Catholic Adoption Charity Allowed To Discriminate

[Lao]

there is a huge difference between giving to charity, and turning away a peson who needs help.

 

this is one of the reasons why i find the pious position of religeous people to be so insulting at times, the fact that my own opinions, beliefs and personal bias should be put on hold in an emergency is so fucking obvious i find it hard to understand why people find it so hard to follow. And yet one of the constant criticisms of us atheists is that we cannot understand love or compassion, how can you honestly say that you know compassion if you would watch someone starve because they didnt believe what you did. Why not set the example and show them the compassion they deserve as a fellow human being, who know you might even convert them!

 

If a person is hungry to the point of starvation then they need food, simple as, there is no if's or buts. when it comes to it compassion should override the other factors, at least until the vital needs are met. you dont have to agree with someone to help them.

 

With some of the above opinions on the matter, i half expect you people to deny a young woman the use of your phone if she came banging on your door after being raped, simply because when you saw her leave her house hours earlier on the start of a night out and didnt approve of the outfit she was wearing, i can picture some people slamming the door in her face and saying "you were asking for it"!

 

i even posted in my last post a simple solution to the adoption problem. a cental agency that cared for the kids and vetted potential applicants, which external agencies could work on behalf of within their own community/congregation.

 

it's a simple and elegant solution, if the central agency is seperate and secular anyone can apply. Then any group can try to encourage its own members to think about adoption without it being considered descrimination and pass on the details of those interested to the central agency.

[jimbms]

I fully agree Lao religion is a leech on society and should not be allowed to select who is given help, in fact I personally thing all religions should be banned from giving direct aid and instead be made to put funds into a central aid system, but maybe that's just me being a fanatical anti religion type. Nobody in need should ever be turned away by any aid agency, but it happens and in reality we need to ask should we stop them operating and therefore make the ones they do help suffer because of our own beliefs or should we accept there are differences and at least some get helped, interesting dialema, stop this happening and cause more suffering or ignore it and save a few, who knows, only the individual can answer. As for the woman turning up on the door, I would never turn anyone in need away no matter how they looked.

[Lao]

a very reasuring post Jimbms, and has restored my faith in humanity. (i was a little bit grumpy this morning, probably because LDV's post straight after mine seemed to totally ignore the point i was making)

 

i think that what a society need to do is recognise more systems as work-in-progress, Once, charities like the catholic adoption agency were an essential stepping stone in our social evolution, far from stopping them from doing good, measures, like a centralised secular agency, need to be added in order to ensure that not only do the good works continue, but that the cracks in the system are filled along the way.

 

Change is needed.

[jimbms]

LDV's post straight after mine seemed to totally ignore the point i was making

And that doesn't happen very often

[Augustus]

The only thing that shocks me about this thread is the knowledge that John Wright might somewhere be on a list for potential foster parents????? Surely the poor little ones would have had more than enough in life to contend with???

[Evil Goblin]

But if they did discriminate as suggested that would break the law and lose them their charitable status. Charitable status equals public subsidy. Not acceptable.

 

This introduces a separate discussion - should charities which do good, albeit only to sections of society they approve of, be denied charitable ststus because they discriminate? i.e. are we willing to allow children to be refused aid because a minority of potential parents (not children) are being discriminated against? Seems to me like an anti-child care position with a section of adult society prepared to allow children to suffer so that their own prejudices can be furthered. Not a very pleasant view!

[Evil Goblin]

I fully agree Lao religion is a leech on society and should not be allowed to select who is given help, in fact I personally thing all religions should be banned from giving direct aid and instead be made to put funds into a central aid system, but maybe that's just me being a fanatical anti religion type. Nobody in need should ever be turned away by any aid agency, but it happens and in reality we need to ask should we stop them operating and therefore make the ones they do help suffer because of our own beliefs or should we accept there are differences and at least some get helped, interesting dialema, stop this happening and cause more suffering or ignore it and save a few, who knows, only the individual can answer. As for the woman turning up on the door, I would never turn anyone in need away no matter how they looked.

And you do not recognise that your views on religion are every bit as extreme and inappropriate as those of, say, militant Muslim extremists on Western society?

 

As for a Central Government Agency in charge of it all!!!!! Good grief, allow that bunch of incompetent jobsworths to (mis)rule everything? No, thanks. The more we can keep Governments out of our lives the better.

[Lao]

But if they did discriminate as suggested that would break the law and lose them their charitable status. Charitable status equals public subsidy. Not acceptable.

 

This introduces a separate discussion - should charities which do good, albeit only to sections of society they approve of, be denied charitable ststus because they discriminate? i.e. are we willing to allow children to be refused aid because a minority of potential parents (not children) are being discriminated against? Seems to me like an anti-child care position with a section of adult society prepared to allow children to suffer so that their own prejudices can be furthered. Not a very pleasant view!

 

No, let them keep working for the good of the children, but if they cant avoid discriminating, then take away the vetting process and put it in the hands of a secular group, government run makes the most sense, you own opinions about government aside. but if you really want to argue against government involvement, there could still be ways of making it work.

 

The obvious point that this discrimination could easily be avoided can only be ignpred for so long.

[Evil Goblin]

I understand your point, Lao, but remember that there are many people who honestly and firmly believe that certain discriminations are justified. By legislating against them you are simply enforcing your views on them when, ultimately, it is a moral question and hence totally subjective.

[jimbms]

And you do not recognise that your views on religion are every bit as extreme and inappropriate as those of, say, militant Muslim extremists on Western society?

 

As for a Central Government Agency in charge of it all!!!!! Good grief, allow that bunch of incompetent jobsworths to (mis)rule everything? No, thanks. The more we can keep Governments out of our lives the better.

On the first point, no I do not as I would not resort to violence to put my point of view across and also I accept that people have freedom to practice whatever they wish, my only action is to refuse to accept that any religion is good and that they have no right to rule my actions. So please tell me how that is extremist or inappropriate or even the same acts of religious terrorism?

 

On the second point, please read again, I never mentioned a government agency, what I said was a central agency, in preference conducted by a cross section of all members of society and charities. In fact I regard allowing social workers looking after children in care as dangerous as leaving them with Michael Jackson or a Catholic Priest.

[Lao]

but remember that there are many people who honestly and firmly believe that certain discriminations are justified.

 

it is one of those unfortunate side effects of free will, that people will disagree with you no matter how right you are!

 

Does putting in place a system, that would allow all eligible potential foster parents a fair chance at being considered, and still allow belief based groups to still operate on behalf of the children, whilst also protecting said groups from legal action based on their discrimination, really be discriminating in itself?

 

if so i have to say that i think it would be the lesser evil.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

" Would an exclusivively catholic hospital by within their rights to deny heath care to gay people? how about a catholic soup kitchen, justified in letting homosexuals starve?"

 

Much as it may irritate you the answer has to be "Yes - they are justified". If I establish an organisation to help people then it should be up to me to decide who I want to help and whom I do not want to help. That is my basic human right - I should not be forced to help anyone I do not wish to help. Whatever you might think of my motivations or reasons for not helping certain people, they are my reasons and are just as vwlid as yours, whether anyone else agrees with them or not.

No, they don't have good justification to do what they do, but should be able to do it without the State jumping in with laws. In the same way as a soup kitchen owner might not let black people get food, the State shouldn't jump in but such a man/woman should be prepared for a lot of criticism and hatefulness from others in society. But this is a very different issue than the adoption one.

[Evil Goblin]

"No, they don't have good justification to do what they do, but should be able to do it without the State jumping in with laws. In the same way as a soup kitchen owner might not let black people get food, the State shouldn't jump in but such a man/woman should be prepared for a lot of criticism and hatefulness from others in society. But this is a very different issue than the adoption one."

 

Apart from the justification issue (which is entirely a matter of individual conscience and opinion) I find that I am in agreement with you, LDV! Pass me the aspirin!

[mæŋksmən]

I love this thread it has all the humanitarians in one place.

 

Jim.bs for forum humanitarian of the year for me.

[jimbms]

Don't you dare label me as one of those