Category: +Religion

Judge’s Ruling Out Of Touch With Reality

A Boston judge recently ruled that calling someone a homosexual when he is not does not violate slander or libel laws.

In her ruling she stated:

“In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community.”

That’s nuts.

In the interest of furthering the homosexual agenda the judge has relied upon an idiotic theory of jurisprudence that would place judges in the position of philosophers. For her argument to work one would have to assume that judges should decide whether saying something about a person is objectively good or bad. This is not the job of a judge. In a slander or libel case it does not matter what the objective status of an accusation is as long as it is false and would hurt the person it is made against.

Suppose I live in a community that believes being a Martian is a bad thing. Someone then accuses me of being a Martian, when I am not. People in the community then begin to react negatively toward me, refuse me service, deny me jobs, reject doing business with my firm, etc., all because I have been falsely accused of being a Martian. In such circumstances, I should be able to sue the person who falsely accused me of being a Martian in order to get compensation for the harm that the false accusation has done to me and my reputation. It does not matter whether being a Martian is a good, neutral, or bad. The point is that someone falsely accused me of something that has negative effects on me and my reputation due to the way people react to it.

The fact is that in our society people frequently react negatively to calling someone a homosexual. Whether one approves of that or not, it happens, and judges should not prevent people from seeking legal redress of the wrong when they are falsely accused of being homosexual.

This idiot judge’s ruling would put judges in the position of adjudicating cases not based on whether a person suffers due to the making of a false charge but on whether the false charge refers to a thing that is objectively bad.

I’m sorry, but determining the objective moral status of something is a job for philosophers and theologians, not Massachusetts judges, regardless of the divine prerogatives they seem to believe they possess.

Judge's Ruling Out Of Touch With Reality

A Boston judge recently ruled that calling someone a homosexual when he is not does not violate slander or libel laws.

In her ruling she stated:

“In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community.”

That’s nuts.

In the interest of furthering the homosexual agenda the judge has relied upon an idiotic theory of jurisprudence that would place judges in the position of philosophers. For her argument to work one would have to assume that judges should decide whether saying something about a person is objectively good or bad. This is not the job of a judge. In a slander or libel case it does not matter what the objective status of an accusation is as long as it is false and would hurt the person it is made against.

Suppose I live in a community that believes being a Martian is a bad thing. Someone then accuses me of being a Martian, when I am not. People in the community then begin to react negatively toward me, refuse me service, deny me jobs, reject doing business with my firm, etc., all because I have been falsely accused of being a Martian. In such circumstances, I should be able to sue the person who falsely accused me of being a Martian in order to get compensation for the harm that the false accusation has done to me and my reputation. It does not matter whether being a Martian is a good, neutral, or bad. The point is that someone falsely accused me of something that has negative effects on me and my reputation due to the way people react to it.

The fact is that in our society people frequently react negatively to calling someone a homosexual. Whether one approves of that or not, it happens, and judges should not prevent people from seeking legal redress of the wrong when they are falsely accused of being homosexual.

This idiot judge’s ruling would put judges in the position of adjudicating cases not based on whether a person suffers due to the making of a false charge but on whether the false charge refers to a thing that is objectively bad.

I’m sorry, but determining the objective moral status of something is a job for philosophers and theologians, not Massachusetts judges, regardless of the divine prerogatives they seem to believe they possess.

Vatican Ambassador Reportedly Makes Mistake

A correspondent writes:

“The Guardian” reported that the papal nuncio to Spain, Msgr. Manuel Monteiro de Castro, suggest that that nation should recognize same sex unions although not as marriage!!! Is this true?

I checked out the original Guardian story, and it looks like it’s accurate in its main details (though it’s phrased in the hostile-to-Catholicism manner that is so blatant in British newspapers).

Still, one would want confirmation from more than one source, so I did some checking and found lots of similar stories, especially in homosexual news sources. However, they’re all dependant on The Guardian as a source, so we don’t have independent confirmation. I also check some Spanish news sources, but couldn’t find anything.

My guess is that the story may be accurate but still too new to have generated enough collateral stories for me to turn them up easily.

I suspect that the pope’s spokesman, Navarro-Valls, will get asked about this and we’ll have confirmation or disconfirmation soon. Also, if the guy really said what he’s reported as saying, there may be disciplinary action.

I’ll keep y’all updated as I learn more.

——-

UPDATE!

Thanks to a reader posting in the comments box below, I was able to find a Spanish-language story from Europa Press linked on Amy Welborn’s site. Here’s a quick translation:

The papal nuncio in Spain, Monsignor Manuel Monteiro de Castro, said today that the legalization of homosexual unions is totally against the doctrine of the Church. With this declaration he forestalled the matter declared by the Alsina Forum of diocesan priests of Gerona, which has been in favor of the legalization of unions of people of the same sex.

Shortly after attending the inauguration of the Plenary Assembly of the Episcopal Conference, Monsignor Monteiro told a group of journalists that “homosexual unions are totally contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Such position (the legalization of these unions) is clearly contrary to the position of the Church.”

Monsignor Monteiro insisted that the family is constituted by a man and a woman, as is recognized in the Codes of Civil Justice of Spain and the remaining countries of Europe. “Marriage–I emphasize–is between a man and a woman. It is good that other forms of cohabitation are are recognized, but they are not the same thing. That is to say, marriage is to be what it has always been known as marriage and the other forms [of union] are not to have this name.” However, the nuncio showed his esteem for these people (the homosexuals), which he said the hierarchy of the Church also tries to help in their spiritual life.

My Spanish is a bit rusty, and I had to render part of the last paragraph a little idiomatically in English, so if anyone can provide a better reading, e-mail me.

This story ambiguates the situation somewhat, as the opening section makes it sound as if the Monsignor was opposed to legal recognition for all homosexual unions. However, note that in the second paragraph the phrase “(the legalization of these unions)” is added by the Europa Press writer. The Monsignor may have been expressing moral opposition to the unions but not legal recognition for them. In the next paragraph the Monsignor is quoted as saying that “It is good that other forms of cohabitation are recognized” (if I have translated correctly) but that they are not the same as marriage.

The new text adds ambiguity, but unfortunately it still is not clear to me that he took a line opposing all legal recognition for homosexual unions. Let’s hope that he did and that this will swiftly be established.

Curse of the Black Widow

Participated in a debate today. It was a tightly-structured panel discussion at Southwestern College here in the San Diego area. The topic was homosexual "marriages," and the participants were me, a law instructor, a psychology instructor, and a lawyer from the ACLU who was also a lesbian. The debate largely turned into a discussion between me and the lawyer lady, with a little input from the others.

It went quite well. The main arguments of both sides got put forward, we had a chance to rejoin each other’s arguments, threw in some humor, and got the audience engaged (as illustrated by their applause after telling points were made). I’m going to try to contact the lawyer lady and thank her for a good debate. (She got out of there very quickly after the event.)

In preparing for debates and major interviews, I try to "game out" the discussion ahead of time in my mind. (This can cause problems, because it can leave me awake in bed at 2 a.m. twisting arguments around in my head, but that’s an occupational hazard; it’s what you have to do to get the job done right.) Today’s debate was the first one I’ve done on homosexual "marriage," and the first occasion I’ve had to debate homosexuality in a number of years, so for a day or two ahead of time I gave myself a mental workout on the subject.

One of the arguments I was particularly concerned to have a solid, snappy answer for is the claim–which was sure to come up–that homosexuality exists in the animal world and that this makes it "natural" for humans as well. This is an argument that must be convincingly rebutted, because otherwise it undermines the natural law argument against homosexuality, leaving only a religious argument, which in the present, secular public sphere is doomed to fail.

Since it is true that animals do sometimes display homosexual behavior, the obvious rejoinder to the "animals do it too" argument is that just because animals do something, that doesn’t mean it’s good for humans to do. This answer has the benefit of being true, but stated in that form it has the detriment of being boring. It’s not a "grabber," and it smacks too much of your parents saying, "If all the other kids wanted to jump off a bridge, would you jump off too?" That kind of argument probably caused you to stop paying attention when you were a kid, and the same danger presents itself here. It doesn’t matter how true the rejoinder is; if it isn’t presented in an arresting manner then the audience will stop paying attention and won’t take it seriously.

So I ruminated on the charge, and in the wee morning hours, the answer revealed itself to me. I had a good, snappy way of presenting the argument that would grab the audience’s attention and force them to take it seriously. Here’s what I came up with, and ended up using in the debate:

It’s true that some animals do display homosexual behavior, but that doesn’t mean that it is morally justified for humans to engage in it.

Black widow spiders try to kill and eat their mates after copulating, but I assume that you’re not in favor of that among humans.

Further, in many species copulation amounts to rape. A male will capture and force himself on a female. Or sometimes a group of males will do it. I also assume that you’re not in favor of that among human beings.

The fact is that humans, of all the creatures on earth, are rational beings aware of the moral dimension of their actions. For this reason alone (and there are other reasons), you cannot point to the existence of something in the animal kingdom and say that it is therefore justified among humans as well.

The audience really responded to this. The black widow line alone got a huge laugh. I think even people on the other side of the issue were laughing. After the point was made, there was a big round of applause in acknowledgement of its force.

There was no judging of the debate and no announcement of the winning side, but after the event a gentleman from the audience came up to me and said that he overheard some in the audience who were in favor of "gay marriage" saying of me "Man, he’s killing them (the folks on the other side) with these arguments." Perhaps that was one of the ones they were thinking of. . . . (Shrug.)

Ferro Lad: The Encyclical

So, the other day I was pondering one of the enduring questions, which as been discussed by many eminent Catholic theologians: If Ferro Lad of the Legion of Super Heroes was a papal encyclical, which one would he be?

I think the answer is clear: Ferro Lad would be Mit Brennender Sorge.

Mit Brennender Sorge was a 1937 encyclical issued by Pope Pius XI as an attack on Naziism.

It was surreptitiously brought into powerful, seemingly-unstoppable Nazi Germany and then unexpectedly read from the pulpits of every Catholic Church, where it would be most effective, and bearing the date of Passion Sunday.

It condemned the inhumanity of the Nazis, including their racism, which eventually led to mass genocide.

The name “Mit Brennender Sorge” means “with burning anxiety,” which expresses the concern that the Holy See felt about the actions of the Nazis.

You can see how this all parallels Fero Lad’s situation.

He had to slug Superboy so that he could save Superboy and everyone else by surreptitiously entering the powerful, seemingly-unstoppable Sun Eater and then unexpectedly detonate the payload he was carrying where it would be most effective, on the date of Ferro Lad’s own death (passion).

Like Mit Brennender Sorge, Ferro Lad stood against the inhumanity of the Sun Eater, including the mass genocide that its continued advance would have led to when it ate Earth’s sun.

Finally, Ferro Lad undertook his actions with burning anxiety for all the people of Earth, who were so threatened by the inhumanity of the Sun Eater.

And fortunately, he succeeded, though at a terrible price.

Here are a few panels from Ferro Lad’s heroic last moments of life . . .