As Guam debates legislation recognizing same-sex marriage, the Catholic Church appears to have reached out to some strange sources of support in its opposition: Islamic terrorists. In a letter being circulated from the Archdiocese of Agaña, Catholics are told that Islamic extremists may engage in suicide bombings but that they at least “value self sacrifice” and punish homosexuals with death. In a second letter without the Al Qaeda angle, Guam Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron still insists that homosexuality is dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral. He further adds a constitutional point of interest: saying that “the first amendment of the United States does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion.”
The legislation in Guam has attracted a surprising degree of support – and a surprising degree of anger from the Church. It was introduced by an openly gay senator, B.J. Cruz who claims to be a victim of Catholic clergy abuse.
One letter purportedly from the Church included this remarkable statement:
“Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. This is why they repress such behavior by death…It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers…is a culture that at least knows how to value self sacrifice
It further says that the passage of the bill will herald the “end to Western Civilization.”
For the full letter, click here
It is not clear who is the author of that letter. The letter bears the symbol of the church, which has not denied its contents. However, it is not clear if this widely circulated letter was condoned by the leadership of the Church.
The Archbishop is the author of a second letter that contains some of the same dire warnings but without the citation to the faith of Islamic terrorists. It states that the legislation would put even Guam’s right of self-government in question. If passed, he states, the bill “will forfeit its moral authority to continue to govern this island and be “doubly destructive because it encourages a lifestyle that is intrinsically unhealthy.”
He insists that “every humanly-created law is legitimate only insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.”
His statement that the first amendment “does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion” is itself interesting. This adopts the narrowest view of the religion clauses and, if accepted by the Supreme Court, would result in the wholesale rejection of many, if not most, of our entanglement cases. It is a view espoused by some conservative scholars but long rejected by the Court. If the first amendment “does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion” than presumably states could become more involved in supporting religions generally and allow greater displays of faith in government buildings and classrooms.
With the recent announcement of the absorption of Anglican priests leaving that church over homosexuality (including marriage priests who will now be part of the Catholic Church), Rome is clearly reaffirming that it is entrenched on the issue of homosexuality — which will define much of the internal and external politics of the Church.
More Strange Bedfellows.
_________________________________
Quote:
Calling for greater religious strife with Islam
(updated below)
The New York Times today, in the form of Ross Douthat’s column, has published what could fairly be described as a call for a Christian religious war — certainly metaphorical and perhaps literal — against Islam.
UPDATE: Is the John Hagee/Joe Lieberman alliance of right-wing American Jews and evangelical Christians — based on the premise that God demands that all land, including the West Bank and Gaza, be possessed by Jews — devoted to the advancement of “the Western way of reason”?
Hey – look over there. Muslims. They’re waging war on reason and taking over. We have to unite to stop them.
Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/26/douthat/
__________________________________
Gyges:
That is not exactly fair, most RCC repression, at least physical in nature, took place 700 to 1000 years ago. Granted they do have some issues today, but by and large the rack and Iron Maiden are not in wide spread use.
I was surprised that a priest would make such a statement, he should be sent to a monastery to reflect. That is not my idea of appropriate self sacrifice. Actually what he said was anti-human life. I hope this is a view held by a single priest. Not the slip of the tongue of some Saturday night poker game where the priests are all in agreement that suicide bombers are pious folk.
I wonder why billy-wayne hasn’t popped up to support this latest statement. He is probably in total agreement with it.
billy-wayne can you come out to play?
Mespo:
you are the man (of many letters).
I don’t see what’s so strange about these bed fellows, both are from strongly patriarchal and authoritarian societies with a history of repressing heretics with death and torture.
Alas that I was not born in Rome or Colonial America. You would now be quoting Byron, but then I would be dead.”
****************
“‘Tis strange — but true; for truth is always strange;
Stranger than fiction.”
–Lord Byron (from Don Juan)
There now, I have and you are very much alive!
Mespo:
if I may say, all great minds think alike. Alas that I was not born in Rome or Colonial America. You would now be quoting Byron, but then I would be dead. Maybe it’s better that I wasn’t.
As WC Fields said “on the whole, I’d rather be in Philadelphia”
Byron:
“I have been saying just that for years”
************
You see now, you’ve been in good company with your thoughts.
AY/Mespo:
M. T. Cicero of course.
Mespo:
“Always willing to align themselves with tyrannical elements in Rome for a price, these corrupt politicians were propped up by centuries old laws maintaining their family’s assets and power.”
I have been saying just that for years. the rich in this country want to keep their money without having to work to keep it. At the turn of the last century (1880-1920) it was hard to keep your money in the family. The easiest route – get in bed with government and protect your ass ets. And that is what has happened.
AY:
Sort of a Shakespearean debate. I do agree that all accomplishment is a joint effort, and I use the Roman statesman as a shorthand way of recognizing the ideas. I do believe however that the major works were Cicero’s with Tiro playing the role of scrivener, spader, and refiner. Like you, I am a Franklin fan, but I recognize Madison, Mason, and Adams as the other leading minds of the era.
mespo,
While I do not disagree with the premise of your statement of the arguments so presented. I recall that Tiro was the Scribner of Cicero and all works and words were attributed to the master. Tiro was initially a slave of Cicero and proved his works in words, thus earning him his freedom.
You know the clown that always knew the footnotes in cases and would talk about that stuff in court. Confused the hell out of a number of them. Well that guy was me. I did have a Judge ask if that was all I did. I am lucky in the regard when I need a case it just kind of pops out at me and when it does not I will keep looking until I find what it is that I need.
Lucky now that the Internet is just a click away and I have saved many a clients by this. I once was told by an elder attorney. You don’t have to know the law, just know where to look. I am even more blessed that I have recall of cases that I did in law school almost as if I was reading them today. I hope that this makes sense.
I do agree that Jefferson was probably one of the best statesmen that we had ever had. Franklin was equally as brilliant however, his love for the ladies and brew got to him. If I recall he was disliked by a number of people and this is why he never held office other than Post Master and this was before the US was formed. Although he did great things and many are still in use today…..