keep up with the Southpark characters, Fr. The finest satire on TV. They mercilessly skewer the liberal pieties of the age.

I am not a particularly “seasoned” interpreter of the law, but from my vantage, it seems markedly inconsistent, unduly ponderous, and functionally chaotic. California has a “Proposition” system that allows signature-supported issues to be placed on the general election ballot (e.g. medicinal marijuana, “3-strikes” for repeat felons, banning gay marriage, etc.). Yet, even before the celebratory champagne has been popped, someone has filed suit claiming the proposition is unconstitutional, regardless of the sometimes “landslide” vote in support or in opposition. Prop 8, banning gay marriage, passed by only 52% of the vote, but it was the largest turnout of voters in CA history. Where does it stand now? Overturned, constitutionally, by the CA Supreme Court, and is being appealed. Is this a necessary check against “law by mob?” Certainly. But it likewise encourages “law by courts” rather than by legislation. What is the remedy?

My thought, Abouna: For now, I can only rely on the expressed wish of the courts – from the top down – to be taken seriously in saying they will increasingly not tolerate “frivolous” lawsuits (in CA, they have actually begun issuing fines & court costs, and even banning repeat filers); and should the Dept. of Justice even intimate such an imposition of “political correctness,” in the form of sanctions or otherwise, I would expect the backlash of the Fundamentalists to be deafening! Realistically, “protected classes” are one thing, but author Johnson exemplifies that, perhaps even with merit, the claims of the “objectionable” rarely have standing.

Well, fine, but this won’t be the logic an activist administration will use to enforce politically correct dogma on churches.

What this all has to do with a transsexual gay hermaphrodite with AIDS (or whatever) I’m not really sure …

Contrary to your interpretation, my complaint is that the author cynically disavows the very possibility of “saints,” the reality of which, thankfully, is known to God alone.

Neither touches the main point of the article: the Obama administration wants to use the machinery of state to impose politically correct dogma on the churches using the AIDS as disability classification.

The ultimate question it seems to me, is whether the personal morality of any given teacher, sexually-related or otherwise, at any given stage of the educational process of our children, prevents, prejudices, intrudes, corrupts, or otherwise detracts from their ability to adequately and acceptably teach our children? Can I properly and adequately teach biology to 9th graders, even though I am having an “extra-marital” affair with my neighbor? Should a 1st grader’s teacher who openly identifies as homosexual, but is otherwise living a life of continence and purity, be prevented from teaching on principle? Are we prepared to morally “screen” all work applicants in order to exclude a specific, objectionable sub-set? My fear is that such arguments invite “witch-hunting” in its crudest sense, and relies on a faulty premise that we do not already employ homosexual teachers and police officers with HIV/AIDS unbeknownst, and to an unknown “consequence.”

I recall the amusement of Fr. Paul Tarrazi who spoke about arguments with his wife following some of his sermons: “You are telling people to do what you do don’t do yourself!” Which begs the question, “Should the shepherd require of the sheep what he knows to be his own inadequacies and struggles?” Absolutely, because if not him, then whom? But who would suggest we conduct surveys of “belief” in our parishes, limited simply to the first two Anathemas of the 7th Ecumenical Council at Nicea, to see how many “heretics” we actually catch? It seems markedly unfair to impose such a standard, and it fundamentally seems better to judge a man by his heart and not the trap of prejudice.