Thread: Qualifications for parents

The point of all of this is 1. the foster kids are property of the state. 2. if you dont' belive in the policies of the state, then you will not have the state's property placed into your guardianship.

the State can discriminate based upon religion, but the citizens cannot.

Originally Posted by mhailey

The point of all of this is 1. the foster kids are property of the state. 2. if you dont' belive in the policies of the state, then you will not have the state's property placed into your guardianship.

the State can discriminate based upon religion, but the citizens cannot.

I think you are splitting hairs the wrong way.

The state is not discriminating based on religion, but on whether they condone homosexuality. Like others have said, there are plenty of Christians that are okay with homosexuality.

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

This thread is not about the tenants of Christianity, and whether or not Christianity is tolerant of homosexuality. As such I will not engage in such a discussion in this thread.

Originally Posted by mhailey

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

This thread is not about the tenants of Christianity, and whether or not Christianity is tolerant of homosexuality. As such I will not engage in such a discussion in this thread.

No, its about basic human right. Whether or not a religious group condemns or condones it is beside the point.

Originally Posted by markevens

No, its about basic human right. Whether or not a religious group condemns or condones it is beside the point.

I agree this thread is about basic human rights. The question is who/what determines what those rights are since they have to be "codified" some where, some how, some way.

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 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 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.

Well said This is basically what I'm trying to say.

Originally Posted by frank47

MickR, just to know where you are coming from and where your bounds are, what if one of your kids decides to be a Roman Catholic priest or nun. What would you do?

I am coming from the place that respects tolerance, and as one who tries very hard to be tolerant, even if I disagree with what is being said. Being human it doesn't always work that way, as my patience is limited just like anybody else's. My boundary is fairly wide, but within reason. If one of my children aspired to a life of religion, any religion, that would be their choice, and one that I would research, if necessary, to give them all the pro's and con's of, so that they would enter into it knowing full well what to expect,or search for something else. My children have not been baptised/indoctrinated into any one faith. They will be able to start with a clean slate into any religious venture they so choose to take...If they so choose to believe in any.

Originally Posted by TrilliumLT

Gay, Straight, whatever. religious, atheist, whatever. All that really matters is that there is a roof over there heads food in there belly and that they have a good moral compass.

I agree 100%

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?

We don't all come from planet america! Yes, some of that occurs even in this little backwater called Australia. Compare all that to middle age Europe and I think you will find a lot of that happened then too...Well maybe not the metal detectors or schools part .
I think you're right though, it is a big problem in the U.S. Did you know that the U.S has one of the highest percentage of their population who are devout christian...I guess religion isn't the answer if you look at all those issues together. High percentage of problems and high percentage of people who turn to god to solve all their problems...Might make a good argument for the atheists out there .

My extended family has people with a wide range of beliefs, I have devout catholics, devout church of england, devout buddist, practitioners of witchcraft and even dyed in the wool atheists. My Parents, Uncles, Aunts, Siblings and myself, all still get along just fine despite our chosen beliefs.


Mick