Thread: Qualifications for parents

That there is the difficult part isn't it?! That is why, I guess, laws are made to suit the majority opinion rather than the individual.


Mick

While this is indeed a case of specific religious discrimination, that doesn't make it wrong per say. If I start a religion (or schism from an existing one) which defines all women as property, to do with as I please, then cps would rightfully bar me from adopting a child.

That is discrimination born from my religious beliefs. And rightfully so.
Just because you are free to have the religion you want does not mean that the state should agree with you or should be forced to allow you to adopt if it does not think that would be in the best interest of the child in their care. By the same token, I am free to choose not to go to a gay bar upon invitation, even though it is perfectly legal for the bar to exist and for them to invite me.

One could even go a step further and assume a religion which goes back to human sacrifice. You are free to believe that of course, but you cannot really practice it because practicing that religion would violate a number of laws. So just because something is religious does not automatically give carte blanche to do whatever.

Originally Posted by frank47

I tastefully disagree. Most schools have metal detectors in them. Drug abuse, suicides, teen pregnancies, vulgarity, lack of respect, and abortions, just to mention a few, are all off the charts compared to 50 years ago. Our entertainment industry belongs in a toilet. Am I wrong?

I think part of the problem is the tendency to idealize the past. Was there less or more violence 50 years ago? I think it depends how you measure it. And the way you describe things it appears that you are measuring it rather subjectively without taking into account the overexposure and sensationalism of the current media compared to 50 years ago.

As far as abortions go 50 years ago abortions were illegal and thus way unsafer, so direct comparison is rather silly.

Every generation seems to think that their children are far far worse than them.

As far as entertainment, you know that when a lot of the old christian hymns that nowadays are symbols of piety were written they were considered almost a blasphemy because they were using worldly tunes suited for taverns. I know there's a lot of trash on the TV and you know what - my TV set has been collecting dust in the attic for many years. I can pick and choose to entertain myself with stuff I enjoy and so can everybody else. Some people enjoy playing say grand theft auto, and I think the fact that they enjoy the violence has nothing to do with the availability of the game.,
You know what christianity says about these things - if you have it in your heart you're just as bad as if you have actually done the deed (yet the laws of our society are based mostly on actions and not on beliefs like it used to be).

Originally Posted by gugi

Was there less or more violence 50 years ago? I think it depends how you measure it.

You are correct in that it depends on how one measures violence. There were wars 50 years ago. There was discrimination 50 years ago. What I was referring to is the amount of violence, drug abuse, teen-age (even pre-teen sex), abortions (legal or not) and lack of human respect - all of which pervades our society today. I know we all can get nostalgic, but these statistics are undeniable. What I fear is what our society will look like 25 years from now. I probably won't be around but my child most likely will.

Originally Posted by markevens

Great! Since you now declared the Old Testament obsolete, you can stop hating on homosexuals, because that is where the passages regarding homosexuality come from.

Which is why I originally said I was going to look into the implications of the new covenant on that subject.

I still have don't see the problem with this. So they dont' want to send foster kids into families that will teach hate. If their narrow minded religion orders them to condemn homosexuals, and they follow along, that is fine. That doesn't mean they society needs to bend to their views. Nobody seems to be happy with peace and quiet. This has come out of TV and the consumer culture that developed from it.

I don't think it's right for the state to require a family actively teach much of anything. Even schools aren't required to actively teach various viewpoints (i.e. many public schools do not teach Creationism, and most Christian schools do not teach evolution)

If a state can demand you teach a certain viewpoint to your children, where is the line that they don't require you teach them to follow the viewpoints of whatever political group is in power?

Or to bring back your point of giving your children choices... many religions teach that homosexuality is wrong (whether members of that religion agree is a different story), so by actively teaching kids that it's ok, you are teaching them that it is wrong to be a member of religion xyz, rather than letting them find out for themselves along the way.

Originally Posted by markevens

For me, it isn't whether a parent teaches a kid their religion (which I think all religious parents will, and its not necessarily a bad thing) but whether or not they allow their child to doubt and question, and particularly whether or not they instill open-mindedness or close-mindedness.

In my (Christian) family, and indeed the teachings of the Catholic church (of which I am NOT a member), it is always expected that you do your "due dilligence" to determine what is right. My dad is a nuclear engineer, and I am a mechanical engineer. It's in our nature to question and analyze everything. One of my uncles (not an engineer) defines "faith" as "observing and gather all the evidence you can find, and determining that there is a preponderance of evidence that a particular belief is correct"

So, by extension if you don't research, question, and test, you are, in fact, a bad Christian. You should have enough evidence to have absolute confidence in your decision.

There has been an awful lot of discussion about relgious belief on the subject of homosexuality and other behavioural matters. What seems to get left out of many arguments is what old-fashioned commonsense tells us.
To many people, some behaviour is just plain unnatural and wrong.

Originally Posted by MickR

That there is the difficult part isn't it?! That is why, I guess, laws are made to suit the majority opinion rather than the individual.


Mick

While this may be true in Oz (I make no comment on their laws), in the US this is far from true. The laws are made to protect the individual from the majority, and not to subjugate the individual to the majority. We do not have a democracy, we have a republic ruled by law. You don't have to protect the free speech of the popular majority, you have to protect the freedom of speech for the unpopular minority.

This is my problem with the issue presented in this thread. The unpopular minority (or shall I say unpopular silent majority) is being denied the ability to foster a child because of their unpopular speech. This issue runs counter to the first amendment in two ways. it both stifles freedom of speech and it is governmental sanctioned discrimination against religion. If the government is going to be equal, then no religious person of any faith, and that would include atheists as that is equally a religion, should be eligible to become a foster parent. This is simply not feasible.

You need to look at the parents' history. Is there any history of drug/alcohol abuse, any prior criminal convictions, any prior domestic abuse, what was their childhood like, ...? however, disqualifying a person on the belief that homosexuality is wrong under Christianity is akin to disqualifying a person because, under Christianity, lying is wrong. Both are sins, and both are punished the same. All have fallen short of the glory of God. Not one of us is righteous, and under Christianity, Christians should not judge other sinners. (Let him who has no sin cast the first stone.)

If truly the state is so interested in protecting the child from the speech of others, then no religious person should be allowed to be a foster parent, and that would include atheists, as it is a religion just as Christianity.

I had a meeting to initiate the process of becoming a foster parent last night (the meeting was scheduled weeks ago) and all I could think about was that I was going to be equated to the Aryan brotherhood because of my Christian belief.

Originally Posted by mhailey

It is flat out state sanctioned discrimination against a religious belief.

So you're saying if the couple had said they were atheists and they just thought being homosexual was wrong the state would be fine with it?

That the state was only concerned with the fact that the belief they had was religious?

Originally Posted by mhailey

If truly the state is so interested in protecting the child from the speech of others, then no religious person should be allowed to be a foster parent, and that would include atheists, as it is a religion just as Christianity.

Atheism isn't a religion.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Atheism isn't a religion.

Actually, the most "evangelical" people I have ever met, online, or real life have been "atheists".

According to dictionary.com
re·li·gion

 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The "esp." isn't an inherent part of the definition, just adding a bit of emphasis.

Atheists believe there is no God/god/gods, and that everything is explainable by other means. That constitutes a set of beliefs concerning the cause of the universe etc.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

atheism requires a fundamental set of beliefs agreed upon by a number of persons. e.g. that there is no God/god/gods

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

I'm not sure of a particular atheist group, but there are groups with atheist tenancies that push a particular agenda (for instance, that evolution is fact, or that there is no "universal" right or wrong)

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

Not really applicable, and not necessary, a number of religions don't have monks or nuns.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Sure you don't go to church on Sunday, but atheists live there life as if there is no higher power, which is a practice of their particular religious belief. Plenty of "Christians" don't go to church either.

6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Most atheists I've encountered seem very devoted to their cause of convincing everyone to agree with them.