home

Choose Discrimination

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 12:35:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

It's bad enough that a state offers "Choose Life" license plates without offering a "Choose Choice" alternative, thus signaling state support for a particular religious point of view. It's even worse when the state supports faith-based adoption services by providing them with money from the sale of "Choose Life" license plates, thus intertwining the state with religion. But it's outrageous that a state gives money to an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion.

The Mississippi office of Bethany Christian Services (an organization that has 75 offices in 30 states) rejects Catholic couples who apply for adoption because Catholic doctrine, in the agency's view, conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith."

"It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith," Bethany's state director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy."

Catholic couples are religiously unfit to adopt? Is that the official line of the State of Mississippi? Why has Mississippi chosen to support an anti-Catholic agency?

< Fact Sheet on Karl Rove's Non-Disclosure Agreement | Dean on Rove >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Choose Discrimination | 20 comments (20 topical)
    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    BigMediaBlog, Wile E. Coyote, and grad student...question: Between the three of you....how many uteruses do you have and how many unaborted kids have you adopted?

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#1)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    An officer of a child welfare organization would deny a child the care of two loving parents because those parents belong to the "wrong" religion? How much more nakedly can he reveal his true agenda?

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    Well, from perusing their "statement of faith" it does certainly disqualify Catholics.
    The Scriptures tell us that we receive forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus Christ, and that God provides salvation by grace alone for those who repent and believe.
    That Doctrine of Good Works will ruin a child I tells ya! But it seems snake handlers should be perfectly copecetic.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Are laws being broken? Is the private agency violating or encouraging the breaking of our laws? Are people being forced to buy these license plates? For something similar I find less-than-wholesome, read up on a similar situation in Nevada. People can buy license plates with an Aztec calendar on them. Part of the proceeds go to: A nonprofit organization founded in October 2001, the Immigrant Workers Citizenship Project (IWCP) works hand-in-hand with the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition (IWFRC), the group that sponsored what was essentially mass participation in a federal crime by transporting illegal aliens across state lines in October of 2003...

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    I guess TChris is saying Atheists can't be prolife.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Yes, the most fundamental law of the US, i.e. the Constitution, is being violated by giving tax dollars for religious discrimination. And frankly, linking to a site called "lonewacko" is not basis for factual argument. Everyone is pro-life, we are alive and would prefer to stay that way, the term has no meaning. Be honest and say 'anti-choice', or 'we want the government involved in our medical decisions.' Or 'I want the power to rule wombs, regardless of the health outcome.' IRT atheists, nice strawman, but the scarecrow didn't have a brain. Please provide links to atheists who want to kill Drs, are against legal abortion, and bomb clinics.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#6)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Sailor: Well Shipmate, I will quote TChris since I addressed his quote:
    "Choose Life" license plates without offering a "Choose Choice" alternative, thus signaling state support for a particular religious point of view
    Shoose Life equals a particular religious point of view. Undoubtly not an atheists point of view.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    I'm Catholic, pro-life, and I've owned a pair of those "Choose Life" license plates. I find it disingenuous that TChris is raising this as an issue of discrimination, having encountered a fair bit of that myself from hard-left types a lot like TChris in the state those plates came from. The real issue here, as we all know, is abortion and the 'Choose Life' slogan some of us are willing to pay extra for. If a pregnant non-catholic teen wants to bring her baby to term, give him/her up for adoption, and NOT have to worry about the child being raised catholic then who are you to object? Naturally you'd rather that money be spent on helping her rip the baby limb from limb....but those of us who believe life is an inalienable human right know that the government can and should offer support to young mothers without killing people. I'd rather work to change her mind about Catholics, than be living with the knowledge that my country and yours kill the equivalent of half a Tsunami of unborn kids every damn day.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#9)
    by bad Jim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Catholic purchasers of "Choose Life" plates are likely to feel betrayed upon learning that the proceeds are funding an anti-Catholic group. This not only fails to be compassionate, it falls far short of being honest.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#10)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Ernie: As I have stated here before (look in the archives), as long as taxpayer money is not used, people can do what they want with their bodies. They have to live with their own Conscious for the rest of their lives. I just like to stir the pot here. My spouse and I had to face the dilema a few years ago of either an abortion or have a kid with Downs. Fortuantely further tests proved negative. We had made the decision to go through with the birth no matter what happened. That was our choice. If you are implying that I cannot comment on abortion because I have no uterous, then how about people who have never been in the military can not comment on military matters? As for adopting unaborted kids (as opposed to aborted kids) (it is good you see the abortions are kids). We have several friends that have adopted kids, mostly chinese, eastern european , all handicapped because of the lack of children to adopt and the red tape here. Your turn.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    There are several adoption agencies that will work only with Christian families (whether or not they don't work with Catholics, I don't know). However, the key point here is that they are taking state funds and their services are available only to those who adhere to their statement of faith. What interests me: is this religious requirement only for those who wish to adopt caucasian babies or for all domestic and international adoptions as well? Does anyone know?

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Wile E. So the answer to my question from you is a big fat ZERO. Which is what I figured. Thanks for playing. Still waiting on answers from the other two.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#13)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Ernie: How about answering my question to you?

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    Sure...you dodged mine but I will answer yours:
    If you are implying that I cannot comment on abortion because I have no uterous, then how about people who have never been in the military can not comment on military matters?
    Nope...apples and oranges. Here's the deal: if you pay taxes, are of draft age or will be in a few years, you have a definite responsibility to be involved in any debate on military matters. Now as for abortion...if you can't get pregnant you aren't fully qualified to comment. And if you haven't adopted a child that would otherwise have been aborted (as a fetus not a child, hello?)...you are a hypocrite and should just clam up instead of advertising it.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    The ‘real issue’ here is NOT abortion. As you say here (in a truly bigoted fashion yourself I might add) - “ If a pregnant non-catholic teen wants to bring her baby to term, give him/her up for adoption, and NOT have to worry about the child being raised catholic then who are you to object?” I surely wouldn’t have a problem with this - personal preference and all that - if the agency is full self-supporting. However, it cannot be a policy of any governmental agency nor the policy of any agency receiving monies from any governmental branch (be it federal...down to city, village or township). As stated in the article:
    “A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith."
    Nothing promotes ignorance more regarding Catholic theology than stupidity. As the couple who attempted to adopt report: “Sandy and Robert Steadman, who learned of Bethany's decision in a July 8 letter, said their priest told them the faith statement did not conflict with Catholic teaching.” I read the Statement of Faith. Their priest is correct; there’s nothing in that statement that conflicts with Catholic teaching. This is where my Catholic education comes in rather handy - undergrad & grad. As for men who are vehemently antichoice, I don't think it means they are particularly "prolife" as it means they are consumed with control. Otherwise, WHY would they care what choice a woman makes concerning a pregnancy? I get sick of the phrase pro-abortion; it's not about abortion. It's about choices. YOU do not have the right to make the choice for any woman. Neither do I and I wouldn't it. I, more than likely, would never have an abortion. However, I would NOT however ever tell another woman what she should do - unless asked. It is none of my business and it is certainly none of yours - grad student in particular. It is not a decision weighed lightly although the 'prolifers' certainly like to state that it is. As for this, grad student:
    "I'd rather work to change her mind about Catholics, than be living with the knowledge that my country and yours kill the equivalent of half a Tsunami of unborn kids every damn day."
    Back that up with data. I'd certainly be interested.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    You know, as a female atheist, I'd only have an abortion if the child's life was in immidiate danger or if the child's quality of life was going to be non existent upon birth, but, you rightwingers trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body makes me want to go out, get pregnant, have an abortion and throw the damn fetus on your front lawn just to spite you. This is the feeling that all of your "morally superior" words illicit from people like me. Remember that, and I'm not the only one that feels like this.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#17)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    Ernie: I didn't dodge your question. Here, I have no uterous. Besides I pay taxes and if tax money is used for abortions, should I not be allowed an opinion? I you have not been in the military, you are not fully qualifed to speak on it. Besides I am on your side, on this issue. I just like to push buttons.

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#18)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    Fenria, LOL! Sometimes I feel like getting a sex change so I can join in getting Pregnant, just to do what you are saying. Wouldnt actually work, but fun to think of new ways to p+ss off the religious right. So, State funded agencies get to decide whether you believe in the right invisible man, or a false invisible man? When religion comforts the sick, or weak, it doesnt seem too offensive. When it's used to put people down, it seems stupid. Also, isnt the basic message one of inclusiveness? Sometimes it seems that the overly religious dont even understand their own philosophy

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    Wile...OK I will concede the point on paying taxes/commenting. But let's expand the being/having been in the military to also "capable of being in the miliary"...similar to "capable of getting pregnant". Fair enough?

    Re: Choose Discrimination (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    So funny some of the confusion I see here. Typically, an expectant woman can go to any adoption agency or adoption attorney and pick a family for her child when it's born based on any number of factors that are exclusionary -- such as religion or no religion, gay vs. hetero, family with children already vs. childless, or she just likes the way they look in the photographs etc. It's her choice. Also, because the relative scarcity in the US of caucasian newborns available for adoption, I doubt any agency, evangelical Christian or otherwise, would not reject an expectant woman who was not Christian wanted to place her baby through them. If she's thoughtful, and I think many of the women who decide to place their children are, a Catholic woman might not want to place her child through an agency such as Bethany. There are many, many other options. The big deal is that this agency makes the restriction about the type adoptive parents - not expectant parents - who may use their services AND accepts state funds. Once again, this muddies the separation of church and state.

    Choose Discrimination | 20 comments (20 topical)