The new buzz-phrase making the rounds of U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference in Baltimore last week was "Religious Liberty." It is not hard to imagine some behind-the-scenes PR wizard delivering the bad news to the bishops -- outright opposition to marriage equality is a losing proposition. But characterize yourselves as the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of discrimination and maybe you have a shot at stalling what you cannot stop outright.
The vast Catholic social service network encompasses schools from grammar schools to top-ranking universities, private hospital networks, health and family services and numerous anti-poverty initiatives, among other well-intentioned initiatives. The bishops would have us believe it is an infringement on church's "religious liberty" to freely discriminate while providing these services with taxpayer dollars. Whether denying spousal benefits to spouses of gay employees or refusing to place children in need of homes with gay couples, the bishops argue "religious liberty" entitles them to use taxpayer dollars for the benefit only of those taxpayers of whose lives the church approves.
Given the bishops' simultaneous opposition to health-care overhaul on the grounds that the church should not be compelled to expend resources on health plans that pay for birth control and abortion, it is ironic that they would so callously overlook the plight of gay Americans whose tax dollars they would accept while denying those same individuals the full benefit of their services.
It is time for the bishops to own up to the obvious reality that denying services to a class of individuals is, in fact, discrimination. Their new website to promote the exclusion from marriage of same-gender couples (marriageuniqueforareason.org) goes to great lengths to underscore the church's adherence to what it believes are the teachings of Jesus Christ in regards to marriage. The site emphasizes that fidelity to this conviction, and not discrimination against gays, is its purpose for denying spousal benefits to spouses of gay employees and adoption services to gays and gay couples.
At best, this attempted rationalization does nothing more than make a case for what they view as justified discrimination. In reality, there are no valid reasons for the government to bend to church teaching when the church is operating as an agent of the state (i.e., engaging in activities partly or wholly funded by taxpayer dollars). If the church wants to discriminate in providing services to the public, it should do so with its own money (admittedly including government revenues that would otherwise be collected on the money donated to the church), and not with the tax dollars of those it wishes to discriminate against or those who find their rationale for discrimination odious.
Maybe it is time for the U.S. Bishops to offer a grand bargain. The church will forego taxpayer funds to provide services it is unwilling to make available to all citizens in exchange for a mechanism to ensure that church dollars will not be used to provide abortions and contraceptives. In other words, do unto others what you would have others do unto you.
Christian Piatt: Jesus' Moment Of Atheism
Catholic Bishops: Religious Liberty Under Attack in US | Religion ...
Bishops Open 'Religious Liberty' Drive - New York Times
Bishops: Secular forces attack religious liberty
Bishops say government eroding religious liberty - Yahoo! News
Bishops Say Government Eroding Religious Liberty « CBS Baltimore
But you have to dumb it down even more for Catholics.
Freedom of religion means you are free to practice your religion, not that you can practice it for free. We aren't paying for your practices.
Oh, and start pay taxes.
Oh, and stop raping children.
That being said, they are still people with souls and deserve the respect of all of us. SO, if the Church decides to not extend its services to a group of people, then they should not accept payment for those services from those people.
I do believe that the Church should not be forced to support actions it views as wrong or sinful.
.
This particularly applies to the U.S. government who, per the Constitution, should defer to the states with regards to issues health, welfare, and safety.
The U.S. government does, in fact, defer many issues to the states.
But the states are not allowed to defy the Constitution.
Thanks for being kind. I'm not expecting many more responses such as yours about my post. I almost don't feel like opening them up to read them.
I do, however, think that I and all of society is being asked to bless gay marriage. I feel that gay rights advocates, once all rights have been granted, will still not be happy, because they will still be wishing for the blessing of society, which is different than legal rights. I still feel that I and others like me will be called bigots and haters because people will still be upset that we can't give our blessing (to gay sex and marriage - not to other aspects of gay and straight people and their lives, talents, and achievements). I do feel I am being asked to bless gay marriage, I definitely do feel this way. I feel that there won't be a sense of satisfaction and that "all is right with the world" for gay people until everyone in the country completely accepts gay sex and gay marriage. And I can understand that. Legitimacy is different than legality, and if I were gay and not an evangelical Christian, I would want both. I wouldn't want just the "rights," although that would be a great starting point. So I understand that. I don't know how to resolve it.
We don't need it, nor want it.
Each of us refuses to look at the others' position through the lens of the "other." We're stuck in this rut and we will never be able to understand one another. Especially if our position is framed like this.
And I love gay people, I'm a performing artist and I see amazing creativity coming from gay artists who think outside the box and aren't hemmed in by "norms." I'm not afraid of gay people, nor do I even dislike or feel any visceral bad reaction when I see or think about gay men or lesbian women. I KNOW you are whole people, with otherwise "typical' relationships, and I refuse to categorize or pigeonhole you.
Of course, you are not evil.
Of course, you love us.
Of course, we are disordered people who don't deserve just discrimination in housing, abortion, employment and healthcare.
Of course you can't allow a couple of strangers' enter into a legal contract without compromising your faith.
And most of all, of course we LGBT people should just give you our tax money in exchange for nothing but rejection.
It is all so reasonable, isn't it?
If they want to discriminate because their religion teaches that they should, then by all means, do so - just don't do it with taxpayer money.
.
You and those of like mind spend your health, welfare, and education money as you please. Others who disagree with you will likewise be free to spend their funds as they see fit.
Their exemption from income and property taxes means that my gay tax dollars must be stretched a little further to support their proclaimed bigotry. "Religious Liberty" indeed!
sectarian religious practices, such as "worship" should not receive the benefits of tax exemption except as any other organization which may qualify as not-for-profit..... assuming their books actually demonstrate that, without unduly enriching the "officers"
.
However pretending that something which is a grievous sin is instead a cause for celebration is not love.
.
P.S. I don't generally bring religion into conversations about homosexuality as the dangers of homosexuality to an individual and to society can easily be spelled out without refering to religion. But we are in the Religion section of HuffPo, and you yourself discussed your opinion of Jesus's thoughts on the subject.
Sad that the author singles out the Catholic Church (as opposed to Muslims, etc.) because it is an 'easy' target.
Based upon your rule, should members of those organizations be exempt from taxes which fund homosexual organizations or abortion?
The church is not funded by the government, it is funded by its members who each have already paid some tax on the money they contribute. You want to tax the same money twice? The churces are no different than other tax-status entities.
Do homosexual organizations welcome evangelists or Christian Fundamentalists within their ranks?
What discrimination are you referring to?