Brian Bridson, the same atheist mental midget who has referred to Pope Benedict XVI as "Ben-the-Dick," (which in itself reveals his adolescent mindset), is angry at the Catholic Church and is calling for Catholics to be "put in their place." And what is their place? For Bridson, it would be better for all Catholics to live at the Vatican because their views do not belong in the public square. Maybe he would like to stick Catholics in concentration camps?
Why is Bridson so angry? Well, Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, is attempting to bully Catholic schools into allowing the celebration of homosexuality. Responding to Catholic Tim Storey, who wrote in The Intelligencer, "I am appalled at Premier Dalton McGuinty's recent comments in which he plans to impose the homosexual agenda on Catholic schools under the guise of anti-bullying Gay-Straight Alliance clubs. McGuinty is the one who needs a 'change of attitude' - not Catholics. Catholics were the first to introduce the idea of anti-bullying. Anti-bullying does not mean the approval of a lifestyle that is not in accord with Catholic teaching," Bridson, in the typical knee-jerk response of the unthinking atheist, writes:
"But Tim, catholic schools accept public monies that keep them in business. These catholic schools are not private institutions: they exist in the public realm and take money from the public. Therefore, whether you like it or not, you must adhere to ethical standards being established by the public."
Bridson conveniently ignores the fact that Catholic citizens pay taxes which support public schools. If he doesn't want Catholic schools to receive "public monies," does he support Catholic citizens being exempt from taxes which go to support public schools?
Erik Stanley, Senior legal counsel and head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance Defense Fund, explains that, "There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: 'If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.' This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches 'creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.' The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion."
Of course, this is what the atheist Brian Bridson, anti-Catholic bigot that he is, wants: the destruction of the free exercise of religion. His animus is so extreme that he writes, "..yes, it is true the religion has been around for a very long time, and for most of that time, religion has enjoyed far too many exemptions from the rules that citizens and other public organizations have been subject too: such as the exemption from paying taxes. But this has never been a proper relationship between the state and religion, as religious interests do not, and ought not to supersede the interests of the state’s citizens. Remember, catholics, you have the Vatican city-state, so if you really want state-endorsed catholic-ignorance-and-bigotry-made-law, move there and let the state be as prejudicial as hell."
But, as the Supreme Court has said here in the United States, tax exemptions restrict the fiscal relationship between the church and state and actually tend to complement and reinforce the desired separation which insulates each from the other. So Bridson's argument falls flat. It has no substance. Much like its author.
Continuing his anti-Catholic tirade, Bridson the bigot asserts that in every country "the church, and all other religious organizations, take a back seat." In other words, for Bridson, Catholics do not have a place in the public square. Therefore he writes, "So, catholics, shut the hell up and accept what you are being instructed to do."
For Bridson, the Catholic political viewpoint is "skewed." Why? Because, he insists, "..they are quick to yell and scream and cry when they believe their ability to practice their religion as they see fit is infringed upon, but have no reservation about pushing their religion down the throats of the rest of society." This charge is particularly ironic since, as Pope John Paul II wrote in his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39).
Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."
So Bridson is simply lying when he asserts that the Church attempts to push its faith "down the throats of the rest of society." Separation of church and state does not mean separation of religious belief from the state. Believers have the same rights as other citizens to engage in political discourse. Even someone with Bridson's limited intellectual capacity should be able to understand that.
But Bridson is an anti-Catholic ideologue. He wants the Catholic Church removed entirely from the public square. He writes, "Enough is enough! It is time to stop allowing this ancient and ignorant group to meddle in public affairs. The hypocrites! They bitch about public policy but have no problem taking public money. Ignorant and Intolerant! They have nothing to justify their beliefs, including their beliefs about such things as homosexuality (except for a book of ancient ignorance and hatred), but expect these beliefs to dictate how we all live our lives and how we all choose to think about things."
And then he concludes his hate-diatribe by sending a message to the Catholic Church:
"To the catholic church and its SS-esque Minions: The only people who prefer your ideologies and assorted plans for society are other catholics. No one else wants or needs your ridiculous and lie-filled dogma. Keep it to yourselves…because we are not going to take your nonsense any longer. We will not allow our rights and privileges be sacrificed because you would prefer that they were.
So catholic church: shut up or get the hell out!" (Article may be found here).
There you have it. For Brian Bridson, Catholics around the world - more than 1 billion people - are comparable to the Nazi SS and their Church should be banished from the public square. The face of anti-Catholic bigotry.
"But Tim, catholic schools accept public monies that keep them in business. These catholic schools are not private institutions: they exist in the public realm and take money from the public. Therefore, whether you like it or not, you must adhere to ethical standards being established by the public."
Bridson conveniently ignores the fact that Catholic citizens pay taxes which support public schools. If he doesn't want Catholic schools to receive "public monies," does he support Catholic citizens being exempt from taxes which go to support public schools?
Erik Stanley, Senior legal counsel and head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance Defense Fund, explains that, "There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: 'If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.' This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches 'creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.' The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion."
Of course, this is what the atheist Brian Bridson, anti-Catholic bigot that he is, wants: the destruction of the free exercise of religion. His animus is so extreme that he writes, "..yes, it is true the religion has been around for a very long time, and for most of that time, religion has enjoyed far too many exemptions from the rules that citizens and other public organizations have been subject too: such as the exemption from paying taxes. But this has never been a proper relationship between the state and religion, as religious interests do not, and ought not to supersede the interests of the state’s citizens. Remember, catholics, you have the Vatican city-state, so if you really want state-endorsed catholic-ignorance-and-bigotry-made-law, move there and let the state be as prejudicial as hell."
But, as the Supreme Court has said here in the United States, tax exemptions restrict the fiscal relationship between the church and state and actually tend to complement and reinforce the desired separation which insulates each from the other. So Bridson's argument falls flat. It has no substance. Much like its author.
Continuing his anti-Catholic tirade, Bridson the bigot asserts that in every country "the church, and all other religious organizations, take a back seat." In other words, for Bridson, Catholics do not have a place in the public square. Therefore he writes, "So, catholics, shut the hell up and accept what you are being instructed to do."
For Bridson, the Catholic political viewpoint is "skewed." Why? Because, he insists, "..they are quick to yell and scream and cry when they believe their ability to practice their religion as they see fit is infringed upon, but have no reservation about pushing their religion down the throats of the rest of society." This charge is particularly ironic since, as Pope John Paul II wrote in his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39).
Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."
So Bridson is simply lying when he asserts that the Church attempts to push its faith "down the throats of the rest of society." Separation of church and state does not mean separation of religious belief from the state. Believers have the same rights as other citizens to engage in political discourse. Even someone with Bridson's limited intellectual capacity should be able to understand that.
But Bridson is an anti-Catholic ideologue. He wants the Catholic Church removed entirely from the public square. He writes, "Enough is enough! It is time to stop allowing this ancient and ignorant group to meddle in public affairs. The hypocrites! They bitch about public policy but have no problem taking public money. Ignorant and Intolerant! They have nothing to justify their beliefs, including their beliefs about such things as homosexuality (except for a book of ancient ignorance and hatred), but expect these beliefs to dictate how we all live our lives and how we all choose to think about things."
And then he concludes his hate-diatribe by sending a message to the Catholic Church:
"To the catholic church and its SS-esque Minions: The only people who prefer your ideologies and assorted plans for society are other catholics. No one else wants or needs your ridiculous and lie-filled dogma. Keep it to yourselves…because we are not going to take your nonsense any longer. We will not allow our rights and privileges be sacrificed because you would prefer that they were.
So catholic church: shut up or get the hell out!" (Article may be found here).
There you have it. For Brian Bridson, Catholics around the world - more than 1 billion people - are comparable to the Nazi SS and their Church should be banished from the public square. The face of anti-Catholic bigotry.
