This Should End Gay Marriage (I’m Being Sarcastic).

Today, an Illinois Bishop did a public performance good enough for Saturday Night Live and Monty Python.  The Bishop did a carnival exocism show.  He ordered Satan be cast out.  It was news to me Satan caused the Governor/legislature to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage.

It is often said nonbelievers like myself are not respectful of believers.  We should say how nice it is the Bishop feels strongly about this and is merely expressing his faith.

I would reply the Bishop should show some respect of gay people and not shine the spotlight of condemnation on them.  We can see he regards them as the dregs of the earth.

The Bishop says Catholics should love and feel sorry for gay people.  This is the ultimate code talk for, “They are sinners.  We are better than they are.”

A person of more integrety would not condemn gay citizens.  He would welcome them to his church and not judge them.

I assume this Bishop is an appointee of the previous Pope.  We recall the previous Pope had little on his mind except gays.  He talked about them all the time including during his Christmas Eve message to the world.

I’m willing to bet that, even though the Bishop believes he ran Satan off, gay marriage will continue marching through our country taking no notice of his exorcism.  That’s because  there never was a Satan.

Chasing imaginary demons around with a stick is this Bishop’s idea of good time management.

http://www.suntimes.com/23891467-761/bishop-paprocki-stages-exorcism-as-gay-marriage-becomes-law-be-gone-satan.html

 

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to This Should End Gay Marriage (I’m Being Sarcastic).

  1. Brad says:

    “I’m willing to bet that, even though the Bishop believes he ran Satan off, gay marriage will continue marching through our country taking no notice of his exorcism. That’s because there never was a Satan.”

    It will most likely happen that way, and the anti-gay religious community will take that as evidence that there IS a Satan. They will just tell themselves they need to keep trying harder – until they fail and silently move on to their next boogeyman or source of evil.

    Satan is probably the single greatest hoax ever sold. It’s amazing how much control that has given the fear mongering religious right.

  2. entech says:

    It is fun reading the comments on articles like this one about the good bishop. Pleasure to be here amongst all these sane and rational people.

    One set of comments about the guy with the two dads banner ended with these words
    Remember that no one, outside of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Elizabeth (a relative of Mary’s) knew the truth during Jesus’s youth.
    So true and apropos, a Revelation for the ages, true then and true now, will remain true forever. :)

  3. Michael Ross says:

    Liberals today . . . . liberals way back when

    “A person of more integrety would not condemn gay citizens. He would welcome them to his church and not judge them.” (Jon)

    “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” (men of Sodom, Genesis 19:9)

    That is just like today’s gays—and liberals in general, really—to be denied something they want, and then claim, “Hey, who are you to judge me? Discrimination! Bigotry! Judging!

    • entech says:

      It is a valid question you ask. Who are you to judge them?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 8:16 “That is just like today’s gay–and liberal in general, really–to be denied something they want, and then claim, “Hey, who are you to judge me?…”

      I would be helpful to review the facts, here.

      I think you would agree with me, Priests like this dufus are claiming for their actions are based on an ultimate universal foundation of morality. That is an invisible, unvarifiable god and a book written by unknown writers whose originally words we have never seen.

      People like me who criticize the preist are pointing out his condemnation is goundless. If I am wrong, perhaps you could point out why.

      • Michael Ross says:

        I don’t know the priest’s attitude. If it is one of condemnation then I agree with you. As Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery, “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” Christians, including this priest, are not called to condemn sinners any more than Jesus did. No need for that. Sinners are already under condemnation.
        “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”(John 3:17)

        If you say the priest is condemning this homosexual then you are in turn
        condemning him for trying to minister deliverance. I would guess the priests heart is in the right place but his actions are misguided.

        “The Bishop says Catholics should love and feel sorry for gay people. This is the ultimate code talk for, “They are sinners. We are better than they are. ”

        I think you are passing judgement here. Only God knows the heart. If the priest and Christians in general have the attitude of self righteousness then they are like the pharisees and invite judgement on themselves.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Michael 5:31 “..then you are in turn condemning him for trying to minister delieverance.”

          The arrogant attitude that gay people need to change is at the heart of the anti gay Christian community. In your way of thinking, and that of the Bishop, there is no human injuctice that can be criticized as long as it is based on religion. Slavery was just fine because it was based on the Bible. If abortion doctors are murdered because the murderer said he was instructed by god to do it, we are to just nod our heads in agreement.

          To say those who want to harm others for their own amusement or self rightousness are wrong is different than judging others as sinners based upon nothing at all.

          • Michael Ross says:

            . “Slavery was just fine because it was based on the Bible. If abortion doctors are murdered because the murderer said he was instructed by god to do it, we are to just nod our heads in agreement.”

            You know very well Christians oppose both slavery and murdering abortion “doctors”. The apostle Paul instructed slaves to “obey your masters”. That was not condoning the institution of slavery. Christ did not come into the world start a slave rebellion but He did come to “set the captives free”. Spartacus started a slave rebellion. It failed. Much blood was shed and the slaves were executed or went back into slavery. The Roman world wasn’t ready personal freedom. Ancient world was one slave empire after another. But the spread of Christianity began to change that. It was the West (Christendom) that eradicated slavery. All anti-slave movements were led and dominated by Christians while others just watched. Do you really think that if Christ had never come into the world that chattel slavery would have been done away with?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Michael 11:01 Like everything in Christianity, there is something for both slavery advocates and oppoents. Advocates of slavery claimed moral superiority and used the Bible as their source. After slavery, segregationists used it as well.

            The Ten Commandments don’t include, “Thou shalt have no slaves, or, thou shalt have only one wife.” Instead, it says you are not go over and envy or take your neighbors slaves or wives.

            Your case would be stronger were it not for what is written in your Bible.

          • entech says:

            Michael you seem to have borrowed a very broad brush from one or more of your atheist friends.

            Do you really mean that “all” Christians oppose the murder of abortion doctors, do you know of any atheist who has killed an abortion doctor? There are more than a few Christians that think it is justifiable to kill some to save the lives of many, that line of reasoning can be the start of justification for an expansion of those deserving death, the “Good Book” is a good source for compiling lists of those that must surely be put to death.

            Much is made of the Christianity of the “Founding Fathers”, yet a took a civil war for anything to happen. Were all northerners Christians and all southerners liberal freethinkers????

            One thing that is general with Christians is the propensity to claim credit for all the good and sweep under the carpet all the bad, in modern terms this is called “Cover Up”; or just as common, trying to spread the blame in strident calls along the lines of “maybe, BUT others were worse”

          • Michael Ross says:

            All the by-laws of the Bible fit in the parameters of the 10 Commandments. Slavery is taking someone against there will. Taking their liberty. That is called kidnapping. I believe that would violate the 8th and 10th Commandments (Stealing and coveting). Having more than one wife violates # 7(adultery) and 10. And, yes, the Bible has been used to justify many evils. Today it is used by many Christians to justify wars of choice and aggression. This is contemporary yet you seem not to be concerned about it.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Michael 1:11 “Slavery is taking someoe against their will. Taking their liberty. That is called kidnapping. I believe that would violate the 8th and 10th Commandments.”

            Actually, I think most Bible folks would use a differnt tack to escape the presense of slavery by Godly people in the Bible. They would say the slaves were lucky to have such wonderful masters. Then, they would trot out some slaves to testify how good they have it. That’s what Christian emperors did after they won the battles. That’s what women who are not allowed to hold some church offices say today–they enjoy the lesser role God meant for them.

          • entech says:

            Michael do you think the entire 613 can be subsumed in the ten. How about:
            To circumcise the male offspring (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3)

            Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl (Lev. 22:24). There goes a lot of farming practise, no more steers fattened for the table.

            Not to eat the flesh of unclean beasts (Lev. 11:4); no more bacon sandwiches.

            Not to demand from a poor man repayment of his debt, when the creditor knows that he cannot pay, nor press him (Ex. 22:24); no more banking: or:
            To release debts in the seventh year (Deut. 15:2)

            Not to refrain from putting a false prophet to death nor to be in fear of him (Deut. 18:22): that could end a lot of denominations.

            Not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together (Deut. 22:11).

            And never let us forget — Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (Perhaps this one could be honour your parents; if you want to live)

  4. Simple says:

    Maybe the catholic church should have an exorcism to get rid of the demon of pedophilia from within their own ranks.

  5. H.P. Drifter says:

    Jon

    Sound a little fishy (no pun intended) Maybe a life time of living with gay priests and those that practice being pedophiles. This guy has flipped out, time for the white shirts to come and take him away. Just a side note Illinois was the first state to legalize homosexual activity, this goes way back. That is why the Chicago Art Institute had so many Homosexual Students when I was a kid, they could study there with out fear of being persecuted locally by the police. The first time I was ever asked out by a gay person was in the elevator of Lawson Street YMCA (I declined) a hot bed of Homosexual activity, Not Hollywood, Not New York but Chicago.

    H.P. Drifter

  6. H.P. Drifter says:

    Maybe the mentally ill will rush the Priest Hood Now that they know all it takes is being Mentally ill and straight to make the headlines.
    A friend of mine an ex priest quit the priesthood more than fifty years ago because of all this nonsense that was going on in the Church, this issue is nothing new, homosexuals and pedophiles, being priests, Even the New Pope talked about the gays In the Vatican itself. I don’t mind them being gay and being in the church, what I don’t like is that they are all hypocrites.
    Just another reason to believe that organized religion at least in part is toxic faith. If you read the bible and draw your own conclusions who is to say your not a good christian for not going to church.

    H.P.Drifter

    • Wolfy32 says:

      Exactly.. Why does one need someone to draw conclusions for you when you can draw your own…. The story of Sodom and Gamorrah are used a lot for anti – Gay slogans. However, the story maybe mentions or implies gay acts once, but for the most part the story talks about fornications and perversions of humanity.

      I’ve heard the story preached several times, and the meaning taken from the story changes each time, but, the most common was quite simply a message of “hospitality” How we treat new people or different people. Weather we welcome them or choose to take advantage of them.

      It’s funny how the same story is used for complete opposite messages.. The fornication of Gays is evil and needs to be rejected, or a message of welcome strangers and people even if they’re different, show them kindness and do nothing to take advantage of them. Heh…

      How about instead of telling me what to think, I think for myself….

  7. H.P. Drifter says:

    Wolfy32

    Good thinking

  8. eric haugen says:

    Two questions: 1) Is there a sexual morality? 2) If the answer is yes, who defines it?

    For those that would answer “society” for the second, I would ask has society done a good job so far when it comes to marriage and sexuality? All you need to do is google “Impact of divorce” and learn that society has failed miserably when it comes to this issue. Has no fault divorce helped advance society? The economics of divorce and the impact on kids cannot be understated. Certainly the “church” is a part of that society and a part of the failure. Is anyone ready to say that anything goes or “what is, is right (Alexander Pope)?” Are we ready for the attitude “for what should we, who have no religion, do with law (Sade)?” If not, and there is a morality, I would ask again who will define it? Who will be excluded from the “social norm?” Once you define it, it might be a bit more difficult to defend a position of inclusiveness and openness to a population you have alienated.

    • entech says:

      Of course there is a sexual morality, the real question is do you consider “God fearing Christians” like you are the ones to impose it based on a book that has more than a few dubious values itself.
      Abraham for a good start, the wife and the slave girl, the slave and her son thrown out to die in the desert.

      You mention the impact on children over divorce. What is preferable, a child that has two parents separated but still friendly, or a couple that stay together “for the sake of the children” and raise them in an atmosphere of hate and bitterness, constant fighting and mutual abuse.

      An Essay on Man is a poem published by Alexander Pope in 1734. It is a rationalistic effort to use philosophy in order to “vindicate the ways of God to man”, a variation of John Milton’s claim in the opening lines of Paradise Lost, that he will “justify the ways of God to men”. It is concerned with the natural order God has decreed for man. Because man cannot know God’s purposes, he cannot complain about his position in the Great Chain of Being and must accept that “Whatever IS, is RIGHT”, … It would seem that this quote from the Wikipedia article on ‘An Essay on Man’ would indicate a thought that whatever is right is right because god made it that way, in no way does Pope suggest a libertine way of life, Shelley perhaps?

      • eric haugen says:

        “Of course there is a sexual morality, the real question is do you consider “God fearing Christians” like you are the ones to impose it based on a book that has more than a few dubious values itself. ”
        My question was who determines it? If the Bible is not going to define morality than who/what is? That was my question which you did not answer. Throughout the Bible you will find many examples and people who miss the mark in regards to morality and Christ like living. I don’t believe that the story of Abraham is ever quoted or referenced to be a guide to sexual morality. As we have both pointed out taking things out of context is a dangerous thing.

        “You mention the impact on children over divorce. What is preferable, a child that has two parents separated but still friendly, or a couple that stay together “for the sake of the children” and raise them in an atmosphere of hate and bitterness, constant fighting and mutual abuse”. Again it seems you have missed my point. I never stated anything in regards to abusive or dangerous situations. My point is that society has belittled marriage to a point that is has simply become an arrangement of convenience and “happiness”. People throw away marriages all the time. Many, many studies have demonstrated the damaging consequences of this yet “society” has endorsed this. That is my point.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          eric 1:11 “My question was who determines it? If the Bible is not going to define morality than who/what is?”

          It has always seemed to me the answer is obvious. We, ourselves, figure this out by long-standing expereince. The pagans had a set of moral values that worked for them. Hindu societies, a faith older than Christianity, have a set of moral values that work for them.

          For example, let’s say some group have a rule of killing all babies. That group would not survive and, if there ever has been such a gruop, we have not heard of them. On the other hand, there have been successful societies that killed some babies and some of its elderly population. To not have done so would have been a violation of that society’s moral values. Those were eskimos, natives of Alaska. They developed those practices because of the need to fit their population size into the food supply avaialable to them.

          Moral values of antiquity were based on survival. Groups with certain moral values survived, others did not. What we have today is the result of the successful societies, not the Bible. Authors of the Bible merely wrote done what had existed for generations preceding them.

          I know it is often said from the pulpit, “Moral values come from God. Without God there would be none.” That just is not true.

        • entech says:

          Sorry if I did not answer clearly, the implication, I intended was:
          1) yes there is a sexual morality
          2) not you

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      eric 6:59 “Two questions 1.) Is there sexual morality? ..who defines it?”

      I was interested to learn what you had to say about these questions, but instead, you went off on divorce. I have to confess I don’t see a connection between sexual morality and divorce. We could have little sexual immorality and much divorce or visa versa. Maybe you could elaborate.

      • eric haugen says:

        I was simply anticipating that the answer to the second question is that society is the best judge of what is right and wrong. There are often statements that imply that if the majority of people are in support of something than it must be right. You of course know that is completely wrong and in many instances in history many things endorsed by society are in fact quite harmful (look at all the people voted in to congress recently; the majority are sometimes a frightful bunch). That is why the two issues got put together.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          I can think of numerous frightful communities / societies that established their own moral codes:
          Quakers, puritans, those Christians that started the witch trials and witch hunts.

          There are few societies that are without their “crimes” (if any). We are human and therefore are prone to corruption, mistakes, and too easily corruptable.

          The societies that made the fewest mistakes probably died out or remain unheard of as there was nothing noteworthy of them.

  9. H.P. Drifter says:

    Eric

    “The Hot Potato”

    H.P.Drifter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>