Who’s your friend, Cardinal Dolan? October, 2016 less than a month before the presidential election?
via Catholic Courier
… he’s also full of crap. Most U.S. Catholics disagree with Dolan.
At Witherspoon Institute’s blog, Cardinal Timothy Dolan writes: Stand Against Unjust Discrimination: Oppose the Equality Act. I suppose that he is a proponent of just discrimination.
The subtitle of Dolan’s opus reads:
The Equality Act goes far beyond the noble desire to protect vulnerable people. It burdens consciences, severely curtails the rights of people to practice their faith, smuggles in an abortion mandate, and explicitly exempts itself from respecting religious freedom.
Every claim in the above quoted passage is a lie! Dolan goes on to write:
… the Equality Act is actually deeply intolerant. It forces a highly contested understanding of human nature on all people, and it goes out of its way to target people of faith.
Nonsense! There is nothing “intolerant” within the Equality Act. The intolerance for LGBTQ people, on the other hand, is quite prominent. And who to blame for the mythology surrounding a disfavored minority group?
There is no controversy among scientists. No misunderstanding exists among articles published by respectable, robustly peer-reviewed academic journals.
Furthermore, the Act does not force an “understanding” (beliefs) on anyone. Nor does it “target” anyone.
Note how Dolan refuses to utter “LGBTQ people:”
The goal is to protect people who identify as LGBT from discrimination.
Off the rails of rationality:
One need not profess the Catholic faith to find problems with the Equality Act. Reason and natural law provide ample grounds for rejecting it. But a Christian perspective can illuminate how the codification of gender ideology into law is harmful.
Dolan is talking about belief. The Act is about behavior. Moreover, there is no such thing as “gender ideology.” That is the religious gibberish offered as a substitute for gender identity.
Gender identity is neither a doctrine nor philosophy. It certainly isn’t an ideology. Natural law was used as a pretext for slavery. There is nothing natural (or neutral) in natural law. It is whatever a philosopher or cleric says it is.
Dolan verbosely explains anti-transgender bigotry and his opposition to marriage equality. All of it is based on lies. Eventually he returns to transphobia:
Imposing Gender Ideology
Of course, many Americans may reject a view of sexuality rooted in the natural law, and perhaps many more do not accept a Christian understanding of the human person. The United States is highly pluralistic. One of the great benefits of living in a free society, though, is that we can reason together about how best to live together with our differences. … The Equality Act brings an end to dialogue. It forces all of us to accept the tendentious claims of gender ideology.
Acceptance is belief, not compelled behavior. The Equality Act has no effect on beliefs. It certainly has no effect on dialogue.
Allowing for room for discernment is especially important here. Consider a scenario involving female spaces at a school. A young male informs a teacher that he now identifies as a female, and that he wishes to be treated as a female. How should an educator respond?
Really? How often has that occurred? Or is that just a contrivance?
… the Equality Act allows for only one way to handle this situation, and it is a way that is unfair for the female students who want privacy and ultimately uncompassionate to a student in need of accompaniment that is both loving and honest.
In other words, the scientific basis for affirming a child’s gender is irrelevant because it conflicts with religious dogma. Worst of all, treating a child in conformity with medical science is “uncompassionate” because such treatment conflicts with dogma.
Now this expresses an ideology:
 Religious freedom is a fundamental right, enshrined as the first in the Bill of Rights.  All people of good will deserve the space to seek the truth about God and to respond to the truth when it is grasped.  Certainly, ordering society toward the good while respecting the freedom of all can be a challenge.  But at a minimum, no one should be forced by the government to do something that she or he understands to be against his or her deeply held convictions.
What Dolan is describing in the first three sentences of the above pertains to religious belief and rituals which is what Free Exercise of religion means. The fourth sentence has nothing to do with either belief or worship.
Nondiscrimination does not affect anyone’s beliefs and it certainly has no effect on worship. Dolan is encouraging people to discriminate against others that they disapprove of.
For millennia, the Church did the same thing in regards to Jewish people. Can a Christian refuse to sell flowers to be used at a Jewish wedding? Not according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No one died as a result.
Nor, for that matter, can a member of a Christian Identity church discriminate against Black people in a public accommodation. He, a racist, can make the same idiotic argument about religious freedom.
Service ≠ approval.
The Equality Act seems to go out of its way to target religion. It exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a bill that was passed nearly unanimously by Congress …
The Equality Act does not “exempt itself” from RFRA. What it says is that the RFRA is not an affirmative defense to a charge of discrimination.
No one would dare say that racism — perhaps refusing to serve a mixed race couple — is excused by “sincerely held religious belief.” At least not in the 21st century.
Dolan bears witness to the fact that this is deemed perfectly acceptable by some people when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity. It is certainly acceptable to Dolan. People like the cardinal make it necessary to address RFRA.
… a church is obviously a religious building. But what if the church has a banquet hall that it rents out for events?
Then it rightfully becomes a public accommodation. Renting out the banquet hall is not a religious rite. And how many churches rent out parts of their building? This is just one more contrivance.
In the above quote, Dolan is referring to marriage equality. Dolan attempts to excuse his bigotry:
Of course, in this instance, the church objects to the activity of the participants, not the “orientation” of the individuals, but the Act does not make that distinction. Our recognition of the inherent dignity of all persons does not entail that we must celebrate conduct contrary to our beliefs.
As the conservative Catholic Justice Scalia said: “A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.” Renting out the hall for a same-sex wedding does not “celebrate” anything other than the receipt of funds.
The Equality Act also sneaks in an abortion mandate by defining “sex” to include “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition”—a phrase that courts have interpreted to include abortion. With this trick, the Act can effectively say that refusing to perform an abortion constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex.
The act says that one cannot discriminate against a pregnant woman. Laws and ordinances nearly identical to the Equality Act exist in states and cities across the country. No doctor has ever been required to perform a procedure that he or she doesn’t provide.
A bit of common sense is in order. Women seeking abortions employ doctors who provide abortions. I don’t ask my urologist for a corrective vision prescription. Trying to tie the Equality Act to abortion is mind-numbingly idiotic.
“We are very human in our bigotry:”
For the Good of All
All people should be treated with dignity and respect. There are cases of real harms that provide the impetus for bills like the Equality Act. …
One cannot treat people with dignity and respect when, at the same time, promoting discrimination and prejudice.
In his closing paragraph Dolan goes beyond the BS of gender ideology:
The Equality Act codifies intolerance, not only for religious people, but for people who have serious, good-faith questions about the transgender political movement.
Being transgender is not a political movement. Is that not abundantly obvious? Apparently not. Speaking of ethics:
Cardinal Dolan denied allegations that he paid off pedophile priests or that he tried to shield church funds while serving as Archbishop of Milwaukee. In 2013 files released by his former archdiocese revealed that Dolan moved $57 million into a trust in 2007.
So Dolan lied. He also deprived some very distressed people who were violated by the Church with the resources that they were due to try to repair their lives. I guess that is Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s idea of “dignity and respect.”