quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... In short, it should not be surprising that we have people who reconcile mixing religion with their politics. That does not mean Christianity is a political religion. ...
You do realise the disconnect here. Under your definition it appears as though theoretically 100% of self-proclaimed Christians could mix religion with their politics and still, Christianity would not be a political religion. This is because for you there is a real Christian god and a real Christianity separate from what people practice here.
For those of us on the outside, this is the flipside of the discussion in the Torah thread between kmbboots and KoM. Some of us don't believe that there is a real Christian god or a real Christianity separate from how people behave, and in some cases we simply take the word of people when they claim to be Christian.
So in a way, the two of you are talking about different things.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: Why would we ever leave all social services up to religion?
Mucus: Politics is a human construct, perhaps it's germane to human nature. Religion can't pretend it does not exist, but the purpose of religion is not to perfect politics.
I recognize that while Kate and I both self identify as Christians, there are some very pronounced differences in our views of the universe. That is why I made the comment about heterozygous mixtures where all the ingredients claim to be 100% Christian.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but you're missing the point Mucus is making: Because your religion is false, there is no "True Christianity" of which the actual practices of Christians - self-proclaimed or otherwise - are only an imperfect reflection. There is only the practice, which is in very many cases highly political, indeed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: My religion is true, so the rest of your statement does not follow.
You can still critically analyze the scriptures that Christians subscribe to. When you find the passages calling them to take action politically you can call Christianity a political religion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And whatever I find, you will say that I'm interpreting it wrongly, or that it has been mistranslated. That's the advantage of making it up as you go along, it supports whatever argument you happen to be making. Christians are politically active and deliberately avow that they are doing so as part of their Christianity; consequently Christianity as actually practiced is a political religion. Incidentally, how many atheists do you think have got elected to office in the US?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: Don't get mad at me because you only have the Bible to go off of. You could read the Mormon canon, complete with the Joseph Smith translation manuscript and then our discussions on the scripture would not have that repeating motif.
It's not an accident to me that many of the most troublesome passages tend to be mistranslations. Even if we rule out foul play, scriptures are supposed to represent the mind of God. When the text is altered and then given the weight of God's will it can have disastrous results. This leads people to look at the source commandment that caused the disaster and question the integrity of the whole document.
I consider myself to be quite forthright when you and I discuss scriptural translation, even when my ideas do not mirror those of other scriptures. I can recall even giving you credit when you have brought up passages I had not considered, (John The Revelator is still alive thread). I don't fall back on vague evasive maneuvers "You just don't have faith." If you feel like I am being disingenuous in our conversations just say so.
It shouldn't be that hard KOM. If Christianity at it's ideological core is a political religion, it should be easy to construct an argument comprised of a handful of scriptures that are beyond dispute in their political sensibilities.
Saying that Christians are politically motivated so therefore Christianity is political is not a logical statement and you know it.
edit: As for atheists in office in the US. How long it take for us to have a black man as president? We haven't had a lot of Asians in the upper tiers of public office either. Atheists are largely considered to be untrustworthy, it's a prejudiced belief just as people once thought blacks were inherently less intelligent than whites and therefore needed whites to rule over them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also worth noting that Christian Anarchists like me (and a number of others, including some guy named Tolstoy) not only believe that Christianity is not inherently political but that politics and governments are inherently anti-christian.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It shouldn't be that hard KOM. If Christianity at it's ideological core is a political religion, it should be easy to construct an argument comprised of a handful of scriptures that are beyond dispute in their political sensibilities.
"Jesus is Lord." You can't get any more political than that.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It shouldn't be that hard KOM. If Christianity at it's ideological core is a political religion, it should be easy to construct an argument comprised of a handful of scriptures that are beyond dispute in their political sensibilities.
"Jesus is Lord." You can't get any more political than that.
I said a handful. Besides, saying Jesus is Lord is simply recognizing a fact, it's not a specific call to any political action. Benedict is Pope, so?
edit: I am talking about scriptures that specifically instruct people to political action. Jesus' respect for earthly governments is pretty well documented, "Render unto Caesar", Paul discusses loyalty to one's government, Jesus abjured Peter to pay his taxes, that's just off the top of my head. Those scriptures would be a good start for arguing Christian belief in supporting government. /edit
Finally, and I'm just teasing, "Jesus is Lord," is not, strictly speaking, in any scriptures I've seen.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Is there a shortage in Boston of people wanting to adopt healthy babies?
Not babies but any child older than an infant is much harder to find a home for.
I was adopted when I was 16 months old, and I had spent 10 months in foster care before that. I was lucky to finally get adopted, particularly since I am the Devil.
But seriously, the fact that a healthy white child was in foster care that long (versus the fact that most healthy white newborns or healthy white kids less than a couple of months old are almost immediately adopted) shows how badly people want really, really young babies only. I personally don't quite get it. I wasn't really a fan of taking care of Skyler when I had to worry that I'd wrench her neck by not supporting her head. It made me nervous. Those first 3-4 months are a mess of worry, sleeplessness, and zombie-tiredness. I don't wish that on unsuspecting folks, particularly those who actually have to work for a living and/or do anything except care for the newborn.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: My religion is true, so the rest of your statement does not follow.
The thing is, you can of course agree that we don't believe that its true. So when we say something like "Christianity" we mean something fairly different from the "true Christianity" that you're talking about.
Of course, you don't have to accept this. But you may as well be aware of the disconnect because your prior response to Alcon was much like watching a boxer swing wildly in the air without hitting anything.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It shouldn't be that hard KOM. If Christianity at it's ideological core is a political religion, it should be easy to construct an argument comprised of a handful of scriptures that are beyond dispute in their political sensibilities.
"Jesus is Lord." You can't get any more political than that.
"My kingdom is not of the world". Hard to get any less political than that.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How dare they not devote time and resources to causes they don't believe in! What IS this world coming to? Don't they know that religions aren't ALLOWED to have their own beliefs? Don't they know that if the state wills it, they should abandon their belief systems and work towards a goal they don't support? How DARE they choose where to devote their own resources? How dare they refuse payment for a job they don't want to do?
Eh. I agree in part. The only thing that I think the church should have done differently is simply withdraw from the agreement the moment it was against the church's principles. Using their position as a service provider to influence a political process is against the spirit of our form of government. However, this is the fault of the city, which should not have allowed the church to have such a contract that it could in turn hope to dictate policy to the city. The city is ultimately to blame for letting that happen, but both parties should have known better, and both should have avoided this situation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's the exact impression KoM always projects.
*blink* That he, like BlackBlade, has difficulty properly engaging Alcon?
---------
FWIW, Orincoro, I absolutely agree: the state should never partner with religious organizations to provide valuable services to its citizens. It's a tiger trap.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's the exact impression KoM always projects.
Good point. As I said, it depends on your perspective.
Consider an individual that is such a big fan of LOTR that they start to believe that they are actually from that world.
From the outside perspective, a person might be inclined to say that every time they saw a elf it seems to be a Hollywood actor or a fan playing dress-up and then generalize, all elves in practice are human.
From the individual's perspective, this is of course nonsense. The elves are obviously, elves. It never says in the LOTR books that elves are human.
Both sides are actually seeing the other fall short even if only one ends up being correct in real life.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: I often find myself misunderstanding the points people make in these forums. I also appreciate it when people help me see what I'm missing. I'd prefer that Christianity be a term used to describe the true doctrine of Christ, much like the term Hydrogen is used to describe a pure element. Now I understand it's virtually impossible for men to begin to conclude what is and is not Christian, thousands of years of debate on the issue has not brought us close to the end. But I do believe that ultimately there is what Jesus wants and there is what he doesn't want that is Christianity.
If we want to talk about the political actions of Christians who want their religion to be an identifying characteristic of some domain, we can use a word that was in common use a few hundred years ago, "Christendom."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, you and I would disagree on what that is. A lot.
"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Depending on how one defines politics, that is pretty political.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. Would it be right or wrong of the Catholic Church to cut off services it provides to a nation, if that nation's government was committing something the Church considers to be an a moral atrocity - like genocide, war crimes, nuclear proliferation etc.?
2. Would Christ really advocate refusing help to people in need if those people held the wrong opinion on what defines a marriage?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Looking briefly at the wiki intro for Christendom, I can say that in the vast majority of cases when I use the word "Christians" I really mean what would seem to be my interpretation (and hopefully yours) of "Christendom."
I can't speak for the others of course, but feel free to apply a mental "s/Christians/Christendom" on my posts since I can't think of many situations in which I would touch on what you consider to be "True Christianity."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Two questions come to mind:
1. Would it be right or wrong of the Catholic Church to cut off services it provides to a nation, if that nation's government was committing something the Church considers to be an a moral atrocity - like genocide, war crimes, nuclear proliferation etc.?
2. Would Christ really advocate refusing help to people in need if those people held the wrong opinion on what defines a marriage?
1. The Church should provide services to people, not to nations or cities.
2. No. There is nothing in the gospels about only helping people you consider right or good or who do things your way. Quite the opposite in fact.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BlackBlade, you and I would disagree on what that is. A lot.
Well if we both want God's will to be done on earth just as it is done in heaven, one or both of us has alot of repenting to do.
quote:"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Depending on how one defines politics, that is pretty political.
Remember the preceding statement, "Thy kingdom come," To me that is a request that God bring his kingdom to earth one day, and that his will concerning us be revealed to us as it is to the citizens of heaven so that we might perform it.
Does that open the way for God to command us politically? It sure does. How often have you been commanded to vote a certain way, or when has God told you which system of government he prefers? Are the scriptures peppered with political guidelines for which policies God prefers? Do you think God has an opinion on tariffs? Embargoes? Unions? Bailouts? States Rights? Federalism? The labor party in England?
I think I'd probably have to brace my stomach if I were ever to pray to God and ask him if he prefers the Democratic Party or the GOP.
When Utah had a ballot measure defining marriage as being between a man and a woman I prayed quite a bit to know if there was something to the issue I was not understanding. God seemed quite alright with letting me decide how to vote (I ended up voting no on that ballot). Since then I feel it's wrong to simply ask God if you should vote yes or no. Instead you study up the matter as much as you can and then ask God if there is a resource somewhere that could educate you further on the issue.
I've already said on the previous page, when Jesus shows up again it's a whole different ball game. But until that time I do not see scriptures indicating a need to do anything political in order to prep the earth for his coming.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BlackBlade, you and I would disagree on what that is. A lot.
Well if we both want God's will to be done on earth just as it is done in heaven, one or both of us has alot of repenting to do.
quote:"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Depending on how one defines politics, that is pretty political.
Remember the preceding statement, "Thy kingdom come," To me that is a request that God bring his kingdom to earth one day, and that his will concerning us be revealed to us as it is to the citizens of heaven so that we might perform it.
To me, that is an indication of my willingness to work to bring about the kingdom of God. (Again, we likely have different ideas of what that looks like.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't everything involving human interaction, to some extent at least, political? The tiniest gesture, maybe lending a cup of sugar to a neighbor with a needful batch of cake batter, might be considered political because, after all, helping out neighbors is good politics.
Or on the other end of the spectrum, refusing to engage in trivial pleasantries such as hello and what's up could also be considered political.
So every single religion on Earth, including of course all stripes of Christianity, can be considered political. But 'political' is a subjective word, and when someone says, "Christianity is a political religion," the way it reads to many people - certainly to me, at least - is, "Christianity is primarily a political religion." But I don't believe that's true anymore than I believe agnosticism or atheism, in all of their varied stripes, are political either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Judaism, Islam, and Confuscianism are political religions, in that they actually attempt to codify a secular law. Christianity, while it exhorts its followers to remain mindful of its principles in writing law, does not attempt to enshrine secular law in scripture and is thus less "political" in nature.
quote:I myself have questions about homosexuality, but I've also read the scriptures, and heard prophets speaking and God has convinced me that they are true. If the scriptures are incomplete in their depiction of the issue, or if there is a new mandate from God, God himself has channels for making sure his followers know it, until then we are bound by what he has already commanded.
Do any Christian leaders claim revelation on the topic of gay adoptions or is a position against such adoptions merely derived from existing beliefs about ideal families?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Christianity as I see it is political in that it is concerned with the general welfare of people and politics impacts how and how well people are able to live.
I don't think that Christianity is (or should be anyway) political in terms of caring whether or not a country is "Christian" or not, or national boundaries or, what flag flies over what piece of dirt or, God help us, who lives in the "holy land".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that Christianity as I see it is political in that it is concerned with the general welfare of people and politics impacts how and how well people are able to live.
By that logic, pretty much everything is political.
In contrast, the three religions I mentioned all have scriptures that say "the following things should be punished in the following ways..."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, Christianity has had such ideas. We burned "witches" and still have "blue" laws for example. Abolition was a largely religious movement at first and religion provided much of the energy behind the civil rights movement as well as workers' rights. All of this was trying to have secular law reflect what people considered religious (though not necessarily exclusively religious) principles.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd prefer that Christianity be a term used to describe the true doctrine of Christ, much like the term Hydrogen is used to describe a pure element. Now I understand it's virtually impossible for men to begin to conclude what is and is not Christian, thousands of years of debate on the issue has not brought us close to the end. But I do believe that ultimately there is what Jesus wants and there is what he doesn't want that is Christianity.
But we have no way of knowing what that is. The disagreement is so profound, so violent, that millions of people have died and killed others for believing different things.
Hence, the virtue of an empirical definition. Rather that try to figure out what Christiantiy should be, and wiping out or cutting off the half a billion people that don't meet your definition while they try to cut out or wipe you out, you take all the people that call themselves Christian, and Christianity is defined by that. You can find a few things that > 95% of self-described Christians believe, and that's a pretty good definition. The empirical data won't support a 100% perfect one, so you do the best you can.
So, rather than defining Christianity as what BlackBlade thinks it should be, we define it by what it actaully is in the real world as we observe it, as carried out by people who are labeled Christians. And that's going to include a lot of contradictions and conflicts, and people believing quite different things, but if that's what the data shows, we have to accept it. The alternative is endlessly arguing over who really knows what Jesus wants, when the truth is, no one knows, not even you, and no one will find out any time soon.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... In contrast, the three religions I mentioned all have scriptures that say "the following things should be punished in the following ways..."
With the caveat that Confucianism is usually not treated as a religion and thus the writings of Confucius, not scripture.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd prefer that Christianity be a term used to describe the true doctrine of Christ, much like the term Hydrogen is used to describe a pure element. Now I understand it's virtually impossible for men to begin to conclude what is and is not Christian, thousands of years of debate on the issue has not brought us close to the end. But I do believe that ultimately there is what Jesus wants and there is what he doesn't want that is Christianity.
But we have no way of knowing what that is. The disagreement is so profound, so violent, that millions of people have died and killed others for believing different things.
Hence, the virtue of an empirical definition. Rather that try to figure out what Christiantiy should be, and wiping out or cutting off the half a billion people that don't meet your definition while they try to cut out or wipe you out, you take all the people that call themselves Christian, and Christianity is defined by that. You can find a few things that > 95% of self-described Christians believe, and that's a pretty good definition. The empirical data won't support a 100% perfect one, so you do the best you can.
So, rather than defining Christianity as what BlackBlade thinks it should be, we define it by what it actaully is in the real world as we observe it, as carried out by people who are labeled Christians. And that's going to include a lot of contradictions and conflicts, and people believing quite different things, but if that's what the data shows, we have to accept it. The alternative is endlessly arguing over who really knows what Jesus wants, when the truth is, no one knows, not even you, and no one will find out any time soon.
This leaves you with little to talk about except for those "few things". If one wants to have useful discussions about behaviour of Christians, it is possible to modify "Christian" to some extent - conservative Christian, mainstream Christian, pentecostal Christian, and so forth - that may be helpful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are dealing with a lot of loosely defined concepts and large areas of disagreement. What is Christianity? What is religion? What is Political?
But let me throw my bit in.
There are those who use religion to promote their political goals. They use Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism or any religion to gain a following to put them in power to run the state.
I think we can all agree to abhor these religious prostitutes. A few might defend them as people who promote religion, even if for the wrong reason, but any close look will show they harm that faith more than help it.
Others use politics as a way of promoting their own religious agenda. They outlaw working on Sundays or Saturdays to allow easier access to prayer on the appropriate days. They defend the charitable tax free status in order to defend the hard earned revenues of their church. They find areas where their faith and some segments of society come into conflict, and they gain political power in order to insure that their faith is defended in those conflicts.
So if Church A says homosexuality is bad, they strive to gain political power to defend that ideal from those who say homosexuality is not bad.
So yes, Christianity is political, not as a goal of gaining ultimate power, but as a tool to aid in its growth and purpose.
The problem is when those goals and purposes are hijacked by those who prostitute their religion as a means to gain political power.
And here is my simple test.
If they are willing to break their own religious ideals for political gain, it is not a true religious or Christian movement. Its a wolf in Shepherd's clothing.
So when they promote suicide bombing of children and women against all the laws of the Koran, they are not a true Islamic religious group, but a political group abusing Islam.
So when the lie, bare false witness, to deny global warming, they are not a true Evangelical Christian group. They are some politicians playing at religion.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: So, rather than defining Christianity as what BlackBlade thinks it should be, we define it by what it actually is in the real world as we observe it, as carried out by people who are labeled Christians. And that's going to include a lot of contradictions and conflicts, and people believing quite different things, but if that's what the data shows, we have to accept it. The alternative is endlessly arguing over who really knows what Jesus wants, when the truth is, no one knows, not even you, and no one will find out any time soon.
This leaves you with little to talk about except for those "few things".
The world contains ambiguity. Some people's Christianity leads them to reject same-sex marriage. Some people's Christianity leads them to accept same-sex marriage, for example. We shouldn't run away from ambiguity, declaring that it's impossible to talk about. The fact that Christians draw differing conclusions from their doctrines and experiences doesn't mean that those differences can't be discussed.
quote:If one wants to have useful discussions about behaviour of Christians, it is possible to modify "Christian" to some extent - conservative Christian, mainstream Christian, pentecostal Christian, and so forth - that may be helpful.
Anything that, say, Pentecostal Christians do is by definition, something that Christians do. That absolutely does not imply that all Christians do it, or even that many do.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. I am saying that a phrase like, "most Presbyterian Christians believe X" is more useful than. "Christians believe X" when this wouldn't be the case for certain Catholics and some fundamentalists and most Jehovah's Witnesses..."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: Why would we ever leave all social services up to religion?
There has been a trend especially among small government conservatives to get government "out of the business" of providing social services. One of the ways this has manifested is by government outsourcing services to private and religious groups.
When we note that Catholic Charities will continue to provide services "to the community" without government partnership we should note that "the community" they are talking about is only some of the community.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have any evidence that Catholic Charities discriminate among the recipients of their charity?
I haven't seen any evidence of it in this thread. Are you referring to a different policies or collection of incidents?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, I apologize that I haven't had the time or energy to engage more fully in this with you. I'll try to keep the discussion in mind and revive it when I have the energy and wherewithal to properly engage.
For now let me add just this in response only the your original response (I haven't yet caught up on the thread).
First let me apologize. My original post was glib, sarcastic and snarky and not the proper way to discuss a topic of this weight and importance to those involved. In my only defense, it spawned from exhaustion and a wish to point out a contradiction I saw with out fully explaining it. I'm sorry I offended you.
When I say Christianity is a political religion, I mean to say that it is a political religion in the same way that Islam is a political religion. That is to say certain extensions of it into this world, or certain groups that profess to be Christian, are most certainly political in nature. And they wield in the Christian scriptures as a political weapon. Also, while it may not be their intent said scriptures do lend themselves to being used as a political weapon.
You could say that, in this manner, all religions are political. Simply because their worldly organizations are composed of political people who will wield their religions as a weapon in political fights.
It doesn't really matter whether God or Jesus or Mohammad or the Buddha intended this. That's just the way it is.
I agree with you that it's entirely possible that there are no specific calls to action in the scriptures (I say entirely possible because I don't know, I've never read them myself - I keep meaning to), but I would hold that's neither here nor there. True Christianity as God layed out in the true scriptures - whatever those are, there's really no way for any human being to know - may not be a political religion. But worldly Christianity, the extension of that religion and the structure of that religion in the real world is.
As evidence, for now I'll offer only the history of the Catholic Church, which keep in mind was for the longest time the single extension of the Christian God's will and worship into this world.
Side note, I know this isn't worded the best. Please insert an "assuming Christianity is true" where appropriate.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do you have any evidence that Catholic Charities discriminate among the recipients of their charity?
I haven't seen any evidence of it in this thread.
The Catholic Church discriminates against homosexuals in adoption cases. That is what this thread is about. The fact that the catholic church is not actually in this thread discriminating against people is rather immaterial. Goof ball.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fairness to katharina, before that last link, I thought the Church was objecting to receiving the funds because they'd have to provide same-sex employee benefits. I also missed that they discriminate against gay adoptions.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Catholic Church discriminates against homosexuals in adoption cases. That is what this thread is about.
Actually, my impression is that this thread is about whether or not it is proper for the government to contract with religious organizations to provide social services.
You may want to consider that 1) DC residents are not wealthy; 2) the government is contracting with Catholic Charities for a reason: no one else is providing these services at the cost that CC is.
The reason it is newsworthy is because the DC government has so very little wiggle room to do anything but capitulate or lose valuable social aid tool. (I'm fairly certain that the city cannot use the same amount of money for the same effect) How are they going to provide these services otherwise? Raise taxes?
####
I get the feeling that when kat says "charity," she means things like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick-- I, personally, don't think of facilitating/administrating an adoption is "charity." (I suppose it's an indirect charity to the child)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get the feeling that when kat says "charity," she means things like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick-- I, personally, don't think of facilitating/administrating an adoption is "charity." (I suppose it's an indirect charity to the child)
This is correct. If it is charity at all, it is to the biological mother and to the child, not to the hopeful people who want to adopt.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I and Catholic Charities disagree that adoption services are not charity. Are you maybe thinking that charity is only something you do for poor people?
But let's leave that aside. They're threatening to cancel all of the services that they contracted with the district for, including feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc, not just the ones that would violate Church teachings. I'm sure that they will continue to offer these things, but at a greatly reduced amount. So they will be stopping many charity services that they could perform without any violation of their teachings because of the gay adoption issue.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does seem, at best, an unfortunate display of priorities. I'd be more sympathetic if they were attempting some sort of stop-gap measure while other groups are found to cover the services they will no longer provide.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd be more sympathetic if they were attempting some sort of stop-gap measure while other groups are found to cover the services they will no longer provide.
They are giving fair warning - to give the city time to find someone else.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
