Religion in public politics

[Lamplighter]

Civil Rights vs Religious Freedom ? ... Of individuals vs organizations ?

The situations in this article present a timely debate of the
changing priorities and rights of individuals and organizations,
which I see as a direct consequence of the repeal of DADT.

NY Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 28, 2011

Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most
of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply
with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples
as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.<snip>

The Illinois experience indicates that the bishops face formidable opponents
who also claim to have justice and the Constitution on their side.
They include not only gay rights advocates, but also many religious believers
and churches that support gay equality (some Catholic legislators among them).
They frame the issue as a matter of civil rights, saying that Catholic Charities
was using taxpayer money to discriminate against same-sex couples.<snip>

Critics of the church argue that no group has a constitutional right
to a government contract, especially if it refuses to provide required services.

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary
of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed.
“It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right
to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right
not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

The controversy in Illinois began when the state legislature voted in November 2010
to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples, which the state’s Catholic bishops lobbied against.

[regular.joe]

There is an easy common sense fix for this kind of thing. The church, based on it's religious beliefs does not support same sex marriage. So what? They still should be able to carry on their work in areas that they always have. There are many other agencies who will work with same sex marriages for foster and adoptive issues. When we make this an all or nothing event we hurt more then just the church.

[piercehawkeye45]

The issue is that the Roman Catholic Church should not discriminate against homosexuals if they want to receive taxpayer money. I agree that churches should be able to preach whatever they want, marry whoever they please, and allow whoever to adopt from their charities, assuming their funding is completely independent from the state. Although, once churches start getting taxpayer money, they should abide by different rules.

[Lamplighter]

The same issues are apparent in housing:

freerepublic.com
March 25, 2011

USCCB Urges HUD Not to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

WASHINGTON (March 25, 2011)——The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
has urged the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) not to adopt
a proposed regulation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity
to the list of protected categories for which discrimination in HUD programs is prohibited.<snip>

“By this, we do not mean that any person should be denied housing.
Making decisions about shared housing, however, is another matter,” wrote Picarello and Moses.
“Particularly here, faith-based and other organizations should retain the freedom
they have always had to make housing placements in a manner consistent
with their religious beliefs, including when it concerns a cohabiting couple,
be it an unmarried heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple.<snip>

Given the very large role that faith-based organizations play in HUD programs,
the regulation, by infringing upon that freedom, may have the ultimate effect
of driving away organizations with a long and successful track record in meeting housing needs,
leaving beneficiaries without the housing that they sought or that the government intended them to receive.”

Granted, religious organizations have, indeed, played major roles in community support
and development. (e.g., hospitals, summer camps, homeless shelters, etc.)

But are such "traditional activities" of an organization sufficient or genuine arguments
for exemption when it comes to housing, employment, or health care, or other venues of civil rights ?

I have a very hard time trying to justify such arguments.
Instead, I would propose that if an organization elected to move away from such services,
and therefore forgo the government funding, that other organizations
would step in to cover the gaps in needed services.
.

[glatt]

You get what you pay for. If the government wants to save money by using a religious service provider, then they need to take the bad with the good. If they can't put up with the beliefs of the religion, then they need to be prepared to pay more to bring in a provider that doesn't run on a lot of volunteer labor.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

There is an easy common sense fix for this kind of thing. The church, based on it's religious beliefs does not support same sex marriage. So what? They still should be able to carry on their work in areas that they always have. There are many other agencies who will work with same sex marriages for foster and adoptive issues. When we make this an all or nothing event we hurt more then just the church.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The issue is that the Roman Catholic Church should not discriminate against homosexuals if they want to receive taxpayer money. I agree that churches should be able to preach whatever they want, marry whoever they please, and allow whoever to adopt from their charities, assuming their funding is completely independent from the state. Although, once churches start getting taxpayer money, they should abide by different rules.

Dear .joe

I agree with pierce here. I don't object to the church doing the church's thing, but when they're acting as an agent of the state by taking money from the state in exchange for services rendered, it is incumbent upon them to abide by the state's rules. A starker (perhaps so stark it seems absurd) example is: What if the Catholic Church decided not to consider Protestant or Jewish or Muslim couples as candidates as adoptive parents *because of a religious objection*? That is plain to imagine. I mean, come on, the Catholic Church must certainly disagree with the religious conclusions followers of those other faiths have come to, and yet, there's no mention that differences such as these are obstacles for the Catholic Church.

And this argument:

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary
of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed.
“It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right
to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right
not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

is also bogus. You're a soldier. What if I joined your outfit but refused some of your orders claiming a religious exemption? "I'll do all that other stuff, but I won't kill anyone." How is that acceptable? I'm guessing here, but I imagine the answer is "Then the Army has no further need of your services." And the Army and I would part company. I'd get to keep my non-killer status and the Army would get to keep its money.

I want to add that you are completely correct when you say that there is considerable collateral damage when this becomes an all or nothing conflict. We don't agree on where that hurt occurs or the extent of the damage. "Hurt the church"? How? Economically? Who's "hurting" the church? I think you're implying that the children who would not be served by the now-closed Church adoption office would be hurt, and that's so, but they're likely to be served by some other office that abides by the state's rules. For that matter, let the Church keep their office open, but refuse the state contract along with refusing the state rules. Now, that's fair, is it not?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

You get what you pay for. If the government wants to save money by using a religious service provider, then they need to take the bad with the good. If they can't put up with the beliefs of the religion, then they need to be prepared to pay more to bring in a provider that doesn't run on a lot of volunteer labor.

What?!

Howzzat?

Leaving out the religious service provider aspect for a moment (we'll return to it), you're saying that the government ought to just accept discrimination like this? What if some non religious outfit was doing the same work for the same pay but put a big ass sign on the door "HOUSING PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE HERE --NO FUCKING FAGGOTS OR SINNERS NEED APPLY"? And then in the fine print they said, we're just not gonna work with you, we don't want to. This is ... this is taking the bad with the good? How in the world could this be imaginable, I mean how can you imagine this is acceptable? I can not.

Now, for the religious among us. What if the same sign were posted on the door of the church affiliated office for housing placement assistance? That's "OK" because of a religious objection? It is not.

[Sundae]

The same happened over here re Catholic funded children's homes and child services.
Because they refused to comply with the law of the land they lost their charity status. Without that they were unable to operate.

My parents, who had a little green charity box for Catholic Children's Homes in the kitchen for as long as I remember - saw it as a direct attack on faith. Teh Gubment trying to tell people what to believe in. I think it actually strengthened their beliefs.

I saw it as the Church cutting off its nose to spite its face.
How many gay couples would apply to a Catholic children's home?
How many more adoptions and foster homes (to loving, normal, STRAIGHT couples) have they now denied children?

WWJD?
Smack up the whole lot of them.
"Suffer the children" wasn't meant as an instruction.

[BigV]

It comes down to this for me.

"My God says you are wrong. And I am going to use the power of the state to punish you for your wrongness."

THIS is why we separate church and state. I will never, ever be a citizen where religious beliefs carry the force of law.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

What?!

Howzzat?

Did you see the second sentence I wrote?

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if you're going to use a service, then you are using that service. If you don't like that service, then you should not use it. Don't expect that service to change for you, especially if the area of disagreement is important to them.

(not "you" but the government.)

The government is using religious services because they are cheap.

[BigV]

Yes, glatt, I did see the second sentence you wrote. I quoted and bolded it too. As a clarification, the "you" whose using the service, I read this "you" as my government. I think we are in agreement here.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is if I'm paying for a service I expect that service to be delivered. In this case, cheapness or religious objections are not an acceptable excuse for the non delivery of the service.

This could be applied to every organization that takes MY/YOUR/OUR Government money. Why is it ok to claim a religious objection to ... do some doggone thing, but still cash the check?

DMV clerk: We don't serve your kind here.

School teacher: Johnny, stand in the corner because your parents aren't married.

Fireman: Let'em burn, it's a foregone conclusion. Why postpone the inevitable?

We would never accept this kind of discrimination by our public servants. It is against the law. Why would we permit this kind of behavior by an office that provides housing placement assistance? Because that office/school/firehouse believes that sexual orientation is a valid criteria for deciding whether or not to provide a public service?

Please, please explain.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

Yes, glatt, I did see the second sentence you wrote. I quoted and bolded it too.

Sorry. I meant my second point, which is the next sentence after the one you quoted. The third sentence. But it doesn't matter. I know you saw it.

Originally Posted by BigV

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is if I'm paying for a service I expect that service to be delivered. In this case, cheapness or religious objections are not an acceptable excuse for the non delivery of the service.

I think we are in agreement. The next step, if the service isn't being supplied, is to take your business elsewhere.

The religion is the religion. It's not going to adapt to the modern times. It's a constant. It's not going to change.

The government is saving a buck by outsourcing some services to a cheap service provider. The provider is not providing the services the government wants the way it wants them. The service provider isn't going to change. The government has 2 choices. Continue with the provider anyway, or stop using the provider. If they stop using the provider, the costs will go up.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by glatt

The religion is the religion. It's not going to adapt to the modern times. It's a constant. It's not going to change.

I dunno. The Church of England has proved pretty adaptable.
Women vicars, gay clergy etc.