Comments on: Again anti-gays blindly and gleefully shoot themselves in the foot

By: David

David — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:54:25 +0000

I am all for pastoring a welcoming and affirming church after i graduate with my Mdiv, but the tenor and anti-irenic spirit of this post towards the people you disagree with is very discouraging. I hope that you can learn how to stop belittling people that you disagree with as if they are simply ignorant fools. It really hurts our campaign for equality and acceptance.

By: Lee

Lee — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:08:15 +0000

I’d have to say the losers in this, and in all these types of hate filled legislative moves, are the children in the end of the day.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:33:34 +0000

Part of this intractable issue, is the arrogance of some believers (Christian in this nation in which they are a majority), think that their beliefs automatically make them good people who can’t be challenged or tested on that goodness and ethics and qualifications to parent.
There are a lot of messed up children that come from religious homes. The Phelps come to mind, so do many others.
There are religious people who need to be screened as to their motives and reasons for their beliefs. Is it to really be compassionate, critically thinking and FAIR people, or do they use their religion as a means of control, bullying and unchallenged authority over others?

And when called out on that differentiation of religious freedom, as opposed to religious authority, there can be a lot of dishonesty or confusion about what that is.

It’s fair that believers be just as tested as to their ABILITY to raise a child in the best interests of the child, not the best interests of the religion in question as an non believer, agnostic or secular person would be.

Some believers think that acceptance is automatically theirs.
Well, why SHOULD it be? And that’s when their true colors start to appear. What’s interesting is sometimes they don’t think you can see them.

By: Rob Tisinai

Rob Tisinai — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:29:03 +0000

I still have my personal email from Maggie Gallagher where I asked if she thought Jews could get into Heaven. She answered that while she’d place limits on what God can choose to do, she does believe that “the only way to the Father is through the Son.”

And if that’s not a religious liberty argument for Christians adoption agencies not to work with Jewish parents, I don’t know what is!

By: Neil

Neil — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:48:28 +0000

The funny thing about religious beliefs is that everyone has them. Some firmly believe in a structured and pageanted theology, some firmly believe that deities are nonsense, and some believe they have no idea and couldn’t care less. And no matter what you believe, there’s a church or organization for you.

Drawing a long bow you might be able to claim the ‘strong’ atheist position of a belief that there are no gods is a religious belief. Most atheists are take the ‘weak’ atheist position of having an absence of a belief in gods. This, by definition, cannot be defined as a belief, religious or otherwise. Absence of belief doesn’t necessarily mean belief in the absence.

There might be an organisation for atheists, as their are for bowling enthusiasts, but I don’t see that you can conflate such organisations so easily with a church without doing damage to the definition of the word church.

By: CPT_Doom

CPT_Doom — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:33:40 +0000

@B Snow – even if an organization is “private” and doesn’t take govt funds, it is still a “public accommodation,” unless it is a private membership club. Thus a privately owned restaurant cannot bar black people but a members-only social club, like the Elks, can. Adoption agencies, whatever their funding are typically public accommodations. Neither federal nor VA law protect LGBT citizens from discrimination in public accommodations, but federal law certainly protects religious lifestyles and hetero marital status & that is where this law oversteps. If it had only targeted TEH Gay, there wouldn’t be a problem.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:17 +0000

Shannon said “Even athiest have religious beliefs, they beleive there are no dieties. Trying to say that athiesm is “my belief about religion” but never a religious belief sounds a bit like you’re offended to have been considered to have a religious belief”.

Wrong Shannon. A religions belief is one that accepts the existence of the supernatural Atheists have beliefs about religion, our beliefs are by definition non-religious. Wouldn’t you be offended if people repeatedly lied about you?

Atheism is a religion the way “off” is a TV channel or abstinence is a sex position.

By: jpeckjr

jpeckjr — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:32:06 +0000

@B. Snow: Private adoption and child care agencies have contracts with state governments to provide adoption and foster care services. The state pays a per child amount to provide the care. A foster family also receives a monthly payment as an incentive to be a foster family. Adoptive families usually don’t get such payments, though.

These contracting relationships exist so the state government is not a direct provider of adoption and child care. It also gives the state regulatory and inspection authority over the agencies.

Financial statements of private agencies should show how much money they get from public sources. They usually have other sources of income, such as donations. The public child care payments are likely to be their largest source of income.

I really do want some of my tax money to be used to take care of children. How this legistlation benefits the children is beyond me.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:13:46 +0000

Atheism isn’t a religious belief. Just as not collecting stamps is not a hobby. It’s a lack of religious beliefs.

And an adoption agency doesn’t have to be “atheist”. That’s simply nonsense. It just needs to be secular. There is a difference. There were plenty of secular agencies in Illinois to take over

By: B. Snow

B. Snow — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:01:23 +0000

“No private child-placing agency” — by definition, doesn’t “private” mean not publicly funded? If they truly are private, let them discriminate all they want, but on their own dime. It will help them go extinct even more quickly.

“And you know, you just know, that the real losers in this deal are going to be the idiots who just voted for the thing.”

If only. They need to wake up to the fact that laws based on religion can be used against anyone, even the people who think they’ll benefit from them.