The City of San Francisco recently labeled the Catholic Church to be a hateful organization and engaged in a tirade of anti-Catholic rhetoric. It's not surprising that the City of San Francisco would engage in a childish rant, because the Catholic Church reiterated a theological position it has held for thousands of years. After all, the same council expressed support convicted cop-killers. What is surprising is that the attempt of the City to intervene in a purely ecclesiastical matter was ruled "constitutional" by a Carter-appointed federal judge.
In writing on the case, the federal judge states:
In view of Article IV, section 10, of the Considerations statement, Resolution 168-06 is a measured response. It does not constitute excessive entanglement under existing case law. There is no regulatory enforcement, no law adopted nor other action taken by virtue of the Resolution. It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders. In sum, Resolution 168-06 does not create an impermissible entanglement between government and religion. Because plaintiffs have also failed to establish that Resolution 168-06 lacks a primarily secular purpose or a primarily secular effect, plaintiffs have failed to plead a cause of action under the Establishment Clause.In short, he ruled that the public action of these officials in speaking on religious matters, in dictating that local Church officials should disregard Vatican directives, does not violate the Establishment Clause. Yet, somehow, when a public official prays in Jesus name that "entanglement" is so severe that the entire weight of the federal judiciary must come down upon it. Taking the common interpretation of the Separation of Church and State (despite that is not what it really means), how can this be reconciled? How can the Establishment Clause at once seek to avoid religiously-run states yet simultaneously allow state-run religions?
The court boldly proclaims that it is not San Francisco's fault the conflict occurred. It never is the fault of the person behaving badly.
Wait, I thought there was no entanglement?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement, by its Considerations statement.
Let's do a brief timeline. 33 AD – Jesus dies, the Catholic Church is founded and holds among a great many other things, that Jewish teaching (which is thousands of years old at that point) on homosexuality is valid. 1776 AD – some Spanish settlers come along and found San Francisco. 2006 AD – In inventing entirely new family structures, the City of San Francisco has a foot-stomping temper tantrum that the Catholic Church decides not to change thousands-of-years-old theological doctrines to suit the whims of the City. That's provocation?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - macaca
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel belongs in Communist China or the old Soviet Union.
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Judge Patel would feel right at home here and fit in with the local secular élites just fine (once she learned Hebrew). But we do not need any part of the bitch.
3 - Jerry
Another example of our federal judiciary catering to the whims of secular elites. Every argument is always framed as an attack against the "rights" of victims infringed upon by horrible religious institutions. Institutions which have formed the bedrock of the moral code upon which our Constitution stands.
Social conservatives, or the religious right if you prefer, haven't been attacking anybody's rights so much as defending against the onslaught of progressive/liberal agendas, and the creeping intrusion of an activist judiciary which has systematically pulled apart our historic accepted morals and values.
"If we can just get rid of this God thing, and those God people all the worlds problems will be solved"
I know, most of you will view people of my ilk as the root of America's troubles.
If so, why is it that we have done so well to this point with all these archaic religious social mores?
4 - Baronius
Jerry, I agree. I'll do you one better: who would you trust to handle social work, a religious institution or a city government?
5 - Jerry
My choice is obvious Baronius, however, that would not include the hybrid form, that is faith based initiatives. "A little leaven (Gov't)leavens the whole lump".
6 - zingzing
i can't really argue against the fact that the city of sf stepped over the line here. wish i could. can't.
i mean, the catholic church is still an evil, bigotted organization (at least in this case)... evil because there are kids who want a home, bigotted because prospective homosexual parents can't offer that in this case... but, there's no way that the government should be telling them what to believe, no matter how evil and stupid what they believe happens to be.
i think gay parents should boycott catholic ophanages. best way to treat the situation.
i also believe that the catholic church should put the wellfare of children above their foolish hatred.
7 - zingzing
"If so, why is it that we have done so well to this point with all these archaic religious social mores?"
some "archaic religious social mores" are reasonable. because they are just human decency. some, however, are just blind to reality. those mores that do become archaic need to be dropped, or at least changed to reflect the changing times. not changing with the times will be the end of the church.
8 - Leslie Bohn
To suggest that a religious group is a better choice than a secular charity to provide social services is folly. Anybody read the front page NYTimes series this month, "In God's Name?" The first part details how much worse, for instance, chid care is in religious operations, because they're generally exempt from many of the legal requirement that secular institutions must follow. There are many other examples.
And it must be said that allowing a child to be cared for by priests or other officials from the Catholic Church is completely irresponsible parenting, given that organization's record of allowing kids to be raped repeatedly over the years.
9 - Jerry
I didn't suggest that a religious charity is any better than a secular charity, just that a religious institution is preferable to a typical Gov't program (city Gov't).
Regarding crimes committed by Catholic priests, well they are paying for them. Not all religious institutions engaged in charitable functions can be lumped in with these scandals, but that is a topic for another article.
10 - Leslie Bohn
I ask again if you've read the NYTimes piece, which as I wrote, provides multiple examples across different religious denominations.
Any examples of poorly run city-run charities you're specifically referring to?
And the idea that priests are "paying" for their crimes is a joke, as scumbag criminal rapists like Egan and his ilk walk free. I agree that the Church itself will pay, with the continued witthering of the CC's influence, especially in the US.
11 - Jerry
Calm down Leslie, I'm just giving an opinion.
No I haven't read the piece yet, but it will probably not cause me to believe that the Gov't does a better job than a religious charity.
12 - Leslie Bohn
Well, as long as you don't go into it with any preconceived notions.
In truth, it's impossible to know in any general way who is the more efficient spender of money, provider of services, etc, because religious institutions aren't required to routinely report their finances. That in itself is a good reason to choose a secular charity, which must account for its money.
13 - Leslie Bohn
I ask you again to please cite a specific secular charity you find inefficient or wanting in some way. I've pointed you to a story about a bunch of such religious charities.
I will also direct your attention to Operation Blessing, the "disaster relief" charity run by Pat Robertson, that is actually engaged in bolstering one of Robertson's African mining operations and marketing his diet shakes.
14 - Jerry
And again, I tell you that I'm not trying to compare secular charities and religious charities. I indicated that my choice would be to place more trust in a religious institution engaged in charity rather than a GOVERNMENT institution. I don't believe the Gov't runs charities per se.
If you believe that the NY Times article settles the issue for you once and for all, then so be it.
15 - Leslie Bohn
Oh, so we're comparing religious charities to charities which (you believe) do not exist. So the question is, to you at least, purely hypothetical.
In that case, my answer is: I would trust the charity that was accountable, had to follow regulations, was inspected regularly, filed financial returns with the government, hired its employees and recruited its volunteers from the widest possible net (so as to attract the best talent) and tried to serve all people without regard to their religious affiliation.
And yes, of course that's what I meant by bringing up the Times article: that it's the final word on the topic. I wasn't trying to cite an easy-to-find, popular source read by millions as evidence for my position. I note that you've cited nothing to support yours.
16 - Matthew T. Sussman
"charities which (you believe) do not exist"
The Human Fund?
17 - Jerry
Leslie,
How did I say that secular charities don't exist?
Is the United Way a Gov't institution? You are trying to put words in my mouth, and just want to prove you are right... kinda reminiscent of those reviled preachy bible thumpers.
18 - Jerry
Yo Baronius... Baronius...
Where art thou? Get back here. You started this!
19 - Leslie Bohn
Sir, you wrote that you were "not trying to compare secular charities and religious charities." Then you said you were comparing religious charities to GOVERNMENT institutions (your caps). Then you wrote: "I don't believe the Gov't runs charities per se." I'm sorry if I somehow misunderstood, but I'm honestly not sure what we're comparing here. My point, to be as clear as I can, is that government-licensed services programs are more accountable and hence the best, fairest way to provide social services to people who need them.
Then, you wrote:
"If you believe that the NY Times article settles the issue for you once and for all, then so be it."
And now you've accused me of putting words in your mouth, which I find surprising in light of the above.
20 - Franco
#6 " zingzing
zingsing first sez...
i can't really argue against the fact that the city of sf stepped over the line here. wish i could. can't.
then following a full blown attact on the Church zingzing then sez....
but, there's no way that the government should be telling them what to believe, no matter how evil and stupid what they believe happens to be.
Looks like your making an argument to me and I am proud of you for it. With all your dislike for the Church, you have still hung on to the principles of freedom, and not fallen down in the gutter as Judge Marilyn Hall Patel has done which is a move that is exceeding dangerous to us all..
Good to see red blooded Americans still in the fight for freedom for all.
21 - Franco
#19 " Leslie Bohn
My point, to be as clear as I can, is that government-licensed services programs are more accountable and hence the best, fairest way to provide social services to people who need them.
In your opinion Leslie.
So why can't your be happy with getting your services where ever you want, and let Jerry and who ever else wants to, get theirs from where they want.
Why this concept of individual rights and freedom of choice upsets you so is perplexing.
22 - D'oh
Once again, a full article of pure bullshit.
Did anyone bother to read the pdf file that has the resolution in the first link of this sham?
Basically, it is just a council's injunction admonishing the head of an adoption agency to not discriminate against couples seeking adoption due to sexual preferences.
Due remember that we are talking about a state licensed adoption agency here, which is violating state anti-discrimination laws. THAT is what the resolution is talking about, read it yourself.
As long as any Church takes secular money from the government, and/or holds a government license for anything, they are bound by the laws that are applicable.
No "culture war" here, just a governmental body requiring a license holder to comply with the law.
23 - Clavos
D'oh writes:
Due remember that we are talking about a state licensed adoption agency here, which is violating state anti-discrimination laws...
...As long as any Church takes secular money from the government, and/or holds a government license for anything, they are bound by the laws that are applicable.
True, and agreed. And this knocks into a cocked hat Leslie's theories about religious agencies vs secular ones; since, as D'oh indicates, the religious ones are also licensed by the state and must follow state regulations and laws governing such institutions.
JB writes, in the article:
That's the remarkable benefit of freedom; you can choose to do business with people who share your values instead of being dictated to from on high.
Also true. Therefore:
If the Church does not want to adopt out children to homosexual couples in SFO, it should return its license to the government body that issued it, and, as it did in Massachusetts, cease adoption operations altogether in SFO.
24 - Jerry
I agree that the Church should relinquish their license; too many strings attached to it (I alluded to that in my response to Baronius in #5).
However, I hope that the Church would be able to continue to assist with adoptions for people who choose that route. I don't know the law or if any/all adoption is state regulated.
25 - D'oh
All adoption is regulated, to protect the children from possible abuses.
So it's an either/or proposition. Get rid of the license or comply with the law.
The same goes for all instances where any kind of church gets involved in businesses. This practice is the basis for much of the conflict between Church and State. Anti-discrimination hiring practices that conflict with church dogma is an example that springs to mind.
to Jerry - your statements in #3show just how much some can disagree on the same basic set of facts.
You state, "Every argument is always framed as an attack against the "rights" of victims infringed upon by horrible religious institutions. Institutions which have formed the bedrock of the moral code upon which our Constitution stands.", for example.
Now here's the thing, the rights of the individual are paramount,not any organization or institution, this is outlined in the Constitution as the real bedrock of our nation.
In this case, the rights of people to adopt kids have been clarified so as to not be discriminated against due to sexual preference. The church business did not follow the law, so a city council put forward a resolution stating such,and a court upheld their ability to do so.
So where is the problem here?
Nowhere, except in the minds of those who see this simple following of the law as some kind of attack, when there clearly is none.