equality blooms with spring - Page 58 - 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, 03:58 PM   #856
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you have it exactly backwards.

the DC government is saying that the Church must follow the laws.
Just so we are on the same page - what laws are the Catholic Church breaking?
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:06 PM   #857
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
And faith-based initiatives won't work if the governments add strings to the money - as is the case here.

strings like following the laws?

again, AEON, what if divorce were the issue?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:07 PM   #858
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Just so we are on the same page - what laws are the Catholic Church breaking?


please read the article, AEON. then we can have some common ground to discuss.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:30 PM   #859
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
please read the article, AEON. then we can have some common ground to discuss.
I have, and I still disagree with you, and so does the Catholic Church (this means that your opinion on which party is giving the ultimatum is not the "slam dunk" you are portraying)

From the article...

Quote:
Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, countered that the city is "the one giving the ultimatum."
Also from the article...

Quote:
placing adoptive children with gay couples would violate Church tenets.
Do you really think it is fair to force Catholics to place children with gay couples in order to perform charitable work with those funds?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:35 PM   #860
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I have, and I still disagree with you, and so does the Catholic Church (this means that your opinion on which party is giving the ultimatum is not the "slam dunk" you are portraying)

what's more evil: possibly providing benefits to same-sex partners, or denying services to homeless people?

and Catholic charities often have to dispense birth control, and they cannot *not* employ someone because they happen to be divorce. the Catholic stances on birth control and divorce are as clearly articulated as their stance on gay people.

it seems to me that the church is trying to influence legislation as DC looks fairly set to pass marriage equality in the coming months. they're trying to throw their weight around and set the stage for a freedom of religion vs. gay equality argument.



Quote:
Do you really think it is fair to force Catholics to place children with gay couples in order to perform charitable work with those funds?

if they wish to receive taxpayer money, yes.

and you misunderstand. there isn't a quota of gay couples that the church will have to allow to adopt children. it's that the church cannot refuse to place a child with a couple if they happen to be gay.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:46 PM   #861
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:21 AM
More quotes from the subject:

Quote:
"We're not threatening to withdraw services," said Susan Gibbs, archdiocese spokeswoman. "We're not going to be allowed to provide services. We need to be certified, and to get certified you need to say you followed D.C. law." ...

...

It "appears to leave religious institutions susceptible" to lawsuits and the loss of government funding for a church's refusal to provide benefits for the spouse of a gay employee, to facilitate an adoption or foster care by a same-sex couple, and to make church halls available to gay couples for non-wedding-related events, Archdiocese Chancellor Jane Belford wrote to Councilman Phil Mendelson, judiciary committee chairman.
The Catholic Church versus the D.C. Council | Washington Examiner
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:52 PM   #862
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

and Catholic charities often have to dispense birth control, and they cannot *not* employ someone because they happen to be divorce. the Catholic stances on birth control and divorce are as clearly articulated as their stance on gay people.
If this is true, then yes, it is a double standard

Quote:
if they wish to receive taxpayer money, yes.
Ouch. Yet another reason people should just give directly to charity instead of giving to a city to give to charity.

Quote:
and you misunderstand. there isn't a quota of gay couples that the church will have to allow to adopt children. it's that the church cannot refuse to place a child with a couple if they happen to be gay.
Glad to know there wouldn't be a quota
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:57 PM   #863
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 02:21 AM
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 05:14 PM   #864
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post



i think you mean quotes from the church.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 05:35 PM   #865
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think you mean quotes from the church.
Yes, I thought it was fair to post their comments as well. I also thought it was obvious they were from the church by the titles of the ones quoted.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 05:52 PM   #866
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Yes, I thought it was fair to post their comments as well. I also thought it was obvious they were from the church by the titles of the ones quoted.


yes, and as you've stated, in regards to the church's position on birth control and divorce, it does seem like the church is making an exception here in order to continue discriminating against gay people.

does this not belie any claims to theological consistency or religious freedom on the part of the church and expose their more political agenda?

and doesn't this also have larger implications? that the concern isn't about religious freedom, it's about continuing to scapegoat a minority?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 06:40 PM   #867
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 02:21 AM
There is no consistency with the church in general on this subject. Like those examples of birth control and divorce with the Catholic church, you'll find similar contradictions in the Mormon and protestant churches as well.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 06:55 PM   #868
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
yes, and as you've stated, in regards to the church's position on birth control and divorce, it does seem like the church is making an exception here in order to continue discriminating against gay people.
I don't think the Catholic Church considers their stance discriminatory. It seems they feel compelled by the city to promote and endorse homosexuality because of this new law that requires them to earn this "certificate" stating they will, among other things, give children to gay couples and allow gay couples to rent out the Church property for non-wedding events.

I can't find an example of the Catholic Church passing out condoms - please elaborate.

And as far as I can tell, the Church does not currently need to achieve a certificate that demands that they MUST give children to divorced couples and MUST allow divorced couples to rent out the Church property. The Church should be allowed to determine what they consider to be a safe, morally sound place for these children - and should be allowed to determine which group rents out their property.

Quote:
does this not belie any claims to theological consistency or religious freedom on the part of the church and expose their more political agenda?
I simply believe in this case, the Church does not want the city to determine what homes they place children and what groups can rent their property. Additionally, in their view, giving "spousal" benefits to a homosexual couple is the same as giving benefits to a shacked up couple. The Church only recognize a spouse as a product of a marriage, and marriage can only happen between one man and one woman.

Quote:
and doesn't this also have larger implications? that the concern isn't about religious freedom, it's about continuing to scapegoat a minority?
Scapegoat for what?

However, after all this being said - it is still a great example of why churches shouldn't accept taxpayer money. If there was no taxpayer money involved, this wouldn't be an issue.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:46 PM   #869
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I have a wonderful great-grandfather that risked his life to save black people from being hanged on lamposts in East Louis by hiding them in his truck, yet dropped the N-bomb like nobody's business and a grandfather that fought to keep Jews from being gassed yet didn't believe in mixed marriages.

While some of their views may seem old fashioned by today's standards, that doesn't mean they weren't honorable men, cherishing husbands, and loving parents. Abraham Lincoln, as much as we love him, loved to tell "darkie" jokes. Does that totally negate his place in history? Do we speak ill of him?

Many of us realize that our views today may be considered archaic tomorrow. But we also realize that this is not a reason to either accept or reject an idea - as history is more cyclical than linear (with the exception of technology). As immoral as our society may be appear - there have been worse periods in history - there is always a correction when things get too bad. As corrupt as our government seems today - there have been worse and there is always a correction when things get too bad.

Many of us think we are "holding the line" - waiting for the correction or preventing the need for one. I hope that my grandkids see me as a loving, honorable man that followed his conscience, no matter which way the prevailing wind was blowing. And who knows, maybe your grandchildren will think you were crazy to try and redefine the obvious...
This is very articulate and interesting, and even true post. But this is the telling point:
Quote:
I hope that my grandkids see me as a loving, honorable man that followed his conscience, no matter which way the prevailing wind was blowing.
I have no doubt that you are an honorable man. No doubt whatsoever.

But honorable men can be wrong, fearful, and intolerant. And "holding the line" when it comes to denying people Constitutional protection when they've committed no crime is on the wrong side of both history and honor.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:47 PM   #870
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
it is still a great example of why churches shouldn't accept taxpayer money.
We agree. If you're going to accept the taxes paid by gays and lesbians, then you can't deny them access or rights.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 03:21 AM.


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