[kristloken]

If they are required to violate their principles to fill the duty abdicated by others, why are you against them ceasing operations that force them to violate religious oaths.

[k1ePRlda]

That would be the Illinois government that has forced Catholic Charities out of providing the services they had been unless you can show me a Vatican directive indicating a change in attitude that would have allowed the charitable organization to do the things demanded by the state.

[kvitacencia]

Do Catholics think it's a sin for a homosexual to raise a child?

[Cerilopasei]

Did we want Roman Catholics running our foster homes? Look how that worked for Ireland?

[Yartonbler]

If they are required to violate their principles to fill the duty abdicated by others, why are you against them ceasing operations that force them to violate religious oaths.

They can be bigoted all they want. Just not with public money.

[TCjwwhcY]

They can be bigoted all they want. Just not with public money.

They agreed with you. MrFun decided to whine about it.

[merloermfgj]

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

I think that's fair.

[ariniaxia]

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

So it seems.

[RotsLoado]

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??")

[citicroego]

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.

[Nautilus]

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.

[mralabama]

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)?

[gghrdfffhfyj]

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

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

[Bbjhjxfy]

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.

[nithhysfusy]

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.

[ITYfl01c]

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.

[Misespimb]

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.

[olivelappers]

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

What care is being denied by the shutdown?

[meridiasas]

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.

[Longwow]

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.