I'm Okay, You're Disgusting

Poor St. Francis.

On today's WorldNetDaily I was greeted by an article with the huge headline, "Major U.S. City Officially Condemns Catholic Church."  My immediate thought was not, "Wow, really? Which city and why?"

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."

Here's my favorite part:

It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

Ummm... Oh, never mind.

The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."

The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."

Point of fact. Dental dams are a "value." Freedom of religion is a Constitutional guarantee. Minor point, I know, but I haven't had my coffee yet.

But wait, there's more.

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

Openly gay California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

Let's track this. A gathering of teens who don't want their faces rubbed in hedonism is disgusting. Not to mention loud and obnoxious. Unlike those quiet, tasteful gay pride gatherings?

The Chronicle also reported on a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carrying a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."

A very salient point, and I'm glad he brought it up.

Where can I go to get away from people like him?

Comments

[Mark]

I thought this happened a couple of years ago. Did it happen again?

[Karen]

If you read the article, you'll see that it happened again and they reference the earlier vote.

[Kasia]

It's unfortunate that my preliminary cultural barometer has become "If San Francisco's for it, then I'm probably against it" and vice versa.

[Jeff Miller]

I saw the article this morning but couldn't get past "Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously."

I guess my definition of unanimously is different. Though I guess the suprise is that eight people voted against it.

[Gibbons in SF]

Mark, Karen, this didn't happen again. The story is about today's TMLC appeal of Judge Patel's original decision on this matter.

Jeff, not sure if you're kidding, but 168-06 (not resolution 168-08, that's a mistaken citation) is the resolution number. The vote was unanimous 11-0.

An 11-0 vote against the Church by the Supervisors of San Francisco is something all Catholics can be proud of.

[Lia]

"It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."" IMHO the rhetoric is not so much insulting and callous as it is hypocritical, given the large number of homosexual priests who insist on labeling themselves as such and continue to pander to the homosexual community at all levels, whether it's leather bingo night as someone said, allowing certain, blatantly anti-Catholic/homosexual groups to use Church property (the drag queen 'sisters'), etc. ... sorry, I'm in a rather catty mood today and couldn't resist -- though I do agree with what Kasia said about the cultural barometer above...

[Elizabeth]

I now have family living in SF, why I do not know. It pains me to think I will soon have grandchildren being raised in this environment. How can anyone remain innocent with such perversion on every side? My daughter tells me she saw the Mayor of SF at a party one night and he looked right through her. Thank God for that. Lord have mercy on us.

[D. Richard Hipp]

Fact check: The resolution is 168-06, not 168-08 are reported above. The link is here: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/resolutions06/r0168-06.pdf