Monday, March 3, 2014

Gee, I wonder what settlement the gaystapo will impose...

Ross Douthat on the gay marriage tsunami and the gaystapo:

[T]he press coverage [of the Religious Freedom bill], which was mendacious and hysterical — evinc[ed] no familiarity with the legal issues, and endlessly parrot[ed] the line that the bill would institute “Jim Crow” for gays. (Never mind that in Arizona it’s currently legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation — and mass discrimination isn’t exactly breaking out.) Allegedly sensible centrists compared the bill’s supporters to segregationist politicians, liberals invoked the Bob Jones precedent to dismiss religious-liberty concerns, and Republican politicians behaved as though the law had been written by David Duke. 
What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage’s inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don’t get to negotiate anymore
Which has a certain bracing logic. If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible, applying constant pressure to religious individuals and institutions will probably do the job. Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform. 
I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution. 
But it’s still important for the winning side to recognize its power. We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.
Douthat is much more complacent about the "settlement the victors will impose" than I am. I am a more defiant sort, and I sure as hell won't collaborate with the gaystapo. This is a very serious matter-- the rise of gay fascism is the most serious cultural and legal challenge our nation has faced since we defeated segregation, and this is no time to collaborate with manifest evil. Douthat already does-- you don't work at the New York Times without bending over. Douthat has to insert gaystapo-approved tropes to get published in the New York Times. Again:
"Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.)"  So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution. 
Bullshit. Obviously there have been situations in which Christians (and everyone else) have been cruel to gays. Everyone has been cruel to everyone, at one time or another. Nothing Christians have done comes anywhere near the cruelty Muslims still show to gays, yet the Gaystapo and its public relations firm is silent as a Charlie Chaplin film about Muslim executions of gays. It's being without cake, rather than without a head, that seems to matter most to professional gay victims. Christians are subjected to gross persecution by gays for not baking a wedding cake. Muslims who execute gays are-- well we have to respect their faith, now, don't we?

Christianity demands that we treat all sinners (that is, each of us) with love and respect, and treating sinners with love and respect of course precludes enabling their sin. To love and respect an alcoholic or a drug addict is to discourage, not abet, his addiction. To love and respect a homosexual is to discourage, not abet, his sin.  

If we Christians had been more emphatic about the sinful nature of male homosexual behavior over the past half-century, instead of abetting it as "sexual freedom", perhaps we could have spared more of our gay brothers and sisters the horror of AIDS and the squalor and sadness of lives spent in promiscuity and gross sin. And we would have helped save souls.  

And, speaking of persecutions, gays have of course persecuted others as well, on a massive scale that dwarfs anything ever done to them. Don't forget that the SA-- the Nazi Brownshirts/Storm Troopers-- was a homosexual organization, led by a bevy of dominant homosexuals like Ernst Rohm

Fascism has long had a particularly strong appeal to homosexuals, as Johann Hari points out in the Huffington Post. 

We Americans are going to get a much more clear understanding-- a more first-hand understanding-- of homosexual fascism in the next few years. 

52 comments:

  1. They're going to accuse you of "whining," of being hyperbolic. But you're not, Dr. Egnor. Please don't stop speaking. Homosexuals are not fighting for their rights. Whatever threat there was to their rights, if such a threat ever existed, is gone now. Society does not hate them. Society hates ME, hates YOU, hates anyone who stands up against these bullies.

    Homosexuals are fighting to suppress the rights of others. And they are winning.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The true whiners are the homosexual bullies. They always win and they always humiliate those who dared to oppose them. Inexplicably, they are still somehow victims.

      Everyone lines up to kiss their asses, none more so than corporate America. But not just them. Federal, state, and local governments too, non-profits, professional associations even some churches.

      The Torch

      Delete
  2. Don't forget that the SA-- the Nazi Brownshirts/Storm Troopers-- was a homosexual organization, led by a bevy of dominant homosexuals like Ernst Rohm.

    Funny. However, compared to the Roman Catholic Church, the SA was as straight as an arrow. Homosexual orgies are apparently a matter of daily routine in the Vatican. Did you know that the prevalence of AIDS among RCC priests is four times that of the general public?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Show me some evidence for that.

      The Torch.

      Delete
    2. This is funny:

      In the same vein, such priests routinely gloat about the fact that gay bars in big cities have special "clergy nights," that gay resorts have set-asides for priests, and that in certain places the diocesan apparatus is controlled entirely by gays. What is significant is that these are not claims made by their opponents, not accusations fired off by right-wing Catholics in a fit of paranoia; rather they are gays' words about gays themselves.

      From a Catholic source. Enjoy!

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 3, 2014 at 8:14 AM

      Assuming the hearsay and rumor reported in the source Troi cites is correct, the source also tells you that

      Like their secular counterparts, Catholic liberals, even where they do not positively applaud the sexual recreations of gay priests, are willing to overlook the resultant embarrassment in order that a more important end may be served--in order, that is, that gays may remain as active members in the Church to assist them in their project of replacing ecclesial authority with personal experience as the norm determinative of authentic faith.

      That statement is exactly to the point that Egnor makes: "If we Christians had been more emphatic about the sinful nature of male homosexual behavior over the past half-century, instead of abetting it as 'sexual freedom', perhaps we could have spared more of our gay brothers and sisters the horror of AIDS and the squalor and sadness of lives spent in promiscuity and gross sin."

      Delete
  3. The parallel universe you live in sounds horrible.

    In this universe, though, there's constant discussion of the persecution of homosexuals in Muslim countries. Google it. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/world/africa/nigeria-uses-law-and-whip-to-sanitize-gays.html?_r=2 ; http://www.economist.com/node/21546002 etc etc etc.

    And as for the 'the Nazis were homosexual', that's as ridiculous as saying they were Jewish. The Nazis persecuted - in the actual sense, not the baked goods sense - homosexuals, rounded them up and exterminated them. If you want to compare and contrast the ways mid twentieth century fascism dealt with Catholicism (and vice versa) versus homosexuality, we could play that game, if you want.

    Keep spreading lies and nonsense, though. You're a fantastic resource for demonstrating the level of sheer offensive, easily-refuted nonsense your brand of Christianity fuels itself with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nazis persecuted homosexuals, and everyone. That doesn't mean that the SA wasn't a homosexual organization, which it was.

      Stalin was the most prolific killer of Bolsheviks in the 1930's. That doesn't mean Stalin wasn't a Bolshevik.

      Delete
  4. "perhaps we could have spared more of our gay brothers and sisters the horror of AIDS"

    I feel the same about American Catholic priests, who have four times the HIV infection rates of the general population. If only they lived in an environment where they could be open about their sexuality, and if they were using condoms.

    Meanwhile, the number of lesbians who've never slept with a man or used intravenous drugs with HIV ... it's probably not even 100 people. If you want to avoid HIV - and a lot, although not all, of the STDs - then lesbianism is the way to go.

    If HIV was 'God's punishment', Mr Egnor, it would be clear evidence that he's keen on lesbians and not so keen on priests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think that HIV is God's punishment. God does not cause evil. He loves each of us, and wants us to know and love Him.

      HIV is behavior's consequence.

      Delete
  5. What does the sexual orientation of Catholic priests have to do with a post on persecution of Christians by homosexuals and the propensity of homosexuals to work for fascist causes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What does the sexual orientation of Catholic priests have to do with a post on persecution of Christians by homosexuals and the propensity of homosexuals to work for fascist causes?"

      Logically, if you want men to be 'spared the horrors of HIV', you should be discouraging them from becoming Catholic priests. Do you?

      Delete
    2. It is male homosexual behavior, not ordination, that is causally associated with HIV infection. You need to bone up on your biology.

      Delete
    3. "It is male homosexual behavior, not ordination, that is causally associated with HIV infection. You need to bone up on your biology."

      No, it's a lifestyle choice: men, living together in an collegiate environment that hushes up sexual misbehavior and discourages the use of condoms.

      A friend of mine went to seminary, he says it was like living in a gay porno.

      Delete
  6. OK ... Ross Douthat's clearly right. This war's won. Gay marriage is now a legal reality, and the attempts to rule it unconstitutional have backfired spectacularly. More to the point, this is clearly not a handful of activists gaming the legal system: the majority of the American public just don't have a problem with gay marriage, and the majority of Americans who aren't keen don't rank it as a serious concern for them.

    No doubt, when the Catholic Church has its tax affairs looked into, bishops will claim this is some kind of payback from the gay community. And not because of the staggering levels of corruption, fraud and dodgy accounting that have been uncovered.

    I would like churches to lose their tax free status. I would like them to be treated like any other organization - their charitable work, like McDonalds' charitable work, would be treated differently from their business arm. More to the point, their finances should be as transparent as any other business.

    But it won't happen. 'Being treated the same as everyone else' is 'persecution' if you're a Christian organization with plenty to hide. And the Catholic church is the third most generous lobbyist group in the US, with the Mormons, Israel and various Prot groups not far behind.

    So ... what do people think will happen now gay marriage is a reality? The 'cake wars' nonsense (if you can't even win a *cake* war, do you really think God's on your side, here?) ... what's the practical effect?

    There are people here who really seem to think that Nancy Pelosi (devout Catholic) or Kathleen Sebelius (devout Catholic) or Joe Biden (devout Catholic) or the Supreme Court (six out of the nine are devout Catholics) will be going into cake shops, disarming the owners and forcing them to ice cakes on pain of ... what, exactly?

    If that was an actual threat, I'd be on the barricades with you.

    But it's really not, is it? What do people actually think will happen? Paint a picture.

    ReplyDelete
  7. [No doubt, when the Catholic Church has its tax affairs looked into, bishops will claim this is some kind of payback from the gay community. And not because of the staggering levels of corruption, fraud and dodgy accounting that have been uncovered.]

    Tax exemption of churches will be the next target, probably predicated on "non-discrimination" standards. Churches that refuse to do gay weddings will be stripped of tax exemption.

    [I would like churches to lose their tax free status.]

    I'm sure you would. Any kind of anti-Christian persecution seems fine with you.

    [I would like them to be treated like any other organization - their charitable work, like McDonalds' charitable work, would be treated differently from their business arm. More to the point, their finances should be as transparent as any other business.]

    Churches are religious organizations, not businesses. If churches are businesses, not religious organizations, then you'll have no problem with allowing close business-state relationships, which already exist. Out goes the "wall of separation", if churches are really just businesses. So Obama can have the bishops over to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, just like the CEO of GE. The Church can engage in politics-- donate to candidates, campaign from the pulpit, protected by the Citizens United decision.

    Hmmm...

    [But it won't happen. 'Being treated the same as everyone else' is 'persecution' if you're a Christian organization with plenty to hide. And the Catholic church is the third most generous lobbyist group in the US, with the Mormons, Israel and various Prot groups not far behind.]

    Sources for your claim?

    [So ... what do people think will happen now gay marriage is a reality? The 'cake wars' nonsense (if you can't even win a *cake* war, do you really think God's on your side, here?) ... what's the practical effect?]

    The practical effect is loss of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

    [There are people here who really seem to think that Nancy Pelosi (devout Catholic) or Kathleen Sebelius (devout Catholic) or Joe Biden (devout Catholic) or the Supreme Court (six out of the nine are devout Catholics) will be going into cake shops, disarming the owners and forcing them to ice cakes on pain of ... what, exactly?]

    Devout Catholics?

    [If that was an actual threat, I'd be on the barricades with you.]

    I don't want you anywhere near me.

    [But it's really not, is it? What do people actually think will happen? Paint a picture.]

    Vendee 1793 Mexico 1920. Spain 1936. Poland 1970.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [But it won't happen. 'Being treated the same as everyone else' is 'persecution' if you're a Christian organization with plenty to hide. And the Catholic church is the third most generous lobbyist group in the US, with the Mormons, Israel and various Prot groups not far behind.]

      > Sources for your claim?

      By asking for that, you're assuming I'm wrong, of course, that it's an absurd suggestion. That the Catholic Church wouldn't be spending millions on something as dirty as lobbying Washington.

      http://www.pewforum.org/2011/11/21/lobbying-for-the-faithful-exec/

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120399270

      The Church lobbies, Church shell groups lobby, 'right to life' groups funded entirely by the Church lobby. They spend tens of millions a year buying politicians and influence.

      How do you think they've kept those tax advantages? How do you think they've come to dominate Supreme Court appointments? Merit? Coincidence?

      Remember the bit in the Bible when Jesus spent millions lobbying the Romans? It's like that.

      Delete
    2. "Vendee 1793 Mexico 1920. Spain 1936. Poland 1970."

      OK, good.

      I would like to be able to show how entirely wrong you are. You've made a prediction. Let's nail that prediction down, give it a timescale. When do you think America will look like Poland 1970? Next week, next year, five years from now?

      Here's what I think will happen: broadly nothing. I think gay people will be able to get married. That you'll get the occasional online fuss when some bigoted business owner refuses service, but that guy won't be prosecuted or fined or punished by the government in any way. Locals may end up boycotting that store ... well, that's up to the locals, isn't it? Are you proposing government bailouts for businesses that suffer when their owners say something offensive? No.

      America will look exactly like it does now, but some of the gay couples who live together will have a piece of paper saying they're married. Next week, next year and five years from now.

      You've worked yourself up into a silly fuss. Five years from now, the Catholic position will be 'oh, it's no big deal' and ten years from now they'll have found some loophole and will be offering blessings.

      That's my prediction. All we need to do now is check back next week, next year and five years from now and see who was right. Will the 'gaystapo' massacre tens of thousands of people (Vendee)? Will the homosexual lobby have seized the farms of dissenters (Mexico)? Will we see big gay tanks rolling into Catholic churches (Poland)?

      I say no, you say yes.

      March 3 2019. If one of those things has happened, I will come onto this blog and say you were right, and I pledge to convert to Christianity. I will sell my house and donate the money to the Church.

      If none of those things has happened, I would like you to donate $1 to Planned Parenthood.

      Deal?


      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 3, 2014 at 9:01 AM

      Jem: "the Catholic church is the third most generous lobbyist group in the US, with the Mormons, Israel and various Prot groups not far behind"

      To set the record straight, yes, the Church and other religious groups do lobby Members of Congress. But Jem's risible claim (remember consecrated wafers and Amazon?) is addressed here by opensecrets.org.

      Jem: "Remember the bit in the Bible..."

      If I need to know anything about the Bible, Jem, it won't be you that I ask. No offense.

      Delete
    4. "If I need to know anything about the Bible, Jem, it won't be you that I ask. No offense."

      Quick question: what's the nicest thing Jesus ever said about a priest?

      Delete
    5. "But Jem's risible claim"

      https://www.au.org/church-state/january-2012-church-state/people-events/report-says-religious-right-and-catholic

      The Conference of Bishops is one of the biggest lobbyists, 10 of the 15 biggest religious lobbyists are Catholic groups.

      Tens of millions a year are spent directly lobbying politicians. Buying them.

      If you're the Bible expert, where in the teaching of Jesus does it say paying off politicians is the Christian thing to do? The same part of Jesus' teachings where he talks about the Papacy, gay marriage and abortion, presumably.

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 3, 2014 at 9:49 AM

      Jesus is a priest, Jem. Check Hebrews 5.

      See what I mean?

      Delete
    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 3, 2014 at 10:00 AM

      Jem, you're failing to understand the difference between an organization's budget and the portion of that budget they spend on lobbying. Opensecrets.org, who know far more about this than you or I and who use data supplied by the Federal Election Commission, report the largest lobbying interest groups on the link I supplied. You can take it or leave it. If you prefer your ideologically-blinded ignorance, fine. Go munch another consecrated wafer you bought on Amazon.

      Delete
    8. "Go munch another consecrated wafer you bought on Amazon."

      I'll send some to you if you like, you can let me know if they're consecrated or not. You never explained how to tell the difference.

      As I say, I had a friend who went to seminary.

      Delete
    9. As a military expert, Admiral, do you think the US will look like Vendee five years from now?

      Delete
    10. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 3, 2014 at 10:13 AM

      You're feeling petulant. I suppose I can understand that, given the "veracity" of your recent comments.

      "do you think the US will look like Vendee five years from now?"

      No. I think it will look more like Detroit.

      Delete
    11. "Boggs 1
      Jem 0"

      I said the Catholic Church spends tens of millions a year lobbying, he linked to a site saying that it does. If you want to score that to him, feel free, it's hardly the most egnorgregious example of your lunatic, reality-denying view of the world.

      You win this one, Boggs. I guess that means they'll repeal all the gay marriage legislation.

      Delete
    12. @Jem: "Here's what I think will happen: ...the occasional online fuss when some bigoted business owner refuses service, but that guy won't be prosecuted or fined or punished by the government in any way."

      Care to place a wager on that, sir?

      JH

      Delete
    13. "Care to place a wager on that, sir?"

      Madam. And I already did.

      Delete
  8. I sort of like the idea of treating churches like businesses. There's no "wall of separation between business and state". The Church could be like Solyndra, propped up by politicians it has bought off.

    There are a half-million churches in the US, each of which could become a cog in the business-government nexis, campaigning, donating, lobbying, preaching voting for specific candidates from the pulpit. Churches could be for conservatives what labor unions are for liberals-- inexhaustible manpower and money for conservative politics.

    What's not to like...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 3, 2014 at 8:50 AM

      I believe you said that tongue-in-cheek, doc, but it's an idea worth seriously thinking about. Remove the political speech handcuffs imposed by the tax exemption and let the churches roll. They've done that to a large extent with black churches by lax enforcement of the tax code, and it's worked well for them.

      In fact, there's already a significant movement afoot to do just that:

      The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching Biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits on October 5, 2014.
      --- SpeakUpMovement.org

      Delete
    2. Egnor: Churches could be for conservatives what labor unions are for liberals

      You assume that Catholics are predominantly conservative. That isn't necessarily so. In the 2012 presidential election, Catholics were almost evenly split between Obama and Romney, with a slight preference toward Obama.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM

      You're absolutely right about Catholics, Hoots. However, I think Egnor meant "churches" in a more general sense. For example, on today's gay marriage topic, many, if not most, black churches strongly oppose gay marriage. Same is true for Pentecostals and Southern Baptists. The churches most likely to support gay marriage are the fringe nondenominationals and the Mainlines (who are shrinking at what they consider to be alarming rates). The Mormons Church is, I think, opposed, but they aren't a Christian church like the ones mentioned above. And, of course, Orthodox Jews are, well, Orthodox Jews. You like to quote Leviticus and so do they. :-)

      Delete
    4. Hoots:

      Catholics who know where their church is located are a very different group than "Catholic", and heavily vote conservative.

      Delete
    5. A bald assertion is not a convincing argument.

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. 'Catholics who know where their church is located are a very different group than "Catholic", and heavily vote conservative.'

      Nope.

      http://ncronline.org/news/catholics-america/religion-and-political-affiliation

      Second summary paragraph says that's false.

      Perhaps NCR aren't true Catholics? There are people commenting on there who think Pope Francis isn't really a Catholic, so I guess anything's possible.

      You get to pick one: Catholicism's either just loons like you, or it's a vast Church. It's *either* the Church that contains 25% of Americans, *or* it's just the extremist faction of that.

      You don't get both. You don't get to claim that you're a silent majority and then to dismiss the opinions of the majority of people who are Catholic. You don't get to count the Hispanics when it boosts the numbers, but to demonize them when you talk about the looming threat to the white race. You don't get to say you're a minority politically because you don't count any of the Democrats who believe in magic biscuits that are actually Jesus.



      Delete
  9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 3, 2014 at 8:24 AM

    Jem: "Nancy Pelosi (devout Catholic) or Kathleen Sebelius (devout Catholic) or Joe Biden (devout Catholic)"

    :-D

    What part of "devout" and "Catholic" don't you understand?

    I guess they're "devout Catholics" to the extent that Bill Clinton is a "devout Southern Baptist".

    For the record...

    devout: devoted to religion or to religious duties or exercises (Merriam-Webster)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. America 2019 - the brave forces of the Glennbeckistan Navy face the pink tanks of the Muslim-Homosexual Alliance, led by Supreme Commander Pelosi.

      IT WILL HAPPEN. ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS THE MAD ONE.

      Loons.

      Delete
  10. I used to think that the gay rights movement had something to do with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I'm not that naive anymore.

    My uncle is gay, and though he's not as militant as many I've met, he still thinks that his nephew (me) is a bigot who needs to be reformed. What he wants more than anything is approval and when he doesn't get it he thinks his rights are being violated.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  11. A nice dissection of the tactics Ross Douthat used in that article, and the weasel words he uses.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/03/ross_douthat_religious_liberty_homophobia_is_more_acceptable_than_racism.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. Its not that threatening. its simple.
    The gay agenda and those who support it WANT a moral conclusion, 80% of the pop or so, that homosexuality is okay morally and healthwise and is not contemptible or any different then anyone else.
    Its not about marriage or assisting gay events etc.
    Its about moral right and wrong.
    They want america to be as accepting of gayism as Europe etc.
    Its a moral conclusion cause.
    This is what we should aim at.
    insist and demand that its morally wrong and contemptible if we think so in our numbers. They can't live with hundreds of millions of yanks thinking/seaying/teaching gayism is morally wrong.
    Court or political victories will not satisfy.
    Many people hostile or laugh at homosexuality easily can agree with gay marriage. its a trivial point to them.
    Strike on the moral issue and not the practical and then hold or take back territory on these issues of marriage.
    the country can not and will not remain divided on this issue. one side must prevail morally. Either most say okay or most say its not not okay or not settled.
    We can win in North america but remember the easy going kindhearted general population. They can swing both ways on how to look at it.
    THe establishment and rich etc want it and expect to win.
    morality and not mere legislation of minor points.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually, how would operating on a 'for profit' basis be bad for a church? Most churches have funding problems, and don't make much if any 'profit'. So every year a church would file it's business tax return, demonstrate a net loss, and owe - nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So every year a church would file it's business tax return, demonstrate a net loss, and owe - nothing."

    The law has changed in Italy and Spain, and the Catholic Church owes three billion a year in Spain.

    In the US, they own about a hundred billion in untaxed property. If they'd paid taxes since 1980, there wouldn't be a national debt.

    Archbishop Tim Dolan lives in a palace in Manhattan with a $60,000 bathtub. He recently said that spending $200M on cosmetic repairs to St Marks was a better use of funds than feeding the poor of his diocese. He, of course, was promoted after coming up with the cemetery fund scam.

    I don't think people really understand just how much of a money making machine religion can be. As the old saying goes, if you don't think religion's a scam, find a picture of the house where the head of your religion lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you have citations for your claims? I couldn't find a THING concerning Dolan's alleged 60K bathtub. Cites please?

      Delete
    2. "Of course you have citations for your claims?"

      Of course.

      You think I'm wrong. Would you care to wager? If I can provide a source detailing the extensive renovations of the Archbishop's residence behind St Patrick's Cathedral, demonstrating that Timothy Dolan lives in luxury, would you be prepared to make a $1 donation to NRA Pro-Choice America?

      http://prochoiceamerica.giftplans.org/

      As a sample, here's Cardinal Dolan telling how he tried to talk a millionaire out of donating to the poor and to spend the money on his Cathedral:

      http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/the-new-cardinal-takes-on-an-old-cathedral/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

      If you doubt that priests line their own nests at the cost of the poor and needy ...

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/nyregion/a-church-so-poor-it-has-to-close-schools-yet-so-rich-it-can-build-a-palace.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

      No doubt Cardinal Dolan's words were quoted, by him, out of context and the retirement palace is just the mainstream media making stuff up and not covering the real stories. Don't they know there's a cake war on?

      Delete
    3. Jem, you do realize, don't you, that property taxes are not Federal, but County taxes? Having property taxes on church property wouldn't do a thing about the Federal debt.

      Delete
    4. Jem, I read through the first piece you linked. Haven't time for the second. Thanks for the links.

      I don't see anything about at 60K bathtub. I see an effort by Dolan to restore St. Patrick's as part of his vision of placing the Church in a position to minister to the world.

      People do need beauty. It is medicine for the soul. So more power and money to Dolan to make St. Patrick's a place for people.

      When I read that Progressives have denounced the construction of marble walled palaces for EPA bureaucrats in favor of housing them in quonset huts then I may listen to this sort of complaint.

      Delete
    5. And, do some math here Jem. 200M for a city of 8.337M works out to $24.00 per person. Not a bad investment. A work of architectural beauty and significance for the price of three sandwiches.

      And your tax calculation is suspect. There are something like 100K 'churches' in the USA. Let's say they each average out to five acres of property with improvements. If taxed at our residential rate here in Texas (abt. 3K per acre) that would bring in about 6.5B. Not anywhere close to wiping out the debt. Math is hard, isn't it?

      Delete
    6. Last of all. The 'New York Times'? THAT'S your authority? The paper of Walter Duranty, Herbert Matthews and Jayson Blair? That New York Times?

      Delete
  15. Doubt we will get any replies from Jem. Appears she has sconkered.

    ReplyDelete