Catholic adoptions and Gay couples...
Send them back to Rome! Boo! The Vatican is a rogue state, and everyone knows it! Setting that aside, however, discrimination is always wrong, whether it's on the basis of religion, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Adoption agencies, especially, should be expected to have a moral compass. If they don't, they shouldn't be in business.
The issue I was attempting to raise was the issue of the issue of the greater good. Yes, it is true that you can say that Mother Theresa's Sisters of Mercy could have simply declined to proceed with their normal sacrifice of allowing all modern technologies. But on the other hand, they weren't simply weren't going to. The City of New York, at a time when homelessness was at it's heights, had an option to allow for an exception but decided that none could be allowed.
I did not make either argument. In fact I would agree with you that sexuality has much to do with genetics, although choice plays a role as well. I don't think people are "set" into a role necessarily in every case. To deny that having two parents of the same sex would have any effect I think is rather naive, however, although again, I would not argue that it would "turn" them "gay."
In the United Kingdom, the Church of England is the official state religion and gets state funds. In addition, members of the royal family are barred from marrying Catholics.
Again, I did not claim that gays "make bad parents." I oppose adoption by homosexual couples however I would not make either argument.
This wasn't the result of "special privileges" this was the result of illegal action.
I know this will annoy people but I oppose in-vitro fertilization too.
I'm agnostic, but who are you to define what is normal regardless what pop novelist Dan Brown might say?
Define what you mean by "hunted down?"
Tolerance only works when it is practiced both ways.
Since we seem to be headed in this direction, I will link (link) to my comments on gay marriage, in which I touch on the adoption issue as well. This was in the recent "Liberal or Conservative (official poll)" topic. It's just easier then going all over it again.
The issue I was attempting to raise was the issue of the issue of the greater good. Yes, it is true that you can say that Mother Theresa's Sisters of Mercy could have simply declined to proceed with their normal sacrifice of allowing all modern technologies. But on the other hand, they weren't simply weren't going to. The City of New York, at a time when homelessness was at it's heights, had an option to allow for an exception but decided that none could be allowed.
and they could have easily gone off their sacrifice to allow what is needed for the wheelchair bound. give up that "sacrifice" of modern technology and allow an elevator and they could help homeless people who could both walk and those who had problems with their legs.
seems kinda short sighted and full of garbage ideology that doesn't amount to positive productivity when put to the test. unless you consider an organization that is almost purely evangelical in nature to be positive.
I don't have the information in front of me, and my web searches are coming up short. My information was based on something I read out of a book some time ago, The best I was able to find was this:
Providence, however, was no match for law. New York's building code requires a lift in all new or renovated multiple-storey buildings of his type. Installing a lift would add upwards of $130,000 to the cost. Mother Teresa didn't want to devote that much money to something that wouldn't really help the poor. But the nuns were told the law couldn't be waived even if a lift made no sense.
The plan for the shelter was abandoned. In a polite letter to the city, the nuns noted that the episode "served to educate us about the law and its many complexities."
What the law required offends common sense. After all, there are probably over 100,000 walk-up blocks of flats in New York. But the law, aspiring to the perfect abode, dictates a model home or no home.
Today (circa 1996), laws control much of Americans' lives: fixing potholes, running schools, regulating day-care centres and the workplace, cleaning up the environment — and deciding whether Mother Teresa gets a building permit.
(source link)
I don't believe in engaging in ideology. However, it seems just as ideological for a city to apply to apply to the law to hurt people so as to "apply no exceptions" (if not more so) as it is for a religious order to maintain a vow.
I guess there isn't anything technicaly wrong with this statement, however being as the word evangelical is defined as...
: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2 : PROTESTANT
3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH
5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders -- Amos Vogel> (link to Merriam-Webster)
...it might be misleading to refer to The Sisters of Mercy as a evangelical organization in the same way it was misleading for time magazine to include Catholics in their lists of "leading Evangelicals."
The Missionaries of Charity do not disclose either the sources of their funds or details of how they are spent. A 1998 article in the popular German Stern weekly quoted a witness account according to which the order received about US$50 million a year in donations on its New York account alone. Other journalists have given estimates of US$100 million a year for its global operations. Critics have argued that these sums far exceed the modest needs of the order.
Critics have also alleged that much of the money donated to the order is transferred to the Istituto per Opere Religiosi (colloquially known as the Vatican Bank) in Rome, where it is used by the Catholic Church for its general purposes, or is transferred to non-Christian countries for evangelical purposes.
if the organization has nothing to hide, they would readily volunteer where their money goes. for some reason, though, i doubt that they couldn't afford purchasing an elevator for the building.
again, is charity just for those who can walk?
as far as the semantics of evangelical
–adjective
1. Also, e·van·gel·ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, esp. of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.
5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
–noun
6. an adherent of evangelical doctrines or a person who belongs to an evangelical church or party.
edit: see definition 5. i think context makes it clear enough which version of the word i'm looking to use....
The Missionaries of Charity do not disclose either the sources of their funds or details of how they are spent. A 1998 article in the popular German Stern weekly quoted a witness account according to which the order received about US$50 million a year in donations on its New York account alone. Other journalists have given estimates of US$100 million a year for its global operations. Critics have argued that these sums far exceed the modest needs of the order.
Critics have also alleged that much of the money donated to the order is transferred to the Istituto per Opere Religiosi (colloquially known as the Vatican Bank) in Rome, where it is used by the Catholic Church for its general purposes, or is transferred to non-Christian countries for evangelical purposes.
I suppose it's possible that money donated to the Missionaries of Charity were transfered to the Vatican bank. If the money "far exceeded" the "modest needs" I suppose could I been transfered into the Church central accounts (rather then just left idle). Then again the Missionaries of Charity is not a tiny organization (link). There is also a large amount of Catholic charities, so it is likely that the money may have been spread around.
And yes, it is possible that the some money may have been move into the Church and used for promotion of the faith. If you want to call this fraud, fine. Did you know that when you donate money to secular charities, that money ends up branching out? For example, some money you donate to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation ends up being sent in turn to Planned Parenthood USA. There are countless other examples. I suppose this is fraud too.
TheMachine1
Veteran
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.
What I read Mother Teresa was not a nice person and her help for the poor did more harm than good.
The Missionaries of Charity do not disclose either the sources of their funds or details of how they are spent. A 1998 article in the popular German Stern weekly quoted a witness account according to which the order received about US$50 million a year in donations on its New York account alone. Other journalists have given estimates of US$100 million a year for its global operations. Critics have argued that these sums far exceed the modest needs of the order.
Critics have also alleged that much of the money donated to the order is transferred to the Istituto per Opere Religiosi (colloquially known as the Vatican Bank) in Rome, where it is used by the Catholic Church for its general purposes, or is transferred to non-Christian countries for evangelical purposes.
I suppose it's possible that money donated to the Missionaries of Charity were transfered to the Vatican bank. If the money "far exceeded" the "modest needs" I suppose could I been transfered into the Church central accounts (rather then just left idle). Then again the Missionaries of Charity is not a tiny organization (link). There is also a large amount of Catholic charities, so it is likely that the money may have been spread around.
And yes, it is possible that the some money may have been move into the Church and used for promotion of the faith. If you want to call this fraud, fine. Did you know that when you donate money to secular charities, that money ends up branching out? For example, some money you donate to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation ends up being sent in turn to Planned Parenthood USA. There are countless other examples. I suppose this is fraud too.
too poor to give out money to charities and i already know about branching out. i read up on it around the time of hurricane katrina when i found out that money donated to the red cross wouldn't necessarily go to katrina even if donated for that express reason.
but here's a question for you....you say that it goes from breast cancer to (un)planned parenthood....is planned parenthood trying to convert people to their religion and control them through the bible and alter?
What I read Mother Teresa was not a nice person and her help for the poor did more harm than good.
yeah...she was a sadist. she believed that others' and her own suffering brought her closer to god.
EDIT: I screwed up here. So there.
Last edited by jimservo on 07 Feb 2007, 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.