Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Just what we've come to expect


A Catholic bishop in northeastern Pennsylvania got his panties in a twist because of last night’s scheduled appearance of Keith Boykin at Misericordia University. You see, Boykin is a gay-rights advocate, and Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino says Boykin’s beliefs are “disturbingly opposed to Catholic moral teaching.” Boykin was scheduled to discuss Proposition 8, the ballot measure that banned gay marriages in California, at least temporarily. He was brought to the college by the Misericordia Diversity Institute, which, according to the Associated Press, is “dedicated to promoting multicultural understanding and eliminating discrimination.” The school issued a statement saying it is committed to its Catholic mission, but also to its academic mission of exploring ideas “critically and freely.” Good for Misericordia. I have a couple of questions for Bishop Martino: Are the church’s teachings so weak that the church fears students will abandon them solely because they are exposed to an opposing viewpoint? Do you advocate not even trying to gain a better understanding of those who are different from you, or do you favor ignoring those people and hoping they go away? For your sake, bishop, I hope it’s not the latter, because pretty much as long as there have been humans on Earth, there have been gay humans. You say that Boykin’s beliefs are “disturbingly opposed to Catholic moral teaching.” I would say that the church's "teachings" are disturbingly opposed to reality and equality, and that they’re not the least bit moral. Gays and lesbians aren’t going anywhere, Bishop Martino, but your church’s shameful "teachings" certainly should.

Labels:

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haphazard application of the church's teachings is the hallmark of most religions. The Catholics and Evangelicals just do it better than most.

February 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical anti-religious rant from Brant. Brant, the church has a right to its stance. I hope you realize that in your desire to tear it down.
Really, it grows old. I am sure that your "choir" will join in your defense. But for many of your readers that appreciate your straight forward talk on other issues, this grows tiresome.
Does not the church have a right to oppose something? Is that not the very essence of free speech? Why does it have to change because of others desires?

February 23, 2009 at 8:21 AM  
Blogger Brant said...

I may be beating a dead horse, in your opinion, but I'm going to keep beating that horse very time some religious official who should be preaching love and understanding instead preaches divisiveness and retardedness. I'm not trying to prevent the church from taking a stand or speaking its piece. I'm just pointing out how stupid and hateful it is. Why, really, does the church waste its time fighting homosexuality. Just because of the writings of a bunch of long-dead guys in an ancient book? Or are they just a bunch of old, white guys who fear anyone who is different from them. Or are they, themselves, trying to hide their own homosexuality by coming out as stridently anti-gay. Maybe we should ask Larry Craig or Ted Haggard or Congressman Foley, etc., etc.

February 23, 2009 at 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Crappy response as usual Brant. Since the writings are the basis of the religion, they should ignore them as spoken by an atheist.
Being against something from a religious standpoint does not mean someone is hiding their sexuality. It has become another copout comment by lazy intellectual arguments.
Either you believe in freedom or you don't. Obviously, religion is full of hate for standing for its belief system according to you. Of course, no one seems to notice the "hate" that bellows towards those of faith.
You really can't have it both ways.
It is also interesting to see one that does not follow a faith condemn faith for not preaching "understanding" as defined by one that is not an adherent.

February 23, 2009 at 2:55 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

Alright... let's put "getting along" aside...

I charge that the Catholic Church is culpable in the deaths of millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa and also culpable in the orphaning of hundreds of millions of children in the same region. They have billions of dollars at their disposal and if they used that money, along with their influence as a leading religious entity in the region, they could effectively stop the spread of HIV through the simple advocacy of condom use. However, they take a stand staunchly opposed to contraception, and thus enable an entirely preventable disease to kill millions. If you can go to hell for worshiping a golden cow, certainly you can go to hell for allowing these people to die... no?

February 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

I am an absolute believer in freedom of religion. I also believe absolutely in freedom FROM religion, and I find it interesting that organized religion is often a font of prejudice, hatred and intolerance. They can believe whatever they want, based on any "good book" they please. But I'm also free to express my opinion that they are morally wrong on this issue.

February 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way, the Catholic church just OK'd the practice of granting indulgences in some cases. I wonder if they'll let rich gays buy their way out of purgatory faster?

February 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't hate anyone of faith. Even atheists have faith that there is no god. All I ask of anyone of "faith" is that you leave me alone to practice -- or not practice -- my faith. I'm tired of whiners on both sides of the theological fence.

February 23, 2009 at 6:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home