This is a rather long post, but I believe it is important to understand the legal basis for the soon-and-coming persecution. Below are excerpts from a speech given by US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, before the UN gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, on December 6, 2011. It was given in honor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights first approved by the UN in 1948. The unique aspect of this speech was that the promotion and legal defense of gay rights must be a necessary response to the Declaration. I will be quoting excerpts from the speech and then making commentary. It is important to note that there is good in much of what Ms. Clinton states; however, it is the underpinnings of her logic that should be the basis for our concerns. …with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them. And again: Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community...we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity. Hillary is here emphasizing that human rights have their source in our common humanity. They are a birthright. Governments do not confer them, but do have the responsibility to protect them. I see two inherent dangers developed here. First, a consistent emphasis throughout the speech is that human rights are inherent at birth. Her silence about the rights of the unborn is ominous, but expected. Second, God isn’t mentioned at this point in the speech. He is not seen as the One who bestows either life or rights. Who, then, does confer them? Below, she speaks of a global consensus. Rather nebulous, don’t you think? I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere…perhaps [the] most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. In addition: …with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights. At this point in her speech, the Secretary of State places religious and cultural values in opposition to LGBT rights. In her thinking, human rights are inviolate while religious belief is shifty, unworthy of trust. Ms. Clinton, from our perspective, now drives home a rationale for persecution: ...we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing. Also: Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all. We can clearly see that Hillary would consider the Catholic teaching against a homosexual lifestyle as intolerable and even complicit in standing against LGBT rights. Notice that she endorses not only the dignity of homosexuals but their behavior as well. In addition, Ms. Clinton implies that while we may believe as we please, government may limit our ability to act upon that belief. And below we might construe a subtle endorsement of same-sex unions. There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love. Finally: Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well…Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. In closing, Ms. Clinton constructs her own Last Judgment. Those who stand for gay rights are just and deserve honor. Those who would oppose the imposition of homosexual freedoms without constraint are wrong. Can we not hear in her call for further work in this “just” cause, the basis for legal sanctioning of those who would oppose the promotion of such rights. ______________________________________________________________ In summary, the Secretary of State claims that: 1) Human rights have their source in our common humanity and are realized through global consensus. God is not in the equation. 2) Governments have the responsibility of guaranteeing human rights, of which one is gay rights. 3) Religious belief is often backward and an obstacle to establishing these rights; therefore, gay rights trump religious liberties. 4) Catholics and others of good will are wrong in their opposition and legal steps may be taken by the government to limit our ability to act upon our religious convictions! Lord have Mercy! O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you!
Excellent synopsis Mario - we are heading for a full on frontal clash of cultures. The UN and global governments are becoming Fascist before our eyes. We must stand firm as souls are at stake.
Ms. Clinton was simply referring to Southern preachers at the time of the Civil War who attempted to use the Scriptures to justify slavery. She infers that since no one would attempt to justify slavery today, Holy Writ is unreliable. Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
Our local bishop, who happens to be of African American descent, gave a wonderful homily at our Pro-Life Mass this weekend. He wondered if politicians today would say things like: "I am personally opposed to slavery but the majority of my constituents do and I must represent them and not my own beliefs"
The slavery mentioned in the Bible was not slavery as we know it but a form of 'indentured servitude'. Many Irish people did this at the time of the Famine to get a passage paid to America - in return for the fare they agreed to work 4 or 5 years for an employer receiving shelter, food and a minimal allowance. Once the years of service were completed they were free to work wherever they wanted.
Yes Mario. Succinctly put. Would you care to go further and rebut. I'm looking for an argument that has some hope of appealing to a non-aggressive atheist. What i mean by 'can you help ' is that i am mightily persuaded by the argument put forward by Ms Clinton. So i for one am helpless to argue against someone who uses her argument on slavery. And if i can't do that i am in a sense silenced to oppose the rest of the argument.
I don't believe that to be true, and i don't think very many in our church would believe this either. If you can point me towards some evidence.
My, how times change in the Democratic party. History tells us that it was the Democrat's and the Democratic party that clung to and defended slavery in the USA. Al Gore's own father fought to maintain slavery as did most in the Democractic party. I never heard where the Catholic Church ever supported slavery, nor did Jesus in any of his words. This is so typical, for Hillary to denounce the slavery that her own party fought tooth and nail to subsist. Hypocrites at the very least they are.
Servant, slave, handmaid were all synonomous in Christian scripture. There have always been slaves, but never was it condoned by Christ or his Church. There has always been Christian persecution as well, but I have not heard one word from Hillary or anyone else in the Democratic party suggest that they are bigoted this way. They are truely hypocrites working for the devil.
Well it is something at least, that the Catholic Church at the time of the slave trade in America didn't support it (i will myself be attempting to confirm that) whereas the 'southern preachers' did. But go back further and the Catholic empires of Spain and Portugal.
Here are some quick articles on the topic: The Popes and Slavery: Setting the Record Straight http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM Slavery, by Father Most http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SLAVERY.HTM The Church and Slavery http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm Deconstructing the "Bible Endorses Slavery" Meme http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/30/slaverymeme/
Wow! That's what a call a BIG article. Plenty for me to digest. Thank you very much. Rain : Thank you very much too. All the given sources were not found when i did a cursory internet search for myself. I particularly like that last one. I shall quote part of it. I made bold the last sentence quoted. Let it stand as the raising up of a mirror in-front of me. One of the more fashionable responses to any Christian’s objection to the legalization of “gay marriage”, or for that matter, any objection to anything blatantly immoral in modern society, is to immediately announce that since the Bible (allegedly) endorses slavery, anything it has to say on any moral issue is completely irrelevant. I suppose the argument goes something like this for most people in their heads: “so your Bible says that (insert the sin you want to justify here) is immoral, eh? Well let me tell YOU something: The Bible says slavery is moral. (Premise 1) Slavery, as we all (allegedly) know is immoral. (Premise 2) Therefore the Bible endorses something that is immoral. (Premise 3) Therefore, the Bible is not a legitimate source of moral arguments. (Conclusion)” Have I got that right? I think I do. So let’s deconstruct these premises and demonstrate why this ever-so popular argument is really just another lazy, uncritical, decontextualized, factually-deficient and hypocritical canard. In the first place, we ought to concede what we can. I initially used the word “allegedly” above because I don’t believe for a moment that most of the people who throw this accusation around have actually studied Scripture or the historical context in which these statements on slavery appear. I don’t think they really know what Scripture has to say about slavery. That being said, yes, we must grant that slavery is not condemned in Scripture; it is recognized as a legitimate social institution for which rules must be developed and applied. But if that is all one knows or says about the topic of slavery in Scripture, then one knows very little indeed. Some may think that this is all they need to know; in their righteous crusade, things like context mean nothing. With all the zeal of the iconoclasts, whom they would ironically identify as enemy religious fanatics, they rush in with rhetorical sledgehammers swinging wildly at any textual object that displeases them, hoping to use the fragments to gut and impale their helpless opponents. We have granted the first premise then. What about the second premise? This is where I have a hearty chuckle. Most of the time we are dealing with militant, sometimes even radical atheists or at least anti-Christians who have absolutely no rational justification for their own conceptions of what is right and wrong. These people are almost entirely products of the society that produced them, unconscious idea-sponges who in spite of their pretensions to the contrary have never had a critical or original thought in their lives. Pasted from <http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/30/slaverymeme/>
Obama in his inauguration speech yesterday: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” It's coming folks, it's coming...
