I will turn this into an article at a later date, I'll let you know. Usually my process is to do the audio first and then cut it down into an article. If you're subscribed to my newsletter, you'll see it there.
Thanks William. Once you line up all the negative things that Christians have their finger in, you end up with a pretty deplorable list. I wish they were more open to criticism.
Technically, the government has the authority to revoke tax-exempt status from religious institutions that violate anti-discrimination laws, but it has only done so in one notable case, revoking the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University for its ban on interracial dating. The government has been very shy and reluctant about pushing this much further. I guess the Bob Jones case was too big to ignore. Legally, any private school can be disqualified from a voucher program for illegal discrimination, but this is not enforced very well.
Currently, the most visible form of discrimination in religious schools is discrimination against LGBTQ students, but it remains that case that most Christian schools are white (and often the few minority children are adopted by white parents). (Catholic schools have lots of Hispanics, however, at least in the Southern states.) It is legal for private schools to discriminate on the basis of religion, but not on race, but it is easy to conceal the latter.
It is my understanding that "informal adoption" is a fixture in the African-American community, and it seems to serve them well. It usually means a relative such as an uncle or grandfather doing the informal adoption. If other folks are using it in nefarious ways, then I would say they have stolen an honorable African-American tradition and corrupted it.
The "not all like that" argument has been very effective in the case of churches that welcome gays and lesbians, but these churches have been very vocal and loud in their opposition to the more traditional churches. There is now an organization which calls itself "NALT Christians" which is mainly focused on LGBT issues. They took their name from an acronym coined by San Francisco LGBT community activist and sex advice columnist Dan Savage. He is not religious but has enthusiastically endorsed the organization.
The "informal adoption" being performed by rich Republicans does not align with the model you reference. These are cases of a powerful white male with political connections and the child is never given an opportunity to speak openly. You kind of see it in their marriages too, when the couple is interviewed together and it gives off the vibe that the wife isn't allowed to say anything that hasn't already been approved. The "not all" argument is often used as a weapon to prevent a productive conversation or illustrate that a problem exists. I think we have to start with simple acknowledgements that yes, the Catholic church discriminates against minority groups, women, and the LGBTQ community (among other groups), and they support cruel legislation and other behaviors that target these individual groups. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
If one is not doing a bad thing, but is silent in the face of it, then I believe the legal term here is "accessory after the fact". In the US this is often punished less severely, but it is still punishable. In your scenario with the 2 men who witnessed an assault of 98 others, but did not lift a finger to stop it, the two men are still morally culpable, and would be considered "accessories".
The Catholic church talks anti-racism re African Americans but really doesn't understand the issues.
In the words of James Cone.
"What is it about the Catholic definition of justice that makes many persons of that faith progressive in their attitude toward the poor in Central America but reactionary in their views toward the poor in black America? … It is the failure of the Catholic Church to deal effectively with the problem of racism that causes me to question the quality of its commitment to justice in other areas"
I want to read this, not listen— how
I will turn this into an article at a later date, I'll let you know. Usually my process is to do the audio first and then cut it down into an article. If you're subscribed to my newsletter, you'll see it there.
K
You made some important points and I appreciate that you drew focus to the children and how they are affected. Thank you.
Thanks William. Once you line up all the negative things that Christians have their finger in, you end up with a pretty deplorable list. I wish they were more open to criticism.
Technically, the government has the authority to revoke tax-exempt status from religious institutions that violate anti-discrimination laws, but it has only done so in one notable case, revoking the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University for its ban on interracial dating. The government has been very shy and reluctant about pushing this much further. I guess the Bob Jones case was too big to ignore. Legally, any private school can be disqualified from a voucher program for illegal discrimination, but this is not enforced very well.
Currently, the most visible form of discrimination in religious schools is discrimination against LGBTQ students, but it remains that case that most Christian schools are white (and often the few minority children are adopted by white parents). (Catholic schools have lots of Hispanics, however, at least in the Southern states.) It is legal for private schools to discriminate on the basis of religion, but not on race, but it is easy to conceal the latter.
It is my understanding that "informal adoption" is a fixture in the African-American community, and it seems to serve them well. It usually means a relative such as an uncle or grandfather doing the informal adoption. If other folks are using it in nefarious ways, then I would say they have stolen an honorable African-American tradition and corrupted it.
The "not all like that" argument has been very effective in the case of churches that welcome gays and lesbians, but these churches have been very vocal and loud in their opposition to the more traditional churches. There is now an organization which calls itself "NALT Christians" which is mainly focused on LGBT issues. They took their name from an acronym coined by San Francisco LGBT community activist and sex advice columnist Dan Savage. He is not religious but has enthusiastically endorsed the organization.
The "informal adoption" being performed by rich Republicans does not align with the model you reference. These are cases of a powerful white male with political connections and the child is never given an opportunity to speak openly. You kind of see it in their marriages too, when the couple is interviewed together and it gives off the vibe that the wife isn't allowed to say anything that hasn't already been approved. The "not all" argument is often used as a weapon to prevent a productive conversation or illustrate that a problem exists. I think we have to start with simple acknowledgements that yes, the Catholic church discriminates against minority groups, women, and the LGBTQ community (among other groups), and they support cruel legislation and other behaviors that target these individual groups. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Acknowledged.
If one is not doing a bad thing, but is silent in the face of it, then I believe the legal term here is "accessory after the fact". In the US this is often punished less severely, but it is still punishable. In your scenario with the 2 men who witnessed an assault of 98 others, but did not lift a finger to stop it, the two men are still morally culpable, and would be considered "accessories".
The Catholic church talks anti-racism re African Americans but really doesn't understand the issues.
In the words of James Cone.
"What is it about the Catholic definition of justice that makes many persons of that faith progressive in their attitude toward the poor in Central America but reactionary in their views toward the poor in black America? … It is the failure of the Catholic Church to deal effectively with the problem of racism that causes me to question the quality of its commitment to justice in other areas"
Religion is the politics of gawd. Adopting this perspective has put all the pieces of the puzzle together for me.