State probes religious foster care agencies over [same sex parent] discrimination

[Beau_Ouiville]

"State officials are investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.

If they are found in violation, Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Charities in five regions and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency will have to license openly gay foster parents or lose millions of state dollars, potentially disrupting more than 3,000 foster children in their care.

Though Illinois legislators championing the civil union bill earlier this year insisted that religious institutions would not be forced to bless same-sex unions, it said nothing about same-sex parents."

articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-01/news/ct-met-gay-foster-care-20110301_1_care-and-adoption-catholic-charities-parents

 

[manualman]

This is the insidious way in which the secularists are attempting to impose a de-facto ban on faith in public life.

First they demanded that christian adoption agencies choose between christian principles or state contracts. Now its foster parenting.

Can housing assistance and food pantries be far behind?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

This is the insidious way in which the secularists are attempting to impose a de-facto ban on faith in public life.

Wha? Maybe they are trying to inject a view into the foster-care arena (or keep a view out), but I don’t see a ban on religion here. That’s a leap.

Can housing assistance and food pantries be far behind?

I don’t think much theology is discussed in food pantries or for subsidized housing. Are couples check for sexual orientation or marriage status to use them?

 

[wisdomseeker]

"State officials are investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.

If they are found in violation, Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Charities in five regions and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency will have to license openly gay foster parents or lose millions of state dollars, potentially disrupting more than 3,000 foster children in their care.

Though Illinois legislators championing the civil union bill earlier this year insisted that religious institutions would not be forced to bless same-sex unions, it said nothing about same-sex parents."

articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-01/news/ct-met-gay-foster-care-20110301_1_care-and-adoption-catholic-charities-parents

That is ridiculous. How many of us Christians pay taxes? why only secularists have the power to dictate? that is completely ridiculous.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them…The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth: because I give testimony of it, that the works thereof are evil. (Matthew 10:18&John7:7)
Our Lord said repeatedly that we would suffer for Him, and that we must bear witness. It is only now the day of reckoning for many Christians. The devil is the father of this world, and he tries to defeat God. We are God’s soldiers and we need to fight the good fight through love, charity, and prayer. We are on the eve of a new era of persecution in the western world. HaShem is our light and our salvation; whom shall we fear?

 

[manualman]

Wha? Maybe they are trying to inject a view into the foster-care arena (or keep a view out), but I don’t see a ban on religion here. That’s a leap.

I don’t think much theology is discussed in food pantries or for subsidized housing. Are couples check for sexual orientation or marriage status to use them?

Well, yes. For example: I once worked on a project in the City to covnert a closed catholic school into a facility that provided short to medium term emergency housing for intact families that had suddenly become homeless. Because it was a purely humanitarian outreach though inspired by and staffed by catholics, they received some funding from the government (I forget if it was City or State). My help was mostly manual labor related to demolition and drywall installation, so there were no residents at the time, but based on this article, I fully expect that if this facility refuses to house a homosexual couple in close proximity (each former classroom was to house 4 families) to the other families they will be banned from further public funding.

In other words: Shut up with your religious beliefs and do what we say.

Do you NOT see that coming?!

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I fully expect that if …

Do you NOT see that coming?!

No. You are leaping to conclusions. To much “if” in your post.

 

[lynx]

That is ridiculous. How many of us Christians pay taxes? why only secularists have the power to dictate? that is completely ridiculous.

Atheists also happen to pay taxes, as well as muslims, jews, pagans, satanists, etc. The USA is built upon showing favor to none and equality to all. On this principle, secular law, ignoring religion, is the fairest for everyone.

 

[lynx]

Well, yes. For example: I once worked on a project in the City to covnert a closed catholic school into a facility that provided short to medium term emergency housing for intact families that had suddenly become homeless. Because it was a purely humanitarian outreach though inspired by and staffed by catholics, they received some funding from the government (I forget if it was City or State). My help was mostly manual labor related to demolition and drywall installation, so there were no residents at the time, but based on this article, I fully expect that if this facility refuses to house a homosexual couple in close proximity (each former classroom was to house 4 families) to the other families they will be banned from further public funding.

In other words: Shut up with your religious beliefs and do what we say.

Do you NOT see that coming?!

If homosexuals pay taxes, why would they not be entitled to the benefits that those taxes pay for? If you accept government money you need to follow the secular guidelines that come with it. They can always just not take the money and do what they want. They only need to treat everyone equally if they take assistance from the government. Sounds fair to me.

 

[AcolyteLector]

No. You are leaping to conclusions. To much “if” in your post.

**
No, there is not too much if here.**

Actually, the only ‘if’ was the precondition that Catholic-based emergency care/housing facilities for families in need will not consider two homosexuals a ‘family’. Since these ‘families’ do exist–in fact, such ‘families’ and their supposed legal ‘rights’ are the topic of the original article–its just a matter of time before the relevant Catholic-based services are forced to handle their claims to legitimacy.

Someone questioned how food pantries and homeless shelters could possibly affected by this legal redefinition–manualman only provided a plausible scenario where they could be.

Further, its not leaping to conclusions–its already become a problem for adoption and foster care, its not a leap to see that the next step will be emergency care, especially food and housing.
*
Once again: they’re limiting our ability to perform charitable works, by demanding that we condone immorality at the same time.*

 

[AcolyteLector]

Atheists also happen to pay taxes, as well as muslims, jews, pagans, satanists, etc. The USA is built upon showing favor to none and equality to all. On this principle, secular law, ignoring religion, is the fairest for everyone.

Please help us (i.e., me) by relating this apparent non sequitur back to the discussion (namely, the post you’re supposedly responding to). Thanks.

 

[AcolyteLector]

If homosexuals pay taxes, why would they not be entitled to the benefits that those taxes pay for? If you accept government money you need to follow the secular guidelines that come with it. They can always just not take the money and do what they want. They only need to treat everyone equally if they take assistance from the government. Sounds fair to me.

The definitions of marriage of the government and Church have been divided, but now are forced to a split with the advent of same sex marriage. This is something that is not widely recognized, though it exists nonetheless.

The issue here is not ensuring civil rights–its a disagreement over what constitutes a marriage, and–by extension–what constitutes a family. Its not an issue of gays/atheists/pagans/squirrels paying taxes or not paying taxes, its an issue of people who have engaged in what is ultimately a legal fiction (i.e., a same sex union/marriage/whatever), who are approaching the Church and the agency the Church sponsors, as though they are actually married. Its not going to work until the Church and the government arrive at a mutually satisfying clarification of what marriage means to different people–and the government accepts marriage in its original (i.e., real) definition.

Until then, this will remain yet more fodder for politically-charged jibes at the Church.

 

[lynx]

Please help us (i.e., me) by relating this apparent non sequitur back to the discussion (namely, the post you’re supposedly responding to). Thanks.

Wisdomseeker didn’t like the fact that since Christians pay taxes they supposedly do not get a strong enough voice in a secular government. Just wondering who was the last non-christian POTUS, VPOTUS, senator, governor, etc? It seems rather one-sided to me.

 

[lynx]

The definitions of marriage of the government and Church have been divided, but now are forced to a split with the advent of same sex marriage. This is something that is not widely recognized, though it exists nonetheless.

The issue here is not ensuring civil rights–its a disagreement over what constitutes a marriage, and–by extension–what constitutes a family. Its not an issue of gays/atheists/pagans/squirrels paying taxes or not paying taxes, its an issue of people who have engaged in what is ultimately a legal fiction (i.e., a same sex union/marriage/whatever), who are approaching the Church and the agency the Church sponsors, as though they are actually married. Its not going to work until the Church and the government arrive at a mutually satisfying clarification of what marriage means to different people–and the government accepts marriage in its original (i.e., real) definition.

Until then, this will remain yet more fodder for politically-charged jibes at the Church.

This kind of is about taxes and where the money comes from. If I’m gay, and I pay my taxes, and those taxes go to fund a Catholic backed adoption agency, why should I not be able to adopt from that agency? If everyone is not treated equally by a facility that takes government funds then that’s wrong because the government is funded by everyone. If this catholic based agency wants to refuse government funding then that’s another story, but they can’t take taxes from gay tax payers and then refuse them for being gay (other reasons maybe). I guess the money isn’t gay enough for them to not accept it

 

[wisdomseeker]

Atheists also happen to pay taxes, as well as muslims, jews, pagans, satanists, etc. The USA is built upon showing favor to none and equality to all. On this principle, secular law, ignoring religion, is the fairest for everyone.

Really? so, we all pay but but those who dont believe in God are the ones to have their saying?

 

[lynx]

Really?

Yes

so, we all pay but but those who dont believe in God are the ones to have their saying?

The point being that everyone gets a saying not backed by religion. Why should a government that represents all people have a Christian message or push a Christian agenda? The fairest thing to do is ignore all religious dogma when it comes to law, this just so happens to fall in line with atheism. Why don’t you tell me the names of some atheist public officials you know? Do you need more than one hand to count them?

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

this just so happens to fall in line with atheism

Well how convienient for them…

This entire issue is nothing but a win/win for secular liberals; putting money into these organizations essentially gives the government a loophole to get into the affairs of religions.

If a satanist couple went to a Catholic adoption center would they have a case to sue when the organization denies them based off their religion? A Catholic adoption center would want the place children in the protection of Catholic families; I always wonder why gay couples would go to a religious adoption center that clearly goes against homosexuality- everytime I can only think of

1. to sue them
2. out of some kick to take a child from those horrid backwards Catholics

 

[lynx]

Well how convienient for them…

I think so.

This entire issue is nothing but a win/win for secular liberals; putting money into these organizations essentially gives the government a loophole to get into the affairs of religions.

This isn’t a loophole. This is the condition that comes with taking government money. If this agency wants to discriminate against gays it need only refuse their tax money. Simple solution no?

If a satanist couple went to a Catholic adoption center would they have a case to sue when the organization denies them based off their religion?

Yes, 100%. If you’re a government agency or are funded by one you cannot discriminate against someone because of their religion, regardless of outrageous you might think it is.

A Catholic adoption center would want the place children in the protection of Catholic families; I always wonder why gay couples would go to a religious adoption center that clearly goes against homosexuality- everytime I can only think of

1. to sue them
2. out of some kick to take a child from those horrid backwards Catholics

Maybe they’re practicing Catholics who are chaste but live together. Catholics are against the behavior, not the state of being homosexual. Assumptions like mine and yours mean little until we know more about the situation. Regardless, all they have to do is not take money from gay taxpayers and then entire issue is moot.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes

The point being that everyone gets a saying not backed by religion. Why should a government that represents all people have a Christian message or push a Christian agenda? The fairest thing to do is ignore all religious dogma when it comes to law, this just so happens to fall in line with atheism. Why don’t you tell me the names of some atheist public officials you know? Do you need more than one hand to count them?

why would a government who takes money the religious people dictate to them the atheists views?

 

[AcolyteLector]

Wisdomseeker didn’t like the fact that since Christians pay taxes they supposedly do not get a strong enough voice in a secular government. Just wondering who was the last non-christian POTUS, VPOTUS, senator, governor, etc? It seems rather one-sided to me.

Masses tend to elect people who resemble them–welcome to democracy. Perhaps atheism should make its public utterances a little more compelling, to ‘convert’ more atheists?

Who was the last black governor of South Dakota? There is a reason why a high proportion of Asian public officials hold office in Hawaii.