Catholic Church Threatens D.C.

AfricanFruitWaynely

AfricanFruitWaynely

CAG Veteran
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

Cheh said she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance.

"Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?" Cheh asked. "I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1116943.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009042801406

It's always depressing watching these poor Christians, from Mormons to Catholics, get oppressed just for following their own respectable religious beliefs, but maybe harming or abandoning homeless people isn't such a smart way to promote Jesus?

What say you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
way to shorten the article there. where's the controversy? they don't want to be forced into performing gay marriage or facilitating same sex adoptions. that's fine, they'll lose any public funds they receive.
 
I'd love it if homophobic groups/religious organizations lost their tax-exempt status of being a religion. :D Money talks... bet we'd see less open-hatred are more closeted-hatred.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']way to shorten the article there. where's the controversy? they don't want to be forced into performing gay marriage or facilitating same sex adoptions. that's fine, they'll lose any public funds they receive.[/QUOTE]

Likewise, they'll stop providing funds and services to the public. Think things will even out?

This kind of stuff is the exact reason Churches should not be tax exempt and should not receive preferential treatment from the government. The church and its members are more than welcome to come and go as they please, but they shouldn't be allowed to hold the government hostage because they've been entrusted with too many social services at the taxpayer's teat.
 
I don't get it, the church doesnt support gay marriage, and doesn't want to provide services to those they perceive as being against their beliefs. It's their perogative, and they are free to do as they wish. Like them or not, religious organizations provide more charitable services than just about any other group on the planet. What purpose would it serve to take away their tax exemption? To save the government some money to help them fund more entitlement programs that they will inevitably screw up?
 
Because religious organizations are discriminatory. They're free to have their beliefs, and i wouldn't take that away from them, but to abandon people in need solely because of something like this is despicable. They're basically trying to hold the city hostage, saying that they'll abandon these people if they're forced to give gay/lesbian couples employment benefits. The people they help don't even have anything to do with the issue, but they're the ones who will be hurt.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Because religious organizations are discriminatory. They're free to have their beliefs, and i wouldn't take that away from them, but to abandon people in need solely because of something like this is despicable. They're basically trying to hold the city hostage, saying that they'll abandon these people if they're forced to give gay/lesbian couples employment benefits. The people they help don't even have anything to do with the issue, but they're the ones who will be hurt.[/QUOTE]

youre putting the blame on the churches, why not give some of the blame to the city. they rejected an amendment that would have made churches exempt from the being forced into it.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Paying taxes would give churches an official link to the government.[/QUOTE]

Using government services (roads for church vans? police for protection and vandalism? fire fighters for putting out fires? military protection from invading forces?) gives churches an official link to the government.

Exempting churches from paying taxes gives them a special status recognized by the government. Our government should not be in the business of recognizing religion.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Paying taxes would give churches an official link to the government.[/QUOTE]

You may want to do some reading on what the establishment clause actually requires.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Using government services (roads for church vans? police for protection and vandalism? fire fighters for putting out fires? military protection from invading forces?) gives churches an official link to the government.

Exempting churches from paying taxes gives them a special status recognized by the government. Our government should not be in the business of recognizing religion.[/QUOTE]

Churches provide services to the poor and operate relief charaties to the poor, which is one reason why they are a tax emempt organization, just like the salvation army or other similiar places.

And organizations like Acorn, as corrupt as they are, get federal funding and are tax exempt. And look at all the good they do for everyone, no political bias or anything right?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Because religious organizations are discriminatory. They're free to have their beliefs, and i wouldn't take that away from them, but to abandon people in need solely because of something like this is despicable. They're basically trying to hold the city hostage, saying that they'll abandon these people if they're forced to give gay/lesbian couples employment benefits. The people they help don't even have anything to do with the issue, but they're the ones who will be hurt.[/QUOTE]

Lots of organizations discriminate, and they are free to do so. If you aren't black, you aren't going to get a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund. Does Habitat for Humanity discriminate against people who are more financially secure? Sure, all these things are technically true, but no one really considers them to be "discriminatory". Private charities are free to act in whatever way they like, and if you don't like it, then don't give them your money, it's as simple as that.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Churches provide services to the poor and operate relief charaties to the poor, which is one reason why they are a tax emempt organization, just like the salvation army or other similiar places. [/quote]

They also build huge gigantic megachurches. I've had two go up here in the last five years, large enough to be seen from space. Things that must have cost into the millions, possibly approaching eight figures.

So pretending they are 100% charitable is laughable, and shouldn't be the reason at all. I've worked at places that had toy drives at Christmas, did volunteer blood drives, etc. And none of them enjoyed the benefit a church does.

LOOK OVER THERE! LOOK OVER THERE! OMFG LOOK OVER THERE! SOMETHING UNRELATED!
Click to expand...

Haha, ok.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Lots of organizations discriminate, and they are free to do so. If you aren't black, you aren't going to get a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund. Does Habitat for Humanity discriminate against people who are more financially secure? Sure, all these things are technically true, but no one really considers them to be "discriminatory". Private charities are free to act in whatever way they like, and if you don't like it, then don't give them your money, it's as simple as that.[/QUOTE]

Lemme take a wild guess - you don't work for a non-profit.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']youre putting the blame on the churches, why not give some of the blame to the city. they rejected an amendment that would have made churches exempt from the being forced into it.[/QUOTE]
Why should they be exempt from it?
 
[quote name='Magus8472']You may want to do some reading on what the establishment clause actually requires.[/QUOTE]
I'd be happy to read any information you can provide.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Lots of organizations discriminate, and they are free to do so. If you aren't black, you aren't going to get a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund. Does Habitat for Humanity discriminate against people who are more financially secure? Sure, all these things are technically true, but no one really considers them to be "discriminatory". Private charities are free to act in whatever way they like, and if you don't like it, then don't give them your money, it's as simple as that.[/QUOTE]
Even religious organizations aren't allowed to discriminate when it comes to their employees. If the law says they must give gays and lesbians benefits, then they must. Except that the catholics are basically blackmialing the city, trying to get an exception.

On your comparisons, there are no illusions that the UNCF was set up to help black people, but if the UNCF was suddenly forced to give any gay or lesbian employees benefits, it doesn't mean they're going to suddenly say "fuck you" to all the scholarship applicants.

Habitat for Humanity was set up to help those less fortunate have a home. If they were suddenly required to give gay and lesbian employees benefits, i doubt Carter is going to give the finger to all the people they may have built a house for.

Do you see where i'm going with this? Unless the Catholics want to come out and say "We only help Catholics," then what they're doing is wrong. To put it in a way they'd probably understand, denying help to those in need isn't very Christ like.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'd be happy to read any information you can provide.[/QUOTE]

The beginning of this article seems to do a decent job in summarizing the popular readings.

[quote name='JolietJake']Even religious organizations aren't allowed to discriminate when it comes to their employees.[/QUOTE]

Title VII actually has a built-in exception for religious organizations in certain contexts.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Even religious organizations aren't allowed to discriminate when it comes to their employees. If the law says they must give gays and lesbians benefits, then they must. Except that the catholics are basically blackmialing the city, trying to get an exception.

On your comparisons, there are no illusions that the UNCF was set up to help black people, but if the UNCF was suddenly forced to give any gay or lesbian employees benefits, it doesn't mean they're going to suddenly say "fuck you" to all the scholarship applicants.

Habitat for Humanity was set up to help those less fortunate have a home. If they were suddenly required to give gay and lesbian employees benefits, i doubt Carter is going to give the finger to all the people they may have built a house for.

Do you see where i'm going with this? Unless the Catholics want to come out and say "We only help Catholics," then what they're doing is wrong. To put it in a way they'd probably understand, denying help to those in need isn't very Christ like.[/QUOTE]

But what if Habitat for Humanity was suddenly told that in order to be more fair to everyone, 30% of all their homes had to go to people with incomes of $70,000 or greater. What if the UNCF was told that they have to donate half their grant money to Asian students from now on?

and it would seem to me that religious organizations are very discriminatory when it comes to their employees. Try getting a job teaching at a Catholic school if you aren't Catholic. You aren't going to become a Dianetics auditor without first selling your soul to the Church of Scientology, and you'd probably have a hard time writing for The Watchtower magazine without first being a devout Jehovah's Witness.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']The beginning of this article seems to do a decent job in summarizing the popular readings.



Title VII actually has a built-in exception for religious organizations in certain contexts.[/QUOTE]
I don't even know what that applies to since it doesn't seem to specify. I'll read the article.
edit- At least i tried to read it anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='spmahn']But what if Habitat for Humanity was suddenly told that in order to be more fair to everyone, 30% of all their homes had to go to people with incomes of $70,000 or greater. What if the UNCF was told that they have to donate half their grant money to Asian students from now on?

and it would seem to me that religious organizations are very discriminatory when it comes to their employees. Try getting a job teaching at a Catholic school if you aren't Catholic. You aren't going to become a Dianetics auditor without first selling your soul to the Church of Scientology, and you'd probably have a hard time writing for The Watchtower magazine without first being a devout Jehovah's Witness.[/QUOTE]
Well unfortunately, if someone doesn't want to hire you, they can usually find another reason other than religion or other protected reason. Equal opportunity laws work to an extent, but there is always another reason.

But in response to your fist comments, like i said before, Habitat for Humanity and the UNCF make no secret of who they serve, and that's fine, just so long as they're willing to state it. If your argument is that these Catholic charities should be able to choose who they help, that's fine, just so long as they state who it is they want to help. If they want to make their mission statement something like "To help fellow Catholics and promote Christianity," that's fine. Though that wouldn't be very charitable to me.

It just seems to me that if they really cared about the people they serve, they wouldn't let this stop them from helping them.
 
Let's put it this way.

Jerry Seinfeld bought a sport jacket once, but didn't care for the attitude of the clerk that sold it to him. However, he was denied the privilege to return it under the reasoning of "spite." Because that was his official response when asked why the jacket was inferior in some way, that's the one he's stuck with.

Lesson being: lie, whether you are a comedian or a gigantic, centuries-old religion, if it helps you get your way. Say you ran out of money due to the economy. Or blame Obama, Muslim brother to Satan Inkarnit.

But they've already shown their hand - "NO MONEY 'CUZZA QUEERS!" - and have to play it. And if I want to call them out as being dickbag fuck knuckles, then I get to do so. They can even flip the table over. Bluff better next time and I won't see through it.

A hundred years ago, you could get away with this kind of shit easier. But we have computers today, which helps even the playing field, and generally won't let this kind of shit slip through the cracks as easy as it did back when cars were dreamed of.
 
[quote name='Strell']Let's put it this way.

Jerry Seinfeld bought a sport jacket once, but didn't care for the attitude of the clerk that sold it to him. However, he was denied the privilege to return it under the reasoning of "spite." Because that was his official response when asked why the jacket was inferior in some way, that's the one he's stuck with.

Lesson being: lie, whether you are a comedian or a gigantic, centuries-old religion, if it helps you get your way. Say you ran out of money due to the economy. Or blame Obama, Muslim brother to Satan Inkarnit.

But they've already shown their hand - "NO MONEY 'CUZZA QUEERS!" - and have to play it. And if I want to call them out as being dickbag fuck knuckles, then I get to do so. They can even flip the table over. Bluff better next time and I won't see through it.

A hundred years ago, you could get away with this kind of shit easier. But we have computers today, which helps even the playing field, and generally won't let this kind of shit slip through the cracks as easy as it did back when cars were dreamed of.[/QUOTE]

It's more like the thief who wants to get caught. Methinks the Catholic church enjoys the cable news glamor, drama, and walking the rightous path more then they enjoy actually helping people in need.
 
I don't put faith in some 2 thousand year old book to tell me what's right and wrong. Those who do... bleh, I can do without them.

Just funny that gay marriage and homosexuality is THE ONE SIN these people make an issue of. If you're any other kind of sinner, they will still help you.
 
[quote name='Strell']Let's put it this way.

Or blame Obama, Muslim brother to Satan Inkarnit.[/QUOTE]


Muslims don't attend Catholic church services, you dumb shit.
 
[quote name='Diosoth']I don't put faith in some 2 thousand year old book to tell me what's right and wrong. Those who do... bleh, I can do without them.

Just funny that gay marriage and homosexuality is THE ONE SIN these people make an issue of. If you're any other kind of sinner, they will still help you.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, the first step to repenting is admitting that your behavior is a sin and that you need to change your ways. I don't think many GLBT's are interested in taking that "first step" or getting "help" with it. Likewise, I don't expect many churchgoers to extend much of an outreach program to unapologetic rapists or such either.

(I'm not saying that homosexuality is a sin and I'm not trying to compare it with raping someone either - I'm just pointing out *why*, in my understanding, the church isn't in the business of "helping" homosexuals.)
 
Correct, Uncle. As far as I know, most mainstream church's are perfectly accepting of a homosexual or anyone claiming to be homosexual, as long as they don't (or claim they don't want to) participate in homosexual acts.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Correct, Uncle. As far as I know, most mainstream church's are perfectly accepting of a homosexual or anyone claiming to be homosexual, as long as they don't (or claim they don't want to) participate in homosexual acts.[/QUOTE]

Hate the sin, love the sinner.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Correct, Uncle. As far as I know, most mainstream church's are perfectly accepting of a homosexual or anyone claiming to be homosexual, as long as they don't (or claim they don't want to) participate in homosexual acts.[/QUOTE]

Being gay is ok as long as you don't do anything gay. lol, am I reading this wrong?
 
Regardless if you agree with it or not, there are individuals out there who believe homosexuality is wrong. While we may or may not be able to prove the existence of a "gay gene", the fact is, acting on one's homosexual urges *is* a choice. Thus, if you fall into the subset of individuals who think homosexuality is a sin, then, you'd believe one should not act on their homosexual urges.

So, yes - be gay, just don't do gay things.

(again, not my personal belief, just trying to clear things up.)
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] the fact is, acting on one's homosexual urges *is* a choice.
[/QUOTE]

Why does this conversation - in the many, various forms it takes - always come back to this faulty premise, as if it were infallible?

We might as well argue that the Earth is flat because "every picture I've seen is flat, so therefore the subject itself is as well!"
 
I could just as easily say that a slut shouldn't act on her urges and learn to keep her legs shut, but i wouldn't be right. Though apparently i would be Catholic.

edit- I really wish i had Stell's way of cutting through the bullshit.
 
[quote name='whuzizname']Anti-Catholicism is one of America's oldest prejudices. Sadly, there are still many anti-Catholic bigots in this country.
[/QUOTE]

Let's not pretend there's no reason for that, at least in the eyes of some people. There will always be clueless, moronic bigots. Ignore them. But there's always going to some that can point to certain things to back up a perspective. Those are the ones you should give due attention to, and not scoff off as idiots looking for a good time.

Some people get excommunicated, some know someone who got molested, some have friends who are hounded by their families and friends for not agreeing with religious principles, etc etc etc. Some are mad about the Crusades. Still others have various other issues. These are all valid, whether you like them or not.

Pulling this "woe me" act really annoys me, especially when the person doing it comes from a clear seat of power. And it's about to be Christmas, when there will be no shortage of "CHRISTMAS UNDER ATTACK" stories, which are about the most hilarious things ever. Come back when people start clubbing churchgoers with goat blood soaked shillelaghs. We'll talk then.

You don't have to like. You can even rail against it. But stop pretending you don't deserve it. Hell, there are people who think Mister Rogers was an asshole.

My brain stops when I consider such things.
 
So what if 2 men or 2 women want a marriage license and have no intentions on stepping anywhere near a church?

Shut UP Catholics. Stop ruining shit for other people.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Mah, i treat all religions with equal disdain.

[/QUOTE]

So you are bigotted against all religions? Not very enlightened.

I thought the schools and the media teach us to idolize "diversity" these days.
 
[quote name='whuzizname']So you are bigoted against all religions? Not very enlightened.

I thought the schools and the media teach us to idolize "diversity" these days.[/QUOTE]

Very original.

Do they clone you guys or do you reproduce asexually?
 
[quote name='Strell']Why does this conversation - in the many, various forms it takes - always come back to this faulty premise, as if it were infallible?

We might as well argue that the Earth is flat because "every picture I've seen is flat, so therefore the subject itself is as well!"[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that a homosexual individual has no choice other than to act on his or her homosexual urges?

Are you saying that any sexual individual has no choice other than to act on his or her sexual urges? As if we're all sex-crazed individuals who will drop trou and hump at the sight of another human (or otherwise?).

The feelings and desires may not be a choice, but the actions are a choice.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Are you saying that a homosexual individual has no choice other than to act on his or her homosexual urges?[/quote]

Are you agreeing that - by your own very definition - a heterosexual is merely someone who acts upon heterosexual urges? And thus, making all sex nothing more than a choice? Something that destroys your whole argument, where you later say that choice and emotional content are negligable in the face of pure actions?

And that if I were to hump poundcake, I'd be a poundcakesexual? Or, "cake-omo" if you want the derogatory shortened versions?

Are you saying that any sexual individual has no choice other than to act on his or her sexual urges?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that people who masturbate are - therefore - engaging in sex with a person of their own gender - themselves - and thus partially homosexual?

As if we're all sex-crazed individuals who will drop trou and hump at the sight of another human (or otherwise?).
Click to expand...

Now we're just being silly.

The feelings and desires may not be a choice, but the actions are a choice.
Click to expand...

That's ricockulous. Again we meet the assumption of actions being the sole characteristic that defines sexuality. You throw out so much by relegating it down to this level of simplicity, that the entire discussion is one step above calling someone a poopoohead.

Men in jail have sex with each other all the time. Many of them are heterosexual. Several men in the porn industry work the same way, because homoerotic porn pays them more. Does that make them totally gay? Or is it only when they happen to have to rid themselves of sexual urge, and the mate at that time happens to be the same gender? You're journeying down a hilariously foggy road.

Calling it purely based on acts is ridiculous. The next time I see a guy hump his buddy, I'm going to release the slur-hounds and ruin his life RIGHT THERE.

It's going to be grand. Perhaps at my next birthday party.
 
[quote name='georox']I'd love it if homophobic groups/religious organizations lost their tax-exempt status of being a religion. :D Money talks... bet we'd see less open-hatred are more closeted-hatred.[/QUOTE]

Ahh yes....someone predictably pulls the "HOMOPHOBE" card.

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.
 
[quote name='whuzizname']Ahh yes....someone predictably pulls the "HOMOPHOBE" card.[/quote]

Talks like a duck...

In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I hear an awful lot of stupidity about a supposed "Homosexual Agenda" you may not want to call it fear mongering but see the above.

Strell:
Now we're just being silly.
Click to expand...

When has Bob ever not been a silly threadcrapper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top