Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oblaidon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Publisher said:
Thankfully those adoption and foster care organizations that take government money to promote their businesses MUST adhere to the laws governing our nation…and right now…and something not likely to change in the near future…CANNOT discriminate against persons of same sex orientation when adopting children…THANKFULLY anti-discrimination laws are for the most part enforced. THANK GOD.
Click to expand...
Let me paraphrase:

Thank God those adoption and foster care organizations that take government money to help and protect children must adhere to the laws governing our nation…and right now…and something not likely to change in the near future…must totally disregard their own morals and religious beliefs and put children in spiritual, physical, moral and mental danger in homes of various sexual orientated individuals including homosexuals and soon, trans-generational oriented.

Thankfully discrimination laws against religion are for the most part enforced. Thank God.
 
incense said:
Let me paraphrase:

Thank God those adoption and foster care organizations that take government money to help and protect children must adhere to the laws governing our nation…and right now…and something not likely to change in the near future…must totally disregard their own morals and religious beliefs and put children in spiritual, physical, moral and mental danger in homes of various sexual orientated individuals including homosexuals and soon, trans-generational oriented.

Thankfully discrimination laws against religion are for the most part enforced. Thank God.
Click to expand...
👍 the intolerance of the Left. 👍
 
incense said:
Let me paraphrase:

Thank God those adoption and foster care organizations that take government money to help and protect children must adhere to the laws governing our nation…and right now…and something not likely to change in the near future…must totally disregard their own morals and religious beliefs and put children in spiritual, physical, moral and mental danger in homes of various sexual orientated individuals including homosexuals and soon, trans-generational oriented.

Thankfully discrimination laws against religion are for the most part enforced. Thank God.
Click to expand...
Discrimination of religious views is NOT the issue…the ISSUE is that a religious organization that takes money from a secular source and by doing so AGREES to it’s conditions…then when the religious organization doesn’t like the conditions set forth by the agency who supports the religious organization financially expects the financere to give it a “pass” on not obeying it’s rules and regulations…is naieve…if those religious organizations which do not condone same sex adoptions don’t want to place children in same sex households…they should NOT accept the monies provided by the secular organization there by placing itself under the rules and regulations governing the secular agency.

Don’t get “in bed” with them in the first place…“God and mammon”…it was the CHOICE of the religious organization to accept the money and place itself under the rules and regulations which govern the secular provider…why whine about having to obey the rules when money is accepted?

Oh…and your paraphrase is incorrect…THANK GOD we do not live in a theocracy where religious beliefs concerning their right to discriminate trump the rule of law which prohibits discrimination.
 
Publisher said:
Oh…and your paraphrase is incorrect…THANK GOD we do not live in a theocracy where religious beliefs concerning their right to discriminate trump the rule of law which prohibits discrimination.
Click to expand...
How about "Thank God we do not live in a theocracy where religious beliefs concerning the right to discriminate against evil and sin trump man’s law which prohibits discrimination against evil.
 
Or merely, Thank God that we do not live in an atheocracy in which the assumptions of an amoral and Godless society are enshrined and mandated into every law and regulation possible, eradicating and prohibiting any notion of commonly held principles and virtues.
 
Publisher said:
Discrimination of religious views is NOT the issue…the ISSUE is that a religious organization that takes money from a secular source and by doing so AGREES to it’s conditions…then when the religious organization doesn’t like the conditions set forth by the agency who supports the religious organization financially expects the financere to give it a “pass” on not obeying it’s rules and regulations…is naieve…if those religious organizations which do not condone same sex adoptions don’t want to place children in same sex households…they should NOT accept the monies provided by the secular organization there by placing itself under the rules and regulations governing the secular agency.

Don’t get “in bed” with them in the first place…“God and mammon”…it was the CHOICE of the religious organization to accept the money and place itself under the rules and regulations which govern the secular provider…why whine about having to obey the rules when money is accepted?
Click to expand...
At a surface glance, you are right, but not after looking deeper. Why wasn’t there more fight against adding '“sexual orientation” to the civil rights laws? Because people thought it was about employment or housing. But it’s turned into marriage, and what’s taught about morality in schools, and who can adopt and be foster parents and … You see clearly what taking government money means, but it’s not clear. Should a soldier in a military hospital be allowed to pray or have a Bible? Why not, it’s government money and I’m sure we can find someone who’s offended or damaged in some way. Should a hospital be allowed to refuse abortions or sterilization or euthanasia? Why not, they take in medicare and medicaid patients?

So you’re saying that religious people should have a shadow organization for every government agency, paying twice. And meanwhile, their tax money can be used to do all kinds of evil things, but religious people are supposed to shrug their shoulders and do their own thing and suppose that no one will come after them as long as they don’t’ take government money? Do you really think that the people who hate Christians will stop there? What happens when the government owns everything? When all your health care is through government, when your GM car is government manufactured? And are you saying that poor religious people are just stuck with starving or ignoring their religious beliefs? Or what about working for such agencies? Religious people shouldn’t work there?

It’s not that clear cut. It is a steep, slippery slope leading toward death.

How about the government looks and says that .001% of the adoption cases will deny a protected group, so we’ll cut funding by that much and use it to set up an alternative?
 
incense said:
How about "Thank God we do not live in a theocracy where religious beliefs concerning the right to discriminate against evil and sin trump man’s law which prohibits discrimination against evil.
Click to expand...
Thankfully…we live in a society where those religious groups taking federal money do not get to use federal money to further their religious beliefs that include discrimination of minorities recognized by the federal government.

If the religious organization wishes to discriminate…don’t use my tax money to do so…and THANK GOD…the federal government agrees.🙂

You can’t “hop into bed with the devil” and expect to no “pay the piper” in some way…not discriminating against same sex couples is “paying the piper”…

Don’t accept federal money is the easiest solution.
 
Publisher said:
If the religious organization wishes to discriminate…don’t use my tax money to do so…and THANK GOD…the federal government agrees.🙂
Click to expand...
But it’s okay to take my tax money and discriminate against me? I guess so, Catholics have had to pay for Catholic schools for over 100 years while paying for the public schools that actively taught against Catholicism.

What you are happy about is just a new twist against Catholics.
 
incense said:
But it’s okay to take my tax money and discriminate against me? I guess so, Catholics have had to pay for Catholic schools for over 100 years while paying for the public schools that actively taught against Catholicism.

What you are happy about is just a new twist against Catholics.
Click to expand...
I do not have children…yet I do not have any problem of my tax dollars going to public schools…that is a benefit in our society…if as a Friend I wish to send my children to a Friend’s school…I would expect to pay for it out of my own pocket AND still pay that portion of my taxes which go to public schools…that is my duty and obligation as a citizen of this country…the same would be for Catholics…if you want your children to go to a Catholic school…wonderful…but that does not relieve you of the obligation to pay your taxes…

It has nothing whatsoever to do with religious rights…it has to do with paying my due tax…if a religious organization wishes to compromise and accept federal money to help fund their organization…it should be expected to abide by the rules and regulations of the group they are getting funds from…or DON’T TAKE THE FUNDS…simple.

If the rules and regulations of the federal government go against your religious beliefs…DON’T TAKE THE MONEY…and thereby agree to abide by the precepts set forth by the government…it should be a “no brainer”…don’t take the money if the requirements of taking the money obligate you to abide by the restrictions placed upon everyone else who “takes the money”…you don’t get “a pass”…it’s simple.
 
Publisher said:
If the rules and regulations of the federal government go against your religious beliefs…DON’T TAKE THE MONEY…and thereby agree to abide by the precepts set forth by the government…it should be a “no brainer”…don’t take the money if the requirements of taking the money obligate you to abide by the restrictions placed upon everyone else who “takes the money”…you don’t get “a pass”…it’s simple.
Click to expand...
But are the religious groups allowed by the government to run an adoption service even if they take no government money? That was offered in an earlier post.

There’s a homeschool group somewhere that didn’t take government money, but they were still taken to court for civil rights violations. I believe that’s a TMS case too.

It’s a fallacy that as long as you don’t take the money you can follow your religious beliefs. The government is forcing their precepts on us. Those precepts don’t follow natural law, or historical law, but random ideas created from someone’s ideas of what reality should be.
 
Keith_W_OR_USA said:
nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html

What do you think? I can find no justification for the Catholic Church to deny same sex couples the right to adopt or foster children through their social services programs. Does the Catholic church deny couples that use contraception the right to be foster parents or adopt children also? I think the Church is wrong for taking this position.
Click to expand...
Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
 
thats what happens when one takes money from the goverment. The goverment owns the churches not just the Catholic.
 
incense said:
But are the religious groups allowed by the government to run an adoption service even if they take no government money? That was offered in an earlier post.

There’s a homeschool group somewhere that didn’t take government money, but they were still taken to court for civil rights violations. I believe that’s a TMS case too.

It’s a fallacy that as long as you don’t take the money you can follow your religious beliefs. The government is forcing their precepts on us. Those precepts don’t follow natural law, or historical law, but random ideas created from someone’s ideas of what reality should be.
Click to expand...
Those private agencies who do not receive government money still operate independently in adoption services…they can place children where they wish according to their own rules…BUT if you agree to take federal money and AGREE to abide by the laws governing the use of that money…well…you “deal with the devil”…

“andom ideas created from someone’s ideas”…those “random ideas” are LAW and by taking the funds the religious organization AGREES to abide by those LAWS whether they are “random ideas created…” or not…the AGREEMENT was to abide by the LAWS which govern the use of the money…it seems to me you are saying that “We’ll take the money and use it…and we’ll agree to be placed under the governmental yoke to get the money…but then we’ll cry “religious discrimination” when the LAW governing the use of that money is broken”…
 
Tim Kee, a teacher in Marion, Ill., who was turned away by Catholic Charities three years ago when he and his longtime partner, Rick Wade, tried to adopt a child, said: “We’re both Catholic, we love our church, but Catholic Charities closed the door to us. To add insult to injury, my tax dollars went to provide discrimination against me.”

With an attitude like that you cannot go wrong.
 
The Church rightly considers that providing adoptive children to homosexual couples would be a form of child abuse. Certainly it cannot do that.

And to quote the article, “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

But the government does not agree. The very nature of treating “sexual orientation” as a protected class ensures that the government will discriminate against religious organizations because of their religious beliefs.
 
JimG said:
The Church rightly considers that providing adoptive children to homosexual couples would be a form of child abuse. Certainly it cannot do that.

And to quote the article, “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

But the government does not agree. The very nature of treating “sexual orientation” as a protected class ensures that the government will discriminate against religious organizations because of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
The great thing is…the government DOES protect sexual orientation from discrimination…it’s not a big secret…taking money from the government and agreeing to abide by the laws governing it’s use and then deciding some of the laws are “against my religious views” doesn’t give a “pass” to discriminate…abide by the agreement to obey the laws and policies governing the use of said money…or don’t take it…very simple.🤷
 
Publisher said:
The great thing is…the government DOES protect sexual orientation from discrimination…it’s not a big secret…taking money from the government and agreeing to abide by the laws governing it’s use and then deciding some of the laws are “against my religious views” doesn’t give a “pass” to discriminate…abide by the agreement to obey the laws and policies governing the use of said money…or don’t take it…very simple.🤷
Click to expand...
Laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” were presumably written to protect gays and lesbians against discrimination. The laws have not been interpreted to protect every conceivable sexual orientation. I don’t presume that the phrase is considered to protect polygamy or polyandry or pedophilia. Yet I have no reason to think that some future court in simply reviewing the meaning of the phrase, might not construe it to prohibit discrimination with respect to any “sexual orientation.”
 
I do not know exactly where I stand on this but I do think the definition of family used here is way too strict.

I was raised in A highly abusive nuclear family, since abuse is so often generational and I have a temper and short on patience myself, I chose not to marry and have children.

Just to be safe.

I moved in with my grandmother during the last years of her life. I dare anyone to say we weren’t a family.

During her last hospitalization I met a former Benedictine, who also came from an abusive family. And he moved into my grandmother’s house with me upon her death. She loved him and he cared for her in hospital during her last days.

We are not homosexuals, and we live chaste like brothers. Fitrting since we were both religious brothers.

But if two men live together everyone thinks they are homosexuals, regardless of the truth.

Since my parents died I think of us as a family.

Why can’t friends be families?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top