Did you know that liberalism causes pederasty? I didn’t. Thank goodness that we have Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., to alert us to this political health hazard! From The Boston Globe:
WASHINGTON — Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston’s “liberalism” with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city’s “sexual license” and “sexual freedom” nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.
“The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people’s behavior,” Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.
“If you have a world view that I’m describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way,” Santorum said.
Santorum, a leader among Christian conservatives, was responding to questions about remarks he made three years ago on a website called Catholic Online. In those comments, Santorum said, “It is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm” of the clergy sexual abuse scandal.
Say what?
“I was just saying that there’s an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant” in Boston, Santorum said yesterday. Reminded that the sexual abuse occurred across the country, Santorum said that “at the time [in 2002], there was an indication that there was more of a problem there” in Boston.
For those who haven’t heard Santorum, recall that he also linked homosexuality to bestiality and isn’t afraid to invoke Hitler analogies. From the same Globe article:
Santorum has startled Washington in the past. In a 2003 interview with the Associated Press, he linked “man on child” and “man on dog” sex with homosexuality, describing them as deviant behaviors that threatened traditional marriage. Earlier this year, he apologized for comparing the Democrats blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees to the Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler.
At least he apologized for the Hitler reference. But liberalism = raping kids and homosexuality = bestiality? A-OK!
What wing of the Republican Party does this man represent?
]]>< 
Just so we’re clear.
From the majority of commenters here, [Christian]=[Bigot].
Doesn’t that make you biggoted against Christians?
One of the foundational principles of Christianity is denial of self. To assume that impulses, feelings, or predispositions must control our actions is a false assumption.
Anyway, the Church’s problem with liberalism didn’t have to do with a new paradigm of permissive sexuality within the church due to outside influences. Rather, it was liberalism’s concept of therapy and rehabilitation as opposed to the more conservative (and safer for the kids), tried and true methods of punishment and/or banishment.
So in that sense, Santorum is just plain wrong. And anyone making Nazi comments is generally an idiot and should apologize.
And for the record – Kerry told numerous lies. Some of which were proven, others insinuated. Since Kerry still has not released the bulk of his records, we’ll never know.
Not a single claim made by the SwiftBoat Vets was found to be a lie.
NED
OH Brad, they have the same fear as you. Which is a rabid desire to preserve the status quo in culture, whether or not that status quo has a sound moral foundation.
To use a poker term, it is not enough for you to check the historical pot. To oppose the natural progress of civilization, which has througout human history CHANGED toward more individual freedoms, requires some minimum moral justification from you. You are obliged to say WHY the status quo is good, and why social change is bad. You cannot simply say change is bad because you don’t personally like it. Absent a moral argument, you are left sounding like the slavery advocates and those who opposed interracial marriage.
My definition of marriage squares with the historic meaning of the word. That there are some today that would change the definition is irrelevant. By the way, why is marriage between one man and one woman morally indefensible?
Some states, well, one state, have accepted the new definition, more states have changed their constitutions or written laws codifying the traditional meaning. What word shall we redefine next? Liberty? “Justice for all?” The power of traditional and originalist interpretation protects us all from judicial despotism and anarchy. If words mean whatever we want what value is there in any contract, and the Constitution is a contract. If you want to change the meaning pass a Constitutional amendment. Oh, wait, you can’t even muster a strong minority, let alone a super-majority. But then, when was a liberal concerned about democratic disapproval or legal precedent?
Brad, the historic meaning of property included slaves. Historic definitions are not relevant to a moral justification. You must have a moral argument for opposing equal protection under the law, period.
To answer your first question, reflect upon why laws prohibiting interracial marriage were morally indefensible. The answer to that question will guide you. And reflect upon why NOBODY today will confess to supporting those laws 40 years ago. Forty years from now, your current position will similarly see the judgement of history.
I challenge you again to provide a moral justification for your argument. Stop hiding behind history like slave owners.
I am not required to defend the status quo it is for those asking for change to do so within the strictures of the law: i.e. a Constitutional amendment.
Show me the passage in the Constitution requiring natural progression of civilization, whatever that means. Do we vote on the steps of the progression? When that progression tramples on the rights of a few do we just say “oh well, that’s the breaks.”
I assume you are referring to the taliban. Rabid (?) adherence to tradition is not a tenet to association any more than adherence to change accommodates a liberal to a communist.
Using the word nazi is not in and of itself repugnant. I was in no way inferring that anyone on this post was a nazi (as is clear from an honest reading of what I said). Indeed, the repugnancy of the concept of nazi-ism and my use of it should make clear that however deplorable one finds the gay lifestyle, gay Americans are STILL and EVER honorable Americans and citizens.
You are right. The historic meaning of the word “property” included slaves. That meaning was reversed by Constitutional amendment.
The laws against interracial marriage were enacted and disposed of by states. In any case, as despicable as they were, they did no violence to the definition of one man one woman any more than current probations against marrying your sister or brother
I am almost embarrassed to inform you of this, but the constitution is silent on marriage. What we can look to in the constitution is the following conflicting guides:
1. equal protection under the law.
2. reserve clause.
As the suddenly emerging great defender of the constitution, you will therefore cheer when the Supreme court rules on gay marriage eventually, just as it ruled on interracial marriage.
Or alternatively, you can support the conflicting reserve clause, which causes you to wildly cheer for what is happening in Mass, Vermont, California, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
So one can ceretainly have a purely academic discussion of the constitution, or one can have a moral discussion. I am challenging you to state the moral case for your belief (if you have one at all). If you don’t have a moral foundation, just say so.
I don’t oppose equal protection but, since gays can leagally marry (within the meaning of the word) I am mystified as to how that applies.
Oops, there you go again. I presume that by now you have sufficiently reflected on interracial marriage. You have just made a moral statement that laws prohibiting such are “despicable.” Explain why they are morally despicable and then apply your explanation to sexuality.
You do recognize by now that the definition of marriage changed dramatically in the 1960s. It changed against polygamy much earlier. The definition varies by state. It can change again — it has changed again already in some states — doesn’t require an amendment, now does it? The sand is sinking, dear friend.
Marriage is currently a state issue not a federal issue. It’s liberals that wish to make every issue a federal one so they can send it to their last resort: the Supreme Court.
You talk as though gay marriage is settled, if not in the current tense at least in the future tense. A large consensus is against gay marriage, even in some of the states you mention. The only place it wins is in despotic courts that choose to abuse their position to legislate. At least I can point to centuries of usage of the word marriage and support the fact that the definition of the word is settled.
As to morally defending my positions. I wonder how that is possible since no moral position is defensible logically. If you and I disagree on moral grounds we have no higher authority to appeal to. I might quote the Bible but if you hold no reverence for the Bible the argument is irrelevant.
Again, if you wish to change the character of our civilization do so at the ballot box not by creating a cabal of robed masters.
I wish I could stay longer but I have responsibilities that drag me from the keyboard. Anyway, I hear it’s preferable to leave while your ahead. Not that I would be in any danger of losing if I stay…;-)
Happy trails…..
McCain – you’re using a false comparison. Different races DNE different sexes. Therefore your conclusion is false.
The moral basis for one-man one woman marriage is, to the best of my knowledge, based on one of two spheres – the primary being Biblical, as a living model for the relationship of Christ to his Church.
The more general moral basis for one-man one-woman marriage is that it is the best familial organization for procreation and raising of children.
Not the only – just the best.
Whether or not we choose to give special priviledges to “Married” couples that have the prima mater of the gov’t is another matter.
I would personally feel better if the gov’t got out of the business of sanctioning certain types of unions at all (even if they are beneficial to society) if it means sanctioning ALL types of unions. Let people freely engage in contractural arrangements, regardless of their sexuality or relationship. Leave marriage to the churches. There are still plenty of churches which would marry same-sex couples, if that was what they wanted.
NED
Ok, so this means you are opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, since only liberals want to make every issue a federal issue. We can agree here.
And yes, I think this aspect of marriage is settled in a future sense. Equal protection under the law will happen one way or the other. It is that “despotic court that abused their position to legislate” that settled the interracial marriage debate. You applaud them now for voiding those “despicable” laws. We agree here as well. But what are you saying exactly? The court is despicable when you agree and wonderful when you don’t? Okay fine.
It is, of course, the very purpose of the federal courts to interpret laws under the light of our constitution. You like that behavior sometimes, and don’t like it other times, whatever. Marbury versus Madison settled this 200 years ago. The court will fulfill its constitutional duty on this question, someday in the future.
Moral positions are defendable by the way. There is a reason that murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, capital punishment is wrong, and a reason that equal protection is right. And these reasons are not rooted in the constitution, which speaks nil to morality.
I have to go kiss my lovely wife, but have enjoyed the conversation immensely. I will pray for Christ’s guidance in your life on Sunday.
NED,
We agree entirely on the second half of your post. But if the government is going to hand out silly perks, whether they be marriage perks or affirmative action perks, equal opportunity must be available to all.
And I agree as well that one man and one woman is best for raising kids. But since civil marriage does NOT require a promise to sire children, family is not the purpose. Its purpose is to grant a legal status for the conduct of certain public transactions and affairs. So there is a moral argument for saying one man and one woman should raise childen. I agree with that argument and oppose gay adoption because of it. But that has nothing to do with civil marriage.
I’m a Christian Conservative Republican (In order of importance) and I find myself agreeing with what Santorum said, just not how he said it.
Liberals are generally seen in two different lights, as are Conservatives. There should be a distinction drawn I think between liberals in the political sense and liberals in the philosophical sense. But we Americans have so redifined the terms that its getting pretty tough anymore to tell where anyone stands on anything anymore with a label like Liberal or Conservative.
Anyhow, I believe Santorum, if he were speaking to the Christian Church, meant to encompass the Church with his words. Those in the Church who hold more liberal views would help lead us to a time where such deviant activity is a regular occurance and is therefore no longer deviant. Basically, he was speaking as a Christian should speak. Speaking out against sin. But since he also happens to be a politican, his words must have been political instead of religious, because in this country we can’t have a politician who is also religious, right?
Maybe that means we could never have a minister as a politician.
Brad,
Thank you for your honest answer. Fell free to quote the Bible verses I showed you as you press your case to your neighbors. Be sure and call Rush and Newt and let them know the good (bad) news about divorce.
Just change one thing. Add in the divorce is about “legitimizing an activity that is anathema to traditional values for the purpose of tearing down our traditional civilization and replacing it with something else.” Then, it’s perfect.
Please, get out and support Rick Santorum wherever and whenever you can with that exact rhetoric. I’d hate for you to tell your grandchildren that you didn’t do everything you could to stop the twin menaces of divorce and homosexuality marriage, so that they could look up at you unbelievingly and say, “Why, Grandpa? Why did you do that?”
As long as we’re on the subject, as McCain points out, marriage historically is not “one man, one woman”. It’s “one man, at least one woman.” Even the Bible appears to endorse this view, since Soloman and Gideon both had more than one wife and found God’s favor. So, it’s really literal interpretation of the Bible that leads to polygamy.
P.S. It’s so strange to argue against someone who holds the history of word usage in such high esteem. Where were you when people started using “brief” to refer to a style of men’s underwear. Oh, the horror. How could anyone ever use it as an adjective to mean “short” again?
When Howie Dean says stuff in an awkward manner, nobody on his side quotes him.
But some in the GOP are so insecure about appearing reasonable to the lefties, they shoot their own.
Nothing Santorum said is incorrect. Just be secure enough to notice.
McCain,
though we agree in some principles, I do believe that there is a disintigration of the English language going on here, in that I do not believe that a same sex couple can be married.
I’m all for civil unions however.
I do think language is important, and am disappointed in the way liberals (particularly in the judiciary) have used a deconstructionist tactic to manipulate language into meaning whatever they want it to.
Also – everyone has equal opportunity to marry. I don’t see why you can’t understand that. Just because you can’t marry your sister, your brother, your mother, your father, your closest cousins, aunts, uncles, and people of the same sex, does not mean you are not allowed to marry.
Point of fact – many same-sex oriented individuals did marry – people of the opposite sex. Sometimes their relationship ended in divorce. Sometimes the familial ties resulted in a lasting relationship, even if it wasn’t completely sexually gratifying.
In any case, there was clearly no injunction against homosexuals being married.
NED
New England Devil,
It’s funny how you bring up “safety for the kids” and “punishment.” Here’s a little Biblical snippet for you involvin both:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
21:18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19:Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
I presume that this is the type of punishment that you’re supporting. Killing your son if you deem him to be “stubborn and rebellious.” Now that’s tough love. I think today, in our current society, we’d call that murder. However, I guess the definition of “murder” has changed a little bit over the years.
You would presume, wouldn’t you Mr. Wiser.
It makes it so much easier to beat down the straw man, doesn’t it?
Try again.
NED
McCain, that “Its purpose is to grant a legal status for the conduct of certain public transactions and affairs” argument has been shot down so many times it’s hard to believe there’s anyone left trying to use it. You must be the last person on the whole planet that hasn’t heard of power of attorney. You’re going to have to do better than that. For the record I’m not against gay marriage, I couldn’t care less, but if anyone ever hopes to achieve it they’re going to need a better argument. And anyone using that “Mass, Vermont, California” thing is way off the goofy scale, 11 states voted it down, in elections. The voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon and Utah voted for bans, that’s representative democracy at work, not a few mayors and a few judges trying to legislate from the bench.
jYt, by your reasoning former(and probably still) Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd, 2 time Majority leader of the senate and often referred to as the Dean of the Senate, has served longer in the senate than anyone else and is the undisputed head of the democrat party. Glad you cleared that one up for us. Is it hard to see through those little holes in that hood? Do you guys use high octane or does the regular work well enough when you light those crosses? Funny how that works isn’t it? Or will this be another example of the dishonesty of the left?
bullwinkle,
Did any of the Founding Father’s own slaves? Would you say they were right about anything? I’ve made mistakes, you’ve made mistakes, wouldn’t you say that Robert Byrd has put his ties to the Klan behind him? If it was such a burden on his political career how do you suppose he keeps getting elected in WV? Sometimes failing, recognizing that you’ve failed and fixing those failures can make you stronger and wiser. Let’s use a Christian value here: forgiveness.
Not long ago Kevin posted this link showing us the trips our representatives have taken in the name of “their job”. I perused many of our Senators “trips”. I was taken aback at the destinations Barbara Boxer deemed necessary for her job as opposed to the destinations (and the reasons given) by her colleagues. I stand by my representation of her. I’ll concede to one thing. She is a “courageous” idiot and I’ll add “opportunist”.
OK NED, I agree with you then. The contents of the Bible is just a straw man. Certainly nothing to base a modern religion on. Glad we could agree and that you’re a denouncer of the “Holy” scripture as well.
Or maybe I have you wrong again. Perhaps you’re one of those Christians that doesn’t believe in the infallibility of the Bible as god’s word and must pick and choose out of it what is plausible and what is ridiculous ranting. I’ve always wondered how you guys manage to tell the difference and why your god couldn’t get his own holy book right, being all-powerful and all. Maybe the “god is all powerful” sthick was in the non-believable ranting section.
Santorum and Bush and Rove = Hitler
Santorum and Bush and Rove = Hitler
Santorum and Bush and Rove = Hitler
Santorum and Bush and Rove = Hitler
bullwinkle,
Personally, I can’t stand Byrd, either. He’s an old-time, WV pork-barrell politician. Also “by my logic,” he’s not “undisputed head of the Democratic Party.” Santorum is #3 in the Senate because that’s his appointed and recogniged position. By that scale, Byrd is not #1 (Reid) or #2 (Durbin). Even so, I must agree that he’s a leading democratic figure and I certainly wouldn’t claim it was dishonest to take a current position of his and say that it was representative of the Democratic party, as you do with Santorum.
Of course, Byrd’s history as a Klansman has been denounced many times by Byrd himself. Once he no longer holds a view, I don’t think it can be taken to be representative of him or the Democratic party. If Santorum denounces his own comments, then they will no longer represent Rebuplicans either.
Now, I’ve answered your questions before you’ve even touched mine. There were quite a few, but the one I’m most interested in is, “Finally, do you decry as blatantly dishonest any site that has ever held that a Federal Senator or Representative lower than third on the list (or anyone lower than that) might be acting as a spokesman for the Democratic Party or liberals?” Since you believe Byrd is #1, we won’t count him. I’ll even let you choose the #2 based on your criteria.
So, what is it? It is time to “nut up or shut up?” Or you can simply be a guy who can’t logically back up his statements.
My $.02:
This post started with a question (do Republicans stand with bigots?) that made a definite presupposition (Santorum is a bigot). I’m dissapointed that Pennywit would resort to such tactics.
The comments then went straight to a defense of homosexuality. The only connection the Catholic Church’s abuse scandal had with homosexuality was the fact that it was same-sex abuse. Not really that surprising seeing that Priests are expected to teach little boys while the Nuns are teaching little girls. The homosexual nature of the abuse was a direct result of proximity, not of sexual preference; a result of depravity, not of homosexuality.
Furthermore, one would be hard-pressed to refute the central point of Santorum’s statement: our society, in breaking down sexual boundaries and conventions, has created a fertile ground for sexual deviancy and abuse. Children are exposed to sexuality at a young age, then encouraged to present themselves as sexual objects at a young age, and left to determine for themselves when they are “ready” to be sexually active. Statutory rape laws that prohibit sexual activities between minors are ridiculed and revised. Laws are woefully lax in limiting minors’ access to sexually explicit materials, and any attempts to strengthen those laws are dismissed as “censorship.” Sexuality is so glamorized in our “enlightened” society that “normal” sex is seen as boring. Such a culture opens the door for experimentation in nonconventional sexuality and “alternative lifestyles.”
The arguments for and against homosexuality and homosexual rights are really irrelevant to this discussion. The abuses of the Catholic Church are symptomatic of a vacuum in our societal structure that was created by the death of decency.
JmaR said
but get the fvck off of Barbara Boxer. She has more courage and integrity than ANY of the next 10 Senators combined, both R and D.
Yeah, bouncing checks at tax payer expense, that takes lots of courage. Not much integrety, but it certainly takes guts. Or is the term chutzpah…
jYt,
My numbers were not about the $$ amount or the number of abuses reported to the Church, they were about the cases that went to trial. I will try and find my source again.
Boy, I never write comments into these blogs, but PW’s original entry had me irritated. Penny, you really should widen your views – whether you like it or not there is a conservative point of view in this country with legitimate concerns.
This thread was messy until Brad stepped in and added some solid framework. It was refreshing to read the classy comments by Brad. NED, your’s were good too. I have a few comments of my own. I’ve always wondered that if “Gay Marriage” is about the government-bestowed benefits: taxation, hospital visitation rights, etc., why do gay advocates insist on calling it Marriage? What is wrong with having Civil Unions with all the rights and perqs of conventional marriage? It always seemed to me, when the “M-word” is insisted upon, it means there is another agenda that is indeed seeking to damage or destroy conventional marriage. And, as far as the whole slippery slope thing, there is an article by Stanley Kurtz (NRO March 23, 2005) about a law professor from the University of Chicago – Elizabeth F. Emens, who is currently building the legal arguments and defenses needed to achieve state-sanctioned polyamory (through the courts). Although I always thought the next re-definition of marriage would be 2 women and a man, it appears that this is the next one coming down the pike.
Now, changing subjects, but staying within the various threads, The other thing that I always think is stupendously ironic, is here you have the Catholic church, bastion of conservatism in modern culture… ever criticized for its unbending rules. So back in the 50’s and 60’s this rigid church decides that celibacy is celibacy. In other words, they decide as policy to admit men with a homosexual orientation to be priests. The Church actually REACHES OUT to these people – and what do they do? They betray the trust given them, bring upon the church a child molestation scandal that is, statistically speaking, composed OVERWHELMINGLY of acts commited against post-pubescent boys, and practically bring down the whole enchilada. This never ceases to amaze me – and no one EVER gives them credit for opening up to allow gays into the fold in the first place. (Now, having said this I’m not defending the lack of discipline by the Catholic Church’s “upper management”.) Just a couple things to chew on if people are still watching this thread. For a reference, search for a book entitled “Goodbye Good Men” on Amazon.
Now, let my skewering begin…
BoDiddly,
So what did this comment of Santorum’s mean:
“If you have a world view that I’m describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way”
What “alternative views of sexuality” is he saying that Bostonians affirm that people are taking the wrong way? Please be specific about Boston/Mass, since Santorum certainly is.
Also, no one ever wants to deal with my earlier statistic from the Catholic Church itself, that shows that the incidence of abuse has gone down since 1974. I guess I wasn’t hard-pressed to refute the central point at all.
BoDiddly, When I read your last comment I immediately saw a picture of Ted Kennedy clad only in boxer shorts and an untucked long sleeve button down shirt stumbling around with a glass of scotch.
The other image I get is of the male prostitution ring operating out of Barney Frank’s home office. These images could drive one to say just about anything of Boston!
Mr. Wiser,
At the very least, you presume how I interpret Biblical scripture. And you of course choose the interpretation which allows you your bigotry in a manner such that you can feel morally superior.
Different interpretations of the Bible exist, not because of the falibility of God, but because of the flawed nature of man.
The example you cite should make that exceedingly clear to you. Many of the Old Testament laws are an extrapolation by men of God’s stated will (10 Commandments). Our flawed nature resulted in interpretations of God’s intent which culminated with the formation of laws which had little, if any, basis in God’s original intent.
The Christo-centric interpretation of the Bible (as opposed to the flat-Bible approach to interpretation which you’re using) takes this into account and elevates the Gospels to be the “Highest Revelation” of God’s true intent. The Old Testament is provided as a testament to how God tried through the ages to bring people to salvation, using the nation of Israel as an example. But the people of Israel failed again and again which necessitated a paradigm shift – aka Jesus, the Christ. The remainder of the New Testament is extrapolation on Christ’s teachings (as well as early church history), but differs from the Old Testament in that the spirit of God’s instruction is emphasized as opposed to the codification of law and adherence thereto (which is your cite).
I’m not trying to convert you, but if you’re actually seeking honest discussion with Christians, it would be a good starting point to understand their actual perspective.
Then again, your comments to me don’t necessarily reflect a desire for honest discussion.
So, as a final response to your assertions in this thread I will simply state this:
Man’s falibility led to misinterpretations of God’s will. For what other reason would Jesus have been so frustrated with/disgusted with/angry at the Pharisees, who were by all accounts pious; men who held to the law to a fault.
NED
Michelle Malkin and Capt. Ed are both scolding Santorum and asking for an apology/correction, which I think is a pretty good indication of where mainstream-y conservatives come down on this. I tell you verily, Santorum’s aggravating me.
What pisses me off about the Santorum comments and those that would stand behind them is that they are simply not even close to true. The Evangelical right, defenders of marriage, stewards of family values etc……except that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country. If you know Massachusetts you realize that most of the state’s population is east of Worcester and essentially part of Greater Boston. The folks that have resided here for generations (majority decent, hard working, blue-collar folks contrary to the caricature that the right has created) are a lot more socially conservative than one might be led to believe. It is also a city that is steeped in a very proud academic tradition that has introduced tremendous advances in high-tech, medicine, and politics (ok maybe that’s not working out so well 🙂 but at least we’ve always got someone in the game and that’s not too shabby coming from such a small state. The bastion of liberalism may sound nice but I prefer to think of it as a bastion of decency and good sense.
NED,
So, you’re clearly in the “Bible is a flawed book of man’s creation” instead of “infallible text”. That puts you one up on lots of actual Christians. Sorry I judged you as a literalist. We agress that’s just stupid.
To explain Jesus’ anger at the Pharisees to you, it wasn’t that they held the law to a fault. It was that they were hypocrites. They used the law to punish others while carefully hiding their own transgressions. Perhaps you don’t understand the word “hypocrite” which Jesus repeatedly used in Matthew.
Check out these verses, and you might come to a better understanding of the transgressions of the Pharisees:
Matthew 15:1-9
Matthew 23:1-7
Here’s verses 2-3 — “Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” — Jesus didn’t emphasize the law? then how do you explain his admonnition to “observe and do” what the Pharisees bid that they do? I think saying that their works are not the same as what they say also undermines your assertion that they “were by all accounts pious; men who held to the law to a fault.”
Matthew 23:23-24
No thanks are necessary for the Bible lessons. Just doing my part to help you understand your religion.
Oh and check out Matthew 5:17-20 while you’re at it.
So why is it that I’m always the one quoting scripture while the Christians just give their views with nothing to back them up from the Bible?
Bullwinkle,
Ever hear of social security survivor benefits? Available only to married people. Power of attourney does not address this perk and 1000 others.
And NED,
everyone does not have an equal opportunity to marry. That is what the supreme court said about the interracial marriage question. You would just as easily argue that the white person can marry another white person, and a black person can marry a black person. No problem, right? Wrong. It is the same moral problem, and the same constitutional problem, in the gay marriage debate.
And I agree with your about the fuzzyness of words. Words change meaning over time, but for clarity, we don’t need to encapsulate all of these various unions in a single word. The eskimos have 7 words for snow, so we can have two for marriage. Call it schmarriage or fruityunions or whatever, as long as they have the exact same legal standing.
The political gentleman is correct. Decades ago “they” fought for easy divorce promissing no adverse consequenses. Hmmm… Then “they” fought for fornication promissing no adverse consequenses. Hmmm… Then “they” fought for sodomy promissing no adverse consequenses. Hmmm… Lately, in certain circles, “they” are fighting for pedophilia (e.g. the disgustingly entitled “Man-Boy Love… whatever). Once the door is open the flies start coming in. Decades ago a society that didn’t tolerate divorce, had hardly a mention of sodomy and certainly not of pedophilia. Society now increasingly tolerates it all, embraces it all.
It is a wicked man who is so blind that he cannot see the connection between one form of sexual perversion and the next form. It is so obvious to anyone who understands the depravity of human nature and the lust for sin. Rapists don’t just hit puberty and begin raping. They begin with perverted sexual fantasies. They proceed to satisfying them with pornography. They proceed to ever increasingly perverted forms of pornography. The weakest, and most foolish, cast off social restraints, and then rape. They, cast off a social restraints just as the previous generation cast off the restraint of pornography and welcomed the vile satisfying of their lust with impunity.
Why will you socially tolerant, so-called conservatives not open your eyes and see that the sodomites are deviant. They are evil in the sight of God. God says they are an abomination (Lev 18 and 20). God abhores them (Ps 5.5). You can cozy up to them all you like and you will only end up suffering the same consequenses that they will face (Romans 1.32). I know why you tolerate the reprehensible. Because you yourselves also love sinfulness. Therefore, you don’t have the moral courage to condemn evil, if you even see it, when it is staring you in the face.
“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience” Colossians 3.5-6
Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
jYt–per your request:
I’d suggest you start by reading the actual column in question, which, BTW was published back in 2002–a fact that should pretty much make the Glob’s story look like only so much muckraking.
Here’s the link to the column: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30
The paragraph in question is most likely:
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
He does NOT specify which “alternative lifestyles” he considers culpable. Perhaps it’s generalized promiscuity. Perhaps a combination of everything from beastiality to pedophilia to all of the fetishes that exist. In other words, perhaps he’s saying exactly what I said: sexual abuse isn’t a result of homosexuality, but of depravity.
As to referring specifically to Boston, Massachusetts, Was Boston a site of a major problem in the church? Yup. Is Boston (and Massachusetts) an undeniably liberal area? Yup. Santorum didn’t “single out” Boston as the sole problem, he cited an example. An example, by the way, is by definition not an all-encompassing list.
With so many people jumping on the bandwagon to vilify Santorum over these comments, it’s significant to note that he doens’t blame society with the priests’ actions, simply observes that when depravity reigns in the outside world, it should come as no surprise that it sometimes filters into the world of the Church. He does so in a call to Catholics to keep on trying to be a positive influence their communities.
I almost decided to avoid this point, but I’ll dive in anyway (may as well). There’s an old adage that says, “The hit dog hollers.” That’s a trite way of saying that when a scatter-gun type statement is made, the guilty party voices the loudest opposition. There is, without question, a stigma tied to the homosexual community regarding pedophilia that is likely undeserved. Still, groups like NAMBLA don’t help this perception, and the gay community doesn’t do a very good job of distancing itself from that organization.
As to your statistics, the John Jay study on the problem is apparently the most extensive study publicly available. It does demonstrate a perceived decline in abuses since the mid-1970s, but it also highlights the fact that nearly 84% of the reports of abuse were between 1990 and 2002 (the ending date of the statistics collected and analyzed). Two factors may be called into question regarding these statistics. The first is the fact that abuse is frequently unreported for 25 years or more. The second is that with the widespread coverage of abuses and payouts, there may have been numerous people claiming abuses during their childhood (which would have been in the 70s), knowing that disproving the charges would be difficult, and hoping for their “piece of the pie.”
I sincerely hope that the decline in abuse is real, and that it did begin 30 years ago. I’m afraid that the numbers shouldn’t be look upon as authoritative, however. I do believe that there are numerous safeguards that the Catholic Church has implemented since the problem came to public light that will cut down the incidence of abuse in the future.
Pennywit wrote, For those who haven’t heard Santorum, recall that he also linked homosexuality to bestiality…
Where did he do that Pennywit? Answer: he didn’t. You either didn’t understand him or you are lying for partisan purposes.
Here is what he really said,
“And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution…” – Senator Rick Santorum
If you understand English, you’ll see that what he said is quite different from what you claim he said. He’s talking about the so called “zone of privacy” and what it can entail.
Second, it is disturbing that these attitudes emanate not from a fetid ideological swamp like Free Republic…
Good grief. You’re really a moonbat. I take back my earlier opinion of you. To slander all of Free Republic as “fetid ideological swamp”? What the hell are you doing here then?
An unrepentant, reactionary bigot could become the face and voice fo the Republican Party. Troubling, no?
It would be troubling. If it was true. Nice of you to paint with such a broad brush when the real problem seems to be your problem with the English language.
I want to hear from some reasonable Republicans, from some thinking conservatives.
I don’t think you would recognize them through your fetid ideological swamp of a mind.
If not, I must draw one of two conclusions…
Because there just can’t be more than two conclusions. You have shut down any explanation so it is obviously very pointless to even try.
To those of you who spit on the Swift Boat Vets and called them “liars” – where’s your proof? It was noticeably lacking.
To those of you who asked, “Liberalism is dishonesty?” – most certainly. Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it’s stated intent. Never fails. I challenge you to dispute it with an example to the contrary.
To those of you who arguing for “gay marriage” for “equal protection under the law” – there’s equal protection under the law now. I defy you to prove otherwise. The marriage laws are the same for everybody. There is equal protection under the law now. You just don’t agree with it and want to add special rights. You coach it in language that suggests you are being fair, but you are not. You are demanding special rights for the privileges that society endows upon marriage.
To those of you who say that to disagree with the idea of “gay marriage” is in the same class as “bigoted requirements that married people belong to the same race” – what? Race is incidental to marriage. It does not matter. You can’t say the same about the gender. Gender is a part of the definition.
To those of you who cheer on court decisions and wish for a Supreme Court decision legalizing “gay marriage” – you have just outed yourself as supporters of judicial activism. We’re not supposed to make law in the judiciary. That’s what we have a legislative branch.
To those of you who believe the tide is turning in support of “gay marriage” – good luck on that one. Eleven states have recently said “NO” to the idea and it is because of people like you who have pushed it onto us. You went about it the wrong way.
To those of you who say that, “if the government is going to hand out silly perks” in marriage, then there must be “gay marriage” – if they are “silly perks”, then why the fuss? And it isn’t the government handing out those “silly perks”, it is society. Society recognizes marriage as beneficial and therefore affords some privileges towards the union in order to endorse it. Society is not convinced that “gay marriage” is beneficial and therefore hasn’t awarded it the same privileges. Sorry.
An open question to supporters of “gay marriage” – how come so often one will hear and see a supporter say, “well then why have marriage at all”? This question is only to those who say such a thing. It surely seems like there’s a deconstructive agenda at float.
Don,
Your bigoted, closed-minded sermon is textbook fundamentalist. How do you make the leap from homosexuality to perversion and depravity? What leads you to believe that homosexuals are more depraved or more capable of commiting a sex crime than non-homosexuals? Where is the proof? Seems to me that the Catholic church pedophile scandal was more a result of the shame and ignorance that the faith imposes on its members (the ones that aren’t wired to conform) than healthy sexuality. Have you ever known a gay person? Do gay people strike you as categorically depraved? Goodness, open your eyes to the real world. Jesus taught love and kindness not bigotry and ignorance.
I too am mystified but also interested in Don’s World. Don, can you please explain the evils of consensual adult sodomy to me? And explain the different between it and, oh, say body tattoos and piercings.
likwidshoe,
Here is your proof on the Swift Boat Liars and there is plenty more but I found the most credible, mainstream source I could find so you couldn’t whine about bias (no ABC is not a “liberal” network…sorry):
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=166434
Another good source is snopes. Tech-geekie, factual, and almost always right. Go there and search for : Swift Boat Veterans. Read the entire thing and it explains with facts and in plain english that NONE of the members (with one lone exception) served with John Kerry on an actual boat. Conversely, every man that served under him vouched for him. It’s all there.
“Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of its stated intent”.
Ok, lets start with one of the foundations of liberal government, Social Security. It’s stated intent:
In the United States, a program of the United States federal government that provides retirement income, health care for the aged, and disability coverage for eligible workers and their dependents.
It’s been doing exactly that since its inception. I know that’s kind of an obscure ***ahem**** example, but it was off the top of my head.
JmaR, here’s a snip from a 2001 news story:
Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase “white nigger” twice on national TV this weekend.
Yep, he’s come a long, long way.
bullwinkle,
Address the point about founding father’s owning slaves. I still consider them brilliant visionaries, I guess at that time and in that place it was just….accepted. We really should consider some new faces for our currency. I hear Ronald Reagan’s mug is available. 🙂
First, Santorum is not particularly artful and is more extreme than most Republicans in his social views. That out of the way, as a Catholic living in the city of Boston in 2002, a few things were VERY clear in looking at the clergy abuse scandals.
(1) The overwhelming majorty of priests abused only boys.
(2) Other priests in the area, speaking off the record, pointed at very liberal attitudes prevailing at St. John’s Semiary in Brighton, MA in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Specifically, very open homosexuality among the candidates.
(3) Several of the Boston Archdiocese abusers (including almost all of the worst offenders) attended St. John’s Seminary in the late 60’s and early 70’s.
So it’s fairly clear that sexual liberalism, pervasive in the Boston area in the late 60’s and into the 70’s did contribute to the abuse. In a different era, those men would be kicked out of the Seminary, and would not have become priests. Contribute, not cause. The Church leaders turned a blind eye, covered up the crimes. The lay people were and are outraged.
As JmaR said, Bostonians are far more socially conservative than is fashionably believed. While living in South Boston, a solid Irish Catholic working class neigborhood, I saw it first hand. These people voted Democrat more out of historic beliefs than current politics. Most of their actual views would put them close to George Bush on social issues. However, they are found of unions and suspicious of business. But the 60’s and early 70’s that was a different time.
Santorum aimed his remarks at Boston incorrectly, he should have attacked the liberal sexual attitues of the 60’s and 70’s and he would have been dead-on. Look up the records, nearly all the clergy sex abusers were in Seminary at that time. Few to none of the young or very old priests have been so accused.
JmaR said, Here is your proof on the Swift Boat Liars and there is plenty more but I found the most credible, mainstream source I could find so you couldn’t whine about bias (no ABC is not a “liberal” network…sorry):
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=166434
Yeah. Thanks for the communist account. I’m sure ABC’s communist minders only provided an accurate account. Communism is known for that. I like how you call them the “Swift Boat Liars”. Shows me what kind of juvenile mentality I’m dealing with here.
As for your snopes.com suggestion: how about a specific link?
In the United States, a program of the United States federal government that provides retirement income, health care for the aged, and disability coverage for eligible workers and their dependents.
It’s been doing exactly that since its inception. I know that’s kind of an obscure ***ahem**** example, but it was off the top of my head.
Sure. Just a little bit older though. And no..we have to cut back on benefits. Make it a little bit older. Oh wait,..you aren’t supposed to get Social “Security”. Oh..give us 11% of your lifetime income. This is for the “Security” you might not collect when you get older.
Sorry bud…Social “Security” is anything but with the amount of money that they steal from me.
Ok likwidshoe, since you are clearly waaaayyy over on the right, I’ll leave it to you to let me know what media sources I can depend on for “fair and balanced” information. I’m talking No Spin, something that can only be believed by the “best and brightest”. Help me out now ditto boy. Where can you get good solid journalism in this country today?
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html
Yup, ABC and Disney are real communist juggernauts. No way they’re benefitting from the media consolidation that capitalism so richly rewards us all with. Pure unbridled totalitarinaism there buddy.
OMFG!