Opposed to same-sex “marriage”? Burn in Hell!

The MSM and entertainment industry take pains to portray homosexuals (whom they include in their TV shows at a higher percentage than represented in the population watching the shows) as cool, with it, sophisticated, more balanced and poised than their dysfunctional straight counterparts.  No?

On the other hand, I saw this (biretta tip to Pewsitter) at Charisma News:

Human Rights Commissioner Tells Gay Marriage Opponent to ‘Burn in Hell’

A human rights commissioner in Iowa told a Christian opponent of same-sex marriage that he and his entire family should “burn in hell.”

The commissioner, 49-year-old Scott Raasch, sent threatening emails to the Rev. Cary Gordon, who had campaigned against gay marriage.

Yet Raasch still believes he should keep his role on the Human Rights Commission, claiming he would act impartially.

In angry emails, Raasch wrote, “You will get what’s coming to you sooner or later. I hope you rot in hell,” adding, “I think there are many people that deserve to burn in hell … including you and your entire family.

Raasch also wrote, “Now be a good little bigot and go break some more laws.” [Who’s the bigot?]

Raasch has since apologized to Gordon and insists he would hold no bias against people of faith in his role at the Human Rights Commission.  [Riiiiight.]

In his apology, Raasch said, “As I have stated to the City Council, although we disagree on many issues, I hold no bias against religious people generally or against members of Cornerstone and would stand up to protect their legal rights the same as any other protected class.” [“Protected class”… ?  What does that mean?]

Gordon, of Cornerstone World Outreach Church, has accepted the apology but still thinks Raasch should step down from his role on the Commission.

“As a commissioner, you are expected to defend me against anti-religious discrimination,” Gordon said.  [Apart from the fact that having someone who exercises such bad judgment as to write and send that email is getting paid from taxpayer money.]

“Why not do the honorable thing,” he added, “and tender your resignation to the council so that no one in our community has to worry about whether or not you are out to get them with power?”

Can you feel it?  Some people can feel the weather changes in their bones.  Can you sense what’s coming?

As far as “burn in Hell” is concerned, can any of you jog my memory?  Which, again, were the sins that cry to heaven?

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Green Inkers, Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Opposed to same-sex “marriage”? Burn in Hell!

  1. Legisperitus says:

    St. Charles Lwanga, pray for us.

    Raasch is probably young enough to be a second-generation heathen. God help us all when the third-generation ones seize the reins of power.

  2. VexillaRegis says:

    If I were Rev. Gordon I would consider taking legal action against Mr Raasch for threatening him and his family. Raasch should thank his lucky star, that he didn’t tell a muslim to rot in hell!

  3. mrshopey says:

    Sins that cry out to he’s an are 4:
    Willful murder
    Sin of sodomy
    Oppression of the poor
    Defrauding workers of just wages

  4. mrshopey says:

    Heaven, not ‘he’s’

  5. wmeyer says:

    Perhaps in Iowa, “human” has a different definition than the one I know?

    I suppose Mr. Gordon must be protected in his position from being charged with a hate crime for his outburst. But I cannot help wondering what the result may have been, had the target been an atheist, a Muslim, or someone with SSA….

  6. wmeyer says:

    Oops… I confused surnames. My comment was intended to be about Mr. Raasch.

  7. Legisperitus says:

    Even Sodom itself didn’t dare to call it marriage.

  8. Supertradmum says:

    Remember, I am an Iowan.

    Anyway, one would have to be dead not to sense what is coming. Also, note the article in today’s on line Guardian revealing serious issues against on line freedom of speech which I have linked on my blog.

    Things are going to get bad for Catholics, real Catholics, quickly, and the real enemies will be those within the Church who will go along with the Raaschs of this world. Remember, there were generations of Catholics who became extremely powerful and wealthy prosecuting their own under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

  9. Palladio says:

    It began with political correctness, with liberals defining decorum, in colleges, universities, schools, the media, and law (aided and abetted by activist state and federal judges). In higher education, there were speech codes tried and enforced, or sometimes just enforced. In education generally, there was sensitivity training, top down, without parental permission, much less awareness. Liberals, hardened ideologues and irrational, also seem to rule with a free hand in the executive and legislative branches. On all of these fronts, they won more battles in the Culture War than not, and now they feel free to say and do what they please in any and all venues.

  10. acardnal says:

    Unfortunately, I suspect that you, Fr. Z, also receive threatening emails for teaching God’s truth. This is why we must pray for you and all faithful priests!

  11. govmatt says:

    After looking around online about this situation (death threats, generally don’t appear out of thin air), I was actually quite surprised that the controversy actually began in 2010.

    Basically, Cornerstone World Outreach (Rev. Gordon’s church/organization) is a fairly run-of-the-mill evangelical group that adopts most “Christian Right” talking points on homosexuality and the decline of America because of moral decadence (etc.). That’s not to marginalize those types of sentiments or to weigh in on their validity, but the comments don’t seem to stray (at least in my cursory survey of even leftist blogs attacking Rev. Gordon) from “warnings and predictions”… certainly not to the point of damning the opposition by name (the usual rhetorical barbs “sodomite lobby” and “sodomy leads to incest and marrying objects” — as a side note, even if you believe this “slippery slope” analysis [and you aren’t wrong to], its rhetorical impact on the opposition is often times not terribly helpful [just letting you know, please don’t shoot the messenger])

    It seems that the controversy began after the debate over the removal of Iowa Supreme Court judges after the knock-down-drag-out (there’s an uncharitable pun there somewhere) fight over gay “marriage” in the State. Raasch seems to have really lost his cool and went far beyond debate decorum and sent a really terrible message to Rev. Gordon around Christmas time in 2010.

    The reference to “protected classes” is an attempt to hide behind Constitutional jurisprudential language (per almost any corporate hiring policy: we do not discriminate based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation… etc). The funny (sort of) thing is that the “Human Rights Commission of Sioux City was set up (in 1963 [Wikipedia]) with religion as an interest they seek to protect from discrimination.

    Fr. Z is absolutely right: there needs to be a concerted effort among the Catholic laity to start to influence the production of media (social, print, and popular) to reflect effective, practical, traditional morality. (We also need good Catholic lawyers and entertainment agents)

    Are we headed down the path to something dark? Probably. Screaming at the darkness doesn’t make it less dark, but silently lighting a candle makes all the difference!

  12. Sonshine135 says:

    Forgive me for being trite, but, it is always darkest before the dawn. When things are at their worst is when God’s miraculously makes all things new.

    Have faith!

  13. Tim says:

    Another sad day for Iowa (and I am an Iowan.)
    If you search the Sioux City Journal website, you will see that a former councilman (Aaron Rochester) who applied for the Commission (and holds views against SSM) was advised by the council to not apply because he might be a lightning rod due to his views.
    “When Rochester interviewed with the council in June, Councilwoman Rhonda Capron told him he might be a lightning rod for controversy because of his strongly stated views against same-sex marriage.”
    This makes zero sense (but then again they never do when one steps back and thinks about it for a minute.) Can someone explain how Raasch is acting any differently and in fact his comments, before he was appointed, are about as radical as they can get?
    http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/sioux-city-council-to-appoint-to-human-rights-commission/article_e89ddf47-be05-5536-8c96-9e6a7f136107.html

  14. AA Cunningham says:

    Behind every double standard lies an unconfessed single standard. That’s a frequent tactic of the oh so tolerant intrinisically disordered segment of the population. Reminds one of the crowd who egged on Pontius Pilate. Raasch is quoted as writing to Gordon the following:

    ““I know Christ and don’t need a snake oil salesman like you to tell me about him.”

    One can’t “know Christ”(sic) if they treat Scripture like it’s a buffet line and embrace sin in the process.

  15. NoraLee9 says:

    Hubby. A daily communicant at The Cathedral, was called in by his principal, and told not “to pray.” Hubby hasn’t led students in prayer, nor has he prayed in school in any way. When he asked what this is in reference to, he was told that the Assistant Principal would elaborate further. She never did.
    Hubby, a teacher, is a mandated reporter. Principal is publicly “gay.” A student complained to hubby 3 times that the Principal is making him feel “uncomfortable.” Finally, when the Union shop steward heard about it, he insisted that hubby report it.
    Although all of hubby’s observations were fine, the principal rated him U anyway….

  16. Supertradmum says:

    acardnal, Fr. Z is not the only blogger who gets threats, and horrible, nasty language.

  17. NoraLee9 says:

    Hubby is also a convert from Judaism. I won’t elaborate on the harassment he has experienced from the building’s Old Testament adherents a out “How could you convert to the religion of Hitler’s Pope?”

  18. robtbrown says:

    Liberal Fascism is alive and well.

  19. Supertradmum says:

    robtbrown, and getting in place for persecution of Catholics

  20. Papabile says:

    Protected Class — A class of individuals to whom Congress or a state legislature has given legal protection against discrimination or retaliation.

    These are the generally “protected classes” under federal law, though many state laws extend this further. The homosexuals want it extended to sexual orientation through ENDA.

    Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
    National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
    Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
    Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
    Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
    Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
    Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974; Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
    Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

  21. robtbrown says:

    NoraLee9 says:

    Hubby is also a convert from Judaism. I won’t elaborate on the harassment he has experienced from the building’s Old Testament adherents a out “How could you convert to the religion of Hitler’s Pope?”</b

    He could ask them how they could be a member of a religion that conspired to have its own Messiah murdered.

    And he might mention to them that the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, became a Catholic and took the name of Eugenio, Pius XII's Baptismal name.

  22. robtbrown says:

    NoraLee9 says:

    Hubby is also a convert from Judaism. I won’t elaborate on the harassment he has experienced from the building’s Old Testament adherents a out “How could you convert to the religion of Hitler’s Pope?”

    He could ask them how they could be a member of a religion that conspired to have its own Messiah murdered.

    And he might mention to them that the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, became a Catholic and took the name of Eugenio, Pius XII’s Baptismal name.

    BTW, I know several Jews who became Catholic, two of whom became priests.

  23. James Joseph says:

    Allow the fancy to behave like that at work with my customers.

    “Ma’am, let’s face the facts. You’re fat. Cardiac-pulmonary distress is coming to you sooner or later, if has not already. I think you should buy a well-marbled rib-eye steak, but since you have chosen only green vegetables and multi-grain breads, I hope you rot in hell. I think there are many people that deserve to burn in hell… including you and your entire family because you are killing my margin when you do not eat high-cholesterol red meat. Now be a good little porker and go have an embolism. I only care about your money.”

    As the friendly meat-man, I wonder if I would get fired.

  24. Simon_GNR says:

    Same-sex “marriage” as recently legislated for in England does not necessarily involve any sexual activity – the concepts of consummation and adultery are, I believe, specifically excluded from the legislation relating to same-sex “civil annulment” & “divorce”. It is my understanding that, according to the new law, sexual union is not essential to same-sex “marriage”, so a couple can be validly “married” without there being any sexual activity at all. So, the sin of Sodom, one of the four sins that cry to heaven, does not *have* to be involved in the “marriage” of two men.
    It seems to me that two men can be “marrried” without there being any immoral sexual activity at all, so to use the fact that the sin of Sodom is one of the four sins that cry to heaven as an argument against same-sex “marriage” is not really valid.

  25. robtbrown says:

    Supertradmum says:

    robtbrown, and getting in place for persecution of Catholics

    And the Church that beatified Ted Kennedy at his funeral is not ready for it. Nor is the Church that has the likes of Cardinal Schonborn and Abp Marini advocating homosexual unions.

    Beam me up, Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here.

  26. Legisperitus says:

    Judging by the types of vituperative comments aimed at Christians on the internet, presumably by younger people (and I mean in the vein of “die” and “you should kill yourself”), we are perhaps one generation away from a bloody season of martyrdom.

  27. Legisperitus says:

    Simon_GNR: But does anyone pretend sodomy isn’t what it’s really about?

  28. robtbrown says:

    Simon GNR says,

    It seems to me that two men can be “marrried” without there being any immoral sexual activity at all, so to use the fact that the sin of Sodom is one of the four sins that cry to heaven as an argument against same-sex “marriage” is not really valid.

    First, sexual union is impossible with homosexuals.

    Second, sexual union and procreation is a component of marriage. And so to refer to two homosexuals engaging in physical intimacy as “marriage” mocks the institution.

  29. acricketchirps says:

    Simon GNR, you mean after saving themselves for marriage for 5,000 years they’re NOT gonna have sex?!

  30. Lisa Graas says:

    Thanks for posting this. Rev. Cary Gordon is a friend of mine. He is doing great things in the area of religious freedom for all Christians. A protestant minister, he had publicly defended the Catholic Church’s freedom multiple times…when he didn’t have to…because he recognizes that we all need to stand together for freedom. He is a great ally in the cause of freedom.

  31. Palladio says:

    “He could ask them how they could be a member of a religion that conspired to have its own Messiah murdered.” Hmmm. This, which I hear all the time from Catholics and others, is not historically speaking very accurate. Some Jews conspired to kill Christ, not all Jews. You will recall that the Apostles were Jews.

    If the standard is to belong to no religion any one of whose members makes unspeakable mistakes then there is no religion worthy of our respect.

  32. AvantiBev says:

    For all of you Americans and Europeans who are commenting that persecution “is on its way”, check out the article “The Silent Killing of Christians” by David Suissa at http://www.jewishjournal.com/david_suissa/article/the_silent_killing_of_christians. It takes a Jewish writer to notice that our fellow Christians in Muslim majority lands live in daily fear not just of the “radical” jihadis but of their governments and mobs. Yes, pray daily and have Masses said for them but, as the author asks, why the heck aren’t Christians in front of all these embassies until the lame stream press HAS to pay attention to the cleansing of Christians?

    Our bishops infuriate me when they press for us to take any and all who trespass our southern border and are now claiming “refugee” status. But not one of them that I know of has led a protest in front of any islamic country’s embassy or consulate.

  33. Athelstan says:

    Actually, the astonishing thing here is that someone like Scott Raasch actually believes in hell.

  34. Joseph-Mary says:

    The rhetoric heats up. And the hatred and vitriol for those who stand for moral is growing. This is the sort of fomenting that occurred before things like the genocide in Rwanda. The media collaborates in the build up. Those that do not go along with our evil secular regime are branded and now being prosecuted and fined. Jail is looming. And then?

  35. robtbrown says:

    Palladio says:

    “He could ask them how they could be a member of a religion that conspired to have its own Messiah murdered.” Hmmm. This, which I hear all the time from Catholics and others, is not historically speaking very accurate. Some Jews conspired to kill Christ, not all Jews. You will recall that the Apostles were Jews.

    I never said that all Jews conspired to kill Christ. How would that be possible?

    Jesus was popular with many Jews, but there were confrontations with the Jewish authorities–the Pharisees and the Chief Priests (e.g., Annas and Caiaphas). And it is obvious from the Gospel of John that the Sanhedrin conspired against Him. NB: Caiaphas’ famous line: “It is expedient that one man die for the sake of the people.”

    So did all the Jews oppose Jesus? No. But the Jewish authorities did.

  36. Kathleen10 says:

    Legisperitus, your point is a good one. The next generation is going to be so steeped in hatred for what is good and decent they are going to exact misery on many people. They are growing up in a world of cruelty and love of sin, and they are going to reflect that. We take Western values for granted including mercy, compassion, empathy, but these people will not show that and worse, they are being indoctrinated to love and admire ruthless and cold-hearted acts. We the faithful are, to them, judgmental bigots, the world is better off without us in their sexually free utopia, a world of no judgments. What is astounding is how fast it is happening.
    In Iowa, citizens need to make a stinking fuss about that moron Raasch. I say moron because technically he overplayed his hand. There are still enough people who can be made to understand that what he wrote makes it impossible to maintain the public trust. If the people of Iowa get relentless and drive that point home, it may be possible to get rid of him.
    I’m sorry Iowa is gone. I can cross that one off my short list of potential future states to live in. One day I expect we like-minded folks are going to end up in the same geographic location if only to maintain sanity and protect ourselves.

  37. NoraLee9 says:

    RobtBrown: thank you for the good words. Hubby certainly can NOT respond to these nice people. He was written up and officially reprimanded for asking the nice man if he attended synagogue. This was after being subjected to a morning-long diatribe about the evils of Roman Catholicism. (They were grading exams).

  38. Y2Y says:

    Our children need to acquire combat skills; they will be the ones fighting the coming civil war.

  39. Supertradmum says:

    Simon_GNR , sorry but I really do not understand what country you are referring to. The legislation in England is definitely a re-definition of marriage as noted by all of us who have followed the debate and read the law. Also, the leading churchmen in GB have also stated that the legislation redefines marriage. The goal of all the EU countries is to re-define marriage as discussed among leaders over two years ago in a meeting in the Hague.

    That the law created a two-tiered interpretation of marriage is true but the upshot is that sodomites now can have a legal recognition of marriage. Also, if you have not been following this, one couple is already taking the issue to the EU Court of Human Rights in order to force the Anglican Church to witness these marriages in church as such.

    Of course, the ECHR will side with the homosexuals.

    robrtbrown, of course the Church is not ready and there will be schism and heresy-just as when Catholics turned against Catholics and persecuted even members of their own families in 15th and 16th century England. So too, this will happen in America. I am not sure what you mean about the Star Trek quotation.

    Those who are ready are the ones who are pursuing holiness and being good, orthodox Catholics. I think the others will just cooperate with the evils of persecution for their own gain.

  40. donato2 says:

    It is getting very scary out there. It is demoralizing to have a pope who won’t speak out against the ongoing assault on marriage and the incipient persecution of Catholics who are opposed to that assault. We need papal support on this, and we need it badly.

  41. iowapapist says:

    As one who resides in Iowa, I can attest to the fact that the state has entered the “Twilight Zone”, so to speak. In 1992, my wife and I worked to defeat passage of the ERA. One of the reasons given for defeating the amendment was the agenda of homosexual marriage. Back then, we never imagined we would live to see the day that this situation would come to fruition (pun somewhat intended). Life here is becoming more oppressive each day. Anyone who voices opposition to homosexual marriage is labeled a bigot. It seems as if more and more people are jumping on the pro SSM bandwagon; the path of least resistance is as crowded as it ever has been. I try to keep cognizant of the fact that the apostles abandoned Our Lord. Maybe standing alone is necessary for the attainment of salvation. Regardless, as flesh and blood men, the discomfort has started and the real persecution will follow. Maybe it’s our time to ask the Father to take this chalice from us, while sincerely being receptive to enduring oppression and abuse if that is His will.

  42. CharlesG says:

    Robert Brown said: “He could ask them how they could be a member of a religion that conspired to have its own Messiah murdered.”i

    Per Nostra Aetate, not all Jews then, and no Jews now, are guilty of Christ’s death. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach collective guilt for Deicide of the Jews, and I think given history, we should be careful not to say things that might imply such.

  43. Lin says:

    Life everywhere is becoming more oppressive. I love the line “the path of least resistance is as crowded as it has ever been.”. Much prayer and blogs like this help me to know we are not alone. Time may not be short for the world but it is for me and for that I am grateful! May the Lord have mercy on our souls!

  44. robtbrown says:

    CharlesG says:

    Robert Brown said: “He could ask them how they could be a member of a religion that conspired to have its own Messiah murdered.”i

    Per Nostra Aetate, not all Jews then, and no Jews now, are guilty of Christ’s death. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach collective guilt for Deicide of the Jews, and I think given history, we should be careful not to say things that might imply such

    Don’t be obtuse. I never said that the Jews were guilty of His death. I said their religion, i.e., the Jewish authorities, conspired to put to death their own Messiah.

    Now please explain the following texts:

    Mt 27:24-5:

    24 Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere and that a riot was starting. So he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I’m innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It’s your problem.”
    25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us, and on our children.”

    Luke 23:28

    Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children.”

  45. Ben Kenobi says:

    “It seems to me that two men can be “marrried” without there being any immoral sexual activity at all, so to use the fact that the sin of Sodom is one of the four sins that cry to heaven as an argument against same-sex “marriage” is not really valid.”

    I’m always impressed by the ability and desire to split and divide. I’ve seen it with conservatives – using the argument, “marriage should be left to the Church and not the state”, as an argument to permit the state to endorse marriage outside of the Church. This is the same.

    One of the worst sins in the Old Testament is shifting boundary stones – moving them just a little bit to the right or to the left. Why? It is fraud – you are defrauding the owner of the land of what is rightfully his. This is no different. To whom does marriage belong? The state or God? You are shifting marriage to be defined by the state as ‘marriage’, while depriving the rightful owner of marriage. You are shifting marriage away from the union of one man and one woman to, a contract that anyone can sign. All the parts are equally important. Union, man + woman and sole. Take any part out and you’ve got something that’s not marriage. What do we call it when someone calls something what it is not? It is fraud – intentionally deceiving others in order to procure what you are really after – distorting the fundamental connection between the marital union and marriage. I didn’t think someone would be bold enough to do it here – but we are farther along than I thought.

  46. Palladio says:

    Good, robtbrown, glad to hear it, since now you can see that Jews need not feel guilt at what some Jews did millennia ago…