San Fransico Offically Condems Catholic Church

[Justin86]

[url="http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69693"]http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...mp;pageId=69693[/url]

[font="Palatino Georgia Times New Roman Times serif"][size=2][color="#000000"]Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church[/color][/size][/font]
[font="Palatino Georgia Times New Roman Times serif"][size=1][color="#000000"]Instructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition' [/color][/size][/font]
[size=-1]Posted: July 15, 2008
8:48 pm Eastern

[/size] [size=-1] © 2008 WorldNetDaily [/size]




A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the [url="http://www.sfgov.org/site/mainpages_form.asp?id=18611"]City and County of San Francisco[/url] Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."

It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

As [url="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=35605"]WND reported earlier[/url], Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."

The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."


The anti-Catholic diatribe had previously been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it. She wrote in her decision, "The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement" for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote. "This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation."

She ruled that the city's proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.

Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want. "It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders," she wrote.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.

"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a news release. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. "Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said in a news release.

"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases," Muise said.

Thomas More attorneys made the argument in the District Court case that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message" that Catholics are "outsiders, not full members of the political community."

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

Openly gay California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

The Chronicle also reported on a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carrying a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."

The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.

Currently, as WND has reported, the states of [url="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68542"]Colorado[/url] and [url="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69147"]Michigan[/url] are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Justin86

[rkwright]

This is really terrible. And sadly, they've appealed to the 9th Cir. so who knows what will happen there.

Can you think what would happen if we passed a resolution saying atheism was intolerant, ect... No one would second guess that being wrong. But when its the Church, suddenly its the Church's fault.

[Justin86]

But, but, don't you know the Church is responsible for all the evil in the world? If the Papacy would just go away the world would be perfect!

Edited July 16, 2008 by Justin86

[Caramelonion]

Oh my!

[shadowedseraph]

[kujo]

Don't we get our view of homosexuality from the Old Testament, the the so-called "Jewish Bible?"

And doesn't Islam possess even more radical teachings?

Yet, oddly enough...it's only the "teachings of the Catholic Church" that is "offensive."

Excuse me while I vomit...

[Justin86]

Honestly, I just hope by the time I get back to the States, there's still religious freedom in my country!

[Lisieux Flower]

That's absolutely ridiculous. What happened to freedom of religion?

Edited July 16, 2008 by Lisieux Flower

[kujo]

It's amazing how self-righteous this proclamation is. Are we to believe that there is not a single devout Catholic (heck, I'd settle for a good Evangelical, Orthodox Jew, or Radical Muslim) in the entire San Francisco area that doesn't find these teachings "hateful" or "defammatory?"

[Didacus]

Freedom for all! but not those guys.

Long live democracy...

[HisChildForever]

[quote]Openly gay California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."[/quote]

Oh, okay, so they can say whatever they want to Catholics, even if it's offensive, but we have to tread on egg shells? This makes me furious.

[kujo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1601094' date='Jul 16 2008, 01:36 PM']Oh, okay, so they can say whatever they want to Catholics, even if it's offensive, but we have to tread on egg shells? This makes me furious.[/quote]

St. Francis would be PISSED!

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kujo' post='1601095' date='Jul 16 2008, 12:37 PM']St. Francis would be PISSED![/quote]

[LouisvilleFan]

Such an ironic statement. A city named after St. Francis of Assisi and basically founded by Blessed Junipero Serra and having Catholic churches all over the city and forming some of their best-known landmarks... and now they'll condemn it all.

But, in all honesty, I get a little excited at the prospect of a little persecution. Maybe I'm just bored...

[Lil Red]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1601099' date='Jul 16 2008, 10:40 AM']But, in all honesty, I get a little excited at the prospect of a little persecution. Maybe I'm just bored...[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
lol, after all the stuff people get up in arms about, this is real stuff to get upset about. this is real persecution (or getting close to it).

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1600986' date='Jul 16 2008, 08:11 AM']A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant"[/quote]

Actually, those descriptions are false and slanderous and they amount to calumny. The Catholic Church should sue San Francisco. As a Catholic I'm willing to testify as a witness that I'm offended and have suffered emotional injury from these slanders.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1601100' date='Jul 16 2008, 01:42 PM']+J.M.J.+
lol, after all the stuff people get up in arms about, this is real stuff to get upset about. this is real persecution (or getting close to it).[/quote]

I wish I lived in San Fran right now...I'd start planning huge rosary protests all over the place...people holding signs with quotes from ToB, the CCC, the Bible, etc.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1601103' date='Jul 16 2008, 10:48 AM']Actually, those descriptions are false and slanderous and they amount to calumny. The Catholic Church should sue San Francisco. As a Catholic I'm willing to testify as a witness that I'm offended and have suffered emotional injury from these slanders.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
hahaha, nice i'd join that suit.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1601105' date='Jul 16 2008, 01:51 PM']+J.M.J.+
hahaha, nice i'd join that suit.[/quote]

Word.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1601065' date='Jul 16 2008, 10:59 AM']Honestly, I just hope by the time I get back to the States, there's still religious freedom in my country![/quote]

Don't be so down. There's still plenty of religious freedom in the US. Just not for Catholics. For Muslims, however, everything is all good. They get crosses removed from university chapels, foot baths installed in university bathrooms, special dispensations in major US companies for break times during work hours to accomodate their religious needs, and prayer rooms in shopping malls. And on top of all this their religion teaches that homosexuals are despised by allah and are going to hell, but there is no condemnation from San Francisco or anywhere else. So there you go. Religious freedom alive and well in the US.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Madame Vengier