equality blooms with spring - Page 57 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-13-2009, 02:46 PM   #841
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I would have to say that the Catholic Church is definitely opposed to homosexuality, and the city requiring them to use their own funds (given by other professing Catholics) in a way that opposes their core beliefs is upsetting. I am not a Catholic, but I do agree that the city should not force anyone to go against core beliefs in order to do charity work.

In my opinion, the Catholic Church (or any other charity), should just stop partnering with the city.


what about divorce? the Catholic Church is against divorce, should it stop partnering with a city that grants married couples divorces?

or does that seem insane to you?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-13-2009, 02:51 PM   #842
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 11:01 PM
"SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"

ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

II

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (bold is mine)"


God gave 10 Commandments. Jesus had 1 Command greater than all the others. How the fuck did we get to Section 2 of Chapter 2 Article 6 - #2357? Looks like someone's been over thinking this whole thing...."YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF" is pretty straightforward, you know? There is no "unless" after it.
__________________

__________________
UberBeaver is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 02:52 PM   #843
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what about divorce? the Catholic Church is against divorce, should it stop partnering with a city that grants married couples divorces?

or does that seem insane to you?
Dude, come on. Section 9, Chapter 14, Article 92, #9834 through #9891 cover that. Doesn't anyone read anymore? Ugh.
__________________
UberBeaver is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 02:54 PM   #844
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what about divorce? the Catholic Church is against divorce, should it stop partnering with a city that grants married couples divorces?

or does that seem insane to you?
I may be mistaken, but I thought it was the city making the requirements of the Catholics, not the Catholics making requirements of the city:

Quote:
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:02 PM   #845
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I may be mistaken, but I though it was the city making the requirements of the Catholics, not the Catholics making requirements of the city:


you find that prohibiting an organization from discriminating against people -- not forcing them to do anything, as it states -- is too much to ask of an organization? for them to, you know, FOLLOW THE LAW?

and, no, it was the archdiocese of DC giving an ultimatum to the city, or we could also call it what it is: blackmail, to the tune of $8m.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:09 PM   #846
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you find that prohibiting an organization from discriminating against people -- not forcing them to do anything, as it states -- is too much to ask of an organization? for them to, you know, FOLLOW THE LAW?

and, no, it was the archdiocese of DC giving an ultimatum to the city, or we could also call it what it is: blackmail, to the tune of $8m.
I'm not sure I agree with you about which party is doing the "blackmailing"

Quote:
Originally Posted by from the article
...religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.
This seems to me the city is enforcing the Catholic charities to go against their beliefs in order to receive these funds (which is not for the Church, it seems, but for this charity work). It also seems it is the city that is placing "strings" on the charity matching funds.

This is why I made my point earlier, it is wise to keep the "Separation of Church and State" in order to prevent issues like this. The state usually hurts, and rarely helps a religious organization. The Catholic charities should just do the best they can without the city help.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:10 PM   #847
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:01 PM
They're threatening to stop helping those in need because DC is going to give rights to homosexuals. That's what's happening here.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:11 PM   #848
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
The Catholic charities should just do the best they can without the city help.
They're threatening to end their charity efforts because DC is saying gays have rights. I think you're missing who the bad guy here is.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:16 PM   #849
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I'm not sure I agree with you about which party is doing the "blackmailing"



This seems to me the city is enforcing the Catholic charities to go against their beliefs in order to receive these funds (which is not for the Church, it seems, but for this charity work). It also seems it is the city that is placing "strings" on the charity matching funds.

This is why I made my point earlier, it is wise to keep the "Separation of Church and State" in order to prevent issues like this. The state usually hurts, and rarely helps a religious organization. The Catholic charities should just do the best they can without the city help.


i think you're misunderstanding the situation.

washington DC gives the catholic church $8m for them to operate various charities. many of these are good and worthy charities like feeding DC's huge homeless population, etc. if you are receiving $8m in contracts from a government, guess what, you're already pretty secular.

DC is saying that if you want our money, you have follow the laws. they would require this of *any* organization, religious or not. we now have one organization saying that said law goes against their beliefs, that it is in their religious beliefs to discriminate against gay people, and so therefore they are going to give up their $8m in contracts and let homeless people go hungry this winter.

and the church can do this. but they can also say goodbye to taxpayer support. the church has to follow the laws if they wish to receive their $8m. they are not asked to write the laws, simply to obey them.

this is a very clear example where the church is infringing upon the state, not the other way around.

New England is heavily Catholic, especially Massachusetts. somehow, the church has reached a compromise up there.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:37 PM   #850
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think you're misunderstanding the situation.

washington DC gives the catholic church $8m for them to operate various charities.
Catholic Church mistake #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
many of these are good and worthy charities like feeding DC's huge homeless population, etc. if you are receiving $8m in contracts from a government, guess what, you're already pretty secular.
Agreed, see mistake #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
we now have one organization saying that said law goes against their beliefs, that it is in their religious beliefs to discriminate against gay people
This is where I'm confused, is this a new development? Did the Church once have gay support groups in their halls and suddenly quit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
, and so therefore they are going to give up their $8m in contracts and let homeless people go hungry this winter.
Can't the city use ACORN or some other "charity" organization? Is the city really going to allow all those poor souls to go hungry with $8 million in their pocket?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
...and the church can do this. but they can also say goodbye to taxpayer support.
...and they should.

Quote:
this is a very clear example where the church is infringing upon the state, not the other way around.
Still disagree. I'm just at a loss why the city is 1) giving money to the Catholic Charity anyway, and 2) knowing the Catholic (and most Christian churchs) position on homosexuality would still give them money and then require them to hold gay support meetings in their churches.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:39 PM   #851
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Still disagree. I'm just at a loss why the city is 1) giving money to the Catholic Charity anyway, and 2) knowing the Catholic (and most Christian churchs) position on homosexuality would still give them and require them to hold gay support meetings in their churches.
Re: 1, because generally the Catholic Church is very socially active in various areas of poverty issues, and has really good, efficient and cheap systems in place for the delivery of services. Their infrastructure is by and large superior to municipal infrastructure and governments have historically saved tons of money by funding religious organizations such as the Church rather than electing to deliver the services themselves.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:47 PM   #852
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Catholic Church mistake #1

so you're against faith-based initiatives, something that both W Bush and Obama have supported? you think that the great work that the Catholic Church has done in the past with taxpayer money should be swept aside now that the taxpayers of DC have elected a council that wishes to extend marriage rights to gay people?



Quote:
This is where I'm confused, is this a new development? Did the Church once have gay support groups in their halls and suddenly quit?

here's what the WaPo says:

Quote:
Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.



Quote:
Can't the city use ACORN or some other "charity" organization? Is the city really going to allow all those poor souls to go hungry with $8 million in their pocket?

the city will find other organizations. it is the Catholic Church that will be allowing people to go hungry.



Quote:
Still disagree. I'm just at a loss why the city is 1) giving money to the Catholic Charity anyway, and 2) knowing the Catholic (and most Christian churchs) position on homosexuality would still give them money and then require them to hold gay support meetings in their churches.

churches receive money from the government to do charity work.

here, read this article, it will help:

D.C. Council girds for fight on gay marriage bill - washingtonpost.com
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:48 PM   #853
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Re: 1, because generally the Catholic Church is very socially active in various areas of poverty issues, and has really good, efficient and cheap systems in place for the delivery of services. Their infrastructure is by and large superior to municipal infrastructure and governments have historically saved tons of money by funding religious organizations such as the Church rather than electing to deliver the services themselves.
So, rather than use the efficient, cost saving infrastructure of the Catholic charity - that seems to help a vast number of people - the city would rather 1) hold the funds, 2) give the funds to a secular, but inefficient organization, or 3) require the religious but efficient organization hold meetings that support behavior that is against their core beliefs before the funds are allocated..
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:51 PM   #854
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
So, rather than use the efficient, cost saving infrastructure of the Catholic charity - that seems to help a vast number of people - the city would rather 1) hold the funds, 2) give the funds to a secular, but inefficient organization, or 3) require the religious but efficient organization hold meetings that support behavior that is against their core beliefs before the funds are allocated..

you have it exactly backwards.

the DC government is saying that the Church must follow the laws. the Church is saying that they don't want to follow the laws, and damn the homeless people and immigrants if they are forced to follow the laws or lose their funding.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-13-2009, 03:54 PM   #855
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

the city will find other organizations. it is the Catholic Church that will be allowing people to go hungry.
If the city finds another organization to feed the people, then the people won't go hungry.

And faith-based initiatives won't work if the governments add strings to the money - as is the case here.

I think it is probably best for religious charity work to be done outside the scope of government. If a city wants to contribute money without any clauses - great. If they don't want to give money because one church charity is too old fashioned - great.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com