Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Vatican’s top judge: Keep kids away from ‘wrong, evil’ gays for their own protection
The former Archbishop of St. Louis and current Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Raymond Burke said in an interview published Thursday that families have a responsibility to protect their children from exposure to LGBT people. Family members or not, he said, people who "suffer from same-sex attraction" are "inherently disordered" and their relationships are "always and everywhere wrong, evil."
Alongside headlines like "My husband divorced me for his gay lover - then took our children" and "Medical Board revokes license of notorious abortionist for severely injuring 18-year-old woman," Cardinal Burke responded to a question by an Australian family as to whether or not their gay son should be invited to the family's Christmas celebration.
Burke - who ranks second only to Pope Francis in the Catholic church's judicial hierarchy - said the family should shun and isolate their son, but in a "calm, serene, reasonable and faith-filled manner." They should do it, he said, because it will harm the family's youngest members to see someone who is LGBT being treated like a normal person.
"If homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered, which indeed they are - reason teaches us that and also our faith - then, what would it mean to grandchildren to have present at a family gathering a family member who is living [in] a disordered relationship with another person?" he asked.
"We don't want our children," Burke said, to get the "impression" that such relationships are normal and acceptable rather than as "gravely sinful acts on the part of a family member."
"We wouldn't, if it were another kind of relationship - something that was profoundly disordered and harmful - we wouldn't expose our children to that relationship, to the direct experience of it," he went on. "And neither should we do it in the context of a family member who not only suffers from same-sex attraction, but who has chosen to live out that attraction, to act upon it, committing acts which are always and everywhere wrong, evil."
The family, he said, must find a way to stay close to their gay or lesbian family member so as to "draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered."
Conservative Catholic organization Voice of the Family echoed Burke's sentiments in a statement that said, in part, "The unqualified welcome of homosexual couples into family and parish environments in fact damages everybody, by serving to normalize the disorder of homosexuality."
British MPs back move to recognise Palestine as a state... but fewer than half attend symbolic vote
MPs last night backed a symbolic call for Britain to formally recognise the state of Palestine. In a landmark move, MPs voted by 274 to 12 to urge the Government to ‘recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel’.
But fewer than half of MPs voted on the backbench motion. And the Government, which abstained, is not bound by the vote.
Formal recognition of Palestine as an independent state is opposed by Israel, and several MPs said it should be granted only as part of a wider negotiation.
Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood said that although the UK supported a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis, ministers would grant Palestine formal recognition only when the time was right. He said the timing of the move was ‘critical’, adding: ‘You can only play this card once.’
Labour has been thrown into turmoil by the issue in recent days, after Ed Miliband indicated all Labour MPs would have to back the call.
But shadow ministers were yesterday told they could stay away from the vote, after some said they were uneasy about backing a unilateral intervention in the troubled Middle East peace process.
The Labour leadership also backed an amendment to last night’s Commons motion from former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, which was designed to draw the sting from the debate. It said that recognition of Palestine – which is opposed by Israel – would be only ‘a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state settlement’.
Some Labour MPs said they had originally been told that a three-line whip had been placed on last night’s vote, which would have forced frontbenchers who disagreed to quit their posts.
A senior Labour source denied this was true and said that although unilateral recognition of Palestine was now Labour policy, MPs who had reservations about the move had been told they could ‘stay away’.
Labour’s Grahame Morris, who called the debate, said the ‘small but symbolically important’ step of recognising Palestinian statehood was the only way forward in attempts to secure a peace deal based on a two-state solution.
Mr Straw said the vote would send a ‘strong signal’ to Israel that Parliament backed a two-state solution. He said: ‘I support the state of Israel, I would have supported it at the end of the 1940s.
‘But it cannot lie in the mouth of the Israel government of all governments to say that they should have a veto over a state of Palestine when for absolutely certain the Palestinians had no say whatsoever over the establishment of the state of Israel.
‘Today’s debate will, I hope, send a strong signal that the British Parliament stands four-square behind the two-state solution set out in the road map.’
Former Tory foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said the vote was ‘premature’ because there were questions surrounding how a Palestinian state could operate in keeping with norms associated with a state.
He said efforts by other UN nations to recognise Palestine had had little impact beyond 24 hours of publicity, adding: ‘I simply say there’s a very great risk that we will today make ourselves feel important, our own frustration will lead us to vote for a motion which will not have the desired effect and will perhaps make the problems that have to be addressed in reaching a two-state solution more difficult to realise.
‘Symbolism sometimes has a purpose, it sometimes has a role, but I have to say you do not recognise a state which has not yet got the fundamental ingredients that a state requires if it’s going to carry out its international functions and therefore, at the very least, I would respectfully suggest this motion is premature.’
Calling a Tail a Leg Doesn't Make It a Leg
The latest leftist assault on common sense and traditional norms brings us to Nebraska, where a training document titled “12 easy steps on the way to gender inclusiveness” instructs teachers at Irving Middle School in Lincoln to avoid using terms like “‘boys & girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention.” The general rule, the document states, is this: “Always ask yourself … ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’”
Ideologically instigated nonsense is more like it. Item No. 5 instructs teachers that when it becomes necessary to reference gender, “[S]ay ‘Boy, girl, both or neither.’” Item 7 instructs them to “call out” and “interrogate” media examples that “reinforce gender stereotypes of binary models of gender.”
Teachers were also supplied with a companion handout from the Center for Gender Sanity,“ was also part of the mix. It depicts a gingerbread-like character replete with four graphs explaining the ranges of gender identity (from women to genderqueer to man), gender expression (female-androgynous-masculine), biological sex (female-intersex-male), and sexual orientation (heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual).
Adding insult to injury, Lincoln Superintendent Steve Joel had the nerve to say, "We don’t get involved with politics.” After the predictable national outcry, Joel was far more defensive, insisting nothing had been “mandated,” adding, “There’s no policy, there’s no procedure, there’s [sic] no changes being made to bathrooms in schools.”
One suspects Joel and his ideological soul-mates were taking their cues from the epicenter of ideological insanity, more familiarly known as California. In August 2013, Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill allowing kindergarten-through-12th grade students to use whichever bathroom and locker room they prefer, as well as the right “to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities” based on self-perception, irrespective of birth gender.
Yet even Governor Moonbeam and his California comrades are a bit behind the curve. At Bellevue College in Washington state, no less than seven gender choices are included in two questions about students' sexuality contained in the school’s application form. They include bisexual, gay, lesbian, queer, straight/heterosexual, other and prefer not to answer.
This New World Order has attendant complications, especially when it comes to sports. A proposal to allow students to play on teams based on their preferred gender rather than the sex assigned to them at birth led to an outcry in Minnesota, temporarily delaying a vote on the policy until December. There’s also been blowback in the world of mixed martial arts. Fallon Fox, a male-to-female transsexual, is currently undefeated and some of his/her opponents have had the temerity to suggest that a former man successfully beating up women might be a tad unfair. One of them, UFC fighter Matt Mitrione, was suspended for “trans-phobic” remarks.
Apparently, acknowledging reality is now considered offensive.
Is anyone truly surprised? With the exception of extremely rare cases of hermaphroditism, there are only two genders: male or female. That such designations raise the ire of leftists speaks to their insidious efforts to impose their anything-goes agenda, even one that kicks nature to the curb. Even history can be “amended” – in 47 states and the District of Columbia, a person can change his or her birth certificate to reflect a sexual conversion.
Moreover, it is an agenda that knows no boundaries. A recent article in The New York Times insists current law with regard to pedophilia is “inconsistent and irrational,” and that it is time to “revisit” categorical exclusions contained in the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that prohibited pedophilia from receiving the same kind of protection afforded other mental disabilities. The writer is gracious enough to separate practicing pedophiles from “inactive” ones and even admits that, in making accommodations for employment, a pedophile “should not be hired as a grade-school teacher.” Yet given the incrementalist march of leftist insanity, one might be forgiven for thinking such a restriction might be temporary at best.
The doyens of “social justice,” who not only expect tolerance but approval of their agenda – with all the attendant contempt and vituperation aimed at those who dare to resist – will inevitably demand nothing less.
In Nebraska, the effort to deny gender instructs teachers to “Create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet at the rug.” They’ll have to do better than that: Penguins themselves are both male and female. Perhaps “amber amoebas” would work. Or perhaps Americans uninterested in having their children marinated in such a despicable garbage will remember a relevant quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Marriage Is Still Being Argued in the States
In Juneau, Alaska, voters are hoping the Last Frontier doesn’t become the final frontier for redefining marriage, as a fresh round of arguments kicked off in federal court [Friday] morning. For locals, the case is especially meaningful since Alaska was the first U.S. state to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Like so many leaders, Alaska’s are determined to keep fighting. “The definition of marriage,” it insists, “is an issue for the states and the will of the voters of each state should govern – regardless of whether the federal government or a federal court agrees.”
Elsewhere, governors and local officials are trying to contain the chaos of runaway judges, who seem intent on skirting the higher courts and green-lighting same-sex “marriage” licenses in counties where it isn’t legal. In South Carolina, the state Supreme Court tried to put the brakes on the ceremonies – at least for now. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a handful of cases, county judges tried to take matters into their own hands, only to run into the brick wall of state Attorney General Alan Wilson, who urged the state’s high court to intervene (which it since has).
In Missouri, voters weren’t so lucky. Their chief law enforcer, state Attorney General Chris Koster, is refusing to defend Missouri’s laws. But not for long, if House Speaker Tim Jones has anything to do with it. He and his colleagues in the state senate say they’re weighing their options to go around Koster, if necessary, and stand up for the rights of the 72% of Missourians who defined marriage a decade ago.
In nearby North Carolina, the controversy stings more than most, since the ink is barely dry on the constitutional amendment voters passed in 2012. Like his counterpart in Missouri, House Speaker Thom Tillis is pulling out all the stops to shield his state’s law. Tillis’s actions are particularly encouraging, as liberals do their best to paint North Carolina’s battle as a lost cause – in part because its sister state in the case, Virginia, is already issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses. As far as Tillis is concerned, nothing is impossible with one of the top legal teams in the country, led by renowned attorney John Eastman. He and his allies are ready to go to the mat for marriage in the Carolinas, where Eastman is convinced the Supreme Court’s word is not the final say.
“Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision to block the overturning of Idaho’s marriage ban is a pretty strong indication that this is not resolved,” Eastman told reporters. To this notion that states have to take their cues from more liberal states, he says hogwash. “I find it particularly troubling that in North Carolina, the attorney general says he is bound by a Virginia decision, a case in which his state had no say.” These are “concessions,” he explains, “that no reasonable attorney would ever make. We will not be making those concessions.”
Neither should the GOP. While the RNC, governors, senators, and plenty of state officials are drawing a line in the sand on marriage, plenty of House leaders have yet to speak up on an issue that continues to poll on their side.
Governor Mike Huckabee is just one of the conservatives sick and tired of their spinelessness. “I am utterly exasperated with Republicans and the so-called leadership of the Republicans who have abdicated on this issue when, if they continue this direction they guarantee they’re gonna lose every election in the future,” he warned. “If the Republicans wanna lose guys like me, and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either. Because at that point, you lose me, I’m gone. I’ll become an independent, I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand, I’m tired of this.” Trust me, Governor Huckabee is not alone.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.