Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum

[Temporal Renegade]

Oh, that wacky Catholic Church...

Seems they're threatening to take their ball and go home in the Washington, D.C. area, unless a same-sex marriage law is changed. If it isn't, they're saying they will stop services that help people who need help in the area.
Yes, they're threatening to basically hold a gun to D.C.'s head, to get them to change a law (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?referrer=reddit), so they can continue to 'help' people.

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

[bokonon]

Oh, that wacky Catholic Church...

Seems they're threatening to take their ball and go home in the Washington, D.C. area, unless a same-sex marriage law is changed. If it isn't, they're saying they will stop services that help people who need help in the area.
Yes, they're threatening to basically hold a gun to D.C.'s head, to get them to change a law (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?referrer=reddit), so they can continue to 'help' people.

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?
My reading of the article is that it isn't their ball to begin with. They're getting public money, which they want to be free to spend in a way that is discriminatory. They're basically saying "We won't take your money if we can't discriminate against gay people when we spend it."

You can bet some secular organization will be happy to fill any void they leave. Let the bigots go, and good riddance.

[~enigma~]

About time. Maybe the entire catholic church can go back to Vatican city.

[justcharlie09]

Oh, that wacky Catholic Church...

Seems they're threatening to take their ball and go home in the Washington, D.C. area, unless a same-sex marriage law is changed. If it isn't, they're saying they will stop services that help people who need help in the area.
Yes, they're threatening to basically hold a gun to D.C.'s head, to get them to change a law (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?referrer=reddit), so they can continue to 'help' people.

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Real @#$@#ing mature on the part of the church, IMO.

In need? Tough, we won't feed you starving children and homeless people unless we agree with you.

I see a variety of things wrong with this, not the least of which is the UN-Christlike part of it.

[justcharlie09]

My reading of the article is that it isn't their ball to begin with. They're getting public money, which they want to be free to spend in a way that is discriminatory. They're basically saying "We won't take your money if we can't discriminate against gay people when we spend it."

You can bet some secular organization will be happy to fill any void they leave. Let the bigots go, and good riddance.

I hope so. I just cannot wrap my head around this view of charity?

Guess it's true, you really can't serve God and mammon (money...and the Catholic Church is pretty freaking wealthy by most standards last time I knew anything...but what do I know).

Hope DC tells them not to let the door hit them in the backside on the way out.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My reading of the article is that it isn't their ball to begin with. They're getting public money, which they want to be free to spend in a way that is discriminatory. They're basically saying "We won't take your money if we can't discriminate against gay people when we spend it."

You can bet some secular organization will be happy to fill any void they leave. Let the bigots go, and good riddance.

Yeah, this is where Obama flat out broke a campaign promise. He promised he would undo the executive orders that allow recipients of Faith-Based Initiative money to discriminate (both in giving services and in hiring). According to Barry Lynn, it's a problem that could be fixed with Obama's signature (unlike most of the problems Obama is faced with).

Obama's people said instead that he would deal with these on a case-by-case basis (meaning they are still allowing these groups to discriminate however they want with taxpayer money).

[justcharlie09]

Yeah, this is where Obama flat out broke a campaign promise. He promised he would undo the executive orders that allow recipients of Faith-Based Initiative money to discriminate (both in giving services and in hiring). According to Barry Lynn, it's a problem that could be fixed with Obama's signature (unlike most of the problems Obama is faced with).

Obama's people said instead that he would deal with these on a case-by-case basis (meaning they are still allowing these groups to discriminate however they want with taxpayer money).

While Obama's at it (if he ever gets around to signing such a thing) he should include in the "services" Catholic hospitals who refuse certain reproductive health services to women. This is a BIG deal if you live in a place where the closest hospitals are Catholic organizations.

[Dancing David]

Oh, that wacky Catholic Church...

Seems they're threatening to take their ball and go home in the Washington, D.C. area, unless a same-sex marriage law is changed. If it isn't, they're saying they will stop services that help people who need help in the area.
Yes, they're threatening to basically hold a gun to D.C.'s head, to get them to change a law (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?referrer=reddit), so they can continue to 'help' people.

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Funny how DC CC doesn't even mentions it on their News Page (http://www.catholiccharitiesdc.org/newsroom/news/)

Council Response (http://wjz.com/local/DC.gay.marriage.2.1310186.html) "Your bluffing."

[MattusMaximus]

About time. Maybe the entire catholic church can go back to Vatican city.

Either that, or if they want to dabble so much in politics in the U.S. they should start paying some frakkin' taxes. Otherwise, they should shut the hell up.

I love it how some of these damn religious organizations want to have it both ways :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Funny how DC CC doesn't even mentions it on their News Page (http://www.catholiccharitiesdc.org/newsroom/news/)

Council Response (http://wjz.com/local/DC.gay.marriage.2.1310186.html) "Your bluffing."

Yeah, I see some major egg on the CC's face in the near future on this :D

[JoeTheJuggler]

While Obama's at it (if he ever gets around to signing such a thing) he should include in the "services" Catholic hospitals who refuse certain reproductive health services to women. This is a BIG deal if you live in a place where the closest hospitals are Catholic organizations.

That might be more difficult to achieve. (I think the anti-abortion language is going to stay in whatever version of the health insurance reform finally passes.)

But stopping entities that receive taxpayer money from discrimination wold be easy. And this incident is exactly the sort of problem that's foreseeable when we rely on religious organizations to provide services that we the people ought provide using taxpayer money. If Faith-Based Initiatives isn't undone altogether, at the very least we have to insist that Obama fulfill his promise to issue orders that would prohibit discrimination.

By the way, just to clarify, in the D.C. story, right now entities (including the Catholic Church) that receive taxpayer funding are allowed to discriminate (in delivering services and in hiring, even for jobs funded by public money). Their ultimatum is not to change the law to allow them to discriminate, but rather a demand that a proposed law to prevent discrimination not be passed.

Here's Barry Lynn's take (http://blog.au.org/2009/11/12/bishops-bluff-dc-officials-should-reject-church-threat-over-tax-funding/) on their bluff:

I doubt it will come to that. Catholic Charities relies heavily on public money. In most parts of the country, the lion’s share of its budget comes from the public purse. In D.C. for example, Catholic Charities had an overall budget of $23 million for the fiscal year that ended in June of 2008. Of that total, $16 million came from the government.

[Beerina]

Ummm, this is a nasty, tangled nest that shouldn't have been created in the first place.

From TFA:

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings.

I don't see how a government forbidden from interfering with religion could even dream of such a thing, but...


But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

Again, I don't see how they could be forced to do anything...until I see this "contract" thing.

Well, if you are taking money to provide social services, you have to obey their rules.

Of course, that religion, perhaps, has less of its own money to use precisely because government takes so much through taxation, leaving less for donations, is yet another twist in the nasty rat's nest.


Do the people of America want government acting like a 5th column, inserting itself everywhere, then becoming the dominant player, and along with it, all the rules and regulations it brings?

[Dave Rogers]

Do the people of America want government acting like a 5th column, inserting itself everywhere, then becoming the dominant player, and along with it, all the rules and regulations it brings?

Or would they rather that the Roman Catholic Church do the same thing? That seems to be the choice here; should the RCC effectively have a right of veto on the law?

Dave

[justcharlie09]

[QUOTE]That might be more difficult to achieve. (I think the anti-abortion language is going to stay in whatever version of the health insurance reform finally passes.)


It isn't just anti-abortion. I'm talking about the full range of reproductive health services like contraception, certain types of fetal testing, emergency contraception for rape victims, sterilization, etc.

If you're female and live in an area where your only access or closest access to these services are Catholic hospitals...you're up sh*t creek without a paddle. I can't express how dangerous this is for women's health and rights.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n1_v62/ai_20106600/

There are more articles out there. But this is true and I can tell you it's a pain in the arse out here because our closest hospitals are Catholic ones.

[justcharlie09]

Or would they rather that the Roman Catholic Church do the same thing? That seems to be the choice here; should the RCC effectively have a right of veto on the law?

Dave

What Dave said. I don't like "big government" but people need to see the aggressive actions of the RCC for what they are and fight against it. No institution should be able to violate civil liberties. I don't care what higher powers they cite as justification for it.

[drkitten]

Do the people of America want government acting like a 5th column, inserting itself everywhere, then becoming the dominant player, and along with it, all the rules and regulations it brings?

Yes.










Because when the government failed in its duties to "insert itself everywhere," it messed up the economy to a degree not seen since the 1930s (when the government also failed in its duties).

There's even empirical evidence to support the claim that the people of America want this. I refer you to the newspaper headlines from a little over a year ago.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ummm, this is a nasty, tangled nest that shouldn't have been created in the first place.
I agree. However, on the narrow issue of religious organizations receiving taxpayer money through the Faith Based Initiatives program, the solution is pretty simple and easy. Obama could ban discrimination by executive order. (My understanding is that it's Bush's executive orders that currently allow it.)

On the larger issue of same-sex marriage, there is a much broader church/state separation issue. The best solution, IMO, is to forbid any level of government from ever recognizing any religious ritual or ceremony as having a particular civil or legal status. Let the civil and legal marriage be something that only takes place via public documents. If people want to do a religious thing in addition to that, I will defend their First Amendment right to do so.


________
Yes, they're threatening to basically hold a gun to D.C.'s head, to get them to change a law, so they can continue to 'help' people.

There seems to be a conflict (or misunderstanding) between the account given in the OP and what I'm reading on the Americans United website (http://blog.au.org/2009/11/12/bishops-bluff-dc-officials-should-reject-church-threat-over-tax-funding/)
And indeed it was. Church officials are angry over pending legislation in Washington, D.C., that will curb discrimination against gays and lesbians by recognizing same-sex marriages. They are threatening to stop taking public money to provide social services unless the D.C. council changes the bill.
and in the Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html):
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.

The new law would ban discrimination which is now considered legal.

That is, in the OP when it says "change the law" it means "change a proposal that would change the status quo". In other words, Catholic Charities wants to keep the status quo (they're allowed to discriminate).

[JoeTheJuggler]

It isn't just anti-abortion. I'm talking about the full range of reproductive health services like contraception, certain types of fetal testing, emergency contraception for rape victims, sterilization, etc.
I know. I was pointing out that I don't think we can win even the relatively easy fight of getting the anti-abortion language removed from the health insurance reform bill.

But prohibiting discrimination in organizations that receive Faith Based Initiative taxpayer money would be easy to do. And Obama really did explicitly promise that he would do just that.

In July 2008 in Zanesville, Ohio, Obama said: “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”

He could do this by undoing Bush's executive orders that allow this discrimination:
Early in his first term, Mr. Bush issued executive orders expressly allowing religion-based groups receiving federal money to consider religion in their employment decisions, although confusion often remains in this area because of conflicting federal, state and local laws.

Linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02obama.html).

Even this issue in D.C. could be easily cleared up if Obama revoked these orders.

[pgwenthold]

Do the people of America want government acting like a 5th column, inserting itself everywhere, then becoming the dominant player, and along with it, all the rules and regulations it brings?

Yeah, how dare the US government insist that all people, regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation be granted with the same rights and responsibilities?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do the people of America want government acting like a 5th column, inserting itself everywhere, then becoming the dominant player, and along with it, all the rules and regulations it brings?
Yeah, how dare the US government insist that all people, regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation be granted with the same rights and responsibilities?

Yes, how dare the government take over the role of the church like that!

It would be much better if we let majority religions "insert themselves everywhere, then become the dominant player and bring along all their dogma and canon law".

Of course when canon courts displace those pesky and intrusive secular/government courts, we'll have to tolerate sharia law (and other religious systems) taking over in some places. But that's all right. Minorities would be free to flee to where their own kind is the majority. . . .

[justcharlie09]

I know. I was pointing out that I don't think we can win even the relatively easy fight of getting the anti-abortion language removed from the health insurance reform bill.

But prohibiting discrimination in organizations that receive Faith Based Initiative taxpayer money would be easy to do. And Obama really did explicitly promise that he would do just that.

In July 2008 in Zanesville, Ohio, Obama said: “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”

It isn't just discrimination against the religion of the people they hire. They've also fired women when they've found out they used fertility treatments and the like...or people who are of the religion but homosexual. But, I'm sure everyone knows this.

Obama should follow up on it, but I'm afraid it won't happen. As for the rest of it, on the reproductive health front and on the topic of civil rights for homosexuals...this is a fight that *has* to be won.

Of course when canon courts displace those pesky and intrusive secular/government courts, we'll have to tolerate sharia law (and other religious systems) taking over in some places. But that's all right. Minorities would be free to flee to where their own kind is the majority. . . .

What's a few refugees, right? :(