I have total respect for those who believe that life begins at conception. I do not. My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being. My beliefs are based, not on religion, but on my own sense of morality. I do not want others imposing their religious beliefs on me. (Read column here.)Ah...logic.
What others believe may not be imposed on Sally, but Sally's "belief" must be imposed on all, especially babies who are killed by abortion. The scientific fact that every human person's life begins at the beginning must be shunted aside in favor of her personal "belief" that viability determines humanity. Earth to Sally: technology has changed viability over the last 75 years. Preemies born 75 years ago with no hope of life now routinely survive and thrive. And I don't believe you, Sally, when you mark the beginning of life at viability. I imagine a woman who wanted a late term abortion of a baby big enough to "walk [you] to the bus stop" would meet with your approval no matter how viable the infant if his mother wanted it. Your self-centered, "I'm my own god" belief allows you to rationalize and justify anything at all and change your views to match the current fashion.
But it was another Quinn column that is so outside the realm of logical reasoning it made me shake my head and think, "Liberalism fries your brain." The column, Regret looms in future for opponents of gay rights, appeared in last Saturday's paper. It begins by talking about Barry Goldwater and his regret for voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Barry was a good guy, says Quinn, who was "no racist;" he voted on Constitutional principles. But it was the one vote he regretted til the end of his life. From this leaping off point, equating "gay" rights with racism (a dishonest comparison of mutable behavior with immutable racial characteristics), Quinn goes on to hail the fact that Barry had "grown a lot" by the time he died at 89. What does that mean for Quinn?
Toward the end of his life...Goldwater was a strong pro-choice advocate -- his wife was one of the original founders of Planned Parenthood in Arizona. He was also pro-gay rights long before it really became a public issue. His grandson was gay"Ah yes, being a champion of abortion and the gay agenda illustrates "growth."
But then Sally moves on to the main course -- the raw meat of her argument:
Today, there are many potential Goldwaters out there on the gay marriage issue....There are decent people with good values who are against gay marriage. One day, in the not-so-distant future, these people will be ashamed of their position. If any of the Supreme Court justices vote against it, they will eventually be ashamed as well. Not only that but their children, their grandchildren and their heirs will be ashamed of them.Right, Sally! Those who refuse to lie and proclaim that anal sex is the same as marital intercourse will be ashamed. But those who champion their personal "belief" that stabbing babies in the head and sucking out their brains, snipping their spinal cords, and injecting their hearts with digoxin -- those champions of moral virtue will never have to say they're sorry! Talk about living in a liberal dream world!
But there's more to come. Sally has a hate-on for the Catholic Church so she moves on to attack Cardinal Dolan and his statement that "gay people...are made in God's image and likeness...[and] are entitled to friendship...but we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness...especially when it comes to sexual love -- that is intended only for a man and a woman in marriage." Quinn implies that Dolan is a low-down, wicked hypocrite because he "watched when a gay man from New York, who was active in the church until he married his partner, was kicked out of church ministry. This, despite 18,000 signatures in his defense." Horrors! The Church actually stood up for its beliefs. But since they don't correspond to Sally's they must be wrong, especially since 18,000 people said so. Besides which, Sally knows "a few religious leaders" who've told here they favor gay marriage but can't say so for fear of losing their congregations. Well, that certainly proves she's right, eh? And she has a sermon for them:
Think of the conflict and, yes, shame they must be feeling now and how it will only worsen with time. One day they will have to come around or they really will lose their congregations. They have one thing going for them. Most religions believe in redemption. They'll need to pray for it big-time.Sally, of course, will never need to pray for redemption "big-time" for approving of the murder of the "least ones" among God's children. No, killing babies in the womb is just a "choice" in Sally's lexicon, one that corresponds to her moral beliefs.
Besides, the argument for gay marriage is really won already. After all, Sally points out, many politicians are finally seeing the light and jumping on the gays' bandwagon (Flip-flopping among politicians is something new and revolutionary?) except for that awful Rand Paul suggesting the states should decide.
Finally, the end of Quinn's column is so unbelievable she convinced me she's lost her mind altogether and is in dementia. She sums up by urging all those who are on the "wrong side" (i.e., anyone who disagrees with her enlightened beliefs) to turn to Ephesians 5 "for guidance." She quotes most of the chapter from St. Paul (who graphically condemns sodomy in Romans 1) calling all the wrong-headed bigots who refuse to endorse same-sex perversion to "live as children of the light -- for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true."
Are you scratching your head? I certainly was after reading that. What exactly is "good and right and true" about acting out on same-sex desires? What is "true" about pretending orifices used in digestion and excretion are part of the reproductive system? What is "true" and "good" about fisting and other perverted homosexual practices? And what is "true" and "good" about pretending that condemning immoral behavior is the same as discriminating against a man for the color of his skin? Sorry, Sally, there is no civil right to sodomy, adultery, fornication, murder, theft, etc. Immoral behavior may be accepted by the mob (Just like the mob who killed Jesus), but a majority in the wrong are still wrong!
Sally needs to take notice of what she quotes and act on St. Paul's admonitions which she thinks will "shame" people of faith. "Take no part," St. Paul says, "in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly," I shook my head in disbelief that Sally could think this was an argument that favored her position. Homosexual activists have done everything they can to hide what they do "in secret" from the general public. The homosexual activists who wrote After the Ball urged secrecy as part of the strategy to change the culture. They wanted gays to masquerade to make their lust appear the same as the love between a man and a woman in holy matrimony. They wanted people to think that homosexual relationships are monogamous and faithful when most are anything but as a 2010 study of gay couplings showed. How many articles have you seen describing the perverted practices of homosexuals that lead to AIDS, meningitis, syphilis, virulent strains of TB, and other diseases? That aspect of the gay lifestyle is completely shrouded in darkness outside the homosexual community. How many average Americans know about the workshops run by gays to instruct children in perversion? (It's called recruiting!)
Sally's liberalism has totally blinded her to the true meaning of Ephesians 5 (or she's playing dumb). When St. Paul urges the Ephesians, "Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you," he is calling for them to wake up from their old lives of sinful behavior, and throw off moral death. His words are directed to Sally Quinn and all those who live a life of lies where good is portrayed as evil and evil is portrayed as good. "Live not as unwise people," Paul says, "but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil." They are, indeed, as Sally illustrates with her enthusiasm for killing babies, advancing the gay lifestyle, and slandering anyone with whom she disagrees.
No, Sally, I will never be ashamed of standing up for the truth and condemning evil that masquerades as good. I will never lie to a "gay" relative or friend lulling them into a false sense of security about the state of their souls. And all your distorted quoting of scripture won't shame me into adopting a moral relativism that exchanges the true, the good, and the beautiful for ugly lies.
As for redemption, those most in need of it are they who embrace the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance among which are sodomy and the murder of the innocent. You've got at least two of the four on your score card, Sally. Maybe it's time for you to be ashamed and seek redemption. Those who glorify sin are in serious danger of judgment.
Readers, can you spare a Chaplet of Divine Mercy for this foolish woman?