Posted on 10/29/2014 11:55:01 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
On Friday, city officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, informed Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers and proprietors of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, that they would be required to perform gay weddings or face fines or possibly jail time under the city’s “public accommodations” statute. Their religious views are expected to adjust to the edicts of the state.
So it’s official: a new religious orthodoxy is sweeping across the nation, imposed by government and backed by force. It’s a religious orthodoxy required by secular authorities for a secular purpose, but no matter. Heretics will be found out and forced to recant.
No one ever expects the Secular Inquisition.
Except that we actually did expect it. In fact, it’s inherent in the fundamental basis of the left’s arguments for gay marriage.
I’m speaking here of the argument for gay marriage. It may be hard to remember now, but not very long ago there were compromise proposals for same-sex “civil unions” that were legally equivalent to marriage but under a different name. Gay rights activists consciously rejected these unions in order to specifically demand the use of the term “marriage,” insisting that the state legally recognize and enforce the equality of these marriages with old-fashioned, outmoded heterosexual ones.
Personally, I have no problem with gay people getting hitched, having weddings, and saying that they are “married.” I don’t have any religious objection, on account of not being religious, nor do I think gay marriages, given their very small numbers, will have any particular impact on the state of marriage as an important social institution. (Which, alas, has all sorts of problems of its own.)
But the test of liberty isn’t what happens to people who agree with the intent of a particular edict. The test is what happens to people who disagree.
That brings us to the reason why gay rights advocates insisted on the government granting same-sex unions the title of “marriage.” The theory behind this was that homosexuals suffer from a lack of social acceptance, and gay marriage would put the government’s imprimatur on their status as social equals—along with the promise that this equality is to be backed by government force.
The theory behind gay marriage, in short, was the theory behind the entire secular left: society and the state are the all-powerful forces on which the life of the individual depends, and the most important political task—indeed, the most important task in life—is getting this irresistible power on your side. Once you gain social and political power, you hold on to it by making your preferred views mandatory, a catechism everyone must affirm, while suppressing all heretical views. In this case, to gain social acceptance of homosexuality, you make the affirmation of gay marriages mandatory while officially suppressing any dissenting religious views.
Hence, the Secular Inquisition, which we should have expected all along.
Except that it turns out to have the opposite effect in the long run, as the history of the original inquisition reveals. A big part of the reason for the centuries-long decline in the influence of religion in the West is the aftermath of its attempts to protect its social monopoly through coercion. I don’t think the Church has ever really recovered from the legacy of the Spanish Inquisition, which served to discredit religion by associating it with brutality—an image that has lived in infamy for centuries, down to its use in a certain well-known Monty Python sketch.
As an advocate of secularism—including secular morality and a secular basis for liberty—I don’t want my own views similarly discredited by association with the oppressive acts of a new Secular Inquisition.
Be honest only inquisition I just want see is only Mel Brooks holding it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnF1OtP2Svk
Just sayin
Never give up the fight!
I would tell the couple that only traditional Christian weddings are performed using a script that contains terms like man and woman husband and wife. The state can’t tell the minister what to say in the cerement. Don’t think that the gay couple would appreciate having assign genders to each other.
“Be honest only inquisition I just want see is only Mel Brooks holding it”
Just watched it. You can keep that one too because he’s
NVTS.
As a Catholic Deacon, I will never officiate a gay marriage! Throw me in jail, fine me to poverty, threaten my family, we will persevere to the end.
“War on Christianity”........coming soon to every state that allows homosexual marriage.
Hard to believe that this is happening in Idaho, of all places ... CA, NY or MA I would believe, but ID?
leftists and statists are the same everywhere
Let’s start calling this the Lesbian Inquisition. Can we make Cleese et al look butch?
Christian pastors should start including a sermonette on sexual sin, per the Bible, as a matter of course in their marriage ceremonies. Fornication, pre-marital, adultery, and sodomy/lesbianism. It should be sop. Then, when the sodomites attempt to coerce the pastor into giving them “equal treatment”, the pastor can say with complete truthfulness, that it will include such. It wouldn’t harm the normal (heterosexual candidates, since these days that’s not a given) couples any, either.
I absolutely expected this. Our NC Bishops are putting on a brave face, but unless they’re blithering nitwits (which they don’t seem to be), they must be expecting lawsuits attempting to force “gay weddings” in Catholic Churches any day now.
The Catholic Church (and other churches as well) dug it’s own hole on this by getting into bed with Progressives on various issues over the last couple decades.
It should have started excommunicating people like Pelosi, the Kennedys, etc a long time ago.
Irrelevant. Every religious organization and every private business is in the position to be bowled over by the homosexual juggernaut, regardless of their institutional or individual political beliefs or activities.
That's nonsense, the inquisition ended hundreds of years ago and, in fact, impacted a small portion of the population.
The rise of extreme secularists is a result of the misuse of scientific doctrine.
Science is not a religion, it can provide no answers to existentialist questions, nor should it be expected to.
IMO, in the long run this misuse of science will harm science far more than the damage it is currently doing to religion.
***Their religious views are expected to adjust to the edicts of the state. ****
Next thing you know is that Christians will be forced to eat of the sacrifices to Obama Caesar.
OR ELSE!
Oh, you don’t have to do that ... just burn a little incense in front of his picture ... we’ll tell people it was just a joint!
Pope Leo XIII warned about the dangers of the state authorities defining marriage 130 years ago.
Freegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.