No, really.If you blink reading this story, you almost miss it amongst the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the state is oppressing the Church, that "religious protection" is at risk, and how "faith-based agencies" are being prevented from exercising their faith.What's at stake here is that the state was paying the Church, under contract, for adoption service.s With that contractual money came contractual rules — one of which is that folks receiving adoption and foster care services money not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples.The answer is clear and obvious: if you're not willing to abide by the rules, don't take the money. If it's a faith-based priority, then you are welcome to do what you want … with private funds and donations. But expecting the state to fund you with no strings attached is a mook's game — and a great example of why the separation of church and state is such a great idea for the state and churches.Whining that it's unfair and oppressive for the taxpayers to impose conditions on what you can do with their money is … well, whining. And unbecoming. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Illinois bishops announce shutdown of adoption services :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
Bishops in three Illinois dioceses announced Nov. 14 that they have dropped their lawsuit against the state and will shut down their adoption and foster care programs, after a civil union law re…
I caught a bit yesterday on the local right-wing talk radio station about a local women’s shelter \ women’s substance abuse recover center. They lost there state grant because they refused to stop having mandatory bible study and homework as part of the program. They believe strongly that it is the only way for these women to recover. And that is their right and their choice. What is not their choice is using my tax money to do it. If this is your Christian duty and calling than other Christian should be called to support it.
Yup!
Co-incidentally I was discussing this sort of thing down the pub last night. My mate told me the reason the Puritans felt they were being oppressed under James I, and so left for the colonies, was the fact that they were not allowed to oppress those who didn’t share their beliefs.
He emailed the following today
This is one of the references to Puritan-led persecution in early America that we talked about last night, including the execution of Quakers! Especially see page 683 onwards.
LINK
So whinging that you are not allowed to oppress people is a 400 year old American tradition. You sir are obviously unpatriotic.
It’s quite true that we in the States have romanticized the whole “fleeing religious tyranny to look for freedom” thing, not realizing that the early history of the colonies (up through the middle of the 18th Century in the more brutal cases), oppressing those who weren’t the local majority denomination was a frequent thing. Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, Deists, Atheists — all faced considerable persecution, both violent and non-violent (religious tests for office-holding, votes, etc.). It’s thought that sort of thing going on during his youth was part of what motivated James Madison to incorporate strong religious protection in the Constitution.
Of course, this intolerant behavior didn’t spring up out of whole cloth; these were good Englishmen (to a large degree), and were bringing over behaviors with a long tradition back home. It was just that the New World provided greater play, especially early days, to be the top dogs in any given locality.
Unfortunately, that’s just the kind of “religious freedom” that too many folks are looking for today — on the small scale getting government sanction to privately discriminate (esp. with taxpayer dollars), and on a larger scale being able to do so as a matter of public policy. Though the latter is more ostensibly focused on separate religions than on separate denominations as was the case back in the colonial era, those cracks within Christianity are only lightly papered over, if at all, and I have no doubt that the folks who sling around so easily accusations that other denominations or individuals aren’t True Christians(TM) enough would be more than happy to legally exclude them from the benefits/power of their dreamed-of state religion.
Many faith-based (read: Christian) charities running shelters do require religious observance–theirs, of course–in order to stay there.
They get tax credits for this work, I seem to recall. Not the same order as getting State or Federal funding for it, but it affects our taxes nonetheless, no?
Tax credits (tax exemptions) are a sticky problem. I’m becoming more inclined to think their original purpose (recognizing the public value of private charity, and keeping tax policy from being used to oppress particular religious groups) is being overcome by exploitation of that sort.
I will say that a private, religious charity running a shelter should be free to condition their services on attending … well, their services, in some form. I don’t think that’s the best course, or the most Christian, but that’s their call.
The reason those ‘good Englishmen’ fled, taking their behaviour with them was because that behaviour was unacceptable. We tried the whole puritan thing in the Mid 17th Century, and found it not our thing.
There was attacks on Catholicism, true, but that was intertwined with politics: imagine if the stated foreign policy aim of every Arab state was to place a Muslim in the White House. England, was for the period, one of the most tolerant states- note the treatment of Jews compared to most of Europe. “Not C of E Hmmmm – But you do know how to make money? You’re in.”
While I don’t give to the donation-seeking charities of obvious evangelical bent, I chose one FBO, running a center that gives food & clothing which have been donated, because the AM station I listen to (KGO-am 810) has chosen them as one of their four regional holiday charities for whom they raise money. Sacred Heart in San Jose was willing to take donations in glass jars, as long as they were commercially-canned, as well as my good-for-eating display pumpkins that were still in good shape by the beginning of December.
All the charities they sponsor do more than just feed the body of those who come to them for help. If nothing else, there are referrals to programs for those seeking to end addiction, employment assistance, and the like. They all have good reputations, or KGO wouldn’t be assisting them. We had clothing as well as quite a lot of over-bought food to give. I think their policy was to distribute as they were receiving, and there were a fair number of volunteers helping there.
@Last Hussar: No, I understand the entanglement of the religious issue with the political one in English government (and a good object lesson in the value of separating church and state). And, yes, the UK was, with the possible exception of the Dutch, one of the most tolerant states in Europe.
Still, there’s no question that in the 17th and 18th Century, if you weren’t CoE, then that did raise both social and legal problems. Catholics, Dissenters, etc., and, yeah, they weren’t having pogroms and Inquisitions against the Jews, but you certainly wouldn’t allow your sister to marry one. Yes, some of them (like the Puritans) did take advantage of being able to hop over to the New World so that they could set up a society where *they* were in charge and could force the religious purity they wanted (famously, the Mayflower crew were folks what went to the Netherlands first, for greater tolerance — and then discovered that their own ideological purity was being tainted, thus hallooing off to the New World).