100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Non-profit religious charities - ulterior motive? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. So what do you propose? We live in a dictatorship where we all live as you decide we should? No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. this isn't a true democracy... the majority doesn't always win... the people with money wins, most of the time... in texas, 79% of the people want gambling legalized, but the southern baptist lobbys and it will never get to a vote because of the stupid lobbying... Good point. Even if it was a true democracy though, not sure I'd like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. So what do you propose? We live in a dictatorship where we all live as you decide we should? No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship? can you give me an example of a law that doesnt let you 'do' something 'just' because people dont like it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think , if they did not agree with the terms of the law which they would have to abide by to run their business, they did right to turn over the business its better than keeping the business and disobeying the law, its a personal choice to run a business or not,,,,I dont see the issue honestly,, The issue in this case is what WAS their mission in the first place? Was it to make sure that all those children were being raised in the Catholic faith? What is a mission of mercy to assist children in finding a loving, nurturning environment in which to grow and develop? It seems to me their mission should not have changed all that much, at least, not if the well-being of the children was their main concern. Every couple/ person undergoes the same rigerous review process to determine their ability and capabiltiy to care for a child. The child is already here, as long as there is a safe and caring environemnt for that child to be in, shouldn't the mission be to place the child there? Instead, they seem to be admitting that the state can care for and place these kids as well as they could without discriminating. So why was funding granted to this charity when it could have just as easily gone to the state effort which would have employed many people without regard for their religious beliefs. In other words, all the time that the Catholic chariety was receiveing Federal or State funding - our tax dollars were being used to support and recognize people specifically becasue they were Catholic - becasue the only employees were all Catholic. Now we find that this charity feels they were no better at what they did than the State - except perhaps that they were able to place children predominently with Catholic guardians. NOW they are complaining that they are being denied their right to practice their religious freedoms. HUH? THEY took our tax dollars and discriminated against other religious people and non-religious, forced that religion onto the children in their care at OUR expense and then when they are told they cannot discriminate agains SS couples THEY are the ones who were wronged????? There are deeply disturbing thought patterns in many religious minds but this example is striking. acting according to your beliefs is wrong? So you are saying Christians have no right to live by their beliefs if it conflicts with the government. Are you advocating that the government controls what religions are allowed to say? No one is saying you can't live how you want to, quit trying to twist everyone's words to make it seem like we're the bad guy. What we are saying, is you cross the line when you start to make choices for others such as the kids, based on what you think is right. You wanna live a certain way, go for it. But don't force it onto everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 06/03/11 03:50 PM
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. So what do you propose? We live in a dictatorship where we all live as you decide we should? No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship? can you give me an example of a law that doesnt let you 'do' something 'just' because people dont like it? How about the criminalization of marajuana? Or how about the banning of raw milk and dairy in certain places? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as stated before not all situations are equal I dont know the whole story here though, did they ONLY service catholic families? Did they NEVER place one child with a non catholic family? What difference would that make? I mean how would change things or what light would it shed on their current action? IT seems, in cases like this, there is a choice to be made. Obviously there was choice to be made and for the charity the choice was not founded on logical concerns which will be discussed below. IF, as argued before, the concern should be for the child. If the services are there for the BEST options of the child, than the CANDIDATES preferences become SECONDARY and those who would be deemed the best loving family with the most stable and HEALTHY environment for the child will probably be selected over the less healthy or stable homes almost every time. The two parent home, will probably be chosen over the single parent home, the higher income home over the poverty line income home,,,etc,, The Catholic nonprofit sites two changes in the law that they cannot follow when placing children. 1. Single adult males or females who meet the criteria for providing some minimum ideal of a necessary environment will be qualified and allowed to be foster parents and adoptees 2.A same-sex household in which the spouses/partners have been joined by civil union and who meet the criteria for providing some minimum ideal of a necessary environment will be qualified and allowed to be foster parents and adoptees Sighting religious beliefs, the nonprofit ultimately felt that they could not place children in either of those two conditions. Fine – but are they now saying that they cared no more or less or provided no more or less to the outcomes of all these kids than what the state could or can provide? If that’s the case, I don’t understand why they were in business using taxpayer dollars in the first place? Why was a non-secular charity given some share of funds which took away from the funds the state could have had for doing the exact same job with exactly the same outcomes? In effect, the harm the nonprofit may have caused was to overburden the state before it was prepared to accept the 300 or so new children which actually put ALL the kids who are now and newly coming into the state system at higher risk for bad outcomes. Aside from all that, the nonprofit and the leaders that backed the nonprofit (church officials) have stated that their rights to practice the religion of their choice has been infringed upon. Now the nonprofit has always been required to meet the civil standards, and follow the civil law of every other state foster care or adoption agency. We need to make that point perfectly clear. THEY followed the civil law. The law was not made to accommodate their religious belief, which tends to be one of the silly little things many people of faith will intone as they continue to maintain that this country was founded on Christian principles. NO IT WAS NOT. Then the law changed and it no longer accommodated the civil acceptance of discrimination that the nonprofit believes is part of their religious freedom. This caused the leaders of that NP to make their ridiculous inference that their freedom has been infringed upon – without EVER considering the children or the adults they were discriminating against. You see how the propagation of misinformation can cause ineffectual thought processes? When people think this country was founded on Christian principles they also believe their religious freedoms take priority over the freedoms of others. Obviously they continue to suggest that ending discrimination will seriously affect Christian values because ending discrimination means changing the laws which many Christians have come to believe where created for the benefit of their religious freedom. I suppose it’s best to be this direct all the time however, I do attempt to make people think for themselves but sometimes the Christian logic based on dogma and misinformation short circuits the thinking system. I’ve said it often and I will repeat it; I think there will always be religious but people have to find a way to keep those beliefs in their OWN manner as a PERSONAL set of values and stop attempting to insert their individual values on others. We will be a more tolerant and accepting civilization if/when all people take responsibility for the content and context of human ethics and avoid mixing their personal religious beliefs with those ethics that guide civil law. Most of the founding fathers were Christian. How is it possible they would totally ignore their faith to set up a new constitution? This caused the leaders of that NP to make their ridiculous inference that their freedom has been infringed upon – without EVER considering the children or the adults they were discriminating against. Sorry but that statement is complete made up BS. Did you talk to the people that made this decision and they told you they didn't care? I have said before that the Church had to make a terrible choice here. Abandon a principle they held as a fundamental part of their faith or abandon the children. I can guarantee you this was not an easy decision for them. They didn't just willy nilly say we don't really care and never did care for the kids. I am sure the church examined every possible way they could comply with the law and still ensure they would not place any children in these situations. Why is it so terrible to choose to place children in a two parent home with a mother and father? There are plenty of people that want to adopt. Why would they be required to place a child in a homosexual couples home when there are better options available to them? Fine discrimination. Everyone discriminates all the time. They decide what is best in every situation. When was the last time you chose your least favorable option when there was no good reason to discard your best choice? Why don't we set up affirmative action in adoption and give bonus points to homosexual couples because they had been discriminated against previously? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 06/03/11 03:54 PM
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. So what do you propose? We live in a dictatorship where we all live as you decide we should? No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship? can you give me an example of a law that doesnt let you 'do' something 'just' because people dont like it? How about marajuana? Or how about the banning of raw milk and dairy in certain places? I dont know about the raw milk and dairy, your description makes me think thats strictly regional, as far as marijuana, that is a good example that I also vote on for the government to neither legalize, but to stop criminalizing as well if people wish to become addicted, let them however, I do understand from the 'preventive' standpoint when and if government (majority) money is going into paying for the bills of the expenses incurred from such addictions if we are letting them have abortions, which is also because its their body, than those drugs are also in THEIR body and it should likewise follow they have authority over what happens to their body,,,,UNLESS, there is evidence of unreasonable financial burden on the MAJORITY/GOVERNMENT to cover the expense of what happens AFTER abortions(psychologically and physically) we agree on that, but I dont think MOST laws are of such a nature,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/03/11 03:55 PM
|
|
I think , if they did not agree with the terms of the law which they would have to abide by to run their business, they did right to turn over the business its better than keeping the business and disobeying the law, its a personal choice to run a business or not,,,,I dont see the issue honestly,, The issue in this case is what WAS their mission in the first place? Was it to make sure that all those children were being raised in the Catholic faith? What is a mission of mercy to assist children in finding a loving, nurturning environment in which to grow and develop? It seems to me their mission should not have changed all that much, at least, not if the well-being of the children was their main concern. Every couple/ person undergoes the same rigerous review process to determine their ability and capabiltiy to care for a child. The child is already here, as long as there is a safe and caring environemnt for that child to be in, shouldn't the mission be to place the child there? Instead, they seem to be admitting that the state can care for and place these kids as well as they could without discriminating. So why was funding granted to this charity when it could have just as easily gone to the state effort which would have employed many people without regard for their religious beliefs. In other words, all the time that the Catholic chariety was receiveing Federal or State funding - our tax dollars were being used to support and recognize people specifically becasue they were Catholic - becasue the only employees were all Catholic. Now we find that this charity feels they were no better at what they did than the State - except perhaps that they were able to place children predominently with Catholic guardians. NOW they are complaining that they are being denied their right to practice their religious freedoms. HUH? THEY took our tax dollars and discriminated against other religious people and non-religious, forced that religion onto the children in their care at OUR expense and then when they are told they cannot discriminate agains SS couples THEY are the ones who were wronged????? There are deeply disturbing thought patterns in many religious minds but this example is striking. acting according to your beliefs is wrong? So you are saying Christians have no right to live by their beliefs if it conflicts with the government. Are you advocating that the government controls what religions are allowed to say? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. So what do you propose? We live in a dictatorship where we all live as you decide we should? No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship? can you give me an example of a law that doesnt let you 'do' something 'just' because people dont like it? i just did, gambling... the church doesn't like it, so the lobby against it...so it stays illegal in texas... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. So what do you propose? We live in a dictatorship where we all live as you decide we should? No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship? can you give me an example of a law that doesnt let you 'do' something 'just' because people dont like it? How about marajuana? Or how about the banning of raw milk and dairy in certain places? I dont know about the raw milk and dairy, your description makes me think thats strictly regional, as far as marijuana, that is a good example that I also vote on for the government to neither legalize, but to stop criminalizing as well if people wish to become addicted, let them however, I do understand from the 'preventive' standpoint when and if government (majority) money is going into paying for the bills of the expenses incurred from such addictions if we are letting them have abortions, which is also because its their body, than those drugs are also in THEIR body and it should likewise follow they have authority over what happens to their body,,,,UNLESS, there is evidence of unreasonable financial burden on the MAJORITY/GOVERNMENT to cover the expense of what happens AFTER abortions(psychologically and physically) we agree on that, but I dont think MOST laws are of such a nature,,, weed is non addictive... no tar or nicotine in it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. So what do you propose? We live in a dictatorship where we all live as you decide we should? No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship? can you give me an example of a law that doesnt let you 'do' something 'just' because people dont like it? i just did, gambling... the church doesn't like it, so the lobby against it...so it stays illegal in texas... thats another regional issue,,,its perfectly legal where I live,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it wasnt a WASTE of money IF children were indeed placed in loving homes(Regardless of they dynamic of the relationship in that home) it was an ADDITIONAL resource to the state, not necessarily a DIFFERENT resource or a BETTER resource we cant with any intellectual honesty, seperate RELIGIOUS belief form any other when it comes to the majority and their opinions , standards, values,,whatever we are a nation of INDIVIDUALS who (thankfully)get to vote on the laws, guidelines, policies, and statutes we wish to be the foundation for our culture, our society, our country. We cannot seperate INDIVIDUAL beliefs from those decisions, because all our beliefs are INDIVIDUAL To us based upon our experiences in life(Regardless if they were inside a church, on a farm, or in a high rise). our experiences make us who we are and its discriminatory to insist or expect the 'religious' to somehow escape that reality or ignore their own 'experiences' when forming their opinions, standards and values. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to ignore their own experiences or anything of the sort. We are simply saying, don't push your beliefs onto others, or use it as a means to discriminate against others who don't think like you do. You can have your beliefs, and live by them all you want to. But when you start to expect others to live by the same, you are crossing a line as is the case here. IN a democracy, where people VOTE, their beliefs and opinions matter regardless of where they are assumed to come from. Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority. So what do you propose? We live in a dictatorship where we all live as you decide we should? No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship? Um, no you wouldn't because Christians do not force their religion down your throat. Despite what you think. Your society in a de facto impossibility. There will always be someone that is in charge that will make the rules and the rules will always offend someone. not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore. You just pointed out why I don't like this ruling that made the church decide to close its doors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think , if they did not agree with the terms of the law which they would have to abide by to run their business, they did right to turn over the business its better than keeping the business and disobeying the law, its a personal choice to run a business or not,,,,I dont see the issue honestly,, The issue in this case is what WAS their mission in the first place? Was it to make sure that all those children were being raised in the Catholic faith? What is a mission of mercy to assist children in finding a loving, nurturning environment in which to grow and develop? It seems to me their mission should not have changed all that much, at least, not if the well-being of the children was their main concern. Every couple/ person undergoes the same rigerous review process to determine their ability and capabiltiy to care for a child. The child is already here, as long as there is a safe and caring environemnt for that child to be in, shouldn't the mission be to place the child there? Instead, they seem to be admitting that the state can care for and place these kids as well as they could without discriminating. So why was funding granted to this charity when it could have just as easily gone to the state effort which would have employed many people without regard for their religious beliefs. In other words, all the time that the Catholic chariety was receiveing Federal or State funding - our tax dollars were being used to support and recognize people specifically becasue they were Catholic - becasue the only employees were all Catholic. Now we find that this charity feels they were no better at what they did than the State - except perhaps that they were able to place children predominently with Catholic guardians. NOW they are complaining that they are being denied their right to practice their religious freedoms. HUH? THEY took our tax dollars and discriminated against other religious people and non-religious, forced that religion onto the children in their care at OUR expense and then when they are told they cannot discriminate agains SS couples THEY are the ones who were wronged????? There are deeply disturbing thought patterns in many religious minds but this example is striking. acting according to your beliefs is wrong? So you are saying Christians have no right to live by their beliefs if it conflicts with the government. Are you advocating that the government controls what religions are allowed to say? No one is saying you can't live how you want to, quit trying to twist everyone's words to make it seem like we're the bad guy. What we are saying, is you cross the line when you start to make choices for others such as the kids, based on what you think is right. You wanna live a certain way, go for it. But don't force it onto everyone else. The church was making decisions on behalf of the kids that they felt were best for the kids. It was the state that said they had to make choices for others that were bad according to their faith. The state was forcing the church to accept a lifestyle they did not want to accept. Once again, you are only proving why the state overstepped their bounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as stated before not all situations are equal I dont know the whole story here though, did they ONLY service catholic families? Did they NEVER place one child with a non catholic family? What difference would that make? I mean how would change things or what light would it shed on their current action? IT seems, in cases like this, there is a choice to be made. Obviously there was choice to be made and for the charity the choice was not founded on logical concerns which will be discussed below. IF, as argued before, the concern should be for the child. If the services are there for the BEST options of the child, than the CANDIDATES preferences become SECONDARY and those who would be deemed the best loving family with the most stable and HEALTHY environment for the child will probably be selected over the less healthy or stable homes almost every time. The two parent home, will probably be chosen over the single parent home, the higher income home over the poverty line income home,,,etc,, The Catholic nonprofit sites two changes in the law that they cannot follow when placing children. 1. Single adult males or females who meet the criteria for providing some minimum ideal of a necessary environment will be qualified and allowed to be foster parents and adoptees 2.A same-sex household in which the spouses/partners have been joined by civil union and who meet the criteria for providing some minimum ideal of a necessary environment will be qualified and allowed to be foster parents and adoptees Sighting religious beliefs, the nonprofit ultimately felt that they could not place children in either of those two conditions. Fine – but are they now saying that they cared no more or less or provided no more or less to the outcomes of all these kids than what the state could or can provide? If that’s the case, I don’t understand why they were in business using taxpayer dollars in the first place? Why was a non-secular charity given some share of funds which took away from the funds the state could have had for doing the exact same job with exactly the same outcomes? In effect, the harm the nonprofit may have caused was to overburden the state before it was prepared to accept the 300 or so new children which actually put ALL the kids who are now and newly coming into the state system at higher risk for bad outcomes. Aside from all that, the nonprofit and the leaders that backed the nonprofit (church officials) have stated that their rights to practice the religion of their choice has been infringed upon. Now the nonprofit has always been required to meet the civil standards, and follow the civil law of every other state foster care or adoption agency. We need to make that point perfectly clear. THEY followed the civil law. The law was not made to accommodate their religious belief, which tends to be one of the silly little things many people of faith will intone as they continue to maintain that this country was founded on Christian principles. NO IT WAS NOT. Then the law changed and it no longer accommodated the civil acceptance of discrimination that the nonprofit believes is part of their religious freedom. This caused the leaders of that NP to make their ridiculous inference that their freedom has been infringed upon – without EVER considering the children or the adults they were discriminating against. You see how the propagation of misinformation can cause ineffectual thought processes? When people think this country was founded on Christian principles they also believe their religious freedoms take priority over the freedoms of others. Obviously they continue to suggest that ending discrimination will seriously affect Christian values because ending discrimination means changing the laws which many Christians have come to believe where created for the benefit of their religious freedom. I suppose it’s best to be this direct all the time however, I do attempt to make people think for themselves but sometimes the Christian logic based on dogma and misinformation short circuits the thinking system. I’ve said it often and I will repeat it; I think there will always be religious but people have to find a way to keep those beliefs in their OWN manner as a PERSONAL set of values and stop attempting to insert their individual values on others. We will be a more tolerant and accepting civilization if/when all people take responsibility for the content and context of human ethics and avoid mixing their personal religious beliefs with those ethics that guide civil law. Most of the founding fathers were Christian. How is it possible they would totally ignore their faith to set up a new constitution? This caused the leaders of that NP to make their ridiculous inference that their freedom has been infringed upon – without EVER considering the children or the adults they were discriminating against. Sorry but that statement is complete made up BS. Did you talk to the people that made this decision and they told you they didn't care? I have said before that the Church had to make a terrible choice here. Abandon a principle they held as a fundamental part of their faith or abandon the children. I can guarantee you this was not an easy decision for them. They didn't just willy nilly say we don't really care and never did care for the kids. I am sure the church examined every possible way they could comply with the law and still ensure they would not place any children in these situations. Why is it so terrible to choose to place children in a two parent home with a mother and father? There are plenty of people that want to adopt. Why would they be required to place a child in a homosexual couples home when there are better options available to them? Fine discrimination. Everyone discriminates all the time. They decide what is best in every situation. When was the last time you chose your least favorable option when there was no good reason to discard your best choice? Here's an idea, why not give the child to the best possible candidate whether they are same sex or not? Even further, why not allow the child to be able to choose if they are above a certain age who they wanna go with? Oh I'm sorry, am I making too much sense? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think , if they did not agree with the terms of the law which they would have to abide by to run their business, they did right to turn over the business its better than keeping the business and disobeying the law, its a personal choice to run a business or not,,,,I dont see the issue honestly,, The issue in this case is what WAS their mission in the first place? Was it to make sure that all those children were being raised in the Catholic faith? What is a mission of mercy to assist children in finding a loving, nurturning environment in which to grow and develop? It seems to me their mission should not have changed all that much, at least, not if the well-being of the children was their main concern. Every couple/ person undergoes the same rigerous review process to determine their ability and capabiltiy to care for a child. The child is already here, as long as there is a safe and caring environemnt for that child to be in, shouldn't the mission be to place the child there? Instead, they seem to be admitting that the state can care for and place these kids as well as they could without discriminating. So why was funding granted to this charity when it could have just as easily gone to the state effort which would have employed many people without regard for their religious beliefs. In other words, all the time that the Catholic chariety was receiveing Federal or State funding - our tax dollars were being used to support and recognize people specifically becasue they were Catholic - becasue the only employees were all Catholic. Now we find that this charity feels they were no better at what they did than the State - except perhaps that they were able to place children predominently with Catholic guardians. NOW they are complaining that they are being denied their right to practice their religious freedoms. HUH? THEY took our tax dollars and discriminated against other religious people and non-religious, forced that religion onto the children in their care at OUR expense and then when they are told they cannot discriminate agains SS couples THEY are the ones who were wronged????? There are deeply disturbing thought patterns in many religious minds but this example is striking. acting according to your beliefs is wrong? So you are saying Christians have no right to live by their beliefs if it conflicts with the government. Are you advocating that the government controls what religions are allowed to say? No one is saying you can't live how you want to, quit trying to twist everyone's words to make it seem like we're the bad guy. What we are saying, is you cross the line when you start to make choices for others such as the kids, based on what you think is right. You wanna live a certain way, go for it. But don't force it onto everyone else. The church was making decisions on behalf of the kids that they felt were best for the kids. It was the state that said they had to make choices for others that were bad according to their faith. The state was forcing the church to accept a lifestyle they did not want to accept. Too bad, if you're gonna be fair, you have to be fair to all, and if you're can't or wouldn't be, then you never should have taken the position in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think , if they did not agree with the terms of the law which they would have to abide by to run their business, they did right to turn over the business its better than keeping the business and disobeying the law, its a personal choice to run a business or not,,,,I dont see the issue honestly,, The issue in this case is what WAS their mission in the first place? Was it to make sure that all those children were being raised in the Catholic faith? What is a mission of mercy to assist children in finding a loving, nurturning environment in which to grow and develop? It seems to me their mission should not have changed all that much, at least, not if the well-being of the children was their main concern. Every couple/ person undergoes the same rigerous review process to determine their ability and capabiltiy to care for a child. The child is already here, as long as there is a safe and caring environemnt for that child to be in, shouldn't the mission be to place the child there? Instead, they seem to be admitting that the state can care for and place these kids as well as they could without discriminating. So why was funding granted to this charity when it could have just as easily gone to the state effort which would have employed many people without regard for their religious beliefs. In other words, all the time that the Catholic chariety was receiveing Federal or State funding - our tax dollars were being used to support and recognize people specifically becasue they were Catholic - becasue the only employees were all Catholic. Now we find that this charity feels they were no better at what they did than the State - except perhaps that they were able to place children predominently with Catholic guardians. NOW they are complaining that they are being denied their right to practice their religious freedoms. HUH? THEY took our tax dollars and discriminated against other religious people and non-religious, forced that religion onto the children in their care at OUR expense and then when they are told they cannot discriminate agains SS couples THEY are the ones who were wronged????? There are deeply disturbing thought patterns in many religious minds but this example is striking. acting according to your beliefs is wrong? So you are saying Christians have no right to live by their beliefs if it conflicts with the government. Are you advocating that the government controls what religions are allowed to say? No one is saying you can't live how you want to, quit trying to twist everyone's words to make it seem like we're the bad guy. What we are saying, is you cross the line when you start to make choices for others such as the kids, based on what you think is right. You wanna live a certain way, go for it. But don't force it onto everyone else. The church was making decisions on behalf of the kids that they felt were best for the kids. It was the state that said they had to make choices for others that were bad according to their faith. The state was forcing the church to accept a lifestyle they did not want to accept. Too bad, if you're gonna be fair, you have to be fair to all, and if you're can't or wouldn't be, then you never should have taken the position in the first place. Um, in this case I strongly agree with the church. It is NOT in the child's best interest to be placed in a homosexual home. That is being fair to the child. I don't give a D@MN whether or not the homosexual couple thinks it is fair or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think , if they did not agree with the terms of the law which they would have to abide by to run their business, they did right to turn over the business its better than keeping the business and disobeying the law, its a personal choice to run a business or not,,,,I dont see the issue honestly,, The issue in this case is what WAS their mission in the first place? Was it to make sure that all those children were being raised in the Catholic faith? What is a mission of mercy to assist children in finding a loving, nurturning environment in which to grow and develop? It seems to me their mission should not have changed all that much, at least, not if the well-being of the children was their main concern. Every couple/ person undergoes the same rigerous review process to determine their ability and capabiltiy to care for a child. The child is already here, as long as there is a safe and caring environemnt for that child to be in, shouldn't the mission be to place the child there? Instead, they seem to be admitting that the state can care for and place these kids as well as they could without discriminating. So why was funding granted to this charity when it could have just as easily gone to the state effort which would have employed many people without regard for their religious beliefs. In other words, all the time that the Catholic chariety was receiveing Federal or State funding - our tax dollars were being used to support and recognize people specifically becasue they were Catholic - becasue the only employees were all Catholic. Now we find that this charity feels they were no better at what they did than the State - except perhaps that they were able to place children predominently with Catholic guardians. NOW they are complaining that they are being denied their right to practice their religious freedoms. HUH? THEY took our tax dollars and discriminated against other religious people and non-religious, forced that religion onto the children in their care at OUR expense and then when they are told they cannot discriminate agains SS couples THEY are the ones who were wronged????? There are deeply disturbing thought patterns in many religious minds but this example is striking. acting according to your beliefs is wrong? So you are saying Christians have no right to live by their beliefs if it conflicts with the government. Are you advocating that the government controls what religions are allowed to say? No one is saying you can't live how you want to, quit trying to twist everyone's words to make it seem like we're the bad guy. What we are saying, is you cross the line when you start to make choices for others such as the kids, based on what you think is right. You wanna live a certain way, go for it. But don't force it onto everyone else. The church was making decisions on behalf of the kids that they felt were best for the kids. It was the state that said they had to make choices for others that were bad according to their faith. The state was forcing the church to accept a lifestyle they did not want to accept. Too bad, if you're gonna be fair, you have to be fair to all, and if you're can't or wouldn't be, then you never should have taken the position in the first place. Um, in this case I strongly agree with the church. It is NOT in the child's best interest to be placed in a homosexual home. That is being fair to the child. I don't give a D@MN whether or not the homosexual couple thinks it is fair or not. ********, it's only because of your beliefs that you think that. Being fair to the child is being objective, and this is far from that. This is exactly what's wrong with religion, you shove your views down people's throats with little regard for their feelings on the matter, and you use it as a reason to discriminate against others. You don't wanna be discriminated against, DON'T DO IT YOURSELF! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, in this case I strongly agree with the church. It is NOT in the child's best interest to be placed in a homosexual home. That is being fair to the child. I don't give a D@MN whether or not the homosexual couple thinks it is fair or not. ********, it's only because of your beliefs that you think that. Being fair to the child is being objective, and this is far from that. This is exactly what's wrong with religion, you shove your views down people's throats with little regard for their feelings on the matter, and you use it as a reason to discriminate against others. You don't wanna be discriminated against, DON'T DO IT YOURSELF! I am being objective. I don't feel a homosexual environment is a good environment for a child to be raised. Same as a drug addict. Should we place children with drug addicts? If not, you are discriminating against drug addicts and you are guilty of the same things you are saying I am. To be truly fair, there should be absolutely no criteria used when placing a child. Anyone shows up at the door and says they want one, they should be given a child. All they need is a name and a body. How is saying I won't want a child placed with a homosexual couple forcing my religious views down people's throat? They have other avenues in which to pursue adoption. there are many foreign countries that do not allow homosexual couples to adopt from America as well. China for one. Do you think they are doing it because of their Christian views??? It has been shown time and time again that children do best when raised by a heterosexual couple. Because they have a male and female role model to see on a daily basis. I am thinking of what is best for the children. Apparently my thoughts don't count simply because I have faith. I would feel this way even if I wasn't a Christian. Would that change anything? Because then you have no religious argument to fall back on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 06/03/11 04:42 PM
|
|
Um, in this case I strongly agree with the church. It is NOT in the child's best interest to be placed in a homosexual home. That is being fair to the child. I don't give a D@MN whether or not the homosexual couple thinks it is fair or not. ********, it's only because of your beliefs that you think that. Being fair to the child is being objective, and this is far from that. This is exactly what's wrong with religion, you shove your views down people's throats with little regard for their feelings on the matter, and you use it as a reason to discriminate against others. You don't wanna be discriminated against, DON'T DO IT YOURSELF! I am being objective. I don't feel a homosexual environment is a good environment for a child to be raised. Same as a drug addict. Should we place children with drug addicts? If not, you are discriminating against drug addicts and you are guilty of the same things you are saying I am. To be truly fair, there should be absolutely no criteria used when placing a child. Anyone shows up at the door and says they want one, they should be given a child. All they need is a name and a body. How is saying I won't want a child placed with a homosexual couple forcing my religious views down people's throat? They have other avenues in which to pursue adoption. there are many foreign countries that do not allow homosexual couples to adopt from America as well. China for one. Do you think they are doing it because of their Christian views??? It has been shown time and time again that children do best when raised by a heterosexual couple. Because they have a male and female role model to see on a daily basis. I am thinking of what is best for the children. Apparently my thoughts don't count simply because I have faith. I would feel this way even if I wasn't a Christian. Would that change anything? Because then you have no religious argument to fall back on. No it wouldn't because you'd still be a bigot and be discriminating. And I LOVE the extreme argument you use. A drug addict and a homosexual loving couple ARE NOT THE SAME THING! I don't care how you try and twist it, they're not. One is an obvious problem, the other is merely assumed in the eyes of those against gays. Huge difference. If you're gonna say someone is not qualified, you better damn well have a concrete reason why. Just because you think, or because your faith says something is wrong, isn't good enough. What were the sources of these studies too I might add? I'd make any bet they were from religious sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, in this case I strongly agree with the church. It is NOT in the child's best interest to be placed in a homosexual home. That is being fair to the child. I don't give a D@MN whether or not the homosexual couple thinks it is fair or not. ********, it's only because of your beliefs that you think that. Being fair to the child is being objective, and this is far from that. This is exactly what's wrong with religion, you shove your views down people's throats with little regard for their feelings on the matter, and you use it as a reason to discriminate against others. You don't wanna be discriminated against, DON'T DO IT YOURSELF! I am being objective. I don't feel a homosexual environment is a good environment for a child to be raised. Same as a drug addict. Should we place children with drug addicts? If not, you are discriminating against drug addicts and you are guilty of the same things you are saying I am. To be truly fair, there should be absolutely no criteria used when placing a child. Anyone shows up at the door and says they want one, they should be given a child. All they need is a name and a body. How is saying I won't want a child placed with a homosexual couple forcing my religious views down people's throat? They have other avenues in which to pursue adoption. there are many foreign countries that do not allow homosexual couples to adopt from America as well. China for one. Do you think they are doing it because of their Christian views??? It has been shown time and time again that children do best when raised by a heterosexual couple. Because they have a male and female role model to see on a daily basis. I am thinking of what is best for the children. Apparently my thoughts don't count simply because I have faith. I would feel this way even if I wasn't a Christian. Would that change anything? Because then you have no religious argument to fall back on. No it wouldn't because you'd still be a bigot and be discriminating. And I LOVE the extreme argument you use. A drug addict and a homosexual loving couple ARE NOT THE SAME THING! I don't care how you try and twist it, they're not. One is an obvious problem, the other is merely assumed in the eyes of those against gays. Huge difference. I'm a bigot now? Thank you. Love being called names... |
|
|
|
|
