Dan Cathy, owner of Chick-Fil-A did the unthinkable by progressive standards. He defended traditional marriage - marriage as being between one man and one woman - the definition of marriage that has been in existence since I know that Leftists see anything that is in accordance with tradition as foreign since they like to pervert and twist definitions to fit their own fantasies of what is "is" to fit with their perception of what is "fair" and to fulfill their self-esteem emotional needs so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. Why would we want to uphold that which is defined as "is" when feelings should overrule all the time according to the Libs?
Those who support homosexuals and their so-called right to marriage on the basis of fairness while demanding tolerance from others have a problem with reciprocating that tolerance with any person who disagrees with their position - with people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman since that has been the very essence of what marriage is since the beginning of time, and that . Just like believing in abortion is a test for feminism for progressives so is believing in gay "marriage" for bigotry. Liberals believe in that which goes against human nature.
In response to Cathy's statement of belief on marriage a "tolerant" Chicago Alderman stated that he would block Chick-Fil-A from opening a new franchise in his ward. Then the Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel stated “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values” seemingly in support of Alderman's statement. In addition The Herald reported that the Mayor of Boston said this “it will be very difficult” for Chick-fil-A to obtain licenses for a restaurant in Boston… These people are so tolerant that they want to shut down or prevent the opening of businesses by those with whom they disagree. To be tolerant of ONLY those you agree with is the definition of intolerance.
In response to Rahm Emanuel's comment on "Chicago Values" Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago has penned this:
Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.” Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus. Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will? What are we re-defining? CONTINUED
Another example of the tolerant Left is an out of town group, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, targeting the City of Steubenville logo that the city council had approved in 2011 because the city dared to include in its logo a the silhouette of a particular well-known building from one of the largest employers in Steubenville: the university's Christ The King Chapel which bears a prominent cross. The group threatened the city with a lawsuit and the City of Steubenville waved the white flag of surrender and have now agreed to remove Christ The King Chapel from the logo.
Here is that utterly "offensive" city logo that the anti-theist jihadist Christrianophobes made it their mission to have removed:
.jpg)
Franciscan University's reaction to the City Council's decision:
“For more than 65 years, Franciscan University of Steubenville has proudly served as an integral part of this community and we were honored to have our chapel included in the new city of Steubenville logo. The city initially included our chapel because it represents Franciscan University, a world-renowned center of higher learning and one of the largest employers in the region. We find it particularly troubling that an out of town and out of touch group targeted the University for removal from the logo solely because of our religious identity.
“Now that the city has decided not to keep the chapel in its logo, the University has declined the city’s offer to be represented by another campus building. The Christ the King Chapel and its cross, which are the centerpiece of the University logo, are internationally recognized symbols of the campus here in Steubenville and are at the heart of our Catholic educational mission. No other campus symbol or architectural feature so immediately identifies the University.
“As used in the city logo, the chapel image is not an endorsement of any one religion, or religion at all. It merely signifies one of the many treasures of Steubenville—along with Historic Fort Steuben, the Veterans Memorial Bridge, and the downtown cityscape—that are well-known community landmarks.
“For these reasons, Franciscan University has decided not to be included at all in the revised logo rather than to be represented in a way that does not honor our mission as a faith-based institution.”
From The Practicing Catholic:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sure is … well … religious. What do I mean? These self-proclaimed “freethinkers” gloat on their homepage that “nones” are the second largest denomination in the United States – behind Catholics – according to the 2008 American Religious Identifications Survey. Yes, you read that correctly. According to their own language, non-belief is actually a religious denomination. Seriously. And they are correct. Two definitions of religion from Merriam-Webster:
- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices;
They refer to themselves as atheists and agnostics, but that’s a lie. They are most decidedly anti-theists, passionately unified to stomp out every trace of any other system of belief by legal challenge and propaganda, targeting Christianity as public enemy number one. Want proof? They offer a so-called “Debaptism Certificate”, as if baptism could somehow be undone simply by renouncing it, even without their made-up document. Laughable.
- a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
This anti-theistic group calls themselves "freethinkers" but then they target any organization that does not fit into their anti-theistic code or belief system, who thinks outside of the atheistic bubble, so how is that being for free thinking? A little hypocrisy there?
FFRF claimed in its letter to the City that depicting the chapel with its cross “…places the City’s imprimatur behind Christianity. This excludes nonChristians and violates the Constitution.” (Yes, they actually used imprimatur, a decidedly Catholic term. They couldn’t just use “stamp of approval”?) Yet, their own news release states, “All citizens — whether Christian, Jewish, atheist or agnostic, Muslim, etc. — must be welcomed as full participants, and the only way to do that is to keep religion out of government.” Except for the religion of anti-theism, apparently.
How is excluding a Christian symbol being inclusive? Gotta love the atheist progressive doublespeak.
From What do Social Radicals really mean by Tolerance?
Welcome to tolerance as defined by secular radicals. In their lexicon “tolerance” is “your right to agree with me.” Live and let live” means, “you have the right to live only where I say.” “Bigotry” applies only to the classes they say are oppressed. “Phobia” (as in Homophobia) applies only to those who oppose their agenda. “Hate” only exists against the classes they I say who are “protected” and have defined as oppressed. It is never possible for religious or social conservatives to be the object of hate since hate only comes from social conservatives.Yes, welcome to the tolerant utopia founded by proponents of gay sex, gay “marriage” and other social inventions.
Pope Benedict has spoken frequently of the “tyranny of relativism.” What this means, essentially, is that when a culture decides that there is no fundamental basis of truth, (whether of Scripture or Natural Law), the result is that there is no real basis for discussion or resolution of issues. Thus who “wins the day” is not based on reason, but on who shouts the loudest, and/or who has the most power, money or political influence.
The way forward in a relativistic world is not to appeal to reason by reference to Natural Law (in philosophy), or to constitutional principles (in political discourse) or to Scripture and Tradition (in Theology). Rather the “way forward” is to gain power and to implement an agenda that binds.
Farewell to reason rooted in agreed upon principles, hello to tyranny rooted simply in opinion and power.Revolutions which ride in on the train of “freedom” more frequently usher in a reign of terror, as those who claimed to be oppressed and repressed take up their new power and then, themselves, turn to oppress, suppress, and repress any whom they thought, or think, to be on the wrong side of the issue.
Expect more “tolerance” from social radicals. The tyranny of relativism has ushered in a very poisonous and dangerous climate which has little basis for any discussion or true tolerance. And remember, what a social radical means by tolerance has nothing to do with tolerating you, if you do not belong to a class or group favored by them.
It will require greater and greater courage from those of us who still think of truth as something higher than ourselves. And if you think that an exaggeration, just point to Natural Law, the Constitution, or (gaad zooks) Scripture, and just brace yourself for the immediate scorn you will experience. “Oh, what harm can that cause?” you may wonder. Just ask Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A.
From Fulton J. Sheen:
“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance-it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”
“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory.
Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
Let's end with a bit of jocularity from Tim Hawkins. Enjoy!
