Political Animal
Blog
First up from the God Machine this week is a fascinating church-state conflict in Illinois, where a major Roman Catholic charity wants to be able to accept taxpayer funds while discriminating against some taxpayers.
Catholic Charities in Illinois has served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.
For the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, the outcome is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are now the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals.
Public contracts with Catholic Charities have been common for decades, and they’ve been deemed legally permissible precisely because of their secular nature — the faith-based organization receives funds to provide a valuable public service, but it does so in a way that’s distinct from the church’s religious agenda. Catholic Charities, like other religious charities, have been willing to accept some strings with the tax dollars: no proselytizing, separate accounting that’s subject to public audits, etc.
But some states are now adding additional strings — these charities that receive taxpayer money now can’t discriminate against LGBT taxpayers. And for Catholic Charities in Illinois, that’s apparently a bridge too far. The group wants to help families, but not if it means helping gay families.
From Catholic Charities’ perspective, it’s facing some degree of discrimination. As the argument goes, Catholic Charities should be able to accept public tax dollars to perform a public service, and be able to discriminate against members of the public the organization doesn’t like. The fact that Illinois officials disagree is, in Catholic Charities’ mind, some kind of persecution in which state government is trying to force the faith-based institution to change its moral standards.
It’s awfully tough to take this argument seriously. Indeed, when the group’s lawyers sued Illinois, the case failed miserably.
Jay Bookman had a good piece explaining just how misguided Catholic Charities’ argument is: “It is not persecution to be held to the standards that are applied to every other contractor that does business with the state. To the contrary, the church is demanding ‘special rights’ to violate the law and to use taxpayers’ money to do so. It’s akin to some church or social agency taking state money to run soup kitchens to feed the poor, but demanding the right to deny aid to black people or Hispanics. The church, using its own funds, would have every right to refuse to assist in gay adoptions. The First Amendment gives it that protection. But by accepting taxpayer dollars, it accepts the conditions that come with it.”
Scott Wooledge added, “[I]n many jurisdictions, the Church could continue to fund discriminatory foster care and adoption services if the Church wished, just not subsidized by taxpayers. The Church would have to offer these services supported only by its own money.” Catholic Charities has so far refused, relying on 97% of its budget from outside the churches in the diocese.
Let’s also not forget that some faith-based charities are working with states on this rather than abandoning those in need. Missouri Synod does not sanction same-sex relationships, but Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois has decided to continue to help children, despite the state’s new rules.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* Fox Latin America ran an online poll on its Facebook page this week, asking readers who they think was responsible for killing Jesus: Pontius Pilate, The Jewish People or the High Priests. Fox later apologized.
* It took 1,500 years, but the Talmud now has an accessible index. (thanks to R.P.)
* And in his Christmas Eve homily, Pope Benedict XVI urged worshippers to “see through the superficial glitter of this season.” I have a hunch that’s a losing battle. (thanks to V.S.)
Facebook
Twitter
Linda on December 31, 2011 9:03 AM:
As Wonkette wrote, Benedict's comments are hard to credit,coming as they do from a .7man in glittery robes and a golden hat.
DAY on December 31, 2011 9:15 AM:
How 'bout we try THIS:
Take away ALL tax exempt status, and don't give ANY taxpayer money to religious organizations?
I thought tithing took care of their fiscal needs. . .
martin on December 31, 2011 9:18 AM:
How is the Catholic Charities argument any different than that of the charter school/school vouchers crowd? Good for the courts for slapping down CC, now let's see the legislatures and courts do the same to the school "reformers."
differences susalth says Captcha
c u n d gulag on December 31, 2011 10:03 AM:
Thank you for coming to Catholic Hospitals, Inc.
We treat everybody!
As long as you're not a Gay, Lesbian, an Atheist or Agnostic, a Jew, Muslim, Baptist, Lutheran, Mormon, Wiccan, or one of those speaking in tongues or handling snakes lunatics (why can't you people do normal things like believe you're eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood like we do - what is WRONG with you people?), or any other religion that doesn't recognize Pope Ratfaceinger as the one and only infallible source who talks to God, his Son, the Holy Ghost, and Mary, and can call collect anytime - though why he'd want to talk to a woman is beyond us.
And if you're a Catholic woman looking for an abortion, we have two things to say to you, you're either SOL and have the kid, convert to one of the Heathen doomed to Hell sects above, or have the abortion elsewhere, and go to an even deeper and darker part of Hell.
Also, too - we do not issue contraceptives.
Use the "Rhythm Method!"
If it was good enough for your Grandma's and their Dugger-like clan, it's good enough for you.
And ladies, when engaged in trying to conceive a child, and that's the only time you should ever find yourselves in this position, remember, your legs go up - as that is the only approved position by the sexless men in charge, because who knows how many Missionaries died trying to stop the Heathens from trying any other style of Godless "fun," so we owe the poor burned, torn apart, baked and eaten, bastards at least that.
Male Catholic child-schtuppers, are of course, as welcome here as if they were serving the Church.
Thank you.
And do with God!
zeitgeist on December 31, 2011 10:10 AM:
Pope Benedict XVI urged worshippers to “see through the superficial glitter of this season.”
The wifegeist and I laughed out loud as he sensed no irony saying that while sitting in a giant, glittering gold chair. Avoid materialism indeed!
dj spellchecka on December 31, 2011 10:23 AM:
in other illinois catholic news..
Setting off a new round in his dispute with gay right activists, Chicago's Cardinal Francis George has issued a statement defending his recent comparison of the gay rights movement to the Ku Klux Klan.
George's initial comments came in connection with a controversy over whether next summer's gay pride parade would interrupt morning services at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood.
That dispute was resolved last week, but the cardinal's KKK comparison - and his new explanation of those comments - have kept the controversy boiling.
"Organizers (of the pride parade) invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church," the cardinal said in a statement issued Tuesday.
"One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/28/v-print/134339/cardinal-defends-his-comparison.html
c u n d gulag on December 31, 2011 10:23 AM:
zeitgeist,
Don't forget the Prada slippers.
You always forget the Prada slippers!
The Holy Pontiff, on the other hand, never does.
dj spellchecka on December 31, 2011 10:30 AM:
in other "twig" news, the kentucky creation theme park [the ark encounter] has delayed groundbreaking citing some problems with permits and admitting that funding has be slow....
their fundraising goal is $24.5 million, but they currently have only raised a bit over $4 million. they had reached the $3 million mark this may.
http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2011/12/21/aig-email-to-tourism-cabinet-reveals-delay-in-ark-park-groundbreaking-slow-fundraising/
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 10:39 AM:
Steve -- it would be useful if just once you articulated just what you consider the line to be, where faith is on one side and untouchable, and the law is on the other side and cannot interfere with faith.
That might define when you are arguing a practical issue, and when it is a matter of principle, which is obscured the way you argue about a case like Catholic Charities and same-sex adoption.
As a matter of principle, it's clear: the Vatican states categorically that no Catholic institution can sanction same-sex marriage. So it is simply unConstitutional for the law to insist that a Catholic institution must sanction same-sex marriage. It establishes a religious test.
Likewise, as a matter of principle, the law can (and should) insist that anyone receiving taxpayers' money obey the law.
Which raises questions of practice that -- so far as I can tell, as a matter of principle -- you refuse to engage. For example, Catholic institutions are employers, and as employers they withhold taxes -- but they are not required by the law to employ people who seek to overthrow Catholic teachings (notably Father Curran), nor are they prohibited from firing people for Catholic reasons, e.g., an unmarried teacher who becomes pregnant.
The principles you seem to claim would indicate that the law should overrule Catholic teachings in those cases -- you don't draw the PRINCIPLED distinction between them, and a requirement that Catholic Charities can no longer take taxpayers money to help orphans find good homes, since the law will now require violating Catholic doctrine to do it.
Which raises a final, practical issue: there are hundreds if not thousands of orphaned and abandoned kids who find good families every year through Catholic Charities, in a field that isn't exactly crowded with excellent practitioners. I suppose you may want to drive all religious institutions out of charity work, but most folks would find that impractical -- then again, you may want only to drive SOME out of charity work: which ones?
Just as -- as a matter of principle AND practice -- folks like me think same sex couples who qualify should be able to adopt kids (there aren't enough good families who adopt), it's hard to see the practical VALUE in the principle that requires that Catholic Charities be driven out.
One candid, honest response would be for you to say, Steve, that you're okay with imposing a religious test on Catholic Charities -- stop being Catholic, or get out of adoption -- and that as a matter of principle you're happy with the result: more orphan or abandoned kids who never find good families.
OR you could claim that you're going to spend as much time and effort as you need to replace the good work that Catholic Charities does in finding homes for kids -- as a matter of principle, since you want to see them driven out of adoption.
As a matter of principle about a practical choice: I don't see a third option. Do you ?
DJ on December 31, 2011 10:40 AM:
As someone with many years of experience in the Illinois child welfare system, I can say that it's unfortunate that CC is leaving the adoption and foster care field. They were one of the best. It should be noted that CC had left the overwhelming majority of its caseload -- Chicago and its suburbs -- a few years earlier because of rising insurance rates.
Nor is CC the only agency leaving for religious reasons; several excellent smaller Evangelical agencies are also doing so. But, as the main point of the piece correctly notes, if you accept state funding, you must accept state law. Which in this case means that same-sex couples should not be denied your services merely because they are same-sex couples.
Anonymous on December 31, 2011 11:06 AM:
So it is simply unConstitutional for the law to insist that a Catholic institution must sanction same-sex marriage. It establishes a religious test.
No, you're mixing things up. A "religious test" is an unconstitutional provision for holding an Office of the United States (historically, many colonies had laws that forbade Quakers from holding office).
If the law were to attempt to insist that the Catholic Church recognize same-sex unions as marriage, it would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
chi res on December 31, 2011 11:21 AM:
I suppose you may want to drive all religious institutions out of charity work, but most folks would find that impractical -- then again, you may want only to drive SOME out of charity work: which ones?
Don't be thick. Steve was very clear that Catholic Charities was discriminating against the LGBT community in their use of government funds.
And must you use a dozen paragraphs to not make a point every time you comment?
majun on December 31, 2011 11:32 AM:
An obvious solution is to have the state give half the money that the Catholic Church receives to provide those services to the Family Equality Council so that they can provide services to families headed by same sex couples and turn away practicing Catholic couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents. It is just a reiteration of "separate but equal" doctrine that worked so well in establishing civil rights for the races.
I'm certain that the Catholic Bishops will see the justice in that.
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 12:05 PM:
It's help if you guys noticed when you prove my point in attempting to argue against it. Note that in this thread, I'm not objecting to your obvious anti-Catholic bias, what somebody called "the anti-Semitism of the left". I'm indicating your embarrassingly sloppy and cowardly thinking.
DJ gets it -- as a practical matter, driving Catholic Charities out of adoption will mean that many orphans and abandoned kids never find homes. QED.
But Anonymous can't read -- I used the term "religious test", but I wasn't referring to the ban on Quakers in colonial times, nor for that matter on Catholics in Great Britain that lasted well into the 19th century. (It was illegal for Catholics to testify in British courts until 1839, when meant they were easy victims for criminals: this is an exact parallel with the Right's concerns about shari'a, particularly taqfiya.) I was using the phrase for WHAT THE WORDS SAY. (You could, I suppose, argue that some religious tests are, so! Constitutional, but since that was my point you might have the candor to acknowledge you were making it.)
It's silly to pretend that it isn't a religious test for public funds when a particular institution cannot receive them because of its specifically religious character. For example, I know of no segregated schools that get any public funding, because when a faith discriminates based on race or ethnicity, Americans properly demand that it doesn't get a nickel from the taxpayer.
Yet I know of many Catholic schools that get lots of tax fundiing, for various non-religious activities such as immunizations and secular instruction, e.g., ALL of the best elementary schools in Baltimore. So clearly it is not the merely religious character of the institution, but the particulars of the religion which make the difference. Are you guys willing to close down pretty much every functioning elementary school in Baltimore, Maryland? Cut off what little tax dollars they get on their marginal budgets because they practice Catholic doctrine (as noted above), and that's exactly what you'll do.
Majun attempts to make a practical response on what Steve pretends is a matter of principle: if half the dough that Catholic Charities gets would go to the Family Equality Council, that would solve the problem. Would it?
Since it is a practical response Majun is attempting, he can answer the practical questions: would the Family Equality Council do as good a job? What's their track record? How much experience have they had?
Would it be okay with you -- since this is a PRACTICAL question, not a matter of principle -- if Catholic Charities continued to get 100% of the dough they spend quite effectively toward the absolutely worthwhile goal of getting orphaned and abandoned kids into good homes, and Family Equality Council got as much as they could use effectively and efficiently?
Or is it only okay with you if the overall amount stays the same, or is reduced? Which?
LOL -- see what I mean? You guys don't know when you're making a principled argument (or are unwilling to accept the shitty consequences, which DJ pointed out) , or if you're making a PRACTICAL argument that would harm kids, whose welfare is ostensibly the goal.
DJ on December 31, 2011 12:37 PM:
Anonymous can't read -- I used the term "religious test", but I wasn't referring to the ban on Quakers in colonial times
That "anonymous" was me, DJ. My point was merely that if you're going to make an argument that touches on constitutional issues, and use a term of art like "religious test" that has a specific, non-intuitive constitutional meaning, you run the risk of using it improperly or confusingly. At least that's what they taught us in law school.
R L FAST on December 31, 2011 1:29 PM:
If they're not giving away their own money, then they have a hell of a lot of nerve calling themselves a charity.
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 1:43 PM:
Okay, DJ -- then YOU don't get it.
I'll concede that I was being deliberately provocative in using a term that -- as you observe -- has a "non-intuitive" meaning for what is and is not Constitutional.
But I note that you don't argue that anything else I said, whether about Constitutional principle or the practical effect of forcing Catholic Charities out of adoption, was wrong.
Which is why I used provocative phrasing.
BTW -- Day and probably others posting in this thread have a clear, candid view: no religious organization should get any tax money at all. These folks would gladly close pretty much all the functioning elementary schools in Baltimore (and a good many other American cities). Most folks reject that principled approach because of its practical effect -- precisely why I challenged our host on the point, which my critics in this thread consistently reinforce.
Well, Steve?
impartial on December 31, 2011 1:45 PM:
R L Fast:
Catholic Charities raises its own funds as well, and historically, depended on these for its work. Federal funding came later as the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization made it a desirable place for federal funds. (It's overhead costs are minimal relative to other charitable organizations who manage to spend far more on the organization itself rather than on those it serves.
Swellsman on December 31, 2011 1:47 PM:
I'm pretty sure it was God who killed Jesus. I mean, wasn't that the entire friggin' point? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son," etc. etc. etc.
I never once have been able to wrap my head around the idea that it's somehow a terrible thing that a guy whose entire purpose seems to have been to be killed as a scapegoat to absolve all the world's sins was actually, k'know, killed.
As I understand the Christian religion, killing Jesus isn't a bug, it isn't even a feature. It's the whole damned point.
If you wanna blame somebody for Jesus getting killed, blame his Dad; He's the guy who set the whole structure up in the first place.
impartial on December 31, 2011 2:06 PM:
cund gulag
Catholic hospitals treat anyone who goes there for services. Your list of discrimination simply does not exist for Catholic hospitals, schools, etc. Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions because it is inconsistent with their belief in the sanctity of all life--something you are free to disagree with.
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 2:14 PM:
LOL -- Swell, as Mark Twain observed it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stoooopid than to open it and remove doubt. You're kinda proud that you don't understand Christianity and from your post, you've never tried -- it's not like they don't advertise the stuff.
1) For all modern Christian denominations, God is One. That is, God the Father IS the Son -- and the Holy Spirit, too, for hundreds of millions who believe in the Trinity. (If you want to grok the weirdness of that theology, ask: who is Jesus praying to, in the Garden of Gesthemene? Or on the cross? And what's he asking FOR, anyway?) There was an early heresy (the Arians) who believed that the Son was lesser (after) while the Father was greater (first), and in those days the distinction between Christians and Jews wasn't that clear -- after all, ALL of the original Apostles were Jews, and would have been shocked and offended if they'd been told Christians can't be Jews and Jews can't be Christians. But the Arians lost out 1500 years ago.
2) The basic Christian principle in the Crucifixion is Redemption. That is, the purpose of the death on the cross is to restore (some would argue, to create) the possibility of human salvation. Christians have to do a bit of tapdancing whether there was salvation before Christ (where did Moses go when he died, if not to Heaven?), but the Common Era notion was plain through at least Vatican II: extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3) What evidently confuses you is the distinction between Christ's death and human sin. Christians do not believe we are punished for his execution; we are punished for OUR sins. For Christians, Crucifixion created the possibility of salvation despite the fact that we don't deserve it. (There is a brilliant insight in the metaphor Christ uses fro this, which is straight out of Moses, if anybody wants to know.)
4) The answer to "how?" is the Incarnation -- God becomes human (thus completing and complementing the 'created in God's image' stuff at the Garden of Eden), which makes being human more sacred.
5) The blood libel you may be referring to is the idea that a particular group of folks, who are genuinely identified the way John did it in the Gospel as "the Jews" were responsible for Christ's execution, and are thus somehow tarred to this day. This is a crock on all kinds of levels -- but then again, you'd actually have to KNOW something about Christianity to understand that, which lets you out, huh?
And isn't that... Swell.
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 2:21 PM:
Major ooops -- I meant 'generally', not genuinely. Cue Emily Litella: "Never mind."
Objective Dem on December 31, 2011 2:22 PM:
In response to theAmericanist,
First, there is a lot of constitutional case law built up around the issue of church/state separation. My understanding is your viewpoint has consistently been rejected by the courts. You should be aware that saying "Freedom of Religion" does not allow people to do anything they want. There is significantly more protection for actions related to worship, less related to actions not connected to worship, and much less related to providing government services.
The Catholic Charities case is straight-forward. Catholic Charities said they won't abide by the terms of the contract, thus they don't get the contract. The State has a right to ban discrimination and this does not impact Catholic freedom to worship. It only stops them from denying government-funded services in a discriminatory manner. Telling gay couples to go elsewhere for services is an extension of "separate but equal" discrimination and not acceptable.
Also where do you draw the line. Is it okay for Catholic Charities to deny services to people in interfaith marriages? or to athiests? or to divorcees? or to non-Catholics?
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 3:02 PM:
LOL -- Object, I asked Steve to explain where he draws the line, so you say I'm wrong, prove I'm right, then demand ME to draw the line? Interesting.
Consider your reasoning, such as it is: you say that my reasoning has been consistently rejected by the courts.
Um, does that mean that when a religious institution as an employer withholds taxes, it cannot enforce its own rules on employees? Cuz that was part of my reasoning -- I noted that a Catholic institution can employ an unmarried person and then fire her if she becomes pregnant without breaking the law.
Well?
The next example I cited were various religious organizations who ran (and probably still run) segregated schools, who get no tax money under any circumstances. Was that an instance of my false reasoning? Kindly explain.
Because I noted that many Catholic schools (I gave Baltimore as an example) get a fair amount of tax dollars for things like immunization programs and secular teaching (science textbooks, for example), which is the difference between staying open and closing: DO explain the distinction between no tax dollars for the segregated school and tax dollars for parochial schools, without reference to the value distinction being made between one doctrine and another, not to mention the practical fact that Catholic schools are the largest non-public school system in the country, which in most inner cities do a helluva lot better job than the wholly tax-supported institutions: kinda like Catholic Charities, come to think on it.
Hm?
You asked, in a fit of clumsy phrasing denoting your sloppy reasoning: "Is it okay for Catholic Charities to deny services to people in interfaith marriages? or to atheists? or to divorcees? or to non-Catholics?"
You're trying to argue a practical matter as a question of principle, and then you keep changing the principle: not a particularly effective line of inquiry. To answer the question as you wrote it -- one "service" the Catholic Church will provide to interfaith marriages IS a Catholic marriage, so long as one of the couple is a Catholic in good standing, or has sincerely committed to returning to the Church, and who will raise any children as Catholics. Since Catholic marriages, like any other, are officially sanctioned as legal marriages by the government -- kindly explain how the obviously discriminatory Catholic policy to refuse to marry those who are not Catholics, or even those raised in the Church (like me) who refused those conditions is Constitutionally distinct from the way Catholic Charities is barred from helping same-sex couples adopt.
Is it just the money? Then why doesn't the model of parochial schools getting tax dollars for secular functions apply? IF you're going to argue a principle, STATE THE PRINCIPLE -- and check to see if you hypocritically violate it over and over again.
Well?
Going down your list -- an atheist couldn't credibly say that they were a Catholic in good standing, or were planning to return to the Church, nor could a non-Catholic. A divorcee raises a slightly different theological issue, because Catholic teaching on divorce isn't so much that it's sinful, as that it is impossible: a marriage properly made only ends in death. If it ends before that, the doctrine goes, it wasn't a marriage in the first place -- that's why Catholics have annulments (although that doesn't quite explain why there are so many of 'em).
So any of those folks who want to get married (and a whole lot besides: it's like a joke ... 'a Jew and a Muslim want to get married, so they ask a Catholic priest...') could go to a Catholic institution (a church) and ask for it to sanction a government policy (marriage), and expect to be LEGALLY discriminated against -- because, as a Catholic institution, the faith requires the church to say: No. Go someplace else.
Note that no gay couple who want to adopt is being denied that right by Catholic Charities. The Vatican's position is simply that they have to go elsewhere, the way a Muslim would go to a mosque rather than a cathedral.
And yet you are arguing that when a same-sex couple wants to adopt a child, going to a Catholic institution (Catholic Charities) to ask for the sanction of a government policy (a legal adoption), they have a right NOT to expect to be legally discriminated against -- because, even though it is a Catholic institution, the Vatican cannot tell Catholic Charities to accept same-sex unions.
See, that's the contradictory "principle" you think you're arguing: doesn't make much sense, does it? As Lincoln said of the Mexican War, if you grant this 'principle', study to see just where you can ever draw the line again.
So I note the practical side, as DJ and Impartial have observed: driving Catholic Charities out of adoption is going to mean a whole lot of orphans and abandoned kids will never find good homes.
Objective Dem on December 31, 2011 3:09 PM:
You clearly have your mind made up. Fortunately the courts don't agree with you.
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 3:19 PM:
Dayumn, dude: are you THAT dense?
If this is simply a matter of principle, then Catholic Charities will go out of the adoption business. OWN IT.
If that's okay with you, say so. I suppose it's possible that you're that stooopid that you haven't figured out that's my point, but then... I've read your posts, so I suppose it IS possible.
Objective Dem on December 31, 2011 3:40 PM:
You are clearly one of the rudest commentators I have ever encountered here. I love the emphasis with all CAPS and putting the "oooo" in stooopid. I presume you consider yourself a Christian, but you should ask WWJD? The Jesus I believe in would use only use caps appropriately when he blogs.
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 4:01 PM:
New around here?
The objective Democrats I know answer direct questions directly. They're also literate.
Look, this ain't complex. One argument says that it is perfectly legit both as a matter of principle AND a practical policy to drive Catholic Charities out of adoption.
If that's your argument, say so, without being such an obvious chickenshit about it.
Another argument (the one made by Catholic Charities, in fact) says that while there is no First Amendment right to a government contract, there IS a First Amendment violation when a religious organization (such as Catholic Charities) is precluded from a government contract for religious reasons.
You may not have learned this sorta thing in law school, but that's what's known as an "argument". It's based on precisely the facts and reasoning I've outlined in this thread.
I've merely noted that you guys (and our host, whom I've challenged) like to switch back and forth from a genuinely principled position -- such as one that would deny all government funds and even tax benefits to ANY religious institution, as Day argued upthread -- to a practical one, as Majun proposed: he said, how 'bout if Family Equality gets half of Catholic Charities government dough?
I take it, being an "objective" Democrat, you're not used to folks kicking your ass with your own ignorance? You've been asked more than once if you're okay with forcing Catholic Charities out of adoption because you don;t like their religious requirements: are you okay with that, or not?
Perhaps you'd like to explain why, in your wholly Constitutional educated First Amendment defender way, it is perfectly legit for the government to decide to tell Catholic Charities that has done adoptions for a hundred years and been a govenrment contractor for forty years BECAUSE THEY DO A LOT OF KIDS A LOT OF GOOD (re-read that again, cuz you think Jesus would never use the cap lock key -- personally, I think that's the kind of phrase he invented it FOR) that now, they can legitimately be excluded from that government contract.
See how a principle works? If you think you have a principled argument: MAKE IT.
And then explain how it applies (as a principle) to Catholic churches refusing to marry non-Catholic couples, or (as money) to Catholic schools getting tax dollars to do secular stuff, including educating millions of non-Catholics.
Hmm?
brent on December 31, 2011 4:21 PM:
Objective Dem, you are wasting your time arguing with theAmericanist. He/she is and has always been in a state of permanent obtuseness on every topic in every context. I have no idea if its deliberate but seriously, just ignore. Almost literally anything else you could do with your time will be more productive then repeatedly pointing out the obvious to this person. The only response you will receive, regardless of what actual points you make, is another few paragraphs of word salad and additional extraordinarily childish insults.
As far as your point, both you and Steve are quite correct that this is not even a close question on the law and the courts have made that clear. Religious institutions have no specific right to public funds and withholding those funds on the basis of criteria that applies to all groups that receive public funds (rather clearly not religious criteria which is one of theAmericanist typically bizarre claims) is not persecution or even a minimal violation of the first amendment. Its hard to understand how anyone, especially the plaintiff's lawyers, managed to convince themselves that there was even an effective legal argument to be made here.
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 4:32 PM:
Man, none so blind as they that will not see...
(patiently) What determines whether a particular law involves "religious criteria" is the RELIGION. With me so far, Brent?
That is, as noted, if a religion decides (as Mormonism used to do) that racial segregation was a matter of faith and doctrine, by definition that is a "religious critierion". Going too fast for you?
So DESPITE the religious character of that discrimination, it is perfectly legitimate for the government to determine that a segregated school run by such a faith could not be tax-exempt. Still with me, Brent?
You argue that the explicitly CATHOLIC policy that says no recognition of same-sex couples (who thus cannot adopt kids through Catholic Charities) is somehow distinct from the reasoning that would bar a segregated religious school from a tax exemption.
I have been challenging you to show that it is not.
The logic you are using imposes a religious test -- if you can't help gay couples adopt, you can't get government funds to help adoptions. Since a Catholic institution can't help gay couples adopt, the Catholic institution is barred from the contract.
If you can show otherwise, kindly do so.
Doug on December 31, 2011 6:09 PM:
theAmericanist, there is no contradiction between providing non-discriminatory vaccinations paid for by taxes to students of a denominational school and NOT providing tax money for a discriminatory CC policy.
If the need is that great, and only CC can do the work properly, isn't it sort of incumbent on THEM to come up with the money needed? You know, their Christian duty? If they lack the funds necessary, I have no doubts they can find buyers for the works of art in the Vatican.
Although I'm not too sure about the one on the Papal Throne...
Objective Dem on December 31, 2011 6:29 PM:
Thanks Brent, Happy New Year.
theAmericanist on December 31, 2011 7:13 PM:
I'm sure Brent appreciates your gratitude for shoveling the sand in which you've buried your head, Object. You look quite natural in that position, doubtless from your long habit as an "objective" Democrat -- just as Doug is surely gratified to prove once again that it is ultimately anti-Catholicism (surely not anything so quaint as concern for orphaned and abandoned kids) that motivates you guys.
Me, I'm just trying to get you to figure out when you need the courage of your convictions ... and when you lack, yanno, convictions.
Here's how it's done: Object, you COULD have said (if you hadn't been educated out of common sense) that as a matter of principle there is no religious test involved when Catholic Charities cannot get a government contract for adoption because NO institution which won't help gay couples adopt could get the contract. Since the government has adopted a universal rule that would apply to any contractor, religious or not, there is no First Amendment issue. That Catholic Charities is the premier private adoption placement agency which has had this government contract for 40 years makes no never mind: this is suddenly Constitutional law 101, as it never was before. (A useful question for you is 'what changed?', because it underscores that for many religious people, The Truth does not change.)
Trouble is, if you had committed the sort of clarity that is frowned on by "objective" Democrats, you'd confront the stark anti-Catholicism that you're embracing (read Doug again, or Day) -- no Catholic institution can do what the government has decided to require, therefore (as Doug just helpfully and cluelessly indicated), the government has determined that Catholic Charities is just like those "Christian" academies that were segregated schools.
Glad we cleared that up. Wish you good luck with that with this Supreme Court -- you know, the one that has SIX Catholic Justices? Or 65 million American Catholics... cuz that's where your 'objectivity' would come in handy. It's one thing when we are expanding tolerance -- it's another when we're closing it down: the former is a matter of principle.
The latter is the practical fact of this one: remember, Catholic Charities aren't preventing gay couples from adopting, any more than a Catholicchurch keeps a Muslim from going to a mosque. But you guys can never remember if you're arguing a principle or a practical policy.
I can just hear Scalia now: 'So, if the government can make a requirement for the adoption services contract that no Catholic institution can accept, why can't the government make other religiously-unacceptable requirements for religious institutions? If a Catholic hospital accepts any Federal funds, why can't they be required to perform abortions? You know they would have to go out of business, so you're asserting that the government has the right to put religious institutions out of business ..."
Including all those parochial schools in America's cities. Hell, Scalia might well answer his own question (he does that), and go on: "If the government can attach a condition like certifying gay couple adoptions on Catholic Charities, why can't the government prohibit Catholic schools that sign a contract for milk or immunizations for the kids from firing an unmarried teacher who becomes pregnant? That's just as discriminatory..."
But, hey: DJ doesn't think this is a "religious test". Good thing, huh? Man, it'd be tough if SCOTUS issued a decision on this one right before a Presidential election -- but, hey, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito and especially Chief Justice Roberts, they're all WAY above politics, right?
'Course -- this is the other part that you were too timid to confront -- you COULD say what you really believe, which is that since most American Catholics would be perfectly happy if Catholic Charities continued to help gay couples adopt (as they did up until just a few years ago), then the government is just helping the Vatican to come to the right decision with a little persuasion.
Cuz, after all, what's the First Amendment FOR, anyway? Gee, I guess you're right -- a no-brainer here. Just gotta know how to apply leverage.
After all, the thousands of adoptions that Catholic Charities has done in the past few years would all have happened anyway, right? I mean, there are dozens of high-quality, dedicated, experienced professional organizations working in this field with decades of demonstrated success ....
Objective Dem on December 31, 2011 7:55 PM:
The Americanist, I'm not anti-Catholic in fact some of my friends are Catholic.
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 8:47 AM:
Of course. "I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are..."
There's a great Barney Frank story about a constituent of his who used to send him rants about the issues of the day. Frank read the latest one, and replied along the lines of 'I noticed that as you made your usual set of repugnant and delusional charges with every paranoid conservative trope, you left out the anti-Semitic ones: was a page missing?'
What's a bit more important than your "some of my friends' line, Object, is that you haven't answered the question: are you defending a principle?
Or making a practical argument?
If it's a principle, (which you haven't stated) you are essentially asserting that because as a Catholic institution Catholic Charities cannot place adopted kids with gay couples, they cannot continue to provide a service they have performed in Illinois for 40+ years. You cannot make a distinction between that policy and religious discrimination against Catholic Charities, because the essential difference between an institution that could get the contract and Catholic Charities is Catholic doctrine.
D-uh.
I keep observing that you guys should stop being such chickenshits about it, and OWN your own argument. It's anti-Catholic by definition, because like Catholic Charities is losing a contract for following Catholic doctrine: QED.
Why are you so afraid of being clear about what's obvious? I suppose you could try the watery 'it's not Catholics but the Church...' , which is why I pointed out that what really motivates you guys is the leverage you hope this will have on the Vatican: they lose a few do-gooder contracts (Boston, DC, Illinois), well, they WILL see the wisdom of changing their doctrines to be more representative of American Catholics, who are mostly pro-choice and use contraception and get along fine with gays...
LOL -- face it, you guys love the idea of using the power of government to force the single largest denomination in America to become MORE American and LESS Roman. You figure this will be like the Vatican's failed crusade against legal divorce, contraception and abortion. This is such an ancient story, it's the origin of my monicker.
In the interest of fairness (not to mention daring you guys to make your own argument, instead of taking it for granted), I actually noted what the Catholic Charities argument IS -- y'all dismissed it (you're so LEARNED), but it's the sort of question that gets decided by courts:
There is no First Amendment right to GET a contract, but is there a First Amendment violation when a religious institution -- moreover, one that has had a contract for 40 years -- is barred from renewing that contract for religious reasons?
I've even noted what the likes of Scalia might ask about that: if the government can impose a religious test (no discrimination against gays or you can't get a government contract for adoptions) on this, why not on that (fire single moms and you can't get immunization money)?
OTOH, if you're making a practical argument, well: MAKE IT.
Explain how firing Catholic Charities will help orphaned and abandoned kids.
Fargus on January 01, 2012 11:36 AM:
The government is not putting CC out of business. CC does not run exclusively on taxpayer money. CC is explicitly trying to force a case that would codify their right to get taxpayer money and discriminate simultaneously. Nobody is saying they can't continue providing services according to their doctrine. All that is happening is that they will not be able to receive taxpayer money to do it if they refuse to accept the conditions on it. And that's fine! I disagree with their stance and think it is morally monstrous, but it's their right to hold it. But again, they are not being forced out of business. They are petulantly deciding that their mission to help kids is not as important to them as hating gay people.
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 11:53 AM:
Finally, somebody actually makes an intelligent answer to the actual question.
But it's worth correcting an error Fargus made in fact, if not in principle: the government IS putting Catholic Charities out of the ADOPTION business, or more precisely out of the government-sponsored adoption placement process. That is essentially the same thing, since most orphans and abandoned children go through various child protection agencies.
I noted several times upthread that Catholic Charities isn't keeping gay couples from adopting, since the government can help them do that directly or through what you guys seem to imagine is a limitless supply of competent, experienced professionals that does this sorta profit-less work.
But if all those agencies were as good or better than Catholic Charities, then it wouldn't have fallen to Catholic Charities to be doing this work in the first place, now would it?
So Fargus happily notes that, well, Catholic Charities COULD just keep on doing it... as a strictly private sector function, without any government help at all. I suppose you could consider that a principle -- but it doesn't seem like a particularly progressive one: leaving the practical application of public assistance to the private sector.
Then again, as somebody else pointed out, hell, the Pope could hock some of his clothes: which, of course as Object insists, cannot possibly be an anti-Catholic view, since it is the epitome of "some of my best friends..."
Since fargus has stated a principled case, I expect he's ready to OWN the practical result -- you may want to pay particular attention to older kids, the hardest to place properly. Since, of course, as a principled person you embrace the practical results of what you advocate: How's adoption doing in Boston, DC, and now Chicago, as Catholic Charities is forced out?
More, or less? Better, or worse?
Well?
Objective Dem on January 01, 2012 11:58 AM:
I'm not anti-Catholic or anti-church. I'm against discrimination. All of us, including the orphans, will be better off living in a world free of discrimination.
Fargus on January 01, 2012 12:25 PM:
I wish you'd actually make an argument for once, rather than just snarling for several paragraphs and then declaring victory. You clearly read my post, since you it the point that CC is free to keep providing adoption services and discriminating with its own money. You would probably counter that CC receives 62% of its funding from the government, and that losing that funding would cripple it at least in part. But I would counter with this: what business is it of the US government providing the majority of funding to the charity organization of a specific denomination? At that point, what efficiency is provided by disbursing those funds to churches to use, and to apply their own teachings to its use?
If the US government is not going to directly provide adoption services, and had made the decision to outsource and directly fund the majority of those services, it is certainly not unreasonable for strings to be attached to that money, even if some of those strings are objectionable to certain denominations. This would e like saying that subsidies for pig farmers represent a religious test because Jews and Muslims would not be able to get the money and then refuse to participate in pig farming.
Objective Dem on January 01, 2012 12:30 PM:
Fargus,
I like your pig farming analogy.
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 12:30 PM:
Of course. But back on this planet (where hallucinations have consequences), for forty years now a considerable # of those orphans and abandoned kids have only managed to find good homes through the hard work of Catholic Charities. That is why Illinois contracted with them -- nobody else has been as good at the job.
You think those kids will be better off without Catholic Charities: yes or no? No fair adding lots of "if only"... cuz you just had your one shot at THAT excuse.
Fargus on January 01, 2012 12:38 PM:
I think that CC has done good work, and that it would be a shame for them to petulantly decide that its desire to discriminate trumps its concern or kids without homes. It is the decision of CC to petulantly pull out of providing services entirely, rather than regrouping, trying to raise more money (perhaps on a pitch about the repressive government, etc), and continuing to provide the high level of service you've been saying they provide, as best as they can.
If the question is whether as a society we should be compelled to blind ourselves to discrimination and other ills just because the discriminators may also do good in other contexts, then no, absolutely not. As a principled argument, it is important for bigoted groups not to be given a legal toehold by which they can receive government funds and still practice bigotry. As a practical matter, the PR that CC will get or deciding that hating gay people is more important to them than helping children may lead to a backlash that will spur some change in them.
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 12:40 PM:
Fargus hadn't posted when I put that one up, nor Object.
Fargus, you are making a PRACTICAL argument now, not a principled one. Your analogy to pig farming just badly re-states what I noted above -- the argument that it is not religious discrimination to preclude Catholic Charities from a government contract because no organization that won't help gay couples adopt could get the contract. As a practical matter, that religious test bars Catholic Charities from the contract -- as your analogy shows. It just does it badly.
In this crowd, you get credit for even such a sophomoric attempt to engage the issue, so I'll explain it in YOUR own analogy: it's more like a Muslim or a Jewish farmer had been happily selling corn and soybeans to the government, only to be told that from now on, they have to also sell bacon. Since they are religious people with certain beliefs, they explain that they CAN'T sell bacon -- but of course the farmer next door can. So they confidently expect to continue providing what the government obviously wants (it's been buying their corn and soybeans for forty years), only to be told: New rule! If you won't provide bacon, the government can't buy your corn and soybeans.
Doesn't make a lot of practical sense, now does it?
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 12:42 PM:
You DO realize, Fargus, that you just posted the best possible defense for government coercion of religion that's ever been devised? A long line of tyrants salute you -- Constantine, Charlemagne, Henry VIII -- every one of 'em said exactly the same thing.
Fargus on January 01, 2012 12:55 PM:
Oh, come on. Saying that I'm just the same as tyrants is a bit obvious, don't you think? It's not even terribly creative anymore. Textbook persecution complex. I expected more.
First, because church doctrine is slower to change than popular opinion and government policy doesn't mean that church doctrine should be tolerated and encouraged when it is so at odds with opinion and policy. It is certainly the right of church adherents to disagree, but policy needs not accept it. Should faiths that discriminate racially be allowed to accept federal funds and practice this discrimination? If not, what's the difference?
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 1:00 PM:
LOL -- didn't I point out that this was the argument yesterday? Try to keep up.
Fargus on January 01, 2012 1:08 PM:
Sorry, keeping up isn't easy at the rate that you spew nonsense. I guess I'm not that practiced.
To take a bit of a left turn, let's note that church doctrine has not been fixed for its whole history, correct? Things have changed and shifted, often in ways that look suspiciously "with the times." why should we regard this particular incarnation of the shifting sands of church doctrine as particularly sacrosanct and inviolable?
And why should I, as a taxpayer, be forced to support an organization willing to hold orphans hostage to its naked bigotry?
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 1:37 PM:
(note to the peanut gallery: this is how to argue)
Actually, you're getting close to a real question which is largely taken for granted by folks on the left, which is why we often lose when we should win.
To cite an historical precedent for this sorta thing, which is how government can and SHOULD be used -- and defended! -- as morally superior to society as a whole or even organized faiths. It might be called the Mrs. Murphy's boardinghouse example. During debate over the Civil Rights Act, the rights of honest to God bigots were raised in the context of small business -- no less a liberal than Hubert Humphrey explained that if an old white lady who ran a four room boardinghouse refused to rent to blacks, there was nothing in the new law that would make her do it. Possibly because there never really were a lot of four room boarding houses, this isn't really a small business exception: it was used in the 1960s as a way to show that while PUBLIC rules would kill Jim Crow, your Aunt Dub could still hate 'em just as much as she always did.
And thus, America changed for the better: first the public, then the private. It isn't simply our laws that make America a freer and more truthful place than it used to be -- it's the fact that racism and bigotry that used to be taken for granted is now intensely rejected by the culture. But it wasn't a cultural change, first: it was a political one -- We, the People changed our laws (and left an exception for Mrs. Murphy).
On your more strictly Catholic observation, the proper answer is: sort of. That is, there are only a handful of significant doctrinal changes in Roman Catholic history -- priestly celibacy was a medieval invention, while a hundred Colleges of Cardinals will tell you that every instance of the Pope speaking ex cathedra, and the doctrine of infallibility itself all have extremely ancient roots, yada yada.
But if you look for much evidence of the Church having endorsed helping gay couples adopt, you're gonna find a lot of absence.
What''s more clear is the history I noted upthread: about a hundred years ago, a Pope said flat-out that Catholics must not vote for politicians who would legalize marriage, then 60 years later, it was contraception, more recently it was abortion, and just now it is same sex unions. I've noted many times that the common thread in what actually happened in all these cases was defined (when it was condemned by the Vatican) in 1899 as "the Americanist heresy", which is where my online monicker (and a chunk of the personality) comes from -- the idea that civics has a moral value in itself, that (contrary to an ancient Roman doctrine): error does, so! have rights.
I happen to believe in legal divorce, contraception, abortion and same-sex marriage. Hell, I renewed my vows a few years ago in what turned out to be a mass wedding of gay couples. (Although I somewhat mischieviously wonder how long some of 'em lasted. I wouldn't have bet on the guy in the jeans with the fellow in the cowboy hat.)
But what I've done in this thread is a different challenge: it really is a much bigger kind of government intrusion into the PRACTICAL application of a major religion in America's public sphere, to insist that Catholic Charities can only participate in government-supported adoptions (which is what the Boston, DC and Illinois contracts mean) if they cease to be Catholic. That's pretty much an ultimatum.
And it has legs -- not simply to SCOTUS, which is quite likely to get it before the election.
Consider the distinct possibility that, after adoption, folks will seek to apply the same principle to charity hospitals, which are often run by the Catholic Church: if you won't supply contraception or perform abortions, you can't participate in government funding.
Mark this carefully: THEY WILL CLOSE, instead. And I dunno that you will get the sympathetic reaction you assume from "why should I, as a taxpayer, be forced to support an organization that is willing to hold orphans (people who need abortions or contraception) hostage to its naked bigotry?"
Nor do I think it will be quite so easy to replace all those real services charity hospitals and Catholic Charities provide.
So you're left with the Mrs. Murphy exception -- only these aren't a handful of little old ladies running a few four room boardinghouses: they're among the largest inner city health care and adoption providers in the country.
Only you've made it a matter of principle, instead of a practical question. When you sow the wind....
allastair on January 01, 2012 1:47 PM:
The pig farmer analogy is not quite right. TheAmericanist version is also wrong but theAmericanist being wrong is something we can all pretty much count on like the sunrise or the changing of the seasons. This is not about discrimination concerning the product being provided but the customer being served. So, it would be like the jewish or muslim farmer saying I will sell my kosher/halal product but not to non-jews/non-muslims and I would like to please have a government subsidy to discriminate in this way.
Fargus on January 01, 2012 2:03 PM:
If this is the law, what right has CC to demand an exception? Is it simply by virtue of its size? Do other charities have the right to carve out other exceptions on similar bases, citing practical impact? What you have consistently failed to do is show that you is agree with the law that underlies the conflict. If this is the outcome of that law, and you don't disagree with the law, then we're left at a place where, practical consequences be damned, a major charitable organization is asserting that it hates gay people so much that it would rather let every orphan go homeless than assent to the basic humanity of gays. That's monstrous any way you slice it.
What it also is, though, is not at all specific to Catholics. It would apply equally to Muslims, Jews, evangelicals, Hindus, or just good ol' fashioned secular homophobes. The assertion that this decision somehow uniquely disadvantages Catholics is nonsense on its face. As is the implicit assertion that they should be grandfathered into their institutionalized, taxpayer supported bigotry simply because they've been providing services since before this particular law was at issue. That's not how the law works, and allowing organizations to demand carve outs like this is bad policy, bad precedent, and bad for people.
Fargus on January 01, 2012 2:07 PM:
Allastair, you're right about the analogy of course. I should have been more specific. I only meant it in terms of a contract being defined in a certain way which is unacceptable to a religious group, and then that religious group demanding the right to participate in the contract anyway and ignore its terms.
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 3:04 PM:
Allastair stumbles alarmingly over the truth, but then picks himself up and moves on as if nothing happened.
It's not particularly difficult to establish that Catholic Charities discriminates against gay couples. You don't need elaborate pig farm analogies. (Which sorta raises the question why you bother -- it's generally cuz you want to avoid other, equally obvious facts that you spend any time elaborating on something everybody knows and nobody argues.) I keep noting that when you argue a principle, SAY SO -- and then test to see if you're hypocritical in its application and if you're ready for the consequence.
But if you're making a practical argument, then MAKE IT, already. You guys keep going back and forth like a tennis match.
Fargus: I gave several plain examples of what you are hallucinating is a principle, viz., "a contract being defined in a certain way which is unacceptable to a religious group, and then that religious group demanding the right to participate in the contract anyway and ignore its terms..." but which doesn't stand up.
I noted that Catholic churches perform marriages, and their marriages are recognized as valid by the government. But they won't marry same sex couples. By your logic, why should Catholic marriages be accepted as valid by the government? The need for government sanction for Catholic marriages to be valid (for property, etc.) makes the Church, in effect, the government's agent in a contract. What happened to your principle?
I cited a different example, looking at your 'principle' from another angle: Catholic institutions (such as schools) routinely fire people for moral offenses (such as single motherhood) that would render other employers subject to discrimination suits, and which no government employer could do. By your logic, how can a court determine that a Catholic institution is somehow exempt from the obligations that employment law places on others? Hmm? Your "principle" turns out to boil down to money.
I note that there are lots of Catholic institutions that get lots of government money for secular purposes, and a few religious institutions (the segregated school example) that don't: so even as a practical matter, your "money" principle is a dog that don't hunt.
See, you can't make sense if you won't make distinctions. You're taking 'em for granted and changing 'em all over the place: and even if the dog don't hunt it's gonna bite ya hard where it will hurt.
Turning to Allastair's 'sitting next to you in sophomore year and copying off your paper honest it's original work' analogy: no, it's not like a Kosher butcher refusing to sell brisket to a Catholic who just likes corned beef. (if you can imagine such a thing)
It is precisely that the Kosher butcher has a contract to sell brisket to the government, but now the government insists that in order to keep selling brisket, he has to also sell bacon. (Note this is an illustration of the PRINCIPLE, not the practice.) When you try to illuminate a principle, you have to focus.
Allastair's half-assed attempt to refine the analogy turns it on its head: he figures it's like the way brisket is brisket, there is no religious distinction. (Which sorta defeats the purpose of kosher, but let's not go there.) Anybody can buy brisket, so if Catholic Charities refuses to help gay couples adopt, it's like a Kosher butcher who won't sell a Catholic corned beef.
An adoption is an adoption -- as far as the government is concerned in the contract, a properly qualified adoption by a gay couple is just the same as an adoption by anybody else.
But bacon and brisket are not both kosher. You can sell the latter and obey the rules, but not the former.
(An intriguing practical question -- god forbid I inject facts as well as reasoning into this thread -- whether Catholic Charities in Illinois arranges adoptions for single women who happen to be lesbians; if as a matter of fact it is requiring the recognition of a same sex marriage that is exclusively the sticking point.)
So Allastair is rationalizing, rather than reasoning. He figures that for a government contract to require a secular butcher to sell bacon is just the same as it would be to require for a Kosher butcher to do it. He doesn't actually understand the principle he's trying to analogize, so he's assuming his conclusion and pretty much arguing to prove what everybody else understood from the beginning: Catholic Charities won't clear a same sex couple fro adoption.
What he doesn't seem to realize -- pretty typical on the left -- is that by making what he figures is a principled argument, he is endorsing the PRINCIPLE that the government can leverage a religious institution to change its doctrine, or go out of business -- as has already happened in Boston, DC, and now Illinois.
LOL -- me, I just keep observing that since this is what you guys want, you should OWN it. You are happy to drive Catholic Charities out of the adoption business, and you will doubtless be equally happy when you drive Catholic hospitals out, too.
And just who is going to make up all those services that will vanish? You looked at Congress lately?
Fargus on January 01, 2012 3:19 PM:
That post was nothing but word salad. First, analogies are meant to shed light on one or two aspects of an issue, not to be completely one-to-one the same. Your dissection of Allastair's post is as tiresome as it is masturbatory. Second, your examples with employment and marriage don't apply specifically because the law simply doesn't work the same way in those spheres as it does for things like taking government funds. There is no contradiction in the government sanctioning a marriage that meets all the requirements for civil marriage even if the agent performing it is discriminatory in other ways because that's the way that marriage works. I won't even go into your employment example because it doesn't make sense.
I don't even begin to understand why you seem perfectly fine with the state of affairs where the Catholic church is so dependent on money from the United States that it simply can't perform charity without it (as someone noted up thread, how exactly is it charity to take government money and then spend it?). But as we've noted before, this overstates the case. Maybe CC depends to a degree on government money, but that would only mean that without it they'd have to make cutbacks. Stopping service is sheer petulance, and it betrays a lack of care for children and charity which is, I suppose, unsurprising in light of the child abuse revelations that keep dribbling out.
allastair on January 01, 2012 4:06 PM:
Other people have already pointed out, in various ways, that your brain doesn't work correctly so its probably a waste of my time to point out the laughably obvious ways in which your argument fails but I was interested in this particular bit of nonsense:
It seems stupid that this even needs to pointed out but the entire point of my reworking of the analogy is that, however the provider defines the scope of religious involvement with their product, the government is, as it should be, neutral on the appropriateness of that definition: You say your meat is kosher based upon your standard for determining such things? Well thats your business. Good luck with that.
The only significant interest the government has in getting involved with the jewish/muslim food provider at all is, other than normal considerations of public safety overseen by the FDA, when the provider is requesting funding, subsidy or some other special consideration for the distribution of that food. That the butcher/farmer may decide that their definition of their religious obligation requires that the food only be distributed to say, people who obey the sabbath, is really none of the government's business. They only care that their funds are used in a way that is consistent with its policy of non-discrimination. That the farmer's own definition of his religious requirements runs afoul of that is really not, and more importantly, should not be the government's concern. He is entitled to define his religion anyway he wishes. He is not entitled to have the government pay him to act on those beliefs.
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 5:58 PM:
Careful, there, you too -- you are dangerously close to learning something.
1) The Illinois contract with Catholic Charities is NOT charity. Catholic Charities is simply better at the work than anybody else. This is why folks ask the not unreasonable question why it is necessary -- either as a matter of principle or practice -- that they should be utterly fired.
2) It is sorta telling that you don't know the difference between a public benefit -- the reason they got the contract -- and charity. Illinois taxpayers weren't giving money to Catholic Charities to feel good about themselves. It was to give more orphans and abandoned kids good homes -- which for some reason, I'm the only one who keeps mentioning.
3) Then again, you still can't figure out when you're making an argument on principle -- and when you're trying to frame it as a practical issue. So, to your confusion about analogies:
4) The purpose of an analogy is to illuminate at least ONE aspect of a problem, e.g., Gingrich claiming that failing to get on his home state's ballot was like Pearl Harbor: he was surprised. When Romney replied it was more like Lucy in the candy factory, he made a BETTER analogy -- precisely because he took what Gingrich was analogizing TO (his surprise) and noted that it was his FAULT (his campaign is being overwhelmed by the predictable).
5) You guys made up the analogy of the pig farmer. I just used it better. If you don't want to get shown up with your own analogies, strive to think them through.
6) You can announce as often as you like that you don't agree with Catholic Charities argument, but that ain't refuting it. They note -- as Allastair just said, evidently impressed with his originality -- that there is no First Amendment right to a contract. But they argue that it is a First Amendment violation to be DENIED a contract for this particular matter of faith. So you could argue that Catholic Charities is not being denied the contract because they are, um, Catholic. But you don't.
7) You might have noticed that is a matter of fact, not of principle. IS the reason why Catholic Charities cannot get this contract a matter of the Catholic faith, or not? Somebody upthread tried to argue that, um, after all, the Roman faith changes, from time to time. I pointed out that this isn't really true, but what's more: this proves my point, which is that you guys are very happy to use government leverage to pressure religion: hey, isn't that what the First Amendment is FOR?
8) You're arguing that it is not a principle of the Catholic faith that precludes Catholic Charities from this contract, except when you argue that it is. I keep pointing out this contradiction to you, with simple words and short sentences. Now you're like a kid trying to re-tie his shoelaces when he couldn't undo yesterday's snarl. (Psst-- that's a properly used analogy.) Just to extend your silly version -- actually, if a guy claims to be selling "Kosher" brisket that isn't actually Kosher, the government will prosecute him for false advertising. Likewise, there is a whole "Catholic" Church in China that isn't actually Catholic -- but in fact is a creature of the Communist government. You REALLY oughta learn more about the intersection of government and religion before you form opinions.
9) This one is much simpler than you're trying to make it: in order to remain a Catholic institution, Catholic Charities cannot do what it has been doing for 40-some years in Illinois. There is now a test for the contract that bars them, as a Catholic organization, from doing the work that the Illinois government has been delighted to hire them to do, for decades. No one has claimed that in what they DID, the taxpayer was shortchanged -- Catholic Charities adoptions are better than the alternatives (which are generally NO adoption). Nor has anybody claimed that Catholic Charities is prohibiting gay couples from adopting. They would just have to go elsewhere. The really proper analogy (to really overextend your delusional one) would be if a Kosher farmer was more effective and efficient in handling a government milk contract than anybody else, so the government told him he had to sell bacon, too -- or lose the contract. So he reluctantly decided to close the farm: never mind where people will get their bacon -- who is gonna milk the cows?
10) See, if you want to argue a matter of principle: MAKE A PRINCIPLED ARGUMENT, and then own the practical consequences. No bacon -- and somebody else will milk the cows. (I've asked you this a bunch of times, yanno.)
11) Half the time you seem happy with a principled argument that is explicitly anti-Catholic, e.g., when Fargus says, well -- if they're so charitable, why can't they raise the money themselves? Umm... perhaps you missed the part where they got the contract for a public purpose cuz they're good at it? The other half the time, you can't imagine making a principled argument -- why, this has nothing to do with their Catholic doctrine, it's just like a Jewish farmer ... who you're requiring to make bacon, or to be forced out of business cuz you're going to yank more than half his business.
Lord, you should read the Nuremberg Laws.
12) That's why your inept resort to analogies you can't handle is so telling -- NOBODY disputes that Catholic Charities discriminates against gay couples. I'm merely suggesting that if you want to make that an argument from principle: DO IT already.
And own the consequences.
Objective Dem on January 01, 2012 6:41 PM:
Americanist,
But how do you know Catholic Charities was doing a better job? How do you know that they didn't get the contract for political reasons?
I don't see how they could possible do a better job is they were asking people about personal questions that had nothing to do with being a good parent, such as the nature of their sex life.
theAmericanist on January 01, 2012 6:46 PM:
Hmm... has it occurred to you, Object, that you've gone from the sort of genteel "some of my best friends..." bigotry to open: "well, everybody KNOWS how THEY got the job..."
Just thought somebody oughta clue you in.
Objective Dem on January 01, 2012 7:26 PM:
Americanist,
I'm just aware that when they started getting contracts, Illinois politics was much more "coarse" about dividing up contracts. Thankfully, today contracts are given out based on more concrete evaluations, including whether or not the group discriminates.
allastair on January 01, 2012 7:46 PM:
theAmericanist,
Your ignorance of pretty much everything is fairly comprehensive, so no one with a real life has the time to dispute your endless stream of stupidity. I think anyone with a functioning brain stem can see your idiocy for what it is in any case. So really, why bother? But just for the record, I think its important to point out that this:
Just to extend your silly version -- actually, if a guy claims to be selling "Kosher" brisket that isn't actually Kosher, the government will prosecute him for false advertising.
is wrong for much the same reason that most of what you write is wrong - because despite your astounding inappropriate arrogance, you clearly have very little understanding of either the principle or the policy involved in what you are discussing. There have been States that have tried to fine businesses for the false use of kosher as a descriptive but this has been found to be unconstitutional. Most often, the argument for those who wish to maintain these laws has been to argue that kosher is not primarily religious but a simple description of a food preparation process.
Also this:
But they argue that it is a First Amendment violation to be DENIED a contract for this particular matter of faith. So you could argue that Catholic Charities is not being denied the contract because they are, um, Catholic.
The courts have and will continue to reject this argument because, despite the fact that a moron on the internet named theAmericanist finds it compelling, its an extremely poor argument. The dumbest part of this whole discussion is that this rather simple point is lost on you. The fact that they define their religious obligations as in conflict with a policy that applies to all contractors across the board is on them, not on the policy.
The government is not in the business of deciding how they should define their religious obligations. Indeed many catholics do not agree with the official organizations's interpretation in this instance. The State has set a policy and created a legal requirement for the expenditure of funds through the normal process of democracy. If they do not like that policy, one which is designed to make sure that the government does not use its funds to discriminate against a particular class of people, then they have at least two options. They can take it to court where, for very good reasons, they will lose or they can take it to the ballot box and try to change the policy, where they are also very likely to lose. We shall see if Scalia and 4 other justices eventually agree with your dumb argument. My suspicion is that it will never come to that.
Finally, with respect to the practical matter here, I went to Catholic schools for much of my life so I am quite aware of the good work that they do and to which they are committed. Having worked for many non-profit institutions my whole life, I am not, however, convinced that the only way to get good public services is to subsidize discriminatory organizations. I am sure Catholic Charities of Illinois does good work. I would be very surprised if they are the only group that can do well with the significant funds that are being offered to provide this service. That has not been my experience of the competence and effectiveness of charity and non-profit organizations in many other contexts, and I would need to see significant evidence to the contrary to be convinced that is the case here.
Objective Dem on January 01, 2012 10:07 PM:
Thanks Allistair, Its possible that your logic finally made the Americanist realize the error of her logic. Then again, Americanist could be spending the past hour or two writing a long diatribe/word salad.
theAmericanist on January 02, 2012 8:59 AM:
(sigh) Now I gotta show you guys how to answer a direct question? Fair enough.
Q: Are you making an argument from principle, or a practical one?
Allistair's Answer: From principle.
Q: What's the principle?
A. The government can write its contracts any way it likes.
(going too fast for you? I mean, I've asked these questions in some form in EVERY frigging post I've done in this thread. Most of us figured you'd have caught on by now. So, more examples.)
Q. What's the consequence of writing THIS contract in this way?
Object's A. I don't know.
(Psst -- this is what it means when you first charge that 40 years ago, Catholic Charities somehow got the contract through politics rather than merit -- what, ya think placing orphans is like building a highway? There's some sorta Davis-Bacon involved? A smarter lad than you might have noticed that you promptly contradicted yourself "today contracts are given out based on more concrete evaluations..." You DID notice that Catholic Charities has gotten this contract renewed for decades, under both Republican and Democratic rule? Or that DJ pointed out that Catholic Charities is very good at placing orphans and abandoned kids in good homes?)
Allistair's A. I don't know, either.
(This is what it means when you say, first, that you know all about the good work that Catholic institutions do -- I won't even bother to note that the Catholic schools you went to ALSO discriminate, which pretty much ruins whatever pretense toward principle you've managed to delude yourself replaced the birthday suit of your argument. A smarter guy than you would have the wit to realize that you've conceded the point. But when you go on to say you "I would be very surprised if they are the only group that can do well with the significant funds that are being offered to provide this service...." that is simply an elaborate version of how you don't know what you're talking about. When there is evidence (e.g., a forty year record in Illinois) to decide a dispute, either use it -- or avoid it, but not to know the evidence and then to try to avoid it anyway is the mark of a knucklehead.)
Just thought you guys might grab a little self-awareness to start the new year: there's a REASON you don't answer direct questions simply, after all.
allastair on January 02, 2012 12:50 PM:
As I have noted before theAmericanist, you're mostly too stupid to bother responding to even when you ask a direct question. Your questions are run through with your own impenetrable ignorance of the topic at hand and your fundamental misunderstanding of essentially every argument being made in favor of whatever new ad irrelevant concept you happen to be obsessing over. But it is interesting that you manage to get a new thing wrong on top of repeating all the incredibly wrong parts of each of your other posts. Its a kind of genius I guess.
For this edition of how theAmericanist can get pretty much everything wrong in the dumbest way possible:
I won't even bother to note that the Catholic schools you went to ALSO discriminate, which pretty much ruins whatever pretense toward principle you've managed to delude yourself replaced the birthday suit of your argument.
If the principle is, in your ridiculous attempt to put words in my mouth, that "the government can write its contracts any way it likes" then appreciating the work of catholic institutions, including the ones that receive government funds, is no contradiction of that principle as long as there is no violation of the contract which, of course, there is not in the case of my schools. If you showed any capacity for rational thought, I might try to untangle why you have mistakenly come to the conclusion that there is some contradiction between those ideas but it clearly isn't worth the time. But the fact that this would not be my answer to your idiotic question if I were even inclined to answer notwithstanding, its somewhat incredible that you have managed to even confuse the issues in an argument with yourself.
This:
Psst -- this is what it means when you first charge that 40 years ago, Catholic Charities somehow got the contract through politics rather than merit -- what, ya think placing orphans is like building a highway? There's some sorta Davis-Bacon involved? A smarter lad than you might have noticed that you promptly contradicted yourself "today contracts are given out based on more concrete evaluations..." You DID notice that Catholic Charities has gotten this contract renewed for decades, under both Republican and Democratic rule? Or that DJ pointed out that Catholic Charities is very good at placing orphans and abandoned kids in good homes?
is just you not being able to keep straight who you are arguing with. If you take a moment to actually think rather than spout another epically stupid rant, you will notice that I am not the one who wrote any of those things so they are not my ideas to contradict. The signatures are at the bottom of the post. If you have trouble reading the names, try to sound them out.
"I would be very surprised if they are the only group that can do well with the significant funds that are being offered to provide this service...." that is simply an elaborate version of how you don't know what you're talking about. When there is evidence (e.g., a forty year record in Illinois) to decide a dispute, either use it -- or avoid it, but not to know the evidence and then to try to avoid it anyway is the mark of a knucklehead.)
My guess is that, as with everything else you rant on about, you know little to nothing at all about the various competencies of either the Catholic or non-Catholic foster care and adoption institutions in Illinois. But you are the one putting forth the suggestion that Catholic Charities may be uniquely qualified to do this work and so you are the one that needs to provide the evidence for that extraordinary claim. I suspect you havent't because a) it would be a rather difficult thing to prove and b) you have somehow managed to learn some shame and therefore refrain from demonstrating your ignorance in yet another area of inquiry.
If its b), then keep working on that for the new year. You will find that you embarrass yourself much less.
Fed up on January 02, 2012 11:47 PM:
Americanist, you take the prize for being the most persistent and obnoxious bastard to grace this site in a long, long time. I have rarely seen such a display of patronizing bullshit. And whereas you condescendingly chide other commenters (whose patience with you amazes me) for lack of reason, you buy into the fantasy of Christianity, but some aberrant sort that apparently tolerates nasty twits like you. Please leave and never come back.
christopherstarrettmg on January 19, 2012 9:27 AM:
Haircut Coupons
Start looking your current preferred with Printable Coupons For Great Clips Haircut|
Great Clips Coupons Arizona|