Some of you may remember that I was booted off a certain Catholic team blog for criticizing Paul Ryan’s embrace of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and for refusing to support him after he made a politically-motivated denial of Ayn Rand. He’s showing his true colors again today in supporting homosexual adoption. How is that related to his embrace of Ayn Rand? The faithful need no explanation.
Via Think Progress:
Recommended reading: Architects of the Culture of Death
Tamara Holder on the Hannity show.
Tamara Holder is the guest Sean Hannity allowed to come onto his show to offer the pro-”choice” response to Lila Rose, president of Live Action, and Live Action’s investigation of infanticide in the abortion industry. Watch this video as Holder pathetically defends infanticide by denying the facts of the situation and even by personally attacking Lila Rose.
Please donate to Live Action so that they can continue this important work.
Live Action, a youth-led pro-life group that works to expose illegal practices in America’s abortion industry that endanger women and children, has released two shocking new videos along with a petition to ask state and federal authorities to prosecute illegal activity.
The first video, released yesterday, shows a “clinician” at an abortion clinic in the Bronx describing that she has worked at the clinic since she was 16 years old and that it is par for the course to kill any babies born alive during an abortion procedure. The video also shows a “counselor” at the clinic stating that if a child is born alive, that child “has to be sent to the hospital.” She also says, “That’s why a termination is done inside.” This represents conflicting accounts from within the clinic about what is done if a child is born alive, but both accounts are a full admission on the part of clinic workers that the clinic willfully kills viable babies. One worker says they are willing to defy the law and do so if the baby is born alive. The other worker says the purpose of killing inside the womb is to ensure that the baby dies and will not have to be sent to the hospital. Either way, viable babies are being murdered, willfully, at this Bronx clinic. Watch that video here.
The second video, released today, is even more telling. It shows an abortionist (doctor) at a Washington, D.C., clinic assuring the undercover pregnant woman that he is willing to break the law in order to ensure her baby dies. Watch that video here.
Lila Grace Rose, president of Live Action, will be a guest tonight on The O’Reilly Factor. Be sure to tune in to support Lila and Live Action in their work. Let’s do our best to make sure this show has high ratings.
The Blaze, which is ostensibly a conservative “news” site, has been spending time pushing “gay marriage.” Their latest is an article about “top GOP donors” organizing to financially back (buy) candidates in primaries who will oppose conservative candidates who are against “gay marriage.”
Part of American Unity PAC’s original mission was to spend money on behalf of Republican gay marriage supporters. Many GOP lawmakers have faced primary challenges funded in part by anti-gay marriage groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, which argue that the lawmakers had betrayed the party’s core principles.
Since forming the lobby group last month, American Unity also spent money to win over Republican lawmakers in Rhode Island, where last week all five Republicans in the state Senate jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon. Rhode Island is on track to legalize gay marriage by next week, which would make it the 11th U.S. state where gay marriage is legal.
There are also plans to lobby federal lawmakers on gay rights issues.
In this, these “top GOP donors” pit themselves firmly against the Catholic Church. Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island offers many reasons Catholics must be opposed to “gay marriage,” including this.
But what is of equal concern, however, is that religious bodies will be obliged to extend their resources, facilities and benefits to individuals who are living in immoral relationships – contrary to sincerely held religious beliefs. This is not a hypothetical situation; it’s already happening throughout our nation.
And…
Where is the moral or legal “right” to marry a person of the same gender found? It certainly has not been part of the human experience, of human history. Is it simply the personal happiness or fulfillment of individuals, the “right to do whatever I want to do?” If that’s the argument, it opens up all sorts of other social experiments for us, doesn’t it?
Indeed, with “gay marriage” we are saying that our laws should not be based not on what is right and just, but rather on “if it feels good, do it.” “Anything goes” as long as you can convince enough people to agree with it. That, my friends, is a “fundamental transformation of America” such as Barack Obama has spoken of.
In 1973, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders as a result of rioting (mob rule). Now, four decades later, we are told that our laws must change as a result of polls expressing support for “gay marriage”, which is, again, mob rule. Where homosexuality becomes “normal,” objection to it becomes “abnormal.” How long til Catholicism is added to the DSM as a mental illness due to this mob rule?
These “top GOP donors” don’t scare me. They have failed to change the platform of the Republican Party on marriage and they have failed to stop a recent resolution supporting marriage. They are engaging in war against the base of the party with mountains of money because they know they cannot change things through normal channels. They can only change things if you buy what they’re selling — and they are selling one-way tickets to hell.
Recently, the USCCB (wrongly) sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in opposition to Israel’s security fence, specifically its route through the Cremisan Valley. A section of the fence will be built through the Cremisan Valley and will cut through the monastery grounds of the Salesian Nuns Convent and School and the Salesian Monks Monastery. This section of the fence includes an “agricultural gate” through which the nuns, monks, land-owners and others may pass. The fence, called the “Apartheid Wall” by left-wingers, is being built in order to protect Israelis from being murdered by “Palestinians.” It is not reasonable to oppose this fence because it is not reasonable to force Israel to leave her citizens vulnerable to attack.
An article at Front Page Mag (rightly) refers to the security fence as the “Leftists are Idiots Fence”:
The consequential series of agreements to allow the PLO to import its army of assassins and terrorists into the West Bank and Gaza (never mind that the Hamas later evicted the PLO from Gaza) produced so many massacres of Israelis that the only way to reduce the level of violence was with large fences and barriers that prevented “Palestinians” from getting close enough to Jews to murder them.
That’s why the fence is being built. Those who oppose the fence do so because they have bought into Islamic anti-Semitic propaganda. Watch this video to see who pushes the idea that the security fence is an “Apartheid Wall.” While it is not good for the monastery grounds to have a fence across it, there is a gate for passage, and the defense of innocent human life is paramount. It is good that the security fence is being built. When “Palestinians” give up their desire to murder Jews, there will not be a need for such a fence.
As the Diocese of Columbus is standing firm on the decision to fire a teacher who is openly living in a lesbian relationship, Anonymous readies the hammer to drive the nails into the Body of Christ as the group has issued a public threat of blackmail against the diocese.
The hacktivist group, Anonymous, is threatening to dig up dirt on members of the Columbus Catholic Diocese if a fired gay teacher is not allowed to return to her job at Bishop Watterson High School.
Everyone has dirt. Some people are ashamed of it and are trying to work on becoming better people, while others, like this fired teacher, flaunt it publicly and demand it be officially approved by the Church. That’s why she was fired, folks. Not because she’s a “sinner” (because we all are), but because she publicly lives it proudly and expects it to be approved of by the Church.
Persecution is painful, but the difference between the humble and the proud is that the humble don’t grumble. They understand that there is redemption in suffering, and that the proud always hate Jesus even more than Anonymous hates the Church today. They are on the side of Satan here. Pray for them.
As it stands in the UK now, if civil law recognizes “gay marriage” then in order to protect the right of priests not to perform “gay” weddings, the Church will have to bow out of the civil aspect of marriage altogether. This is the legal reality of the situation.
Under the current wording of the ["gay marriage"] bill, the “threat of litigation…would be enormous.”
“If we want to keep the current modus vivendi, it is imperative that unintended consequences that may undermine this system should be addressed now and not left until later,” McCrudden said.
“Immediately the bill is passed, the Catholic Church will have to consider how exposed to legal risk it is and whether it can continue to work the existing legal system based on that assessment,” he said.
The government has insisted that wording in the bill creates legal protections for clergy, but they have been repeatedly warned that these “safeguards” are meaningless in the current legal situation.
Catholic priests currently officiate at 8,500 weddings a year in Britain and are recognized as “authorized persons” to marry couples on behalf of the state, he said. They are therefore technically regarded as state officials and as such, homosexuals who want to force the issue could demand that the priests conduct the ceremony or face a claim of unlawful discrimination.
Even if such efforts by individuals, or campaign groups were to fail, the expense of fighting the cases would be crippling for the Church, McCrudden added.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who believe that we have to convince them of our arguments on marriage in order for our arguments to be considered legally valid. That’s tyranny, folks. To claim that my religious belief is not valid as an argument for protection under civil law unless you are convinced that my belief is reasonable, and are convinced to agree with it, is to advocate tyranny. You’re saying I don’t have the right to believe what I believe unless a majority of people agree with it. Why so many don’t get that such a claim is a claim for tyranny, I will never know.
The issue goes even beyond who can perform civil marriages, though. Bishop Philip Egan rightly says:
“Just as the Church has been forced to abandon its adoption services, so too Catholics who work in the medical profession and in social services are going to find themselves under intolerable moral pressures. These pressures will also arguably be felt throughout our Catholic schools, by teachers, staff and parents.”
Having had many discussions with people who support “gay marriage,” I have come to the conclusion that they have no idea what they are up against in forcing the Church into such a legal predicament. It’s not like we haven’t done this before. In the early Church, the Church did not participate in civil marriage. Marriages were conducted apart from the civil government. Catholics have never needed government to have marriages. My own life is a personal example of this in that the state considers me to be divorced while the Church considers me to be married. I was allowed to obtain a civil divorce for a reason granted in Canon Law, but I am still married in the eyes of the Church, and that is the law I submit to. I remain celibate since my civil divorce.
You don’t have to understand and agree with all of this. You do have to respect that we have the right to believe these things as a matter of religious conscience. With certainty, I can say that the faithful will adhere to Church law when it conflicts with civil law. Always. Given that we don’t need civil government to have marriages, bowing out of the entire civil process is definitely an option for us.
If we are forced to do that, we will be an underground Church. If you ask me, that’s the main reason “gay marriage” is being pushed to begin with. It’s certainly not about “diversity” and “equality” when it forces the Church underground. It’s about forcing the Church underground.
