Guess who takes that view? The answer lies in this document put out by the Catholic Archdiocese of Agana (Guam), criticizing the proposed Guam domestic partnership bill:
The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice. Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A. in particular is the “Great Satan” is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U.S. Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the “Great Satan.” ...
Appalling.
GainesvilleGuest says:
Truly sick.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 3:37 pmHadur says:
Catholic and Islamic doctrine agree on an issue. Catholic officials say that public policy deviating from the Catholic/Islamic view will increase Islamic criticism of the polity that enacts such policy.
It seems correct. The only reason it might be “appalling” is that it suggests that we might care what Islamic fundamentalists think about us.
Apart from Islamic fundamentalists perhaps being distasteful, how is this different from a stirring SCOTUS dissent saying “the majority’s rule will make it easier for [group] to criticize the legitimacy of our institutions”.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 3:44 pmjab says:
What fraction of the Republican base has these sentiments?
Not a tiny amount, I bet... as high as 30%?
Not a majority by any means, but not insignificant either.
(Read again: I am NOT saying ALL or even a majority of conservatives feel this way at all...
but you cannot deny that they exist and influence party politics disproportionate to their number).
Quote
October 27, 2009, 3:47 pmJoe says:
I don’t remember any SCOTUS justices blowing themselves up.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 3:47 pmtroll_dc2 says:
It will be quite interesting to see how conservatives react when asked whether they agree with the Catholic Archdiocese of Guam.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 3:50 pmAnon314 says:
If “homosexual culture” is an expression of a culture of death, what do you call a “culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men)?”
Quote
October 27, 2009, 3:52 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Humorous, really: apparently the Archbishop isn’t aware that what Islamic fundamentalists do to Moslem converts to Catholicism must, by his reasoning, mean that Catholicism inflicts damage on a culture.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 3:52 pmRich in Ohio says:
jab,
Was it the incredibly high turn out of the Republican base that enabled Proposition 8 to pass in California?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 4:50 pmDave N says:
As a conservative, I will field that one. I don’t at all.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 4:57 pmAnderson says:
Dinesh D’Souza wrote a book along the same lines as the Archdiocese’s.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:01 pmGabriel McCall says:
This is akin to praising Dr. Mengele for his rigorous devotion to the scientific method.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:08 pmSteve says:
Has the authenticity of this document been confirmed?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:11 pmDotar Sojat says:
My, that’s just loopy.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:18 pmEugene Volokh says:
Steve: The Guam Pacific Daily News article that I linked to gives quotes that match the document:
This led me to think that the document is indeed authentic, though of course I’m open to contrary evidence.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:18 pmtamerlane says:
The document has two main points: (1) that Islam and Catholicism agree on certain issues of sexual morality, e.g., the repugnant nature of homosexual acts, and disagree on others, e.g., the sinful/blessed nature of suicide bombing; (2) that one reason both orthodox Muslims and orthodox Roman Catholics are at odds with current US culture is because both groups despise that culture’s sexual hedonism and, in particular, the political attempts to foist acceptance of homosexual behavior on the culture as a whole. I don’t think either of these points would be disputed by an unbiased observer.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:20 pmsk says:
Exactly what is ‘appalling?’
1) The base issue is that the archbishop disagrees with domestic partnerships. That view is held by the majority of Americans, the majority of Californians, and is the official policy of the Catholic Church (as well as the Mormon Church. I’m assuming many Church’s hold these views, but haven’t been noticed as such in the news).
2) The rhetorical device– that suicide bombers are at least motivated in part the right way. This view is held by, I’m sure, hardly anybody.
3) The argument-that homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption. This argument is probably held, in a casual, non-thought-out manner, by a significant number of Americans (majority or plurality, who knows-particularly when the vast majority of human beings have never thought in terms of ‘self-absorbtion’, and probably wouldn’t express it in the same way).
Would it be more palatable if he hadn’t used 2) to express 1) and 3)? Or are you appalled by the arguments as well?
Sk
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:20 pmKen Arromdee says:
Look at it this way. If Muslims hate us for homosexuality, then the much-derided slogan “they hate us for our freedom” is correct. Of course, there are all sorts of other freedoms they hate us for too: women’s rights, religious tolerance, etc.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:25 pmegd says:
It’s only appalling if you don’t understand how the Catholic church views sin.
In Catholic tradition, a man sins when he puts his needs and desires before those of God. Blasphemy is a sin because it shows disrespect towards God, placing him below whatever petty problem you’re having. Coveting thy neighbor’s wife is a sin because it means thinking of your own desires as opposed to the desires of God.
One of the key commandments of God is for man to “be fruitful and multiply.” Given that this is God’s will, it’s clear to see why Catholics (and to a lesser extent other Christians) oppose abortion, homosexuality, contraceptives, and masturbation. To engage in any of these acts is to place your own desires and happiness over the desire and happiness of God, and therefore is sin.
Marriage is also understood as a union before God of a man and a woman according to God’s designs. Homosexual marriage is therefore viewed as a perversion of the God-formed relationship, because the sole purpose is to continually live in sin, placing the desires of man before the desires of God.
Many modern Christians (and a lot of Catholics) have abandoned this view of sin, for good or ill, and tend to accept the libertarian idea that there is only sin when you harm another person, or violate an oath given to another person.
Whether this modern development in Christianity is correct or not, is a question for the theologians. Whether customs having their basis in religion should be given preferential treatment by a government is another question. But ultimately, what the Catholic Archdiocese of Agana believes is a religious issue, and should only be relevant to those of a religious persuasion.
If you’re not an Aganan Catholic, why does this person’s views matter? Why let one small segment of a religious order bother you? Either his arguments are important to you, or you believe that this constitutes some form of hate speech. If the former, you’re probably a religious person who should redefine your religious beliefs to conform with your social beliefs; and if the latter, I submit that religious speech should not be subject to judgment of anyone except adherents to that religion. I can’t imagine any reason why this would rise to the level of comment on this blog.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:25 pmJohnF says:
What is the appalling point? Surely not what you headline (“[T]he Islamic Fundamentalist Charge That ... the U.S.A. ... Is the ‘Great Satan’ Is Not Without an Element of Truth”). Taking what Islamic Fundamentalists apparently view as Satanic (again, according to the text you quote), then, yes indeed there is a basis for the view that the U.S. is the Great Satan.
If you find the anti-homosexuality things appalling, that might have made a better headline for the post.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:27 pmSGD says:
I agree that gay Americans are generally self-absorbed. So are straight Americans. Neither is as self-absorbed as American libertarians.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:28 pmSeamus says:
So was is “appalling” when William Lloyd Garrison referred to the Constitution as an “agreement with Hell”?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:29 pmSeamus says:
should be “was *it* appalling”
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:29 pmHey Skipper says:
Would it be more palatable if he hadn’t used 2) to express 1) and 3)? Or are you appalled by the arguments as well?
I’m appalled by 1, 2, and 3, plus every conjunction and all the punctuation.
Hitchens is right, religion poisons everything.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:32 pmsk says:
My suspicion is that the comment is appalling because of the rhetoric-not because of the arguments behind it-because, as many have noted, the arguments behind it are fairly widespread and may even be mainstream.
But the rhetoric-whew!
If the marines had a commercial holding up Islamic fundamentalists as paragons of discipline, that would be equally appalling-even though both marines and fundamentalists put a great deal of value on self-discipline.
It appears that the archdiocese of Guam could use a better marketing department.
Sk
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:32 pmRandy says:
What is appalling about this document is that it gives an approving nod to killing gays. It isn’t just that both religions condemn homosexuality; rather, this document says that Islam represses homosexuality with death. It goes on to say, “It (killing gays) may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice.”
In other words, good for them! Those muslims, unlike the self-absorbed people of the west, take an honorable stand for self-sacrifice and not only kill themselves, but also kill gays. Then it backtracks and says, well, violence isn’t really a good thing. But we can certainly understand why they kill gays — it’s because they undermine their culture.
And the fact that muslims view the US as the Great Satan is based partly on the fact that Obama just signed a hate crimes bill that includes higher penalties for violence against gays. So the catholic church of Guam is now agreeing that there is something to it, that we are indeed something of a Great Satan, only because we deplore violence against gays.
At the very least, this document is saying that gays undermine our culture, and that if other, non-catholics, kill gays, that’s perfectly okay. And understandable. We should all hate gays because of what they are doing to our culture.
And some people really don’t find this appalling?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:46 pmHarryEagar says:
Agana?
Not Hagatna?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 5:54 pmsk says:
“What is appalling about this document is that it gives an approving nod to killing gays. It isn’t just that both religions condemn homosexuality; rather, this document says that Islam represses homosexuality with death. It goes on to say, “It (killing gays) may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice.””
Wow. I hadn’t even read that– I read quickly, and assumed he was only talking about the suicide bombers. Completely missed the — “That is why they repress such behavior by death.” — sentence. You are correct: that really makes it a much much worse statement.
sk
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:01 pmegd says:
Actually...it doesn’t. But way to go vilifying people who disagree with you.
“Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy.”
He argues that violence and homosexuality are equally sinful, and to punish one while embracing the other does not absolve you from being sinful.
Obviously disagreeable, because I’m pretty sure that most people will agree that there is at least a difference in the degree of harm between the two.
I figure most libertarians would view the U.S. as the Great Satan based on the hate crimes bill. Probably for different reasons. As for Muslims, it’s probably pretty low on the list. We’ve been the Great Satan for a while now, and I don’t think new levels of depravity are hurting our standing with those who believe that.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:01 pmBlargh says:
Who knew the Catholics in Guam were so liberal?
On a more serious note: “Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption.” This couldn’t be more untrue. There’s nothing more self-absorbed than believing that your beliefs are so holy and correct that deviation from them by others deserves death.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:04 pmTheBadness says:
And some people really don’t find this appalling?
Speaking personally, the soft bigotry of my low expectations tends to soften my sense of outrage.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:05 pmNeobuzz says:
Dr. Volokh,
Many groups embrace a top-down view of culture. This, perhaps, is a defining quality of associations of individuals with a shared identity. With a top down view, it is always us against them, good against evil. And if being among the evil isn’t bad enough, these groups reserve a special place in their hell for apostates. The quoted commentary is a particularly appalling example of a particularly commonplace way of thinking. I laugh every time I see a “Celebrate Diversity” bumper sticker. Don’t you?
To the extent we do celebrate diversity and thereby earn the Great Satan label, my response would be “Damn straight!”
Yours truly,
Neobuzz
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:07 pmJoseph Slater says:
Anderson beat me to the “Dinesh D’Souza already made this argument” point. It was appalling then, too.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:11 pmLeo Marvin says:
Paging Danger Mouse.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:12 pmLarryA says:
If the statement was just about what the church believes it wouldn’t matter to me. If the statement only called for Guamanian Catholics to behave in a certain way, it wouldn’t matter. Even if the statement called on the church to punish Guamanian Catholics who disagree, I’d let it slide.
But the Archdiocese is calling for retention/passage of territorial laws that regulate non-Catholic peoples’ behavior for those religious reasons, and that’s a violation of the First Amendment. Just because it’s only a few people, and far away doesn’t make it less important to oppose such.
From the article: “Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death.”
That’s talking about Islamic fundamentalists executing homosexuals within the legal framework of their law.
The difference between brutally executing those you religiously disagree with and passing laws that force them to live the way you want them to is one of degree, not of motive.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:16 pmscattergood says:
What exactly is appalling about somebody exercising their freedom of speech and their freedom to exercise their religion, and the press exercising their right to publish the statement, and the people here exercising our rights to see it and comment on it?
Was it appalling when the Nazi’s marched in Skokie? Was it appalling when a Jewish lawyer took up their cause and defended their rights? Was it appalling when Columbia hosted Achmadinajad? Etc.
Freedom is never free. I has to be paid for by allowing the things you don’t like to be heard.
If one thinks what the Bishop said was wrong, please point it out. Do Catholics and Muslims both think that homosexuality is wrong? Yes. Do Muslims think that the USA is the Great Satan because of our embrace of what they consider immoral? Yes. Might Catholics agree with Muslims that the embrace and support of what they consider immoral leads creedence to the idea that the USA is the Great Satan? Yes. Do Christians think that violence is not the answer to such a dilemma while Muslims do? Yes.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:17 pmMax Power says:
Actually, SK, that’s false. A majority oppose same-sex marriage, but that is not the same as “domestic partnerships.” According to recent polling, a majority of Americans does indeed support non-marital same-sex unions:
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:18 pmAndrew M says:
Expanding from egd’s point:
The Catholic Church views homosexual actions as a mortal sin: i.e. you die unrepentedly, and knew it was a mortal sin, and did it anyway, you’re going to hell.
Since, in theory anyway, the Church wants to save everyone, killing gays is rather counterproductive. Granted, the Church views the loosening of morals in Western Civilization as a grave evil, and the homosexual agenda is a major part in this, but condoning violence was hardly the point of this. The point (at least from this Catholic’s POV) is that, for all it’s faults, and for all the evil they are bringing to the world, the suicide bombers show a remarkable devotion to their beliefs.
I think this piece is completely ill-advised, I think the way the point is made is inane, and I think whoever thought that making this comparison was a good idea was seriously retarded, looking at it in the light of the overall Church teaching, it makes some sense.
sk’s points 1 & 3 are pretty much dead on, and point 2 was a retarded was to go about making them.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:23 pmArkady says:
@Scattergood:
You don’t really think that Eugene, as staunch a defender of First Amendment rights as you’re likely to find, is appalled at the expression of the views, do you? If so, you haven’t paid much attention around here.
And don’t you find the implied equation of domestic partnerships with Al Qaeda and the Taliban disgusting in the following?
If not, then I guess you do agree that we are the Great Satan, no?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:33 pmB.D. says:
Apology:
http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910230301
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:42 pmtroll_dc2 says:
So if Christians do not think that violence is the answer to the dilemma, then what answer do they propose? I have noted for some time the reluctance of most angry Christians to go all the way to carry out their beliefs, while the social culture shifts underneath them. If they renounce violence, then what is the likelihood that they will lose the issue almost entirely eventually?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:46 pmBlargh says:
What’s your point again? Nobody is contesting anyone’s right to speak freely.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:48 pmegd says:
My apologies, I meant to quote the following paragraph.
I hope this makes the point clear.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:53 pmAlexia says:
I’m in an area where American Muslims abound, albeit not the radical type, and I’m under the impression that it’s our insistence on meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world, and specifically the Middle East, that give us the “great Satan” reputation. If freedom was the issue, Amsterdam would be history by now.
I’m with Randy though — I see this as a subtle call to execute the homosexuals, which is certainly and absolutely apalling, especially coming from the church.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 6:56 pmEugene Volokh says:
B.D.: Thanks for the pointer, but I think the Archbishop’s statement was an attempt to “clarif[y]” a different letter. According to the article, “Although Apuron released a statement last night clarifying his pastoral letter, it made no mention of this statement from the archdiocese” (that is to say, the statement I quoted above). Or am I mistaken? Please let me know if I am.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 7:08 pmscattergood says:
Um, I’d get your facts straight. The latest ‘hate crimes’ legislation does exactly that. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 provides no religious exception for speech that may fall into ‘hate crimes’ againts ‘actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability’.
We’ll see how Marcavage, et al. v. Rendell will hold in the coming years as more ‘hate crimes’ laws pile on the books
Quote
October 27, 2009, 7:13 pmscattergood says:
Except that’s not all they say. Another D’souza book points this out: http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-about-America/dp/0142003018/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_4
Quote
October 27, 2009, 7:15 pmrichard says:
Leavin aside the merits of the argument (which Professor Volokh aptly describes as apalling), does this Archbishop bozo actually think that he is going to convince people of the correctness of the church’s position in opposing civil unions by praising Islam’s repression of homosexual behavior by death? And I’m sure he, in the spirit of consistency in moral behavior, called for the several priest pederasts from Guam to be executed rather than just transfering them to another parish.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 7:18 pmrichard says:
I’d get your facts straight. The latest ‘hate crimes’ legislation does exactly that. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 provides no religious exception for speech that may fall into ‘hate crimes’ againts ‘actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability’
Except the Matthew Shepard Act does not criminalize speech. It only adds an enhancement if criminal acts were committed as a result of anti-gay bias. Get your facts straight — no one under this law or any law can be subjected to prosecution for expressing anti-gay sentiments (although if they do kill someone like in the case of Shepard, their punishment will be enhanced if the evidence, including speech, indicates that their motivation was the victim’s sexual preference. I think the law is unnecessary but it doesn’t do what you claim it does
Quote
October 27, 2009, 7:23 pmEinhverfr says:
What I want to know is whether the same archbishop said the same thing about the strikes on Afghanistan following the Kenya embassy bombing and Clinton’s subsequent expansion of the death penalty to include (by my reading) DUI-based vehicular homicide at the departure drop-point (for cars) at every major airport in the country. Surely, by Catholic standards such a low bar for the death penalty is far more degenerate than domestic partnerships!
Quote
October 27, 2009, 7:46 pmrichard says:
.: Thanks for the pointer, but I think the Archbishop’s statement was an attempt to “clarif[y]” a different letter. According to the article, “Although Apuron released a statement last night clarifying his pastoral letter, it made no mention of this statement from the archdiocese” (that is to say, the statement I quoted above). Or am I mistaken? Please let me know if I am
I think the apology/clarification was for the pastoral letter of October 15 which, as far as I can tell, WAS the one which has the statement you quoted.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 7:48 pmMark Field says:
Does this make us even more Satanic? On a scale of 1–10, just how Satanic are we now?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 7:51 pmRandy says:
egd” Actually...it doesn’t. But way to go vilifying people who disagree with you.”
REally? I merely quoted the *actual language* of the document.
” any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice.”
Perhaps I’m biased, but I’d say the Bishop said this in an admiring way. AFterall, he states that self-sacrifice is a good thing, as opposed to self absorption.
“Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy.”
Then why not just come out and say that any violence against gays or other people is wrong and to be condemned? I guess he just couldn’t bring himself to that point, eh?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 8:08 pmRandy says:
In response, I’d like to quote a press release from The Homosexual Activist Lobby:
We applaud the statement made by the Bishop of Guam recently. We too believe that most muslim countries have had an islamic culture for centuries. Unfortunately, we have seen that recently people who call themselves Christians have been infiltrating some of these countries in an attempt to make converts to their religion. Unquestionably, this undermines their culture. This is why they repress such behavior with death. Their culture is anything but one of self-aborption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that can produce suicide bombers is to be admired for the strength of their convictions. And it may not *always* be brutal; afterall, a single bullet in the head is really a very humane way to kill people who are undermining your culture.
But despite what we are saying, please don’t get the impression that condone such violence. We hereby officially condemn any violence towards evil people who are trying to undermine anyone’s culture. We point this fact out only because we know that muslims are a violent people. One, however, doesn’t have to agree with their gruesome ways to understand that they merely want to curb the Christians who come from America to understand why they think that America is the Great Satan. And since these Christian missionaries are primarily from the US, there is an element of truth to the fact that we are, in fact, the Great Satan.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 8:19 pmDown from the Ivory Tower says:
When will conservatives stop making common cause with radical Muslims on homosexuality? Some of us have been asking that for years.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 8:32 pmDilan Esper says:
This is a pretty amazing thread. I’d actually like to thank the Catholic diocese in Guam which, like Dinesh D’Souza, follows its ideas to their logical conclusion, thereby producing a situation where a lot of conservative commentators who hate gays and love the Catholic Church’s position on them come to the defense or at least the partial defense of a Church’s casting its lot with Shiite fundamentalism. It certainly is clarifying.
But, of course, I might carry the vain hope that at least some social conservatives might realize from this episode that it might not be such a great idea to line up on the Iranians’ side of the issue of homosexuality.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 8:33 pmBlargh says:
And we’d know that from your original post how exactly? You didn’t mention the hate crimes act whatsoever, in fact it’s pretty clear you weren’t referring to that at all but to the subject of the OP, the Guam Archdiocese. Why not just admit that what you said was content-free, or incomprehensible at best, and move on from there? Also, you are wrong about the hate crimes act criminalizing speech.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 8:40 pmTax the Church says:
Why are we taxpayers subsidizing this rubbish?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 8:41 pmkrs says:
It reads like an Onion article.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 9:15 pmSandy MacHoots says:
You’re not. Unless you’re one of those liberals who believes that every nickel that you have is government property, and that failing to take it away from you is a “subsidy.”
Weirdly enough, Iranians have laws that prohibit breaches of contract, murder, theft, etc., regulate banks, provide for international letters of credit — all sorts of things that I assume both conservatives and liberals would find unobjectionable. The fact that Iranian law provides punishes those who commit fraud does not suggest in any way that America ought to rethink whether we ought to punish fraud.
Lots of people who know nothing about theology assume that they do. The death penalty is bad — it kills people. Advocacy of homosexual relationships, in Catholic theology, can lead others to sin, which is far worse. Your might disagree, but that’s what the Church teaches. Strange as it seems to materialists, the Church has always believed that it’s better for a million innocent children to be tortured to death than that one single soul be lost.
I don’t think he’s praising the killing. I think he’s pointing out that on one doctrime, Islam seems to be sound. I despise Muslim terrorists as much as anybody, but it seems to me absurd to refuse to recognize their strong points. Why shouldn’t the Marines recognize the discipline of their adversaries? This reminds me of the folks who were outraged when Bill Maher pointed out that flying an airplane into a building was evil, but it wasn’t “cowardly,” as if recognizing any virtue in an enemy is bad.
Prayer and evangelism, mostly. It’s worked before.
Who knows? History shows us that things veer from religious to anti-religious. The whole thing could turn around in five years, twenty years, or never.
BTW, I’m disappointed with Prof. Volokh. A snarky “appalling” is well below his usual quality of comment, and he’s apparently refusing to explain exactly what he finds offensive.
We’re used to thoughtful comments. Please don’t turn into Orin Kerr. :)
Quote
October 27, 2009, 9:25 pmDilan Esper says:
Weirdly enough, Iranians have laws that prohibit breaches of contract, murder, theft, etc., regulate banks, provide for international letters of credit — all sorts of things that I assume both conservatives and liberals would find unobjectionable. The fact that Iranian law provides punishes those who commit fraud does not suggest in any way that America ought to rethink whether we ought to punish fraud.
Thank you for missing the point.
Look, I long ago accepted the fact that there are some people who don’t get the difference between breach of contract lawsuits and invidious discrimination and violence against gays and lesbians. But it’s still something of a clarifying experience when people actually admit it.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 9:34 pmGamaliel says:
So,... a lot of you seem to be offended that a Catholic teacher might say something a bit overboard in teaching about morality. You’ve never made an outrageous comparison to draw attention to something important?
The Bishop was being faithful in teaching actual church doctrine. Yeah,...shocking!
Quote
October 27, 2009, 9:36 pmfrissell says:
enhancement if criminal acts were committed as a result of anti-gay bias
Save that “disturbing the peace” is a precursor crime for hate crime enhancement. And since disturbing the peace is vague, such enhancement is sure to reach what should be protected speech. Thus if I shout at members of the Westboro Baptist Church (demonstrating in NJ for the next few days) using anti-straight and anti-Baptist language, I could be punished for DTP with an enhancement. After BHOII signs the Defense Authorization Bill with the Matthew Shepard Act inside, of course.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 9:45 pmRandy says:
Gamaliel: “So,... a lot of you seem to be offended that a Catholic teacher might say something a bit overboard in teaching about morality. You’ve never made an outrageous comparison to draw attention to something important?”
No. I never admired people for killing others in the name of morality. Perhaps you might find that acceptable, but I don’t. Perhaps you think that approval of killing peope is ‘a bit overboard,” but I would say it’s appalling. Perhaps you think that the statement “breaking a few eggs is necessary to make an omelet” in defense of Stalin’s Russia in the 1930s is ‘a bit overboard’ too, but still perfectly acceptable.
And what is the important point? That gays are undermining our culture? Sorry, but that’s not an issue of morality. Now, if you are trying to foment hatred and discrimination towards gays, then I’d say the Bishop was spot on.
Sandy: ” but it seems to me absurd to refuse to recognize their strong points. Why shouldn’t the Marines recognize the discipline of their adversaries?”
Exactly. The Bishop admires the suicide bombers and those who kill gays because they have the courage of their convictions. The difference, though, is that Bill Maher doesn’t claim to be the arbiter of morality, whereas the bishop does.
“he’s apparently refusing to explain exactly what he finds offensive.”
Let me take a guess. Perhaps he is appalled that a person, anyone, would actually say that terrorist muslims have a good point in complaining that gays are undermining their culture?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 9:58 pmGamaliel says:
The bishop made the point that violence was unacceptable. I suspect that includes “killing others”. His point about homosexual behavior IS a subject of catholic moral doctrine. As is just about every facet of life.
Pythagoras had a lot of, uh, interesting theories, still we don’t throw out his contributions to geometry.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 10:15 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Sorry, you made a silly point, which is that our views on homosexuality ought to be influenced by what evil Muslims think about it.
I long ago accepted the fact that there are some people who are incapable of following a logical argument. But it’s still something of a sobering experience when people actually demonstrate it.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 10:28 pmEH says:
Why shouldn’t the Marines recognize the discipline of their adversaries?
Col. Kurtz, is that you?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 10:29 pmRandy says:
Gamelian:
The Bishop clearly states that “Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture.” Therefore, he agrees that gays inflict ‘damage’ to any culture. Of course, one can dispute whether gays actually do inflict any damage to a culture (which is strange, considering that fact that gays have existed within every culture without damaging them, but that’s another story).
He then says further, “Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy.”
Great! So killing gays isn’t so good. But wait! There is the every important *however*: “One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A. in particular is the “Great Satan” is not without an element of truth.”
In other words, we don’t have to go so far as actually killing gays to agree that the US is in fact the Great Satan. And why are they the Great Satan? Because Obama signed the hate crimes law. And why is the hate crimes law so awful? He doesn’t say, but one can certainly surmise it’s terrible because it give hieghtened penalites against people who commite violence against gays!
Now, if he truly is against violence against gays, then the hate crimes law shouldn’t be of any consequence to the Bishop, since *any* violence is bad, right? But he is saying that he understands why muslims are so upset, because we don’t allow violence against gays.
It’s a contradiction, plain and simple.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 10:32 pmSandy MacHoots says:
I simply don’t understand this. If traditional Islamic culture teaches that homosexuality is wrong, wouldn’t public tolerance of gays by definition “undermine” that culture? And if you believe that gays “undermine” our own culture, what does adding this particular reference to the “religion of peace” add to the equation?
Seems to me the arguments are getting very mixed up here. Why not just say that discriminating against gays is evil? That would be a much simpler point to disagree over.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 10:43 pmJohn Moore says:
Why is everyone so exercised over one statement by an anonymous Catholic in the Guam Archdiocese office?
Have you ever been to Guam or looked on a map? It’s a pimple on the rear end of nowhere. There’s hardly anyone there and it’s not exactly a place to understand American culture or, for that matter, Catholicism.
So someone out in podunk writes a silly article correctly stating Church doctrine but in a very poor way, with some very questionable reasoning, and a top law blog in the US is debating it?
Compared to the sort of rhetoric directed at Christians on a daily basis, by mainstream American media personalities, this is pretty tame (if equally dumb) stuff.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 10:56 pmFen says:
Perhaps he is appalled that a person, anyone, would actually say that terrorist muslims have a good point in complaining that gays are undermining their culture?
I’m appalled that he’s appalled.
The concept that homosexuality is harmful to society is hardly risable:
“When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:00 pmCornellian says:
The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity”
Not exactly a shocker that your source, titled “Catholic Education” wouldn’t be willing to admit that the empiricism of Classical Greece or the Enlightenment had anything at all to do with the ascendance of Western civilization. Nope, for them it’s all about sex.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:05 pmRandy says:
Totally agree, it would be much simpler to talk about the discrimination against gays. And if that’s the Bishop’s point, that gays are evil and undermine culture, and are against catholic morality, then why didn’t he just say that? But he didn’t — he went around to agree that Muslims have a legitimate beef against gays, and that’s something that he thinks is a good thing because it comports with catholic beliefs. So, your beef is with him, not me. It is him who mixed up the arguments, not me.
Gamalian: “His point about homosexual behavior IS a subject of catholic moral doctrine. As is just about every facet of life.”
But of course, the bishop didn’t talk about other every other facet of life but limited his comments to homosexuality. If the church were just half as concerned about the poor, the disadvantaged, and the homeless as they are about gays, then they might actually have some moral authority to speak on other aspects of life. But that’s just me. Why they seem to fixated on people like me, I really don’t know.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:05 pmtheobromophile says:
Not knowing where to start with the Archdiocese’s train wreck, I’ll start here:
First of all, blowing up other people is not self-sacrifice; it is murder. Second, if this person understood anything about the Islamic religion, he would know that suicide bombers blow themselves up because their current lives are crappy, their families will be provided for (often), and they will get 72 virgins in heaven.
Last time I checked, killing innocent people so that one can screw virgins in the afterlife is the very antithesis of “self-sacrifice.”
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:09 pmRandy says:
Fen : “The concept that homosexuality is harmful to society is hardly risable.”
Of course. And executing gays is just what the Lord ordered. So what’s the problem?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:09 pmGamaliel says:
Randy: Is there a difference between “violence” and the sort of activities that trigger the hate crimes legislation?
Could this bishop’s letter trigger “hate crimes” sanctions?
The root of the catholic teaching on homosexual behavior, divorce, and other sexual sins is similar. Should a teacher NOT try to communicate what he believes to be true when it is politically out of style?
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:11 pmtheobromophile says:
Randy: while I agree with most of your criticisms about the Church’s take on homosexuality, this particular argument is just plain wrong. Catholics do a tremendous amount to help the poor, disadvantaged, and homeless: in concrete measures, they set up things like Catholic Charities (the slogan of which is “Working to Reduce Poverty in America”). (Here is a link to an overview of what Catholic Charities does.)
Furthermore, something like 1/3d of hospitals in the country (or maybe just MA; can’t remember right now) are affiliated with the Catholic Church. Many or all of them provide low-cost care to those who cannot afford it.
Internationally, many Catholics, through their churches, go on mission trips to other countries, teaching literacy and building facilities for people over there.
Finally, I’m not sure what you think the Jesuit Volunteer Corps does, or if you’ve even heard about it, but, in conjunction with the above, it does a lot to disprove that canard of yours that Catholics don’t care about the poor. Given both the empirical realities and that the Catholic mission is to help the poor and disadvantaged, your canard is just that.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:20 pmArthurKirkland says:
On top of the overload of superstition one must be willing to swallow to be a Catholic, and the degree to which one must avert one’s eyes from decades of systematic criminal conduct victimizing children (and from centuries of opulence from people claiming to take sermons about the poor seriously), Catholicism apparently today adds a requirement of tolerance of gay-bashing to the point of murder.
Believing supernatural stories is largely a benign issue, and I understand why children would accept their parents’ guidance to become Catholics. But I find it difficult to understand how an adult could abide the Catholic Church’s ugliness.
I also fault our society for subsidizing this nonsense. Those who prefer to get their entertainment, child care, education, social life and moral guidance in church should stop shirking and start pulling their fair share of the tax load.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:32 pmptt says:
What is risible is the idea that there would be something called “Western Civilization” that would bear any resemblance to ours without the contributions of gay people, including the generations of “self-absorbed” Fathers, Sisters, and Brothers who have served the Church.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:49 pmLeo Marvin says:
“Screw virgins in the afterlife” raises an interesting question. Does he only get to do it 72 times, after which he has 72 regular wives, or do they stay virgins forever? And how many suicide bombers think to pin something like that down before committing to the deal? I smell clients.
Quote
October 27, 2009, 11:55 pmMark Field says:
Ambulance chaser.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 12:08 amtheobromophile says:
Leo: wouldn’t you (or any man) want a combination? Some that you can teach and some who have sort of a Promethean liver thing going on, just with virginity?
Quote
October 28, 2009, 12:31 amloki13 says:
Interesting question? Pah. Ben Franklin had it right– better to go with the more experienced lasses. I can think of few things worse than 72 virgins. Sounds suspiciously like hell to me.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 12:33 amThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » More on “[T]he Islamic Fundamentalist Charge That … the U.S.A. … Is the ‘Great Satan’ Is Not Without an Element of Truth” says:
[...] blogged an item earlier today about the Catholic Archdiocese of Agana (Guam) for this paragraph in its criticism of [...]
Appalled says:
Those of you who keep asking what’s appalling apparently just don’t get it. If you’re not appalled, that’s your problem. In fact, you people are a bit appalling, as well.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 12:47 amRandy says:
Gamalian: ” Is there a difference between “violence” and the sort of activities that trigger the hate crimes legislation?”
Hate crime legislation is triggered only if there is violence targeting a someone because of their membership of the following groups: Race, Color, Religion, National origin, Gender, whether female, male or intersexual, or Disability. Sexual orientation is now included in that list. I understand some people have a problem with hate crimes legislation as a concept. But if you have no problem with hate crimes for these classes, then surely you have no problem to have gays included.
“Could this bishop’s letter trigger “hate crimes” sanctions?”
Nope.
“The root of the catholic teaching on homosexual behavior, divorce, and other sexual sins is similar. Should a teacher NOT try to communicate what he believes to be true when it is politically out of style?”
He can preach whatever he likes. The bewildering part is that he implies that only opposition to homosexuality is what Catholics and Muslims have in common. But they have plenty more, such as treatment of the poor, the ill, divorce, and so on. Why doesn’t he limit the discussion the homosexuality? Perhaps the muslims are blowing themselves up because of the numerous divorces we have in the US, but he doesn’t even consider that.
Theo: ” Catholics do a tremendous amount to help the poor, disadvantaged, and homeless.”
Absolutely. And on that, Catholics and Muslims have a lot in common as well. So why didn’t the bishop mention that when he talks about the commonalities between Islam and Catholics? This observation only make these comments so out of place.
“Given both the empirical realities and that the Catholic mission is to help the poor and disadvantaged, your canard is just that.”
Well, that depends. In Maine, the bishop there just spend $500,000 fighting gay marriage while closing down several churches due to lack of funds. He has called for an extra passing of the plate to fight gays, but won’t do it for to keep his own churches open. Clearly, his priority is to prevent gays from marrying, even non-catholic ones. In Boston, the bishop shut down the Catholic Charities adoption program rather than comply with a secular law to allow gays to adopt. There hasn’t been a single gay rights law, no matter how mild or limited in scope, that hasn’t been fought by the catholic church anywhere in the US. And these laws almost always exempt churches!
Of course, that is their right. But it’s also my right to point out that fighting gays is consistently a top priority of the church, so much so that they take funds away from other worthy programs to continue the fight.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 1:01 amtheobromophile says:
For heaven’s sake, Randy, your comment was not limited in scope to the Guam issue; it was meant to encompass the entire Catholic community. (That form of bigotry, in your world, is acceptable — intellectual, even. Go figure.)
Yes, you can point to a handful of people within an institution who have not acted, first and foremost, to protect the poor. That does not demonstrate your point, which was a lack of caring about the poor by the entire institution.
What you also fail to understand is that their religion also involves fighting social injustice. That you happen to disagree with their definition of “social injustice” does not mean that they are elevating homophobia above caring for the poor; it just means that they actually take their faith seriously.
Your criticisms of the Church’s actions with regards to same-sex adoption in Boston is beyond asinine; they would be required to ignore the fundamental tenets of their religion to comply with the law. Cripes, Randy, are you that bigoted that you rail on people for actually following their religion?
What you’ve done thus far is to criticise a few members of a religion, ignore the vast amount of good done by the super-majority of them, and rail on people who refuse to let the State interfere with their religious practises. What you have not done is to prove your sweeping generalisation that Catholics (or the Church in general) does not give a fig about the poor or the disadvantaged.
You’re getting called out. Take it like a man.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 1:47 amtheobromophile says:
Churches, Randy, and only churches, and only in the present.
What about women like that photographer in Arizona who was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding? Should the Catholic Church ignore its millions of members and their right to practise their religion because it does not affect the diocese itself?
As “hate crime” legislation proliferates throughout this country, and as much of it could be read to encompass Christian activities, should any religion really stand idly by while people attempt to claim that its members are engaging in a crime by expressing their faith?
As for the present: one only need to look northward to Canada to understand that churches, priests, and nuns may not be forever exempt from the laws put forth today.
As for the past: my alma mater got itself involved in a lawsuit when an openly gay woman was denied the presidency of the student Christian group. Even ten years ago, student groups came under fire for expressing their faith.
Randy, it’s a bigger issue than just whether or not churches will have to perform a gay marriage. To pretend otherwise is wrong.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 1:53 amptt says:
Which fundamental tenets?
As to the Church’s good works, I’ve known quite a few dedicated Catholics, both religious and lay people, who worked hard for the poor and for the Church. A good quarter of them were gay or lesbian. Sneaky folks, us homosexuals, tearing down Western Civ from within...
Quote
October 28, 2009, 1:56 amLeo Marvin says:
As someone with an unshakable commitment to monogamy and a girlfriend who sometimes reads this blog, I have no idea. My curiosity is strictly professional.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 2:11 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “[T]he Islamic Fundamentalist Charge That … the U.S.A. … Is the ‘Great Satan’ Is Not Without an Element of Truth” -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dan McLaughlin, Gabriel Malor. Gabriel Malor said: Is this a joke? Catholic Archdiocese of Guam: “Islamic charge that US is the Great Satan is not w/out element of truth” http://is.gd/4EUO2 [...]
Dilan Esper says:
Sorry, you made a silly point, which is that our views on homosexuality ought to be influenced by what evil Muslims think about it.
No, I made an important point, which is that when you see people who are wrong about a whole bunch of things advocate violence and discrimination against a group of people because of who they are, it might cause you to think about whether your similar beliefs are based on the same hatred and sorry history as theirs. Or maybe that you don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 3:27 amKen Arromdee says:
Sorry, you made a silly point, which is that our views on homosexuality ought to be influenced by what evil Muslims think about it.
This seems to be pretty much the same thing to me, just with a slightly different slant. It still boils down to “bad guy Muslims do it, so that should be our reason to “think about” avoiding it”.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 10:37 amCareless says:
I believe Islamic scholarship holds that the houri, not being human, have virginity as an inherent part of their being, so it’s virgins forever.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 12:36 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Okay, I get it. If one is for an issue, say, universal health care or government ownership of automobile companies, one must be particularly wary if one’s view is shared by really bad people, such as Stalin and Mao and the greatest mass killers and oppressors in human history.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 1:44 pmDilan Esper says:
This seems to be pretty much the same thing to me, just with a slightly different slant. It still boils down to “bad guy Muslims do it, so that should be our reason to “think about” avoiding it”.
Yes, you should think about being on the same side of culture war issues as Shiite fundamentalists. Note that doesn’t mean that one can’t conclude, after thinking about it, that the Shiite fundamentalists are right. But you still should think about it.
Seriously, I don’t think that homophobes think about their prejudices, I mean actually evaluate them, much at all. They just revulse and mistake revulsion and prejudice for rational thought. There’s certainly no self-awareness whatsoever in the Guam Catholics’ statement that some commenters are defending.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 1:53 pmloki13 says:
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I mean, really? And this is *heaven*? Is hell that, plus the mothers-in-law?
Quote
October 28, 2009, 2:52 pmRandy says:
Theo: “That does not demonstrate your point, which was a lack of caring about the poor by the entire institution.”
No. I specifically stated that they do a lot for the poor. What I said was that they have as one of their top priorities is to stop gay rights.
“What you have not done is to prove your sweeping generalisation that Catholics (or the Church in general) does not give a fig about the poor or the disadvantaged. ”
I didn’t do that because I had no interest in doing so. I never said that the church ‘doesn’t give a fig about the poor.” What I said is that discriminating against gays is one of their top priorities. And you haven’t given any evidence to the contrary.
“Your criticisms of the Church’s actions with regards to same-sex adoption in Boston is beyond asinine; they would be required to ignore the fundamental tenets of their religion to comply with the law.”
Really? So preventing gays from adopting children is one of their fundamental tenets? I thought fundamental tenets would be those things that define the church since it’s inception. Since stopping gay adoption is something that has occured only within the last few decades, I can hardly see where that is a ‘fundamental tenet.’
And if it really is, then why did the church actually allow the Catholic Charities actually place children in gay households for many years *prior* to the imposition of SSM in Massachusetts? Yes, they did. So either it isn’t a ‘fundamental tenet’, or it isn, and they choose to ignore for some reason. Either way, it doesn’t speak well for them.
But no one asked them to go against their ‘fundamental tenet.’ There were merely told that either they comply with the law, or if they choose not to, then they must forfeit public funds for their adoption plan. Those were the two choices. Instead, the Bishop decided on his own to shut down adoptions altogether. And this, despite the fact that the Board of the Catholic Charities voted to continue to place children in gay households! (I guess those Board members didn’t get the memo about their fundamental tenets).
So the bishop of Massachusetts preferred to shut down all adoptions of all sorts than continue to place children in any household, gay or straight, as they had done for many years, or to continue to place children but rely only upon private funding. Who is hurt by that decision? The children who need a good home.
So please spare me your lectures.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 11:19 pmRandy says:
Theo: “What about women like that photographer in Arizona who was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding? Should the Catholic Church ignore its millions of members and their right to practise their religion because it does not affect the diocese itself?”
So I guess you are arguing that the church doesn’t have as one of its top priorities to stop gay rights legislation, but that *should* be?
But I like your tactic. You complain that I have singled out just a few people and then used it to paint an unfair portrait of the entire church. And then you do the same. Touche.
“As “hate crime” legislation proliferates throughout this country, and as much of it could be read to encompass Christian activities, should any religion really stand idly by while people attempt to claim that its members are engaging in a crime by expressing their faith?”
Nope. And when that happens, I’ll be on your side. Until then, you are engaging in nothing more than fear mongering against gays.
As for the present: one only need to look northward to Canada to understand that churches, priests, and nuns may not be forever exempt from the laws put forth today.
“Randy, it’s a bigger issue than just whether or not churches will have to perform a gay marriage. To pretend otherwise is wrong.”
Sure is. So I am utterly perplexed when you go so defensive when I say that the church is fighting every single gay rights legislation. Apparently, you approve. But you don’t like the fact that I said it. Please explain.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 11:25 pmRandy says:
One last point: The official Catholic doctrine is as follows:
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
CCC 2358
And it’s been interpreted as such:
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
- “On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons”, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Therefore, if a photographer doesn’t want to shoot the wedding of a lesbian couple, she may have her own reasons, but saying that their catholic faith prevents them from doing is just false. Furthermore, according to the interpretation, no catholic priest should ever have to worry about any hate crimes law, since he would never engage in any speech that would be violently malicious. The church should in fact applaud laws that prevent discrimination against gays because that is clearly part of the mandate.
So, Theo, the church has directed in language clear and plain that, as a fundamental tenet of the church, to accept gays and not discriminate against them. That doesn’t mean that they *have* to allow place children in gay household or support SSM, but it does mean that the church should support, not oppose, anti-discrimination laws.
Quote
October 28, 2009, 11:55 pmbuck says:
I don’t find the document appalling–it is more revealing and typical of the common attitudes in self-absorbed religious communities. What is appalling, however, is the number of VC readers willing to give these moral relativists the time of day. More often than not, it is conservative intellectuals who complain of moral relativism of the Left–quite frequently, arguing from the position that there cannot be moral certainty in any culture that respects differential values of other cultures that conflict with religious values of their own. The reality is quite the opposite–it is religious dogmatics who are willing to compromise on some moral values to protect others, the ones they hold closest to the fundamental doctrine of faith. So, paradoxically, it seems, one has to be a moral relativist to be a moral absolutist.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 3:24 amLeo Marvin says:
buck,
You misunderstand moral relativism. Properly defined, moral relativism is the inverse product of the morality of one’s relatives. My relatives are moral and yours aren’t, so you’re a moral relativist and I’m not. Needless to say, as a moral absolutist I’m qualified to judge whose relatives are moral and whose aren’t, and as a moral relativist you’re not.
Quote
October 29, 2009, 5:05 pmtheobromophile says:
Randy: not true at all re: Catholics in MA would still be allowed to place adoptions, but without state funding. Absolutely untrue. The non-discrimination law was not about state funding. It would have made it tough for CC to get private-sector funding, though, because many private enterprises require that the recipients of their funds comply with state non-discrimination laws.
I suspect that the only reason that gay adoption has become an issue in the past few decades is not because the Church happily gave children to cohabiting gay couples for almost two thousand years and randomly decided to discriminate; it was probably because, before the ‘60s or so, gays got married to people of the opposite sex. That’s a “duh.” (According to The Boston Globe, Catholic Charities of MA placed 13 — approximately 1.5% — children with gay couples over the past decade.)
Quote
October 31, 2009, 8:01 pm