Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Apparently liberal anti-Christian hatred isn't just confined to the Left Coast

I would draw attention to the second image on this page, the one with the man in the clerical shirt wearing the "ignore the poor" button. If the Minnesota Democratic Party had the intention of attacking one specific Protestant minister then perhaps they should have chosen an image that singled him out specifically. As it stands, this ad appears to be an attack on all conservative clergy and is therefore inexcusable. Liberals attack conservatives who use bigotry to gain votes, for them to turn around and stoke the flames of anti-Christian hatred for votes in hypocrisy at its worst.
Apparently the whole Establishment Clause thing only protects religious beliefs that liberals agree with

The sad thing is that this isn't even surprising. This is the Ninth Circuit, after all, the court that never found a liberal violation of the Constitution that it couldn't excuse or a conservative opinion that it couldn't quash. Nobody should be surprised at San Francisco's bigoted condemnation of the Catholic faith, considering the anti-Catholicism that has come out of that city in the past. I'm sure that the establishment in that city was quite hostile toward Cardinal Levada when he was Archbishop and quite happy when he left, now of course they're upset that his successor has proven just as immune to their corrupting influence and so they're looking for a way to justify discriminating against him and his flock.

Any impartial observer would have to admit that San Francisco's resolution violates the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment doesn't only prohibit the government favoring a particular religion, it also clearly forbids discrimination against a particular religion. If any liberal denies that they would reject the Council's action if it involved any other religion, think about what the response would be if some city in the conservative part of California passed a resolution condemning the Episcopal Church's vocal opposition to Prop 8. Better yet, think how people would react if San Francisco's City Council condemned the anti-gay marriage beliefs of Muslims or Orthodox Jews. It is a fact of life that anti-Catholicism is a permissible bigotry, not even considered a bigotry by many, and that Catholics are attacked in ways that few other groups would be forced to endure. People may attack Muslims for the actions of a few that are not supported by the many, but this comes from an ignorance of the typical beliefs of Muslims where the attacks on Catholics come from knowledge of our universal teachings and are therefore attacks on the integrity of all the faithful. Hopefully the Supreme Court will hear this case and instruct the Circuit Court to revisit their decision, otherwise we may see many more of these "no Catholics allowed" resolutions by liberal cities in the future. I'm very grateful that I don't live in San Francisco right now, because the Council has sent a clear message that Catholics don't have freedom of worship within city limits, and I am also relieved that I don't live under the jurisdiction of the obviously biased Ninth Circuit. New Jersey is quite liberal, but I haven't heard anything about Newark or Camden passing such a hateful resolution so at least for the moment I have hope of tolerance here. Unless the higher court steps in I fear all tolerance may be lost forever in the western states.