Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 28, 2011
Religion / LGBTQITSLFA Illinois Catholic Church Shuts Down Charities Rather than Help Gay Parents
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Catholic Charities in Illinois has served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.
For the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, the outcome is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are now the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals.
“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki...
All right. The time for reasoning with these gown-wearing boy-fuckers is long past. Fuck them. Take their tax-free status away from them. They are bigots, and they should not be allowed to preach their hate on the state's dime anymore. They stand in the way of loving, responsible people who want to provide homes for unloved children. Fuck those fucking bigots. Period.
(Thanks to Slog tipper Greg for ruining my day.)
2
O yeah, Catholic charities, 'cause that's TOTALLY what Jesus would have wanted. Oh yeah.
I, too, agree with every word of your post, Paul. Your post should be made into a fuckin banner and flown behind an airplane or something.
I, too, agree with every word of your post, Paul. Your post should be made into a fuckin banner and flown behind an airplane or something.
3
Fuck you raw and sideways, Bishop Aphorism Jackpot, as long as it doesn't bring you joy. What part of church/state separation makes you feel entitled to receive and distribute tax money? Keep your rancid cocks in your cassocks for a century or two and swear off your victimhood (shouldn't you bear your cross without complaint, the way you advise gay people to?), and maybe people will think you worthy of their respect and support. MAYBE.
5
These paragraphs show just how dickish those bigot Catholics really are:
Taking a completely different tack was the agency affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which, like the Catholic Church, does not sanction same-sex relationships. Gene Svebakken, president and chief executive of the agency, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, visited all seven pastoral conferences in his state and explained that the best option was to compromise and continue caring for the children.
“We’ve been around 140 years, and if we didn’t follow the law we’d go out of business,” Mr. Svebakken said. “We believe it’s God-pleasing to serve these kids, and we know we do a good job.”
Taking a completely different tack was the agency affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which, like the Catholic Church, does not sanction same-sex relationships. Gene Svebakken, president and chief executive of the agency, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, visited all seven pastoral conferences in his state and explained that the best option was to compromise and continue caring for the children.
“We’ve been around 140 years, and if we didn’t follow the law we’d go out of business,” Mr. Svebakken said. “We believe it’s God-pleasing to serve these kids, and we know we do a good job.”
7
Most of the time I just try to ignore churches, but shit like this just makes my blood boil.
If this is what defines christian charity, then they can go practice their religion in a cave somewhere far away from civil people.
If this is what defines christian charity, then they can go practice their religion in a cave somewhere far away from civil people.
8
ooops-
let's fix it for you:
Illinois Homosexuals Shut Down Charities Rather than allow Catholic Church Religious Freedom
If one is only free to believe what you tell them they can believe they are not really "free", are they.....
let's fix it for you:
Illinois Homosexuals Shut Down Charities Rather than allow Catholic Church Religious Freedom
If one is only free to believe what you tell them they can believe they are not really "free", are they.....
9
Yeah, when you outdo the bigotry and conservatism of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (where they hate women and gays and won't pray with members of other churches - even other Lutheran churches), you've reached new lows.
10
@8
So, basically, you're ranting that its unfair to discriminate against you because of your choice to discriminate against others.
Society seems to be a difficult concept for many Americans such as yourself to grasp.
In life, at least in a sane world, control is afforded to the degree that one bears responsibility. Thus, the more responsibility that you bear, the more control you have.
For example, when parents pay all of your bills and accept responsibility for the consequences of many of your actions, they are afforded a degree of control over your life.
Similarly, when the society takes responsibility for a child and contracts with an organization to provide adoption services in exchange for compensation for such services, society gets to define the work that it wants done in its name, under its laws and on its dime.
Thus, when the Catholic Charities decided to participate in our society by taking payment from the society for services rendered they consented to do so under the rules that our society set for the provision of those services in exchange for the compensation.
So, if the Catholic Charities wants to play god, they are free to do so, but they'll have to do it on their own dime and, possibly, in their own society.
The Holy Roman Empire ended; someone should tell the churches in Illinois. Just because you still have the costume doesn't mean you get to play the part of lord and master.
By they way, your mom said to clean your damn room, or get out of her basement.
So, basically, you're ranting that its unfair to discriminate against you because of your choice to discriminate against others.
Society seems to be a difficult concept for many Americans such as yourself to grasp.
In life, at least in a sane world, control is afforded to the degree that one bears responsibility. Thus, the more responsibility that you bear, the more control you have.
For example, when parents pay all of your bills and accept responsibility for the consequences of many of your actions, they are afforded a degree of control over your life.
Similarly, when the society takes responsibility for a child and contracts with an organization to provide adoption services in exchange for compensation for such services, society gets to define the work that it wants done in its name, under its laws and on its dime.
Thus, when the Catholic Charities decided to participate in our society by taking payment from the society for services rendered they consented to do so under the rules that our society set for the provision of those services in exchange for the compensation.
So, if the Catholic Charities wants to play god, they are free to do so, but they'll have to do it on their own dime and, possibly, in their own society.
The Holy Roman Empire ended; someone should tell the churches in Illinois. Just because you still have the costume doesn't mean you get to play the part of lord and master.
By they way, your mom said to clean your damn room, or get out of her basement.
11
@8 Since you don't seem to get it, I will spell it out: LGBT people pay taxes, too. so if this charity is getting money from LGBT people they should serve LGBT peple as well as straight people.They are closing because they want to use public money (taxes} in a private, religious way. No one is telling them to shut down. They can stay open and fund themselves from donations made by people like you. But people like you don't give to charities, you just bitch.
13
The church, being a spoiled child at the teat of government monies that should serve everyone equally got a well deserved dismissal from that nipple for being such a hateful bigoted jerk, and is now in tantrum mode.
As such, It needs to learn some civic "tough love" on how to be truly decent and not so much of an annoying hurt inducing little prick. imo.
As such, It needs to learn some civic "tough love" on how to be truly decent and not so much of an annoying hurt inducing little prick. imo.
16
I have a question for the class: will this state money go to another charity, or will it simply disappear into the general fund?
If it will simply disappear, then I'm a bit sad that children will lose out, although I doubt that will happen.
If (as I imagine) smaller, more inclusive charities get the money, then more children will be helped to find more foster parents, and we all win.
...and as a bonus, the church won't be able to look like it is the benevolent entity, when it was just passing along government (read: our) money to help others.
The church can continue to do it's charity work, with the money that church members donate for their bigoted cause. No problem. But some other charity is about to get a helping hand.
If it will simply disappear, then I'm a bit sad that children will lose out, although I doubt that will happen.
If (as I imagine) smaller, more inclusive charities get the money, then more children will be helped to find more foster parents, and we all win.
...and as a bonus, the church won't be able to look like it is the benevolent entity, when it was just passing along government (read: our) money to help others.
The church can continue to do it's charity work, with the money that church members donate for their bigoted cause. No problem. But some other charity is about to get a helping hand.
18
Religious organizations shouldn't be tax-free to begin with.
And a discriminatory "charity" really needs to crack a dictionary and brush up on what "charity" actually means. Assholes.
And a discriminatory "charity" really needs to crack a dictionary and brush up on what "charity" actually means. Assholes.
19
@16. It's likely that the Catholic Services folks are staffed by social workers and other private citizens who did all the heavy lifting here. There simply aren't enough priests and nuns to run and staff these programs, along with the preaching and Catholic school teaching. So, those folks could find an agency spinster, apply for all the state and private grants the Church was getting, and keep serving these lids while complying with the law. And I hope, sincerely, that is what happens. These kids (and their future parents) deserve it.
20
Glad to see you could muster a civil, rationally thought-out argument, Paul... (you shitfaced fucking bigot!!1! burn in hell!!11! etc.)
21
@Constant mis-statements and slander-
I'm unclear on the problem for Mr. Constant and the rest here.
I'm very clear on the bigotry Constant has for the Catholic Church, as well as his slander of that faith. It goes without saying that recourse to profanity is the indication of a weak mind and a poor intellect, but that's his misfortune rather than his fault. Poor fellow just doesn't realize he's neither a competent political analyst nor a competent writer. Denny's may be hiring, Mr. Constant. Taking orders on a pad may suit your limited writing skills rather better...
Sorry, I forgot. You write for the Stranger. Analysis, accuracy, truth, integrity and any basic command of the English language aren't job requirments.
@Shrill peanut gallery-
No-one's forcing you to become Catholic. No-one in the Catholic church is asking that Illinois change their adoption rules. They're simnply opting out of providing aid to people who chose a self destructive lifestyle potentially harmful to the children they wish to adopt or foster.
No-one is asking that you agree with their stance, but they certainly have the right to take it. Especially since doing so removes the only possible objection you might have, that they take public money to support their position.
As for tax status for churches, please (oh please) start tilting at that windmill on the left. Your extreme hatred and bigotry toward religion shows your true colors, and helps our national center right majorities to recognize the left as fundamentally at odds with their general life views.
@18, the Canadian with no business in our policies-
Let me explain. Oh. Wait. Never mind. You don't pay taxes in my country, and how we do so is frankly not in any way your business. Canada can pretend that marriage is a homosexual matter rather than a heterosexual one, and I don't interfere. Want to ruin your society? Your call. We can run our taxes as we like and it's our business. Thanks SO kindly for butting out of what doesn't concern you. You have a happy new year now, old buddy old pal.
More...
I'm unclear on the problem for Mr. Constant and the rest here.
I'm very clear on the bigotry Constant has for the Catholic Church, as well as his slander of that faith. It goes without saying that recourse to profanity is the indication of a weak mind and a poor intellect, but that's his misfortune rather than his fault. Poor fellow just doesn't realize he's neither a competent political analyst nor a competent writer. Denny's may be hiring, Mr. Constant. Taking orders on a pad may suit your limited writing skills rather better...
Sorry, I forgot. You write for the Stranger. Analysis, accuracy, truth, integrity and any basic command of the English language aren't job requirments.
@Shrill peanut gallery-
No-one's forcing you to become Catholic. No-one in the Catholic church is asking that Illinois change their adoption rules. They're simnply opting out of providing aid to people who chose a self destructive lifestyle potentially harmful to the children they wish to adopt or foster.
No-one is asking that you agree with their stance, but they certainly have the right to take it. Especially since doing so removes the only possible objection you might have, that they take public money to support their position.
As for tax status for churches, please (oh please) start tilting at that windmill on the left. Your extreme hatred and bigotry toward religion shows your true colors, and helps our national center right majorities to recognize the left as fundamentally at odds with their general life views.
@18, the Canadian with no business in our policies-
Let me explain. Oh. Wait. Never mind. You don't pay taxes in my country, and how we do so is frankly not in any way your business. Canada can pretend that marriage is a homosexual matter rather than a heterosexual one, and I don't interfere. Want to ruin your society? Your call. We can run our taxes as we like and it's our business. Thanks SO kindly for butting out of what doesn't concern you. You have a happy new year now, old buddy old pal.
22
@5 Enigma: thanks for pointing out the other religion doing the right thing despite their personal biases.
23
I no longer worry about the fact that the Catholic Church and its Catholic Charities arm refuse as an entity to serve all people equally although I believe that's hypocritical in the extreme. What truly angers me about this is that Catholic Charities was working both ends against the middle -- taking tax money that was supposed to benefit ALL citizens and also charging its prospective adopters thousands of dollars for services rendered in the adoption process. I can't believe they would be unable to continue foster and adoptive services just because they lost state funding, since they're known to charge their clients big bucks at the same time. This is just more grandstanding from a hateful, anti-Christian organization looking for victimhood points, and it deserves the shortest verse in the Bible: "Jesus wept."
24
@21
Well that certainly was a blog comment. I think your family needs to put a breathalyzer lock on your computer because all I took away from that was "Oops, dad's drunk again. Yelling at imaginary owls to stay off his lawn, even though it belongs to the community".
Well that certainly was a blog comment. I think your family needs to put a breathalyzer lock on your computer because all I took away from that was "Oops, dad's drunk again. Yelling at imaginary owls to stay off his lawn, even though it belongs to the community".
26
"The time for reasoning with these gown-wearing boy-fuckers is long past. "
Who then will run The Stranger?
Who then will run The Stranger?
27
Actually, this is a step forward: The RCC should never have been taking money from the state to begin with. It's not like they aren't rolling in cash anyway. What is going on here is simply an enforcement of the separation of church & state. Yes, it is going to hurt, like that woman who grew into her couch (in this analogy, the RCC is the woman, Illinois is the couch.) The RCC is choosing the letter of the law over compassion & charity. It's nothing new w/ them, but there's never enough of that kind of exposure. In the long run, this will be good for everyone.
@21 remove all the ad hominem attacks in your post, and there's nothing there. Your mind is a low-res gif of an angry face.
@21 remove all the ad hominem attacks in your post, and there's nothing there. Your mind is a low-res gif of an angry face.
32
@16, there are other, both secular and religious, agencies that are stepping up to take up the caseload. Here is one such agency, which does not discriminate and is rapidly expanding to meet the new needs. It's not a matter of this service disappearing by any means, though it does harm the children because smaller agencies are going to take some time to gear up and get everything moving smoothly again.
And yeah, fuck those motherfuckers.
And yeah, fuck those motherfuckers.
33
The government shouldn't be giving money to religious organisations, period. Especially when their record with children is so heinous. And they already get away with paying no taxes, the bastards.
34
Why do religious organizations feel they have the right to take tax payer money to discriminate? The Catholic church is very rich. Let it use its own private money to run its charities. Then it can freely discriminate.
35
The Catholic charities are demonstrating their juvenile antisocial tendencies. "Our way or the highway!" "I'm going to take my ball and go home!" "Oh, yeah? Well, I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue!"
Let's not generalize, here. These are the actions of one charity group, run by one church. It's a big church, with big charities, but because they are big they have been sucking up the lion's share of public monies available to charities. With them out of the picture, others will be able to step in to fill the function. Let's hope they're as efficient and let's make sure that there is funding for people in the government to monitor and review their functioning, so we don't end up with worse problems than Catholic Charities.
Also, let's remember why funding for child adoption services goes to outside-run charitable entities, instead of being run directly by government agencies. Government earned a bad reputation when doing this themselves, and hasn't found a way of doing it right, efficiently.
@18 As for the whole concept of not taxing churches, it's part of the whole freedom-of-religion, church/state separation deal. It would actually be worth it, if we could get the other half of the deal. That is, to get those churches who do it, to stop actively fucking around in the politics of the country. And I completely agree with your second sentence!
Let's not generalize, here. These are the actions of one charity group, run by one church. It's a big church, with big charities, but because they are big they have been sucking up the lion's share of public monies available to charities. With them out of the picture, others will be able to step in to fill the function. Let's hope they're as efficient and let's make sure that there is funding for people in the government to monitor and review their functioning, so we don't end up with worse problems than Catholic Charities.
Also, let's remember why funding for child adoption services goes to outside-run charitable entities, instead of being run directly by government agencies. Government earned a bad reputation when doing this themselves, and hasn't found a way of doing it right, efficiently.
@18 As for the whole concept of not taxing churches, it's part of the whole freedom-of-religion, church/state separation deal. It would actually be worth it, if we could get the other half of the deal. That is, to get those churches who do it, to stop actively fucking around in the politics of the country. And I completely agree with your second sentence!
36
“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki...
Since when did "tolerance" mean being PAID to do work that you flatly refuse to do? Those are public funds, and you forfeit the privilege of receiving them if you refuse to provide the services that they're paying for. When you accept money for work you're not doing, you're stealing, and I think it's rather telling that the Bishop here is equating intolerance with "not letting us steal public funds".
Since when did "tolerance" mean being PAID to do work that you flatly refuse to do? Those are public funds, and you forfeit the privilege of receiving them if you refuse to provide the services that they're paying for. When you accept money for work you're not doing, you're stealing, and I think it's rather telling that the Bishop here is equating intolerance with "not letting us steal public funds".
38
Shouldn't Catholics follow their own Book?
Oh right, the Bible only applies to gay people.
Romans 13
Submission to Governing Authorities
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Oh right, the Bible only applies to gay people.
39
Nobody has mentioned it here, but in the local media here in Illinois, the assumption sometimes gets raised that the kids themselves, as well as the birth parents (if the child is not an orphan) are Catholic, and that these kids are being "taken" from Catholic homes and placed in gay families, which, of course, would cause all sorts of harm to the kids. (?!?)
Which isn't true. And, when evaluating the fit between adoptive parents and kids, factors like that can still be taken into account when the matter and all other factors are equal.
So Catholic Charities is claiming, in a lot of cases, that their religious freedom is being trampled on because they can't place non-Catholic kids who don't care that the adoptive parents are gay with non-Catholic adoptive parents who happen to be gay, and using taxpayer dollars to do it.
Which isn't true. And, when evaluating the fit between adoptive parents and kids, factors like that can still be taken into account when the matter and all other factors are equal.
So Catholic Charities is claiming, in a lot of cases, that their religious freedom is being trampled on because they can't place non-Catholic kids who don't care that the adoptive parents are gay with non-Catholic adoptive parents who happen to be gay, and using taxpayer dollars to do it.
40
@8, The state hasn't shut down those organizations. The state is just saying that as long as they choose to discriminate they can't receive state funds. If they raise their funds themselves they can discriminate in any way they like on how to distribute those funds but they should not be allowed to discriminate with taxpayer dollars.
41
@21, Nobody is forcing us to become Catholic (luckily in this country we're protected from the Catholic Church's traditional methods of conversion) and nobody is forcing the Catholic church to take taxpayer money. They are free to practice their bigotry with their own money and support or deny people their services with their own money. The only thing that's being restricted here is that the state will no longer pay them to practice their bigotry.
As for the tax status there are a number of rules you need to follow to remain a tax exempt non-profit. Churches are increasingly breaking these rules in their involvement with the political process. They should be held to the same rules as all other non-profits. If they break the IRS rules they should lose their tax exempt status.
As for the tax status there are a number of rules you need to follow to remain a tax exempt non-profit. Churches are increasingly breaking these rules in their involvement with the political process. They should be held to the same rules as all other non-profits. If they break the IRS rules they should lose their tax exempt status.
42
So if it's between following the Big Book and helping children, they'd rather follow their Big Book. Sad, sad, sad.
43
Doesn't the Church preach distinguishing between the sin and the sinner? Well, Bishop Poprocks, just what do you think is happening here? You're not being discriminated against. The State has simply called you out on your sins, for it is a sin* to use public money in the discriminatory manner that you have been doing. If you repent, and promise not to do it again, you can probably be back in the good graces of the State anytime you want.
_______
* - A "sin" according to the law books of the State, better known in secular government circles as "an offense," "a crime," or "noncompliance with the law."
“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki
Doesn't the Church preach distinguishing between the sin and the sinner? Well, Bishop Poprocks, just what do you think is happening here? You're not being discriminated against. The State has simply called you out on your sins, for it is a sin* to use public money in the discriminatory manner that you have been doing. If you repent, and promise not to do it again, you can probably be back in the good graces of the State anytime you want.
_______
* - A "sin" according to the law books of the State, better known in secular government circles as "an offense," "a crime," or "noncompliance with the law."
44
While accepting government money, can this "charity" refuse to help Jewish people? What about interracial couples?
46
Why is it people are always amazed to learn that a religious institution isn't really interested in helping people but exists solely to further its own ideology while filling its coffers?
It's like being surprised every time you read about a pretty, young woman marrying a rich, ugly, old man. It happens. It's really no surprise.
It's like being surprised every time you read about a pretty, young woman marrying a rich, ugly, old man. It happens. It's really no surprise.
47
They would like us all to believe this is about what they believe, but that is a lie. This is about fanaticism to believing they are right. It is not about how they live their lives., but how they run your life. And it isn't about submission to God, this is the dominion of man. The doctrines of their faith and scriptural texts are weapons to use against others. This is about power, ego, and moral and ethical blindness, this is worshiping "correctness". This is the fate of fanatics. Good luck to anyone who attempts to get the RC to understand that protecting priests who rape children is far more damaging to a child than allowing children to be adopted by adults who love him or her. No, in their minds they are victims of not being able to use state money to discriminate, they believe their the injured party. Sad.
48
@46 I don't think it is surprise so much as not giving in to cynicism. Too often, the cynic can say "I knew it!" and be content to do nothing to change it.
49
Meanwhile, back in reality-
A timeline would look like this. For 40 years the Catholic church operated a charity helping kids with adoption or foster situations. Some portion of their operating expenses, but not all of it, was funded by the state. This was done in a program that provided funds for any non-profit or charity the state deemed appropriate for the purpose, secular or religious.
Then something changed. A tiny self selecting minority decided they had some god given right to adopt or foster kids. Since their lifestyle choices precluded natural childbirth, artificial insemination, adoption or foster care were the only outlets available to these citizens. The state of Illinois agreed that their choices, unlike those of other citizens, should be consequence free, and mandated that gay or lesbian candidates be given access to children through adoption or fostering.
The church disagreed on theological grounds. In their view putting kids in a morally dangerous position is worse than putting them in a physically dangerous one. After all, from their point of view we have 80 or 90 years of life, but a spiritual eternity for the consequences of our moral choices in that time. Since they could not in good faith comply with the new regulations, they stopped taking money from Illinois for the program, and the new regulations meant that they could no longer do their good work on a private basis either.
If anyone has lost sight of the interests of children here, it's Illinois. For the sake of a tiny minority of their population (whatever portion of the 3% or so of citizens who are both gay and interested in adopting or fostering kids) they forced the Catholic church into a dilemna of accepting the unacceptable or shutting down.
For the record, I'm not Catholic. But I object to the whiny entitlement of that self selecting minority- the LBGQTPRSTUVWXYZABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP community. You have the right to live your lives as you see fit. You don't have the right to dicate terms for the 97% or so of society that didn't choose homosexuality or other untreated mental illness.
More...
A timeline would look like this. For 40 years the Catholic church operated a charity helping kids with adoption or foster situations. Some portion of their operating expenses, but not all of it, was funded by the state. This was done in a program that provided funds for any non-profit or charity the state deemed appropriate for the purpose, secular or religious.
Then something changed. A tiny self selecting minority decided they had some god given right to adopt or foster kids. Since their lifestyle choices precluded natural childbirth, artificial insemination, adoption or foster care were the only outlets available to these citizens. The state of Illinois agreed that their choices, unlike those of other citizens, should be consequence free, and mandated that gay or lesbian candidates be given access to children through adoption or fostering.
The church disagreed on theological grounds. In their view putting kids in a morally dangerous position is worse than putting them in a physically dangerous one. After all, from their point of view we have 80 or 90 years of life, but a spiritual eternity for the consequences of our moral choices in that time. Since they could not in good faith comply with the new regulations, they stopped taking money from Illinois for the program, and the new regulations meant that they could no longer do their good work on a private basis either.
If anyone has lost sight of the interests of children here, it's Illinois. For the sake of a tiny minority of their population (whatever portion of the 3% or so of citizens who are both gay and interested in adopting or fostering kids) they forced the Catholic church into a dilemna of accepting the unacceptable or shutting down.
For the record, I'm not Catholic. But I object to the whiny entitlement of that self selecting minority- the LBGQTPRSTUVWXYZABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP community. You have the right to live your lives as you see fit. You don't have the right to dicate terms for the 97% or so of society that didn't choose homosexuality or other untreated mental illness.
50
Perhaps the most salient, most important thing is that the welfare of children who need to be adopted-- and adopted by those who can give them the best upbringing -- is considerably less important to the Catholic Charities of Illinois than very publicly showing disapproval of homosexuality. Interesting values; interesting morality.
51
@8 - Illinois Homosexuals Shut Down Charities Rather than allow Catholic Church Religious Freedom
Not at all. Supporters of equal rights in Illinois suggested that charitable groups who wish to run afoul of Illinois anti-discrimination laws can and should do so without the aid of public funding. If you like, I can be similarly charitable to the Catholic church, and suggest that they've simply decided that the work they do with public money isn't worth bending on principle. Whether that means they care more about discriminating against gays than about helping anyone else, I'll leave for you to judge as you see fit.
Not at all. Supporters of equal rights in Illinois suggested that charitable groups who wish to run afoul of Illinois anti-discrimination laws can and should do so without the aid of public funding. If you like, I can be similarly charitable to the Catholic church, and suggest that they've simply decided that the work they do with public money isn't worth bending on principle. Whether that means they care more about discriminating against gays than about helping anyone else, I'll leave for you to judge as you see fit.
52
@47
BS.
Because that church got it wrong once doesn't mean they're wrong here and always. Nor does the fact that they tragically and erroneously put redemption of priests souls above the welfare of kids mean that they're not interested in the welfare of kids ever.
Nor does this or any other church seek to influence non-practitioners of their faith in how they run their lives. In this case the church simply stepped out of a situation in which they could either function by what they deemed immoral rules or step away.
Again, they aren't petitioning Illinois to change the rule. They aren't doing anything at all. They simply won't assist in placing kids in jeopardy.
But nice try with the false equivalence.
BS.
Because that church got it wrong once doesn't mean they're wrong here and always. Nor does the fact that they tragically and erroneously put redemption of priests souls above the welfare of kids mean that they're not interested in the welfare of kids ever.
Nor does this or any other church seek to influence non-practitioners of their faith in how they run their lives. In this case the church simply stepped out of a situation in which they could either function by what they deemed immoral rules or step away.
Again, they aren't petitioning Illinois to change the rule. They aren't doing anything at all. They simply won't assist in placing kids in jeopardy.
But nice try with the false equivalence.
53
@50
In the view of the Catholic church, whatever you think of that view, placing a child with a homosexual couple or 'parent' is always harmful to that child. In their view they're protecting kids when the state of Illinois refuses to do so.
In the view of the Catholic church, whatever you think of that view, placing a child with a homosexual couple or 'parent' is always harmful to that child. In their view they're protecting kids when the state of Illinois refuses to do so.
54
You're welcome to your opinions, Seattleblues. We all know you hold a high opinion in your own "correctness". I'm not obligated to agree with you.
And it is my opinion, that when a church hands me a voter's guide with instructions on how to vote "Christian" and "Christian Values" then they have voluntarily entered into the realm of trying to run people's lives. You can feel differently.
I'd educate yourself better on the handling of sexual abuse within the RC. Individuals living within the Vatican, sent to places like India, to avoid facing charges. Your "got it wrong once" is pitiful. I'm sure you file decades of lying, coercing, and sometimes falsifying death certificates of children born to single mothers and poor couples in Spain, Ireland, and Australia as getting it wrong once too. But it is your choice to believe what you wish. I see a lot of negligence and moral and ethical blindness in the choices and actions of the Roman Catholic church on the corporate level, not necessarily in the actions of individual persons and communities.
Or shorter, I have no further interest in banging my head on a brick wall or helping you play Slog.
And it is my opinion, that when a church hands me a voter's guide with instructions on how to vote "Christian" and "Christian Values" then they have voluntarily entered into the realm of trying to run people's lives. You can feel differently.
I'd educate yourself better on the handling of sexual abuse within the RC. Individuals living within the Vatican, sent to places like India, to avoid facing charges. Your "got it wrong once" is pitiful. I'm sure you file decades of lying, coercing, and sometimes falsifying death certificates of children born to single mothers and poor couples in Spain, Ireland, and Australia as getting it wrong once too. But it is your choice to believe what you wish. I see a lot of negligence and moral and ethical blindness in the choices and actions of the Roman Catholic church on the corporate level, not necessarily in the actions of individual persons and communities.
Or shorter, I have no further interest in banging my head on a brick wall or helping you play Slog.
56
I object to calling Catholics boy-fuckers. Those criminals have been kicked out (it took far too long to do so, but better late than never). The issue at hand is a Catholic institution that would rather shut down than treat gays equally and whether or not denying them state funds constitutes an attack on religion.
Let's compare this to Planned Parenthood. It's also been hit with the "do what you want but not on the state dime" bit. PP does a lot of things that people like (sex ed, birth control, abortion) and it does things that people consider immoral (birth control, abortion). The Catholic Church also does things that people like (feeding, educating and otherwise serving the underprivileged) and things that people don't like (discriminating against gays).
If it is persecution to deny Planned Parenthood state funding because it does something that some people consider immoral--providing abortions (as one small part of its activity)--then it is also persecution to deny the Catholic Church state funds because it does something that people consider immoral--discriminating against gays (also one small part of its activity).
Let's compare this to Planned Parenthood. It's also been hit with the "do what you want but not on the state dime" bit. PP does a lot of things that people like (sex ed, birth control, abortion) and it does things that people consider immoral (birth control, abortion). The Catholic Church also does things that people like (feeding, educating and otherwise serving the underprivileged) and things that people don't like (discriminating against gays).
If it is persecution to deny Planned Parenthood state funding because it does something that some people consider immoral--providing abortions (as one small part of its activity)--then it is also persecution to deny the Catholic Church state funds because it does something that people consider immoral--discriminating against gays (also one small part of its activity).
57
@56: Planned Parenthood gets no funding for abortion, but its other activities are subsidized. Similarly, if Catholic charities wanted government funding for, say, a soup kitchen, they would be welcome to ask for that money. They just can't have their prejudicial adoption services funded.
58
Oh, Seattle Blues. Your foolishness knows no bounds. Do have evidence that raising kids in a home with gay parents is harmful? You don't, because that's been shown to be false. Kids raised in such homes have about the same rates of outcomes. So stop lying about that.
The RCC might also think that kids being raised by Jews or Muslims or atheists might put those children's souls at risk--but they don't discriminate based on religion, because they know they'd be rightfully called out for that.
I've asked you before--if you think that this site is filled with hateful sinners, why do you spend so much time here--and not gotten an answer. Can you explain this to me? Your behavior seems odd.
The RCC might also think that kids being raised by Jews or Muslims or atheists might put those children's souls at risk--but they don't discriminate based on religion, because they know they'd be rightfully called out for that.
I've asked you before--if you think that this site is filled with hateful sinners, why do you spend so much time here--and not gotten an answer. Can you explain this to me? Your behavior seems odd.
59
@58: "Oh, Seattle Blues. Your foolishness knows no bounds"
Yes, but we respond to him every time :)
Yes, but we respond to him every time :)
62
By all the people using the "F" word I can see we are not engaging in a very intelligent conversation. I just want to say I agree in principle with Seattle Blues and I just hope the Gay Rights Movement starts feeding the homeless, the shut-in, the drug addict of our Communities as Catholic charities has done for over 40 years! Then again they are to busy having their high paid attornies sue these organizations in order to " SHUT THEM DOWN". What a way to make a point! I will end this as the rest of the degenerates did" What a bunch of F______ fools!!
63
@62, Catholic Charities has done fine work. They don't have an inherent right to a contract with the state when they're not willing to fulfill all obligations of said contract.
Also, lots of us have not forgiven the RCC for their worldwide conspiracy to protect child molesters. Surely you can understand that?
Also, lots of us have not forgiven the RCC for their worldwide conspiracy to protect child molesters. Surely you can understand that?
64
@ 62, why don't you ask your priest why the Church are being a bunch of babies and taking their toys home with them?
Oh, right, because you probably ARE a priest or some other shill, not an honest person. I'd tell you you're in mortal danger of your soul for violating the commandment against bearing false witness, but you'll just go to confession and say a few Our Father's and Hail Mary's, won't you?
Oh, right, because you probably ARE a priest or some other shill, not an honest person. I'd tell you you're in mortal danger of your soul for violating the commandment against bearing false witness, but you'll just go to confession and say a few Our Father's and Hail Mary's, won't you?
65
@62, Lovechild? Are you back for good? I have sorely missed your inarticulate grammar-busting ramblings.
66
@ Seattleblues: You keep saying, at different times, that homosexuality is: a) a mental illness, or: b) self-selected. If you know anything about basic human psychology, that's a contradiction. People do not choose to be mentally ill. Pretty much every known mental illness has a genetic factor involved, or results from trauma. Current understanding is that many are a combination of both. (One can have a genetic predisposition to certain mental illnesses, but it can take trauma to bring it out.) Some difficulty with mental health can even be caused by physical health (hormone imbalances can do weird things to your emotions, for example.)
While I personally do not think that homosexuality is a mental illness OR self-selected, you are wrong in that it is both. If it is one, it is not the other. Learn how mental illnesses work before you compare them to things, please.
Also... assuming that homosexuality IS self-selected (again, I believe that it is not) would that make it alright for people to discriminate against homosexuals? Many religions hold that any person has the free will to be part of that religion or not, and to face the consequences. In other words, membership in any of those religions is self-selected. You don't seem to think that it's alright to discriminate against people of faith, as evidenced by your comments to someone who made a critical remark about religion. Is the difference that there are more people of faith than homosexuals, and that you believe the majority of people are more supportive of people of faith than of homosexuals? (A study I read recently says that every demographic outside of senior citizens has a majority opinion that homosexuality is okay, but assuming that they don't or that it doesn't matter.)
But let's say you're in a society where there are more homosexuals than people of faith. Would that make you comfortable with people of faith receiving discrimination? I'm guessing it wouldn't.
More...
While I personally do not think that homosexuality is a mental illness OR self-selected, you are wrong in that it is both. If it is one, it is not the other. Learn how mental illnesses work before you compare them to things, please.
Also... assuming that homosexuality IS self-selected (again, I believe that it is not) would that make it alright for people to discriminate against homosexuals? Many religions hold that any person has the free will to be part of that religion or not, and to face the consequences. In other words, membership in any of those religions is self-selected. You don't seem to think that it's alright to discriminate against people of faith, as evidenced by your comments to someone who made a critical remark about religion. Is the difference that there are more people of faith than homosexuals, and that you believe the majority of people are more supportive of people of faith than of homosexuals? (A study I read recently says that every demographic outside of senior citizens has a majority opinion that homosexuality is okay, but assuming that they don't or that it doesn't matter.)
But let's say you're in a society where there are more homosexuals than people of faith. Would that make you comfortable with people of faith receiving discrimination? I'm guessing it wouldn't.
67
@60: "@59, I know! So what does that make me, the fool who responds to him?"
No clue, he'd be more fun if, like loveschild, they said anything different.
Instead they say the same facts over and over again, making up facts about their lives to appear to not be a bigot themselves (surely not!) but they're both trolls.
@64: "Oh, right, because you probably ARE a priest or some other shill, not an honest person"
I'd say that they're shilling for an ideology more than they're actually a priest, or even necessarily a member of a church. They're simple bigots who have no love in their hearts, and would rather hate because it fills them with superiority. Why else would they troll over and over again?
No clue, he'd be more fun if, like loveschild, they said anything different.
Instead they say the same facts over and over again, making up facts about their lives to appear to not be a bigot themselves (surely not!) but they're both trolls.
@64: "Oh, right, because you probably ARE a priest or some other shill, not an honest person"
I'd say that they're shilling for an ideology more than they're actually a priest, or even necessarily a member of a church. They're simple bigots who have no love in their hearts, and would rather hate because it fills them with superiority. Why else would they troll over and over again?
68
@62: "Tone Trolls are the language puritans of the blog world. They will studiously avoid addressing the substantive issues of an argument, but will tut-tut at the tone of the conversation or the language used. They are also easily "offended" by not treating their pet opinion with the automatic respect that it apparently deserves.
Tone trolls can be sent on their way with a well-placed "fuck off", but often not without a final departing snipe at how rude and aggressive people are around here."
Tone trolls can be sent on their way with a well-placed "fuck off", but often not without a final departing snipe at how rude and aggressive people are around here."
69
What I don't get is why this particular Catholic Charities is taking their marbles and going home simply because they're no longer eligible for state funding. Seems to me, if they REALLY cared about their clients and their needs, they'd find a way to downsize and stay in business without state funding. From a distance it looks more like an adolescent temper tantrum than anything else. Thankfully, I'm sure some other agency will fill in the void, probably sooner than later.
70
@57 and do you consider that to be a good solution? Provide funds for the stuff you like but not for the stuff you don't like (with the knowledge that by funding A, it frees up more funds for B).
So do you think this is an attack on religion? The efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are an attack on reproductive rights, aren't they?
I don't think that the Church should discriminate against gays (and many of the rubber-meets-the-road Church employees don't) and I do think they're doing it because they can get away with it, meaning that the solution is for the wider society to establish that anti-gay discrimination is unacceptable, but let's acknowledge that other organizations, organizations that do wonderful work, have been given very similar treatment and faced very similar rhetoric.
So do you think this is an attack on religion? The efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are an attack on reproductive rights, aren't they?
I don't think that the Church should discriminate against gays (and many of the rubber-meets-the-road Church employees don't) and I do think they're doing it because they can get away with it, meaning that the solution is for the wider society to establish that anti-gay discrimination is unacceptable, but let's acknowledge that other organizations, organizations that do wonderful work, have been given very similar treatment and faced very similar rhetoric.
71
I've never seen such anti-Catholic hatred, bigotry, and misinformation, since the John F. Kennedy presidential campaign. You've all succeeded in completely missing the point here because it's easier and more enjoyable for you to angrily bash people you don't even know because you disagree with their deeply felt religious beliefs. You're acting like a lynch mob.
The fact is, the Catholic Church is protesting the degeneration of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which does not separate Church and State because that would mean separating the People from the State, which is the whole reason for the Revolution! The "separation" Jefferson referred to means establishment, not persecution. Any given tax-paying citizen may be a Catholic. Any elected official might be, and he is elected based on his beliefs! When the government refuses to give back tax-payer money to a charitable organization composed of freely assembled taxpayers (because of their beliefs), the government discriminates against those people. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids giving tax-payer money to religious institutions, for the purpose of charity, to be used in accordance with however that institution wishes to define charity. That is the essence of freedom of religion, free assembly, and free enterprise of any kind, and under the principle of incorporation (that states cannot produce legislation that violates the principles of the Federal Constitution), anti-discrimination laws used to police charity services is clearly unconstitutional. Why? Because such laws establish a national philosophy more than treating every party equally. The government must treat every philosophical group equally, but it cannot use tax-payer money as a bribe against tax-payers and the activities of their free institutions. The government should treasure a diverse environment of public works, without treating some unequally for their beliefs. Here is where it is important to prevent discrimination. The First Amendment forbids only the establishment of a state religion, meaning, there is no religious test for office, and no fine or special tax for the support of a religious institution. However, the free exercise of religion implies public works, and if public works in some way benefit society, it is obviously justifiable to return to such organizations of citizens tax-money, and be content, therefore, that a Catholic organization will have a Catholic character and philosophy, and use that money primarily for the betterment of Catholic communities, as they see fit. That is a positive use of public money to do good in a particular sphere, and it has always been understood that money will be limited to the framework and beliefs of the institution. Ideological prerequisites for the distribution of public funds is a far more serious and illegal (unconstitutional) form of discrimination. Charities in no conceivable sense establish Catholicism as the official religion of the United States, nor should discrimination (an implicit fact contained in the definition of any group because every group is distinct based on their philosophy) bar a charitable group from receiving tax-money to help perform good works in accordance with the limitations of their given sphere. For example, no homosexual charity group would be denied government benefits if they refused to assist a Catholic community. No opposing groups should be compelled to help one another by government threats to refuse benefits. In short, there is no obligation on the part of any institution to conform to any one government established philosophy, based on adherence to which the government might deny benefits that will contribute to the public good. In the name of disestablishment, you negatively establish a solidified belief-system and support it with tax-payer money.
Anyone who claims the First Amendment is meant to persecute the religious population of the United States fundamentally misunderstands freedom, fundamentally misunderstands what religion is, fundamentally misunderstands the intentions of the founders and the meaning of their law, and fundamentally confused a pluralistic open society with a unitary closed society. America is both. It has a core set of values that allow for as much freedom as possible without allowing one group or individual to cause direct harm to any other. But the rest is entirely pluralistic and open, and while Catholic Charities might indirectly "harm" people by not participating in what their conscience says is wrong, they have no state-imposed obligation to avoid indirect harm through inaction. As it is, the state is now unfairly distributing money to organizations that accept their improper negatively established "religion," while refusing to distribute money to organizations that do not conform with their negatively established "religion," or ideology. That is a true violation of the First Amendment.
Do you want a future where perfectly ordinary and traditional organizations that objectively do a lot of public good have to face an inquisition as to their beliefs as a prerequisite for receiving government aid, and if they are lacking in only one respect and do no positive harm, they are defunded and treated like criminals? It began with this, but next year, the Obama administration will force all Catholic Hospitals to shut down, or violate their conscience. Is the Democratic Party democratic? No. Does the Democratic Party really care about the countless poor and sick that Catholic organizations once served with government aid? This is obviously an ideological purge - exactly the sort of thing the First Amendment was explicitly designed to prevent.
Don't you care? Or would you rather scream and swear at Catholics because you don't like them?
More...
The fact is, the Catholic Church is protesting the degeneration of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which does not separate Church and State because that would mean separating the People from the State, which is the whole reason for the Revolution! The "separation" Jefferson referred to means establishment, not persecution. Any given tax-paying citizen may be a Catholic. Any elected official might be, and he is elected based on his beliefs! When the government refuses to give back tax-payer money to a charitable organization composed of freely assembled taxpayers (because of their beliefs), the government discriminates against those people. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids giving tax-payer money to religious institutions, for the purpose of charity, to be used in accordance with however that institution wishes to define charity. That is the essence of freedom of religion, free assembly, and free enterprise of any kind, and under the principle of incorporation (that states cannot produce legislation that violates the principles of the Federal Constitution), anti-discrimination laws used to police charity services is clearly unconstitutional. Why? Because such laws establish a national philosophy more than treating every party equally. The government must treat every philosophical group equally, but it cannot use tax-payer money as a bribe against tax-payers and the activities of their free institutions. The government should treasure a diverse environment of public works, without treating some unequally for their beliefs. Here is where it is important to prevent discrimination. The First Amendment forbids only the establishment of a state religion, meaning, there is no religious test for office, and no fine or special tax for the support of a religious institution. However, the free exercise of religion implies public works, and if public works in some way benefit society, it is obviously justifiable to return to such organizations of citizens tax-money, and be content, therefore, that a Catholic organization will have a Catholic character and philosophy, and use that money primarily for the betterment of Catholic communities, as they see fit. That is a positive use of public money to do good in a particular sphere, and it has always been understood that money will be limited to the framework and beliefs of the institution. Ideological prerequisites for the distribution of public funds is a far more serious and illegal (unconstitutional) form of discrimination. Charities in no conceivable sense establish Catholicism as the official religion of the United States, nor should discrimination (an implicit fact contained in the definition of any group because every group is distinct based on their philosophy) bar a charitable group from receiving tax-money to help perform good works in accordance with the limitations of their given sphere. For example, no homosexual charity group would be denied government benefits if they refused to assist a Catholic community. No opposing groups should be compelled to help one another by government threats to refuse benefits. In short, there is no obligation on the part of any institution to conform to any one government established philosophy, based on adherence to which the government might deny benefits that will contribute to the public good. In the name of disestablishment, you negatively establish a solidified belief-system and support it with tax-payer money.
Anyone who claims the First Amendment is meant to persecute the religious population of the United States fundamentally misunderstands freedom, fundamentally misunderstands what religion is, fundamentally misunderstands the intentions of the founders and the meaning of their law, and fundamentally confused a pluralistic open society with a unitary closed society. America is both. It has a core set of values that allow for as much freedom as possible without allowing one group or individual to cause direct harm to any other. But the rest is entirely pluralistic and open, and while Catholic Charities might indirectly "harm" people by not participating in what their conscience says is wrong, they have no state-imposed obligation to avoid indirect harm through inaction. As it is, the state is now unfairly distributing money to organizations that accept their improper negatively established "religion," while refusing to distribute money to organizations that do not conform with their negatively established "religion," or ideology. That is a true violation of the First Amendment.
Do you want a future where perfectly ordinary and traditional organizations that objectively do a lot of public good have to face an inquisition as to their beliefs as a prerequisite for receiving government aid, and if they are lacking in only one respect and do no positive harm, they are defunded and treated like criminals? It began with this, but next year, the Obama administration will force all Catholic Hospitals to shut down, or violate their conscience. Is the Democratic Party democratic? No. Does the Democratic Party really care about the countless poor and sick that Catholic organizations once served with government aid? This is obviously an ideological purge - exactly the sort of thing the First Amendment was explicitly designed to prevent.
Don't you care? Or would you rather scream and swear at Catholics because you don't like them?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (71) RSS