a stalwart for true Catholic teaching very publicly, and he’s not at all afraid of the ‘Chicago Machine’. He takes them head on. A true warrior for Christ and His Church! I fear we won’t have him for very much longer, and I’m a little nervous about who would replace him. We are in need of more Cardinals like him. Pray for him please.

DrTaffy,

I recall having a lengthy conversation with you, in which I eventually made clear that I do not consider such conversations a place for grandstanding or one-upsmanship. I assume you are genuinely seeking the truth. If so, I think it’s absolutely unacceptable to say, for example, that I am attempting to “distort” by presenting the analogy I did. That’s not civil conversation; it’s invective. I’ll be happy to have a discussion with you if you steer clear of such invective.

Sure, I’ll take your equivalency between the two schools. But notice that the explicit role of the Catholic school is to train a child in Christian virtue. Teachers are supposed to be models of that virtue. So when a teacher enters a gay marriage (this is not a pro-gay “sentiment”, and it is not private), that teacher violates the purpose of the school.

Now, suppose there is a secular (private) school that supports gay marriage. Surely nothing about the teacher’s public life choices outside the school could possibly violate the school’s prerogative to support gay marriage. A person doesn’t oppose gay marriage by marrying a person of the opposite sex. I suppose I would support the right of the school to fire a teacher for vocally advocating against gay marriage, just as I would support the right of a LGBT group not to have anti-gay-marriage leaders. But the cases aren’t analogous unless you add that extra “vocal” element to the teacher’s advocacy. A gay-married teacher advocates against Catholic values merely by being married.

So by the same logic you should support the right of the gay youth program to fire an employee who thinks gay sex is wrong, so you agree that it is perfectly OK that one can “lose one’s job for speaking out against homosexuality, depending on where one works” and disagree with Exiled Child, so what, exactly, is your point? :wink:

I support private organizations’ right to advocate for their own values. Do you?

Then I would suggest that you refrain from ‘grand-standing and one-upsmanship’ yourself, as this whole diatribe of yours would most certainly count as ‘invective’ if it is ‘invective’ for me to say that I think your ‘equivalency’ is distorted. Especially as your diatribe is itself doing the exact thing it accuses me of doing - and while my point was relevant to the discussion, yours is nothing but a personal attack on me. :rolleyes:

This is all the more ironic as my point to Exiled Child was about the Golden Rule. Since Catholic institutions are notorious for firing employees who disagree with Catholic opinion, it is more than a little hypocritical for them to complain that “one can certainly lose one’s job for speaking out against homosexuality, depending on where one works”.

The rules should apply to all equally.
If it is OK for Catholics to fire employees for disagreeing with them outside work, then it is OK for non-Catholics to fire employees (even Catholic ones) for disagreeing with them outside work.
If it is OK for you to criticise me, then it is OK for me to criticise you.

And you apparently think that this is only true for Catholic teachers. In other words you are apparently assuming that your ethical beliefs are more sincerely and deeply held that those of anyone else.

I would say that every school has the same right to expect their teachers to be models of their ethical system. Catholic schools get no special consideration. Either all schools can fire a teacher for expressing views outside of school, or none can.

This is where the distortion of your ‘equivalency’ comes in - you seem to assume that all Catholic Schools automatically have more strongly held views than any other school, and that therefore a Catholic School can only fairly be compared to a single-issue campaign charity, not to another school.

The example I cited was of a man who had only expressed, on his personal blog, his views on gay marriage. Freedom of speech applies to all, equally.

Nothing about a teacher’s public life choices outside a Catholic school could possibly violate the school’s prerogative to oppose gay marriage. But Catholics seem to feel that Catholic schools have the right to force their beliefs on their teachers, but Catholic teachers have the right to express their views (often even at the school) if they are teaching elsewhere. :shrug:

Of course, but irrelevant. Noone has challenged this here.

More close to being relevant would be whether I support private organizations’ right to fire any employee who disagrees with them on some political or religious viewpoint.

But even that is a red herring - wherever you stand on that issue, the point I was making was simply about whether or not the rules apply to everyone equally, or is there one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for everyone else.

Unless you disagree with me that the rules should apply equally, you seem to be stirring up a rather belligerent debate about nothing. :rolleyes:

I was talking about the type of discussion I like to have. I did not personally attack you, or accuse you of wrongdoing. I myself am prone to grandstanding, but I don’t do it because it annoys people – not because I consider it sinful. However, nothing I said in my prior post counts as grandstanding, that’s for sure. Your tone in this conversation continues to be adversarial, and I’m not going to have a conversation with such a tone.

So I will simply say one thing, in response to one inaccuracy in your post. You said:

And you apparently think that this is only true for Catholic teachers. In other words you are apparently assuming that your ethical beliefs are more sincerely and deeply held that those of anyone else.

I would say that every school has the same right to expect their teachers to be models of their ethical system. Catholic schools get no special consideration. Either all schools can fire a teacher for expressing views outside of school, or none can.

I specifically agreed with this, in my post. I think it’s totally fine for a pro-gay-marriage private school to fire a teacher for publicly opposing gay marriage. It might not be wise, but I believe it should be legal.

Fox Sports is being sued by a sports commentator for being let go over comments he made prior to even being hired.

In this circumstance, I think the employee has a good case. He was a public figure (and even a former Republican politician) and his views were publicly expressed. If they didn’t like his views, they shouldn’t have hired him. If a Catholic school hired an outspoken liberal personality, I would say the same thing.

Makes sense, so long as the company knew about the comments when they hired him. If that’s the case, it’s pretty clear that they aren’t firing him because of moral scruples, but rather because of his unpopularity. In a legal case, it seems like a lot would hinge on WHO did the hiring and who did the firing. If there was a change in leadership, Fox Sports might have a better case.

I’m not sure actual knowledge need be proven for his case. Employers get to vet their employees in the hiring process. And if the prospective employee is a political figure, it’s a no-brainer to follow up about hot-button issues.

Ah, of course. If you do it, it is just ‘talking about the type of discussion you like to have’ - if I do it is ‘grand-standing and one-upsmanship’, ‘invective’ and ‘not civil conversation’. :rolleyes:

Oh, and unilaterally declaring a moral victory and then closing dialogue would be a classic example of ‘grand-standing and one-upsmanship’!

The only way in which this is even remotely relevant to the topic is that it is another example of applying different standards of behaviour to yourself and to others.

How does pointing out an issue on which you are willing to admit that we agree an ‘inaccuracy’ in my post? If anything all you are saying is that you disagree with Exiled Child, which makes your first post in this thread, criticising me for doing the same, all the more incomprehensible. :shrug:

You still have not addressed the point I made in my post to which you first replied, that complaining about Catholics being fired for opposing gay rights is hypocritical when you yourselves are notorious for firing your employees for supporting gay rights.

I did not declare moral victory.

Er…

Post #22:

And…

Post #24.

:whistle:

The difference is the example in the link provided is a private contract. Private, at-will employment contracts are different from demanding government intervention.

Isn’t it wonderful when Cardinal George’s assertion is validated within the actual thread where his assertion is being discussed? :thumbsup:

have not addressed the point I made in my post to which you first replied, that complaining about Catholics being fired for opposing gay rights is hypocritical when you yourselves are notorious for firing your employees for supporting gay rights.

Er…

Post #22:

[/quote]

[/quote]

Sorry, but how does that address the point I made in my first post? All it says is how he feels about one particular hypothetical case.

Does he agree that it is hypocritical to complain about Catholics being fired for opposing gay rights, while firing non-Catholics for supporting gay rights? If so, what was the point of his first post, apparently criticising me for saying so?

Does he disagree?

Why does his first post argue that it is OK to fire non-Catholics for supporting gay rights?

Why does he argue that it is sometimes OK to fire Catholics for opposing gay rights?

For that matter, in post 22 he also presents arguments as to why it is fine for a Catholic school to fire dissenters (ignoring the fact that these arguments would also apply to a secular school) then presents arguments as to why a secular school should not have the same rights (ignoring the fact that these arguments would also apply to a Catholic school) - how is this not explicitly supporting the double standard to which I referred?

For that matter, what do you think about Exiled Child’s complaint, in light of Catholics firing pro-gay-rights employees?

Careful, PS will be accusing you of grandstanding and invective.

Unless he is applying a double standard, of course!:whistle:

How did Exiled Child’s comment only refer to ‘demanding government intervention’?

The closest I have seen here to ‘Sharia Law’ is the Catholic stance on opposing views on homosexuality! :stuck_out_tongue:

From Cardinal George’s column:

“When the recent case about religious objection to one provision of the Health Care Act was decided against the State religion, the Huffington Post (June 30, 2014) raised “concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen.”

This is not the voice of the Nativists who first fought against Catholic immigration in the 1830s. Nor is it the voice of those who burned convents and churches in Boston and Philadelphia a decade later. Neither is it the voice of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1840s and 1850s, nor of the Ku Klux Klan, which burned crosses before Catholic churches in the Midwest after the civil war. It is a voice more sophisticated than that of the American Protective Association, whose members promised never to vote for a Catholic for public office. This is, rather, the self-righteous voice of some members of the American establishment today who regard themselves as “progressive” and “enlightened.””

America has endured a lot of anti-Catholicism over the course of its brief history. The fact that it is arising once again is no surprise. What is surprising is that the attack this time arises from a subject on which Catholics, Protestants, and indeed most U.S. citizens were pretty much agreed throughout most of U.S. history. When a society falls, it can fall rapidly.

Oh my goodness. I will keep him in my prayers for a recovery.

That depends on how you say it.

I’m not so sure. No matter how gently one states that same sex marriage is not possible, than sex outside of marriage is wrong, that contraception is wrong, it might be construed as hate speech.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.