Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Kresta in the Afternoon - June 26, 2013

Talking about the "things that matter most" on June 26

Special Program

4:00 - 6:00 - DOMA and Prop 8 Go Down
Today we analyze the Supreme Court's decisions from all angles - legal, cultural, political, theological and more. Guests include Ryan Anderson, Bill May, Lee Strang, Maggie Gallagher, Pat Gillen, Stephen Krason, Jennifer Roback Morse, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, and more.

9 comments:

  1. I don't understand the problem with gay marriage. Let's understand that Catholic thought is not liberal thought. The US Constitution is a document of liberal thought, which means it is primarily about rights and equality, self-ownership, etc. Read Mary Ann Glendon's book "Rights Talk" to see how liberal life differs from the Catholic vision. Gay marriage will prevail, but that doesn't threaten the religious freedom of Catholics. Catholics are essentially "aliens" in the West. In France, this has long been understood.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous, I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. If you really, really think that the religious freedom of Catholics is not in jeopardy then you simply haven't been paying attention to events around you. Already Catholic Charities has had to stop participating in the adoption process in some states. Many individual Christians have been persecuted for their refusal to cater to homosexual couples. The State is relentless in not only redefining the long-held understanding of marriage but also in mandating that a person's faith remain private. Christians are no longer welcome in the PUBLIC square. Woe to us, the fallout will be devastating.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You write that "Many individual Christians have been persecuted for their refusal to cater to homosexual couples." Public accommodation law doesn't allow private business to discriminate against blacks or other races, and it should not allow private business to discriminate against gays, either, and that includes private Catholic business owners. We don't give religious exceptions for everything. Imagine if you checked into a hotel and were told that for religious reasons you would not be served! That would be a violation of public accommodation law. Religious faith should remain private, I agree with that general principle because what a person thinks about eternity or the afterlife, etc, is not relevant in the public square.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you kidding? If we can't talk about the most important things in the public square, what's the use of having a public square?

      Delete
    2. The First Amendment withdraws private religious belief from the regulation of the government and in doing so the Constitution tells us what is and is not properly part of the public discussion.

      Delete
    3. So, you're "okay" with the fact that Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business in Massachusetts and likewise refused a government contract to minister to victims of sex trafficking EVEN THOUGH they were deemed the most effective in helping these victims? Are you really "okay with" losing the Church's influence throughout our culture? You'll be "okay with" less outreach by churches once the government once again deems their involvement inappropriate? I can perfectly support your right to believe what you want to regarding so-called "gay marriage.". What I can't understand is the instinct to declare people of faith as somehow anathema to the American experience. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. How long before teaching my children, within the privacy of my own home, that homosexuality is disordered will be considered first bigoted speech but eventually against the law? Think that's crazy? Ask Scottish parents how they feel about having a government appointed overseer for their children.

      Delete
  4. In France, I might add, even the display of conspicuous symbols of religious belief are either not allowed or are frowned upon in the public square. The French go too far, certainly, but we don't go far enough, in my opinion. Overall I prefer our accomodationist position to the French position, which does border on intolerance of religious opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The French go too far, certainly, but we don't go far enough, in my opinion. Overall I prefer our accomodationist position to the French position

      Oh, that's generous of you.

      Here's the thing, I would be happy to allow ALL displays of belief. I have nothing to fear. But when the government inserts itself into the debate over what is proper for public discussion, there is no way it can make an unbiased decision that is fair to all. Ask yourself, do you think our government would ever intervene in the internal workings of a Muslim mosque? Do you think President Obama would go to Saudi Arabia and exhort religious leaders to close their religious schools as he did recently to Christians in Ireland?

      Delete
    2. Anti-gay speech should be banned in the workplace, even if it's religiously motivated. You can't have some employees telling other employees that they are "disordered." That's hostile speech even though it's motivated by "love." In general I think religious ideas should be left out of the workplace. The workplace is about making money, not saving souls.

      Delete