quote: The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
It is also exactly why, though religious and other private groups do much good work, government must bear the responsibility for the lion's share of social services. We cannot leave care for those who need help primarily in the hands of those who reserve the right to withhold services from whomever they will.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Wow. That is disgraceful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Catholic Charities made a similar decision in Boston - prompting the resignation of several board members. They had been facilitating a small number of adoptions by same-sex families for years until the bishops "cracked down".
I am horrified that, instead of continuing to allow gay people to adopt, they prefer that women with an unwanted pregnancy have one less option.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
It seems entirely reasonable to me. It also illustrates why the city ought not to be leaning on outside organizations to provide social services in the first place.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is there a shortage in Boston of people wanting to adopt healthy babies?
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
You can think that their beliefs are dumb, but everybody has to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, Are you asking me? I am not sure of the relevance of your question. Could you explain?
ETA: Omega, I am not sure what you mean. "They" can have whatever beliefs they want. I am sad that my Church officially holds this position, but churches have the right to believe what they want. Because they have that right, we cannot leave important services in their hands.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let's hope the city calls their bluff.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: You can think that their beliefs are dumb, but everybody has to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
This isn't a question of rights.
It is morally reprehensible to give such an ultimatum. Imagine, denying the needy valuable social services because of political goings on that are frankly beyond their control.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: It is morally reprehensible to give such an ultimatum. Imagine, denying the needy valuable social services because of political goings on that are frankly beyond their control.
Oh, please. They're not doing anything of the sort. The city's subcontracting a significant chunk of services out to them. The city recently changed the rules of that agreement to an extent that the church isn't comfortable with, so they're telling the city that unless they go back to the original agreement, they'll have to find somebody else to do the work. No aspect of this is unreasonable or immoral.
(I have more than a little firsthand experience with being sanctimoniously informed that I needed to stay in a position for the Greater Good. Oddly enough, the world always managed just fine when I finally had enough and quit...)
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Some Libertarian and Conservatives argue that all charity should be done by those like churches. But what we have here is a church that offers such social services blackmailing a city. It will cut off all social services in that city if the city does not enact legislation that it desires.
This is a great argument against those Libertarians and Conservatives. For if we lay all our social services not in the hands of the government but in the hands of a church, then how long before we are living under a theocracy.
This is the same way that Hamas made its way into power in Lebanon and parts of Palestine. They offered social services--health care, food for the poor, education, that the state refused or could not provide. From there becoming the state was easy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: It will cut off all social services in that city if the city does not enact legislation that it desires.
This is flat out factually incorrect. It's wrong. If you think this is what happening, you don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sputtering threads of indignation are a lot more effective if you get your facts straight. Otherwise you expose yourself for having a thoughtless, kneejerk reaction that you didn't think about. How is that persuasive?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I agree with katharina - the church isn't blackmailing the city, or threatening to cut off all the services it provides. It's saying that it won't provide services that are conditioned on specific rules that it does not agree with (services which it appears in this case are funded publicly).
I also have some sympathy for the point of view that the end result could be negative, and if you think the new rules are correct, for feeling that the church should suck it up and follow them, rather than permit things to get worse instead.
But if the church follows through on its ultimatum, it shouldn't stop the church from independently offering services that do not require a government contract, and it should not stop the government from contracting the services through another entity. So painting it as a net loss of everything the church used to do is inaccurate (even if you believe there will be a smaller net loss because the church was particularly effective as a contractor).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Some Libertarian and Conservatives argue that all charity should be done by those like churches. But what we have here is a church that offers such social services blackmailing a city. It will cut off all social services in that city if the city does not enact legislation that it desires.
A Libertarian might reasonably say that this is a problem with the city having such legislative powers, rather than the church.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Let's hope the city calls their bluff.
It isn't a bluff, they have done just that in a number of cities.
Disgraceful.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How dare they not devote time and resources to causes they don't believe in! What IS this world coming to? Don't they know that religions aren't ALLOWED to have their own beliefs? Don't they know that if the state wills it, they should abandon their belief systems and work towards a goal they don't support? How DARE they choose where to devote their own resources? How dare they refuse payment for a job they don't want to do?
My actual question is: Don't they know that accepting money comes with strings, and it makes people think they own you? It isn't worth it. Let the government find some other contractor.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How DARE they choose where to devote their own resources?
Until they're made to pay taxes like the rest of us, I don't feel any pity for them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I dunno. The Catholic Charity gets to put its money where its mouth is and will forgo city money in order to stick to their principles. The city gets to find a different contractor or can setup its own services free of religion.
Kinda seems like a win win.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I haven't decided whether I think there's anything really wrong with this or not yet. But man, it sure as hell doesn't play well in media terms.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Depends on who the target audience is. It probably plays well to the side of the Anglican schism that the Catholic Church is courting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I dunno. The Catholic Charity gets to put its money where its mouth is and will forgo city money in order to stick to their principles. The city gets to find a different contractor or can setup its own services free of religion.
Kinda seems like a win win.
Not when the Catholic charities make such a bad name for themselves this way, but generally otherwise a win in terms of demonstrating why the churches shouldn't collude with public funding use.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How DARE they choose where to devote their own resources?
Until they're made to pay taxes like the rest of us, I don't feel any pity for them.
Non-profit status = source of slave labor? Who knew!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Maybe those who find this church's decision reprehensible would be more understanding if they had a comparable alternative to rejection of gay rights to consider. I can understand not being able to interpret that as anything but wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
One of the arguments that I've heard against official recognition of gay marriage is that churches will be forced to recognize them as well and perform gay marriages as well.
I don't think that's true, because my church has certainly not been forced to officially marry anyone that hasn't been considered qualified, but maybe saying that churches don't have a choice in this matter fans the flames who are nervous that forcing a church to act contrary to their beliefs is exactly what recognizing gay marriage would do.
In other words, if you want to claim that churches won't be forced to act contrary to their beliefs, don't get mad when a church refuses to act contrary to their beliefs.
The mutual arrangement is no longer mutually acceptable. So, the arrangement ends.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
I'm generally shocked that the government is subcontracting to the Church. Especially as I have often enough heard people rail about separation of Church and State, it surprises me that there would be so very little separation there of all places.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's generally cheaper for the government - less money to overhead, less to the profit of the subcontractor, and less money devoted to setting up the infrastructure.
As long as the arrangement is mutually acceptable - and there are lots of strings on both sides - I think it makes a lot of sense for the government.
It's a miserably stupid idea for churches, because of the strings. Once the government gives you money, people think they own you. Better to stay away.
It happens a lot more in high tax states in like Massachusetts, where citizens give comparatively microscopic amounts to charity and also pay enormously high taxes. The states where people give the most to charity are generally the states where taxes are lower. Once people start voting more of their resources to the state, then fewer resources go to private organizations that could step in.
What I think is REALLY stupid is having the high taxes in the first place instead of people voluntarily giving to non-profits devoted to the cause. Some people consider giving the legislature control to be a net good, despite the high overhead cost of routing money through the state bureaucracy that chips away at the resources available for the actual services. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I think the stand by the Catholic Church on this matter is right. It should not work hand-in-hand with any secular regime that promotes something the church regards as wrong, and a violation of their faith.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
What I think is REALLY stupid is having the high taxes in the first place instead of people voluntarily giving to non-profits devoted to the cause. Some people consider giving the legislature control to be a net good, despite the high overhead cost of routing money through the state bureaucracy that chips away at the resources available for the actual services. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
I guess I just grew up being taught to give money to the Church anyway. Give to Caesar what it Caesar's and to God what is God's -- in the case of money, the first ten percent of my paycheque.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
General trends suggest that the higher the taxes, the lower the giving, regardless of average net income.
Perhaps it is because people feel that many of things charities might do are done by the state. For instance, few if any charities exist to buy guns for a militia, although there are many to get other stuff for troops that the government doesn't cover. I wonder if it is a case that once the government declares a certain service its province, the private organizations often melt away, resulting in perhaps roughly the same amount of resources going towards instead of a doubling up of them.
Or, perhaps it is philosophy - states that have lower taxes are often conservative, and conservatives often both value independence more and also are more likely to be religious. The first means less voting for the government to handle providing services, and the second results in more money given to charity and non-profits.
If there are fewer charities in existence as a result of the government taking over various functions, perhaps there are fewer charities that appeal to people, and that results in less giving.
Even if everyone gave 10% of their paycheck, and paychecks remained the same, higher taxes would result in lower amounts given to charity because the net paycheck would be lower.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
The mission statement of Catholic Charities is this:
quote: The mission of Catholic Charities is to provide service to people in need, to advocate for justice in social structures, and to call the entire church and other people of good will to do the same.
It saddens me that they are willing to compromise their commitment to social justice over something like this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Looks like there is going to be a compromise no matter what. Perhaps they feel that they can hold to both points of doctrine by conducting charitable acts without government money, while government can put to a contractor who accepts the terms.
As dramatic as that would be to make the point, the Catholic church is not getting out of the charity business.
I don't understand why there seems to be this desire to misrepresent the facts. If the facts justify outrage on their own, why this desire to misrepresent them? And if not, why the outrage?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It seems to me that there are two arguments for smaller government - government that does not provide services to the poor. One argument is that such services shouldn't be provided. We have no duty to take care of people who cannot take take care of themselves. I do not see how a Christian could make this argument.*
The other argument, which I could understand from a Christian point of view, is that such services should be provided but that it was not the role of government to provide them. That, with smaller government, private and religious charities would take care of the poor. Government should stick to the military and maybe building roads. There has been a move in recent years to "offload" social services to private and religious charities.
The decision by that archdiocese in Washington illuminates for me exactly why the second argument fails. Churches and other private groups should have the right to make their own rules about who and how they will help.** This is why we can't depend on private and religious groups for this and the government must stay in the business of providing social services and help for people who need it.
*Not to limit this to Christians but I don't claim to speak for other religions.
**As a Catholic I think this is a bad and wrong decision.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Churches and other private groups should have the right to make their own rules about who and how they will help.** This is why we can't depend on private and religious groups for this and the government must stay in the business of providing social services and help for people who need it.
**As a Catholic I think this is a bad and wrong decision.
Exactly. Everyone who believes that smaller government is always better seems to forget that private charities are just like humans--incredibly prone to irrational discrimination. That's not to say I'm against private charities. I think that private charities are a more efficient method, with less administrative overhead. However, that efficiency comes with a price. Or, as a wise person said, "You can have it good, cheap, and fast. Pick any 2."
Because I kind of thought the point of charity was to give without judging. Of course, the without judging part is a little tough for most humans. And no, I am not above judging my fellow humans, in moments of weakness/imperfection.
I'm not sure there are easy answers, in the here and now, on this issue. Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
"As dramatic as that would be to make the point, the Catholic church is not getting out of the charity business."
I'm not implying that they are. Of course, the Catholic church works a great deal on social justice issues all over the world. I'm just thinking of the impact it would have in my own city, if our Catholic Charities made the same decision. After the hurricanes, many of our social service agencies, secular and religious, ran out of money and had to shut down. Catholic Charities is providing services that nobody else can provide; if they decided to pull these services, I can't imagine what these people would do. I know the circumstances are different in DC than in Louisiana, and the situations aren't comparable, but truly, I can't imagine what would happen if our Catholic Charities stopped doing what it was doing. Even for a few weeks. I can't believe the DC branch of the organization is willing to do this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That, still, is not the situation going on here. Private Catholic charities are not pulling services - what they are doing is refusing to administer services paid for by the government. The government isn't running out of money, and the Catholic church isn't pulling all services. It still isn't applicable.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District
Not in the District. For the District. A very, very different thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fyfe: After the hurricanes, many of our social service agencies, secular and religious, ran out of money and had to shut down. Catholic Charities is providing services that nobody else can provide; if they decided to pull these services, I can't imagine what these people would do.
My point is that we can provide the services that Catholic Charities decides not to provide - or not to provide to everyone who needs them. We must.
[ November 14, 2009, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you held the belief that when the government does things, it does them better, that would follow. If you have concluded that private institutions do things better, a different solution might come to mind.
So, the argument there would be to explain how things are better overall when the government does them than when charities do them.
I'm torn - I think private institutions do most things better, but also that some oversight must happen and it's easier to enforce standards among government employees. Otherwise, you get debacles like the Acorn scandal last month.
Then again, rightly, government employment is less nimble and agile, and so not as flexible to meet changing situations. On the fifth hand, that's better for the employees in terms of security, although everyone suffers if things stagnant because too many resources are sucked up by the state that there is not enough left fuel the economy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:The mission statement of Catholic Charities is this:
"The mission of Catholic Charities is to provide service to people in need, to advocate for justice in social structures, and to call the entire church and other people of good will to do the same. "
It saddens me that they are willing to compromise their commitment to social justice over something like this.
That presumes that they will not continue to help people in need, and we have no evidence that this is so. I suspect they would set up alternative means to replace the government-contracted services, or apply more money to other services they perform.
To continue with the government contract, the Church would have to compromise its teachings. It's completely understandable that they backed away, but they're backing away from the convenience of government contracts, not the needy.
(Note: I completely disagree with their teachings in this regard, but I support their right to stand by them)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The government does a better job of providing services because it (we) can't decide to provide services to only some people based on religious discrimination. Or whatever other discrimination a private organization has the right to apply.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
It is very sad to have something built on the ideals of charity, love and forgivness harbor such prideful and antagonistic stances. It is not even worth it to start quoting all the points of the Bible that would tell them to accept those who dont agree with them, and strive to peacefully teach them the way of God.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Is there a shortage in Boston of people wanting to adopt healthy babies?
Not babies but any child older than an infant is much harder to find a home for.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How DARE they choose where to devote their own resources?
Until they're made to pay taxes like the rest of us, I don't feel any pity for them.
This right here. They are granted tax exempt status because of their chartable works. They want to pull a stunt like that then it's high time they start paying taxes like the rest of us.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: They are granted tax exempt status because of their chartable works. They want to pull a stunt like that then it's high time they start paying taxes like the rest of us.
The entire class of tax-exempt non-profit organizations ultimately exists because the government isn't allowed to meddle in the affairs of religion (but also isn't allowed to recognize it, which is why secular nonprofits are exempt as well)... and what you're saying is that unless they allow the government to meddle in their affairs, they shouldn't be tax exempt. It so doesn't work that way.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
So, uh, what was that about Christianity not being a political religion?
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: They are granted tax exempt status because of their chartable works. They want to pull a stunt like that then it's high time they start paying taxes like the rest of us.
The entire class of tax-exempt non-profit organizations ultimately exists because the government isn't allowed to meddle in the affairs of religion (but also isn't allowed to recognize it, which is why secular nonprofits are exempt as well)... and what you're saying is that unless they allow the government to meddle in their affairs, they shouldn't be tax exempt. It so doesn't work that way.
No they are granted tax exempt to facilitate good works. The same as any private charity organisation. Once they start trying to strong arm people to get what they want...and that is exactly what they are doing in DC, then they are no longer a non profit charity they are a political organization.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
The way this posts title reads, as if the Catholic Church was going to stop ALL of its social service programs (including the ones funded entirely by the church) then I would say the Catholic church is, once again, showing that they're really a bunch of money hungry, power hungry, jerks.
On the other hand, it seems like the truth of the matter is that the church has decided to cease being a subcontractor for the city for a number of programs because the city is asking it to act in ways that it simply cannot tolerate. As long as the church gives sufficient notice that the programs can be rebid, then I don't see any problem.
I am, technically, Catholic. I've lived virtually my entire life in a "government by Catholicism" situation, much as I imagine people in Utah live in a "Government by Mormonism" situation. Even though it is my heritage and "official" religion, I have quite a few beefs with the church. Even so, I think they are acting "reasonably" in this case.
Of course, I wish they'd just get of their high horses and realize that gays are people too, but that's not gunna happen any time soon.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: So, uh, what was that about Christianity not being a political religion?
You've touched a nerve, but I'm going to try and be Christian about this (ironic neh?). First, Christianity is designed to be a force for good in the world. It is designed to be a uniform, orderly, structured, attempt at making mankind like God. A double edged sword is that it requires men be permitted to choose whether or not they will emulate it. Because men are involved what could have been a monolith instead is a heterozygous mixture of different ingredients that all label themselves as 100% pure Christian.
In short, it should not be surprising that we have people who reconcile mixing religion with their politics. That does not mean Christianity is a political religion. I recall hearing in a classroom that congress is repeatedly petitioned to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord over the entire country. That is clearly a political issue for those petitioners. People who insist In God We Trust be printed on our currency are also mixing their religion in politics.
Second, This is a moral issue, not a political one. The church cannot in good conscience accept money from the government to provide a service it feels is sinful. What is politically motivating about that?
---
I'm getting so tired of people essentially saying "Love love love love love love love. There that proves why Christians who aren't acting like I would are not exemplifying Jesus, who by the way LOVED constantly."
Why couldn't Jesus have loved the rich man enough to let him keep his riches? Why couldn't Jesus acknowledge the rich Pharisee who gave so much money to charity as well as the poor widow and her mite? Why won't Jesus let people put their hand to the plow and just once look back? What does Jesus mean that if I love my father and mother and sisters and brothers that I'm not fit for the kingdom of heaven? What does it mean when the scriptures says, "Mercy cannot rob justice?"
Jesus set a phenomenal example of being righteous without being self-righteous. His ability to love sinners did not cloud his ability to hate sin. But he also commanded Christians to be perfect even as God who is in heaven is perfect. He also indicated that many self proclaimed Christians wouldn't see the gates of heaven opened to them. Christianity is a long tiresome road that leaves many stragglers behind. It can turn you into the best sort of human being, but it also exposes the demons and hypocrisy inside us. Self-righteous Christians may not get into heaven, but neither will the mocking and laughing unbelievers. It is right that Christians are careful not to fall victim to pride and ostracize unbelievers, but it is also right that unbelievers not ask Christians to put mankind before God.
I myself have questions about homosexuality, but I've also read the scriptures, and heard prophets speaking and God has convinced me that they are true. If the scriptures are incomplete in their depiction of the issue, or if there is a new mandate from God, God himself has channels for making sure his followers know it, until then we are bound by what he has already commanded.
Christianity is not a political religion precisely because it does not allow political expediency to be the foundation of it's approach to life. One need only read about Noah and the ark, Jewish "peculiarity", and Christian persecution to realize that being mocked for obeying God is the lot of all believers.
Do Christians sometimes allow politics to dirty their religion, absolutely, just as non-Christians sometimes laugh at what they see as dated and absurd beliefs. It was written thousands of years ago that in the future men would love themselves more than God. It is love, misplaced love, that is convincing "Christians" (I did use scare quotes) to pursue the affections and approval of their neighbors rather than demonstrate their love for God by obeying him.
I feel like the Catholic church in this instance is trying to obey God, rather than slight homosexuals. Please don't mock them for it. If you have evidence they are acting out of unchristian malice, by all means bring it to light.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If all that were true*, BlackBlade, that reinforces why we cannot leave important services up to religious groups.
*I am not now going to even begin to list all the ways I believe it isn't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... In short, it should not be surprising that we have people who reconcile mixing religion with their politics. That does not mean Christianity is a political religion. ...
You do realise the disconnect here. Under your definition it appears as though theoretically 100% of self-proclaimed Christians could mix religion with their politics and still, Christianity would not be a political religion. This is because for you there is a real Christian god and a real Christianity separate from what people practice here.
For those of us on the outside, this is the flipside of the discussion in the Torah thread between kmbboots and KoM. Some of us don't believe that there is a real Christian god or a real Christianity separate from how people behave, and in some cases we simply take the word of people when they claim to be Christian.
So in a way, the two of you are talking about different things.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: Why would we ever leave all social services up to religion?
Mucus: Politics is a human construct, perhaps it's germane to human nature. Religion can't pretend it does not exist, but the purpose of religion is not to perfect politics.
I recognize that while Kate and I both self identify as Christians, there are some very pronounced differences in our views of the universe. That is why I made the comment about heterozygous mixtures where all the ingredients claim to be 100% Christian.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, but you're missing the point Mucus is making: Because your religion is false, there is no "True Christianity" of which the actual practices of Christians - self-proclaimed or otherwise - are only an imperfect reflection. There is only the practice, which is in very many cases highly political, indeed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: My religion is true, so the rest of your statement does not follow.
You can still critically analyze the scriptures that Christians subscribe to. When you find the passages calling them to take action politically you can call Christianity a political religion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And whatever I find, you will say that I'm interpreting it wrongly, or that it has been mistranslated. That's the advantage of making it up as you go along, it supports whatever argument you happen to be making. Christians are politically active and deliberately avow that they are doing so as part of their Christianity; consequently Christianity as actually practiced is a political religion. Incidentally, how many atheists do you think have got elected to office in the US?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: Don't get mad at me because you only have the Bible to go off of. You could read the Mormon canon, complete with the Joseph Smith translation manuscript and then our discussions on the scripture would not have that repeating motif.
It's not an accident to me that many of the most troublesome passages tend to be mistranslations. Even if we rule out foul play, scriptures are supposed to represent the mind of God. When the text is altered and then given the weight of God's will it can have disastrous results. This leads people to look at the source commandment that caused the disaster and question the integrity of the whole document.
I consider myself to be quite forthright when you and I discuss scriptural translation, even when my ideas do not mirror those of other scriptures. I can recall even giving you credit when you have brought up passages I had not considered, (John The Revelator is still alive thread). I don't fall back on vague evasive maneuvers "You just don't have faith." If you feel like I am being disingenuous in our conversations just say so.
It shouldn't be that hard KOM. If Christianity at it's ideological core is a political religion, it should be easy to construct an argument comprised of a handful of scriptures that are beyond dispute in their political sensibilities.
Saying that Christians are politically motivated so therefore Christianity is political is not a logical statement and you know it.
edit: As for atheists in office in the US. How long it take for us to have a black man as president? We haven't had a lot of Asians in the upper tiers of public office either. Atheists are largely considered to be untrustworthy, it's a prejudiced belief just as people once thought blacks were inherently less intelligent than whites and therefore needed whites to rule over them.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
It's also worth noting that Christian Anarchists like me (and a number of others, including some guy named Tolstoy) not only believe that Christianity is not inherently political but that politics and governments are inherently anti-christian.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It shouldn't be that hard KOM. If Christianity at it's ideological core is a political religion, it should be easy to construct an argument comprised of a handful of scriptures that are beyond dispute in their political sensibilities.
"Jesus is Lord." You can't get any more political than that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It shouldn't be that hard KOM. If Christianity at it's ideological core is a political religion, it should be easy to construct an argument comprised of a handful of scriptures that are beyond dispute in their political sensibilities.
"Jesus is Lord." You can't get any more political than that.
I said a handful. Besides, saying Jesus is Lord is simply recognizing a fact, it's not a specific call to any political action. Benedict is Pope, so?
edit: I am talking about scriptures that specifically instruct people to political action. Jesus' respect for earthly governments is pretty well documented, "Render unto Caesar", Paul discusses loyalty to one's government, Jesus abjured Peter to pay his taxes, that's just off the top of my head. Those scriptures would be a good start for arguing Christian belief in supporting government. /edit
Finally, and I'm just teasing, "Jesus is Lord," is not, strictly speaking, in any scriptures I've seen.
[ November 15, 2009, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Is there a shortage in Boston of people wanting to adopt healthy babies?
Not babies but any child older than an infant is much harder to find a home for.
I was adopted when I was 16 months old, and I had spent 10 months in foster care before that. I was lucky to finally get adopted, particularly since I am the Devil.
But seriously, the fact that a healthy white child was in foster care that long (versus the fact that most healthy white newborns or healthy white kids less than a couple of months old are almost immediately adopted) shows how badly people want really, really young babies only. I personally don't quite get it. I wasn't really a fan of taking care of Skyler when I had to worry that I'd wrench her neck by not supporting her head. It made me nervous. Those first 3-4 months are a mess of worry, sleeplessness, and zombie-tiredness. I don't wish that on unsuspecting folks, particularly those who actually have to work for a living and/or do anything except care for the newborn.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: My religion is true, so the rest of your statement does not follow.
The thing is, you can of course agree that we don't believe that its true. So when we say something like "Christianity" we mean something fairly different from the "true Christianity" that you're talking about.
Of course, you don't have to accept this. But you may as well be aware of the disconnect because your prior response to Alcon was much like watching a boxer swing wildly in the air without hitting anything.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's the exact impression KoM always projects.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It shouldn't be that hard KOM. If Christianity at it's ideological core is a political religion, it should be easy to construct an argument comprised of a handful of scriptures that are beyond dispute in their political sensibilities.
"Jesus is Lord." You can't get any more political than that.
"My kingdom is not of the world". Hard to get any less political than that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How dare they not devote time and resources to causes they don't believe in! What IS this world coming to? Don't they know that religions aren't ALLOWED to have their own beliefs? Don't they know that if the state wills it, they should abandon their belief systems and work towards a goal they don't support? How DARE they choose where to devote their own resources? How dare they refuse payment for a job they don't want to do?
Eh. I agree in part. The only thing that I think the church should have done differently is simply withdraw from the agreement the moment it was against the church's principles. Using their position as a service provider to influence a political process is against the spirit of our form of government. However, this is the fault of the city, which should not have allowed the church to have such a contract that it could in turn hope to dictate policy to the city. The city is ultimately to blame for letting that happen, but both parties should have known better, and both should have avoided this situation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's the exact impression KoM always projects.
*blink* That he, like BlackBlade, has difficulty properly engaging Alcon?
---------
FWIW, Orincoro, I absolutely agree: the state should never partner with religious organizations to provide valuable services to its citizens. It's a tiger trap.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's the exact impression KoM always projects.
Good point. As I said, it depends on your perspective.
Consider an individual that is such a big fan of LOTR that they start to believe that they are actually from that world.
From the outside perspective, a person might be inclined to say that every time they saw a elf it seems to be a Hollywood actor or a fan playing dress-up and then generalize, all elves in practice are human.
From the individual's perspective, this is of course nonsense. The elves are obviously, elves. It never says in the LOTR books that elves are human.
Both sides are actually seeing the other fall short even if only one ends up being correct in real life.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: I often find myself misunderstanding the points people make in these forums. I also appreciate it when people help me see what I'm missing. I'd prefer that Christianity be a term used to describe the true doctrine of Christ, much like the term Hydrogen is used to describe a pure element. Now I understand it's virtually impossible for men to begin to conclude what is and is not Christian, thousands of years of debate on the issue has not brought us close to the end. But I do believe that ultimately there is what Jesus wants and there is what he doesn't want that is Christianity.
If we want to talk about the political actions of Christians who want their religion to be an identifying characteristic of some domain, we can use a word that was in common use a few hundred years ago, "Christendom."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, you and I would disagree on what that is. A lot.
"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Depending on how one defines politics, that is pretty political.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Two questions come to mind:
1. Would it be right or wrong of the Catholic Church to cut off services it provides to a nation, if that nation's government was committing something the Church considers to be an a moral atrocity - like genocide, war crimes, nuclear proliferation etc.?
2. Would Christ really advocate refusing help to people in need if those people held the wrong opinion on what defines a marriage?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade: Fair enough.
Looking briefly at the wiki intro for Christendom, I can say that in the vast majority of cases when I use the word "Christians" I really mean what would seem to be my interpretation (and hopefully yours) of "Christendom."
I can't speak for the others of course, but feel free to apply a mental "s/Christians/Christendom" on my posts since I can't think of many situations in which I would touch on what you consider to be "True Christianity."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Two questions come to mind:
1. Would it be right or wrong of the Catholic Church to cut off services it provides to a nation, if that nation's government was committing something the Church considers to be an a moral atrocity - like genocide, war crimes, nuclear proliferation etc.?
2. Would Christ really advocate refusing help to people in need if those people held the wrong opinion on what defines a marriage?
1. The Church should provide services to people, not to nations or cities.
2. No. There is nothing in the gospels about only helping people you consider right or good or who do things your way. Quite the opposite in fact.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ms. Boots:
quote:BlackBlade, you and I would disagree on what that is. A lot.
Well if we both want God's will to be done on earth just as it is done in heaven, one or both of us has alot of repenting to do.
quote:"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Depending on how one defines politics, that is pretty political.
Remember the preceding statement, "Thy kingdom come," To me that is a request that God bring his kingdom to earth one day, and that his will concerning us be revealed to us as it is to the citizens of heaven so that we might perform it.
Does that open the way for God to command us politically? It sure does. How often have you been commanded to vote a certain way, or when has God told you which system of government he prefers? Are the scriptures peppered with political guidelines for which policies God prefers? Do you think God has an opinion on tariffs? Embargoes? Unions? Bailouts? States Rights? Federalism? The labor party in England?
I think I'd probably have to brace my stomach if I were ever to pray to God and ask him if he prefers the Democratic Party or the GOP.
When Utah had a ballot measure defining marriage as being between a man and a woman I prayed quite a bit to know if there was something to the issue I was not understanding. God seemed quite alright with letting me decide how to vote (I ended up voting no on that ballot). Since then I feel it's wrong to simply ask God if you should vote yes or no. Instead you study up the matter as much as you can and then ask God if there is a resource somewhere that could educate you further on the issue.
I've already said on the previous page, when Jesus shows up again it's a whole different ball game. But until that time I do not see scriptures indicating a need to do anything political in order to prep the earth for his coming.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: I'll try to do that, for practical reasons it makes sense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ms. Boots:
quote:BlackBlade, you and I would disagree on what that is. A lot.
Well if we both want God's will to be done on earth just as it is done in heaven, one or both of us has alot of repenting to do.
quote:"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Depending on how one defines politics, that is pretty political.
Remember the preceding statement, "Thy kingdom come," To me that is a request that God bring his kingdom to earth one day, and that his will concerning us be revealed to us as it is to the citizens of heaven so that we might perform it.
To me, that is an indication of my willingness to work to bring about the kingdom of God. (Again, we likely have different ideas of what that looks like.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Isn't everything involving human interaction, to some extent at least, political? The tiniest gesture, maybe lending a cup of sugar to a neighbor with a needful batch of cake batter, might be considered political because, after all, helping out neighbors is good politics.
Or on the other end of the spectrum, refusing to engage in trivial pleasantries such as hello and what's up could also be considered political.
So every single religion on Earth, including of course all stripes of Christianity, can be considered political. But 'political' is a subjective word, and when someone says, "Christianity is a political religion," the way it reads to many people - certainly to me, at least - is, "Christianity is primarily a political religion." But I don't believe that's true anymore than I believe agnosticism or atheism, in all of their varied stripes, are political either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How are we defining "political" for this discussion?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think Judaism, Islam, and Confuscianism are political religions, in that they actually attempt to codify a secular law. Christianity, while it exhorts its followers to remain mindful of its principles in writing law, does not attempt to enshrine secular law in scripture and is thus less "political" in nature.
[ November 16, 2009, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I myself have questions about homosexuality, but I've also read the scriptures, and heard prophets speaking and God has convinced me that they are true. If the scriptures are incomplete in their depiction of the issue, or if there is a new mandate from God, God himself has channels for making sure his followers know it, until then we are bound by what he has already commanded.
Do any Christian leaders claim revelation on the topic of gay adoptions or is a position against such adoptions merely derived from existing beliefs about ideal families?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that Christianity as I see it is political in that it is concerned with the general welfare of people and politics impacts how and how well people are able to live.
I don't think that Christianity is (or should be anyway) political in terms of caring whether or not a country is "Christian" or not, or national boundaries or, what flag flies over what piece of dirt or, God help us, who lives in the "holy land".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that Christianity as I see it is political in that it is concerned with the general welfare of people and politics impacts how and how well people are able to live.
By that logic, pretty much everything is political.
In contrast, the three religions I mentioned all have scriptures that say "the following things should be punished in the following ways..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Certainly, Christianity has had such ideas. We burned "witches" and still have "blue" laws for example. Abolition was a largely religious movement at first and religion provided much of the energy behind the civil rights movement as well as workers' rights. All of this was trying to have secular law reflect what people considered religious (though not necessarily exclusively religious) principles.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd prefer that Christianity be a term used to describe the true doctrine of Christ, much like the term Hydrogen is used to describe a pure element. Now I understand it's virtually impossible for men to begin to conclude what is and is not Christian, thousands of years of debate on the issue has not brought us close to the end. But I do believe that ultimately there is what Jesus wants and there is what he doesn't want that is Christianity.
But we have no way of knowing what that is. The disagreement is so profound, so violent, that millions of people have died and killed others for believing different things.
Hence, the virtue of an empirical definition. Rather that try to figure out what Christiantiy should be, and wiping out or cutting off the half a billion people that don't meet your definition while they try to cut out or wipe you out, you take all the people that call themselves Christian, and Christianity is defined by that. You can find a few things that > 95% of self-described Christians believe, and that's a pretty good definition. The empirical data won't support a 100% perfect one, so you do the best you can.
So, rather than defining Christianity as what BlackBlade thinks it should be, we define it by what it actaully is in the real world as we observe it, as carried out by people who are labeled Christians. And that's going to include a lot of contradictions and conflicts, and people believing quite different things, but if that's what the data shows, we have to accept it. The alternative is endlessly arguing over who really knows what Jesus wants, when the truth is, no one knows, not even you, and no one will find out any time soon.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... In contrast, the three religions I mentioned all have scriptures that say "the following things should be punished in the following ways..."
With the caveat that Confucianism is usually not treated as a religion and thus the writings of Confucius, not scripture.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd prefer that Christianity be a term used to describe the true doctrine of Christ, much like the term Hydrogen is used to describe a pure element. Now I understand it's virtually impossible for men to begin to conclude what is and is not Christian, thousands of years of debate on the issue has not brought us close to the end. But I do believe that ultimately there is what Jesus wants and there is what he doesn't want that is Christianity.
But we have no way of knowing what that is. The disagreement is so profound, so violent, that millions of people have died and killed others for believing different things.
Hence, the virtue of an empirical definition. Rather that try to figure out what Christiantiy should be, and wiping out or cutting off the half a billion people that don't meet your definition while they try to cut out or wipe you out, you take all the people that call themselves Christian, and Christianity is defined by that. You can find a few things that > 95% of self-described Christians believe, and that's a pretty good definition. The empirical data won't support a 100% perfect one, so you do the best you can.
So, rather than defining Christianity as what BlackBlade thinks it should be, we define it by what it actaully is in the real world as we observe it, as carried out by people who are labeled Christians. And that's going to include a lot of contradictions and conflicts, and people believing quite different things, but if that's what the data shows, we have to accept it. The alternative is endlessly arguing over who really knows what Jesus wants, when the truth is, no one knows, not even you, and no one will find out any time soon.
This leaves you with little to talk about except for those "few things". If one wants to have useful discussions about behaviour of Christians, it is possible to modify "Christian" to some extent - conservative Christian, mainstream Christian, pentecostal Christian, and so forth - that may be helpful.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
We are dealing with a lot of loosely defined concepts and large areas of disagreement. What is Christianity? What is religion? What is Political?
But let me throw my bit in.
There are those who use religion to promote their political goals. They use Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism or any religion to gain a following to put them in power to run the state.
I think we can all agree to abhor these religious prostitutes. A few might defend them as people who promote religion, even if for the wrong reason, but any close look will show they harm that faith more than help it.
Others use politics as a way of promoting their own religious agenda. They outlaw working on Sundays or Saturdays to allow easier access to prayer on the appropriate days. They defend the charitable tax free status in order to defend the hard earned revenues of their church. They find areas where their faith and some segments of society come into conflict, and they gain political power in order to insure that their faith is defended in those conflicts.
So if Church A says homosexuality is bad, they strive to gain political power to defend that ideal from those who say homosexuality is not bad.
So yes, Christianity is political, not as a goal of gaining ultimate power, but as a tool to aid in its growth and purpose.
The problem is when those goals and purposes are hijacked by those who prostitute their religion as a means to gain political power.
And here is my simple test.
If they are willing to break their own religious ideals for political gain, it is not a true religious or Christian movement. Its a wolf in Shepherd's clothing.
So when they promote suicide bombing of children and women against all the laws of the Koran, they are not a true Islamic religious group, but a political group abusing Islam.
So when the lie, bare false witness, to deny global warming, they are not a true Evangelical Christian group. They are some politicians playing at religion.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: So, rather than defining Christianity as what BlackBlade thinks it should be, we define it by what it actually is in the real world as we observe it, as carried out by people who are labeled Christians. And that's going to include a lot of contradictions and conflicts, and people believing quite different things, but if that's what the data shows, we have to accept it. The alternative is endlessly arguing over who really knows what Jesus wants, when the truth is, no one knows, not even you, and no one will find out any time soon.
This leaves you with little to talk about except for those "few things".
The world contains ambiguity. Some people's Christianity leads them to reject same-sex marriage. Some people's Christianity leads them to accept same-sex marriage, for example. We shouldn't run away from ambiguity, declaring that it's impossible to talk about. The fact that Christians draw differing conclusions from their doctrines and experiences doesn't mean that those differences can't be discussed.
quote:If one wants to have useful discussions about behaviour of Christians, it is possible to modify "Christian" to some extent - conservative Christian, mainstream Christian, pentecostal Christian, and so forth - that may be helpful.
Anything that, say, Pentecostal Christians do is by definition, something that Christians do. That absolutely does not imply that all Christians do it, or even that many do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. I am saying that a phrase like, "most Presbyterian Christians believe X" is more useful than. "Christians believe X" when this wouldn't be the case for certain Catholics and some fundamentalists and most Jehovah's Witnesses..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: Why would we ever leave all social services up to religion?
There has been a trend especially among small government conservatives to get government "out of the business" of providing social services. One of the ways this has manifested is by government outsourcing services to private and religious groups.
When we note that Catholic Charities will continue to provide services "to the community" without government partnership we should note that "the community" they are talking about is only some of the community.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you have any evidence that Catholic Charities discriminate among the recipients of their charity?
I haven't seen any evidence of it in this thread. Are you referring to a different policies or collection of incidents?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
This whole issue started because Catholic Charities won't service gay couples adoptions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blackblade, I apologize that I haven't had the time or energy to engage more fully in this with you. I'll try to keep the discussion in mind and revive it when I have the energy and wherewithal to properly engage.
For now let me add just this in response only the your original response (I haven't yet caught up on the thread).
First let me apologize. My original post was glib, sarcastic and snarky and not the proper way to discuss a topic of this weight and importance to those involved. In my only defense, it spawned from exhaustion and a wish to point out a contradiction I saw with out fully explaining it. I'm sorry I offended you.
When I say Christianity is a political religion, I mean to say that it is a political religion in the same way that Islam is a political religion. That is to say certain extensions of it into this world, or certain groups that profess to be Christian, are most certainly political in nature. And they wield in the Christian scriptures as a political weapon. Also, while it may not be their intent said scriptures do lend themselves to being used as a political weapon.
You could say that, in this manner, all religions are political. Simply because their worldly organizations are composed of political people who will wield their religions as a weapon in political fights.
It doesn't really matter whether God or Jesus or Mohammad or the Buddha intended this. That's just the way it is.
I agree with you that it's entirely possible that there are no specific calls to action in the scriptures (I say entirely possible because I don't know, I've never read them myself - I keep meaning to), but I would hold that's neither here nor there. True Christianity as God layed out in the true scriptures - whatever those are, there's really no way for any human being to know - may not be a political religion. But worldly Christianity, the extension of that religion and the structure of that religion in the real world is.
As evidence, for now I'll offer only the history of the Catholic Church, which keep in mind was for the longest time the single extension of the Christian God's will and worship into this world.
Side note, I know this isn't worded the best. Please insert an "assuming Christianity is true" where appropriate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do you have any evidence that Catholic Charities discriminate among the recipients of their charity?
I haven't seen any evidence of it in this thread.
The Catholic Church discriminates against homosexuals in adoption cases. That is what this thread is about. The fact that the catholic church is not actually in this thread discriminating against people is rather immaterial. Goof ball.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
In fairness to katharina, before that last link, I thought the Church was objecting to receiving the funds because they'd have to provide same-sex employee benefits. I also missed that they discriminate against gay adoptions.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The Catholic Church discriminates against homosexuals in adoption cases. That is what this thread is about.
Actually, my impression is that this thread is about whether or not it is proper for the government to contract with religious organizations to provide social services.
You may want to consider that 1) DC residents are not wealthy; 2) the government is contracting with Catholic Charities for a reason: no one else is providing these services at the cost that CC is.
The reason it is newsworthy is because the DC government has so very little wiggle room to do anything but capitulate or lose valuable social aid tool. (I'm fairly certain that the city cannot use the same amount of money for the same effect) How are they going to provide these services otherwise? Raise taxes?
####
I get the feeling that when kat says "charity," she means things like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick-- I, personally, don't think of facilitating/administrating an adoption is "charity." (I suppose it's an indirect charity to the child)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I get the feeling that when kat says "charity," she means things like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick-- I, personally, don't think of facilitating/administrating an adoption is "charity." (I suppose it's an indirect charity to the child)
This is correct. If it is charity at all, it is to the biological mother and to the child, not to the hopeful people who want to adopt.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I and Catholic Charities disagree that adoption services are not charity. Are you maybe thinking that charity is only something you do for poor people?
But let's leave that aside. They're threatening to cancel all of the services that they contracted with the district for, including feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc, not just the ones that would violate Church teachings. I'm sure that they will continue to offer these things, but at a greatly reduced amount. So they will be stopping many charity services that they could perform without any violation of their teachings because of the gay adoption issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The city is the one who is changing the terms of the contract. This is their fault.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It does seem, at best, an unfortunate display of priorities. I'd be more sympathetic if they were attempting some sort of stop-gap measure while other groups are found to cover the services they will no longer provide.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'd be more sympathetic if they were attempting some sort of stop-gap measure while other groups are found to cover the services they will no longer provide.
They are giving fair warning - to give the city time to find someone else.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From the perspective of Catholics who adhere to what the Church teaches on this issue, I agree that they really don't have a choice to discontinue adoptions in contexts where they are going to be forced to service same sex couple adoptions.
They are also vile and misinformed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The city is the one who is changing the terms of the contract. This is their fault.
I wasn't getting into fault with my post. Just addressing that Catholic Charities is removing charity from people based in a way on who they are.
If we want to talk fault, as I said above, I don't think that they had any choice on the adoption issue. I don't know if fault is really the correct word for the clashing of priorities in that case though. The district's priority of treating it's citizens equally and providing the best adoptive circumstances for the children is coming into conflict with the members of the church's adherence to its teachings. I think, in that case, given their differing perspectives and goals, they are both acting as they must. Neither has all that much of a choice unless it is to stop being what they are.
But Catholic Charities had plenty of choice in canceling the whole range of other activities that they were performing and could continue to perform without any violation of church teachings. I don't think you can realistically say that it is not their fault there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The city is the one who is changing the terms of the contract. This is their fault.
While technically true from one perspective, saying, "This is their fault," sends a pretty specific message: they did something wrong, and the resulting conflict is because of them.
That's simply not true. It takes two to tango, katharina. You can say that the Catholic Charities cannot violate their beliefs in the style the city is asking them to, but the truth is, they could if they wanted to. But, well, they've decided what's important to them here. You can also say that the city could go against its beliefs, and continue endorsing however indirectly discrimination against homosexual couples, and that's also true. But like the Catholic charities in this case, they've also decided which belief is more important.
Each side could, if they desired, ignore or change some pretty fundamental aspects of their goals/beliefs/ideals/whatever. Obviously, though, that's not going to happen without a really compelling reason, and someone else saying, "But you're asking us to do that!" simply doesn't cut it. For either.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I'd be more sympathetic if they were attempting some sort of stop-gap measure while other groups are found to cover the services they will no longer provide.
They are giving fair warning - to give the city time to find someone else.
They are attempting to do more than that, but it does serve as fair warning, yes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky, Of course there is a choice. Teachings can and do change. And what "the Church" considers official teaching is not necessarily what the Church considers official teaching. (See: birth control) Catholic Charities in Boston was providing adoptions for gay couples until the bishop stepped in.
I am sure this one will change.
ETA: I am not sure how providing benefits for same-sex partners of their employees or not discriminating when it comes to hiring is as clear cut a violation of Catholic teaching as allowing SS couples to adopt would be.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If "fault" is too loaded for you, find another term.
Regardless of what you call it, the city is the one changing the terms.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, the district changed how adoption has to be handled by people contracting with them to better match the district's priorities. Catholic Charities then decided to cancel their services based on their priorities. Neither of them, as I've said, should have acted differently considering their perspectives, but the district's decision is an indirect cause, whereas the Catholic Charities' response is the direct cause of these services getting withdrawn. What's your point?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The church made an agreement with a public institution knowing full well that an issue like this could arise. Fault is not important, and it's a non-issue here. Both parties, most especially the city, should learn not to make such agreements in the future. The church doesn't have a rule saying they can't be involved in politics, but the city does have rules saying it can't get involved with the policies of the church. So, I think the church (being composed of citizens of the state) should for its own sake act in the interest of the separation of church and state, and decline such offers. The city, likewise, should never make them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And we are back to "the government should not rely on outside agencies for social services".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The point is that if you change the terms of the contract knowing full well that the terms will unacceptable to the other party, you can't cry foul when the other party chooses not to renew the contract under the new terms.
If the other party's participation is so important, don't change the terms. If you do change the terms, say goodbye to the other party.
Either way, the city is changing the contract, which sets off everything else.
If people would like the public to believe that gay marriage existing is not going to mean the end of religious freedom, you shouldn't cry foul here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, I qualified my initial statements to try to make it clear that I was assuming that they agreed with the teachings of the church that say that gay adoption is gravely immoral.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If people would like the public to believe that gay marriage existing is not going to mean the end of religious freedom, you shouldn't cry foul here.
This sounds like you think religious freedom entails not being thought poorly of. If so, I pretty strongly disagree.
I also don't agree that a government should compromise or be held at fault when their endeavors to provide equitable treatment to their population brings them in conflict with the prejudices of people who they've contracted services with.
edit:
I imagine that during the Civil Rights era, there were cities who ran into similar problems with organizations who balked at now having to provide services to black people (or hey, how about adoption to mixed race couples). I don't see that the cities' enforcing the new more equal status of black people causing them to lose these groups' support could be said to be the cities' fault.
[ November 20, 2009, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: boots, I qualified my initial statements to try to make it clear that I was assuming that they agreed with the teachings of the church that say that gay adoption is gravely immoral.
Yes. I want to make the point that the "official" Church (the Vatican, some bishops) does have a choice about that particular teaching and that the Church (Catholic people in general including priests and bishops) have a choice as to whether they believe that teaching.
I have little patience for "have no choice in the matter". If they agree, they are choosing to agree.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it's more complex for that for Catholics outside the hierarchy (actually for people under others in the hierarchy it can be difficult too, because they can, in many cases, be ordered to obey on this). It's not just a matter of agreeing with this specific teaching or not, but rather buying into the church as their primary source of moral and religious direction.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From the perspective of Catholics who adhere to what the Church teaches on this issue, I agree that they really don't have a choice to discontinue adoptions in contexts where they are going to be forced to service same sex couple adoptions.
Vile, okay. That's a qualitative judgment that you have every right to make.
Misinformed, though? What in that document shows evidence of misinformation, Squicky? (Maybe section 7...? I dunno. There are a lot of terms there that could have a subjective meaning.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think it's more complex for that for Catholics outside the hierarchy (actually for people under others in the hierarchy it can be difficult too, because they can, in many cases, be ordered to obey on this). It's not just a matter of agreeing with this specific teaching or not, but rather buying into the church as their primary source of moral and religious direction.
It is complicated and I am not saying it is easy - at all. They (we) still have that choice.
ETA: And lots of Catholics make those choices. Easy majorities of American Catholics make that choice when it comes to divorce and birth control. Majorities still on celibacy of priests and the ordination of women.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, The document states that:
quote:As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
The research shows the opposite: that children raised by same sex couples do not suffer worse physical of psychological health than those raised by opposite sex couples. It also shows that children raised by same sex couples fare better than children raised in a succession of foster homes or orphanages, which is the likely result for some kids of them not getting adopted by same sex couples.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Katharina,
quote:If "fault" is too loaded for you, find another term.
Well, yes, that's one route. Another would be choosing less loaded but equally accurate terminology yourself, thus communicating more accurately.
quote:Regardless of what you call it, the city is the one changing the terms.
Why does that matter to one side or the other, exactly? It would only matter if it were an 'artificial' changing of the mind, that is, one party or the other was looking to screw over the other and thus changed their position to force a conflict.
That's not what happened here.
quote:The point is that if you change the terms of the contract knowing full well that the terms will unacceptable to the other party, you can't cry foul when the other party chooses not to renew the contract under the new terms.
Now, this seems pretty fair to me. However, I think it ought to be made clear also that if the terms of the contract, that is a contract that's not supposed to last forever or something, become unacceptable to the first party, I don't see why it's unreasonable for that party to say, "We're changing the conditions."
quote:If people would like the public to believe that gay marriage existing is not going to mean the end of religious freedom, you shouldn't cry foul here.
Is anyone suggesting the CC should be forced to remain in this agreement? Is anyone seriously suggesting any course of action other than criticizing the CC for its course of action? If not, 'religious freedom' has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion one way or another.
-----
Mr. Squicky,
quote:...but the district's decision is an indirect cause, whereas the Catholic Charities' response is the direct cause of these services getting withdrawn.
This is also technically accurate, but somewhat misleading. However you think about the CC's stance on this issue, it cannot possibly have been a surprise to anyone, can it? So who 'directly causes' something like this? Party A who says to Party B, "We're changing this," or Party B who replies, "Since the this in question has always been fundamentally against our beliefs, we'll no longer deal with you on this issue."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Scott, The document states that:
quote:As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
The research shows the opposite: that children raised by same sex couples do not suffer worse physical of psychological health than those raised by opposite sex couples. It also shows that children raised by same sex couples fare better than children raised in a succession of foster homes or orphanages, which is the likely result for some kids of them not getting adopted by same sex couples.
They may not be using the term "full human development" the way you're using it. See my statement earlier about subjective terminology.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, It's not really an important point, but Party B directly causes it. Party A directly causes the change of the contract, which influences the change effected by B, to withdraw services. To say that they are the direct cause is to say that they, themselves, effected the removal of services, which is not the case. To say that they are the direct cause is, in this situation, is to say that party B is not the direct cause.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, I get it. It's technically accurate, no doubt there. The CC is the direct cause if we're being completely literal. It's just that the real facts of the situation are more complicated is all. Just clarifying, not suggesting you were saying otherwise. Problem with language and all that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, By referencing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, they're implicitly talking about the terminology use there, although I guess you could make the case that the are just trying to draw a dishonest equivalence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If "fault" is too loaded for you, find another term.
Heh. I tried "consequence" on another forum. That worked out well. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Responsibility"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think so, Squicky. They are saying that the UN declaration is correct as it promotes the child's welfare over the the desires of potential parents; prior to that, they are saying that the child needs dual gendered authority figures in the home in order to develop "fully."
They are not saying that their definition of "full human development" coincides with the UN's; I don't think that's a logical conclusion at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I get what you were saying. I was using a very literal way of putting it in response to the way kat was framing it.
I'm kinda curious, would you see CC withdrawing the services not related to adoption as similarly complicated?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If people would like the public to believe that gay marriage existing is not going to mean the end of religious freedom, you shouldn't cry foul here.
Again, Kat, a lot of people here are crying foul at *the city.* Including me. A lot of other people are, with perfect justification, crying foul at the church's policy. That is not inappropriate, you simply disagree.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I'm not surprised you don't agree.
I see the document as pretty clearly implying that there are including physical and mental development in that. Would you agree that, if they are in fact doing so, it is misinformed?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I see the document as pretty clearly implying that there are including physical and mental development in that.
That there are what? I don't understand what you're saying.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'm not sure why this is such an argument. The Catholic Church has every right to do what it is doing, the people who are critical have every right to be critical. What's to argue?
I'm sure the Bishop was smart enough to be aware that he was going to receive criticism for his decision, even if he was apparently not wise enough to remember that Jesus, when confronted with individuals, typically helped people first and gave them moral instruction later.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"they are"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I see the document as pretty clearly implying that they are including physical and mental development in that.
They are including physical and mental development in what?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
(Sorry for being so obtuse. It's a way to make sure we understand one another, and are not distracted by forum history)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm kinda curious, would you see CC withdrawing the services not related to adoption as similarly complicated?
The thing is, I don't really think it's complicated at all, even though I think some simple terms (direct cause, fault, etc.) can be inaccurate. But no, I don't think my opinions would change at all if the specific hot-button issue changed, if the motivations were still the same.
That is, if the CC's reason for opting out of the deal were based on purely religious motivations like this*, or if the city's reason for changing the deal in the first place were for anything other than purely secular reasons, then my opinion might change.
*Because outside of religion, there simply isn't any compelling, provable justification for discriminating against same-sex couples in this fashion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I see the document as pretty clearly implying that they are including physical and mental development in that.
They are including physical and mental development in what?
Full human development.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It has been my experience that life's major disputes are not about good vs evil or Vice VS Virtue.
Its almost always Virtue VS Virtue.
So we have the case here: We have the politicians who see Equality as a virtue to be pursued versus the Catholic Church who see's Obedience to God as a virtue that can not be challenged.
If the politicians assume that the goal of the Church is Inequality for Inequality's sake, they close the door on compromise and discussion. If the Church sees the politicians stance as their desire to be disobedient to God, then there can be no middle ground and we drift off into the realms of continuous blame.
Blame only accomplishes one thing. It frees you from having to do anything about the problem. You can blame the church or you can blame the city and its easy. Its their fault so they need to fix it or suffer the consequences.
Meanwhile those people who have relied on Catholic Services are the ones suffering.
Katharina, my comment earlier was not the most researched and perhaps not the wisest said, but what I wanted to point out in general is still unresolved.
There are those who believe that all social services, from Adoption to feeding the hungry should be the work of churches and volunteer private organizations. Yet some of what needs to be done goes against their beliefs.
We would have two choices in this Libertarian world, either leave the choice in the hands of the churches and their hopeful good will, or force the churches to go against their beliefs. Neither is acceptable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: They are also vile and misinformed.
Vile, okay. That's a qualitative judgment that you have every right to make.
Misinformed, though? What in that document shows evidence of misinformation, Squicky? (Maybe section 7...? I dunno. There are a lot of terms there that could have a subjective meaning.) [/QB]
They are misinformed in claiming divine inspiration. Note that this position is not dependent on atheism; a theist who is not a Catholic may also reasonably hold that the particular teachings in question are teachings of men, not of gods.
[ November 20, 2009, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So could a theist who is Catholic. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well, you know what I think of your so-called Christianity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Most American Catholics think that the teachings on divorce and birth control and female ordination and clerical celibacy are incorrect. What makes the teaching on homosexuality different?
American Catholics are pretty much right in the mainstream on "morals" issues. They are more likely than non-Catholics to approve of same-sex relationships. Even 44% of "committed"* Catholics are okay with homosexuality.
I am not alone. ;D Stop pretending I am some bizarre outlier.
*Defined by how often they attend Mass.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I never said you were either an outlier, or bizarre. Indeed, the bizarre thing is to believe things which put you at a social disadvantage; that's what calls for signalling and game-theoretical explanations. But I stand by calling you a non-Christian.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Along with what percentage of American Catholics? You gonna excommunicate most of us?
ETA: SO don't use me as an example. The poll numbers show that plenty of other Catholics prove my statement.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Certainly, why not? Let them show some backbone for a change. The bishop's right. Either you believe you have divine inspiration, or you change your cloak with every passing social fad. You, now, would be really admirably suited for the vicarship of Bray.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)