Who thinks this is the right decision?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

6 hours ago, Didba said:

No. it is not that black and white.

When it comes to whether the government wants to have control over messaging and how a private organization does things, yeah it is. If you don’t value what they do, or don’t like the way they do it, then do it yourself so you can have full control over it like you want. 

[Didba 5,256]

20 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

When it comes to whether the government wants to have control over messaging and how a private organization does things, yeah it is. If you don’t value what they do, or don’t like the way they do it, then do it yourself so you can have full control over it like you want. 

You know I have pretty high respect for you so I won't say anything disparaging.

Private religious orgs that receive government funding are subjected to a higher scrutiny especially when they discrimnate on religion. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 hours ago, Didba said:

You know I have pretty high respect for you so I won't say anything disparaging.

Private religious orgs that receive government funding are subjected to a higher scrutiny especially when they discrimnate on religion. 

First of all, thanks.  I think even though we differ on this and probably several other things, you bring a reasonable and civil approach to these debate and it's greatly appreciated.

Now, what I'm saying is, that's a wrong paradigm.  In almost all of these cases, the government approached the private organizations because they felt that by partnering with them, they could save the taxpayers some money and gain efficiencies by joining people already having success in whatever endeavor they are pursuing.  They saw an opportunity to get more done for less money and time/effort than it would take for the government to have to build out all these offices on their own.

Therefore, government should not be in the habit of dangling money out there under the banner of "working with" to faith-based organizations only to use it to compel them into changing what has made them successful.  That's actually a violation of the establishment clause in the other direction from what you seem to be worried about.  If working with them and the way they do things is too problematic in your eyes, then the solution is to simply take the money and time to build out all that infrastructure yourself, not use tax dollars to worm your way into religious institutions and force them to change their beliefs.

[homersapien 11,357]

The government should not provide financial support for any organization that provides services that discriminate against potential clients on the basis of religion, period.

 

 

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

First of all, thanks.  I think even though we differ on this and probably several other things, you bring a reasonable and civil approach to these debate and it's greatly appreciated.

Now, what I'm saying is, that's a wrong paradigm.  In almost all of these cases, the government approached the private organizations because they felt that by partnering with them, they could save the taxpayers some money and gain efficiencies by joining people already having success in whatever endeavor they are pursuing.  They saw an opportunity to get more done for less money and time/effort than it would take for the government to have to build out all these offices on their own.

Therefore, government should not be in the habit of dangling money out there under the banner of "working with" to faith-based organizations only to use it to compel them into changing what has made them successful.  That's actually a violation of the establishment clause in the other direction from what you seem to be worried about.  If working with them and the way they do things is too problematic in your eyes, then the solution is to simply take the money and time to build out all that infrastructure yourself, not use tax dollars to worm your way into religious institutions and force them to change their beliefs.

That's a great point in your second paragraph, the establishment clause swings both ways, it's an interesting delimma cause on one hand these religious orgs could be considered a quasi-state actor which reinforces my opinion on the establishment clause, on the other hand if they aren't a quasi-state actor then your take rings true.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 7/8/2022 at 11:48 AM, TexasTiger said:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/jewish-couples-lawsuit-over-christian-foster-home-rejection-dismissed.html

If tax dollars support a service should religious discrimination be allowed? If you agree with this decision, would you support tax dollars supporting a Muslim foster home? Satanist? Atheist? 
 

If a faith based foster home receives no tax dollars or benefits, there’s a much stronger argument for them limiting who can foster/adopt, but if taxes from all religious persuasions are being provided, should such discrimination be allowed?

Would you deny the motion, counsel?

[TexasTiger 12,827]

30 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Would you deny the motion, counsel?

Tricky one. I think @TitanTiger   has a strong argument— I’d need to hear the counter.

[autigeremt 6,589]

On 7/8/2022 at 1:05 PM, icanthearyou said:

My disappointment is not with the court.  My disappointment is with the couple and, the Methodist Church. 

Anyone truly wanting to help foster children would cooperate, not litigate.  There is no reflection of God's love, only exclusion and confrontation.

I agree! Fostering children comes with a price and foster parents should be prepared to accept that price in exchange for doing good. 

[AUDub 11,136]

On 7/12/2022 at 7:06 AM, TitanTiger said:

First of all, thanks.  I think even though we differ on this and probably several other things, you bring a reasonable and civil approach to these debate and it's greatly appreciated.

Now, what I'm saying is, that's a wrong paradigm.  In almost all of these cases, the government approached the private organizations because they felt that by partnering with them, they could save the taxpayers some money and gain efficiencies by joining people already having success in whatever endeavor they are pursuing.  They saw an opportunity to get more done for less money and time/effort than it would take for the government to have to build out all these offices on their own.

Therefore, government should not be in the habit of dangling money out there under the banner of "working with" to faith-based organizations only to use it to compel them into changing what has made them successful.  That's actually a violation of the establishment clause in the other direction from what you seem to be worried about.  If working with them and the way they do things is too problematic in your eyes, then the solution is to simply take the money and time to build out all that infrastructure yourself, not use tax dollars to worm your way into religious institutions and force them to change their beliefs.

I think we can look at this through two lenses:

1. Some government leaders are intentionally twisting laws to favor their religion and disenfranchise others.

2. Government leaders are forced to operate within restricted budgets and its easier for them to structure things so they work well with/for their trusted lifelong partners in the various church communities they've grown up in, supported, etc

The second one is not overtly malicious but is a reflection of a built in bias that operates on autopilot. 

End of the day, state requires certification, certification is not available to non-Christians. That can't be allowed. It flies in the face of our founding principles.

Edited July 14, 2022 by AUDub

[TitanTiger 20,472]

19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

End of the day, state requires certification, certification is not available to non-Christians. That can't be allowed. It flies in the face of our founding principles.

But it is available to non-Christians.  State/non-sectarian agencies outnumber faith-based agencies 6 to 1.  And not even all of the faith-based ones would have the restriction this one does.

I get the budget constraints government agencies have to deal with.  But solving their budget crisis shouldn't allow them to compel religious organizations that in almost every situation, government sought out for their help to abandon or compromise their beliefs and the way their faith is infused in the way they tackle the problem.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Is excluding kind, loving people the practice of religion, the practice of Christianity?  I believe it is the exact opposite.

Once again, the Church has failed to spread the love of Jesus.  The Church's existence seems to be mostly about the Church itself.

 

[homersapien 11,357]

6 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Is excluding kind, loving people the practice of religion, the practice of Christianity?  I believe it is the exact opposite.

Once again, the Church has failed to spread the love of Jesus.  The Church's existence seems to be mostly about the Church itself.

 

Yep. 

In this case, it's apparent that the "Christians" enforcing this policy are far more concerned about supplementing their own sectarian ranks than they are for the children they are supposedly helping. 

Either that, or they believe Jews are evil and keeping one of their kids from living with a Jewish family is really in the best interests of that child.

It's kind of ironic when you think about it.

Edited July 15, 2022 by homersapien

[Didba 5,256]

On 7/14/2022 at 8:46 AM, AUDub said:

I think we can look at this through two lenses:

1. Some government leaders are intentionally twisting laws to favor their religion and disenfranchise others.

2. Government leaders are forced to operate within restricted budgets and its easier for them to structure things so they work well with/for their trusted lifelong partners in the various church communities they've grown up in, supported, etc

The second one is not overtly malicious but is a reflection of a built in bias that operates on autopilot. 

End of the day, state requires certification, certification is not available to non-Christians. That can't be allowed. It flies in the face of our founding principles.

End of the day discrimination of any of the big 5 cannot be allowed.  Religion is in there. You cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in this country.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Didba

[AuburnNTexas 7,133]

On 7/8/2022 at 3:42 PM, TexasTiger said:

So would you take the same approach to a Muslim or secular humanist home that operated similarly?

I think Titan Tiger made very lucid points. I can't answer for him but I can for myself. I have no more problem having state giving funds to a Muslim organization or secular humanist organization as long as it helped get kids into a proper carrying Foster home.  As an example if a child was born and raised in a Muslim home ideally the child should be placed in a Muslim Foster home if possible and who could do that better than a Muslim Foster Agency.

Sadly to often kids are just placed in Foster homes without any consideration as to which home would fit their needs best. This has more to do with not enough people providing Foster home and an over worked state work force. 

[DKW 86 7,418]

On 7/12/2022 at 10:55 AM, homersapien said:

The government should not provide financial support for any organization that provides services that discriminate against potential clients on the basis of religion, period.

Ditto

[DKW 86 7,418]

On 7/16/2022 at 2:03 AM, Didba said:

End of the day discrimination of any of the big 5 cannot be allowed.  Religion is in there. You cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in this country.

Ditto. Zero room for this. Any funds going to a religious institution are wrong.

[Didba 5,256]

On 7/19/2022 at 5:49 AM, DKW 86 said:

Ditto. Zero room for this. Any funds going to a religious institution are wrong.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 7/19/2022 at 5:49 AM, DKW 86 said:

Any funds going to a religious institution are wrong.

On what basis? 

[DKW 86 7,418]

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

On what basis? 

On any basis. Schools, Social Work etc. We dont need govt money going to Christian, Muslim, Atheists, etc. If churches want to get involved, pass the offering plate. 

Look, you need a religion free world. Besides being involved with the govt should be at the top of any church's list of things to do.