A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic Church's Biblical teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" is being challenged in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
While this is an issue about the church verses homosexuality, if one just looks down the road a little, one can see that this could turn into an issue about religion verses the government.
Moreover, while one might be on the side of the First Amendment the freedom of speech and religion, but if these court proceedings escalate to bring about a strong ruling that government cannot in anyway interfere in religious practices no matter what, and no matter what religion; then one should be able to see as well that the theocracy of Islam which hides under the cloak of religion would stand once again to gain power by using our own freedom which they hate, as just another tool in their growing arsenal, to defeat us.
Keep this in mind while you read this article and remember that laws or rulings can have far reaching implications and can be applied to issues for which they were never intended. Remember religions are all the same under the law, because even though you and I may not be--justice is blind...
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the largely homosexual City and County of San Francisco 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,” which apparently includes the in your face Sacred San Francisco “custom” of homosexuality.
The resolution 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." Isn’t this what the controversy between the kettle and the black pot is about?
Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on child 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 Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican’s instructions and Gods word, 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,." or in this case, possibly the lack thereof.
The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds before, 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 statement. "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 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.
As a side note and as I said before, bear this in mind, if push comes to shove, this would include anything that resembles hostility toward the Islamic so-called “religion” as well, as they continue to impose their theocracy on our culture.
"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 argued 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. 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. This could be dangerous in the future.
Currently, Colorado and Michigan 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. What is very curious here is the fact that the Quran says Homosexuals are to be killed. And yet that is not classified as hat speech. “Double Standards” anyone???
THE BOTTOM LINE: While this is truly an attack on religious freedom, we must be careful when we make demands, because this decision or ruling by the courts becomes precedent that can later be used against our culture and our freedom in a similar conflict with Islam, a theocracy that calls itself a religion, which is bent on subjugating this Country and converting all Americans to Islam or be killed. The irony of this of course is that all homosexuals will be the first to be executed.
Sharia Law cares nothing about double standards. While government should not be allowed to control religion, we must be careful that religion is not able to control government either. Because as I previously stated, the law sees all religions as the same. Put another way, while we should not allow government to trample all over our rights of religion, we must as a religion be careful not to trample all over government.
Remember as one religion gains power in America, so do all, even Islam the religious and political enemy of this world…