Great article. I knew that quote from the bible, but I hadn’t put it together with the Chik-fil-A farce. Thank you for pointing it out.

Sheer brilliance, thank you!

Thank you, Mr. Archbold for this great article.

Brilliant piece of writing!

This secular religion may one day be hard to resist but today’s version is easy.  They are nothing more than spoiled brats.

“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty—these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end in itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.” ... Archbishop Chaput

I wish that we had a Chick-Fil-A restaurant near us.  I would be eating there every chance I got! If only there were more business owners that would stand up for what is right and true and good!  We need courageous Christians to speak up.

Thank you for this article.  I especially liked your references to tolerance, and thought you were spot on with them.

This blog entry had gone a little dark until the last line. I had my chicken sandwich Friday afternoon at lunch and it was great! I will continue to support Chick-Fil-A, which after all NEVER said they would not serve those who disagreed with them. That’s more than anyone who disagrees with Chick Fil A is willing to do. Eat more chick’n, folks.

Thanks so much for this.  I’ve been thinking about tolerance a lot and you gave life to my thoughts.  I love this line - “Genuine tolerance sometimes requires you to grit your teeth. If you are baring your teeth instead, trust me, you are doing it wrong”,  It just became my Facebook status. 

August 1st is “Chick-Fil-A Day”. Go buy some chicken this Wednesday.
:)

The Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen, may he soon be beatified, used to say that tolerance is the negative permission of an evil.  No one has to tolerate a steak dinner.  If you go into the store and buy an item for 24 dollars and another for 7 dollars and the clerk charges you 31 dollars you are intolerant.

Lawrence - I am reading the book “Life is worth Living” by Bishop Sheen and just yesterday read his article on Tolerance - so, so true!

Lawrence, I had to add it up on my fingers to get it but I got it.

Every time secularists rear their ugly heads in revolt to the truth as handed down by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by trying to influence commerce, it always backfires.  We ate at Chick-fil-A Saturday and it was even more packed than usual.

Chad Simpson
Publisher
Www. DFWCatholic.org

Interesting - Sounds like tolerance is being confused with giving all people equality. You don’t have to tolerate it, but you do owe everybody equal rights.

Posted by Steven Arthur on Monday, Jul 30, 2012 12:33 PM (EST):Interesting - Sounds like tolerance is being confused with giving all people equality. You don’t have to tolerate it, but you do owe everybody equal rights.”
********************************
We give Muslims & break-away Mormon polygamists equal rights under the law individually but not as far as legalizing multiple marriages.Those who are closely related,even though consenting adults,are forbidden marriage & can face criminal charges.So as far as the Chick-Fil-A issue goes, we’re really only talking about changing the definition of marriage for a certain,vocal group, but not for everyone.Sounds like discrimination.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen said:“People are tolerated, principles are not tolerated” loosely quoted. In other words we are called to love people but not their wickedness.

So, pat, how many gay experiences have you had?

http://www.markmallett.com/blog/2012/05/20/

http://www.markmallett.com/blog/2012/05/20/

This is a Blog from Mark Malett

Thank you for this great article.

Man will prey upon man, until man prays for man.

I have been applying this allegory for a couple years now at least. It is good to see a formal Catholic publication start applying it without being called a fundie end times wacko.  In a general sense, anytime you are forced to deny in your forehead, your intellect, what you know to be true in conscience, or suffer consequences, that is a mark in the forehead. To be forced to make your hand perform the works of evil, such as participate in an abortion, that is like a mark in the hand.

Hence, the mark is as old as the Fall:  suffering consequences for right doing.

Daniel refused the mark of worshipping the statue, and was cast into the fire, or the lions den for praying his prayers.

The Jews in the Maccabbees, in refusing to eat pork or deny the Old Law, refused the mark.

The Christians martyred under pagan Rome, etc.

Today, the communists, the relativists, nothing new under the sun

There is a planned boycott of Chick-A-Filet starting on August 1st. Consider buying your lunch from them on that date to show support for their family values.

In several apparitions recently,Jesus is saying that the Pope will be deposed soon by the anti-pope, the war in Middle east will escalate and the charming man of peace (The anti christ) will broker peace,force the chip through compulsary vaccinations (which will have a lethal virus in it to be released at will) and the three years tribulation willl start in December. Then will follow WW111,famine and plagues, followed by chastisment if people don’t turn to God. Somewhere in there is the warning or Illunination of conscience. (Look at The Warning- second coming website)

Holy sht Sue, that website is fckin insane. Just like you. Typical Catholic Crazy.

Someone said in french: “Tolerance?  Il y a des maisons pour cela”

Translation: “Tolerance? There are houses (brothels) intended to this purpose”
In french a “maison de tolerance” is a prostitution house.

Much of the spirit of tolerance rests with parents today who are guided by everything except Biblical values.  These parents are going to live to see their children pay a horrendous price…there is still time but when we see what is happening in the world of “tolerance,” thanks to the idiots of the world that think they know best and are minions of the Satan, the door is closing fast.

Could the “mark of the beast,” 666 be the digits at the beginning, middle and end of every barcode?  Perhaps some day soon we will be required to have a microchip which will read the barcode implanted in our hand in order to make purchases.

So good!  That was a great closing line, and hope to meet many of you while we eat our chicken sandwiches at the end.

I generally understand the forehead and right hand to signify thoughts and actions.  Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t “beast” mean “farm animal” as opposed to “wild animal”?  If so thus the “mark” becomes a description of a person with the unique feature that their every thought and action is only that of an enslaved animal???

Great article.  We are joining thousands of Americans tomorrow Aug. 1st to go to Chick-Fil-A for a meal.  We have to drive an hour to get there but we are going to support Dan Cathy because he had the courage to speak the truth on talk radio.  Can you believe that this is still the America we grew up in?  Evil has gotten it claws into our society.  The mayor of Boston and Chicago sounds like they are from a science fiction movie.  In a country where about 85% of it’s citizens believe in God, why are we being so silent?  We should all be screaming from the roof tops.  The small minority is winning because they scream the loudest.  Where has the A.C.L.U. been these past few months with the HHS mandate, let alone trying to ruin Dan Cathy because of his religious beliefs.  Don’t they claim to support justice in all forms and protect the constitution?  What a bunch of hypocrites.  They have shown their true colors in all of this and I hope they will loose all credibility with Americans.  I still believe Americans are decent fair minded people and can spot those frauds and drive they back where they came from.
BT

People are so brainwashed into thinking that anything goes and there is no room for temperance - you can’t say no, you need to do what makes you “happy”, you can’t be against anything unless it is against someone who is for values and doing as God instructed us - then you are NOT a “hater” - it is OK to be hateful of people who want to do as God told us.  You are not a “hater” if you are against what Godly people believe to be true…You, however, are a “hater”  if you don’t agree with what evil they do.  Also, what about the discrimination against babies in the womb?  Completely tolerant of a woman and her “choice” has been wrong for decades and people are now believing the lies that this is OK - none of our business - between a woman and her doctor…what about the intolerance toward the smallest of humans, and soon, I’m sure, the oldest of humans?

What would Jesus do?

I think he’d be eating a burger with the gays.

People make the erroneous assumption that the gay rights movement is dumping truth and goodness out the window.  Au contraire, my friends, the movement is maintaining a moral code which includes asserting that marginalizing homosexuals is wrong.

Disagree if you like, but at least stop beating the “evil truth-rejecting moral relativists” horse. It’s a straw horse, anyway.

Dear Be:
  I used to be like you. Generally sarcastic in a vulgar and what I thought was a genuinely funny way. Then the Blessed Mother Mary paid me a visit, and in that one instant I KNEW I was wrong. You’ve got the guts to call all these Christians morons….. If you really don’t believe… try saying that to God… but don’t forget to mark the day you say it, and lets see what its gotten you after a year.
I’d say good luck, but there is no luck in life, only Gods grace.
May God bless you and teach you the lesson you need to learn without major chastisements.
Patrick

Wow, I can not believe you are all still lingering in the commerce-based hermeneutic of the Apocalypse.  That view was old hat 20 years ago.  Hahn’s intepretation of the book of Revelation as being about the Eucharist makes tons more sense, especially when you are looking from a Hebrew perspective. Though it does leave out a lot of room for whackadoodleness, and heaven knows the reactionary Right loves its whackadoodleness. 

Thank God orthodox Catholicism =/= the reactionary Right.

To the person BE making his comment that God loves gay sex.  I pray for your soul and awakening of the times we are living in.  Perhaps it would help you to read your Bible and see what God says about men and women of the same sex indulging in same sex behavior.  They have brought damnation among their souls.  We pray for God’s love and mercy to be with each and every person living this life style.

Also, there will be a general awaking of every human’s soul.  I suggest you google Dr. Gloria Polo’s story and read it.  If this story doesn’t wake up a person, nothing will.

I’m not rich, but I’d support this proud company.
If someone would like to eat at chick-fil-A for me, scan their reciept and send it to me, I will pick one reciept and send you the money for it.
I’m in Canada and can’t make it.
COME TO CANADA CHICK-FIL-A ! PLEASE.
I’LL EAT THERE ALL THE TIME.

Rebecca - Why did God wash away Sodom and Gomorrah?  No matter what you think, it is wrong and not the way God intended…God loves us all, but that doesn’t mean no matter what we do we won’t suffer consequences for the sin we commit.  We all have free will so the choices we make (no matter how much we convince ourselves) will be judged by God at the end. God doesn’t condemn people, people condemn themselves.

Was your apparition approved by the church? Because in my experience those who claim to have had apparitions or locutions are treading very dangerous ground.  Also, I would be hesitant to put forth in writing any actual interpretation of scripture without looking for precedents in the tradition. 

I used to believe in the culture war, too. But then I discovered what my faith truly is about. 

I perceive from your remarks that you hold to an OT view of God as a “smiting” deity.  Spend some time in the NT and think about what it means that we are under a new law now.

I understand there is a lot of fear and animosity out there, and that in many cases it has been returned by “the opposition.” But let us try to remember that this is not about us vs them. This is aobut persons, invdividuals whom God sees as infinitely precious. They are not our enemies. Our enemies are poverty, cruelty, ignorance, injustice.  That’s what we should be fighting.

We’ll be eating at Chick-fil-A tomorrow!

Rebecca - Jesus would eat with anyone, certainly, but I am confident that he would not condone sin, which is what homosexual, human dignity-defying acts are.  Simple as that - no person here hates gays, since all are fallen, all are sinners.  We just do not elevate sin to a virtue, in defiance of history, reason and common sense.
.
I apologize for the nth time, as a MA resident, for the deplorable conduct of our leaders, most recently, for the oafish comments of Boston Mayor Menino.  Luckily, the world now sees him as the thuggish, incomprehensible fool that we know him locally to be.  I am ashamed of him and this formerly proud commonwealth.

Does ‘tolerance’ know the difference between good and evil, yes and no?Tolerance has betrayed our Constitution Right to practice Religion.  Christians are bullied, scorned and persecuted as no other religion. Offensive comments are not discussion and demonstrate present bullying, scorning, persecuting of America’s Christiandom.

Thank you, I want to share that article with all my friends. I have felt that way a long time and now you have put it in writing so perfectly. I have never eaten at Chic-fil-a but I will now!

C - (Great alias!) Don’t you have anything else to do other than your being the real “hater”?  You are the epitomy of intolerance and I don’t get why you are on this venue to begin with other than to spew your venom at those of us who love God.

To Bonnie—We are screaming from the roof tops; however, we are being silenced by the liberal media that has its own secular agenda. When was the last time you heard the truth about the March for Life in D.C. Or what did you read in the secular press about the Fortnight for Freedom. Those opposed to the Church and its teachings have an open forum for their views while we are shut out.

What a great article! I agree wholeheartedly. Politically correct and vocal secularists can call an ostrich a cow and give it room in the barn. But the simple fact is that you still can’t milk it. Unfortunately, it’s a crime to point out the obvious. Guess the Emperor and his followers won’t be wearing those new clothes to the Chick-Fil-A. But if the kid is there, I’ll buy him a sandwich.

We have Chick-Fil-A’s in Phoenix. I haven’t gone much but will now.

Sadly tolerance is no longer tolerated.

thank you thank you thank you

There was a time when the religious right wanted families to start eating supper together at home.  Now it’s show your morals by eating at a fast food chicken diner!  Come on!  If the world ends as in Revelations then it was done by our stupidity and arrogance of assuming what God wants.  There is nothing new under the sun, this horrible article is proof.  Those who follow this kind of theology look just as stupid as the others throughout history.  Have Fun in your tunnel!!

Those who tolerate everything actually believe in nothing. The world is full of good and evil, and there is no common ground between them.  You must accept one or the other – never both.  Tolerance is a two-way word
that allow us in effect to accept or deny God. Those who deny God’s law that Marriage is between a man and a woman accept evil.  Chick-fil-A has chosen to accept god and condemn evil. God is with them.  I will try to give them more business to make up for the loss from the actual bigots who revile them.

Pat,

We might take a different approach.  If one listens to the NPR interview with Gilbert Baker, the creator of the Gay Rainbow Flag in 1978, it becomes clearly obvious that there was inspiration involved that was not of this world.

http://npr.vo.llnwd.net/kip0/kip0/_pxn=1+_pxI0=A22764+_pxL0=begin+_pxM0=+_pxR0=13774+_pxK=10412+_pxE=mp3/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/2/510214/155556422/KALW_155556422.mp3

It seems to me that avoiding the rainbow is the wrong response.  It is akin to leaving the battlefield in the hands of the enemy. What we need to do is take it back as a sign of the eternal covenant between God and man and re-Christianize it by nailing it to the Cross.  I have one version that does this for me by once again acknowledging Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior as the Lord of the Rainbow. 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BTQhlgsTAzM/UBgTQWuJJ3I/AAAAAAAAB3A/GkR7JBUDzQE/s1600/Covenant+Rainbow+Flag+CRF+3.PNG

The Blood of Christ, the New and Everlasting Covenant, links directly with Noah’s rainbow, the eternal covenant in Genesis 3. Think about it.

The best defense is a good offense.

My heart leaps up when I behold A rainbow in the sky.- William Wordsworth

When I was a little girl, we were taught (in New York City public school!)that the opposite of love was NOT hate—-it was tolerance. Hmmmnn….seems truer than ever before. If we do not love someone enough to share God’s Truth with them, isn’t that “tolerance” really a soul-killing dose of disconnected, socially acceptable Hatred?

We must be careful not to get caught up in the fight.  God still loves gay people although they are sinners.  I support Chik Fil A entirely and I want to be there Wednesday but not in triumph, simply to say thank you to a company that has risked its good name in supporting the truth.

Good article…unfortunately I want to cry when the combox conspiracy theorists come out.
Jacques, I didn’t know that curious fact, thank you.
Rebecca: Lots of people remember that Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”  Not so many seem to want to remember that He also said, “Go and sin no more.”

I suspect that all these acts against Chick-fill-A will turn out to be great advertising for them.  I’ve been
Aware of them for several years, but never stopped to order anything. My son and children came up yesterday
And I asked them to pick up Chick-fil-A for our lunch, since we are 60miles from the closest one.
I will make a special point of stopping at Chick-fil-A when I am anywhere near one.

Posted by Mary Beth Wolle on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2012 12:56 PM (EST):We must be careful not to get caught up in the fight.  God still loves gay people although they are sinners.  I support Chik Fil A entirely and I want to be there Wednesday but not in triumph, simply to say thank you to a company that has risked its good name in supporting the truth.”
*************
Good comments.Thanks!

Actually there is whole bunch of new stuff under the sun.
Knowledge about the universe, our planet, most things big and small.
Reason
Understanding
Science
These new things are not something that are going to wash away with time.
Religion, unfortunately for some, is.

I will love the sinner,but hate the sin.  I will not except the gay marriage nor will i ever aprove of it. It is a grave immoral act, just like abortion is.  Thumbs up to chick-fil-a, he is standing up to what his believe is and going along with GODS teachings. Remember sodom & gomorrah, what does that tell you.

Funny, but I always thought money from Gays was as green as every one elses!  It’s poor business practice to advertise your hate and intollerance for a minority!  I will NEVER eat a chicken restaurant run by a BIGOT!

Scott,
What you say is new under the sun-scientific understanding-is in fact old. Indeed, nothing is new under the sun.
In the time of Augustine of Hippo there was a heresy called Manichaeism, which “offered a science that claimed answers to the natural world and phenomena but was actually an excuse for sin, a rationalization if you will”
See “Saints Alive!” St. Augustine Of Hippo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQBHTNiCutA

Ric, everyone who enters a Chick-Fil-A is a sinner. It’s what you are doing about your sin. Sounds like you want to name call anyone who does not accept sodomy as normal/natural behavior and I want to continue calling it sin (for the benefit of the sinner so they can repent). God gives you free will - you can continue satifying yourself over God’s command but you can’t change what it is. I suggest you tollerate the Chick-Fil-A executive. You don’t have to patronize his business or accept his beliefs. Just respect his freedom as he is respecting yours. You may want to open your mind to the idea that there is a creator and he established natural laws. What you call “hate” is actually an act of love - we are concerned about your salvation. You are in my prayers.

The CEO has expressed his view and acceptance of biblical marriage.  At the same time, the company has also said ALL their customers are due and are treated with equal respect.  When you enter their restaurants, you are not asked if you are gay or straight.  So what’s the big deal?  Since when does “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” constitute hate speech?

@Gary, such militant homosexual people are already as lost as a billygoat in a hailstorm.  There is zero amount of prayer, Scripture quotes, pleading, loving compassion or anything else which will placate lost people.  Believers already know from Romans 1 such people have been turned over to a seared conscience and thus are no longer capable of making moral judgment because they are devoid of capacity.  In Romans, Paul refers to this stage of the sinner as one having a depraved mind.  Upon reaching this point you have no Christian obligation to be concerned regarding their salvation.  God has given them over to their lustful desires of the flesh.

@ Casting Crowns”:
    We are all sinners, and all in need of forgiveness and grace.  The fact that some people reject Christ’s grace should make us want to pray for them all the more.  Yes, Romans states that:  “And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense…”, but, we still have the obligation to pray for each other, for while there is life, there is hope, and there have been many, who through God’s grace, have repented. 
    St. Paul, who wrote the letter to the Romans, also talks about the sins that cry to Heaven for judgement.  After listing many types of mortal sins, he continues:  “...and such WERE some of you.” 
    I am not willing to write off anyone.  Christ tells us to love one another as He has loved us.                                 
    We are to judge, in the sense of being able to tell right from wrong.  We must be able to discern that actions that go against God’s will are sinful, but we cannot judge someone’s soul.  The person may repent in the future without my being aware of it.  Only God knows everything.

“They will be the ones eating a chicken sandwich without a rainbow lapel pin.”

Count me in!

@Patty Bennet, amen, Catholics are not Calvinists.  God will call the sinner until the last breath.

@Patty Bennett:  I appreciate your sentiments, but you’re off base. [“We are all sinners, and all in need of forgiveness and grace.”]  Your statement applies to the humble and contrite of heart.  A man or woman must first come to know their true condition is sinful before forgiveness and grace can be received.  Militant homosexuals totally reject the gospel.  Matthew 5 starts the Sermon on the Mount.  Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”  The “poor in spirit” is where the sinner realizes his brokenness before Christ —eternally and forever lost.  THAT’S why you need a Savior (who is Christ).  Militant homosexuals totally reject Christ—or they would see their depravity.  You may wish to pray for these militants (as you wish).  Abraham was not commanded to pray for the Sodomites nor did Jesus get into an argument with people nor pray for the rich young ruler who was more concerned with his earthly pleasures than that of following Jesus.  The danger in this life is that the sinner can be so far gone that his mind becomes immune to even remotely hearing the call of Christ.  The militant homosexual has made his choice.  Please stop it with the Pollyanna Catholic grammar school approach when dealing with militant homosexuals. They will run roughshod over anyone they can with Mafia-type intimidation, boycotts and vandalizing churches and businesses.

“Do not fear the enemy, for they can only take your life.  “Fear the Media for they will distort your grasp of reality and destroy your honor and your soul!

Notice how the “liberals” call it hate speech when someone else who does not agree with them, are expressing their views?

Wish we had a Chick-Fil-A here in Seattle ... I’d become a loyal customer!

@Casting Crowns:

sometimes, a wicked generation can be converted, Casting.

The Jews were almost totally wicked just before the Babylonian exile, but in the exile, they were shocked of their sins and repented, and were restored to the Holy Land and rebuilt the Temple.

An abundance of approved Catholic Private Revelation places our time similarly for the Gentiles:  Much of the formerly Christian civilizations have fallen far from the Gospel.  An imminent chastisement awaits, after which it is believed a near total reversion or conversion of the Gentile world to the Gospel, even Catholicism. 

If the world starts to encounter the consequences of its sins, its eyes can be opened, like the Jews in Babylon

@Casting Crowns:  I could not agree with you more about the CEO not making a hate speech.  Great Point !!!

Thank you for pointing this out!  Come Lord Jesus!

It appears Revelation 11 is underway.  Stay within the Temple of God (in God’s presence; in Christ’s Church) inside the walls while those outside the walls, the unbelievers, will trample the cities and countries.  WE are being persecuted by businesses.  We know of a pro-life group whose insurance premium has gone from $600 to $8,000 with no losses or material change in the risk in just one year.

Mari has got it right!

Oops! Marie.

It is as the secular liberals have declared themselves the bullies of America.  If you agree with them you are allowed to carry on as usual but if you assert your right to your believes or opinions you are intimadated and threatened or just plain fired from your job.  The bullies have taken away freedom of speech and religion just so they can have their sins a la carte.  We need to be prepared for a full persecution in this country not so different than in past and present history of other countries ie Hitler’s Germany.  I believe being liberal is an untreated mental illness that would be resistent to therapy if they were to seek help.

So, what did Chick-Fil-A do?

Alison,
By making so bold, yet so humble a statement while in such an obvious position of disadvantage in a political/economic/media arena that is ruthlessly advancing the homosexual agenda, Mr. Cathy is holding up a mirror to an prideful, self-consumed Narcissus and challenging him to take a good look.  He can’t handle what he sees—-TRUTH and his only recourse is to bludgeon Chic-Fil-A so as to break the mirror.

We should all take a lesson from this and witness to the Truth that is a person of Jesus Christ.  If we all hold up mirrors of charitable Truth to a world seemingly in the hands of the Father of Lies, Truth will overcome the darkness.

We have always supported Chick-Fil-A as they are one of the few businesses that are closed on Sunday as is Hobby Lobby so that their employees can worship and be with their families.  Thank you for the article…you are right on

Today, Wednesday, August 1, 2012, is CHIK-FIL-A APPRECIATION DAY!  Go and buy or eat some Chik-Fil-A today!  (And any other day you want, too!)

I did go to Chick Fil a the previous day (jul 31) because I won’t be going by on on Aug 1 so I hope that shows my support as well!

I love chicken.

So I guess I should be eating Church’s fried chicken from now on?

I tried to eat at ChickFilA today at lunch but couldn’t.  It was so packed that people were parked in another parking lot and it was causing a traffic jam on the street.  I couldn’t wait since I had to get back to work.  I will be going there for dinner.  Good for ChickFilA! and all Christians!

Jaason,
I went yesterday too - I wanted to beat the crowds.  I think it does show support.
I had never been to Chick fil A before and I will definately go back.

I just ate at Chick-fil-A in Peabody, MA, (the epicenter of liberal nihilism…)  It was so crowded (well-behaved and joyful, however!) that mall security had to set up a second line for the waiting crowds.
.
As a lifelong Massachusetts resident, I apologize yet again for the boorish behavior and intolerant speech of Boston Mayor Tom Menino, (aka ‘Mumbles Menino’).  This illiterate fool does not speak for the taxpayers of this commonwealth!

The restaurants in town were packed at lunch today.The location I went to had drive-thru traffic backed up to the highway.The Chick-Fil-A folks were welcoming, courteous & speedy,even with the huge crowd.
I don’t like to see folk threatened for their religious beliefs.Today it’s a Baptist business owner, tomorrow it’s us or the Orthodox Jews,etc.

Michael Rizzio - excellent explanation

Here’s a funny old thought….

If a gay or lesbian couple shows up at a Chick-Fil-A, orders a meal, and then kisses while waiting for their meal, I doubt they’d be turned away. If they tried to hand the cashier literature in support of gay ‘marriage’, no doubt they’d be treated with politeness as the material was accepted. They’d be allowed to enjoy their meal. Chick-Fil-A will even donate a penny or two of the profit of that sale to a group that supports real marriage.

Down the block at a gay pride feast, a Catholic walks among the crowd praying the rosary. A Catholic at the same event orders a soft drink from a vendor and then while paying hands the vendor literature about Courage, the Catholic support group for people with same sex attraction. That Catholic would be bounced out on his or her head and possibly arrested. The ‘pride’ group hosting the will even donate a penny or two of the profit of that sales to a group that the gay life.

Now for the quiz .. who is intolerant? Who is the one only in it for the money.

The Chick-Fil-A in Gainesville, Virginia packed at dinnertime and the cars in line for the drive through were stacked 20 cars. As soon as each car got its order, the next stop was to the condiments stop. This Chick-Fil-A had it all together. Talked to the manager who conveyed the lunch crowd was so big, orders were 40 minutes behind. Hopefully, the sleeping giant has awakened.

BRAVO!!!!!!!!

I am waiting to see if Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams and Scott Pelley will air any of this on the national evening news.  I’m not holding my breath.

WRONG!!!
Posted by Mary Beth Wolle on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2012 12:56 PM (EST):
We must be careful not to get caught up in the fight.

God still loves gay people although they are sinners.

I support Chik Fil A entirely and want to be there Wednesday but not in triumph, simply to say thank you to a company that has risked its good name in supporting the truth.

WRONG ON THE FIRST COUNT.  WE ARE ALL CALLED TO GET INTO THE FIGHT AGAINST EVIL.  THAT IS WHY WE ARE CALLED THE CHURCH MILITANT!  TO DO SO IS OUR DUTY AND HONOR.
SECONDLY.  EATING THERE IN THE EFFORT TO SUPPORT THEM IS JOINING THE FIGHT!

Took the kids to the Corpus Christi Chick-Fil-A and while we were there, the line averaged 140-160 and stretched to the front door of La Palmera Mall’s food court.  It was a curiously introspective lunchtime crowd, mostly silent and matter of fact.  Everyone knew that they were there for a good and holy purpose.  I was amazed that they handled this traffic so well.  Sixty-five minutes and we had our food.

Not much of a chicken sandwich fan until I heard about this brave owner—showed up in support today and traffic was backed up out on the street. I like the fact that he closes his business on Sunday as well—goes straight to his character. Not in it completely for the money. My guess is if his business were to close down tommorrow, it wouldn’t hurt him much financially. However, all those people would be out of jobs. Do those who only choose to protest freedom of speech selectively care about them?? My guess is, not so much..

To all of those that label the homosexuals as “gay”: SHAME ON YOU, they are not gay, and you are insulting those that have Gay as their name or part of their name. Tony, really, eating meat on Friday, still a no-no. Mark, I know that you won’t see this, but, for one to have so much hate and not to be able to speak without filth, must be very difficult for you. Rebecca, you talk about ignorance as if you knew just what you were talking about, of which, you don’t. God is the same yesterday, today and our tomorrow, and when the Day of The Lord comes, it will be a cruel day, especially for those that promote sin. The “moral” code of the homosexual community is NOT the moral code that God has given man as their view of sex, drugs, hate, intolerance, etc. is NOT NORMAL. Your version of the book of Revelation and the Bible is very limited and your not understanding of apparitions is very sad.  You need a good, Catholic spiritual director now.  +JMJ+

Last evening at Chik-Fil-A at the mall in Corpus Christi [you have to love the name of this town] Texas, when we arrived there were about 86 people ahead of us in our Chik-Fil-A line. Of all the other food establishments in the food court, Subway had about 7 people in line and a sushi place had 12-no other line at any other place. The folks behind us had already had breakfast and lunch at Chik-Fil-A. I heard that a drive thru line in Memphis Tenn was about a mile long. This is a ad marketer’s dream…..do not be surprised if KFC and Pizza Hut come out for family values, traditional marriage, and adamantly against sin. They will, just watch, follow the money. Who’d a thunk we all shoulda invested in Chik-Fil-A Tuesday?

guy mcclung :“This is a ad marketer’s dream…..do not be surprised if KFC and Pizza Hut come out for family values, traditional marriage, and adamantly against sin. They will, just watch, follow the money. Who’d a thunk we all shoulda invested in Chik-Fil-A Tuesday?”
*****
Since money drives the culture, that sounds like a positive thing.Whether sincerely held or not, the values promoted by business affect us all.
From what I see, Chick-Fil-A is a privately owned company, so buying shares isn’t an option at this time.
And I DO love the name Corpus Christi.

We have observed a miracle! The Holy Spirit has spoken through Chik-Fil-A! I think He did that because He’s pleased with their refusal to do business on Sunday as well as the courage to plainly and forcefully speak out for what is upright. (I love our bishops, but wish they [who aren’t already speaking boldly] would reconsider their extreme “carefulness” of words.)

Our family was there at Chik Fil A yesterday (we are Catholic) along with multitudes of Christians standing up for BOTH free speech AND holy marriage (1 man, 1 women, to death do they part!) I wore my rosary t-shirt, and not ONE Evangelical came up to say to me, “You Catholics are going to Hell!” No one asked are you an Evangelical? A Methodist? A Catholic? An Orthodox?  All that mattered was the truth, and I do believe it will be Truth Himself who will call together all His sheep, those who will not respond to another’s voice. It is an exciting time to be a Christian!

Regarding the “Mark of the Beast,” I do believe it is coming soon; even if Mr. Romney wins election and the GOP takes over in Washington, it will hopefully be a delay, at least, of what seems inevitable—the emergence of an evil, whole-world government. Investment boards are starting to rumble of a new way of paying for goods which will make credit cards obsolete (smart phone for now…but maybe an injected chip soon?)

Look for environmental extremism to provide the philosophical basis for one-world governance and the seed of the capitulation of many who call themselves Christian now (and there are some in nearly every Christian denomination.)

“Beast” throughout the Bible is a code word for demons. “The Beast” one might reasonably understand as the chief of all the demons, the devil himself.

A reporter on a national broadcast last night mentioned that Christians were against gay marriage and birth control. I wish I could quote her exactly—but, how I wish she were right, and if only it were true! 

If all Christians would renounce and abandon birth control in all its forms, we would see the undoing of all the great plans of The Beast. Birth control laid the foundation for the gay marriage movement. If heterosexuals can engage in sexual behavior solely for unifying a couple and entertainment, then why can’t homosexuals? Birth control is based on the notion that there can be “unwanted” children, so the acceptance of the concept of “unwanted” and “unplanned” pregnancy is the basis upon which all abortion rests. Essentially, all abortion is simply birth control of last resort. Abortive hormonal contraceptives make every person who has used them liable to Judgment; in fact, it may be a sin WORSE than homosexual behavior for the sin of Onan was punished immediately by God Himself, who struck Onan dead for the sin. The marital act, by definition, becomes an act of Onanism if contracepting—and what should be chastity becomes in its essence fornication.

Contraceptives use completely undermines the credibility of anyone protesting abortion—how can a person protest surgical abortion when one is engaging in hormone-induced abortion himself or herself, killing one’s own young, albeit at an earlier stage of development and secretly in a hidden manner. Still, dead is dead.

And sterilization is a form of suicide—killing off the reproductive capacity of oneself—abhorrent to God (remember Jesus’ cursing the fig tree that refused to bear fruit?) All contraceptive behavior is a slap in the face to God, a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in His loving Providence.

The VERY FIRST COMMANDMENT God gave mankind was “be fruitful and multiply.” Because we now have abandoned that command, we are AT that moment in history Jesus spoke of when He told the women wailing over Him, “the days are coming when they will say ‘blessed are the barren.’” This warning from Jesus ties in to Revelation 6, the time when He says mankind will begin to beg the mountains to fall to hide humanity from the wrath of the Lamb. Christians, at least, have to turn away from and repent of this awful sin, because, if we do not, then we are praying to God with our hands “full of blood.”

666 is a repeating number that is endlessly repetitive. The fact it is written three times is to imitate the infinite nature of the Holy Trinity. 666 is the symbol of mankind’s abandonment of worship for God, replacing God in His kingship with the worship of creation. We are exchanging the truth of God for a lie. A study of Fibonacci numbers will show how the shape of 6 is found in so many natural contexts. It only makes sense, for Satan is the king of this world. Remember, Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, although His kingdom is at hand. Men will try to recreate Paradise, and mankind will be successful to a degree—there will be a false man-made peace; and the evil who bring it about will believe they are secure; but, ultimately, Jesus will turn the tables, and then His meek shall inherit HIS earth which HE created and which Satan dared to try to steal away the kingship of.

The Bible says, when Jesus returns to earth, He expects not to find anyone of faith here. Where will people be? They’ll be HIDING THEMSELVES under ground from the “wrath of the Lamb!” What did Adam and Eve do when they sinned? They hid from God! They would not seek His face!

If there IS anyone left who trusts in Christ, they’ll be waiting for Him ABOVE ground, ready to be caught up with Him in the clouds! They won’t be afraid of His wrath, so they won’t need to hide themselves inside the earth (as though that will work for the evil doers trying to hide.)

So…dear brothers and sisters…remain close to Christ in prayer and sacraments…keep your robes “washed in the blood of the Lamb” and your oil lamps “full” for the visit of the Bridegroom, and “BE NOT AFRAID” and trust in Christ, watching hopefully and with joy for Him and the day of the King’s return in glory!

Oh, and, by the way, when the government sends you the bus to take you down underground into the civil defense areas (anybody looked into the creepy Denver airport lately?), just say, “No thanks…I’ll take my chances with the nukes, the asteroids and meteors, the solar storms, or what-have-you…I plan to be here, up top, to greet my Lord!)

By the way, if these words ring true to you, please do not hesitate to copy, paste, and forward them as far as you wish!

See ya in Heaven, guys! Look for me at Heaven’s stables—I’ll be out riding white horses with Jesus;)!

LS

Brilliant, Pat!
Great, LS!
And for some people’s call for the ‘tolerence’ idea, don’t be duped. Remember what Archbishop Chaput taught in his book Render Unto Caesar and what he talked about in a very long interview. He said: “Here’s an example. We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty—these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square—peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.”  See:
http://www.zenit.org/article-25192?l=english

I was at Chick-fil-a at 9:15pm last night in north Phoenix following my indoor soccer game. The line outside had to be a couple hundred people. I waited talking with others in line. Unfortunately, they had to close (10pm) before I could be served but I was glad to be there and knew I likely wouldn’t even approach the door. A Chick-fil-a employee was kind enough to give away a free peach drink coupons to those they had to turn away. I met mostly Christians but did run into one guy who was there because of free speech. He said he didn’t really care either way on the marriage issue but was angry at what happened in Boston and Chicago. That’s a good sign - the Holy Spirit is working in mysterious ways! Oh, I will be going Friday in response to the homosexual kiss-in some were talking about. Unfortunately they don’t serve fish so I’ll either need to come up with an alternate penance or eat french fries.

Great article and great analogy to articulate who anti-Christ is in this country. I always believed the “Beast” to be communism and islam. Why? because both are anti-Christ. I believe the 666 is Liberalism.  Liberalism has been a ‘Great Deceiver’ who lead us to where we are today. “You will know him by the fruits he bears”- Jesus Christ.

vance ,
When I was waiting in line at Chick-Fil-A for my “spicy chicken meal” it was mobbed & they were calling out numbers-the last 3 digits on the receipts-for folks to pick up their orders.When they got to #640 someone next to me said they hope no customer would have to answer to “number 666”.
:)

Absolutely, 666 IS communism.  Right now, communism is masquerading as environmentalism.  Communism is hiding behind a green mask.

Hasn’t somebody written a book about that called Behind the Green Mask?!

Let us all return to the will of God and not the will of man. Keep up the good work, Chik-Fil-A.

Great punch line!

Good news and bad news

Great week for Chicken Fil A:
Bad week for the Chickens:

Pat,

Why write a chicken piece? ;) 

Actually I thought it was pretty good.  However… :)

“Tolerance, a Christian concept, originally a guide stick meant to keep one on the true path, has now been transformed into a bludgeon meant for the head of anyone who still proclaims there is a true path.”

No, tolerance has never been a Christian concept.  You are speaking of Charity, a wholly different thing.  The tolerance you speak of is the perversion of Charity that Satan created to deceive men into a more deeply narcissistic relationship with themselves.

Here’s the thing.  The reason we are having this fight on the battle field of “tolerance” is because the Bishop’s took Uncle Sam’s 20 pieces of silver.  They did so when they embraced the idols of Liberation Theology and Social Justice and placed them in their hearts above the Sacraments.  Most especially the Eucharist. 

This is how the Novus Ordo Mass came to be   Nor is it by mistake the priest turned his back to the Altar of Christ’s Crucifixion and below it His Tabernacle, and cast his gaze to his fellow men.  With that the priest’s eyes filled with visions of “his” sheep to care for and bring to God.  Not man which he stands in front of, looking upon his Lord Crucified, and daring to speak to God for men.

The Bishop’s are unable to speak with the clarity of AB Fulton Sheen is because their fists are desperately afraid of what will happen if they open their hand and give back the silver.

In short, they are deathly afraid of leaving the Social Justice path with all its government paving and lamp post lights and warm inns along the way for the dark, cold, stormy, unknown path among the sheep surrounded by wolves with Christ. 

That is why the Bishop is making wolves of politicians.  Yet the politicians are merely following the path the Bishop’s taught for decades was the proper path.  The Bishop’s silence all those decades, their fear to use the name Christ, or the word sin, were like Peter’s silence.  Each moment became deeper and deeper implicit denial of the importance of Christ.  Each moment they embraced secular words like tolerance, the teaching of denial moved deeper into the soul of the people and politicians.

This Chic-Fil-A battle is a perfect example of the fruits which come, and are lost. 

The only answer for gay marriage is this.  No man has any RIGHT to force the government to recognize their union, regardless of its type or with whom.  Granted I believe in the traditional definition of marriage.  But recognition of the types and forms of unions a government must recognize or deny, man has no such right. 

Likewise mandating the health care which must be given by a company.  I am deeply opposed to the action.  But the mandate does not deny freedom of Faith because Catholics/Christians are not being denied the right to practice their Faith.  It is NOT a requirement of Faith to build hospitals or administer to the sick via hospitals.  Likewise with educational institutions. 

The fruit of the decades of silence by the Bishop’s is clear.  The Bishop’s should simply say:

“We deeply disagree, but we will render unto Caesar that which he claims.  We shall go about our works of Charity without having any legally recognized association with those institutions, but will seek to receive the fair value for our properties lost, per the US Constitution provides.  We pray for the success of your endeavors.” 

Then they should step away and simply work trough true works of Charity and focus on the Sacraments.  They can still hold Sunday School.  They can set up private classes, that cost nothing for children to attend after school or on weekends.  Or they can set up a Charitable support system to provide teaching for home schooling families; the internet has already proven the capabilities of these forms of education. 

The simple point is they need to have the Faith of St Francis, let go of the 20 pieces of silver, and return to true Charity.  God will provide.

If they did they could speak of Charity being true tolerance.

In doing so one would not have to look for the absence of a rainbow pin, but could rather see the crosses and crucifixes which would be again worn proudly and without fear of “tolerance”.

AMDG

Great article.

The aggressive anti-theists think that sexual tolerance is the paragon of virtue, while intellectual/ideological tolerance is a thing of fascists.

You can have sex with a dog, but you cannot think verboten (non-PC) thoughts.

Rockport Pilot, Rockport Texas
Friday, August 3, 2012

Dear Editor;

Since there are many businesses whose primary reason for existence is to spread hate, in addition to Chick-Fil-A, and since there are many executives who espouse bigoted traditional values and hate-driven biblical values, would not the actions of all good pure people - which includes, by definition, all Democrats - in avoiding these businesses be greatly facilitated if: 1. Christian businesses be required to display a Star Of Bethlehem sign in their businesses - and this could be a federal regulation whose implementation involves multiple government agencies, e.g. EPA, Health And Human Services, Department of Education, Homeland Security, and of course the Center for Disease Control; and 2. Christian executives be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have one tattooed on their forearms? And, to further the purity of Democrats and all others who are free of hate, why not have all Christians who go out in public be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have it tattooed on their foreheads? Of course a crucifix would do instead of the star.

Am I remembering correctly something like this once happened? Was it in Europe? Wasn’t there some kind of conflict about this? How did the pure people do that time?

Guy McClung

Guy, it sounds like you have a bad case of Christophobia. You are in my prayers.

First, I am not a Catholic, but saw the post from a friend’s facebook page, but am in complete agreement with what is written. The twisting of truth is unbelievable. The media and Big Gay made it an issue of antitolerance and bigotry. It is an issue of free speech and first amendment rights.Those rights were granted for a time just as this. The vast number of people in the country, in fact all, support traditional marriage. Twisting this truth, along with a whole host of other truths allows the media to shape the thinking of an entire country. How else did BHO “evolve” in his thinking on same sex marriage. The media has pushed and pushed and pushed- not just the idea of same sex marriage, but marginallizing and demonizing any other idea. Now Chick Fil-A customers are “Fat, Southern, small brained bigots” who hate everyone not like them.
The blame for this recent, unprecedented shift in thinking falls solidly on the administration. They have emboldened the LGBT radicals and the media radicals through their attacks on Christianity. Another 4 years of this administration and we could see open attacks on Christians that are supported by the governmnent. I am afraid it will break our country into pieces.

The tide has turned in the US. It is no longer possible to hide anti-gay bigotry behind religion. Civil marriage equality is the law in six states and will be nationwide in my lifetime. The young people get it. It will just be a matter of time before the haters fade away, outnumbered by the young voters who will replace them. Even the majority of Catholics nationwide support civil marriage equality. But the haters are getting more paranoid about their “persecution” because they see the way public opionion is inevitably moving and they are now afraid, desperate, and increasingly outnumbered. It’s sad. They are fighting a losing battle because the long arc of history does bend toward justice.

@Mark Haynes

> “It is no longer possible to hide anti-gay bigotry behind religion.”

Since we support free speech, it is your side who is full of bigots. People who criticise homosexual acts go to jail in England, and are only relatively safe in the USA because of the 1st Amendment. Still, leftist bigots work hard to marginalize the pro-family position. In Massachusetts, Catholic adoption agencies have already been marginalized. This is an attack on human rights.

See http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

See articles 18 and 19.

Mark Haynes - You are wrong.  Homosexual ‘marriage’ was foisted upon an apathetic populace, starting in MA with a 5-4 Superior Court vote accepted by sheeple.  Of course, more than 80,000 signatures were presented to put faux marriage to the popular vote, but the corrupt (Democrat-controlled) MA legislature just threw out the petition drive on a whim!  Cowards - They knew, even in the most nihilist state in the country, (excepting Vermont), homosexual ‘marriage’ would not survive a popular vote! 
.
That’s the truth, Mark, not your wishful thinking.  The Emperor has no clothes, and Chick-fil-A knows it!  The tide is turning our way - back to a realization that making a mockery of marriage by redefining it will harm the family and our country.  Just look at what it’s doing!

Seriously?

Christ’s message to us is to be found within consumer capitalism and fast food consumption???

Did you think that maybe Chick-Fil-A might be pandering? The CEO claims to hold a moral position which he KNOWS full well the company legally cannot adopt. Chick-Fil-A is a corporation seeking profit… And if they can safely manipulate the press and public to bring attention to their profit seeking venture, then THEY ARE GONNA DO IT!!!

When Chick-Fil-A starts firing homosexuals, then, finally they will have put mouth where their money is. I predict that will come to pass shortly after hell freezes over.

Fred - You really don’t understand this religious freedom issue at all, do you?  Of course Chick-fil-A will not discriminate as a business or an employer against homosexuals.  I’m sure they have adulterers or fornicators in their midst as well, and they would be similarly, if lovingly, chastised. 
.
For we Christians, however, the knowledge of sin, the recognition of it, and the sincere resolution to fight it, is paramount.  You know this, I am sure, but want to provoke controversy, but we love the sinner, while recognizing and admonishing the sin.  No good comes of homosexual ‘acting out’ - nothing by sickness and sadness and recriminations - physical, emotional and spiritual.  Most of the homosexual men I knew in my youth are now dead, and it wasn’t discrimination that felled them.
.
Homosexual activists are trying very hard to convince our youth that their sexual activities are a legitimate expression of love, but they are not, they are the opposite of love, they are violent and harmful and dangerous.  This is at the root of the time-honored proscription of homosexuality. 
.
For the best description of sexuality from a thoughtful theological perspective, read Ronald Rohlheiser’s ‘The Holy Longing’.  The chapter on our created sexuality is uplifting for all, but unfortunately, doesn’t condense well into sound bites in a combox.  We are what we read.

Nowhere on any blog or article have I read that a genuine marriage has 3 requirements: consent, consummation, and the ability to bear children, unless you are past the age. That does not mean that if you cannot bear children due to some infertility issue, you cannot marry. I believe people with same-sex attraction cannot be validly married due to their ability to only give consent. They cannot consummate a marriage because they do not have the physical means to do so; putting an organ of reproduction into an organ of elimination will NEVER be equivalent to the marital act, as nature intended. And the ability to conceive and bear children-not with each other whether male or female. I hear people say that SSA people have the “right” to marry because the “love each other!” What is the true meaning of love? To do whatever you are able to help them to attain their only worth-while goal, an eternity in heaven. Christians must love SSA people but can never approve of their attempts to normalize their physical relationship, even with so-called marriage.

In my ministry with the other pastors and priests we have had prophecy from Jesus and God the Father concerning last days and the mark of the beast. It is so evident to me the coming of the anti Christ and not just his coming but that he is here and in power somewhere in the world. We have been told to reject the mark because all those who accept it will suffer a terrible punishment from God with a sore on their body. As I look and see homosexuality being forced on everyone and truth being attacked as power is being given to atheists to remove crosses It is obvious to me the time to suffer for Jesus is here now. Not to come later. There will be much Christian persecution under President Obama who I wonder is a plant by the Anti Christ. All Christians should resolve to not abandon their faith and be willing to suffer for Jesus now whether by imprisonment or any other persecution. Resolve to suffer for your faith and walk with Jesus now.

@ Mark Haynes - you ad hominem attack calling Catholics “haters” is intellectually lazy. Man up and debate the free speech question. If the goal is living in a free society, there’s room for homosexuals to practice sodomy and Catholics to practice their religion. I would propose that putting your trust in Jesus is the true way to live; however, I’m not going to coerce you to accept Jesus. At the same time, I will not accept sodomy as normal - it’s disordered and defies natural law. Nice try thinking the tide is turning and the young people “get it”. Sodom and Gomorah were here and gone. I’m sure they all thought the tide was turning in their favor as well.

“When Chick-Fil-A starts firing homosexuals, then, finally they will have put mouth where their money is. I predict that will come to pass shortly after hell freezes over.”

Fred, what a strange comment. You want Chick-fil-A to fire its homosexual employees?? Or did you mean hire homosexuals? I believe Mr. Cathy already stated that they have never discriminated against hiring homosexuals and not likely will start.

Fred ,
Chick-Fil-A is a privately owned business & as a business it’s assumed they would be “profit seeking.” In America, most businesses attempt to be profitable & we still operate under capitalism.
In addition to making a profit, Chick-Fil-A does many good things for their employees & the community at large.And serves a good chicken sandwich.

I guess with the implemetation of ‘Obamacare’ we all have the sign of the Beast now don’t we?

Uh Joan, it is you who does not get it.  Mr Cathy and Chick Fil A cannot discriminate because it is ILLEGAL to discriminate. 
All this flap over some backwards hillbilly said he does not support gay marriage.  What Fred aptly pointed out is that there are millions of backwards hillbillys who don’t approve of gay marriage and say so on a daily basis but receive no publicity because no-one is interested in some toothless hick’s opinion.  On the flipside, because Mr Cathy, who undoubtedly thinks racial segregation was just fine, is the CEO of Chick Fil A, he gets headlines.  Criticism Fred,  next time just ask the question because the Catholics, despite Sister Nancy’s Fifth grade class they could not see that you were asking the following question: how much Chick Fil A stock does Mike Huckabee own?  FOLLOW THE MONEY

@Starzec:  More backward hillbillies from Arkansas —the Sam Walton family.  Next, should we should expect to see radical homosexuals picketing Walmart because they sell Bibles in their book section?  Dan Cathy and Sam Walton are two of the most successful businessmen in America.

Starzec: “Uh Joan, it is you who does not get it.  Mr Cathy and Chick Fil A cannot discriminate because it is ILLEGAL to discriminate.” Mr. Cathy and Chick Fil A are not discriminating!  Mr. Cathy made a comment to a Christian publication of what he believes. That is not discriminating. They do NOT refuse to hire or serve homosexuals. That would be discriminating. He has a right to his opinion and to state it publicly. The left states their opinions all the time. And where do you get that he thinks racial discrimination is fine? You’re showing your own prejudice, bigotry and intolerance by calling others toothless hicks.

President Obama is hardly a “toothless hick” & he expressed the same views until just a couple of months ago.
Also, why is it OK to demean folk by their place of birth or ability to afford dental care?

Have never shopped at WalMart and never will. When Mr Walton comes out and says he is against equal rights for all, then I am certain there will be some backlash, then some prominent political hack who owns some Walmart stock will go on air and tell people to have a “Shop In” at their local Walmart.  And being the sheeple most Americans are, they will line the sprawling parking lots with rusted out Fords F150s.  All because some politician told them too. 
The irony here is that the same people who run around like chicken little hating government, queers and Jews/Muslims/ Sihks BLINDLY follow the politician that goes on the air and have an EAT IN or SHOP IN at a place he owns stock.  So instead of him Billy Grahaming/ Pat Robertsoning telling people to send money directly to him, he gets people to spend their money which makes his shares of stock more valuable.
Finally,  I noticed you all just grabbed at the low hanging fruit (Toothless hick comment) while ignoring the real issue:  That you who frequent Chick Fil A did nothing but give to the Huckabee Campaign fund and increased your cholesterol while doing it. Sister Nancy would not approve of your non-questioning nature.

I will be sure to eat chicken if Chick-Fil-A ever comes to my town.

It is much better to eat chicken than to be one.

@Starzec Please clarify, it’s okay to call people toothless hicks?  And regarding the “real issue”, are you aware Chick-Fil-A is a private company and is not traded on any markets? For me, this has nothing to do with Huckabee (I’m Libertarian) and while I live in a southern state (Arizona usually considered southwest) I do have all my teeth. The real issue is free speech. Militant homosexuals oppose free speech, use intellectually lazy ad hominem attacks (hate / toothless hicks / blind followers), and want to force Christians to accept their lifestyle because tolerating it (sodomy used to be illegal as recent as 2001 in AZ) is no longer good enough. Sorry to break the news to you, even if you successfully bullied every American Catholic to “accept” your views, God’s natural law does not change - sodomy is sin. Please present your argument against Cathy’s right to express his belief?

@Starzec:  [Mr. Cathy: “I hold the Biblical position on marriage.”]

This is now considered “hate” speech?

@Starzec:  The Christian perspective is that while a person may be sexually frustrated, this does not give one license to violate God’s word, the Bible.

Taking the Bible out of the argument of sexual activity, you agree that because you are frustrated with your income level, this does allow you to rob a bank or steal a car.  This is moral you currently abide by.  But, darn!  Stealing is also identified as sin in the Bible too.  Seems you can’t get away from what God has ordained no matter how hard you try.

Alot of people want to put words on my page that are just not there. My friends and my God know I admire Mr Cathy’s courage to say what he feels and believes.  He is a better soul for it and I applauded his truthfulness and ability to take off the hood and let everybody know who is burning the cross in their yard.  Much better to eat chicken than to be one as Nick stated.
Private company notwithstanding, somebody needs to follow the money. Catholics- you are hypocrites because the Southern Baptists HATE YOU and yet you send them money through this clown.
Sin??  The Catholic Church has not been and will not be without its own sin.  Remove the log from your eye before you dare speak of the splinter in someone else’s. 
You all hide under some guise of freedom while wanting to steal freedom from others. You create some monster that is going to wrong you and for protection from this mythical beast, you wrap yourselves in cloaks made of the US Flag and the Bible but have no real understanding of what it means to be either an American or a Christian. 
Casting Crowns: Your logic is flawed.  It is all theft. Whether you take someone’s belongings, life, their liberty or the one they love, you are stealing from them. Legally this cannot be done without due process. Which is why a district court recently struck down DOMA. Personally, I am not stealing from anyone- not from you or Mr Cathy- I want everybody to enjoy the freedom I have.  Biblicly, the 10 Commandments are all about theft:  1)No god before me (doesn’t want other lesser god stealing attention from him); 2)Don’t TAKE my name in vain (don’t use my name without permission); 3)Keep holy the Sabbath (do not take my day away from me); 4)Honor thy father and mother (do not take away their respect); 5)Thou shalt not kill/ murder (do not take another’s life); 6)thou shalt not committ adultery (do not take anothers virtue); 7)thou shalt not steal (Redundant); 8)Thou shalt not bare false witness(do not steal the truth from others); 9)& 10)Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife and goods (do not envy your neighbors’ stuff lest you want it and you will end up breaking one of the other previous commandments).  I will throw “Love thy neighbor as you love thyself”.  Why?  It is rather simple.  If you truly love your neighbors, you would not want to steal their freedoms.

@Starzec

> “Private company notwithstanding, somebody needs to follow the money.”

This is about free speech. I don’t care if some politician indirectly profits from the situation. I want to support free speech.

Christians have heard the arguments from Mike Huckabee and many others, and agreed. It is called logical reasoning. We hear the arguments, instead of attacking the person making them. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

Incidentally, you provided no source for saying that Huckabee owns stock.

> “you are hypocrites because the Southern Baptists HATE YOU and yet you send them money through this clown.”

Go research the meaning of “hypocrite”.

> “Sin??  The Catholic Church has not been and will not be without its own sin.”

The Church Herself is perfect, even if many of Her members are sinful.

> “Remove the log from your eye before you dare speak of the splinter in someone else’s.”

If we were judging people, you could argue that. But we are simply asking that real marriage be respected, because it is the fundamental cell of society.

And will you please top changing the subject? Same-sex “marriage” promoters know that they have no logical arguments, so they simply engage in Ad hominem.

Starzec - You point out that a court recently threw out DOMA.  Well, that was lily-livered Massachusetts again, the state of which I am so ashamed.  Do not extrapolate from what happens here to the rest of the country.  We have an oafish boob like Mayor Menino of Boston who panders to the petulant childlike gays who demand approval of their disordered lifestyles, or else… but it’s not working.  People will only take so much lying…
.
We people of faith and biblical morality will not back down on the issue of authentic marriage, so make no mistake about it.  Marriage will not be mocked by the likes of Dan Savage and Kevin Jennings without the ‘real men’ eventually coming in the room to discipline the children.

@Starzec:  Something which may be legal doesn’t make it moral or even ethical at a lower level.  Washington politicians legally waste money but it is not moral.  Las Vegas and Atlantic City hotels legally entice people to gamble hard earned money and be the source of addiction by some people who cannot control themselves (and devastate marriages) —but it is not moral.  Abortion is legal, but is it moral?  Someone should ask Nancy Pelosi that or Barbara Boxer and Barack Obama concerning Partial Birth abortion.  God provides you free will to choose.  At the same time He also sets a standard by which He desires that you live.  His standards are designed not to take fun out of your life—but rather to protect you from the ultimate consequences of making poor choices and unwise decisions concerning your freedoms.

@Starzec: who wrote [Catholics- you are hypocrites because the Southern Baptists HATE YOU and yet you send them money through this clown.]  I can say I know a few Southern Baptists who do not hate me.  So as an equal opportunity Catholic, let me say I know Catholics who hate all Protestants regardless of what the Catechism teaches about loving one’s neighbor including what the pope refers to as “our separated bretheren.”  Suffice to say, there are Catholic idiots and baffoons far from the gospel as well as Southern Baptists.

Well Nick, if you read my post, you will see that I have no problem with the first amendment and those who exercise it. I am not being a person who acts contradictory to my statements (a hypocrite).  I am exercising my first amendment right with great comfort right now as are you and the others who are posting here. Research censorship.  It is that that the GOVERNMENT cannot stifle free speech.  I can censor you all I want if I do not want to read what you wrote or listen to what you have to say.  I cannot stop you from saying it because that would be a theft of your freedom to say it (see my post about the commandments). And really do a little thinking of your own and research the Church- it is not perfect. Lastly, I never changed the topic, I addressed the issues that were presented to me.  I am clear that the topic is gay marriage and that Mr Cathy is against it.  Please learn to read my posts. Casting Crowns in playing the abortion card.  Talk about changing topics.
@ Casting Crowns:  Freedom is freedom.  There is nothing moral or immoral about it.  You and others here hide behind what you think is freedom.  Why can’t you see you are not free when you have to fall into to the rigid conformity with the Vatican? 
Homosexuality occurs in nature. I suspect that it’s nature’s way of controlling the population of a species.  Did you know the clump of cells (zygote) is genderless until a miracle transformation gives its gender? Science has found that sometimes that transformation is incomplete or excessive resulting in females in male bodies and males in female bodies. So since you brought up the idea of abortion and your thoughts on the subject, if you agree that life begins at conception, and that during the life growth cycle, the young person gets certain parts but not the chemicals to use them “properly”, you still believe this is immoral??  Just trying to follow along here. How would you feel if dark haired parents giving birth to a blond baby? Also genetically possible. 
Really my bottom line is that straights- gays- no matter the ethnicity, all are human and are worthy of freedom.  I am not going to take away anyone’s freedom and I am not going to be part of something that actively promotes the taking away of someone’s freedom.       

We do not promote taking away people’s freedom.

We just defend marriage to be preserved.

If preserving traditional marriage was “taking away people’s freedom” then, logically, this would extend to polygamy and incest. You would have to campaign for incest too.

But you won’t, because incest is not fashionable today. Today’s fashion is homosexualism, which everyone must embrace lest one be branded “homophobic” and lose legal rights. England tells us where this process ends: people going to jail for saying “homosexualism is a sin”, couples being denied the opportunity to be foster parents because they disagree with homosexulism, Catholic adoption agencies forced to shut down. And England is just starting! All this oppression has happened BEFORE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ITSELF HAS BEEN INSTITUTED! Imagine what England will look like in 2030 - people will be jailed for owning a Bible.

Massachusetts has begun to go down the same path, by marginalizing Catholic adoption agencies. Thank God, the USA has the 1st Amendment; but on the other hand, judges who legislated in 1973 that abortion is a constitutional right may well legislate that “homophobia” is a crime.

@Starzec - I don’t get it, homosexuals want to redefine marriage which has been between one man and one woman for probably close to 5,000 years, yet somehow I’m stealing your freedom because I don’t want homosexuals to steal the definition of marriage? Regarding sin, yes, we all struggle with sin and are sinners; however, I don’t try force people to accept my sin and redefine it by hijacking a different name for it - I repent and beg for forgiveness.

@ Kathleen: It’s only capitalism and hard-nosed business when it’s not too big to fail. If it is too big to fail then its bailouts and golden parachutes all the way down. Can’t let the 1% hurt themselves. Pity about all the friends and neighbors loosing their jobs and houses though.

@ Quo Vadis: I like your quote “we are what we read.” We disagree on just about everything, but I am gonna borrow that.

@  Joanp62: You hit the heart of it… That is the conundrum, the CEO states that he only will support a biblical definition of marriage, yet his profit seeking enterprise cannot nor will it ever intentionally take sides in the political fray as its CEO has. So, in effect the CEO doesn’t represent the company, and the company doesn’t represent the CEO… Yet, and this is the fun part, the company profits with record-breaking sales from the political stand the CEO takes.

Why?

Because only in the U.S., do we have the freedom to associate our religious views with brand loyalty. No, wait; you can do that just about anywhere… nvm.

Because we don’t need marks on our hands and heads that will allow us to buy and sell. We wear our prejudices and affiliations openly and proudly and they determine what we buy and sell.

Now everyone go eat their chicken sandwich… Or not.

As long as I can get fries and a chocolate shake with that chicken sandwich I’m good to go!

Fred ,
I miss the connection to Chick-Fil-A in your comment.
And there are no paycheques without profit.

Nick,  I see you failed logic class.  Read and re-read my posts.  To say that I would have to support incest is ludicrous. Incest by its definition is a form of theft (see my post on the 10 Commandments).
And really, time to take a class on the history of marriage. Even when Christ was alive men had multiple wives and until very recently, the LDS and Muslims living in America have given up their multiple wives.  Where is the public outraged about this very real violation of the First Amendment?  Hypocrites.  YES Hypocrites.  Why is it ok for you to have your religious freedom and other to not have theirs?  I stand by my comments earlier.  You know nothing of what means to be either Christian nor American.

Starzec - You make our points for us.  Yes, Multiple marriage has existed in the past or present, usually with one man/several wives.  The very act of trying to redefine marriage in the West, (which many posters here simply do not buy), will allow multiple marriage to be reinstated, to the detriment of women and children.  This is one very solid consequence of the redefinition of an institution that is best left as God ordained it - one man, one woman.  Read up on the Theology of the Body, as this is an ortodox Catholic combox.  The beauty and logic, (and ‘equality’) of authentic marriage is compelling - please avail yourself of the Truth!

This is called fanaticism.

You are terrifying.

Change the nouns and there would be no difference between this an an Osama bin Laden propaganda piece from Tora Bora.

@Starzec

> “Incest by its definition is a form of theft”

  Then so is same-sex “marriage”. I see no reason to label a man “marrying” his uncle to be theft, without also labeling a man “marrying” an unrelated man to be theft.

> “Even when Christ was alive men had multiple wives”
  Also, men were killing and robbing other men. Men were raping women. Something happening does not mean it is good.

“> Where is the public outraged about this very real violation of the First Amendment?  Hypocrites.”

Oh please. Seriously? The 1st is not an absolute, carte-blanche to do everything your religion advocates. It has limits.

@Gary

Remember slavery and Jim Crow?  Sounds like you don’t and you have no idea how laws and societies have evolved over time.  The people of England didn’t have representation, before they had it.  African-Americans didn’t have “freedom,” before they had it.  So, yes, you are withholding freedoms from others as have been for millennia, and it’s about to change.  Just because it’s “new” doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.

@Ambrose

> “Remember slavery and Jim Crow?”

Yes, of course we remember. Still it does not have anything to do with redefining marriage. You are simply changing the subject.

@Nick,

Wrong.  Gary made an argument that, based on thousands of years of broad-brushed human history, because “gay marriage” as we understand it today had not been previously recognized, that it therefore should never be recognized, and gays are now “stealing” the definition of marriage.  That logic is perfectly analogous to almost any past situation in which a group of people gained new rights or recognitions under the law.  I named African-Americans and the civil rights struggle in our country, and gave a loose reference to the entire narrative of English history charting a transition from theocratic monarchy to a constitutional monarchy and finally a republic, a strand of history of which we are a part.  Those are well-understood, important examples of “it wasn’t a freedom, before it was.”  The same is true for gay marriage.  It’s not accepted under the law, but that is changing.  The discussion should and could be much more complex than this, but having point out basic logical fallacy arguments wholly inconsistent with world history and Western and American history in particular seem to be where we are in this discussion.  And then, of course, you’ve got zealots throwing around “the mark of the beast” and “sin” rhetoric.  What remains tremendously ironic about that, of course, is that mainstream religion was used in exactly similar ways to justify slavery in America as well as the god-ordained nature of a theocratic monarch like Henry VII.  It was god-ordained, before it wasn’t.

Posted by Nick on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2012 1:26 PM (EST):@Starzec

> “Incest by its definition is a form of theft”

  Then so is same-sex “marriage”. I see no reason to label a man “marrying” his uncle to be theft, without also labeling a man “marrying” an unrelated man to be theft.”
*************If it’s between two consenting adults(or multiple numbers)how is that “theft”? Against Church teaching, yes, but how do you discriminate against any class of persons in a strictly secular society?

@Kathleen

You completely ignored the context of my posting, then started throwing around empty “the society is secular” slogans.
Read before you reply, please.

@Ambrose

> “And then, of course, you’ve got zealots throwing around “the mark of the beast” and “sin” rhetoric.”

You only claim they are “zealot” because they disagree with your ideology.

And, same-sex “marriage” should not be instituted simply because it makes no sense.

Give me ONE argument for instituting same-sex “marriage” that does not work equally for incest and even group “marriage”.

If we are to end all “prejudice”, then, by the same logic, we would have to allow a man to marry his own father, his grandmother and his neighbor.

Real marriage has a function in society - bringing up the next generation. Same-sex “marriage” makes no sense.

Wow…. Truly frightening. If I actually believed that this was a true reflection of Catholicism I would leave the church tomorrow.  WWJD people.

WWJD? He would be eating at Chick-Fil-A. He was all about doing the right thing, even if the powers that be do not accept it.

That it “makes no sense” to you isn’t an argument to continue to exclude the rights and privileges of marriage from gay couples.  To you, it makes no sense.  It makes plenty of sense to a majority of Americans who are in favor of it. 

The problem with religious justifications for secular laws should be obvious, and that’s where zealotry comes in (not to mention the use of radical, prophetic language).  Adherents to one set of religious beliefs don’t have the American Constitutional right to impose those beliefs, by way of the state, upon others (it began as a struggle between various Christian denominations).  That your version of Christianity and your interpretation of your religious texts leads you to believe that your version of God frowns upon a particular behavior, is NOT a justification, by itself, for using or creating laws that force others to adhere to your set of religious beliefs.  That is a patently unAmerican way to think and behave, despite it having become widely accepted to do so and promulgated by the religious right in our nation.  Your god helps you to believe that you have the right to carry a firearm, and therefore no new law should restrict that god-given freedom in any way.  Religious-based political view.  At the same time, your god helps you believe that laws SHOULD be in effect restricting gays’ ability to freely marry.  Religious-based political view.  In one case, defending a right to behave freely, in the other, restricting the right to behave freely.  The political sphere cannot be constituted of and mirror one’s religious interpretation of “sin”, that’s not what the Constitution nor the laws of our nation and our states ever were intended to be.  That would be akin to Sharia, were you to change the noun descriptor of the dominant religion.

@Ambrose

> That it “makes no sense” to you isn’t an argument to continue to exclude the rights and privileges of marriage from gay couples.

Marriage is not a right for any group that seeks it. I repeat: why same-sex “marriage” bot not incestuous or group “marriage”?

> “It makes plenty of sense to a majority of Americans who are in favor of it.”

Whenever it comes to a ballot, and people get well informed, they invariably vote NO. Even in the freaking Peoples’s Republic of California. Even with the homosexual lobby outspending the pro-family people.

> Adherents to one set of religious beliefs don’t have the American Constitutional right to impose those beliefs”

Ridiculous straw-men. No one is “imposing beliefs”. People still have the right to not only believe in same-sex “marriage”, but to express them at will.

Also, read the 1st Amendment. It nowhere says that religious people have less political rights. The whole “shut up you fundamentalists, this is a secular state” is a campaign of hate with no base in the Constitution or in human rights. In fact, it is against human rights.

“We have staked the whole future of our new nation not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”

—-James Madison, 4th President of the United States and Primary Author of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Around 1000 AD, the Church started battling those who wouldn’t here the Pope.

Around 1500 AD, the Church started battling those who wouldn’t here the Pope NOR the Bishops and Tradition, and only listened to Scripture and Reason

Around 1700, She started battling those who wouldn’t even hear Scripture, but who still clung to Reason.

Now, with advocation of things like abortion, fornication, and same sex marriage, she is arguing with people who don’t even accept REASON. 

Where do we go from here?  What other sources of truth are to reject?

It indeed is a time of grave spiritual darkness.  The only issue is whether the world can be spiritually resuscitated.

The definition of a straw man is a misrepresentation of an existing argument or the outright invention of an argument that doesn’t represent your opponent’s logic.  I did neither. 

“Impose” is an active verb, sure.  That’s the only distinction here, but it’s a frivolous one, given the cascade of laws being actively passed by Republican state legislatures targeting gays and “defending” marriage.  Those are impositions, no matter who’s counting.

I have read the First Amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and plenty of Constitutional law and legal opinions.  Please don’t assume that someone who is speaking with you about it and who has a different opinion isn’t informed.  That’s hubris.

However, this is nation where religion and state are separate entities and the implications of that are very serious.  By analogy (not a straw man), Turkey is tumbling down this precipice as we speak, as a secular Republic, quickly becoming more fundamentalist, as it’s people continue to value the distinctions less and less, voting in candidates who promise to roll back secular protections and institute Muslim customs and prohibitions as law.  We are doing the same, but with Christians leading the charge.

This debate is about much more than the “right” to marry.  It sounds like you’re unaware of much of the nuance involved.  I would invite you to meet with and talk to someone who is passionate about this subject as an advocate.  The legal implications are included, but not limited to, the tax code discriminating against gay couples, as well as healthcare laws and property laws, among other complications.  That is a de facto institutionalization of a preference for behavior that, as we’ve seen on this blog, is plainly based on Christian beliefs.  That is PART OF why this has turned into a public policy issue.  Because it already is one to the people who experience the negative consequences and they want those things changed, so they’re treated equally, instead of different, based on sexual preference.  It was once illegal for gay couples to have sex (sodomy laws).  That has been ruled unconstitutional.  Similarly, if it’s not illegal to have gay sex and relationships, how can it be legal for the state to treat people differently simply based simply on their preference for having gay sex and relationships?  Or would you prefer to turn back the clock?  That would be a losing argument anywhere but parts of the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia, and Africa, where religious zealots rule a totalitarian state.  Our tradition of Democracy has always looked with scrutiny upon laws that treat different classes of people differently in a way that is unjustified apart from their class distinction.

@Ambrose. I do remember Jim Crow. I also remember the rights of each aborted baby. Your point is off topic. Marriage is not a right - it is a Sacrament. Ambrose, do you remember what a Sacrament is? Government doesn’t create rights -they come from God. Since your referred to American history, might you recall, the Declaration of Independence? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” Homosexuals, just as heterosexuals have these rights so what’s your complaint? You want government to create you a new “right”?

@Ambrose

1st: Please don’t write ridiculously long posts.

> “The definition of a straw man is a misrepresentation of an existing argument or the outright invention of an argument that doesn’t represent your opponent’s logic.  I did neither.”

You said that Christians want to “impose their beliefs” on others. This is false. You can continue to believe whatever you want, and even express it as much as you want.

> “We are doing the same, but with Christians leading the charge.”

Ridiculous hyperbole. On certain theocratic Muslim countries, the rights of religious minorities and women are disrespected. None of this is happening in America.

> “That is a de facto institutionalization of a preference for behavior that, as we’ve seen on this blog, is plainly based on Christian beliefs.”

Christians are NOT second-class citizens as ACLU believes. Christians have full political rights. Stop waging a campaign of hate against Christians.

Theocracy is rule by clerics. IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to happening in America.
Establishing a religion is like the UK’s “Church of England”. IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to happening in America.

The 1st Amendment says nothing about Christians participating in the political process. You are against this because you are consumed with hatred. You despise orthodox Christians and think they are a poison to the democratic process.

> “Similarly, if it’s not illegal to have gay sex and relationships, how can it be legal for the state to treat people differently simply based simply on their preference for having gay sex and relationships?”

Oh please. It is not based on preference; it is based on hard, concrete facts. homosexuals have full opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex. The demand that they can “marry” someone of the same sex is like demanding that they can marry their own son, or 3 other people at the same time.

Will you please answer my question? Give me ONE argument for same-sex “marriage” that does not equally work for incest and group “marriage”. Why do you evade this question?

Inferring and accusing me of things beyond what I’ve written isn’t going to get this debate anywhere and is just too frustratingly emblematic of the way this goes nationally.  This is essentially a study in how dysfunctional our nation is.  I’m not waging a war of hatred against anyone.  Where are you getting that terminology from?  From what that I have said are you concluding that I’m on a warpath against anyone?  Why is that the default response, that you’re somehow under attack because gay people would like to have the right to be at the deathbed of their lifelong best friend, a right which is currently denied them, because they’re not considered family?  In whose world is that a warpath?  Are you jumping to those conclusions because you’re being told to believe this about people expressing opinions similar to mine, by people in the pulpit, on talk radio, and on cable news? 

We disagreed about the word “impose.”  I clarified and distinguished how exactly things are imposed, intended or not (and I believe, intended, judging by this blog, the comments it generated, and other similar conversations happening all over).  The distinction is that you think it’s perfectly acceptable for your traditional, religous-based beliefs to exist perpetually (a hubristic fantasy) and be universally applicable to everyone, regardless of their disagreement.  They are the unassailable edict of God, after all, and whether everyone agrees with them isn’t the point, because who is man to quarrel with what God has ordained?  For those depraved souls who have the temerity to disagree with God’s will for their lives, God forgive them, but we’re not changing our laws to suit them, no matter how uncomfortable it is for them.  And for them to ask that our nation’s laws be changed to suit them, well dam* it, they can get the h*ll out.  Of course, insert any other class that has been discriminated against in the past, and you have the exact argument that was made for them, redux.  In America, Italians and other dark Europeans of Catholic culture, women, Chinese and other Asians, African-Americans.  Do you know the list of things employers, businesses, and states are now forbidden from discriminating against, because of civil rights legislation?  Do you know why those laws were passed?  Because it used to be legal and commonplace to discriminate against them.  Until, of course, it wasn’t anymore, which is exactly what is happening here.

Unfortunately for your argument and the history of Christianity, the “will of God” has been invoked to defend almost every atrocity ever committed and everything under the sun.  Progress including representative government itself, which was an affront to “divine right” monarchy (look this up, this is real history), to individual property rights (part of this same thread of history), to freedom to practice one’s own religion, to emancipation of American slaves, to women’s suffrage, to the repeal of sodomy laws.  Ideas that have been defended in God’s name include the death penalty, gun rights, and heliocentrism.  Galileo was burned.  Savanarola literally attempted to torch the great works of the Renaissance as being an affront to God (bonfire of the vanities).  Inquisitors burned so-called heretics, using religion to solidify control of the government (sound familiar?)  Today, evolution is denied in God’s name, man-made global warming is considered an affront to God’s sovereignty over the planet.  And on and on it goes.  Doesn’t it all ring hollow at a certain point?  Or is just like Mitt Romney, masterfully wielding the cognitive dissonance it takes to proclaim that marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman, despite being descended from a polygamist himself, whose polygamist traditions were informed by and interpreted from the very same holy texts (plus a few new, made up ones) he now uses to re-write history (or is it, retroactively retire from history).

Ambrose, what a screed!  How to begin addressing you…  first of all, your assertion that sick homosexuals can’t have their partners in the hospital room is ridiculous, and you know it.  I work in a hospital, and we are very sensitive to patients’ needs in this way.  To the contrary, due to the unprecedented seriousness of the AIDS crisis, we are all strait-jacketed with new rules and regulations and paperwork imposed to ‘protect’ privacy. This argument of yours is a moot point.
.
Hooray for Chick-fil-A.  Ambrose, (and why did you choose the name of a first century doctor of the Church anyway?) your insistence that our society adhere to your nihilist, secular worldview is not flying anywhere decent, (which of course doesn’t include SF and parts of the Northeast.)  Will Monahan of Dominoes Pizza be persecuted next, for his stance as a Catholic businessman and philanthropist?  If so, we will come to his defense as well.
.
Ambrose, make no mistake - we people of faith and traditional values will fight for our beautiful country.  You seem to think ending antisodomy laws was a good thing - au contraire.  That asinine move (sorry about the pun), set us up for all this homosexual craziness.  Just because something is legal does not make it moral…
.
Lest you think things won’t get worse in this secularized society, see the link below from the Massachusetts Family Council, (I know, sounds like a ‘hate group’, doesn’t it!)  In MA this lazy summer, our governor, (Friend of Obama) and the crooked Democrat legislature are trying to finesse regulations known as the ‘Bathroom Bill’, allowing ‘transgendered’ humans to use any gender-specific public facilities, including school athletic lockerrooms, depending upon which gender they choose.  Absolutely astounding in its nefarious and dangerous aspects.  Read about it for yourself.  The swishing sound in your ears would be the fall down the slippery slope that not’s supposed to be happening:
.

http://www.mafamily.org/uncategorized/legislators-question-application-of-bathroom-bill-by-board-of-education/2675/

Quo Vadis

The slippery slope argument is all you can make, while progress continues to march on, and anger swells inside you and the other intolerant, who can’t understand a changing world.  The very same slippery slope has been Christians’ very favorite way to oppose modern progress.  It was even made in our country to combat Martin Luther King, who was slandered for being an agitator, an anarchist, a Communist.  Martin Luther King, who died for the love of his people, combating inequality and injustice, was slandered with the very same vitriol you now spew.

There is no slippery slope here, Quo Vadis, only love. 

Your own language is condemnation enough.  “Sick homosexuals.”  It’s you who are sick, drunk on self-righteousness and hubris.  “Society” isn’t forcing anyone to adhere to a “nihilist” worldview nor any other.  What is it to you, if gay people can live their lives unharassed and unencumbered by “society’s” laws that treat them differently based on their sexual preference?  You really would turn the clock back to reinstate sodomy laws, and that truly, truly terrifies me.  To hear an American say something so outrageous and hateful.  Your ideal world truly is a theocratic state.  See, Nick, who you commiserate with?  Those who would have us be the Iran of the West, law based on strict interpretations of holy books, those who stray, not just spiritual sinners, but legal transgressors as well.

Just as you slander more “liberal” parts of the country as not being “decent,” so you show your intolerance and hatred.  So you show your judgmentalism.  So you show your arrogance and pride.  The evil cities, populated with their educated elites, their mighty economies….and their massively impoverished, those most-abandoned and forlorn places in our society, populated with people for whom it was ILLEGAL TO RECEIVE AN EDUCATION FOR GENERATIONS (until, of course, it wasn’t anymore).  Yes, those islands of poverty in a sea of prosperity that Martin Luther King was murdered for bringing attention to and attempting to change.

No, the slippery slope doesn’t lead where you think it does.  It leads to love and equality.  It leads to truth and human happiness.  It leads to freedom.

Ambrose - Please get past your obvious anger to read my post correctly.  When I said ‘sick homosexuals’, I meant those in the hospital. It is you who reads something more into it.
.
Your spiritual and philosophical emptiness is astounding.  It is not a loving act to sodomize another individual - it is an act of violence perpetrated by a bigger, older or more powerful man on another man, woman or child.  We are truly depraved when we normalize this type of behaviour, calling it ‘love’.  Shame on you!  At least one of our Supreme Court justices warned of our descent into abject animalism when the Texas anti-sodomy law was overturned.  That was a sad day for any peoples who claim to promote human dignity.
.
Ambrose, I say these things less from a theocratic viewpoint than from one of common sense and general decency.  The Catholic church is absolutely right in its view of homosexual activity as sinful and disordered.  Your rewriting of human anthropology and a confusion of ‘sympathy’ with ‘love’ is a symptom of the bleak times we live in.
.
The failure to recognize sin in us all is one of the most detrimental facets of ‘postmodern nihilism’, which you obviously espouse.  Yes, we are all sinners, and I am guilty of the sin of pride, as are all but the meekest and most humble amongst us, perhaps a Mother Teresa.  You can go on and try to shove a square peg into a round hole all you like, but it will never work, and you will succeed only in ruining both in the process.  Good luck to you!

@Ambrose

You engage in a straw-man argument when you say Christians want to “impose their beliefs” on anyone. This is false. People can still believe want they want, and express those beliefs freely. I have called you on this, yet you simply continue this straw man.

Second, you wage a campaign of hate the moment you attack the political rights of Christians. Despite what ACLU says, Christians are full citizens of the USA, and have full human rights, include the right to political participation.

And don’t write ridiculously long rants. No one will read it.

@Ambrose

See the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Specially article 21.

To be honest with both of you, this is one of the most depressing conversations I’ve ever had with anyone, ever.  Your opinions shock the conscience.

Nick, your inability to follow my logic and your disagreement with said logic does not mean I am making a “strawman” argument.  I’ve clarified this over and over.  It’s not worth re-hashing, so I moved on from redundancy.  It’s not productive.  I never said anything about the ACLU or Christians’ political rights.  You did.  You continue to pull other people’s arguments and put them in my mouth, while accusing me of making strawman arguments.  You attempt to hold me to a standard that you don’t even come close to meeting yourself.  It’s crazy talk.

Quo Vadis, I apologize for mistaking your used of the phrase “sick homosexuals.”  You can understand how I might make that mistake, however, given your response, which describes gay intimacy as if all gay sexual encounters are rape.  The hospital bed story I shared only because it has been expressed to me as a concern by people I know who are gay and are involved with this issue.  I’m trusting them, of course, over you, simply based on the fact that I don’t know you, your rants on here are incredibly hate-filled and closed-minded, and you accuse me of being hate-filled and closed-minded, when the language I have used has been reasoned and measured and I have repeatedly appealed to love, freedom, truth, and equality as the measure’s of worth.

I hope you’re alive to see the Catholic Church change its stance on gay marriage and public policy, because it is inevitable and will happen, the question is whether you will still have a chance to change your hardened heart.  Good luck to you.

@Ambrose

You are claiming that the Christian opinion on same-sex “marriage” should not count because they are Christians. This is a campaign of hate, not matter what you try to paint it as.

> “I hope you’re alive to see the Catholic Church change its stance on gay marriage and public policy”

Impossible. In 2000 years the Church never changed the Faith. In year 4012 the Faith will still be the same.

@Nick:—quote—Despite what ACLU says, Christians are full citizens of the USA, and have full human rights, include the right to political participation.—unquote—

A small bit of research show that the ACLU does in fact recognise this:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage-chicago/2012/07/26/id/446713

As they fully support Mr Cathy’s right say what he believes

@Ambrose:  [“I hope you’re alive to see the Catholic Church change its stance on gay marriage and public policy, because it is inevitable and will happen.”]  It’s not gonna happen.  Even if that came to pass, (1) true Catholics would exodus the church in droves and (2), it would be because the Vatican became occupied by the Anti-Christ.  Soon thereafter you would begin to hear the hoof prints of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Men may change.  God says “I change not.”

Nick,
Perhaps you misunderstood.I was posing a question, not endorsing a secular society, nor marraige between close relatives.I support the Catholic teaching on marriage & family.
My question is why would those who DO promote a strictly secular society discriminate against any class of consenting adults seeking marriage?

@Defender

The PC police, including ACLU, does not allow a valedictorian to pray Our Father.
ACLU may sometimes agree with honest lawyers (as you pointed), but their Raison d’être is marginalizing Christianity.

The greatest assault on marriage is not even same sex marriage:

Rather, the greatest twisting of Marriage is to reject its ultimate sign and utterly turn from God: Marriage in this life points ultimatley to the eternal Marriage with God in heaven, the Creator, who alone can completely fulfill.

Hence, in blasphemous materialism, when man says, we willl not find our utlimate desires in marrying the CreaTOR, but rather in spiritually joining ourselves superficially to the CreaTION—possessions, pleasures, and brute accomplishments—that is the ultimate antithesis of what marriage supremelyconveys in God’s Plan, and that antithesis now reigns supreme in the 1st and 2nd world societies, especially in the “Enlightenment” mind of the Olympics opening ceremonies, which evidently regarded the “greatest event in human history” to be, not surprisingly, purely materialistic development: The Industrial Revolution.

@ Ambrose - As Casting Crowns said, “it ain’t going to happen.” Truth is not relative or fashionable. God’s word does not change with the times. The “Catholic stance” is obedience to God not nihilism. You are not going to get acceptance from Catholics. Over time, nihilists may win over the general public with efforts such as taxpayer-subsidized indoctrination programs being mandated in government run schools. Anyway, it’s happened before and the outcome wasn’t pleasant for the disobedient. As mentioned by others - legal != moral. It’s tough love. You’re in my prayers.

Gary,

Sorry, but just because someone isn’t a Catholic, that doesn’t make them a nihilist.  This blog is full of arguments created out of thin air - the ACLU “attacking” Christians (they might be, I don’t know, I don’t really care, but I haven’t seen anyone on this blog from the ACLU), nihilism, post-modernism, indoctrination, depravity.  You’re keeping company with people who have openly admitted that they would prefer to see anti-sodomy laws be reinstated.  That’s basically checkmate as far as most of civilized society is concerned.  If the Catholic church and other Christians want to have any relevance to this debate at all, besides being seen as religious fanatics, the discourse has to move beyond what your sect’s or denomination’s or church’s particular interpretation of the Bible is.  As it stands right now, this blog is dominated by unreasonable religious fanaticism.

And, if you’ve read my posts at all, then you would see that I have a very good understanding of exactly how much the INTERPRETATION of God’s will have changed even over even recent history.  How much folly it is to claim that you, a fallible man, understand God’s perfect will for all time.  What hubris.  What Pharisaical self-righteousness.  Christians are facing a crisis of their own making (not of anyone else’s, not the ACLU, not “liberals” - you’ve got to move beyond the simple-minded, knee-jerk hate labeling and targeting), by crying wolf over generations and generations, only to change their official stance after the rest of society has already moved on and Christian leadership is fundamentally de-legitimated.  Women’s equality issues, racial equality issues, most major progressive social accomplishments over the past several hundred years, churches have stood against in the name of God.  Women’s place in subjugation to men and in the home and in the pew.  Natural racial hierarchy and the Bible’s condoning of ownership of people as property.  Fundamental property rights, the holy model of government.  These arguments and more have been made before.  And now it’s simply the legal marginalization of gays in a diverse society that is up for debate.  Only, it’s not a debate among the rest of the public.  It’s just the churches who are against it.  Waving “God’s will” in everyone’s faces, with absolutely no awareness of how hollow that argument rings, no awareness whatsoever of how certain they are to make themselves fools.  You’re sinking the church yourself as you make these arguments, chipping away at what dignity and honor still remains.

The church’s stance will change, or it will face total marginalization in the developed world.  Already there are groups within the Catholic church who are fighting against this.  Plenty of churches worldwide are changing their stances on this issue, even if just to say, “We don’t condone gay marriage, but we will not force society to continue to marginalize gay people legally.” 

Or, of course, the Catholic church could remain like that church in North Mississippi that just made headlines for not allowing a black couple, who were members of the very same church, to get married in their chapel.  In the name of God.  How archaic we think that now.

Ambrose - I am fallible. I acknowledge my sins and repent not rationalize. Do what you will. Your revisionist view of history is well seeded. Clearly, we come from two very different world views and understanding of historical events. Consider this me “shaking the dust off my feet” (Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke9:5). I’ll keep you in my prayers.

The same mark comes in diffrent ways these days. It may be intolerance and exclusion for those faithful trying to do business by local politicians. Also, through the reliance on governmnet subsidies, strings are attached that force an ethic or morality that is dictated by the government and goes against one’s belief, (medicaid, medicare). Another mark. What about forced taxes and penalties to adhere to a secular notion of civility and governance, (obamacare). What about laws that turns it’s back on traditional business practices that have been useful and fair for centuries. And what about the legislation of secular law that stands in direct confrontation of traditional famlies and the natural law, (homosexual unions).

What you say is true but only the tip of the iceberg. And we are proceeding to dash ourselves on the ice at a breakneck speed.

Ambrose: ” Women’s equality issues, racial equality issues, most major progressive social accomplishments over the past several hundred years, churches have stood against in the name of God.  Women’s place in subjugation to men and in the home and in the pew.  Natural racial hierarchy and the Bible’s condoning of ownership of people as property.  Fundamental property rights, the holy model of government.  These arguments and more have been made before. “

You are incorrect. You need to look into Church history a little better. And the Church has never changed her teaching on matters of faith and morals, on doctrine. It may develop over time and be more deeply explained, but she has never made a complete 180 in these matters. As a woman, I know based on the Church’s teachings that they care more about my dignity and human rights than any other ISM or organization out there.

Ambrose, I feel your sense of despair.  It is indeed frightening to see these Catholics (not the Catholics with whom I grew up) be so adamant about being wrong. 

Marriage is a sacrement.  Yes it is.  No law can force the church to perform marriage.  But you know what will?  Money. The thing all value more than their faith.  When a well to do gay parishoner wants to get married in the Church, father is going to look at the finances and at the leaky roofs over the sanctuary and rectory and make an executive decision.  He’s going to take the money. It may not start out that way; it may start as a simple hall rental for the reception. How do I know this?  I have seen pregnant women about ready to burst get married in the church because daddy is a local business man and has deep pockets- And she got to wear white (laughable).  I have seen the Eucharist taken by those who did not get married in the church and did not go through convalidation- living in sin.  I have seen the Eucharist taken by those whom I know do not go to confession. I have seen the church deny sacrements who did not/ could not afford to tithe while absolve the sinners with the big checkbooks.  Catholics- do not kid yourselves.  It happens.  Gay marriage is going to happen secularly and eventually in the Church as long as the check is large enough.

Joan,

I’m not Catholic, I can’t speak for Catholic doctrine versus non-doctrinal matters.  And of course I broad-brushed much of history and various Christian traditions, lumping Catholics in with other American and Western Christian traditions, to respond to patently absurd claims that I thought justified an over-broad response to make the point that God’s will has been invoked over and over.  And, therefore, that appealing to “God’s will” isn’t the entirety of a substantive argument about public policy in a free society.  Narrowing the particulars beyond a broader, inexact conversation wouldn’t offend me, though.  It is, in fact, what’s needed, instead of labels and name-calling.  I’m glad you feel strongly as a woman that the Catholic church values you and empowers your sex. 

To get to the “Obamacare” controversy, mentioned by sparch, this is another debate in which religious ideology is clouding logic and creating arguments that are mere pretense.  In the system the federal government has newly-established, Catholic institutions are no more “paying for” its employees contraceptive healthcare than they are paying for the ultimate end use of their employee’s wages, when the currency used for the functioning of the American economy, as a theoretical claim on wealth, is passed from a Catholic employer to one of its employees and subsequently used for “immoral” uses (buying condoms, going to the casinos, going to the strip club, committing grave financial crimes).  The Catholic church would have to similarly object to the use of wages it has paid out as it objects to the current healthcare law, no more is it “paying for” one thing than the other.  The choice is being made by the individual, not the institution.  Do the Catholic institutions already do this?  Do they scrutinize how its employees spend their money?  The Catholic church is claiming to have the power, essentially, to be able to reach back into the paychecks of its employees and make Catholic currency no-good when used for immoral purposes.  It’s ultimately an attempt to restrict the choice of its employees. 

Otherwise, you make the point on behalf of the rest of U.S. taxpayers, who don’t share your religion, that the taxpayers’ money not be used to perpetuate one particular religion’s agenda ad infinitum.  There’s a line that can be argued, but definitely taxpayer money has a limit to the religious purposes to which it can be put.  And all of this complaining is being done by an organization that doesn’t pay taxes in the first place.  So, these organizations benefit from taxpayer money, then turn around and claim a special exception to prevent its employees from accessing sexual healthcare and family planning services from that same taxpayer money.  It’s a duplicitous argument. 

Ambrose, this statement you made is false: ” Catholic institutions are no more “paying for” its employees contraceptive healthcare than they are paying for the ultimate end use of their employee’s wages, when the currency used for the functioning of the American economy, as a theoretical claim on wealth, is passed from a Catholic employer to one of its employees and subsequently used for “immoral” uses (buying condoms, going to the casinos, going to the strip club, committing grave financial crimes).  The Catholic church would have to similarly object to the use of wages it has paid out as it objects to the current healthcare law, no more is it “paying for” one thing than the other.  The choice is being made by the individual, not the institution.  Do the Catholic institutions already do this?  Do they scrutinize how its employees spend their money?  The Catholic church is claiming to have the power, essentially, to be able to reach back into the paychecks of its employees and make Catholic currency no-good when used for immoral purposes.  It’s ultimately an attempt to restrict the choice of its employees.”

First of all, if a Catholic business owner/employer is required by law to have and pay for insurance coverage for their employees that covers birth control/abortions/sterilizations, they ARE PAYING for it and they are being asked to provide something that is against their conscience and faith’s teaching. If their employees want to use their paycheck to purchase these things, fine. To claim that the Catholic Church/employer can force an employee to use their paycheck for certain things and not for others is silly. And it’s not happening. The conclusions you draw are duplicitous.

Starzec, what happens in some parishes is maddening and frustrating. However, because you may know the personal situation of some of these people, the priest most likely does not, unless they have spoken to him. Otherwise, he must assume that they are properly disposed to receive Communion, and if not, it is something these people will need to answer to God for.  But please do not think that the Catholic church will ever condone or allow homosexual marriage in their churches. If some renegade priest were to do that, he would be acting on his own and not in union with the Church.

Joan,

The healthcare law is a mini-economy built on claims on benefits, like currency is a claim on wealth.  These “claims” just have different terms/forms.  The healthcare system involves multiple transactions that occur in between when the Catholic church would theoretically be handing off “wages/taxes” to the government ON BEHALF OF the employee, that the government then translates, via tax credits, into a menu of available benefits that the employer can then CHOOSE to claim (it’s not automatic, the employee must choose), based on their very own “wages” that went into the system in the first place.  In the end, it is just a free will choice of the employee to choose sexual healthcare and family planning services as it is a free will choice of the employee to choose to purchase anything else.

I just don’t understand how the Catholic institutions feel like they are being “forced” to provide something against their will.  The whole idea is so removed from cause and effect, it’s even further removed from the transaction than an employer simply using their wages to pay for birth control in a system in which dollars can be used to claim anything available.  It’s like saying, if Catholic employees can spend their dollars on anything, we think pornography shouldn’t be sold in America anymore, because dollars can be used to purchase it, and we’re forced to pay our employees in dollars.

Keep in mind, the healthcare law is drawn up the way it is, because in the United States, because of the influence of conservatives who first drew this system up, the express purpose was to avoid a single-payer system, which has been harangued as being “Socialism” or “Communism.”  Traditionally, ours has been an employer-based model rather than a citizen-based model.  When institutions like Catholic Charities come forward and say they no longer want to participate in the new system, the inevitable result is that they are pushing the country more towards a single-payer system, because we can’t agree on a set healthcare menu that all employers will agree to.  So, conservatives are caught in a Catch-22 here.  Object to the current, insurance-company based system (that conservatives drew up) on moral/religious grounds and push the country towards a single-payer system.  Or, on free market grounds, allow the private insurance mandated system, but accept that the will/needs of the entire, diverse populous of the country are broad and diverse.  OR, if the Catholic institutions really wanted to prove their goodwill, and demonstrate their ideological commitment to their argument simply against “participation” in a private insurance mandated system, offer to selectively opt their employees out of the system, but make up the difference to their employees for what benefits they would otherwise be able to choose by increasing their pay commensurately.  After all, paying them directly, them walking out the door and over to their doctor’s office or Walgreen’s isn’t morally suspect for the institution at all, due to the free will of the employee and their right to privacy, which is none of the church’s business, right?

This is all aside from the fact that Catholic Charities is perfectly willing to accept plenty of taxpayer money (the people’s money) to do things many of those people would disagree with.  They just don’t want to have to let any of it go back into a system that serves those same people if they disagree with those people.

@ Starzec

I have never seen these things happen in my parish, nor have I heard of them.

Ambrose, your first paragraph is very confusing. I’m no genius but I think I am a little above average in intelligence. What I do know is how employer paid insurance worked when I was working. As part of our benefits, the company offered an insurance package that they paid for. From my paystub, I did not see any deductions toward my health insurance. They gave us what was called Flex dollars, I think it was the term, and we could choose extra coverage, like optical, using those Flex dollars. Aside from co-pays and deductibles, the premiums did not come out of my wages. I suppose you could argue that those premiums were taken from my wages before-hand, that if there were no insurance coverage that those funds would be added to my check, but I doubt it. I had a salary and the gross amount was exactly what it should be based on my hours worked and my pay rate. My paystub would have had to show anything taken from my gross pay and health-care coverage wasn’t there.

So, how is it that if the employer is Catholic, and they provide health insurance for their employees, if birth control, etc., were covered, they are not “really” paying for those things directly? Perhaps, you do not understand the Church’s view of sin and how we can be directly or indirectly involved in something immoral.

You stated “OR, if the Catholic institutions really wanted to prove their goodwill, and demonstrate their ideological commitment to their argument simply against “participation” in a private insurance mandated system, offer to selectively opt their employees out of the system, but make up the difference to their employees for what benefits they would otherwise be able to choose by increasing their pay commensurately.  After all, paying them directly, them walking out the door and over to their doctor’s office or Walgreen’s isn’t morally suspect for the institution at all, due to the free will of the employee and their right to privacy, which is none of the church’s business, right?”

As far as I know, that sounds about right and may be a viable option.

I’d like to see the various churches come forward and make that proposal.  Theoretically, it has promise to settle the entire dispute.  If that is, indeed, what everyone is after.  Of course, I doubt that, because I think this entire thing has, in part, been managed in such a way so to attempt to influence and win an election more than anything. 

Stay with me, sorry this has been so disjointed.

In economic and legal terms, in the employer-based healthcare coverage system we’re implementing, the employer has a certain cost associated with hiring a new employee.  This cost is directly attributed to the employee, the benefits of which belong to the employee.  It’s essentially a “wage,” except that it takes a couple more steps before it reaches the employee.  Because it does not flow directly to the employee as currency, and is exchanged for another service/currency, which the employee later claims or has the right to claim, it is called a “benefit.” 

What’s important is that the employer is actually acting as the employee’s agent (and not the other way around).  The employee is entitled to her benefits, by law, before anything ever changes hands.  The employer does this, not by its will, but acting on behalf of the employee, whose right it is.

The conflict is that certain employers want to be able to determine the “benefits” the employees are ultimately able to receive (instead of the employees themselves).  And that really gets into the agency of the transaction and whose choice it is.  My argument is that, under the healthcare law and what is being asked of employers, it is the employee’s choice, not the employers.  And that, therefore, morally, the employer is as removed from the ultimate transaction of claimed benefits as it is from the employee using dollars to buy pornography.  Because, again, the “benefit” is vested in the employee before it ever changes hands and the transfer of funds from employer into the gigantic healthcare mechanism is done at the will of the employee whose right it is (employee is the principal, employer is the agent, the money is transacted like any other commercial paper, like a check).  The gigantic healthcare mechanism is operating like a trustee, also on behalf of the employee, to facilitate the transaction.  It manages a trust of benefits from which all the employees in the nation can withdraw.  The trustee (theoretically acting on behalf of all employees, aka, the taxpayers, aka, the people) has made available a range of what are considered to be basic healthcare benefits, from which each individual employee is able to choose, based on her own free will and need.

So, that’s why I’m saying, there is no direct involvement with immorality.  The church has a clean conscience.  It’s not making choices on behalf of employees; the employee is doing that.  The church is not facilitating anyone’s access to immorality, any more than paying them money does.  It’s basically the exact same thing. 

The church is being “forced” to participate in this system, yes.  The system makes immorality available to the church’s employees, yes.  But the church is also “forced” to participate in a larger economy, in which only dollars are accepted as a legitimate claim on wealth that can be transacted for anything (as a claim on wealth, this is similar to claims on healthcare options).  This money is printed by the government and it is illegal in the United States for anyone else or other domestic governments to print rival currencies (the church is forced to pay its employees in dollars, as claims on wealth, similar to being forced to act as agent, transacting with the trustee healthcare system, which turn into claims in healthcare).  Dollars transacted by the church and Catholics go to pay for all kinds of things that could be classified as sinful or immoral (healthcare claims can be used to claim immoral healthcare).  But, the church doesn’t refuse to participate in this system of dollars as claims on wealth because of that.  It doesn’t say, “No, we refuse to be forced to give dollars to our employees, because they can turn around and use it to sin.”  Or, “Giving dollars to our employees is participating in a system of claims to immoral benefits.”  They don’t say this, because the cause and effect is too attenuated.  It is accepted that the employees have a right to their wages and can use it however they want, system of dollars be ******.  Similarly, these healthcare benefits are another form of compensation/claims on wealth, to which employees have rights and can use however they want, the system of benefits be ******.

Ambrose, I appreciate your thoughtful response, thank you. It does seem rather complicated to me, but I think I get your point. I’m just not so sure I agree. It’s always been my understanding that employers can choose to pay benefits or not. And they can choose the level of coverage. If the employee wanted additional coverage, they would need to add it and pay for it. That’s how it was in my experience. I have had jobs where I received no benefits, but that was part-time work. Is it a law that benefits must be given to all full-time employees? I don’t know. I still don’t see how it isn’t the employer paying for the coverage even thought the coverage/benefit is the employee’s. I do not see how it is the same as when the employer pays the salary and then the employee can use it as he sees fit. To me it is more like the employer is paying for something specifically-health care coverage-and when that plan covers contraceptives, etc., they are indirectly involved in something they may deem immoral.

@JoanP62 - You have it right not to agree. Anyway, you might want to read Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution regarding your benefits question. It’s pretty clear that the federal government is overstepping its boundaries again. The Feds have no business dictating what businesses should and should not provide for health care and this should be vetted out at the state level through nullification.  Of course, you’ll get the statists crying out that Christian-owned businesses should be required to subsidize recreational sex by calling it “health care” coverage. Another attempt to normalize disordered behavior.

Thank you for this very good piece. and esp. JoanP62 and Gary for your very thoughtful responses/posts.

expect this kind of end-times mark-o’-the-beast crap from protestant evangelists

sheeeeee-it

@ds on Wednesday:  [“expect this kind of end-times mark-o’-the-beast crap from protestant evangelists.”]  ds, followers of Christ who live between the first and second coming of our Lord live in a state of tension between the spiritual realities which are perceived by faith and the life of the senses lived on the earth.  Revelation speaks to increasing attacks upon the church and God’s people.  The Book of Revelation is contained in both Catholic and Protestant Bibles.  You have embarrassed yourself with your ignorance.

Martin Luther wanted to toss out the book of revelations also.  Protestants havening the book of revelations in the adulterated versions they read is irrelevant.  The book of revelations is literally a Holy Mass in progress.  Protestants can read revelations until the sun goes down and never come to an understanding of what it means. Protestants are heretics disconnected from the truth and tradition.  So this why we see so may never ending bizarre reinterpretations of revelations.  So many self adulating protestants, puffed up, full of conceit, make a fortune building ministries and writing books on their own self concocted babble about revelations.

Good perception! 
the mark of the beast
tracking the rise of the beast
Look at how radical people are over gay pride.  Many will wear the mark with pride and will be more than happy to persecute those that have not taken it.