Posts
H/t: Gateway Pundit There is a section of the First Amendment that I often refer to as the "Forgotten Clause." It's brother, the "Establishment Clause" is know by most, and is often quoted from rote memory. But the "Free Practice Clause" is just as important, and just as vital.
We all know that first half, "Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion." But the second half is under assault here today. That clause states "Or prohibiting the Free Exercise Thereof."
Taken together, it is an order to the Government to keep your damn dirty hands out of the Garden of the Church and in the Wilderness of the States, and to leave that damn wall alone, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.
Takayama Ukon, Catholic Warlord of Japan
Statue by Abe Masayoshi
Well, in Conneticut, my beloved mother church is under attack. Raised Bill 1098 seeks to overturn the rule over the church (Which is not a democracy, thank you very much) by Bishops and Priests, and place it in the hands of laymen, who will change policies with the wind, even if it comes in direct violation of Dogma.
This is a patent violation of my First Amendment rights as a citizen of this country, and a violation of the rights of EVERY person of faith in this country. I urge all Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and those who I did not mention (sorry folks, don't have the time to look up every faith, and these are the ones that came to me while writing) to get out there and vote no.
For an attack on one Church is an attack on all Churches, of any faith.
We stand together, or hang apart.
You decide...
1 comment:
In my opinion, this is not only a direct attack on the Catholic Church to rule over itself, but is a method in which to swing wide open the gates to wolves in sheeps clothing. I read last year about a campaign by same sex marriage activists to "evangelize" inside the church, attending Mass and creating opportunity to speak to parishioners about their "views".
This is however much more insideous if it happens: Play the part of good Catholic, get voted onto the board, then begin re-engineering the church from the inside out. Slick. This brand of activism has been carefully choreographed for many years. It would never prevail over the church entirely of course, but would certainly cause greater confusion over church teachings and perhaps turn some faithful away, weakening the homosexual movement's greatest opponent by converting or removing some of its members.
To paraphrase a reviewer of the resource book "Defending A Higher Law" - If you are not sure "...the homosexual movement was a spontaneous reaction or a calculated and gradual process of selling homosexuality to mainstream America" this book "...shows the origins of the homosexual movement, starting with Harry Hay and a handful of committed homosexuals who pushed their agenda with painstaking care to desensitize the public to homosexuality. The book makes this very clear. Since the homosexual revolution could not stand alone, it was ushered in by the media, liberal academia and lax clergy." Only in this case, opportunity will have been legally cultivated to replace the clergy.
Systematically, you will see this is the case. It has happened here in CT with CGA Judicial Committee co-chairs Lawler and McDonald - both openly gay men who were foremost supporters of same sex marriage in CT. Coincidence that they are co-chairs of the Judiciary committee? I doubt it!
Look around - does anyone else notice other mission critical hotspots of influence? Any of our fine institutions of education (especially those perhaps training future teachers)?
One final thought....We have undemocratically had gay marraige thrust upon us, with no chance of overturning the supreme court decision (a very polar split with "dereliction of duty" apparent in the representation of the interests of the State of CT by Attorney General Blumenthal [Google "Blumenthal dereliction" ...hmmmm...) My understanding is that CT same sex marriage law is going to be used as a lynchpin in lawsuits in other states of the union. Could the same approach be in store to support government interference in the Catholic church (and then other religious institutions)if this were to pass here?
Post a Comment