How "Christian" of him!!

[Kidlicious]

Also, did Kid actually do some sort of St. Paul thing or is he trying to put on somebody else's perspective and doing a splendid job? Either one would have me pleasantly surprised, of course...or has somebody hacked his account?

You be the judge.

[Kidlicious]

Sure, but man is still fundamentally sinful, and must accept Christ in order to be saved. Christ opened salvation to everyone, which is the Good News of the Gospel.



They aren't asking Kid. They are telling. They are telling me that if I choose not to hire them, I am discriminating against them. I have no requirement to hire anyone, let alone someone who rejects what I believe and what I stand for. For me, the best person for a job is someone I can work with, and someone who loves God. I'm not going to give a job to someone who openly rejects Christ.

Perhaps I'd make more money if I just hired anyone, but I am happy with how things are.

Look again Luke 19, especially the words of the Lord. The Lord will judge you and your church by the profit that you bring to him. He's not as concerned about how you get it as you think he is.

--------------------

I believe that you are entirely to concerned with homosexuality. Christ was with us a little while but didn't seem nearly as concerned about it as you are. I don't think he mentioned it in particular one time. He did however mention the sins of the rich Jews. He said they are like whitewashed tombs... the insides of them are like the bones of dead men and other filthy things. He said their sins are greater than that of the Roman Empire's. Even Augustus said of Herod, "It would be better to be Herod's pig than his son, because being a Jew he won't kill a pig.

Everything in the Bible has meaning. There's a reason that the Lord warned us about those who try to appear holy and say they are without sin, but sin and don't repent in secret. These are the people to keep an eye out for not the homosexuals.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not familiar at all with US legal history, but it seems silly to have to wait until the supreme court rules on something that might affect all states rather than allowing lower-level rulings to come up beforehand.. and who will decide which issues should and which issues shouldn't reach what level?

The Supreme court decides which cases it will hear, after it passes all the appeals, etc all the way up.

What would have happened if before the civil war states hadn't been allowed to decide on slavery because it 'could be used as a wedge to change the policies across the board'?

Funny you bring it up. The Supremes ruled in favour of slavery in the Dred Scott decision in 1850, ruling that it was just and that a slave who escaped into the north had to be returned to the south.

States have never been able to determine national policy at a federal level. The reason being is that states have a certain measure of autonomy. These were the two big issues in the civil war, nullification and slavery, whether the states could in fact nullify a federal law.

Now, if you want to rule that a ruling in one state is binding on the rest, then you open the door for nullification again.

Oh, but it does. I'm sorry, but the church very much changes its rules across jurisdictions.

Not with respect to doctrine.

I'm pretty sure that church employees here in Argentina are not hired under US labour laws: it would be ridiculous. What I am arguing is that the church should abide by local laws wherever it is, like every other organisation.

They can and do, except in the case where local laws conflict with church doctrine. In this example the church will not comply with what they see as an unjust law which unfairly targets them.

even if there are gays working for the church they probably won't come out if they want to continue working there) will create much of a problem

The problem is when the state intervenes within the Church itself and attempts to regulate the church by their rules, especially with respect to hiring decisions. In many countries, China in particular, they assassinate bishops who have been appointed by the Pope, and not by the Politburo.

It's an essential tenet of religious freedom that the Church be free to hire whomever they want and not political appointees approved by the state. This ruling here sets a very bad precedent.

What has happened is that the church saw it might be able to threaten the city into backing down, and it couldn't.

The Church warned that this would be the result of the ruling to attempt to get a conscience amendment passed, which is how most jurisdictions here deal with this issue. They have attempted to work with Washington DC which has basically decided to fight the Church on this issue. I'm not sure what they hope to gain here.

I'm sorry, but that is entirely the church's problem. It can't impose this view on others.

They aren't imposing this view. They are asking that they be left alone. There's a difference between the two. Now, you are right, they could go toe to toe with the bill, but they chose not to do so. The end result will likely be that the church, rather than seeking accommodation with the bill, will now actively oppose it.

I'm pretty sure that the church is required to reconise two people married by law as legally married for the purpose of the law

Nope, not up here. Not since the recent breach. Normally it would be the case, now it isn't. Actions have consequences.

How is having to recognise that two people legally married must receive the benefits that the law states marriages should have unfair, just because the two people in mind happen to have the same sex?

Because that is explicitly forbidden in the Catholic church. The Church cannot be compelled to recognise actions that they consider sinful. This is no different than forcing Mennonites into conscription.

I also don't see how this violates freedom of association rights.

The church has the right to decide whom they will have working for them, not the state.

So you would be OK with stoning people to death, if it follows religious precepts? I'm sorry, but the church (any church) should follow a country's laws, even if they do not agree with them, or get out

No, I'm not ok with that. I've been very strident in saying that Sharia has no place in the west, and I took significant heat for it.

WRT to the Catholic church, it doesn't work that way. Catholic church was here before the change in the law, and the change in the law has no basis in western society or western jurisprudence. You cannot establish through novelty, a basis to remove those who defend the old system, unless of course you want to move from a free society.

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe that you are entirely to concerned with homosexuality.

I'm concerned with sin. Homosexuality has quite a few advocates here.

Christ was with us a little while but didn't seem nearly as concerned about it as you are.

What makes you say this?

Look at Matthew 19, Christ gives the ideal of marriage.

Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one.

Everything else is sinful and a corruption of what God desires for marriage.

[Elok]

Well, clearly an inference drawn from one line in one gospel is the equal of like eighteen chapters in total of ragging on the Scribes and Pharisees. I guess The Buttsex should be our number one concern.

[Dr Strangelove]

I've never been in favor of governments farming out services to religious institutions. If the Roman Catholic Church decides to disassociate itself from the city the city should seize any facility bought with government funds. The city should audit the diocese records and take back any assets bought with public money.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the Roman Catholic Church decides to disassociate itself from the city the city should seize any facility bought with government funds. The city should audit the diocese records and take back any assets bought with public money.

Just like good ol Henry VIII, eh? You guys can't even hold onto your own buildings.

Imagine, the state returning all the assets that they seized that were built by the Church before there even was a state...

[Ben Kenobi]

I guess The Buttsex should be our number one concern.

There's a reason it's called sodomy.

[MrFun]

Everything in the Bible has meaning. There's a reason that the Lord warned us about those who try to appear holy and say they are without sin, but sin and don't repent in secret. These are the people to keep an eye out for not the homosexuals.

[DinoDoc]

I've never been in favor of governments farming out services to religious institutions.

This is DC we're talking about though. The partnership with the Church was the one bright spot of thier dismal record of providing social services to its citizens.

If the Roman Catholic Church decides to disassociate itself from the city the city should seize any facility bought with government funds.

On what grounds? Also in your scenario, would the Church recieve compensation for the fact that the money provided was mostly in the form of partial grants which the Church leveraged (including some $10 million in additional funds, much provided by donations by parishioners)? The Church also obviously has access to a network of volunteers. I'm not sure the money and services provided by the Church can be replaced by the city as easily as you and others seem to think.

[Asher]

From what I understand, DC still has major problems there. The church hasn't fixed anything.

[DinoDoc]

That seems more a comment on how **** DC is.

[Dr Strangelove]

Just like good ol Henry VIII, eh? You guys can't even hold onto your own buildings.

Imagine, the state returning all the assets that they seized that were built by the Church before there even was a state...

I believe we're discussing the United States.

With regards to the English state though, how many church structures pre-dating Alfred the Great do you think exist today? Even the Venerable Bede's monastery is nothing but a ruins.

[Dr Strangelove]

This is DC we're talking about though. The partnership with the Church was the one bright spot of their dismal record of providing social services to its citizens.

How were the services provided by the Roman Catholic Church better than those provided by the government?

On what grounds? Also in your scenario, would the Church receive compensation for the fact that the money provided was mostly in the form of partial grants which the Church leveraged (including some $10 million in additional funds, much provided by donations by parishioners)? The Church also obviously has access to a network of volunteers. I'm not sure the money and services provided by the Church can be replaced by the city as easily as you and others seem to think.

If the Roman Catholic Church is going to cease providing the services then the city is going to have to replace those services isn't it? If some of the funding to build the facilities came from elsewhere then the city should compensate the RCC for its share. Alternatively the facilities could be sold and the RCC reimbursed for its share.

[DinoDoc]

How were the services provided by the Roman Catholic Church better than those provided by the government?

It would help if you read the thread to see what is being discussed.

The city can ill afford to lose Catholic Charities' services at homeless shelters and in health care. It's the largest nongovernmental provider of social services in the District and certainly among the most competent.

That's why we're somewhat mystified by the complacency reflected in comments such as those of council members Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), who dismissed Catholic Charities' concerns as "somewhat childish," and David A. Catania (I-At Large), who said that the city would simply find another partner. Given the District's dismal track record with other nonprofit providers of social services -- see, for example, recent Post reports about the misspending of HIV/AIDS housing money -- we wonder at his confidence.

If the Roman Catholic Church is going to cease providing the services then the city is going to have to replace those services isn't it?

Washington D.C., Dec 2, 2009 (CNA).- The Archdiocese of Washington D.C. and Catholic Charities are still “committed to continuing to serve the people of the District of Columbia as we have done for more than 80 years,” despite D.C. Council members voting in favor of same-sex “marriage” in the nation's capital yesterday.