Marquette and Amnesty International
A fine piece of research from the GOP3 blog: Amnesty International, a recognized student organization here on campus, has positions on abortion and condoms flatly contrary to Catholic teaching.
Not only this, but they have loudly criticized the Church for its teaching on condoms.
Amnesty is an organization that made its reputation having members write letters to foreign governments urging the release of “prisoners of conscience” – persons put in jail for nothing more than opposing some dictatorial government.
But with the march of democracy around the world, the organization has faced a “mission crisis” as fewer and fewer such prisoners exist.
The end of the Cold War has also hurt the organization, since a lot of the (mostly liberal) membership particularly relished attacking right-wing anti-communist allies of the U.S. – notwithstanding that the organization was nominally non-partisan.
Thus they have become more and more a mere liberal activist group. Instead of defending “prisoners of conscience” they are defending Philadelphia cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. They are been heavily involved in attacking the death penalty and promoting “gay rights.” While some of their “gay rights” activism seems reasonable enough to most Americans (the death penalty is an excessive punishment for engaging in homosexual acts), their support for homosexual marriage does not. Quoting one of their documents:
As GOP3.com points out, it’s difficult to see how Marquette could refuse to recognize the Human Rights Campaign, and yet happily accept an organization equally at odds with Church teaching.
Could it be that some people in the Administration didn’t bother to do their homework? Or is it the case that, in their heart of hearts, they wanted to recognize the Human Rights Campaign, and think they can sneak Amnesty past people?
Not only this, but they have loudly criticized the Church for its teaching on condoms.
Amnesty is an organization that made its reputation having members write letters to foreign governments urging the release of “prisoners of conscience” – persons put in jail for nothing more than opposing some dictatorial government.
But with the march of democracy around the world, the organization has faced a “mission crisis” as fewer and fewer such prisoners exist.
The end of the Cold War has also hurt the organization, since a lot of the (mostly liberal) membership particularly relished attacking right-wing anti-communist allies of the U.S. – notwithstanding that the organization was nominally non-partisan.
Thus they have become more and more a mere liberal activist group. Instead of defending “prisoners of conscience” they are defending Philadelphia cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. They are been heavily involved in attacking the death penalty and promoting “gay rights.” While some of their “gay rights” activism seems reasonable enough to most Americans (the death penalty is an excessive punishment for engaging in homosexual acts), their support for homosexual marriage does not. Quoting one of their documents:
Legalized discrimination in the enjoyment of other civil, political, social and economic rights is widespread. In most parts of the world, lesbians and gay men are systematically denied employment, housing and legal recognition of their partnerships. [emphasis added]This same document appears to reject free speech as a “fundamental human right” if one wants to criticize homosexuality. Quoting again:
The global trend towards granting explicit protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has become firmly established at national level. Canada, France, Ireland, Israel, Slovenia and Spain are just some of the countries where specific reference to sexual orientation is included in their anti-discrimination laws relating to areas such as employment, housing, public services and protection against defamation or hate-speech. [emphasis added]Quite clearly, these activists look forward to the time when simply espousing the Catholic view of homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” can land one in jail.
As GOP3.com points out, it’s difficult to see how Marquette could refuse to recognize the Human Rights Campaign, and yet happily accept an organization equally at odds with Church teaching.
Could it be that some people in the Administration didn’t bother to do their homework? Or is it the case that, in their heart of hearts, they wanted to recognize the Human Rights Campaign, and think they can sneak Amnesty past people?
posted by John McAdams at 3:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home