Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[Ben Kenobi]

You're paying for an adoption agency that cares for the well-being of children, not for an agency to spread and adhere to religious beliefs.

Well, of course, you believe that the two are entirely divided. You believe that teaching children religion is abusive and contrary to their well being. Which is why you want to remove religious people from adoption agencies altogether.

Unfortunately, the evidence is to the contrary. There's nothing to be gained by barring Catholics, and much that will be lost to the public system. They will have even less participation, and the Catholic system will take on more responsibilities once they get started.

Why do you think all the school systems were Catholic? The Catholics organised, built them and then the state took them over. I'd wager the same with the current public system is that the state took over the private adoption agency. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Public money, especially in the US with a separation of church and state, should not be used to further religious agenda. It's abuse of the system.

So it's fair for me to fund something I disagree with, but not fair for you to do the same. I see. Why not privatize the entire system? I mean if people really cared about adopting kids why wouldn't they support the system by donation?

[Asher]

Well, of course, you believe that the two are entirely divided.

The government is not there to foster religious beliefs. They are divided.

You are stupid. You are wrong. You are an imbecile.

You believe that teaching children religion is abusive and contrary to their well being. Which is why you want to remove religious people from adoption agencies altogether.

What the flying ****?

Where did I ever say that? Where did I say religious people shouldn't be in adoption agencies?

God ****ing damnit, Ben, you are a slimeball. In this very thread, I said religious people can discriminate all they want in their own PRIVATE adoption agencies. Catholics are MORE than welcome to adopt children in the public system.

What I OPPOSE is agencies using public money to project their own religious beliefs, to the detriment of children looking for loving parents.

You are a ****ing terrible Christian, Ben. Truly.

Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand basic arguments in this thread, or are you a pathological liar? Evidence is you are both.

So it's fair for me to fund something I disagree with, but not fair for you to do the same. I see.

The church and state are separate. Church beliefs are not state beliefs.

You may disagree with the concept that it's better for children to be raised in a loving environment than in a group home, and that would not at all surprise me. You put your own baseless religious beliefs over the well-being of people. This is why you are a terrible, terrible Christian.

If you don't like public money going to getting kids out of group homes and into loving families, you're more than welcome to go Jim Jones on us. And please go for the full-on mimicry of Jim Jones. Please.

[Asher]

Asher: They oppose a given practice and refuse to participate in a system that tolerates it. Their decision to do so is one I disagree with, but I think it's idle and unfounded speculation to say that they do so in bad faith, to intimidate, or for some other ulterior purpose ("to play politics").

There's no other word for it. They are punishing the vast majority of children for their "beliefs".

They are either REMARKABLY stupid and INCREDIBLY callous, or they are politicking. And maybe you don't know this, but religions in the US are INCREDIBLY political. They're the ones campaigning against gay marriage as well, even though no one forces them to marry gays.

There's no other way to look at this than them doing this in bad faith. None. They are punishing very many people to try to pressure the government into caving to their demands. It's how Christians work in the US.

[Hauldren Collider]

Asher, their beliefs conflict with yours and might even be offensive to you, but they are simply following their beliefs and mean no harm by it, which is something you should consider even if harm does come of it.

[MrFun]

Segregationists in 1950s did not mean any harm - we should have considered that, even if harm did come of it.

[Asher]

Asher, their beliefs conflict with yours and might even be offensive to you, but they are simply following their beliefs and mean no harm by it, which is something you should consider even if harm does come of it.

I refuse to believe someone who actively denies care that can be made available to children because their beliefs may conflict in a tiny percentage of cases would actually mean no harm by it.

Really, with behaviour like this I think the case could be made that the charities' tax-exempt status should be revoked. They're clearly not in this for the good of the children. Anyone who says they are is a liar or a moron.

[Hauldren Collider]

Segregationists in 1950s did not mean any harm - we should have considered that, even if harm did come of it.

Yes it did. Jim Crow was explicitly intended to hurt Black people.

[DinoDoc]

I refuse to believe someone who actively denies care that can be made available to children...

What care is being denied by the shutdown?

[Asher]

What care is being denied by the shutdown?

Was the headline, the first line of the article, and the remainder of the article confusing for you?

[Ben Kenobi]

The government is not there to foster religious beliefs.

That does not stop them from curtailing religious beliefs.

They are divided.

Most decidedly not so. If they were sincerely divided, then the religious persuasions of the organisations would be irrelevant. The state would simply take no sides. Instead they have chosen to enforce one position that is contrary to what religion teaches. Hence they have waded into the conflict.

You are stupid. You are wrong. You are an imbecile.

I am wrong to assert that you believe religious instruction of children to be child abuse? Particularly by a devout Catholic?

Catholics are MORE than welcome to adopt children in the public system.

Should they be permitted to adopt children and teach them their faith?

The church and state are separate. Church beliefs are not state beliefs.

Then why is the state saying that Catholic beliefs are wrong, but atheist beliefs are right? That's hardly neutrality.

You may disagree with the concept that it's better for children to be raised in a loving environment than in a group home

I believe that it's best for children to be raised by a mother and a father. Any adoption agency that is willing to compromise on the best care of their children in order to indulge the demands of those who wish to raise them is putting the interests of those who wish to adopt over those of the children.

There are plenty of families that are willing to adopt. But there are reasons why we place conditions on the families.

You put your own baseless religious beliefs over the well-being of people.

The first duty is to protect the children from harm, not to indulge in the whims and fantasy of those who wish to adopt.

If you don't like public money going to getting kids out of group homes and into loving families,

I don't believe that the state run system is geared towards the welfare of the children stuck in it. And I strongly suspect that you believe the same as I do. Why I would trust a state that has messed up foster care with greater responsibilities, makes no sense to me.

[DinoDoc]

I fail to see how an adoption/foster care service ceasing to function equates to denying care to children. Yours and MrFun's whining not withstanding.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's ridiculous if 1 out of every 500 adoptions is a gay couple wanting to adopt, but in their Christian love they've decided to stop the programs completely to protest.

Does it matter how many times it occurs if it's contrary? Is it ok to assault one out of only 500 gay people you encounter?

You missed this one, unsurprisingly. Apparently if it happens only once out of 500 opportunities, it's ok by Asher.

[giblets]

Yes it did. Jim Crow was explicitly intended to hurt Black people.

Plenty of people thought blacks were being segregated for their own good.

[Hauldren Collider]

The difference here is that the Catholics believe it is bad for the children to be raised by a gay couple. It's not how the gay couple is being treated, it's about the child.

[DaShi]

Yeah, but those were people like Sloww and NYE.