Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[BlackCat]

Wait, so if they were entirely funded by private donations they wouldn't have to let homosexuals adopt any of their kids?

"Their kids" ????? When did the get ownership of the children ???

[Asher]

So basically, Catholics aren't generous enough to pay for helping foster kids unless it's receiving subsidies from the government?

So it seems.

[Zevico]

Maybe they just don't have the cash to run a viable program without state aid?

[Asher]

You can cut back without eliminating.

You eliminate entirely when:
(1) you basically are entirely funded by the state, in which case religious values should have no bearing.
(2) you are trying to exert political pressure ("YOU SEE WHAT YOU ARE MAKING ME DO??")

[Ben Kenobi]

You've got it twisted. The Catholics are asking for an exception to a patently fair statement

So let me get it straight. Why are we paying for adoption agencies at all?

If the state doesn't want to support a Catholic charity, why am I paying for an adoption agency that rejects my beliefs?

stopping their entire foster program in protest of it. They're playing politics, not the gays.

Right. Let's see. Cut off all funding for all adoption agencies and let's see what Asher has to say then. Fair is fair.

I have no problem with private adoption agencies doing whatever they wish. I do have a problem if the state system bars Catholics from working there. I'm not going to pay for that, and I see no reason why anyone wouldn't want to direct their taxes to the Catholic system. Shouldn't I be allowed to opt out?

[Zevico]

You can cut back without eliminating.

You eliminate entirely when:
(1) you basically are entirely funded by the state, in which case religious values should have no bearing.

Why? They're a volunteer program irrespective of whether they're state-funded or not.

I don't know how much money this organisation gets from the government. It could fund the whole program or it could fund half. If it funds most or all of the program then it makes sense for the program to shut down if and when the government pulls its funding out.

At the end of the day this is a voluntary organisation paying money into a program. It could divert that money to other charitable causes or not. That doesn't mean it's "playing politics."

[Asher]

So let me get it straight. Why are we paying for adoption agencies at all?

If the state doesn't want to support a Catholic charity, why am I paying for an adoption agency that rejects my beliefs?

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.

Right. Let's see. Cut off all funding for all adoption agencies and let's see what Asher has to say then. Fair is fair.

Why would that be fair?

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.

[Asher]

Why? They're a volunteer program irrespective of whether they're state-funded or not.

It doesn't matter if they're "volunteer" (which they're not, they all get paid for having foster kids). What matters is the state collects money equally regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc, and the services it funds should not be restricted based on bigoted beliefs by certain religions.

For instance, the government should not fund extremist Islamic organizations that refuse to deal with women.

[Asher]

Another thing to keep in mind is there's a chronic shortage of foster and adoptive parents. These kids are at a huge disadvantage in orphanages or group homes. It's cruel to the kids to refuse to give them loving parents, especially when the public is the fund source and not religious donations.

If religions want to be bigoted and discriminate contrary to public law, then they must do without public money. If they truly cared about the kids, they'd fund it themselves.

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.

[giblets]

They care more about being a dick to adults they don't like than about the well-being of the children in their foster care system, I guess.

[Dr Strangelove]

If the state should not be allowed to impose it's own requirments on private contractors, religious or non-religious then should the state be required to fund a Jehovah's Witness blood bank? How about a Nazi blood bank (which would refuse to service "racially inferior" people)?

[giblets]

Why would a Jehovah's Witness blood bank even exist?

[Dr Strangelove]

Why would a Jehovah's Witness blood bank even exist?

To keep people from indulging in the sin of blood mixing.

[Zevico]

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").

[Ben Kenobi]

Another thing to keep in mind is there's a chronic shortage of foster and adoptive parents.

So if there's a chronic shortage, why is the state barring devout Catholics from adopting? It was never about the kids to begin with, but everything about the parents. That's the problem with the system as it is. It cares very little about the best interests of the children.

These kids are at a huge disadvantage in orphanages or group homes. It's cruel to the kids to refuse to give them loving parents, especially when the public is the fund source and not religious donations.

Which is why the system bars loving homes because of their religious faith? I think it's great that the Catholics are going to go at it themselves, because that means that they will be more effective.

If religions want to be bigoted and discriminate contrary to public law, then they must do without public money. If they truly cared about the kids, they'd fund it themselves.

Which is why they are going private. Now, lets flip this around. If gay people really cared about the kids, they'd fund it themselves, no?

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? No. So let's get rid of that smokescreen. You believe it's ok to let homosexuals adopt. That's the real reason you are attacking their policy, not because of the funding but because you disagree with their religious faith.