Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
The reliably-liberal Ninth Circuit recently upheld a resolution passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors denouncing statements by Cardinal William Levada and the Vatican that "Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption in homosexual households," and "Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children."
According to the San Francisco resolution, the Church's statements are, and I quote: hateful, discriminatory, insulting, callous, insensitive and ignorant.
Now, whether or not you agree with the Church's position, does it not seem odd for the government to take an official position that a particular religious doctrine is "wrong?" Indeed the resolution went further, suggesting that anyone who adhered to Catholic teaching would be violating San Francisco's "established customs and traditions." Not long ago, the NY Times' Linda Greenhouse waxed rhapsodic about Justice Souter's 2005 holding that the Establishment Clause means that “the government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over irreligion."
Three judges (Andrew Kleinfeld, Sandra Ikuta and Jay Bybee) dissented, but ultimately the Ninth Circuit concluded that the resolution was perfectly acceptable. As far as I know, neither Linda Greenhouse, nor David Souter, nor anyone at the ACLU has protested the Ninth Circuit's decision. If only the resolution had denounced Islam -- then I bet you'd hear the protests.
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
When a judges sees an emanating penumbra, a judge has gotta do what a judge has gotta do.
Jul '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Ask the citizens of San Francisco what the name of their city means...
Jun '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
What was the Cardinal thinking? You'd have to convert to Islam, and appeal to the "universal authority" of sharia law, before you can say (or even believe) that there's anything inferior about homosexuality. But once you convert to Islam--also helps to criticize the US Constitution--you can say anything.
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
I don't understand why the plaintiff's didn't file for free speech rather than religious and civil rights. At least that way it drags everyone into it.
I'm for building a mosque on Castro Street in San Franciso. I'd like to see what kind of non-binding resolutions would result from speech coming from that source. I'm guessing none.
Aug '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
you're describing it as a "religious doctrine," which it is, but it's also an issue of public policy. my reading is that the city council's non-binding resolution was addressing the church's position insofar as it was a policy of a major city contractor for social service provision (that just happens to also be a church). it's not like the city council issued resolutions on transubstantiation, homooúsios, or even priestly celibacy.
Edited on Oct 28, 2010 at 8:38amRe: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Does the establishment clause cover "de-establishing?"
Liberals are so hypocritical.
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Anon - that certainly was the view of the majority of the Court, and I acknowledge that there is an overlap with public policy. But I would argue that it's one thing for government to speak out on public policy, even it it offends religious views. It is another thing to condemn people who hold those views. According to the dissenting opinion "For the government to resolve officially that 'Catholic doctrine is wrong,' is as plainly violative of the Establishment Clause as for the government to resolve that 'Catholic doctrine is right.'"
The plaintiffs here were the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. I think that when a Catholic organization says that the City is denouncing their religious doctrine, it's dangerous for a court to say, well, it's not a *really* important doctrine so public policy concerns allow government to abandon First Amendment neutrality.
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
anon_academic: you're describing it as a "religious doctrine," which it is, but it's also an issue of public policy. my reading is that the city council's non-binding resolution was addressing the church's position insofar as it was a policy of a major city contractor for social service provision (that just happens to also be a church). it's not like the city council issued resolutions on transubstantiation, homooúsios, or even priestly celibacy. · Oct 28 at 8:31am
Edited on Oct 28 at 08:38 am
H/t to you, anon_academic. The real issue here is the state's jurisdiction over the family, particularly the children. Now that the state claims jurisdiction in this area, it claims to be able to regulate the activites of the church insofar as it sees the church as "a contractor of social services" rather than a free agent, ministering to the needs of children and families. This arena is a core battleground between a tyrranical humanistic state and historic christianity.
Edited on Oct 28, 2010 at 8:56amAug '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Adam Freedman
... According to the dissenting opinion "For the government to resolve officially that 'Catholic doctrine is wrong,' is as plainly violative of the Establishment Clause as for the government to resolve that 'Catholic doctrine is right.'"
I agree that "Catholic doctrine is wrong" is a pretty unfortunate wording, especially given the multiple meanings of the word "wrong" to mean either "in error" (a clear establishment violation) or "immoral" (a bit fuzzier, as it could be speaking to the doctrine only insofar as it overlaps with public policy).
The Catholic League is a lay organization whose entire mission is to take conspicuous umbrage at various real or perceived insults. Saying they get to take offense at whatever they like and we need to take that as evidence of objective offense is like saying Jesse Jackson gets final say on what is racist.
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Adam Freedman
Anon - that certainly was the view of the majority of the Court, and I acknowledge that there is an overlap with public policy. But I would argue that it's one thing for government to speak out on public policy, even it it offends religious views. It is another thing to condemn people who hold those views. · Oct 28 at 8:40am
Are you really surprised at this? This is not an "overlap of public policy" .This is an historic clash of worldviews. This clash of worldviews is where the battle lies.
May '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Just wait until the new Obamacare health bureaus try to force Christian hospitals to perform abortions.
Jun '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Good Berean
Are you really surprised at this? This is not an "overlap of public policy" . This is an historic clash of worldviews. This clash of worldviews is where the battle lies. · Oct 28 at 9:03am
Bingo! What will happen, I wonder, when the state mandates that the Church allow homosexual persons to adopt... or to provide abortions in Catholic owned hospitals... or contraception... or when the state decides who can be married within the Church? The state is already infringing on the conscience clause in medicine, it's not long before the 'mandates' come in other areas. The state is already following the 'mandate' of judges on things like Don't Ask Don't Tell. How seriously will it take other 'mandates'.
The state's bureaucrats and stooges versus the Church of a quarter of the country's citizens... that also happens to be the largest charitable organization in the world. I wonder who's going to win that one.
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Too true, master Samwise! The fact that the Constitution is still in effect despite its modification and misinterpretation, does give some hope. The Republic is still ours to loose.
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Samwise Gamgee
Good Berean
Are you really surprised at this? This is not an "overlap of public policy" . This is an historic clash of worldviews. This clash of worldviews is where the battle lies. · Oct 28 at 9:03am
Bingo! What will happen, I wonder, when the state mandates that the Church allow homosexual persons to adopt... · Oct 28 at 9:52am
The church will conform or get out of adoption services:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42906
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Yes, but the statements at issue came from The Vatican -- and the San Francisco resolution denounces "the Vatican." And even if the Catholic League's mission is "to take offense" (Anti-Defamation League, anyone?), that doesn't mean they're wrong here.
Anon, I certainly agree that anybody who signs up to be a government contractor has to play by the govt rules - he who pays the piper, etc. But that's not the issue here. The issue is a State entity issuing an official pronouncement that a statement from the Vatican - which I believe most Catholics would perceive as authoritative - is wrong. In what way was that resolution necessary for SF to administer its social services agencies? I don't think it was; but rather a gratuitous swipe at religion.
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Lo Fon
Samwise Gamgee
Good Berean
Are you really surprised at this? This is not an "overlap of public policy" . This is an historic clash of worldviews. This clash of worldviews is where the battle lies. · Oct 28 at 9:03am
Bingo! What will happen, I wonder, when the state mandates that the Church allow homosexual persons to adopt... · Oct 28 at 9:52am
The church will conform or get out of adoption services:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42906 · Oct 28 at 10:55am
Missed this one:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to_close_adoption_program/
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Adam Freedman
Anon, I certainly agree that anybody who signs up to be a government contractor has to play by the govt rules - · Oct 28 at 10:56am
I don't see how there is a way to remove the state from adoptions. Once gay marriage is legal, religious organizations will either have to conform or get out of the adoption services.
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Adam Freedman
Yes, but the statements at issue came from The Vatican -- and the San Francisco resolution denounces "the Vatican." And even if the Catholic League's mission is "to take offense" (Anti-Defamation League, anyone?), that doesn't mean they're wrong here.
Anon, I certainly agree that anybody who signs up to be a government contractor has to play by the govt rules - he who pays the piper, etc. But that's not the issue here. The issue is a State entity issuing an official pronouncement that a statement from the Vatican - which I believe most Catholics would perceive as authoritative - is wrong. In what way was that resolution necessary for SF to administer its social services agencies? I don't think it was; but rather a gratuitous swipe at religion. · Oct 28 at 10:56am
Let's agree what the issue is: The issue is the state claiming jurisdiction over adoption. From whence does the state derive this jurisdiction? From itself! Ergo, the tyrrany of the state!
May '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
Lo Fon
The church will conform or get out of adoption services:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42906 · Oct 28 at 10:55am
Yes, the state wins where adoption services are concerned. That's why I mentioned Christian hospitals. It's very different to shut down a hospital. Whereas government is willing to let an adoption agency close, it is unlikely that a major hospital would be similarly permitted to shut down (even if the hospital chose to, which is doubtful). Instead, government would likely seize the hospital "for the public good."
What other steps might progressive politicians take to force abortions in a Christian hospital?
I agree completely that this is an inevitable consequence of the rise of progressivism. There comes a point at which progressives cannot avoid direct conflict with the Church. Whereas Jews are symbolic of objective and traditional morality, the Church is an institutional defender of the worldview which blocks progressive aims.
Oct '10
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Catholic Bashing
"The remaining five judges said the court need not decide the Establishment Clause issue, because the Catholic plaintiffs failed to allege that the resolution "applies to them in some direct and concrete manner."
Looks like most of the court rejected this on standing grounds. I tend to agree with these five justices, I'm not sure the plaintiffs had standing (at least based on the little I know about this case). The problem is, if San Fran had denounced some muslim belief, and a similary situated muslim plaintiff had filed a grivience, I know the court would have found those plaintiffs to have standing, and would have swiftly denounced San Fran. Welcome to the 9th circus.