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 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

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.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

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.

Atheism is the lack of a belief. Atheism doesn't say anything about explaining things. Atheists just don't think the claims of theists are believable.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

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

That's not a set of beliefs.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

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)

evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

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.

So you're saying atheist live their life with no belief in a god? Well that's
the definition of an atheist. They have no belief in a god.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

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

So? Nothing in atheism makes this a requirement unlike christianity.

There are no set of rules to being an atheist.

So if you don't believe aliens exist it's a religion?

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Atheism is the lack of a belief. Atheism doesn't say anything about explaining things. Atheists just don't think the claims of theists are believable.

Perhaps there are varying degrees of atheism. The "atheists" I've encountered work very hard to back up their point of view, and will fight tooth and nail to "convert" others to their way of thinking.

evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

It seems that the majority of Atheists I encounter wholeheartedly believe in evolution, and most evolutionists deny that there could be a God.
For a famous example see Richard Dawkins, who is my image of an Atheist

So you're saying atheist live their life with no belief in a god? Well that's
the definition of an atheist. They have no belief in a god.

Exactly, and that belief affects every action in their lives.

So if you don't believe aliens exist it's a religion?

If you spend your life trying to convince others that they don't exist, and go on and on with "proof" that they don't/can't, and hold that no other view could possibly be right... then yes.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

Perhaps there are varying degrees of atheism. The "atheists" I've encountered work very hard to back up their point of view, and will fight tooth and nail to "convert" others to their way of thinking.

There is nothing for an atheist to back up. They are not making a positive claim. The one that makes the positive claim bears the responsibility to back it up. An atheist just doesn't think theists have done that.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

It seems that the majority of Atheists I encounter wholeheartedly believe in evolution, and most evolutionists deny that there could be a God.
For a famous example see Richard Dawkins, who is my image of an Atheist

I'm sure most atheist believe in evolution. The evidence is overwhelming for it. But there is no requirement for an atheist to believe it.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

Exactly, and that belief affects every action in their lives.

No it doesn't. Not having a belief in a god doesn't dictate any way you should live your life. There are no set of rules you must follow.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

If you spend your life trying to convince others that they don't exist, and go on and on with "proof" that they don't/can't, and hold that no other view could possibly be right... then yes.

There is nothing to prove in atheism. An atheist doesn't say that no other view could possibly be right. They just say that the evidence put forward by theists isn't convincing.

And nothing in atheism says you have to make others believe you are right to reject the belief in gods.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

It seems that the majority of Atheists I encounter wholeheartedly believe in evolution, and most evolutionists deny that there could be a God.
For a famous example see Richard Dawkins, who is my image of an Atheist

For what i know is that Mr Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist but agnostic.
There is a huge difference between these terms and mixing these two is a cardinal mistake

Seriously: i wouldn't want to see this thread sinking deeply into frustrating and useless religious/non-religious yes-no hassle, using 'search' in this forum helps as this same battle has been fought so many times before. With all respects, of course.

This is getting interesting and I think indicative of what happens when we prostrate ourselve before the altar of political correctness, try to be sensitive to the insensitive and accept the unacceptable. I cannot see anyone 50 years ago being fast forwarded to today who what not be shocked with what is going on in so many facets of our society. I think it is also interesting that so many people today think free speech is one directional, their's.

I know I am going to get hammered by what is acceptable and what is not acceptable but too bad. For me if something stinks it stinks. I don't care what anyone else has to say.