It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic church and gay adoption.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Catholic threat on gay rights law

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said he feared discrimination
The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has said adoption agencies will close if they cannot opt out of new gay rights laws.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has written to Cabinet ministers saying church teaching prevented its agencies placing children with homosexuals.

Forcing people to act against their consciences would mean discrimination on the grounds of belief, he added.

No 10 said Tony Blair had not decided whether to exempt Catholic agencies.


news.bbc.co.uk... Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 January 2007, 13:23 GMT




I'd like to hear people's opinions on this. Despite being gay (and an ex Catholic) I feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea of enforcing this on the church, in some subtle way there seems a role reversal of discrimination going on to me.




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Catholic adoption agencies only make up about 4% of all the adoptions in this country, so it wouldn't make a huge difference.

I don't think they should be able to discriminate who they deal with. Would you give the thumbs up to the KKK Adoption Agency who refuse to give children to black people or jews? Would you support an adoption agency who wouldn't give children to disabled people?

By allowing the Catholic church a practically free reign on who they deal with is simply institutionalised prejudice on the same scale as discriminating against races or the disabled.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Catholic adoption agencies only make up about 4% of all the adoptions in this country, so it wouldn't make a huge difference.


So it’s not going to have a huge impact on the issue of gay adoption anyway.


I don't think they should be able to discriminate who they deal with. Would you give the thumbs up to the KKK Adoption Agency who refuse to give children to black people or jews?


I would like to see this non discriminatory ideal put into practice if a couple who were openly members of the BNP, KKK, Church of Satan etc stepped forward offering a place to a child.

It’s not about discrimination it’s about doctrine. Catholic teaching on homosexuality says unequivocally that it is wrong, whether I reject or agree with their teachings is irrelevant, they base their decisions on who to give catholic children to on the basis of that doctrine along with many other considerations.


Would you support an adoption agency who wouldn't give children to disabled people?

By allowing the Catholic church a practically free reign on who they deal with is simply institutionalised prejudice on the same scale as discriminating against races or the disabled.


Adoption agencies discriminate against people on all sorts of issues, political, environmental, health, even weight or whether someone smokes or not. If you want a totally non discriminatory policy based on whether the couple can bring a child up in a loving home then step forward the aforementioned Mr and Mrs KKK, BNP, Church of Satan etc as theoretically they’re all as capable as the next person. The fact is this is a political issue rather than an issue of what’s best for the child.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Private belief is one thing but when it comes down to discriminating against other people in wider public or commercial life then it's wrong IMO.

.....and yes, that even includes those who hold (legal) private personal views I personally would strongly disgree with.

A personal private religious belief should not be a free pass to excuse discrimination in public and commercial life as far as I'm concerned.

It always amuses me that the Biblical instructions and "abominations" are so well cherry-picked by those claiming to be so devout.
Especially when it is in relation to anything to do with sex or sexuality.

Here's an example of what I mean -

Eating shellfish is an "abomination" Leviticus 20:13 - a worse "abomination" than being gay......and if so how come almost no-one knows about it, where are the fundy Christian pickets outside Youngs/Grimsby fish market?

If anybody works on the Sabbath are we allowed to kill them? Cos it seems so. Exodus 35:2

Apparantly I'm allowed slaves providing they are purchased from neighbouring nations!
Watch out in the rest of the UK! Leviticus 25:44

Here's teaser; my farming brother violates Lev 19:19 by planting 2 different crops in the same field. So does my sister by wearing clothes made of 2 different kinds of thread (cotton/silk).
Do I have to stone them (Lev 42:16) or should I just burn them to death like we're told to do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev20:14)?

[edit on 23-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I have a big issue with any church being involved in the adoption process. Despite all the good words they will say, they will be bias toward people who share their views.

O Yes, just as the Catholic Church wants to do. Sorry, get all churchs out of the adoption process.

These people are failing to see what adoption is about. Giving a home to a child who has parents and family that will love and care for them.

If the Catholic Church wants to offer an adoption service in the UK, they should work inside the law or get out of adoptions.

I hope that our Government will not cave on this but the the PM being a Catholic I do not hold much hope.

In fact, I am minded to open an adoption agency and advertise that no one from an established church would be acceptabled. How fast would I be banned??

And how many of the children put for adoption are because of the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception? Seem an apalling double standard!!!



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Ahhh, the Catholic Church - what a fine body of God's own people they are to be sure.

How many female Catholic priests have you ever seen? Well none actually as they're not permitted. What's that you say, there's a law against that sort of discrimination? Well would you believe it?

So, is anyone surprised that once again the Catholic hierarchy consider themselves to be above the law of the land?

Just in case you may have thought these were isolated cases of institutionalised obtuseness please bear in mind that this is also the organisation which forbids basic human rights such as the use of contraception, refuses its ministers the right to marry or even to enjoy the right to a sexual relationship with someone of either sex (with the possible exception of the occasional choirboy).

Having been foolish enough to pass yet more legislation which confers special rights on yet another minority group in society Tonly Blair now has to demonstrate that he has the balls to stand by his handiwork.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I was listening to the Radio 4 6pm news and they said that Tony Blair has not made his mind up on this.

What mind is there to make up? The same rules should apply to every adoption agency



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Have you been watching The West Wing, Sminkey? Sounds fairly similar to Bartlett's rant to that TV host who didn't stand up when he entered the room. But I have to say, it makes an excellent point. Aren't priests working by taking Sunday prayers? Is that not their job (which they are paid for)? Should they be punished too, since the Bible doesn't specifically exempt them from it?


Yes, the Bible is far too old to base any fair, tolerant and modern democracy on and on the one hand it's quite concerning that religious organisations are willing to try to force the democratically elected government's hand on this one and possibly trying to subvert the laws which prevent discriminations against a person because of his/her sexuality. But on the other hand, I do think that if I want people to respect my beliefs I should respect theirs too. So would it be fair to stop Catholic adoption agencies following what they believe? If it hurt the children concerned (which must be the central issue here), then yes. But are they harming the kids? I can't really see any evidence of it.

Blair has a tough call to make, and it's pretty personal for him too since he is a religious man and Protestants are also siding with the Catholic Church. There are also rumours that Blair will convert to Catholicism when he leaves Number 10. We also have individuals in the Cabinet such as Ruth Kelly who oppose this (Kelly is a devout Catholic, and there have been reports that she has had problems with certain gay rights before). It'll be an interesting little story to follow.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
Have you been watching The West Wing, Sminkey? Sounds fairly similar to Bartlett's rant to that TV host who didn't stand up when he entered the room.


- Dammit!

I got told once here that I sounded like an article in 'The Sun' a poster had read (of all things.....boy that one smarted!
) and I can swear it was not something I'd either even seen never mind read (if it was true, no link was ever produced).

Now it's a TV show (albeit one of the better ones) but sadly one I have never watched so I have no idea if the similarity is as you describe, I'll have to take your word for it Ste2652.


It'll be an interesting little story to follow.


- Yeah, watch out for the good ol' British fudge coming into action on this one.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
writerbroadcaster.com...

There's a script of the extract in question. I haven't seen a great deal of West Wing Episodes but they're currently being showed on More4 on Sundays at 8pm - quite an entertaining programme.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I think the Catholic Church has already gotten out of the adoption business in Massachusetts because of this.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Hi there, Kent…first time caller long time listener.

Sorry…always wanted to use that as an introduction. Been away for a few weeks, real life is ruining my ATS time but I’d thought I’d chip in on this thread. Especially since it seems like it’ll be a hot topic over the future weeks. In fact, I was only made aware of the large debate this morning when I was watching the television.

The most important aspect of the news report…

When I was watching it they interviewed a homosexual couple (two-men) that refused to be filmed. The reason given was that they feared their child would be bullied if it was found out his parents were homosexuals. They even spoke of how they don’t have other children around so as not to cause him problems if it was found out.

So let’s put it like this – the child can’t socialize like many of his peers do and his parents fear he’d get bullied because of them. I myself am not 100% convinced there’s a good argument for the rights of homosexuals to override that of the child and that is what I think this is. I’m very liberal when it comes to most things, but if they admit the child worries about being bullied because of them and so on and so fourth it’s not good for him. No child should worry about having friends round their house. All I see is vulnerable children, who have gone through the adoption process becoming even more vulnerable in the long run.

I’m not saying I strictly agree with the Church, but then I don’t strictly agree with the Government either. It’s such an awkward position to put the child in, especially when they are growing up. I’d much rather we change the way adoption works completely along with much of our social services, so that these children in care are taken care of. We shouldn’t need to have them fostered or adopted because the services they’re given should be of such a high calibre.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I might not agree on many things the Catholic church teaches, their opinions on homosexuality included, and yes many religious bigots cherry pick the parts of the bible that suit them and ignore the parts that might interfere with how they want to live their lives but the issue of adoption goes beyond that, politicising it puts the child in a very vulnerable position not least becuase it's now in the front line of all the bigotry and predjudice that still exists out their, all in the name of making a point. I've never been able to move out from the grey area on this and remain ambivelant on gay adoption admittedly but a large part of that reason is because the childs best interets should always come first not secondary to political expediency.

Another point is that these Cathoic adoption agencies are essentially trying to do a good job regardless of their veiws and this whole argument could threaten that and in the long run it may not reflect too well on the gay community. Like I said there's a subtle reversal of discrimination going on here.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
How many female Catholic priests have you ever seen?


That's a matter of theology and the Catholic Church's right to run itself as it sees fit accordint to it's theology. If any women don't like it they can leave.


is anyone surprised that once again the Catholic hierarchy consider themselves to be above the law of the land?


is it against the law of the land for a church to practice what it preaches and to run itself as it sees fit? Is it against the law of the land for a church organization to help while staying within the borders of it's belief system?

There are plenty of other adoption oganizations that gay people can use. The Catholic church isn't the only adoption group on the planet.

This is expected and it's no big deal.


Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I have a big issue with any church being involved in the adoption process. ... they will be bias toward people who share their views.

So what?


get all churchs out of the adoption process.

That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.


These people are failing to see what adoption is about.


No. Actually ya'll are failing to see what CHURCHES are all about. In the end, churches will not do what goes against their religion. It's just that simple. They are there to help, while staying within the borders of their religious beliefs.

BTW - I am (mostly) Catholic and I am an adoptive parent.

[edit on 1/24/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Of course its against the law for a religion to express their views if they are small-minded, discriminatory, rude and fascist.

Its against the law for people to express racist views against jews or black people. Its against the law for people to discriminate or ban disabled people. What is the difference between the Ku Klux Klan and the Catholic church? They both express foul prejudiced views towards a minority, why can one express theirs under the protection of the law, and even the PM, when one is outlawed?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
its against the law for a religion to express their views if they are small-minded, discriminatory, rude and fascist.


That's rather subjective.


Under your definition - freedom of religion and freedom of speech would be no longer allowed. Under your definition almost every Christian group, Jewish group, and Muslim group on the planet would be put in jail for practicing their faiths.


why can one express theirs under the protection of the law,


Freedom of religion. They can not be forced to provide a service that goes against their religion. If people don't like this, then they can 'shop' elsewhere and use the power of $$$ to try to put them out of business.

Or they can be TOLERANT and try to understand why the Catholic church believes what it does, and the church can be left in peace to provide services as much as they can while staying within the bounds of their faith.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Under your definition - freedom of religion and freedom of speech would be no longer allowed. Under your definition almost every Christian group, Jewish group, and Muslim group on the planet would be put in jail for practicing their faiths.

...

Or they can be TOLERANT and try to understand why the Catholic church believes what it does, and the church can be left in peace to provide services as much as they can while staying within the bounds of their faith.


I thoroughly belive in freedom of speech as long as it doesn't impact on other people. In my opinion I'm perfectly happy for people to have whatever religious ideals they want, as long as that doesn't involve them being fascists.

And on the topic of tolerance ... Catholics are a minority in this country, which is a democracy. We rule by majority, so why should the law favour Catholicism over any other religion, shouldnt the law be athiest?

Catholics should be respectful and tolerant of other peoples beliefs not the other way round!



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Its against the law for people to express racist views against jews or black people. Its against the law for people to discriminate or ban disabled people. What is the difference between the Ku Klux Klan and the Catholic church? They both express foul prejudiced views towards a minority, why can one express theirs under the protection of the law, and even the PM, when one is outlawed?


I don't know what the UK law is, but in the U.S. religious organizations are exempt from most laws like these, unless they actually receive federal funds for the specific program affected. For example, a Catholic Church can legally refuse employment to a Jewish janitor in the church paid for by church funds, but couldn't refuse employment to a Jewish teacher in Catholic school that received any government funds.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
UK law is a bit more restrictive than US law because we don't have a codified constitution expressly guaranteeing freedom of speech. The government can pass acts (and, indeed, has passed acts) which - depending on your point of view - protect minorities and vulnerable individuals/groups from abuse or infringe on the right to freedom of speech. I think there are some EU laws which help to alleviate this anomaly, and it would be almost impossible for one of the mainstream parties to ban freedom of speech. You'd need one of the fringe parties with a strong central leadership to take power for that to happen (BNP anyone?
)

Whereas in the US, the constitution specifically mentions that people have the right to freedom of speech, which (like the British position) has both good and bad points. The good ones are obvious... an example of one of the bad points is Westboro Baptist Church. They're just bigoted, mindless idiots, frankly. We say that extremists pervert Islam, well, this particular church perverts Christianity.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Catholics are a miniority in this country. Catholics should be respectful and tolerant of other peoples beliefs not the other way round!


OMG that's funny!

So, because Catholics are a minority in England, they shouldn't have their relgious beliefs tolerated?

But because Protestants are the majority everyone has to tolerate them?

How 'tolerant' of you. (*sarcasim intended)

Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do.

Here's real TOLERANCE - the Protestants definately DO have to tolerate the Catholic Church's belief system and the fact that it does not believe that active Homosexuals should adopt children. The Church will use it's resources to provide adoptions for people who believe like they do. TOLERATE it.

It's common sense. I wouldn't expect a Muslim adoption agency to adopt out orphaned Muslim children to a Jewish home knowing that they would be raised Jewish.


Originally posted by gfad
I thoroughly belive in freedom of speech as long as it doesn't impact on other people.


Then you don't believe in freedom of speech.


I'm perfectly happy for people to have whatever religious ideals they want, as long as that doesn't involve them being fascists.


Then you don't believe in freedom of religion

BTW ... Christians who do not believe that active homosexuals should adopt children are not being 'facist'. That is a matter of theology, not facism. When it comes to assisting people in adoption, the Catholic Church can do what it wants .. it's their money and they can help whomever the please with it.

[edit on 1/24/2007 by FlyersFan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join