Religion in public politics

[piercehawkeye45]

The issue is that the Roman Catholic Church should not discriminate against homosexuals if they want to receive taxpayer money. I agree that churches should be able to preach whatever they want, marry whoever they please, and allow whoever to adopt from their charities, assuming their funding is completely independent from the state. Although, once churches start getting taxpayer money, they should abide by different rules.

[Lamplighter]

The same issues are apparent in housing:

freerepublic.com
March 25, 2011

USCCB Urges HUD Not to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

WASHINGTON (March 25, 2011)——The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
has urged the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) not to adopt
a proposed regulation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity
to the list of protected categories for which discrimination in HUD programs is prohibited.<snip>

“By this, we do not mean that any person should be denied housing.
Making decisions about shared housing, however, is another matter,” wrote Picarello and Moses.
“Particularly here, faith-based and other organizations should retain the freedom
they have always had to make housing placements in a manner consistent
with their religious beliefs, including when it concerns a cohabiting couple,
be it an unmarried heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple.<snip>

Given the very large role that faith-based organizations play in HUD programs,
the regulation, by infringing upon that freedom, may have the ultimate effect
of driving away organizations with a long and successful track record in meeting housing needs,
leaving beneficiaries without the housing that they sought or that the government intended them to receive.”

Granted, religious organizations have, indeed, played major roles in community support
and development. (e.g., hospitals, summer camps, homeless shelters, etc.)

But are such "traditional activities" of an organization sufficient or genuine arguments
for exemption when it comes to housing, employment, or health care, or other venues of civil rights ?

I have a very hard time trying to justify such arguments.
Instead, I would propose that if an organization elected to move away from such services,
and therefore forgo the government funding, that other organizations
would step in to cover the gaps in needed services.
.

[glatt]

You get what you pay for. If the government wants to save money by using a religious service provider, then they need to take the bad with the good. If they can't put up with the beliefs of the religion, then they need to be prepared to pay more to bring in a provider that doesn't run on a lot of volunteer labor.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

You get what you pay for. If the government wants to save money by using a religious service provider, then they need to take the bad with the good. If they can't put up with the beliefs of the religion, then they need to be prepared to pay more to bring in a provider that doesn't run on a lot of volunteer labor.

What?!

Howzzat?

Leaving out the religious service provider aspect for a moment (we'll return to it), you're saying that the government ought to just accept discrimination like this? What if some non religious outfit was doing the same work for the same pay but put a big ass sign on the door "HOUSING PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE HERE --NO FUCKING FAGGOTS OR SINNERS NEED APPLY"? And then in the fine print they said, we're just not gonna work with you, we don't want to. This is ... this is taking the bad with the good? How in the world could this be imaginable, I mean how can you imagine this is acceptable? I can not.

Now, for the religious among us. What if the same sign were posted on the door of the church affiliated office for housing placement assistance? That's "OK" because of a religious objection? It is not.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

What?!

Howzzat?

Did you see the second sentence I wrote?

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if you're going to use a service, then you are using that service. If you don't like that service, then you should not use it. Don't expect that service to change for you, especially if the area of disagreement is important to them.

(not "you" but the government.)

The government is using religious services because they are cheap.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

There is an easy common sense fix for this kind of thing. The church, based on it's religious beliefs does not support same sex marriage. So what? They still should be able to carry on their work in areas that they always have. There are many other agencies who will work with same sex marriages for foster and adoptive issues. When we make this an all or nothing event we hurt more then just the church.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The issue is that the Roman Catholic Church should not discriminate against homosexuals if they want to receive taxpayer money. I agree that churches should be able to preach whatever they want, marry whoever they please, and allow whoever to adopt from their charities, assuming their funding is completely independent from the state. Although, once churches start getting taxpayer money, they should abide by different rules.

Dear .joe

I agree with pierce here. I don't object to the church doing the church's thing, but when they're acting as an agent of the state by taking money from the state in exchange for services rendered, it is incumbent upon them to abide by the state's rules. A starker (perhaps so stark it seems absurd) example is: What if the Catholic Church decided not to consider Protestant or Jewish or Muslim couples as candidates as adoptive parents *because of a religious objection*? That is plain to imagine. I mean, come on, the Catholic Church must certainly disagree with the religious conclusions followers of those other faiths have come to, and yet, there's no mention that differences such as these are obstacles for the Catholic Church.

And this argument:

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary
of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed.
“It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right
to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right
not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

is also bogus. You're a soldier. What if I joined your outfit but refused some of your orders claiming a religious exemption? "I'll do all that other stuff, but I won't kill anyone." How is that acceptable? I'm guessing here, but I imagine the answer is "Then the Army has no further need of your services." And the Army and I would part company. I'd get to keep my non-killer status and the Army would get to keep its money.

I want to add that you are completely correct when you say that there is considerable collateral damage when this becomes an all or nothing conflict. We don't agree on where that hurt occurs or the extent of the damage. "Hurt the church"? How? Economically? Who's "hurting" the church? I think you're implying that the children who would not be served by the now-closed Church adoption office would be hurt, and that's so, but they're likely to be served by some other office that abides by the state's rules. For that matter, let the Church keep their office open, but refuse the state contract along with refusing the state rules. Now, that's fair, is it not?