Philadelphia punishes catholic adoption agency because it won't place children with gay people, can no longer operate. This has now gone to the U.S. S

[mdgspencer]

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...e-case-could-mean-for-the-supreme-court-72453

Several weeks ago, the Supreme Court was asked to hear a case regarding the city of Philadelphia ending a contract with a Catholic foster agency because it was unwilling to place children with couples in a same-sex marriage.

The adoption agency, run by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, believes acting to place children with same-sex couples is a tacit endorsement of the union, which is forbidden by the Catholic faith.

The agency was told by city officials to change its religious practices because it is “not 100 years ago” and “times have changed.”

 

[drac16]

I’m sorry to hear that. Jesus warned us about this: “and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake…” (Matthew 10:22)

 

[Thorolfr]

There was another case in South Carolina recently where an adoption agency run by a Protestant denomination had a policy of not placing children with non-Protestants, including Jews and Catholics. They are being sued by a Jewish couple who were turned away because of their religion. Is it reasonable for such an adoption agency to continue to operate under such a policy while receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds? If the city or state refused to adopt through them any longer until they changed this policy, would this be unjust punishment?

 

[Zach]

According to this article there is clear hostility toward the Catholic agency. The city and mayor come across as heavy handed and arrogant. So at least a narrow ruling based on religious hostility, a la the bakery case, in favor of the Catholic agency seems likely.

 

[Asinner]

That’s a great article.

The Supreme Court is the #1 reason why I voted for Trump. I’m positive that two Hilary nominees would have ruled against the Archdiocese. At least there is a chance it will go the right way now.

My theory is that losing a case like this (or maybe a couple in a row) would jump start the beginning of the “soft persecution” against Christians, which would ultimately lead to anyone believing the actual teachings of the Church would become un-employable.

 

[Michael16]

I agree; this is a great article. My thinking is that the soft persecution of Christians has already begun. I say this because of my own experience growing up and talking with my niece who describes conditions in the high schools nowadays. It seems to me that anyone holding conservative religious opinions, Catholic and non Catholic; is thought of as backward, bigoted and close minded.

Considering the Colorado baker, pressure on Catholic schools to provide condoms on school grounds as well as in my town, there’s an abortion mill right across the street from a Catholic elementary school and this non sense in Philadelphia; there’s already a soft persecution of Christians in this increasingly paganized society.

 

[Annie]

These are good questions, and probably are answered in the contracts the private agencies have with the governments concerned.

I remember it was big news when the first couple of Catholic adoption agencies closed because of this issue, I don’t know if any more have closed, but it also seems to be an issue of their connection with the government rather than simply their existence. I remember wondering at the time if they could not have simply continued their work without the government contracts?

 

[upant]

They are being sued by a Jewish couple who were turned away because of their religion. Is it

what specifically conflicted with the protestant religion? gay marriage is a sin. a Jewish marriage is not. it isn’t the same thing.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

They are being sued by a Jewish couple who were turned away because of their religion. Is it

what specifically conflicted with the protestant religion? gay marriage is a sin. a Jewish marriage is not. it isn’t the same thing.

There are lots of different Protestant denominations and they’re the ones who get to define what they’re religious beliefs are. Apparently, they think it’s wrong to adopt children to non-Protestant couples. Maybe they think that it would endanger the children’s souls to be adopted into families who follow that they consider to be false religions.

 

[upant]

Maybe they think that it would endanger the children’s souls to be adopted into families who follow that they consider to be false religions.

maybe isn’t the same thing as a direct statement in the bible

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

Maybe they think that it would endanger the children’s souls to be adopted into families who follow that they consider to be false religions.

maybe isn’t the same thing as a direct statement in the bible

It doesn’t matter whether it’s in the bible or not because the State of South Carolina is going to allow this Protestant agency to discriminate against non-Protestants by only allowing Protestants to be foster parents:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued an exemption that allows all foster care agencies in South Carolina to disregard an Obama-era regulation barring religious discrimination in federally funded foster care programs.

The exemption will allow Miracle Hill Ministries, a Greenville-based Christian ministry, to continue to accept only Protestant, churchgoing parents to its federally funded foster care program, which recruits, supports and helps train parents to be licensed by the state to foster children.

The ministry employs 352 people and has an annual budget of $17 million. That includes about $600,000 in state and federal money for its foster care program.

While the ministry serves children of all faiths, it will only recruit, support and help train Protestant parents because it considers them to have a “spiritual influence” on children.

“We are an arm of the Protestant church,” said Reid Lehman, Miracle Hill’s CEO. “We exist to be a mission arm of Protestant churches and to proclaim Protestant faith. It’s not a judgment or an exclusion. It’s simply that we’re going to be consistent with that.”

The government exemption, or waiver, was requested by Gov. Henry McMaster after he learned that the state had informed Miracle Hill that it might be violating the new law if it continued to deny non-Protestant couples from its foster care program.

But the ministry received a raft of negative publicity after a Jewish woman named Beth Lesser complained that Miracle Hill would not allow her to mentor a child living in one of its three group foster homes.

Mentors, like foster parents and other Miracle Hill employees, must sign a doctrinal statement confessing belief in Jesus.

Under Miracle Hill’s policies, not only Jews are rejected. Muslims, Hindus and atheists are also barred from fostering or mentoring children in the nonprofit’s programs; so too are Catholics.

Government allows S.C. foster care group to keep Protestants-only policy

(RNS) — The exemption will allow Miracle Hill, a Greenville-based Christian ministry, to continue to accept only Protestant churchgoing parents to its federally funded foster care program.

religionnews.com

They obviously consider Catholics and Jews and other non-Protestants to be a bad influence on children. And they get to discriminate even though they get hundreds of thousand of dollars in state and federal money.

 

[abucs]

They obviously consider Catholics and Jews and other non-Protestants to be a bad influence on children. And they get to discriminate even though they get hundreds of thousand of dollars in state and federal money.

Not necessarily. They could simply be looking to build up and cater to a Protesant community. Who gives the children to this agency?

If it is from the Protestant community and from families agreeing to the policies of the adoption agency then they should be entitled to government money just like any other agency.

Kids are not a consumer product. They come from, a community and each community has a right to cater to itself on matters such as child adoption.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

They obviously consider Catholics and Jews and other non-Protestants to be a bad influence on children. And they get to discriminate even though they get hundreds of thousand of dollars in state and federal money.

Not necessarily. They could simply be looking to build up and cater to a Protesant community. Who gives the children to this agency?

If it is from the Protestant community and from families agreeing to the policies of the adoption agency then they should be entitled to government money just like any other agency.

Kids are not a consumer product. They come from, a community and each community has a right to cater to itself on matters such as child adoption.

In case you missed it, the quote from the article I posted says, “the ministry serves children of all faiths”. So, the children can come from different faith communities (they can be Catholic or Jewish or Muslim, etc.) but the foster parents can only be church going Protestants. That’s because they don’t want any of the foster parents to be what they consider a bad spiritual influence on the children such as being Catholic or Jewish, etc. And Miracle Hill is not some small foster care agency within a local Protestant community. According to another news source, “Miracle Hill [is] the largest provider of foster families in South Carolina for foster children who do not have significant special needs.”

The governor of South Carolina framed this as a religious freedom issue when asking the federal government for an exemption to the policy that forbids religious discrimination. But I wonder if the governor would have been as eager to get this exemption if this had been a Muslim foster agency that served Protestant and other Christian children but required that the foster parents all be Muslims.

 

[abucs]

I think that is fine as long as they clearly articulate their policies and who they are serving.

 

[Thorolfr]

I think that is fine as long as they clearly articulate their policies and who they are serving.

But why should some of the tax dollars of non-Protestants go to a foster care agency where they are not allowed to be foster parents, based only on their religion, not on whether they would be good foster parents or not? If this Protestant foster care service wants to have this discriminatory policy, then shouldn’t they use their own money? And what if someone who is Jewish, for example, wants to be a foster parent, but they live in a place where all the foster care agencies only allow Protestants to be foster parents? And these Protestant only agencies get public funding, too? Doesn’t that seem a little unreasonable?

 

[abucs]

But why should some of the tax dollars of non-Protestants go to a foster care agency where they are not allowed to be foster parents, based only on their religion, not on whether they would be good foster parents or not? If this Protestant foster care service wants to have this discriminatory policy, then shouldn’t they use their own money?

But this is the argument. They do pay tax money like all other people. All other people also have the right to organize adoption agencies to service their own communities. (And it is obviously not just based on their religion but they have to be judged as good foster parents also). But in this case they have to be good foster parents and Protestant.

Why should the secular ideology dominate who gets tax dollars when not everyone is secular?

This is like saying there shouldn’t be crisis centres for women funded by tax dollars because men pay taxes too. No, there is a distinction between men and women. There is a distinction between other groups too. The state is there to facilitate society how is it. Not to implement secular or genderless ideology.

And what if someone who is Jewish, for example, wants to be a foster parent, but they live in a place where all the foster care agencies only allow Protestants to be foster parents? And these Protestant only agencies get public funding, too? Doesn’t that seem a little unreasonable?

Well then the first question to ask is why is it that only the protestant oriented community is doing the work to organize adoption agencies for children. In that thought exercise it would be praise worthy of the protestant community to do that and the question would be why the Catholic, Jewish and secular communities are not strong or ethical enough to create such adoption agencies? But you can’t use the strength of the protestant community and then attack it for not being secular. That is unreasonable.

 

[Thorolfr]

Why should the secular ideology dominate who gets tax dollars when not everyone is secular?

So, the notion that people shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their religion is part of “secular ideology”?

Of course, everyone can benefit from tax dollars. But a foster care agency that is taking tax dollars to provide a service that the government isn’t providing directly, is in a sense, an agent of the government being paid to provide a service for it, in this case, finding and training people to be foster parents. So, it’s problematical when that agent of the government is discriminating against some members of the public based on their religion.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Here’s the thing — if you take government money, the government owns you.

Churches always get the fuzzy end of the lolipop when they take money from the government.

So don’t do it. Get your funding elsewhere.

 

[abucs]

So, the notion that people shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their religion is part of “secular ideology”?

Of course, everyone can benefit from tax dollars. But a foster care agency that is taking tax dollars to provide a service that the government isn’t providing directly, is in a sense, an agent of the government being paid to provide a service for it, in this case, finding and training people to be foster parents. So, it’s problematical when that agent of the government is discriminating against some members of the public based on their religion.

Look we discriminate when we have both male and female toilets or we discriminate when we decide to drive on one side of the road. Discrimination is not wrong in itself. We all discriminate and it is a natural part of life. Using discrimination as a pseudo replacement moral is as bad as using hate speech. You can always turn around and define these concepts in a subjective fashion.

It is secular ideology to not be part of traditional religious communities. Unfortunately many secular people believe their ideology should run the state and somehow the state should reflect their ideology. It shouldn’t.

The state is made up by and funded by many disparate communities. The state would not have been as strong as it is without these communities and many state services were taken over from these types of communities. Many services were created by such communities working together and relating together under their own ideology, culture and ethics. The state owes money to all groups paying tax and should not DISCRIMINATE against strong communities because other communities can’t or won’t provide their own services. Such an outlook would wish to strip out the culture from these communities and make them secular in order to give them their own money back from taxes. The state is there to facilitate these communities not to turn them into secular agencies of the state.

 

[Thorolfr]

The government is not there to facilitate the work of religious communities. That’s why since the time of Thomas Jefferson there has been a principle of “separation of church and state”. People who work for the state are supposed to rise above their religious beliefs. We don’t have Baptist judges and Catholic judges and Jewish judges, each one making decisions based on which religious community they belong to.