Originally posted by Low Treason:
Are you seriously suggesting that 'personal religious views' should supersede "human rights"?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
quote:Bzzt. Thank you for playing.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
A Christian couple were recently banned from fostering by a local authority when they were asked their views on homosexuality and advised that they would not teach a child that homosexuality was acceptable. The High Court has now upheld the ban. Is this a proportionate response? Unlike the B&B cases there is no tangible victim in this case and the couple advised that they had nothing against homosexuals. Presumably then they would not teach children to discriminate against homosexuals. The court upheld the ban on the basis that sexual orientation rights overrode religious discrimination rights but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation? Is the High Court effectively saying that a child in care has a right to be taught that homosexuality is morally fine which overrides a couple's right to foster if they disagree? The Court took the view that it is damaging to the welfare of children to allow them to be cared for by people with these views. This decision can only be correct if this couple's views are truly damaging to the welfare of children. What do you think?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
quote:No, I don't disagree and no, I don't want this power to be misused. What I disagree with is the notion that making this kind of ruling based on those kinds of grounds is going to contribute more than marginally to improving the things you and I both care about.
Originally posted by leo:
Well, the article says: "If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service, you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone."
Do you disagree with this. Remember that teachers, carers, social workers, are in a position of POWER over others. Do you want this power to be misused?
quote:Even if that is so, I'm really not convinced that ruling on eligibility as foster parents on this sort of criteria alone is going to make much difference to how much harm is done to foster children.
Well I am afraid that they ARE harmful, as many an LGBT person who grew up as a child would tell you.
quote:Yes it is, but guess what, that works both ways and yes I have plenty of cases to hand of kids of christian parents being placed in long term care with foster families, cases in which the beliefs of their natural parents and/or foster parents counted for nothing
It is 'child abuse' to strip children/make them ashamed if their own identity.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
]
quote:But I know many people who were taught that homosexuality was wrong as children who do not victimize homosexuals. In contrast the people who do actively victimize homosexuals tend to do so on the grounds that homosexuals are in a minority and are therefore vulnerable and don't tend to think much about morality at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
quote:Sorry, that should read Christian Legal Centre.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One lawyer has already opined that Christian Concern's press release is not just an outright lie, but actually may be in contempt of court.
quote:Surely all stereo typing and prejudice was wrong?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
quote:I don't propose to take the conversation any further now that there's evidence the case didn't say what you thought it said. Sorry.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:But I know many people who were taught that homosexuality was wrong as children who do not victimize homosexuals. In contrast the people who do actively victimize homosexuals tend to do so on the grounds that homosexuals are in a minority and are therefore vulnerable and don't tend to think much about morality at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
quote:This is not true either. Both parties sought a judicial review. This is why the council deferred, in order to obtain a ruling on whether they could take the couple's religiously-motivated views on homosexuality based into account when making a decision.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The couple weren't banned. The council deferred their decision. The couple then took them to court.
quote:The judgement basically upheld the declaration which Derby were seeking. It will be interesting to see whether the Johns will continue with their application to foster and what the response of Derby will be.
The High Court didn't uphold the ban. They said that the couples' views on homosexuality could be taken into account by the Council when coming to a decision.
quote:Well of course, they would say we were all equal under the law, even when maintaining that sexual orientation rights trump religious rights.
The court didn't say sexual orientation rights trump religious discrimination rights. They said we are all equal under the law.
quote:Yes I note that the humanists and Stonewall are at it again.
Sorry and all, but the usual suspect are attempting to whip up a frenzy.
quote:I shall rephrase that. The council had not made a decision. The claimants' solicitor proposed that the matter over which no decision had been made be taken to judicial review, to which the council agreed. The decision was then deferred. That no decision had been made was remarked on in para 21, and referred to throughout as putting m'lords' deliberations on the wrong side of surreal.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:This is not true either. Both parties sought a judicial review. This is why the council deferred, in order to obtain a ruling on whether they could take the couple's religiously-motivated views on homosexuality based into account when making a decision.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The couple weren't banned. The council deferred their decision. The couple then took them to court.
quote:Though they may be arrested if they do so.
Originally posted by five:
No one has stopped their religious rights. They remain free to believe what they believe. They can even preach it on the streetcorner.
quote:Not all of them and in probably the vast majority of cases it is an amount which does little more than cover expenses. In the case of the Johns offering respite fostering they would have received no more than pocket money.
Foster carers are paid.
quote:The Johns didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was wrong. But they didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was right. There is a clear distinction between these two positions.
Originally posted by five:
You don't tell kids homosexuality is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by five:
In a nutshell? The child they're fostering who turns out to be gay.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Suppose the child IS gay?
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:But I know many people who were taught that homosexuality was wrong as children who do not victimize homosexuals. In contrast the people who do actively victimize homosexuals tend to do so on the grounds that homosexuals are in a minority and are therefore vulnerable and don't tend to think much about morality at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
quote:Except that the council don't think that, and the court agreed that they don't.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
One says that look, men are lustful and are unable to keep themselves in check, so let's cover the women in mobile tents. The other says that Christians are completely unable to keep their views and actions in perspective or do what is most loving for a child; if they find a gayer, they simply have to give it hell until it sees the light.
quote:I'm sorry, but if a child in their care ever says anything about homosexuality or asks about homosexuality, do you seriously think this distinction is going to hold?
Originally posted by Spawn:
The Johns didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was wrong. But they didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was right. There is a clear distinction between these two positions.
quote:I thought you weren't going to take the conversation any further?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I'm sorry, but if a child in their care ever says anything about homosexuality or asks about homosexuality, do you seriously think this distinction is going to hold?
Originally posted by Spawn:
The Johns didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was wrong. But they didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was right. There is a clear distinction between these two positions.
It's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' situations.
And it's exactly the kind of fear that dominates the lives of young gay people. If Mum and Dad never talk about it, and don't want to talk about it, it must be because it's not okay. If it was okay they'd be willing to talk about it.
quote:No. The cases are different.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Isn't the logical conclusion of several responses to this thread that natural children should be removed from parents who teach them that homosexuality is wrong?
quote:Analogy: a child from a Christian background. There's a difference between placing them with a humanist couple who promise to assist the child in the practice of Christianity, and placing them with a humanist couple who merely promise not to subject the child to daily readings from Christopher Hitchens.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The other says that Christians are completely unable to keep their views and actions in perspective or do what is most loving for a child; if they find a gayer, they simply have to give it hell until it sees the light.
quote:Good point.
Originally posted by Alogon:
We are all presumed to have the right to be parents, but being a foster parent is not a right.
quote:But in that example if your (hypothetical) kids end up malnourished you can be prosecuted for abusing your children. In other words, I can see the difference between public and private but it is only of limited degree.
Originally posted by Louise:
Fosterers are there to provide a public safety net for kids who in many cases have already suffered abuse or are otherwise vulnerable so it's not unreasonable to want them to take the highest precautions possible not to add to harm that is often already done.
If you're going to provide a space for healing you shouldn't be doing further harm.
My cooking may not be of public hygiene certificate standards, but it's Ok for me and my other half, but to someone immunocompromised, an encounter with my creatively re-cooked leftovers might not be a laughing matter. There's a reason why health and safety do not allow me to set up 'Lucretia Borgia's Country Kitchen' for all comers, and least of all in a hospital where people who could be seriously harmed by food poisoning might encounter my wares.
L.
quote:Well, to pick up from Dafyd's previous thoughts, aren't 'fostering' and 'adoption' two rather different situations? Adoption is designed to place the child in the same situation as if they were born into that family. Fostering is not.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:But in that example if your (hypothetical) kids end up malnourished you can be prosecuted for abusing your children. In other words, I can see the difference between public and private but it is only of limited degree.
Originally posted by Louise:
Fosterers are there to provide a public safety net for kids who in many cases have already suffered abuse or are otherwise vulnerable so it's not unreasonable to want them to take the highest precautions possible not to add to harm that is often already done.
If you're going to provide a space for healing you shouldn't be doing further harm.
My cooking may not be of public hygiene certificate standards, but it's Ok for me and my other half, but to someone immunocompromised, an encounter with my creatively re-cooked leftovers might not be a laughing matter. There's a reason why health and safety do not allow me to set up 'Lucretia Borgia's Country Kitchen' for all comers, and least of all in a hospital where people who could be seriously harmed by food poisoning might encounter my wares.
L.
My question is motivated by a very real situation. At the weekend I was talking to some friends who are struggling with infertility. They are finding it very hard. They are now beginning to consider fostering or adoption. They are both Christians and, while I don't know their views on homosexuality, I'm just wondering how they would feel if it came down to a question like this.
Wouldn't they feel that (if they hold conservative views on homosexuality), at a very emotionally charged point of their life, they were being asked to choose between their faith or having children?
(I'm not throwing this out as emotional blackmail, just trying to explore what the implications of this might end up being.)
quote:The example I used, was not malnourishment but non-stringent hygiene - and the difference between the two examples matters ie. what I'm saying is that a risk that's legal and reasonable for me personally may not be reasonable for the public at large, where there may be people for whom my small risk might be for them a much greater risk and certainly not reasonable for a vulnerable group to whom it would be a huge risk.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:But in that example if your (hypothetical) kids end up malnourished you can be prosecuted for abusing your children. In other words, I can see the difference between public and private but it is only of limited degree.
Originally posted by Louise:
Fosterers are there to provide a public safety net for kids who in many cases have already suffered abuse or are otherwise vulnerable so it's not unreasonable to want them to take the highest precautions possible not to add to harm that is often already done.
If you're going to provide a space for healing you shouldn't be doing further harm.
My cooking may not be of public hygiene certificate standards, but it's Ok for me and my other half, but to someone immunocompromised, an encounter with my creatively re-cooked leftovers might not be a laughing matter. There's a reason why health and safety do not allow me to set up 'Lucretia Borgia's Country Kitchen' for all comers, and least of all in a hospital where people who could be seriously harmed by food poisoning might encounter my wares.
L.
quote:Here's another very real situation for you - I know from speaking to gay friends who were brought up in anti-gay situations that being faced with an anti-gay family can do life-long damage and even be life-threatening- it can make a young person trapped in such a situation suicidal.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My question is motivated by a very real situation. At the weekend I was talking to some friends who are struggling with infertility. They are finding it very hard. They are now beginning to consider fostering or adoption. They are both Christians and, while I don't know their views on homosexuality, I'm just wondering how they would feel if it came down to a question like this.
Wouldn't they feel that (if they hold conservative views on homosexuality), at a very emotionally charged point of their life, they were being asked to choose between their faith or having children?
(I'm not throwing this out as emotional blackmail, just trying to explore what the implications of this might end up being.)
quote:No. Because in that situation the state isn't in the position of having the assess their fitness as parents UNLESS the parents do something which draws that into question.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Isn't the logical conclusion of several responses to this thread that natural children should be removed from parents who teach them that homosexuality is wrong?
quote:I get the difference, but by introducing the factor of risk you also seem to agree with me that the only difference is that of degree?
Originally posted by Louise:
The example I used, was not malnourishment but non-stringent hygiene - and the difference between the two examples matters ie. what I'm saying is that a risk that's legal and reasonable for me personally may not be reasonable for the public at large, where there may be people for whom my small risk might be for them a much greater risk and certainly not reasonable for a vulnerable group to whom it would be a huge risk.
quote:I also get that and therefore am still confused about the distinction you make above. If you really think that it causes that much damage then I can't possibly see why you wouldn't want to take the legislation further to existing families.
Originally posted by Louise:
Here's another very real situation for you - I know from speaking to gay friends who were brought up in anti-gay situations that being faced with an anti-gay family can do life-long damage and even be life-threatening- it can make a young person trapped in such a situation suicidal.
As more and more gay people have come out, more and more people are aware of the damage done to gay children by otherwise lovely well-meaning people who just don't get it that their conservative Christian/Muslim beliefs can be lethal. When a society has become aware that these beliefs can do such terrible damage, people will increasingly begin to have troubles of conscience about handing over a child (who could turn out to be gay) to people with anti-gay beliefs.
quote:Can you take that a bit further to explain what that might look like? I'm struggling to think of something (in this particular issue) that a parent might do that isn't already covered.
Originally posted by iGeek:
No. Because in that situation the state isn't in the position of having the assess their fitness as parents UNLESS the parents do something which draws that into question.
quote:AFAIK fostering is a form of employment in the UK. An employer is not suposed to descriminate on any grounds (be it age, sexuality, gender race, disability OR religion). This is what seems to be happening in this case. We presume to have the right to be treated equally.
Originally posted by Alogon:
In the U.S., foster parents are quasi-employees, paid by the government for services rendered. Natural parents are not. That's one important difference. We are all presumed to have the right to be parents, but being a foster parent is not a right.
quote:One last comment for a couple of days - RL.
Originally posted by Louise:
The example I used, was not malnourishment but non-stringent hygiene - and the difference between the two examples matters ie. what I'm saying is that a risk that's legal and reasonable for me personally may not be reasonable for the public at large, where there may be people for whom my small risk might be for them a much greater risk and certainly not reasonable for a vulnerable group to whom it would be a huge risk.
quote:If I were a betting man I would put money on this thread being humanely dispatched before the end of the first furlong.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
]One last comment for a couple of days - RL.
quote:The bizarre thing is that my understanding in the case of the Johns is that they were seeking to foster younger children for respite care. Their views on homosexuality are highly unlikely ever to come up. But surely this is a matter of negotiation between the Johns and the Council rather than seeking a declaratory judgement in concert with the Johns, on the principle. Many of these cases in the courts illustrate a failure of imagination on the part of statutory agencies and public bodies to undertake friendly and supportive negotiation with employees on such matters.
Originally posted by Haydee:
If you read the court ruling (linked by Doc Tor) then you'll see that Mr Johns, when asked what he would do if they fostered a child who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they might be gay, said that he would "gently turn them round".
And Mrs Johns said "I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be homosexual".
That doesn't suggest that they would be 'supportive', but that they would impose their views on the child. Gently of course...
quote:Not very different from the political guests then.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The couple were interviewed on the 'Today' programme this mornng on BBC Radio 4 but I got the strong impression that they would not say to any child that it was okay to be homosexual. A question was asked quite a few times, but the woman deflected it, gave the answers they wanted to give etc. It's all very well to say they would not love a child any the less and wanted a level playing field for their religious ideas too, but I would say that they would, somehow or other, let such a child think that s/he was wrong.
(I've only read OP so far.)
quote:I'd agree with the first sentence, remembering that it was the Johns' legal representative who first asked for a judicial review.
Originally posted by Spawn:
But surely this is a matter of negotiation between the Johns and the Council rather than seeking a declaratory judgement in concert with the Johns, on the principle. Many of these cases in the courts illustrate a failure of imagination on the part of statutory agencies and public bodies to undertake friendly and supportive negotiation with employees on such matters.
quote:I think that for many people it's the word 'unacceptable' that isn't quite appropriate. 'Wrong' would be more accurate, and you can believe that what someone is doing is wrong, and still accept that person and have nothing against them.
Originally posted by mousethief:
How can you believe homosexuality is unacceptable and yet have nothing against homosexuals? Which word is being twisted out of its normal meaning?
quote:Yes, and I can imagine any number of those getting you ruled out as a foster parent.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I could think of any number of behaviours and views which are harmful to children - very liberal views of sexuality, drugs and discipline can considerably damage children.
quote:Oh come off it. The need to ask for a judicial review only came about because of the attitude of Derby towards the John's application.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd agree with the first sentence, remembering that it was the Johns' legal representative who first asked for a judicial review.
Many of these cases illustrate an aggressively confrontational attitude by a certain flavour of Christian organisations, determined to create legal exemptions from existing laws. They have pretty much failed across the board to do so, while succeeding in bringing the faith into (further) disrepute.
quote:
107 We have stated our misgivings about the exercise of the jurisdiction to consider whether to grant any (and if so what) declaratory relief. The defendant has taken no decision and there is likely to be a broad range of factual contexts for reaching a particular decision, the legality of which will be highly fact-sensitive. Moreover, the parties have: (a) been unable to agree on an appropriately focused question for the court to address, (b) each identified questions that do not raise a question of law that can be answered with anything approaching a simple 'yes' or 'no', and (c) furnished the court with no evidence.
108 On behalf of the claimants it is said that the material the Commission filed in evidence is highly controversial, but no rebutting evidence has been filed. Mr Diamond has sought to rely on material which is unsupported by any evidential evaluation. We are not in a position to assess, let alone evaluate, any of the material relied on. This, together with the difficulties we identify in [107], has meant that such conclusions as we have been able to reach in [90]-[105] must be seen as qualified in the light of the nature of the material before us and the way the case was presented.
109 For the reasons given in [107] we have concluded that we should make no order.
quote:What do you think the decision is?
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am about to wade in here with both feet. This is a bad decision
quote:As I've observed in the related thread that has sprung up, isn't support and encouragement precisely what children need?
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Now if they were Fred Phelps family, and would take any opportunity to indoctrinate anti-gay hatred into anyone who comes within shouting distance, then they would be inappropriate. But this is not the case - they were not anti-gay, it is just that they could not support or encourage that in the children they were looking after. For a couple of nights.
quote:
I discussed with Eunice, four possible scenarios, and asked how she might support the young person:
1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.
[...]
Eunice's response to the first situation was that she would support any child. She did not offer any explanation as to how she would go about this. On a previous occasion when the question had been put to Owen, he responded by saying that he would "gently turn them round".
quote:Quite. They came over terribly on the Today programme interview (which should be available to listen again on the BBC website), constantly avoiding the question by answering it with ‘we would want to teach the child with Love’. I doubt these people understand the harm they do to their cause, but that they do so is poetically just. They keep on stupidly hammering nails in the coffin of religion.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Many of these cases illustrate an aggressively confrontational attitude by a certain flavour of Christian organisations, determined to create legal exemptions from existing laws. They have pretty much failed across the board to do so, while succeeding in bringing the faith into (further) disrepute.
quote:But the alienation and division that anti-gay attitudes and teachings cause is OK?
Originally posted by Spawn:
This threatens to create great alienation and division in society at large.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:The court document talks about the question of what they would do at weekends - which is often when respite occurs - and how they would deal with the issue of church. Apparently they go to church twice on a Sunday and were not prepared to take it in turns or miss church on days when they had foster kids with them. They didn't seem to have an answer to how they should deal with this situation. I imagine they wanted to take the kids with them, and that is a big no-no for foster kids who aren't already in that religious tradition. They should have thought about how they would deal with this area of their life. Not having done so is like turning up to a job interview with no idea what the job involves or what the company does.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The point is that they were applying for respite foster care - short term, one or two nights usually. This is not long term foster care, not looking after children for all of their childhood, it is unlikely to be more than a week. So they will have some impact on the childs life, but, in reality, not a great deal. As long as they are not seeking to explicitly teach the children in their care something unacceptable, this should not be an issue.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:However long or short a child is in your care, they can bring things up that need deep discussion. Often vulnerable children will tell you a nugget of information - even if you don't know the child that well - at the most inopportune moment. A little girl I volunteer with - for a couple of hours a fortnight - told me her dad was in prison, while we were crossing a very busy road.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The point is that they were applying for respite foster care - short term, one or two nights usually. This is not long term foster care, not looking after children for all of their childhood, it is unlikely to be more than a week. So they will have some impact on the childs life, but, in reality, not a great deal. As long as they are not seeking to explicitly teach the children in their care something unacceptable, this should not be an issue.
quote:I'm sure that expressing any sympathy whatsoever for homosexuals would at one time have sufficed to make one persona non grata as a pillar of the community. This is no longer true, and I for one consider this development to be progress. I'm curious as to what extent, if any, you agree. Do you pine for the days when one could be thrown in jail for "sodomy"?
Originally posted by Spawn:
What is most disturbing about this judgement and others is the extent to which people who were previously pillars of the community are now persona non grata because of their refusal to accede to state-approved views.
quote:According to a populus poll for The Times in 2009, 68 per cent of the British public back “full equal rights” for gay men and lesbians. If you cross-check that figure with the Observer poll which included a question on the number of people who have had same-sex contact, the number who claim that is 13%. That's probably larger than the number of people who identify as gay in the population, but even if we take that larger figure as an approximation and knock out the likely number of gay/bisexual people from the 68% approval of equal rights figure in the first poll, that leaves you with about 55%, as a likely figure for the British population who are likely to be gay positive but not gay themselves. So in other words, about 80% of your 'gay mafia' is likely to be straight people, including vast numbers of heterosexual parents.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
It's interesting that those who bitched the most when Melanie Phillips talked about a gay mafia in the UK keep proving her right.
Now if you refuse to bow to (or bend over for) for the gay agenda, you are considered unfit to be parents.
I don't think even the mafia goes that far.
quote:I get the distinction between public and personal risk. However, your analogy must assume that it is possible to be at fault in the private arena too.
Originally posted by Louise:
The example I used, was not malnourishment but non-stringent hygiene - and the difference between the two examples matters ie. what I'm saying is that a risk that's legal and reasonable for me personally may not be reasonable for the public at large, where there may be people for whom my small risk might be for them a much greater risk and certainly not reasonable for a vulnerable group to whom it would be a huge risk.
quote:Are you seriously suggesting that 'personal religious views' should supersede "human rights"?
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am about to wade in here with both feet. This is a bad decision, because it does ( both in the press and in terms of what the decision means, even if not in the words of the judgement ) put "human rights" over personal religious views.
quote:Well anyone who believes that God is telling him one thing and secular society another thing, and then chooses to follow secular society, is a very strange person indeed.
Originally posted by Low Treason:
Are you seriously suggesting that 'personal religious views' should supersede "human rights"?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:You are probably right that blacklisted is not the right term, nonetheless I'm confused about what exactly it was about their method of implementation that triggered this case.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not the belief as such that got them blacklisted, it's the method of implementation.
quote:Except ath "natural" parents are not assigned their children by the state. Assigning children to foster parents is a state action. Leaving children with their biological parents is a state inaction.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And if that is the case I can't see why, in the future, parents of their own natural children (if you see what I mean) could not be prosecuted for believing the same thing.
quote:The Council never actually made a decision on whether or not this couple could be foster parents. They only got as far as 'we'll have to think about this'.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:You are probably right that blacklisted is not the right term, nonetheless I'm confused about what exactly it was about their method of implementation that triggered this case.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not the belief as such that got them blacklisted, it's the method of implementation.
It appears that simply saying, "We think homosexuality is wrong," was enough - because however that was implemented might well be harmful to the children.
And if that is the case I can't see why, in the future, parents of their own natural children (if you see what I mean) could not be prosecuted for believing the same thing.
quote:I think we have already established that (about 4 times) on this thread.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except ath "natural" parents are not assigned their children by the state. Assigning children to foster parents is a state action. Leaving children with their biological parents is a state inaction.
quote:OK, so if God tells me to put you to death, that is perfectly acceptable?
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:Well anyone who believes that God is telling him one thing and secular society another thing, and then chooses to follow secular society, is a very strange person indeed.
Originally posted by Low Treason:
Are you seriously suggesting that 'personal religious views' should supersede "human rights"?
So from the standpoint of individual persons, that view is certainly correct.
quote:What would be the point of the SOF if we just waited until final decisions were made?
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Council never actually made a decision on whether or not this couple could be foster parents. They only got as far as 'we'll have to think about this'.
Which is why trying to draw any larger conclusions from this case is a bad idea.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
No. Because in that situation the state isn't in the position of having the assess their fitness as parents UNLESS the parents do something which draws that into question.
quote:I think you're reading something into my post that isn't there.
Posted by Johnny S
Can you take that a bit further to explain what that might look like? I'm struggling to think of something (in this particular issue) that a parent might do that isn't already covered.
You seem to be talking about emotional and mental damage to children / teenagers which is quite hard to quantify. I'm puzzled as to how, when you applied this to existing families, you wouldn't end up with simply saying that the belief (that homosexuality is a sin) was in and of itself harmful.
quote:But what do you mean by 'religious bigots'? I assume you mean that that would be a good enough reason to prevent fostering children by the state, but not intervention by the state.
Originally posted by iGeek:
Parents who have non-foster children are granted wide latitude and autonomy as to how to raise them. The bar is set quite high before the state can step in. Teaching your children to be religious bigots isn't sufficient cause, at least in Texas, USA. Beating them up or sexually abusing them is. Emotional abuse, depending on the nature and severity, might be.
I'm certainly not arguing for the bar to be lowered.
quote:No, sorry, there are no dots to join.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:I think we have already established that (about 4 times) on this thread.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except ath "natural" parents are not assigned their children by the state. Assigning children to foster parents is a state action. Leaving children with their biological parents is a state inaction.
My question involves joining up the dots between foster parents and biological parents. There is a big difference between those two (as you say, expressed here as action and inaction) but there must be a connection. If the state (bearing in mind, as Orfeo says, no final decision has been made yet) decides that this constitutes grounds for preventing fostering then the state is saying something about all parenting.
quote:It might be relevant to discuss that 'decision' as a matter of general public interest, but in legal terms it's no decision at all.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:What would be the point of the SOF if we just waited until final decisions were made?
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Council never actually made a decision on whether or not this couple could be foster parents. They only got as far as 'we'll have to think about this'.
Which is why trying to draw any larger conclusions from this case is a bad idea.
More seriously, I understand that the council has not made a final decision. But they have already made a decision - namely that the views of the parents are serious enough to place the final decision on hold.
I think it is highly relevant to discuss that decision. Who knows, discussions like this all over the country, may even impact the final decision.
quote:No, your question involves assuming that the dots have been joined up and going from there. If you see a direct connection, please explain what it is and how you go from one to the other.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think we have already established that (about 4 times) on this thread.
My question involves joining up the dots between foster parents and biological parents. There is a big difference between those two (as you say, expressed here as action and inaction) but there must be a connection. If the state (bearing in mind, as Orfeo says, no final decision has been made yet) decides that this constitutes grounds for preventing fostering then the state is saying something about all parenting.
quote:I thought I had pointed to a question (see above).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:No, your question involves assuming that the dots have been joined up and going from there. If you see a direct connection, please explain what it is and how you go from one to the other.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the state (bearing in mind, as Orfeo says, no final decision has been made yet) decides that this constitutes grounds for preventing fostering then the state is saying something about all parenting.
quote:Yes, it is. Horrors! I think it is a defensible position that denying certain young people the right to seek affectional relationships in the only way that means anything to them-- if it goes as far as that-- is abusive.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the state (bearing in mind, as Orfeo says, no final decision has been made yet) decides that this constitutes grounds for preventing fostering then the state is saying something about all parenting.
quote:Well, some people want it to say this, so they can turn it into 'Shock horror! Teh Gheys are coming to take away our children!' but fostering is not all parenting. It is a highly specialised sub-set of parenting where different and sometimes much more stringent rules apply. Partly the difference is because of its temporary/provisional nature, so a foster parent is expected to not enforce their religion on a child. Partly it's because it's dealing with children who can generally be expected to be in vulnerable states and situations - the more vulnerable the population, the more care needs to be taken in how they are treated. As Alogon says some of these children will be those gay kids who have been kicked out or abused because they are gay, to put children in that situation into an anti-gay household would be to re-abuse them in the guise of taking them to safety.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[
However, I repeat, If the state (bearing in mind, as Orfeo says, no final decision has been made yet) decides that this constitutes grounds for preventing fostering then the state is saying something about all parenting.
quote:Technically true. Except that 'the state' would be one particular council (while some other council might reach an entirely different conclusion). And what 'the state' has done would constitute an opinion that has no force of law whatsoever.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:I thought I had pointed to a question (see above).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:No, your question involves assuming that the dots have been joined up and going from there. If you see a direct connection, please explain what it is and how you go from one to the other.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the state (bearing in mind, as Orfeo says, no final decision has been made yet) decides that this constitutes grounds for preventing fostering then the state is saying something about all parenting.
Yes, as Orfeo says, there is a difference between my employment and my home.
However, I repeat, If the state (bearing in mind, as Orfeo says, no final decision has been made yet) decides that this constitutes grounds for preventing fostering then the state is saying something about all parenting.
quote:It is hard to know even where to begin with a question like this.
Originally posted by Alogon:
If you had a gay child, how far would you go in restraining his or her behavior to conform to your beliefs?
quote:Do you put Alogon in this group of 'some people' then?
Originally posted by Louise:
Well, some people want it to say this, so they can turn it into 'Shock horror! Teh Gheys are coming to take away our children!' but fostering is not all parenting.
quote:You use the expression 'more stringent'. How is it possible to read that in any other way than the difference is one of degree?
Originally posted by Louise:
It is a highly specialised sub-set of parenting where different and sometimes much more stringent rules apply. Partly the difference is because of its temporary/provisional nature, so a foster parent is expected to not enforce their religion on a child. Partly it's because it's dealing with children who can generally be expected to be in vulnerable states and situations - the more vulnerable the population, the more care needs to be taken in how they are treated.
quote:I agree with you that this case is a farce. I agree with others that someone probably put them up to it. I'm not really interested in their legal case since I agree that it is rather a red-herring.
Originally posted by Orfeo:
Again, I really don't think that this couple, or more to the point their lawyers, thought this through very well. If they had won the case, the declaration would have been that a person's views on sexuality are irrelevant to their parenting skills.
quote:Who said anything about sex? 13-14 year olds aren't supposed to "have sex" no matter what their orientation, but are allowed to dance, have boyfriends and girlfriends, kiss, probably even date (certainly if they are 15-16). They don't need to hide the fact that they are attracted to one another.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd be encouraging them to see sex as a good thing but something that can wait until they are mature enough to make their own decisions about it.
quote:
Most of all I think I'd try my best to treat them simply as a child, and not as if they had some great label 'gay'.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:That was my point. The couple in question said that sex was only for marriage. I get the impression that they wouldn't encourage much physical contact whether gay or straight. The council might consider them rather prudish and unsuitable for that, but that is not necessarily because of their views on homosexuality per se.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Who said anything about sex? 13-14 year olds aren't supposed to "have sex" no matter what their orientation, but are allowed to dance, have boyfriends and girlfriends, kiss, probably even date (certainly if they are 15-16). They don't need to hide the fact that they are attracted to one another.
quote:That is a fair point, although I'd quibble about the 'obviously'.
Originally posted by Louise:
If you're going to read fostering decisions as a statement about all parenting, then you'd need to read the sensitivity which is usually asked of fosterers towards culture/ religion of fostered children to mean disapproval of parents teaching their own culture and religion to children which obviously isn't the case.
quote:False premise. The council pointed out during the case that they have many foster carers who are devout Christians or Muslims. They just know how to keep some of their opinions to themselves when caring for a child on a short-term basis. What they DO with their belief is different to what this couple said they would DO.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If (potentially in the future) all someone has to do to be turned down for fostering is say they believe homosexuality is wrong...
quote:Did you read in the judgment about the other ways they proposed to translate their beliefs into practice?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:That was my point. The couple in question said that sex was only for marriage. I get the impression that they wouldn't encourage much physical contact whether gay or straight. The council might consider them rather prudish and unsuitable for that, but that is not necessarily because of their views on homosexuality per se.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Who said anything about sex? 13-14 year olds aren't supposed to "have sex" no matter what their orientation, but are allowed to dance, have boyfriends and girlfriends, kiss, probably even date (certainly if they are 15-16). They don't need to hide the fact that they are attracted to one another.
Considering all that I could understand the council making the decision to consider this couple unsuitable for fostering teenagers who have self-identified as gay - especially those who have left home because of it. But that is not the same as wondering if they are suitable to foster at all - rather it is surely something that a social worker could make a call on when it came to fostering. Surely that would only be considered if the majority of children needing fostering were gay.
Again, it comes down to how their beliefs translate into practice.
quote:The views of parents/caregivers on *Group X* can also influence how a non-*Group X* child views/treats *Group X*.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Considering all that I could understand the council making the decision to consider this couple unsuitable for fostering teenagers who have self-identified as gay - especially those who have left home because of it. But that is not the same as wondering if they are suitable to foster at all - rather it is surely something that a social worker could make a call on when it came to fostering. Surely that would only be considered if the majority of children needing fostering were gay.
quote:Wot Louise said. Different kids, different situations, different job. Also: there are lots of lousy incompetent parents out there. Kids are only taken away from parents as an absolute last resort, however, because the experience of being removed from your parents is itself traumatic. Many kids who've suffered horrific abuse still don't want to go, because they've bonded with their parents nonetheless. Not to mention that the care system tends not to create great outcomes for kids either. So you need a damn good reason to take them away. The approval process for foster carers is different. It's about acknowledging that the experiences of being taken from your parents and handed over to strangers is unavoidably horrible, so every step needs to be taken to avoid making it any worse. You need to be more competent, patient and sensitive to be a good foster carer than to be an acceptable parent. Therefore the bar is set higher. Moreover, deciding that someone shouldn't be approved as a foster carer doesn't traumatise the kids that they don't yet have - deciding that someone isn't a fit parent traumatises everyone.
Originally posted by Louise:
Well, some people want it to say this, so they can turn it into 'Shock horror! Teh Gheys are coming to take away our children!' but fostering is not all parenting. It is a highly specialised sub-set of parenting where different and sometimes much more stringent rules apply. Partly the difference is because of its temporary/provisional nature, so a foster parent is expected to not enforce their religion on a child. Partly it's because it's dealing with children who can generally be expected to be in vulnerable states and situations - the more vulnerable the population, the more care needs to be taken in how they are treated. As Alogon says some of these children will be those gay kids who have been kicked out or abused because they are gay, to put children in that situation into an anti-gay household would be to re-abuse them in the guise of taking them to safety.
L.
quote:As I said a number of times to Saul (
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:You are probably right that blacklisted is not the right term, nonetheless I'm confused about what exactly it was about their method of implementation that triggered this case.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's not the belief as such that got them blacklisted, it's the method of implementation.
It appears that simply saying, "We think homosexuality is wrong," was enough - because however that was implemented might well be harmful to the children.
And if that is the case I can't see why, in the future, parents of their own natural children (if you see what I mean) could not be prosecuted for believing the same thing.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
), why not read the judegment? Including the point where the social worker asked how they would support young people in the following situations:quote:Yes, and for that reason it looks like they probably aren't suitable as foster parents. In which case it has very little to do with their views on homosexuality.
Originally posted by orfeo:
They included refusal to take a child to a mosque, and refusal to give up going to church twice on Sundays despite the fact that most respite care occurs on weekends.
I think it was entirely reasonable for the council to feel that their suitability IN GENERAL was questionable. There was a consistent pattern of refusing to budge from any of their own usual behaviours to consider the different needs of a child.
quote:Yes, and as I said earlier, those are good reasons why it would not be a good idea to place gay children in their care.
Originally posted by Haydee:
As I said a number of times to Saul (
1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.
2 A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation.
3 A young person who bullies others regarding the above.
4 Someone in their care whose parents are gay
They weren't able to give examples of what, in practice, they might do or say to support the child. it wasn't saying "we think homosexuality is wrong" that caused concerns.
quote:Situation 3 does not involve them fostering a child who is gay. Neither does situation 2, in fact, as bullies don't stick to the 'truth' when finding excuses to bully. And I simply don't know how you'd screen children to know whether they might become confused about their sexuality at some point.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Yes, and as I said earlier, those are good reasons why it would not be a good idea to place gay children in their care.
Originally posted by Haydee:
As I said a number of times to Saul (
1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.
2 A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation.
3 A young person who bullies others regarding the above.
4 Someone in their care whose parents are gay
They weren't able to give examples of what, in practice, they might do or say to support the child. it wasn't saying "we think homosexuality is wrong" that caused concerns.
Unless the majority of foster children are gay I don't think it is a good enough reason (on its own) to prevent them from being foster parents altogether though.
(Pace Orfeo who has maintained that this is not necessarily about their views on homosexuality.)
quote:In that case, why do you continue to worry about the possible implications of the decision for parents with negative views of homosexuality?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Yes, and for that reason it looks like they probably aren't suitable as foster parents. In which case it has very little to do with their views on homosexuality.
Originally posted by orfeo:
They included refusal to take a child to a mosque, and refusal to give up going to church twice on Sundays despite the fact that most respite care occurs on weekends.
I think it was entirely reasonable for the council to feel that their suitability IN GENERAL was questionable. There was a consistent pattern of refusing to budge from any of their own usual behaviours to consider the different needs of a child.
And to be fair to you Orfeo, you have pretty much maintained that throughout this thread.
quote:Source: para 16.
"Eunice and Owen are kind and hospitable people, who would always do their best to make a child welcome and comfortable. They would endeavour, I am sure, to respond sensitively to a child and would take their responsibilities as carers seriously. The possible shortfalls described in this report in relation to their potential as foster carers do not detract from the fact that they are well-meaning and caring people, who are clearly well-regarded by their family and friends.
It is fair to say that I retain a number of reservations about their potential to meet the wide range of expectations we have of carers to fulfil this very demanding and complex role and would struggle to recommend them for approval as mainstream foster carers.
Panel may wish to consider, however, whether as respite carers for a child matching a specific profile, where the demands and difficulties are likely to be less intense and the role more circumscribed, approval would be appropriate. The question to be considered is whether for a somewhat less challenging role we demand the same degree of demonstrable insight and skill as for full time carers.
In addition Mr and Mrs Johns' views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it's conclusion."
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
Parents who have non-foster children are granted wide latitude and autonomy as to how to raise them. The bar is set quite high before the state can step in. Teaching your children to be religious bigots isn't sufficient cause, at least in Texas, USA. Beating them up or sexually abusing them is. Emotional abuse, depending on the nature and severity, might be.
I'm certainly not arguing for the bar to be lowered.
quote:That's precisely what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But what do you mean by 'religious bigots'? I assume you mean that that would be a good enough reason to prevent fostering children by the state, but not intervention by the state.
quote:This is the bit that answers Orfeo's question.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well what Derby council actually decided, insofar as it decided anything, was this:
quote:Source: para 16.
"Eunice and Owen are kind and hospitable people, who would always do their best to make a child welcome and comfortable. They would endeavour, I am sure, to respond sensitively to a child and would take their responsibilities as carers seriously. The possible shortfalls described in this report in relation to their potential as foster carers do not detract from the fact that they are well-meaning and caring people, who are clearly well-regarded by their family and friends.
It is fair to say that I retain a number of reservations about their potential to meet the wide range of expectations we have of carers to fulfil this very demanding and complex role and would struggle to recommend them for approval as mainstream foster carers.
Panel may wish to consider, however, whether as respite carers for a child matching a specific profile, where the demands and difficulties are likely to be less intense and the role more circumscribed, approval would be appropriate. The question to be considered is whether for a somewhat less challenging role we demand the same degree of demonstrable insight and skill as for full time carers.
In addition Mr and Mrs Johns' views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it's conclusion."
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
What ought to be consider religiously informed bigotry is subjective. I'm reasonably certain we would come up with different lists.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't get that. Isn't saying that it is subjective admitting that it would be a minefield to make a decision on this?
quote:I don't know what it means. The main thing it means is that you're going over a document from the decision-making process with a fine toothcomb.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If that last paragraph was not there I would drop off this thread. Why is there a need to say 'in addition'? Surely this means that regardless of their general suitability views on same-sex relationships is a deal breaker, in and of itself?
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
What ought to be consider religiously informed bigotry is subjective. I'm reasonably certain we would come up with different lists.
quote:It *is* a minefield. We've got a three page thread on it already.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Cut me some slack - Haydee has just accused me of not reading the judgement... now apparently, I'm a pedant!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know what it means. The main thing it means is that you're going over a document from the decision-making process with a fine toothcomb.
quote:But that is my point. You are discussing this as a legal case (and I agree with you it is a pretty botched one). I'm far more interested in the policy that the council has. The ruling seems to suggest that the council does have a policy to do with religious beliefs about sexuality.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But I doubt that any court would instantly jump on that particular paragraph and say "AHA! See? They were excluded because of their VIEWS".
Unlike legislative drafters, council workers are not expected to weigh every single word they use with that kind of precision.
quote:No, we're talking citrus fruits at least.
Originally posted by iGeek:
But we're talking apples an oranges.
quote:WHAT ruling?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But that is my point. You are discussing this as a legal case (and I agree with you it is a pretty botched one). I'm far more interested in the policy that the council has. The ruling seems to suggest that the council does have a policy to do with religious beliefs about sexuality.
Clearly any council policy will reflect the law but, as you say, council workers will tend to use a much more blunt instrument.
quote:Not the decision the court was even ASKED to make.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:If this was the other way round and the courts had made a decision that this couple could foster gay children
Originally posted by iGeek:
But we're talking apples an oranges.
quote:Correct.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can't mean the court judgment, because that's not the council's policy.
quote:
In addition Mr and Mrs Johns' views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it's conclusion.
quote:Exactly. Will need to be considered. Not 'will lead to them being ruled out'.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Correct.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can't mean the court judgment, because that's not the council's policy.
I was referring to this, quoted earlier by Ricardus:
quote:
In addition Mr and Mrs Johns' views on same sex relationships, which are not in line with the current requirements of the National Standards, and which are not susceptible to change, will need to be considered when panel reaches it's conclusion.
quote:Now, is your problem with that policy? Or is your problem that when applying the policy to these particular facts, someone took the view that the Jones' didn't come up to the mark?
The fostering service ensures that children and young people, and their families,
are provided with foster care services which value diversity and promote equality.
quote:Which makes it all the more strange that here on the Ship, in the media and elsewhere, people are trying to talk about the 'wider implications' of the decision. If they were only challenging the application of these policies in this one, specific, case, then how are there ANY wider implications? They explicitly disavowed any challenge to the actual policy documents of the council, or the National Standards, or the relevant regulations, or anything else in a long list of policy material.
It is important to note that, in answer to a specific question we put to him, Mr Diamond confirmed to us in terms that none of these instruments was challenged as being either not compliant with the Convention or otherwise unlawful. So there is no suggestion that the defendant's policies as set out in the instruments Mr Weston relies upon are unlawful; Mr Diamond's challenge is only to the way in which the defendant is (or, to put the point more accurately, may be) proposing to apply the legislation and the policies to the claimants' application.
quote:QED - but What has been demonstrated?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which makes it all the more strange that here on the Ship, in the media and elsewhere, people are trying to talk about the 'wider implications' of the decision. If they were only challenging the application of these policies in this one, specific, case, then how are there ANY wider implications? They explicitly disavowed any challenge to the actual policy documents of the council, or the National Standards, or the relevant regulations, or anything else in a long list of policy material.
QED.
quote:Yes, I know I shouldn't be posting in fits and starts, it's just that kind of day.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
the reality of life is that right across society other people with similar (although different) decisions to make are taking notice and trying to draw conclusions
quote:You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.
Originally posted by Low Treason:
quote:OK, so if God tells me to put you to death, that is perfectly acceptable?
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:Well anyone who believes that God is telling him one thing and secular society another thing, and then chooses to follow secular society, is a very strange person indeed.
Originally posted by Low Treason:
Are you seriously suggesting that 'personal religious views' should supersede "human rights"?
So from the standpoint of individual persons, that view is certainly correct.
quote:Indeed. That is what a spokesman for the Evangelical Alliance said on BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme this morning.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's also worth noting that in the judgment, the Jones' lawyer specifically said they were not challenging the policy!
quote:Which makes it all the more strange that here on the Ship, in the media and elsewhere, people are trying to talk about the 'wider implications' of the decision. If they were only challenging the application of these policies in this one, specific, case, then how are there ANY wider implications? They explicitly disavowed any challenge to the actual policy documents of the council, or the National Standards, or the relevant regulations, or anything else in a long list of policy material.
It is important to note that, in answer to a specific question we put to him, Mr Diamond confirmed to us in terms that none of these instruments was challenged as being either not compliant with the Convention or otherwise unlawful. So there is no suggestion that the defendant's policies as set out in the instruments Mr Weston relies upon are unlawful; Mr Diamond's challenge is only to the way in which the defendant is (or, to put the point more accurately, may be) proposing to apply the legislation and the policies to the claimants' application.
QED.
quote:A reply to this probably deserves its own thread. Because there is a whole truckload of moral abdication there. And moral abdication that even now comes with lethal consequences.
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
[QB]You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.
quote:
So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn't know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I'll go and write the letter - and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote:
Miss Watson, your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville, and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send. Huck Finn.
I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn't do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking - thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time: in the day and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing. But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, 'stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him again in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and suchlike times; and would always call me honey, and pet me, and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had smallpox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he's got now; and then I happened to look around and see that paper.
It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:
"All right, then, I'll go to hell" - and tore it up.
quote:So if the rules for fostering are X and they feel God is telling them to do not-X, why the hell would they sign up at all?
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Now obviously other people will often use religion to justify things I oppose, and in such cases I obviously think they are deluded in fancying God supports them. But I can't fault them as far as being logically consistent goes.
quote:What I find peculiar is the apparent distinction between their children and their religious beliefs, as if they are completely separate entities.
Originally posted by anne:
I've just watched this couple interviewed on the 'One Show'. Mrs Johns stated explicitly, in answer to a direct question, that their religious beliefs would come before the needs of any child that they fostered. She added that their religious beliefs in fact came before their own children.
Whatever your views of their steadfast adherence to their faith, it is difficult to see how any fostering authority could ignore that kind of statement.
anne
quote:They shouldn't sign up, then. Of course.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So if the rules for fostering are X and they feel God is telling them to do not-X, why the hell would they sign up at all?
quote:That rather depends on what you think God is like.
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.
quote:Haha well I guess you could believe in a God who tells His people to do evil... but that one would be hardly worthy of worship.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:That rather depends on what you think God is like.
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.
quote:I'm sure that God doesn't get things wrong, but I'm not sure that I believe in people who don't get things wrong.
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:Haha well I guess you could believe in a God who tells His people to do evil... but that one would be hardly worthy of worship.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:That rather depends on what you think God is like.
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
You're missing the point. If I believe God tells me to do something, then by definition I believe that thing is right.
quote:I think because those used not to be the rules - and they originally fostered (but had a break) before the rules were changed, so felt they were still likely to be good foster carers.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So if the rules for fostering are X and they feel God is telling them to do not-X, why the hell would they sign up at all?
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Now obviously other people will often use religion to justify things I oppose, and in such cases I obviously think they are deluded in fancying God supports them. But I can't fault them as far as being logically consistent goes.
quote:Tough.
Originally posted by chukovsky:
they think the rules are an ass.
quote:This warrants saying again. Don't like the rules? Tough. Work to change them. Meanwhile they're the rules. It has to go pretty far, I think, to get into the "I can't follow these rules" exceptions. This wasn't My Lai or anything close.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Tough.
Originally posted by chukovsky:
they think the rules are an ass.
Rule of law does not mean 'I'll follow the rules that I personally think are good ones, and I get to ignore the others'.
What it means is there are avenues for advocating change of the rules you don't like.
quote:Surely the social workers were simply doing the right thing in trying to see that the mother's wishes on church attendance were fulfilled. That you talk in such accusing terms as "deal breaker", "entrapment", "potential accusers", and "impertinent questions" I find rather worrying, but perhaps you didn't mean it in that way.
Originally posted by shipscat:
Firstly, as a foster carer, I was asked at the beginning of just one placement, where the children's mother had stated that she was Catholic and preferred her children to attend Catholic Mass on Sundays, if I was willing to take the children to Catholic Mass. This question was presented as a deal breaker.
quote:I'm not a fan of his theology by any means, but he is not long back from a trip to churches in Iraq which makes him braver than me - it's not on my holiday destination list, so I think slagging him off in those terms is in poor taste.
Originally posted by leo:
Nazir Ali continues his persecution complex. The more I hear of him, the more I wish he would do what he promised to do upon retirement, that is to support Christians facing persecution. I could give him a list of countries to which he could go and leave us alone.
quote:Let him speak for himself....
Originally posted by leo:
He slags plenty of other people off.
quote:Leo,
Originally posted by leo:
He thinks multiculturalism is a 'mish-mash' - which, being interpreted, means he wants Christianity to continue to rule the roost.
According to Peter Tatchel, "He has repeatedly spoken and voted against gay human rights in the House of Lords, defending homophobic laws like the unequal age of consent, criticising civil partnership legislation and opposing IVF fertility treatment for lesbian couples."
He supported the war against Iraq.
He told the Sunday Telegraph that legislation should be introduced giving some officials the power to remove the veil worn by Muslim women.
In 2000, he said married couples had a duty to have children, and those who remained childless were "self-indulgent".
quote:So said many in 1860 about slavery.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Although i am quite clear on what Scripture says about the issue as well as the Church fathers over two millennia.
quote:Not familiar with the UK version of this, but if it's anything like what happened in certain U.S. juridictions with same-sex marriage/civil partnership laws, the end result is foster kids having their cases handled by other organizations that won't filter out otherwise acceptable fosterers on purely theological (and largely hypocritical) grounds. I don't see a situation where more foster kids are placed with loving homes as "an utter tragedy", but YMMV.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I do maintain the closing of Catholic foster agencies was an utter tragedy though.
quote:I'm not in agreement with that point of view. But I guess you'd know that anyway.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So said many in 1860 about slavery.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Although i am quite clear on what Scripture says about the issue as well as the Church fathers over two millennia.
quote:Claiming that Christian slaveholders of the mid-nineteenth century didn't claim a divine stamp of approval on the institution is historical revisionism of the worst sort. Do I need to provide citations?
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
quote:I'm not in agreement with that point of view. But I guess you'd know that anyway.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So said many in 1860 about slavery.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Although i am quite clear on what Scripture says about the issue as well as the Church fathers over two millennia.
quote:For whom? Certainly not a tragedy for any kids who might need gay foster parents because their straight parents have disowned them.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I do maintain the closing of Catholic foster agencies was an utter tragedy though.
quote:Or for foster kids in general who just need foster parents, gay or straight. Artificially shrinking the pool of potential fosterers implies an overabundance of foster parents relative to foster kids and we know that is actually the reverse of the situation in most jurisdictions.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:For whom? Certainly not a tragedy for any kids who might need gay foster parents because their straight parents have disowned them.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I do maintain the closing of Catholic foster agencies was an utter tragedy though.
quote:She said 'omo...' - rhyming with 'home'
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Just curious, HOW can you mispronounce 'homosexual'? There are two pronunciations that I thought were equally valid, with the first syllable either rhyming with 'home' or with 'Tom'.
quote:That's how it's said by everybody I've ever heard say it, including lots of people who are. You do know that pronunciation is a matter of usage, not etymology, right? Click on the little speaker
Originally posted by leo:
quote:She said 'omo...' - rhyming with 'home'
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Just curious, HOW can you mispronounce 'homosexual'? There are two pronunciations that I thought were equally valid, with the first syllable either rhyming with 'home' or with 'Tom'.
quote:Hosting
Originally posted by JFH:
Leo,
It's impossible for her to have said that. She can't have. Your misspelling of the word "lying" makes it obvious that you're an uneducated bigot who don't know what you're talking about. I don't mean to be racist or anything, but I do think it's fairly clear that you people from England should just stop doing English, since you can't seem to get it right. Leave it to us foreigners.
How about you take up Danish instead?
On the topic:
"It's not bigotry to think yourself right, but to be unable to understand how you could possibly be wrong."
- G.K. Chesterton
And no children should be subjected to such bigotry. It's inhuman and crude. The problem is just that there are so few people I would trust with children...
quote:If you want to make posts like this you need to start a thread on it on the Hell board, notify Leo and then post there. Personal attacks are not allowed on any other board.
3. Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:I don't expect everyone to understand phonological change either, but honestly...
However, it should rhyme with 'Tom' since it comes from a Greek, not a Latin root.
I do not expect everyone to understand etymology
quote:Yes: I specified an American from the South-West because I suspect (judging by the reaction I got) that using the British pronunciation carries racist connotations for them that simply don't exist here. In a similar vein, I am quite happy to use the British pronunciation of 'junta' (unless code-switching between Spanish and English, as opposed to using a Spanish loanword in ordinary English speech) but would normally pronounce 'voile' as 'vwal' (the original French pronunciation) instead of 'voyl' because the assimilated pronunciation is only acceptable in lower-status British dialects (we're fighting a thousand years of social conditioning here). 'Mispronouncing' loanwords from Spanish does not carry the same social stigma in the UK. <\tangent>
Re "junta":
Actually, most Americans would pronounce it differently from the British, even if they know nothing about Spanish, because that's simply the way it's said here.
quote:Indeed - those who take the Bible as the starting point for any argument and try to fit any facts around it are precisely those who think it impossible that they are wrong.
Originally posted by JFH:
"It's not bigotry to think yourself right, but to be unable to understand how you could possibly be wrong."
- G.K. Chesterton.
quote:"omo-sexual"? Someone who wants sex with washing powder?
I am what the Census Office would categorise as White British, but I would normally also pronounce the vowel in the first syllable of 'homosexual' to rhyme with 'home'. Etymology aside, that is how most people I know would pronounce it, except where 'homosexual' is being pronounced in an unstressed position in very rapid speech. Dropping the 'h' at the beginning is common in many dialects of English and is not worthy of remark.
quote:Yes, we can't let Afro-Caribbean people enter the debate - they might mispronounce the words.
Originally posted by leo:
her accent is Afro-Caribbean.
quote:Yes, it's all about the accent. Just the accent.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:Yes, we can't let Afro-Caribbean people enter the debate - they might mispronounce the words.
Originally posted by leo:
her accent is Afro-Caribbean.
quote:
"omo-sexual"? Someone who wants sex with washing powder?
Well, I'd pronounce it with the H but lots of people wouldn't.quote:No - sensible Christianity is not merely a 'revealed' religion. Tradition, reason and experience are alongside scripture.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Leo--
Except that's one of the problems with a "revealed" religion or belief system. You're stuck with the revelation. You might take it all literally, or view some of it as pious stories, or think the whole thing's a fake, or be somewhere in the middle. But you've got to relate to it somehow, or walk away.
