The Glade 4.0

And you can think that. But I believe that, for conscience sake, we should do what we believe to be right, whatever it costs us. Standing on principle and keeping our integrity can be costly, and some people will falsely speak evil of you. Comes with the territory, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

If I remember the news articles I read last week, the biggest problem the DC churches have with allowing gay marriage in DC is that district law will require them to give spousal benefits to gay couples that work for them if they receive district funding (they currently receive a few million dollars from the district for their charity programs).

Spiritual blackmail of secular government. Classy.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Other way around. Secular blackmail of service organizations that are spiritual. Pulling your services from an area because of moral objectins isn't blackmail; the Church has no obligations whatsoever to provide adoption or any other services ot any particular area.

Or, they could just turn down the district funding.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think you're making an assumption that A) you understand the Catholic responsibility in regard to sin better than the Archbishop in question and B) that there is no concern for the children involved. Regardless of whether you feel that adoption by gay parents is bad for children, the Catholic church does think that, and believes it has a moral obligation not to be party to such things.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This. They should just relenquish the funds. Seems simple to me.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

A perfect example of the general sentiment by some posters on this board to celebrate as heros those that perform an action to which they agree while demonizing another for doing the same thing for the same reasons, but you don't like the outcome.

Being an agnostic, I can still sympathize with the position the church is in, because frankly, if I were voluntarily offering a service and someone came along and told me I had to adjust what I was doing voluntarily to accommodate actions/actives with which I object, I'd stop too.

Its no different than how I make decisions about which charities to donate funds/items/time. If someone came by and said I had to donate to a cause I don't support if I donate to any charity... guess what. I'd stop donating.

If they can afford to keep working without them. Of course, if they can't afford to and decid to pull out, they'll relinquish them anyhow.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I was also thinking of demanding that certain buisnesses boycott certain countries, or boycotting the buisnesses themselves. Refusing to patronise a buisness whose practices one objects to would also be "blackmail" by this logic.

The apparent standard for the church is that it must provide social services to anyone, regardless of moral convictions, and must in the process avoid mentioning anything that could be construed as prostelytizing in any way, or it is either blackmailing someone, "sticking it's nose in politics" or otherwise somehow commiting the grave moral wrong of not being sufficiently supportive of liberal policies.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm also thinking that giving the money back won't address the insurance benefits issue.

According to Timmit's post, it will:



I think it's more likely that giving the funds back will still not allow them to refuse adoption to gay couples, and I would be willing to bet that there are at least a few gay couples that will seek out Catholic adoption agencies simply to antagonize them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Or to set up a lawsuit against the church, claiming it isn't about the money, its about equality, while the punitive damages are in the millions.

Which will be interesting, especially if the Catholic agencies no longer accept public funds.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Funny how that seems to happen.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

But it's not about the money.

Of course it's not. It's about ensuring equality!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Actually the only issue I have with the church is when they attempt to directly affect politics. And the only reason I have an issue with that is because they gave up that right by accepting a tax exempt status.

What about other non-religious based non-profits that do the same?

_________________
The Dude abides.

Do you have an example Screeling?

To be honest, I'm not overly clear on all the regulations surrounding non-profits, so I'm not sure if it's legal or not.

In general, however, I really dislike any supposedly non-political organization trying to influence policy. I'm not crazy about political organizations influencing policy either, but realize that it's a necessary evil in the current system.

Actually, what I would presume is that returning District money would force them to close by putting them in the red.


Looking at the Archdiocese's 990, for example, (of which I took a screenshot but can't upload to photobucket from work), I found that $15.95m of their gross revenue comes from "government contracts." This represents 89.5% of their total revenue of $17.82m.

Now, considering their 2008 margin was -$758,689 (or in like terms, -$0.76m, or -4.3%), if even 20% of the "government contracts" comes from the District (likely much more, really, since they have no state government from which to draw funding), we'd see their margin decrease to -$3.95m or -22.2%. No organization can withstand losses like that, and they'd likely either have to close entirely, or so reduce services as to be effectively closed anyway.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It's almost like money isn't free, and you need to be careful who you accept it from.

_________________

I hear tale that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

_________________

There really is no such thing as a non-political organization once you get into any social arena. Any social issue is inherently political as a matter of public policy.

Saying that organizations involved in social issues shouldn't be involved in politics is essentially saying they shouldn't be involved in social issues, or at least that if they are they should avoid any involvement in political decisions that ultimately effect them.

Keeping them out of elections specifically is another matter and rather more workable, but ultimately involvement in the politics of social issues is a Free Speech right, and in the case of religious people, a Free Exerise right. Telling people who are religious that thye must choose between the moral aspects of their faith and the charitable ones is essentially a denial of Free Exercise, as is creating a situation that results in a de facto choice of the same sort.

Granted, that doesn't excuse organizations that get so wrapped up in public funds that they impose a choice on themselves, but it still is not an excuse for calling their self-induced closure a form of blackmail (yes I know someone else said that).



I heard that too! Imagine that!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

TINSTAAFL is only true in capitalist societies, in socialist ones there are plenty of free lunches, duh. Haven't you heard how well that worked out for the Soviets? Jeez, it's like you don't know history or something...

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It works great when there are convenient Nazis you need to repel. After that it sort of goes down the shitter.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."