Southern Religion

‘Dangerous’ Declaration, says the LA Times

It is a dangerous declaration full of fake facts and supported by a worthless petition. The Manhattan Declaration is irresponsible, argues the Los Angeles Times:

This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous. Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn? Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don’t like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform? They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men — even holy men.

Read the entire piece here.


November 29, 2009 - Posted by | Politics, Religion | , , , , ,


  1. If they made a habit of critiquing editorials, I know that Terry Mattingly and the folks at GetReligion would have a field-day with this line from the LA Times:

    “In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exempting believers in some cases from having to comply with applicable laws.”

    Talk about vague! Scalia’s Smith decision – which restricts religious freedom and thus was the impetus for RFRA – is controlling in most states. The meat in RFRA as it applies to the states was ruled unconstitutional in Boerne (late 90s). Considering that RFRA only applies to the federal government, the above sentence is misleading at best.

    It’s just laughable for the LA Times to suggest that gay rights proponents have made “significant concessions.” It took the bully pulpit of the Governor to push through broadly-defined exemptions in NH. I recall the gay rights groups doing a bit of kicking and screaming.

    Thanks for the link.

    Comment by Big Daddy Weave | November 29, 2009

    • You’re welcome.

      Regarding New Hampshire gay rights concessions, the article with which they document their “significant concessions” claim does say gubernatorial force was required:

      Gov. John Lynch, who personally opposes gay marriage, refused to sign the bill until wide-ranging religious exemptions were added.

      The referenced article also provides other supporting detail to their claim.

      BTW, their correction of the N.J. Methodist camp matter was headed in the right direction, but incomplete, as you can see here if you wade through the entire blog (the matter is complex).

      Comment by baptistplanet | November 29, 2009

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: