Yes! What you say, Mz O'D! Agree with you ad infinitum [as they say in Latin!]...

Totally agree besides the diocese is r paying for Msgr Lynn's coverup of abused children. Isn't the Pope concerned for these victims. Last time a Pope came to Phillie, we waited for hours on Broad street to see him and he went up so fast, we didn't catch a glimpse! I'd never waste my time again

Quakers supporting homosexuality?? Wm. Penn would be spinning in his grave!

YOO DONNA- YOU CAN'T BLAME THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR THIS ONE...THE HOLY BIBLE...GOD'S WORD... IS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL SIN...READ THE GOOD BOOK...DO YOU HAVE ONE?

I love how people try to quote the Bible when it suits their need. Do these same people follow all the passages in the same reverence?

Do you eat shellfish? Do you wear clothes of mixed fabrics? Then you yourself are not following the good book.

Yes Donna,
Religious tolerance is the principle of the Quakers. This is why I am one. William Penn would not roll over in his grave. He was a part of this history. Christ did not teach organized religion. This came later. Christ taught acceptance and love. We are not responsible for judgement. This is made clear. We are blessed to love and be loved. Our choices are between us and our creator. Christ stopped injustice against the oppressors. It is our responsibility to stop sexual abuse against children, not two adults living their life as they feel is acceptable. The richest city in the world is Vatican City. There are a lot of supporters for the Catholic Church. Maybe it's time for the Catholic Church to support their victims and leave others alone. I agree with your comment one hundred percent.

Jeannette, Christ also told the sinners to "Go and sin no more." It is still a choice and it is now a choice in some states. The Pope and Archbishop Chaput are reinforcing the stance of the Roman Catholic Church on this topic to the laity. There is nothing wrong with this. The people still vote according to their choice. We are not standing at the polls intimidating Catholics into voting against Gay Unions. The concern of the Church is for the souls of the faithful and so they will advise according to Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Jesus even said that Moses only permitted divorce because of the hardness of our hearts. We are a stubborn people to Him but He told us what is right and good to do. Where you see hatred, bigotry and discrimination, we see love and are looking out for the welfare of souls of the faithful Catholics. Even if this is approved by the government, the Church's stance would remain the same. We will then be abused and bullied as bigots and discriminators. Religious Discrimination will run rampant and we will be fighting to keep our protections under the First Amendment. It can be seen in the comments within this thread and it will only get worse as the debate continues. It is a shame all around.

Jeanette,
We are most certainly to judge. Matthew 7:1 is so often taken out of context. In the next verse, Jesus says, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." He is just warning us to be prepared; that the same criteria we use will be used to judge us. (BTW, I count 17 judgements in your comment.) Yes, Jesus taught love and acceptance of the individual, which I fully embrace. But he condemned sin. Jesus (and Wm. Penn) NEVER taught that same-sex unions were okay. To me it's obvious. It just goes against creation. That can't be argued.

Hi Bruce,
It is difficult for everyone to keep the first amendment for all. The point I am making is in an example of the three wise men and the nativity scene. Shepherd's were the lowest of the cast system. They had to pay someone to go to the city and pick up their goods. They were not accepted by the public. It is no mistake the nativity scene shows kings in the same company of shepherds. Christ brought all together. We will always have this problem. We are humans. Some people were excommunicated from the Catholic Church because of their beliefs. Galileo was one of them. He recently was accepted. Christ looked out for all souls not just the faithful. No one is one hundred percent faithful, or we wouldn't need forgiveness. My point is Catholics aren't the only true religion. People have personal relationships with God. There should be no debate about this. If a soul is certain no one will be able to destroy someone's belief system. I appreciate your opinion. I just have a different view about acceptance.

AGREED!

Ditto!

I agree jw. After 32 years with the Catholic church, I left and my little boys are being baptized elsewhere. I could not make them join a "group" that would not protect them. I am from a devout Catholic family and several of my relatives have also left the Catholic church. We aren't turning a blind-eye to this, but I feel the Pope is.

As a faithful, every-Sunday Mass attending Catholic, my solution is to mark on my Sunday envelope: "For Parish Use Only." Legally, my parish must keep my contribution and not include any of it in the weekly percentage they send to the Archdiocese. My money is not going to pay their lawyers.

Mr Mason: For it to be legal, you may need to post your exclusivity note on the check itself. Envelopes disappear.

As a group, Gay Marriage for Pennsylvania http://www.facebook.com/gm4pa completely supports protesting the Papal visit, and will gladly rally our supporters. The time to plan is now.

As a former Catholic - I am so ashamed of the church for so many reasons.........What happens with this kind of behavior by the pope is that it brings out those of us that left Catholicism because the TRUTH does not live there..........The pope and the church have no right to speak to us now - save their sermons for those that still blindly follow and preach only in a house of worship and let the rest of us go on......

I hear ya'....there are more of us, too - sssshhhhhh - do not tell the others.

Jamesignatius: I invite you to imagine yourself as a child being taken as a "bride" by one of these so-called men of god... Imagine it all day long and have a nice day.

Sorry you've been misled The Catholic faith that is the Gospels,Fathers and the Sacraments is the church founded by Christ and not poplatry and man made part.

We cannot apply the "innocent until proven guilty".......because BEFORE any criminal charges could be filed, parents were encouraged to handle it privately......so please do not try to make the Constititution fit here. Thousands and thousands of Catholic Families were affected by these behaviors and there was only silence............so forgive us if you feel that we are haters now - but remember how we got there. And please do not compare public schools with that experience of a truly faithful Catholic.......there is no comparison there. Imagine a trusted family member that committed this abuse - you cannot imagine the pain.....you just cannot imagine - until you or your family is blown up by this behavior..

justwondering... please don't make assumptions about my knowledge. The Constitution fits everywhere in these United States. I know what it is like to be a faithful Catholic. I know what it is like to be an altar boy and a choir boy. I know what it is like more than you realize. But I also know what it is like to forgive the unforgivable. I know what it is like to hears things that you abhor and still forgive. Don't compare? Sure, it is not comparable to the belief you have in God, the Church and the people that are supposed to represent their church and to have that belief destroyed by men (and women) who do not live up to the higher standards that have been applied to them. It does not live up to the disappointment in people that you admire and count on, only to find out that they are pedophiles. Oh wait, maybe I can compare that to coaches or teachers because that is exactly their role, to be role models for our children. This article is not even about this topic. It is about the homosexuals wanting the right to marry. But, there are those that have their own agenda and continue to attack God's Church for the sins of humanity. NOH8 or WEH8? What shall it be?

Jamesignatius, you are right in that the poop himself did 'something about it.' He ordered a cover-up of the incriminating facts. I think Nona put things in perspective: 'I invite you to imagine yourself as a child being taken as a "bride" by one of these so-called men of god... Imagine it all day long and have a nice day.'

and by the way - your statistics cannot be accurate because of the thousands of cases never brought to light within the church........

Well, I am sorry you never let any of the lay teachers into your household either. They were as much role models as the priests. I also understand the spiritual growth and the trust your family and you as individuals place in your priest. I place that same trust in my own family and priests put that same trust in each other. When one of our brothers in Christ commits this sin and the other good priests have to face their sin in the eyes of the faithful, how do you think the good priest feels? The ones who did not know? The ones who also placed their trust in these same men who they felt were their only family, their spiritual guides are they trust in each other and those that they would recommend to other families who put their trust in your counsel? Yes, I truly know. Did God commit this sin? He is not the ruler of this world at this time. You and I both know who is. Did the good priests commit this sin? They are victims just like you and I. All the pedophiles and those clergy who protected them that acted as accessories after the fact should be prosecuted and they should not have the backing of the Church. I totally agree. But, do not condemn God, do not condemn the good clergy and do not withdraw yourself from what Jesus intended just because of the sins of humanity. We cannot be healed until we can forgive. Not every Catholic priest is a pedophile. Not every Catholic priest knew this was occurring. Don't let their sin destroy your relationship with God.

Bruce, I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but reason must also prevail. It's just not possible that the scope of sexual abuse was able to continue without more people knowing. It's like doping in professional cycling: the spectators might not know who's juicing, but the other riders certainly do. The priests had to have known things but instead they kept it hush hush. Their first instinct was "get him out my parish", not "let's investigate this and/or put him in jail". They put themselves and their colleagues first, and the kids last. Listen: I served as an altar boy under James Brennan at St. Mary Magdalene in Upper Providence and I although I was never abused, I could sense he was 'off' and felt that distance the other priests kept from him. They knew - they definitely knew something was wrong with him. They put me and my fellow altar servers at risk. Do you think St. Mary's has ever bothered to try and contact me to make sure nothing happened? They couldn't care less.

And because your example occurs this way, then every incident occurs the same way yours does? You have a feeling and you interpret the actions of the other priests around one priest to concur with your feelings? Do you really know for sure? If I followed my feelings every time or judged a book by its cover every time, then how many times would I be wrong? Each situation has to be addressed on its own merit. There was a priest that I never suspected and he turned out to be guilty as well. I don't think we are all going to receive individual letters to find out if we, altar boys or choir boys, were ever abused. It's public enough now that I think we all know that we should come forward if we were abused. We should also feel empowered to do this now if we were abused as a result of the overwhelming support that is now available to each victim. I am not going to accuse anyone without proof and you have just accused the priests at St. Mary's of knowing without knowing for sure. Maybe they were innocent and truly did not know. Should they now sue you for defamation of character? In this sue-happy society, they could and they'd win unless you had absolute proof of what you are saying. Your speculation of "They knew..." isn't proof. But, from what you replied here, I guess you are already thinking of condemning every priest. How sad for you!

Bruce, let’s try to keep this discussion civil and limit the accusations of defamation, okay? I think it’s important to trust your instincts. My instincts told me something was off and I believe the other priests there had the same instincts I did – I believe they witnessed more interactions that James Brennan had with children my age than I did (of course, I cannot know this, but reason and common sense tell me this is extremely likely). I also believe they were aware that he had been shuffled around a few times. I guess I could be mistaken about that as well (but again, reason... common sense...). You can call into question my instincts, observations, feelings, etc., but you’re not going to change what I knew to be true. I don’t believe they knew he was capable of rape, but I do believe they knew he shouldn’t be hanging around teenage boys. Is that really defamation? I’m not – by any means – condemning every priest (please don’t put words into my mouth), but there were priests who knew and did nothing. This is why William Lynn is on trial.

I don’t think you’re familiar with the psyche of victims of sexual abuse. Whether it’s fear or shame or a desire to put the past behind them: they often don’t come forward. If the catholic church truly cared about the children and not about themselves, they would try to find other potential victims and get them the help and therapy they need. That’s what families would do.

Actually, you are stating the fact that if a crime is committed, it should be reported. I am doing the same thing. You implied that St. Mary's in general "They knew - they definitely knew something was wrong with him." You said "definitely".

So, keeping it civil means "sweeping what happened under the rug"? It's a double standard if I did that, right? I am keeping it civil by trying to make you aware.

You also stated "The priests had to have known things but instead they kept it hush hush." Which priests if you were not inferring all priests? Only the priests at St. Mary's? Only the priests in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia? You said "The priests" was used in a sentence prior to any mention of St. Mary's. So, I would have to infer "all priests" from your statement, including the comparison to cyclists and the other riders. No words put into your mouth. They were all your words.

As for my familiarity with the psyche, once again, continue to throw your opinions around. You have no idea. You and I agree on more than you know but one thing I highly recommend for you, please don't overstate what you know, it will get you into trouble eventually and I honestly don't want to see a fellow advocate for the innocent find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

From what I remember from my 12 years of catholic school, the tenets of the faith included feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and sheltering the homeless. Love, compassion, tolerance - that is what I was taught the catholic church was about. I don’t recall preaching intolerance as one of the tenets of the faith. The Vatican has lost its way:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html

What you're mistaking for anti-Catholic bigotry is just disgust and anger at the current state of the Vatican. Besides, I really wouldn't use the word "bigotry" here - that seems to be the whole purpose of the pope's visit: to come to our country to preach intolerance of and inequality for our gay brothers and sisters. I will not stand for that. Instead, I'll stand up for love, compassion, equality and justice - former tenets of the catholic faith according to the current Vatican administration.

Chris, I am fine with the Pope preaching the teaching on traditional marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman has one significant difference, the husband and the wife, the mother and the father, can create a human life from their love. Man and man cannot do this and neither can woman and woman. A part of the father and a part of the mother create a human life that is made from their own very beings. This is significant as it is Creation taking place from Love. This is why Marriage is a Sacrament within the Church and a Sacrament, instituted by Christ to give Grace. Everyone brings up the Old Testament but their is a New Covenant with Christ and Christ rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. As a faithful Catholic, I will adhere to the the Dogmas and Sacred Tradition. As a voter, I will vote my conscience. Most of the time, these things coincide. However it is voted and comes out, it is recognized by government; it will not be recognized by God according to our faith. It is that simple. You can make your choice to do what you want and believe what you want. As for me, I will make my choice as well and I choose what I believe to be the Will of God. This belief has been part of the Catholic Church since its beginnings. It's just over the past 20 years that those that disagree with this belief call it bigotry and intolerance. Every sin separates us from God. This sin doesn't fit into your definition of sin. It does fit ours.

I believe your sentence would make better sense with a re-formatting of a key term. It reads more logically as 'Lots of anti-'catholic-bigotry' out there.' As in, we are against your catholic-bigotry. The other reading is ridiculous.

So basically what you are saying, Bruce, is that if two people can't procreate, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Well I guess I need to let my devout Catholic parents that their marriage is null and void, since they had to adopt me.

It is not preaching inequality and intolerance to aknowledge that there is objective truth at stake here. I have no problem with civil partnerships just don't lie and call them marriages.It is some ill-informed liberal Catholics who have in fact lost their way, not the Vatican.

That is the first time I've ever seen a limiting adjective applied to the word "discrimination". Discrimination is discrimination is hatred is bigotry. If you fail to see any hatred or bigotry there, please re-read (pay special attention to the word "unjust"). There is no such thing as "just" discrimination. It *is* possible for persons of the same sex to marry and how dare you put that in quotes as if it's somehow less valid. It is possible, I've witnessed it and I challenge you to do the same. You will only see a marriage that is 100% identical to my own marriage - full of love, compassion and devotion.

And the article mentions that. What Sugaree asked (and I also wonder) is where you see the bias and malice in the article. The author did not frame the visit as an attack on same sex marriage. It was Archbishop Chaput who launched the first volley against same-sex marriage in his own release on the meeting (linked in the article above):

CHAPUT WROTE:
"The family is founded on a deep and loving union between one man and one woman for mutual support and the nurturing of children. This meeting in Philadelphia will be a wonderful opportunity to highlight the family as the basic evangelizing unit of the Church. Every effort to promote marriage and the family serves not only the Church, but also the common good."

If anything, the article took out that first line which specifically mentioned that the view on marriage is One Man-One Woman and nothing else.

I think it's great that you are devout in your faith. But you should not allow your faith to blind you or sway your judgment to a point where you see factual statements as an attack on your faith.

Amen!

Or in your case...L'Chaim! :)

While I agree with you and am also Jewish, our religon is filled with the same type of people who want to push their beliefs on others. Their misunderstanding of Judaism and fanaticism also leads them to condem all homosexuality. See my blog post on Religous Violence at http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/2011/12/violence-instead-of-peace-erupts.html which includes a disturbing piece (with video) about ultra orthodox Jews harrassing a very young girl because she was dressed in a secular manner. In other words, our faith is no more accepting then others. Most of the religous fundamentalists who now support the Republican party do so for one and only one reason, they seek to turn this country into a Christian Theocracy to enact laws reflecting fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity.

I can guarantee you that, while I interpret Judaism as accepting your Lesbianism, the one thing all major religons (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) is the shared belief by fundamentalists that all forms of homosexuality are an abomination. Granted that they are more threatened by male homosexuality than female homosexuality, as is most of the general population of intolerant morons. Anyway, keep up doing what you want to do and defending your rights, both under our religon and under our Constitution, to "be yourself."

Sincerely,
David M. Ginsberg
lawphila@aol.com
http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/

We are not pushing our views. I am simply here defending our faith against the WEH8 group. I think the NOH8 slogan, based on the many comments against Christianity on this board, has proven to be lip service. If the two groups would sit down & actually speak, you might find acceptance & understand the Catholic position is not a hateful position. However, I think it will end up being the "agree to disagree" solution and would leave the decision to the popular vote for each State of the Union. There should be acceptance of the vote as long as the vote leaves the religious organizations to their respective beliefs. I wish you, your partner and your child well.

Thank you David Ginsberg! I couldn't agree more. I just don't understand why some people don't see it for what it really is: a civil rights issue.
Further, in my somewhat cynical view, I've come to realize that the constant focus/obsession with the social issues, is merely a fund-raising tool for some churches and/or political parties. What better way to keep the cash flowing then to stir up the 'righteous'?

Bruce - thank you for your concern for my immortal soul........I like to think that MY GOD worries about yours, too.......but the God that I love and believe in is one that would welcome all his children and he believes in the absolute goodness of those that would strive to find another loving adult to spend their life on Earth with. My experience with those that think like you is that you turn homosexuals into the act of sex and you forget that they are simply children of God that love another adult of the same sex - they are so much more than the physical love expressed......I do not feel that the Catholic Church should be forced to recognize their Unions, but certainly not opposed to it ----- My God welcomes all of those that strive to leave this Earth better than when we arrived and I believe that he has enough room in his heart to love all those that he made and he made us ALL........

I agree that the Church, and its supporters, have the right to their beliefs and to express their beliefs. My credentials are solid on this. I volunteered at the ACLU in the late 1970's when (I believe) the Pope last came to Philadelphia, and there were issues relating to his right to speak publicly which we supported as well as who should pay for that speech (the platform and security) which I forget what was decided and which is not relevant here. We also defended the rights of other more hated groups to speak, and we received death threats, insults, and/or bomb threats almost daily.

But a constitutional right existing does not mean it should be exercised. Just like the right to bear arms, which I agree is granted in the Constitution, does not mean that everyone should own a gun. Case in point, if that Zimmerman guy in Florida did not own a gun, then the 17year old boy would not be dead, and Zimmerman would not be facing murder charges.

In this case, even Nazis and the KKK (and I am not equating the pope with these organizations) have the right to speak, such as when they tried to march in an area populated by Holocaust survivors.

(Part One)
David M. Ginsberg
lawphila@aol.com
http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/

[Part One]
I agree that the Church, and its supporters, have the right to their beliefs and to express their beliefs. My credentials are solid on this. I volunteered at the ACLU in the late 1970's when (I believe) the Pope last came to Philadelphia, and there were issues relating to his right to speak publicly which we supported as well as who should pay for that speech (the platform and security) which I forget what was decided and which is not relevant here. We also defended the rights of other more hated groups to speak, and we received death threats, insults, and/or bomb threats almost daily.

But a constitutional right existing does not mean it should be exercised. Just like the right to bear arms, which I agree is granted in the Constitution, does not mean that everyone should own a gun. Case in point, if that Zimmerman guy in Florida did not own a gun, then the 17year old boy would not be dead, and Zimmerman would not be facing murder charges.

In this case, even Nazis and the KKK (and I am not equating the pope with these organizations) have the right to speak, such as when they tried to march in an area populated by Holocaust survivors.

Part One by David M. Ginsberg

[Part Two]
But people of good conscience also have the right to speak, if not the obligation to do so, and we oppose the continued oppression of homosexual civil rights, as well as the continued oppression of women's rights (lately through attempts to restrict or deny their reproductive rights) in the same way that we oppose and did oppose the discrimination and oppression of African Americans and other groups.

Moreover, as I said before, I am astonished at the focus on these issues while there are far more major issues confronting this country. It says in the ten commandments, for example, "Thou Shall Not Kill" and I believe that both Judaism and Christianity accept the Ten Commandments as the direct word of God, as opposed to man's interpretation and visions of the word of God. Yet every day, hundreds of Syrians are being tortured and massacred by a government that sponsors terrorist groups who attack Americans, American soldiers, and American allies and is aligned with Iran who also does the above and also is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Domestically, people are suffering and even dying from lack of education, malnutrition, and even lack of access to basic health care. In fact, that lack of access to basic health care is creeping up the ladder and now affects even many insured middle class americans.

[Part 2] by David M. Ginsberg

[Part Three - Final Part]
But please remember that homosexuals, and the activities they engage in, are protected by the US Constitution and are entitled to equal protection under the law. It was not that long ago [and the laws may still be on the books in some jurisdiction] that the laws prohibited certain types of sexual contact even between consenting heterosexual adults, as the laws used to reflect the biblical ideology that the purpose of sexual contact, even between man and wife, was for procreation only.

I really wish you would go to my blog post on religous violence because it highlights the extreme violence and absurdity of religons, and sects and subsects thereof, trying to impose their interpretations of religon on man. There is even video of two sects of Orthodox Priests fighting each other in the holiest church in Jerusalem right before Chirstmas with broom sticks, while another part distrubingly shows one sect of Jews [ultra Orthodox] terorizing a little girl, who was also Jewish, because she was dressed in a secular western style attire [just like most Americans would send their daughters to public school] that link is.
http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/2011/12/violence-instead-of-peace-erupts.html.

Sincerely,
David M. Ginsberg
lawphila@aol.com
http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com
[part 3 - final part]

PS. As the 1st Amendment protects the right of Association and religous freedom, no group wants to require any particular religon/person to officiate over a marriage. This issue is a red herring. Gay people only want the right to get married, not the right to force someone to marry them.

As far is masic morality (and the protection of immportal souls), the extent of immorality in American society is shocking and astounding. For example, my mother was just kicked out of a nice hospice facility [four days before she died - 2 weeks ago]. While the director of the facility was quoting rules, I responded that these were designed to be incomprehensible and thus, beyond the ability of most people to understand them, but since I did, I specifically said that, "Those rules, and the people who enforce them, are immoral and I am ashamed to be part of any society that would engage in such immoral conduct."

More on point, I just finalized getting divorced from a "heterosexual marriage sanctioned by both law and religon" and the actions of my spouse, her lawyer, and the Court have been, for the last five years,the most immoral, illegal, and unethical I have ever witnessed in 33 years of practicing law, and have been incredibly destructive of, most of all, my young innocent childern. I warrant that there are a lot of souls who agree with you who are in far worse jeopardy of being lost, despite their purported conformance with Judeo-Christian religons.

David M. Ginsberg

David, I am truly sorry for your experiences with the home and your divorce. The systems in place definitely need reform. I was kind to my ex-wife when I divorced her. My lawyer did her best to try and convince me to go after assets that she had prior to our marriage. While my ex did lie about some very important things before the marriage, misrepresenting herself to me, she earned that money even before we married. I split things 50/50 with her and these were things that were ours after the marriage, We would have been better off doing the settlement ourselves. I did reign in my divorce lawyer but it was still very revealing about how evil the process can be.

As I stated before, instead of the name-calling and the derogatory remarks spouted by the many sides, sitting down and talking out our concerns would be the better way of handling this situation. Yes, it would be a volatile topic but it can be done. There is an innate goodness in all of us and, with the right people at the table, things can be settled. That is at least my hope.

How sad it is that you feel it necessary to behave this way...........You reveal yourself to be neither loving or kind Is this the type of mean spirited behavior that happens in your Catholic Church? Never have I been so happy with my difficult decision to leave the Catholic faith..........................

Jamesignatius: No matter how much you fondle Sam, he will not consent to marry you. Also, Sam's rights are not protected under the constitution. This is a secular matter; it has nothing to do with how you want others to live their lives. ... and if some people are disgusted by your love of Sam, that is their hangup. I am okay with it.

Bruce: I think it is Freedom From Religion. As in, freedom from oppressive state religions. Unlike today, these littered Europe at that time.

Well, many religious went to America to be able to practice their religion free from the tyranny of England and their governmental religion. We are here to practice our religion freely and so we have that protection that the government. We are free to practice any religion we wish here (or not to practice any). Freedom of Religion guarantees that freedom to practice our religion, therefore NOT "from" religion.

Bruce: Well said. In Saudi Arabia, non-islamic proselytism is illegal, and conversion by a muslim to another religion (apostasy) carries the death penalty. This is a difficult environment for freedom of religion. I am not sure that it is possible to have freedom of religion without Freedom From Religion.

It's freedom OF religion ...

The founders all came from ancestral origins in Europe where religion was persecuted. This continent was settled originally by those escaping such persecution - among others. As a result, the LAST THING the founders wanted to do was limit religious freedom.

Hatboro: Of course, many came from religious/political persecution. Excellent, yet I do not see how you can have freedom of religion without Freedom From Religion. Without at least Freedom From a single dominant Religion, there would be limitations. I have to travel, much fun.

@Randeroid: I do not disagree on your point. I was simply distinguishing between what the Founders intended vs. what has developed through judicial review (freedom from religion as it pertains to civil government).

On the other hand, this country has ever had a "dominant religion" unless you lump everything Chritian into a single religion, which would really be misleading. Even the Protestant sects have too much diversity to be considered singular. And none of that is a bad thing.

In ancient days, religous law was the only law, as it remains in such backwards places as Iran, which have not evolved and remains an Islamic theocracy where people are not free to practice other relgons.

In America, we have evolved into a free and more enlightened and advanced society and we now have a clear system of laws which is separate from religon but which incorporated those religous laws which made sence (such as those prohibiting murder.)

There is no need for religous laws in our legal system. In other words, all of the appropriate laws which were found in religon have been incorporated into our secular legal system [which continues to evolve (unlike religous laws)] for the better.

In fact, the First Amendment to the US Constitution, regarding religon, states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

This means that the people may not (it is prohibited) prevent others from acting in accordance with their own religous beliefs (and this includes interpreting what those religous beliefs are). This is called the "Separation of Church and State": and it is mandatory. Specifically, It does require that people are free from religous interference. To the extent that one person's religon interferes with another person's religon, there most definately is a right to be ":Free (in such cases) from Religon."

Sorry to disagree with you.
Sincerely,
David M. Ginsberg

Unfortunately, David, there is the recent case of photographers being forced to photograph a gay wedding even though it is against their religion and they do not wish to provide this service to them. Granted, it is a secular service but they feel strongly about their religion and are being forced to do this. There is also another case in New Jersey where a Christian facility was forced to allow a reception for a gay wedding even though it was owned by a Christian Church. These are just stepping stones to stomping out the "so-called" bigots and discriminators who are following their religious beliefs. Our First Amendment rights are being violated and the government, mainly the court systems, is now helping this to occur.

Brue, if your talking about this story http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
The court ruled that the Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony. No one was forced to allow a reception and no financial penalties were imposed.

Bruce,

I definately agree that any discussion of this subject, and others, should be friendly, respecful, and without insults being made. If I sounded otherwise, I apologize, and it was my passion coming in a manner which I did not intend. I did read some comments by others, and it does seem that this topic has unfortunately broadened into a broader attack on the Catholic Church,

Even though I am Jewish, I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church and Christianity. One of the issues in my divorce is that my wife tried to make me out to be crazy and confused because I wanted to expose my children to the messages of Christ and Christmas. Even though I do not (and I am sorry if this offends) believe that Christ was the son of God, I believe there was tremendous value in his teachings and messages, and given that we live in a country which is mostly Christian, I wanted my children to be exposed to Christianity, especially that which Christianity has to offer which is wonderful and beautiful. I even took my children to a unitarian church one Christmas Eve and I had a wonderfukl christmas. So it is a shame if this issue has to become derrogatory and degrading and insulting, and again if I was perceived as having any part in that, I regret it and apologize.

Sincerely,
David M. Ginsberg

Well, Michael, that is even worse than a reception to force a ceremony on their property.

David, thank you, and, no, I have not noticed anything derogatory in your replies. Thank you.

I also am sorry for what happened. It is a noble effort on your part to expose your children to various religions. Christ had a very positive message to share whether you believe or not that He is the Messiah. While I do not have every religious belief committed to memory, I do have books available to me for reference and value learning about them in reference to my own religion.

Hatboro: It is my humble opinion that Freedom From Religion was the intent of some of the founding fathers--the smart ones. The constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli coincide with this interpretation. A secular state must have Freedom From Religion.

We are permitted to freely practice our religion. We are also permitted to vote according to our religious beliefs. If anyone tried to stop us from practicing our religion, it would be a violation of our religious freedom (freedom OF religion). You do not have to practice a religion or believe in one. You do have to follow the rule of law as legislated (and lately as interpreted by the courts which seem to have too much power). If those laws created happen to coincide with some religious beliefs, it does not mean that the government has endorse any one religion nor is the government trying to force us to practice anyone religion.

Now, if they told us all that we had to go to church services on Wednesday and we need to meet in the township building instead of our church buildings, or worse, took over our church buildings and renamed them to the Church of Pat, then that would be where your concern for for Freedom FROM Religion should take place.

Because you disagree with a religion or religions does not permit you to silence us or permit you to try and stop us from practicing our religion or following our faith. If you truly believe in something, then you will vote according to your belief. You are doing this yourselves although it is not "religious". Just because our belief coincides with our religion, doesn't mean you can tell us how we can or cannot vote. "You can't vote that way because that's your religious belief... Can't include it!" YES WE CAN!

This is about our Freedom FROM Religion. Anyone, who is not katholic and whose freedom is routinely violated by the katholic clergy, is being persecuted by them. In this case the clergy wants to stop non-katholic homosexuals from marrying. Recently, Islamists in Mali murdered a couple for having sex by stoning them to death! Similarly, an Indonesian is serving a 30-month jail sentence for posting ‘God doesn’t exist’ on Facebook!

Our society is better because we have slightly more Freedom FROM the clergy of multi-billion-dollar tax-free corporations. We must do more to protect homosexuals from the clergy’s discrimination and to protect children from the clergy’s sexual adventures. At times, we have to choose between our superstitious beliefs that support immoral behavior and doing the right thing for other citizens. We have to choose between church and state--between anti-thinking servitude and Freedom FROM the harm caused by beliefs imposed by the clergy.

So many times we are reminded about people coming to America fleeing religious persecution. The over-simplified point we are told is that they came here for Freedom of Religion. Yet, just who was persecuting them, who were they fleeing? Was it secularists? No. They were fleeing persecution FROM Religion. They were fleeing people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bill O’Reilly, and homophobic katholic clergy, who want to make a point that they see homosexuals as second-class citizens. We need Freedom FROM Religion to protect our fellow citizens from this heinous and ignorant persecution.

Well said Marc. This doesn't border on blatant discrimination - it IS blatant discrimination. At one time, everyone thought is was just fine that women weren't allowed to vote as well.
I've got one questions for those who are so opposed; what exactly do you think will happen when same sex marriage is finally allowed? How is this some threat to you?

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . Well said Marc.

No, we'll look back at this and say that this is the beginning of the end.

What has not changed about Marriage between a Man and a Woman is that they can create a human life from their union as ordained by God. This has been, is and always will be the natural difference between them. God has also, always been, is and always will be.

@Bruce Wienckowski: Even a cursory review of the Old Testament will show that the marriages it reports differ starkly even from marriages in the 1950s.

I'm not sure what you're asserting by way of the permanence of God but it is certainly odd to suggest that we return to the social and sexual mores of an eastern backwater of the Roman Empire. Have you any notion of how brutal society was then? No one from the present day in his or her right mind would wish to return to a society that, say, regarded stoning or cutting tendons as a perfectly fine way to punish crime.

By your view, God seems frozen in amber.

Old Testament vs. New Testament. Old Covenant vs. New Covenant. Just to bring you up to date, we are in the New Covenant. Your tangent just shows that you do not know how to stay on topic. Traditional Marriage within our Church will always be this way, no matter what the government, any government decides. The reference to God is that His Will is unchanging no matter what we demand on this earth. Even if the religious institutions bow down and give in to the will of the a minority of people who wish to go back to the Roman days where it was perfectly fine to lie down with another of the same sex or more, very brutal indeed and unnatural, God's eternal Will won't change and the punishment for committing sin against Him without remorse, without regret and without a firm commitment to sin no more will be the same. If you embrace the sin, no matter what sin you favor, then you have chosen to separate yourselves from God because you have put your own selfish desires before Him. It's that simple.

Note to Bruce: the events of the New Testament occurred during the Roman Empire, too, and norms at the time were as described.

Moving on to your comments about an unchanging will. Let's note that not even inconsistent with the doctrine of a New Covenant. I'll leave it to you to provide your certainty-filled rationalizations to paper over this obvious inconsistency.

I'm sorry. What are you even trying to communicate here?

Sorry - I have not been monitoring this article anymore but I just did see the email with your comment. When I say "Can Marry", below, that means in a heterosexual relationship because it is only in a heterosexual relationship that you can procreate with one man and one woman.

1. Post-menopausal Woman: born a woman with the potential to have children (Can Marry); Injured Iraqi Veteran: born a man/woman with the potential to have children (Can Marry); Cervical Cancer (Can Marry). All of us have the ability to procreate, including homosexuals, but only heterosexuals have the willingness, the intention, to procreate with a spouse of the opposite sex which permits the creation of human life out of love. If you cannot love someone of the opposite sex and can only love someone of the same, then that love, as much as it seems similar, cannot create a life out of a truly, loving sexual relationship.

2. Man and woman are the true, physical forms of man and woman as naturally created by God. There are exceptions as Jesus noted some are born eunuchs or in a different manner and they are unable to procreate. So, as you noted some are exceptions and have to be taken on a case by case basis. Chaz Bono should not be able to marry within the Catholic Church given my current knowledge of the situation.