Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:56 AM Apr 2015

U.S. Bishops (Who Lit Religious Liberty Fuse) Urge Civility

http://religiondispatches.org/u-s-bishops-who-lit-religious-liberty-fuse-urge-civility/

BY PATRICIA MILLER APRIL 8, 2015

With the flames still smoldering after Indiana’s bruising fight over the limits of “religious liberty,” the Catholic bishops are calling for calm, temperate discussion—in the culture war fight they ginned up in the first place.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan discussed the Indiana controversy in what’s become his annual Easter appearance (with MTP apparently under the impression that he speaks for all believers). Dolan, who was president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops when it began its “religious liberty” drive, professed that the bishops’ organization had nothing to do with creating a fervor around the issue:

I welcome the fact that the question about religious liberty is in the forefront. We need that. We didn’t put it there. We believers didn’t put it there. The Founders of our nation did.


Except it’s pretty clear that who “put it there” was the U.S. bishops. As the New York Times reported, the philosophical roots of the “religious liberty” issue in its current incarnation can be traced back to the 2009 Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto issued by Catholic, Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox religious leaders, including some 50 Catholic bishops, who forswore cooperation with laws sanctioning same-sex marriage or abortion.

It was they who recast “religious liberty” beyond its traditional meaning to include the right of individuals and institutions who disagree with “a right to kill the unborn” and “engage in immoral sexual practices” to “express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions” in the public square:

…such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments … We see it in the use of antidiscrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business.


more at link
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

muriel_volestrangler

(101,295 posts)
1. Being civil would include selling catering, florist etc. services to people without judging them
Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:06 AM
Apr 2015

or rejecting them. The whole purpose of this 'religious liberty' charade is to allow people to be uncivil whenever they like.

TexasProgresive

(12,157 posts)
3. These laws remind me of signs commonly posted in stores.
Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:44 AM
Apr 2015

I was a child the signs read, "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"

There never were any black people in these establishments. After a while I made the connection that ANYONE meant black people. These signs seemed to have disappeared after the Civil Rights Act signed by LBJ. We can hate Johnson for escalating the war in Vietnam but we should love him for this one thing.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
4. They weren't that subtle in the south. The signs said "whites only".
Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:55 AM
Apr 2015

The catholic church was much more split when it came to AA civil rights than they are about GLBT civil rights.

LBJ has many positives in his legacy and the civil rights act is one of them.

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
5. Ooooo...an appeal to Civil Religion.
Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:58 AM
Apr 2015
The Founders of our nation did.


Maybe that will carry more authority?




cbayer

(146,218 posts)
6. Good answer. It's the bishops and others that have taken this way past where
Sat Apr 11, 2015, 11:07 AM
Apr 2015

the founding fathers wanted it to go.

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
7. Uncle Sam is a True Scotsman.
Sat Apr 11, 2015, 11:21 AM
Apr 2015
Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam is the national personification of the United States, and sometimes more specifically of the American government, with the first usage of the term dating from the War of 1812. The American icon Uncle Sam, who embodies the American spirit more than any other figure, was in fact based on a real man. A businessman from Troy, New York, Samuel Wilson, whose parents sailed to America from Greenock, Scotland, has been officially recognized as the original Uncle Sam. He provided the army with beef and pork in barrels during the War of 1812. The barrels were prominently labeled "U.S." for the United States, but it was jokingly said that the letters stood for "Uncle Sam." Soon, Uncle Sam was used as shorthand for the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_American



Uncle Sam was based on Samuel Wilson

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»U.S. Bishops (Who Lit Rel...