equality blooms with spring - Page 44 - 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, 03:46 PM   #861
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 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, 03:52 PM   #862
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 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, 03:57 PM   #863
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:47 AM
BVS is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:14 PM   #864
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post



i think you mean quotes from the church.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:35 PM   #865
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 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, 04:52 PM   #866
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 05:47 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, 05:40 PM   #867
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:47 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, 05:55 PM   #868
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 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, 06:46 PM   #869
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:47 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, 06:47 PM   #870
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:47 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  
Old 11-13-2009, 11:37 PM   #871
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
But honorable men can be wrong, fearful, and intolerant.
I certainly agree.

I wonder what President Obama's grandchildren will think of him when they hear him say, "I believe a marriage is union between a man and a woman"



Will he be remembered as an old fashioned bigot? A backwards thinking conservative who is "fearful and intolerant"?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 11:40 PM   #872
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post

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.
I certainly agree.

I wonder what President Obama's grandchildren will think of him when they hear him say, "I believe a marriage is union between a man and a woman"



Will Barak Obama be remembered as an old fashioned bigot? A backwards thinking conservative who is "fearful and intolerant"? As someone that denied people their Constitutional protection and was on "the wrong side of both history and honor"?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 02:01 AM   #873
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
Can you please point out where I can find this in the Constitution?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 08:58 AM   #874
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Can you please point out where I can find this in the Constitution?
It's just the unalienable rights of man listed by the Declaration of Independence, to which I hear conservatives on talk shows bring up every chance they get... why don't they believe them?
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:03 AM   #875
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Will Barak Obama be remembered as an old fashioned bigot? A backwards thinking conservative who is "fearful and intolerant"? As someone that denied people their Constitutional protection and was on "the wrong side of both history and honor"?
I think Obama will be remembered as a president who politically had to play the fence, but only time will tell what he does for gay rights.

The difference is, he's not fighting for it, he's not vocally standing on some platform in order to save a dictionary term that has been changed throughout history.
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:05 AM   #876
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 AM
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?
Apparantly, I'm not the only one. The ACLU also thinks that this new law certification law goes too far. This is from Nov. 12.

Quote:
Originally Posted by washington post interview
Denton, Md.: Hasn't the ACLU also voiced its opinion to the D.C. Council on this? They also asked for broader protections for religious groups, right? The Council should listen when the Church and the ACLU are agreeing on an issue.

Patrick J. Deneen: The ACLU testified at the testimony that the proposed legislation represented a narrowing of religious liberty. They proposed a broader religious exemption than the originally proposed bill. The original bill proposed no religious exemptions for any religious organizations that serves the general public(whether they use public funding or not). The ACLU argued for broader exemptions than are in the current legislation - for instance, the ACLU argued for the protection of private individuals who would refuse - on the basis of faith commitments - to provide goods or services for the solemnization of marriage. The current proposed legislation does not provide for any such exemption of private individuals. Here the argument was made not (only) by religious institutions, but the ACLU.
It certainly seems the Washington Post article orginally posted was perhaps a little bit biased.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:20 AM   #877
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
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.



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.



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.



hey, if childish ideological purity is more important than providing services to the needy and respecting and following the laws of the city of Washington DC, then the Catholic Church should get itself out of the charity business. i think this will be important to explain to the people who are going to freeze to death this winter.

if that's what's important here, if the right to discriminate against gays is more important than helping people in need, then the church should abandon it's decades of exemplary work with the poor. this appears to be your position, AEON. somehow, Catholic charities have survived in New England, but apparently DC is different. here, i am to understand, and you agree, the adherence to doctrine -- as disputed as you and i and Melon know that doctrine is -- is more important than helping people.

clearly, the Catholic Church has always remained pure and strictly adhered to its doctrine in the past. evidently there's new doctrine: "thou shalt deny legally required benefit payments to those whose status you deem to be sinful".

the Catholic Church may adhere to its own doctrines in terms of what marriages it sanctifies. however, it has no place seeking to use the secular law to force its doctrines on others. why does the church work with a city that remarries people after they've been divorced and their previous spouses are still living?

i find this a sad situation because i know how good the Catholic Church is at these things. however, you seem to be applauding whatever it is they need to do to remain pure. allowing individual exemptions opens the door to discriminate on the basis of *any* religious principle. what if the Catholic Church was opposed to interracial marriage (as many churches were in teh 1960s)? where does it end? there is no absolute right to religious freedom or the expression of religious belief. you may not sacrifice your firstborn child simply because your religion may allow it, and likewise, you may not refuse to give your child treatment for disease because your religion teaches that you can just pray it away.

you can follow your religious beliefs insofar as they follow the laws of the country in which you live. and if you believe the laws should be changed, well, that's what we have "activist judges" for.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:21 AM   #878
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
It certainly seems the Washington Post article orginally posted was perhaps a little bit biased.


i think Deenan is more biased.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:26 AM   #879
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
It certainly seems the Washington Post article orginally posted was perhaps a little bit biased.


i think Deenan is more biased.

as it stands right now, he bill would exempt churches from performing marriage ceremonies and renting out space to gays and lesbians should it conflict with their religious beliefs; however, it would still require all institutions to abide by laws regarding benefits. further, the Church would have to allow for adoptions to be granted through their services -- and in the past, the Catholic Church has allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, just not married gays and lesbians -- and to rent halls to gays and lesbians for reasons other than marriage.

again, who's being unreasonable?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:26 AM   #880
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think Obama will be remembered as a president who politically had to play the fence....
BVS, you and others in here have claimed that gay marriage is a basic human right. In this interview, Barak not only disagrees that gay marriage is a human right, he goes so far as to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that it is a holy, ordained act before God ("God is involved")

He then proposes "civil unions" similar to the ones proposed by more conservative minds.

As passionate as you and some people here seem about the issue, it is hard to believe you are letting Barak off the hook by claiming him "as a president who politically had to play the fence" - which president does not have this burden? The words Barak Obama used in this interview months before the election to define marriage are the same words used by myself and others in here over the years. What will his grandchildren think of him when they hear this?
__________________

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 04:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×