Christianity under fire from secular governments in San Francisco and Quebec

First story from LifeSiteNews about San Francisco.


A panel of eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in San Francisco will hear oral arguments tomorrow, December 16, concerning the constitutionality of the San Francisco Board of Supervisor’s resolution attacking the Catholic Church for its teachings against homosexual adoptions.

[…]The challenge was made on the grounds that the resolution expresses government hostility toward the Catholic Church and its moral teachings in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.[…]The resolution refers to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the city and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable,” and says that Church teaching shows “insensitivity and ignorance.”

And the second story also from LifeSiteNews about Quebec, the most secular and leftist province in Canada.


The Quebec Government has promulgated a new provincial policy against “homophobia,” touted as the first of its kind from a North American jurisdiction.  While homosexuality is already effectively fully normalized within Quebec law, the policy, released on Friday by the Ministry of Justice, is essentially a manifesto for normalizing homosexuality on the social level.

[…]They highlight at several points the need to target schools and youth, as did the original 2007 report.  “Awareness-raising and educational measures must target young people and the institutions they frequent in order to increase their acceptance of sexual diversity,” the policy states.

Pulling the troops out of Iraq, free health care and tax increases on the “rich” sound good to many uninformed Christians during an election, but they need to be careful about losing their religious liberty.

6 thoughts on “Christianity under fire from secular governments in San Francisco and Quebec”

  1. The resolution refers to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the city …

    They’re only a foreign country when it suits them, as in when it’s convenient to cover up priestly child abuse by claiming diplomatic channels weren’t followed by those requesting information.


  2. In Ontario, you will no longer see “mother” and “father” on a birth certificate — there is simply Parent# 1 and Parent #2. Why they discriminate by stopping at two, I have no idea, and, I suspect, neither do they. One brave Ontario judge did rule that a child adopted by two lesbians should also have a father — the homosexual who provided the sperm. So, you can have three parents, but only if they are homosexual. Otherwise, you’re stuck with the rather mundane pairing of a mother and a father.

    This is what happens when marriage is rooted in “sexual orientation” rather than the more appropriate and enduring concept of human biology.


  3. Racing Boo,

    The Vatican is a foreign country, which has nothing to do with San Francisco’s passing a resolution describing Catholic teaching on homosexual conduct – a teaching held by a vast majority of non-Catholics – as “foreign meddling.”

    It is a Catholic trope of anti-Catholics to depict Catholic allegiance to Catholic doctrines as “foreign.” The Know-Nothings did it in the 19th Century, and the slogan of “Rum, Rome and Rebellion” was a political slogan in the 20th Century.

    Is it your view that Catholics are, in fact, a suspect group whose foreign ties make them a threat to American values?

    Because that’s what San Francisco is saying.


    1. It is my view that the Catholic Church is a Church, with responsibilities towards its parishioners, ie the people who give it relevance and authority. In Ireland they have failed spectacularly in this duty, and have used, among other things, diplomatic protocols to hide behind in order to avoid the issues.

      I’m also simply pointing out the irony of bleating about others referring to them as a “foreign country” when they use this tactic themselves.

      The Catholic Church has lost all credibility here. I’d think twice about using them as an example for any point you wish to make.


      1. That’s why I asked.

        You and the City of San Franciso agree in your hatred for the Catholic Church and/or for the religious and moral positions taken by the Catholic Church.

        So, I take it that you think that it is acceptable that government single out particular religions to hold them up to contempt for their religious and moral doctrines. Would it therefore be acceptable if the Obama administration began to assail Evangelical churches as instruments of hate?

        You can certainly hold such positions, but it’s good for Catholics – and other religious minorities, including Evangelicals – to know where people stand.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s