South Carolina demands right to discriminate against Jews and non-Protestants

Captain_Swoop · 4th January 2019, 08:10 AM

Quote:

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering whether to grant a South Carolina request that would effectively allow faith-based foster care agencies in the state the ability to deny Jewish parents from fostering children in its network. The argument, from the state and from the agency, is that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act should not force a Protestant group to work with Jewish people if it violates a tenet of their faith.

Of course they are, who didn't see this coming?

https://theintercept.com/2018/10/19/...ll-ministries/

casebro · 4th January 2019, 08:54 AM

At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news.

varwoche · 4th January 2019, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news.

Assuming the article is factual, it's very much newsworthy that the administration would try to implement policies such as this. Even if it fails.

Never mind evidence that the government is trying to implement bigoted policies! That's non-news!

varwoche · 4th January 2019, 10:32 AM

Fixed it for me:

Originally Posted by varwoche

Assuming the article is factual, it's very much newsworthy that the administration would try to implement policies such as this. Even if it fails.

Never mind ~~evidence~~ proof that the government is ~~trying to~~ actually implementing bigoted policies! That's non-news!

3point14 · 4th January 2019, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news.

Nothing to see here. Just an attempted subversion of possibly the most revered legal document in the world. Who's worried about that. Pansies.

varwoche · 4th January 2019, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Nothing to see here. Just an attempted subversion of possibly the most revered legal document in the world. Who's worried about that. Pansies.

Thanks for this, I'll get my mockery right one of these days...

Never mind that a state government has actually implemented bigoted, unconstitutional policies, and the federal government has indicated support. That's non-news!

This is non-news in an alternate universe.

Dave Rogers · 4th January 2019, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

This is non-news in an alternate universe.

Unfortunately, we seem to have spent the last couple of years living in it.

Dave

mgidm86 · 4th January 2019, 02:07 PM

To start off with, I pretty much hate religion.

The way I read this is that a Christian Foster Care group wants to place kids in Christian foster homes only. Why shouldn't they be able to do so?

Are they funded by the state? If so then I see a problem. End of story for me.

They are a "faith-based" foster care agency. I know little about foster care and all the red tape involved, so I'm asking - what's the problem? I mean I see Trumps name in the OP but that doesn't automatically make me against it.

varwoche · 4th January 2019, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by mgidm86

To start off with, I pretty much hate religion.

The way I read this is that a Christian Foster Care group wants to place kids in Christian foster homes only. Why shouldn't they be able to do so?

Are they funded by the state? If so then I see a problem. End of story for me.

They are a "faith-based" foster care agency. I know little about foster care and all the red tape involved, so I'm asking - what's the problem? I mean I see Trumps name in the OP but that doesn't automatically make me against it.

Therein lies your problem. It's actually happening. And the governor gave it a thumbs up, via an executive order.

Miracle Hill receives federal funds. They're not allowed to discriminate based on religion. Notwithstanding, the religious nuts who run HHS indicate they support the discrimination.

Giordano · 4th January 2019, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Therein lies your problem. It's actually happening. And the governor gave it a thumbs up, via an executive order.

Miracle Hill receives federal funds. They're not allowed to discriminate based on religion. Notwithstanding, the religious nuts who run HHS indicate they support the discrimination.

This is the point!

In addition: do SC government officials intend to use Miracle Hill to place children who fall under their auspices? This too would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

ponderingturtle · 4th January 2019, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news.

Only if the court filled up with christian nationalists thinks it would be. But that is legislating from the bench and totally immoral.

ponderingturtle · 4th January 2019, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Therein lies your problem. It's actually happening. And the governor gave it a thumbs up, via an executive order.

Miracle Hill receives federal funds. They're not allowed to discriminate based on religion. Notwithstanding, the religious nuts who run HHS indicate they support the discrimination.

Of course they are, its unconstitutionality doesn't stop the government, see how the courts got around that with the Bush faith based initiatives by ruling that no one had the standing to challenge the unconstitutional behavior in court.

But no republican give anything for any of the bill of rights other than the second amendment.

casebro · 5th January 2019, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Only if the court filled up with christian nationalists thinks it would be. But that is legislating from the bench and totally immoral.

Wasn't the latest news from SCOTUS that the current bench upheld Planned Parenthood? So no, the Fundy Xtians are not all-powerful.

And this quote from the OP- "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering...". It doesn't say Trump is doing anything else but "considering". But the TDAs here already know whatever he does will be bad for somebody.

Giordano · 5th January 2019, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

Wasn't the latest news from SCOTUS that the current bench upheld Planned Parenthood? So no, the Fundy Xtians are not all-powerful.

And this quote from the OP- "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering...". It doesn't say Trump is doing anything else but "considering". But the TDAs here already know whatever he does will be bad for somebody.

Highlight: When exactly do you think is the best time to debate and challenge new policy initiatives: when they are first being considered or after they have already been implemented? It seems to me that the former is the most effective and logical time.

And the quote in the OP says more than just Trump is considering an unstated "something"; it presents a specific policy that is believed to be under consideration. And from my perspective that policy is a very bad idea. The belief it is under consideration may be incorrect, although clearly the issue is already "out there" in SC political debates. Or the policy may indeed be under consideration but will aborted after pushback and the fact that it was ever under consideration will be denied (the goal of discussing and opposing it now). Or the administration may be well on the way to attempting to implement it but a challenge might still halt or modify it. But in any of these 3 cases challenging the policy now is the time to do it. At worse it was not under active consideration and debating it/opposing it now might help keep it that way.

The Great Zaganza · 5th January 2019, 11:47 AM

It's discrimination, regardless of whether they get public funds or not.

Giordano · 5th January 2019, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It's discrimination, regardless of whether they get public funds or not.

Yeah, but in terms of the law the USA allows discrimination in certain contexts. The rules are not simple: the Roman Catholic Church is permitted to hire only Roman Catholics as priests. However if a Catholic Church seeks to hire a custodian they cannot discriminate based on religion. The concept is that religion is core to the job of priest but not of custodian. As an individual I can discriminate against people based on religion, ethnicity, etc. (e.g. who I invite to dinner) but I cannot discriminate as a public business (government funded or not).

All in all it is a delicate balance that works imperfectly. But fundamentalists want to push that balance way toward "My beliefs are the only correct ones and I can do anything I want to anyone else because God himself tells me I am right." Yet at the same time they are complaining about imaginary introductions of Sharia law into the USA.

Skeptic Ginger · 5th January 2019, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by mgidm86

To start off with, I pretty much hate religion.

The way I read this is that a Christian Foster Care group wants to place kids in Christian foster homes only. Why shouldn't they be able to do so?

Are they funded by the state? If so then I see a problem. End of story for me.

They are a "faith-based" foster care agency. I know little about foster care and all the red tape involved, so I'm asking - what's the problem? I mean I see Trumps name in the OP but that doesn't automatically make me against it.

Originally Posted by casebro

Wasn't the latest news from SCOTUS that the current bench upheld Planned Parenthood? So no, the Fundy Xtians are not all-powerful.

And this quote from the OP- "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering...". It doesn't say Trump is doing anything else but "considering". But the TDAs here already know whatever he does will be bad for somebody.

Originally Posted by casebro

At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news.

First they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew...

What you're missing when you dismiss this as Trump haters and just a Christian agency is that this is one more Evangelical extremist incursion into government and beyond.

From a link within the OP article: HOW A GAY FRIENDLY AND “VERY PRO-CHOICE” TRUMP CREATED THE MOST ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-LGBT ADMINISTRATION IN GENERATIONS (Caps aren't mine)

Quote:

But then Donald Trump won.

Wynne quickly came back to public service, becoming an early and influential member of the HHS transition team. A woman who’d just recently been a low-level functionary within the agency now had influence over staffing it at the highest levels, and, until the new director arrived, she was effectively running ORR. She got herself named Counselor for Human Services Policy, one of the most powerful positions within the department.

“The Counselor is the point person for the secretary and the agency on all major policy and program decisions,” explained Jeff Hild, who served under Obama as chief of staff for HHS’s Administration for Children & Families. “It’s a crucial position, and pretty under-the-radar as it’s not public-facing. But the people who have held that job are some of the most experienced and respected in the field of human services. During the Obama administration, the Counselors had decades of experience prior to taking on the role, including as senior staff in Congress and leaders at prominent think tanks.”

Wynne is none of that. But she does have one critical qualification: She is zealously opposed to abortion — and a slew of her allies in the movement soon poured into the building.

It's not so much that these are anti-abortionist, it's that they are filling staff positions with religious extremists.

The OP is one more example of the infiltration bubbling to the surface. It's not just a Christian foster agency, it's a move to indoctrinate all the kids that pass through their agency.

Hlafordlaes · 5th January 2019, 01:50 PM

Five centuries after Westphalia... Gosh.

varwoche · 5th January 2019, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Wasn't the latest news from SCOTUS that the current bench upheld Planned Parenthood? So no, the Fundy Xtians are not all-powerful.

And this quote from the OP- "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering...". It doesn't say Trump is doing anything else but "considering". But the TDAs here already know whatever he does will be bad for somebody.

You overlooked that the Governor signed an executive order allowing the discrimination. Is that non-news?

You also overlooked the second link (see post #9) in which we learn:

Quote:

McMaster appealed directly to Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the division at the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the federal program
...
In response to follow-up inquiries in March from McMaster’s staff, Wagner promised that he was “pushing this hard” within HHS.

So no, the administration is doing more than merely considering it. Not to mention, what exactly is there to consider?

mgidm86 · 5th January 2019, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Therein lies your problem. It's actually happening. And the governor gave it a thumbs up, via an executive order.

Miracle Hill receives federal funds. They're not allowed to discriminate based on religion. Notwithstanding, the religious nuts who run HHS indicate they support the discrimination.

Thank you. Didn't really want to defend them, I'd love to see all religion just disappear.

Norman Alexander · 5th January 2019, 06:28 PM

Quick question: How will they identify Jews and non-Protestants in order to discriminate? do they have special tattoos in mind?

Myriad · 5th January 2019, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Quick question: How will they identify Jews and non-Protestants in order to discriminate? do they have special tattoos in mind?

They require prospective foster parents to provide a reference from their "pastor," and also to submit a written testimony of their faith and salvation.

ponderingturtle · 7th January 2019, 10:02 AM

It is a kind of genius end run around the first amendment. They don't discriminate against jews and gays, they just outsource all the adoptions to christian organizations that discriminate against jews and gays.

Then of course no one has standing to challenge it in court and no matter how unconstitutional it is you get to keep it up. The perfect conservative solution to some of those pesky rights they hate in the constitution.

Foolmewunz · 10th January 2019, 08:36 AM

Oh, pish posh! SC are mere pikers when it comes to wanting to legislate people out of existence. The ironically named Liberty Council is canvassing congress critters to get LGBTQ folk written out of the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act!!

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...id=recommended

Seems that their head bigot thinks anti-lynching is a gateway drug and once you acknowledge that they have a right not to by lynched, why pretty soon they'll be wanting to sit at a lunch counter or marry your sister.

It's so sad when you hear these themes reworked after a hundred years and just being applied to whatever the new target group is.

CaptainHowdy · 10th January 2019, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Of course they are, who didn't see this coming?

https://theintercept.com/2018/10/19/...ll-ministries/

Forcible transfer of children (which is what the state is doing when children are taken into foster care) from one group (like Protestants) to another group (like Jews) is genocide.

Would a Jewish family be OK with their child being taken into foster care and placed with a Catholic family? Would the Jewish community at large be OK with this?

Of course, this policy isn't about the Jews but since the news story is spinning it that way, I'll go along.

Silly Green Monkey · 10th January 2019, 11:32 AM

********. Bad parents losing their children and people who aren't bad parents taking them in do not a gene group make. Some might argue that if you've decided that 'bad parents' is a group, then it deserves to go extinct before its children die or are forced to grow up maimed. The religion or ethnicity of ether bad parents or people who aren't bad parents is irrelevant as all are represented in those two groups.

Should there be a massive push to take children away based on religion, it'll hardly be a minority group managing to absorb the children of the majority. Even the First Nations children weren't all adopted and had to be housed in orphanage boarding schools. Speaking of orphanages, when was the last time you heard of one locally (or statewide, or nationwide)?

luchog · 10th January 2019, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Forcible transfer of children (which is what the state is doing when children are taken into foster care) from one group (like Protestants) to another group (like Jews) is genocide.

Religion is not a race or ethnicity, and no one is being killed. This is patently ridiculous.

pgwenthold · 10th January 2019, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Some might argue that if you've decided that 'bad parents' is a group, then it deserves to go extinct before its children die or are forced to grow up maimed. The religion or ethnicity of ether bad parents or people who aren't bad parents is irrelevant as all are represented in those two groups.

I thought of it in sort of this way.

The law allows for consideration of religion in cases where religion matters. In principle, you could argue that Christian parents have the right to insist that their children are exposed to a Christian environment.

But in this case, the issue is that supposedly-Christian parents have created a situation that is dangerous to their kids, and so the kids need to go live with someone else.

I'm not sure these are the parents we want to defer to in determining what is best for the kids. "Yeah, I'm an alcoholic drug user who beats my kids, but it is important to me that they are in a Christian home"

I'm not seeing it.

Norman Alexander · 10th January 2019, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

They require prospective foster parents to provide a reference from their "pastor," and also to submit a written testimony of their faith and salvation.

I'll prepare a template document right away and make it publicly available. I'll even advise people how to start a non-profit "Reformed Jewish Protestant" church if I have to.

So I will ask again: How will they determine who is Jewish or non-Protestant? If I say I'm Protestant, how do you prove I am not?

theprestige · 10th January 2019, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Forcible transfer of children (which is what the state is doing when children are taken into foster care) from one group (like Protestants) to another group (like Jews) is genocide.

No. The destruction of a distinct ethnic or cultural people group is genocide. Forcibly separating *all* the children from their heritage is one way to accomplish this.

Fostering *some* children is not genocide. You may want to stop and consider how thoroughly you've poisoned the well of all your other arguments, past and future, with this absurd and dishonest hyperbole.

CaptainHowdy · 11th January 2019, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

No. The destruction of a distinct ethnic or cultural people group is genocide. Forcibly separating *all* the children from their heritage is one way to accomplish this.

You're definition is rather narrow. I'll stick to UN definition.

Quote:

Fostering *some* children is not genocide. You may want to stop and consider how thoroughly you've poisoned the well of all your other arguments, past and future, with this absurd and dishonest hyperbole.

You know that using an official definition of genocide undermines all the arguments I will make in the future? That's quite a skill you have there.

theprestige · 11th January 2019, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

You're definition is rather narrow. I'll stick to UN definition.

The UN definition actually makes sense. Your interpretation of it does not.

Quote:

You know that using an official definition of genocide undermines all the arguments I will make in the future? That's quite a skill you have there.

You're not using the official definition, though. You're trying to apply a context-free snippet of the official definition in a context where it doesn't make sense.

jimbob · 12th January 2019, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Forcible transfer of children (which is what the state is doing when children are taken into foster care) from one group (like Protestants) to another group (like Jews) is genocide.

Would a Jewish family be OK with their child being taken into foster care and placed with a Catholic family? Would the Jewish community at large be OK with this?

Of course, this policy isn't about the Jews but since the news story is spinning it that way, I'll go along.

Except that having a non-religious approach does not prevent people adopting into the same religion as the parents. It just prevents it being compulsory.

Or indeed this:

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

********. Bad parents losing their children and people who aren't bad parents taking them in do not a gene group make. Some might argue that if you've decided that 'bad parents' is a group, then it deserves to go extinct before its children die or are forced to grow up maimed. The religion or ethnicity of ether bad parents or people who aren't bad parents is irrelevant as all are represented in those two groups.

Should there be a massive push to take children away based on religion, it'll hardly be a minority group managing to absorb the children of the majority. Even the First Nations children weren't all adopted and had to be housed in orphanage boarding schools. Speaking of orphanages, when was the last time you heard of one locally (or statewide, or nationwide)?

CORed · 14th January 2019, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Nothing to see here. Just an attempted subversion of possibly the most revered legal document in the world. Who's worried about that. Pansies.

Well we all know that Republicans revere the Constitution. Except for the parts they don't like. Of course, only a left wing activist judge would rule that discriminating against non-Christians violates the first amendment.

dudalb · 6th February 2019, 05:26 PM

From the wonderful state that started the Civil War......

Norman Alexander · 6th February 2019, 06:45 PM

Still haven't got an answer: How will they determine who is Jewish or non-Protestant? If I say I'm Protestant and have a letter from some obscure pastor in Germany, how do you prove I am not?

Because if they can't identify these people, how can they separate them?

Myriad · 7th February 2019, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Still haven't got an answer: How will they determine who is Jewish or non-Protestant? If I say I'm Protestant and have a letter from some obscure pastor in Germany, how do you prove I am not?

Because if they can't identify these people, how can they separate them?

They are the ones requiring the proof.

"If you live here and are Protestant, then you should have a local church you attend. Have that pastor send us a letter."

Or: "We don't know your pastor in Germany. But here's the business card of a local pastor who speaks German. Have him talk to your guy and then send us a letter."

And: "If you're not willing to do those things, then we won't consider placing a child with you."

The "you can't prove I'm not" approach doesn't even work for buying a bottle of beer if you're young looking. You think it can get you a child to adopt?

dudalb · 7th February 2019, 12:53 PM

So the group does not coinsider Catholics to be Christians?
Does not surprise me. Anti Catholism is still pretty widespread among evangelicals;they just find it a good tactic to hide it most of the time.

dudalb · 7th February 2019, 12:57 PM

And the truly digusting thing is that Trump really does not really give a damn about religious issues. He is basically just buying the support of Christian Fundies who are whoring themselves out to somebody they know is a hypocrite when it comes to moral issues.
It is enough to make one vomit.

luchog · 7th February 2019, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

And the truly digusting thing is that Trump really does not really give a damn about religious issues. He is basically just buying the support of Christian Fundies who are whoring themselves out to somebody they know is a hypocrite when it comes to moral issues.
It is enough to make one vomit.

Never underestimate the human capacity for self-deception. I know several Evangelicals who fully believe that Trump had a "change of heart" and is "appointed by G-D".

4th January 2019, 08:10 AM	#1
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 20,334	South Carolina demands right to discriminate against Jews and non-Protestants Quote: THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering whether to grant a South Carolina request that would effectively allow faith-based foster care agencies in the state the ability to deny Jewish parents from fostering children in its network. The argument, from the state and from the agency, is that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act should not force a Protestant group to work with Jewish people if it violates a tenet of their faith. Of course they are, who didn't see this coming? https://theintercept.com/2018/10/19/...ll-ministries/
	Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 4th January 2019 at 08:11 AM.

4th January 2019, 08:54 AM	#2
casebro Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 16,485	At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news.
	__________________ Great minds discuss ideas. Medium minds discuss events. Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

4th January 2019, 10:23 AM	#3
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,770	Originally Posted by casebro At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news. Assuming the article is factual, it's very much newsworthy that the administration would try to implement policies such as this. Even if it fails. Never mind evidence that the government is trying to implement bigoted policies! That's non-news!
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. Last edited by varwoche; 4th January 2019 at 10:24 AM.

4th January 2019, 10:32 AM	#4
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,770	Fixed it for me: Originally Posted by varwoche Assuming the article is factual, it's very much newsworthy that the administration would try to implement policies such as this. Even if it fails. Never mind ~~evidence~~ proof that the government is ~~trying to~~ actually implementing bigoted policies! That's non-news!
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. Last edited by varwoche; 4th January 2019 at 10:33 AM.

4th January 2019, 10:39 AM	#5
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 17,470	Originally Posted by casebro At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news. Nothing to see here. Just an attempted subversion of possibly the most revered legal document in the world. Who's worried about that. Pansies.
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 17,470	__________________ Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

4th January 2019, 11:17 AM	#6
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,770	Originally Posted by 3point14 Nothing to see here. Just an attempted subversion of possibly the most revered legal document in the world. Who's worried about that. Pansies. Thanks for this, I'll get my mockery right one of these days... Never mind that a state government has actually implemented bigoted, unconstitutional policies, and the federal government has indicated support. That's non-news! This is non-news in an alternate universe.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

4th January 2019, 11:49 AM	#7
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,960	Originally Posted by varwoche This is non-news in an alternate universe. Unfortunately, we seem to have spent the last couple of years living in it. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

4th January 2019, 02:07 PM	#8
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 5,345	To start off with, I pretty much hate religion. The way I read this is that a Christian Foster Care group wants to place kids in Christian foster homes only. Why shouldn't they be able to do so? Are they funded by the state? If so then I see a problem. End of story for me. They are a "faith-based" foster care agency. I know little about foster care and all the red tape involved, so I'm asking - what's the problem? I mean I see Trumps name in the OP but that doesn't automatically make me against it.
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 5,345	__________________ Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.

4th January 2019, 04:05 PM	#9
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,770	Originally Posted by mgidm86 To start off with, I pretty much hate religion. The way I read this is that a Christian Foster Care group wants to place kids in Christian foster homes only. Why shouldn't they be able to do so? Are they funded by the state? If so then I see a problem. End of story for me. They are a "faith-based" foster care agency. I know little about foster care and all the red tape involved, so I'm asking - what's the problem? I mean I see Trumps name in the OP but that doesn't automatically make me against it. Therein lies your problem. It's actually happening. And the governor gave it a thumbs up, via an executive order. Miracle Hill receives federal funds. They're not allowed to discriminate based on religion. Notwithstanding, the religious nuts who run HHS indicate they support the discrimination.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

4th January 2019, 04:24 PM	#10
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 15,473	Originally Posted by varwoche Therein lies your problem. It's actually happening. And the governor gave it a thumbs up, via an executive order. Miracle Hill receives federal funds. They're not allowed to discriminate based on religion. Notwithstanding, the religious nuts who run HHS indicate they support the discrimination. This is the point! In addition: do SC government officials intend to use Miracle Hill to place children who fall under their auspices? This too would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

4th January 2019, 04:28 PM	#11
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 46,063	Originally Posted by casebro At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news. Only if the court filled up with christian nationalists thinks it would be. But that is legislating from the bench and totally immoral.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th January 2019, 04:30 PM	#12
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 46,063	Originally Posted by varwoche Therein lies your problem. It's actually happening. And the governor gave it a thumbs up, via an executive order. Miracle Hill receives federal funds. They're not allowed to discriminate based on religion. Notwithstanding, the religious nuts who run HHS indicate they support the discrimination. Of course they are, its unconstitutionality doesn't stop the government, see how the courts got around that with the Bush faith based initiatives by ruling that no one had the standing to challenge the unconstitutional behavior in court. But no republican give anything for any of the bill of rights other than the second amendment.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

5th January 2019, 09:58 AM	#13
casebro Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 16,485	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Only if the court filled up with christian nationalists thinks it would be. But that is legislating from the bench and totally immoral. Wasn't the latest news from SCOTUS that the current bench upheld Planned Parenthood? So no, the Fundy Xtians are not all-powerful. And this quote from the OP- "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering...". It doesn't say Trump is doing anything else but "considering". But the TDAs here already know whatever he does will be bad for somebody.
	__________________ Great minds discuss ideas. Medium minds discuss events. Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

5th January 2019, 11:34 AM	#14
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 15,473	Originally Posted by casebro Wasn't the latest news from SCOTUS that the current bench upheld Planned Parenthood? So no, the Fundy Xtians are not all-powerful. And this quote from the OP- "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering...". It doesn't say Trump is doing anything else but "considering". But the TDAs here already know whatever he does will be bad for somebody. Highlight: When exactly do you think is the best time to debate and challenge new policy initiatives: when they are first being considered or after they have already been implemented? It seems to me that the former is the most effective and logical time. And the quote in the OP says more than just Trump is considering an unstated "something"; it presents a specific policy that is believed to be under consideration. And from my perspective that policy is a very bad idea. The belief it is under consideration may be incorrect, although clearly the issue is already "out there" in SC political debates. Or the policy may indeed be under consideration but will aborted after pushback and the fact that it was ever under consideration will be denied (the goal of discussing and opposing it now). Or the administration may be well on the way to attempting to implement it but a challenge might still halt or modify it. But in any of these 3 cases challenging the policy now is the time to do it. At worse it was not under active consideration and debating it/opposing it now might help keep it that way.
	Last edited by Giordano; 5th January 2019 at 11:35 AM.

5th January 2019, 11:47 AM	#15
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 7,984	It's discrimination, regardless of whether they get public funds or not.
	__________________ Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

5th January 2019, 12:07 PM	#16
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 15,473	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza It's discrimination, regardless of whether they get public funds or not. Yeah, but in terms of the law the USA allows discrimination in certain contexts. The rules are not simple: the Roman Catholic Church is permitted to hire only Roman Catholics as priests. However if a Catholic Church seeks to hire a custodian they cannot discriminate based on religion. The concept is that religion is core to the job of priest but not of custodian. As an individual I can discriminate against people based on religion, ethnicity, etc. (e.g. who I invite to dinner) but I cannot discriminate as a public business (government funded or not). All in all it is a delicate balance that works imperfectly. But fundamentalists want to push that balance way toward "My beliefs are the only correct ones and I can do anything I want to anyone else because God himself tells me I am right." Yet at the same time they are complaining about imaginary introductions of Sharia law into the USA.

5th January 2019, 12:47 PM	#17
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 73,426	Originally Posted by mgidm86 To start off with, I pretty much hate religion. The way I read this is that a Christian Foster Care group wants to place kids in Christian foster homes only. Why shouldn't they be able to do so? Are they funded by the state? If so then I see a problem. End of story for me. They are a "faith-based" foster care agency. I know little about foster care and all the red tape involved, so I'm asking - what's the problem? I mean I see Trumps name in the OP but that doesn't automatically make me against it. Originally Posted by casebro Wasn't the latest news from SCOTUS that the current bench upheld Planned Parenthood? So no, the Fundy Xtians are not all-powerful. And this quote from the OP- "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering...". It doesn't say Trump is doing anything else but "considering". But the TDAs here already know whatever he does will be bad for somebody. Originally Posted by casebro At which point it would become illegal for the state to use those faith-based agencies. Non-news. First they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew... What you're missing when you dismiss this as Trump haters and just a Christian agency is that this is one more Evangelical extremist incursion into government and beyond. From a link within the OP article: HOW A GAY FRIENDLY AND “VERY PRO-CHOICE” TRUMP CREATED THE MOST ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-LGBT ADMINISTRATION IN GENERATIONS (Caps aren't mine) Quote: But then Donald Trump won. Wynne quickly came back to public service, becoming an early and influential member of the HHS transition team. A woman who’d just recently been a low-level functionary within the agency now had influence over staffing it at the highest levels, and, until the new director arrived, she was effectively running ORR. She got herself named Counselor for Human Services Policy, one of the most powerful positions within the department. “The Counselor is the point person for the secretary and the agency on all major policy and program decisions,” explained Jeff Hild, who served under Obama as chief of staff for HHS’s Administration for Children & Families. “It’s a crucial position, and pretty under-the-radar as it’s not public-facing. But the people who have held that job are some of the most experienced and respected in the field of human services. During the Obama administration, the Counselors had decades of experience prior to taking on the role, including as senior staff in Congress and leaders at prominent think tanks.” Wynne is none of that. But she does have one critical qualification: She is zealously opposed to abortion — and a slew of her allies in the movement soon poured into the building. It's not so much that these are anti-abortionist, it's that they are filling staff positions with religious extremists. The OP is one more example of the infiltration bubbling to the surface. It's not just a Christian foster agency, it's a move to indoctrinate all the kids that pass through their agency.
	__________________ Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

5th January 2019, 01:50 PM	#18
Hlafordlaes Disorder of Kilopi Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: State of Flux Posts: 10,026	Five centuries after Westphalia... Gosh.
	__________________ Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

5th January 2019, 02:05 PM	#19
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,770	Originally Posted by casebro Wasn't the latest news from SCOTUS that the current bench upheld Planned Parenthood? So no, the Fundy Xtians are not all-powerful. And this quote from the OP- "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering...". It doesn't say Trump is doing anything else but "considering". But the TDAs here already know whatever he does will be bad for somebody. You overlooked that the Governor signed an executive order allowing the discrimination. Is that non-news? You also overlooked the second link (see post #9) in which we learn: Quote: McMaster appealed directly to Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the division at the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the federal program ... In response to follow-up inquiries in March from McMaster’s staff, Wagner promised that he was “pushing this hard” within HHS. So no, the administration is doing more than merely considering it. Not to mention, what exactly is there to consider?
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. Last edited by varwoche; 5th January 2019 at 02:06 PM.

5th January 2019, 02:42 PM	#20
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 5,345	Originally Posted by varwoche Therein lies your problem. It's actually happening. And the governor gave it a thumbs up, via an executive order. Miracle Hill receives federal funds. They're not allowed to discriminate based on religion. Notwithstanding, the religious nuts who run HHS indicate they support the discrimination. Thank you. Didn't really want to defend them, I'd love to see all religion just disappear.
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 5,345	__________________ Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.

5th January 2019, 06:28 PM	#21
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 5,208	Quick question: How will they identify Jews and non-Protestants in order to discriminate? do they have special tattoos in mind?
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

5th January 2019, 06:47 PM	#22
Myriad Hyperthetical Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad Posts: 14,787	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander Quick question: How will they identify Jews and non-Protestants in order to discriminate? do they have special tattoos in mind? They require prospective foster parents to provide a reference from their "pastor," and also to submit a written testimony of their faith and salvation.
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

7th January 2019, 10:02 AM	#23
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 46,063	It is a kind of genius end run around the first amendment. They don't discriminate against jews and gays, they just outsource all the adoptions to christian organizations that discriminate against jews and gays. Then of course no one has standing to challenge it in court and no matter how unconstitutional it is you get to keep it up. The perfect conservative solution to some of those pesky rights they hate in the constitution.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

10th January 2019, 08:36 AM	#24
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 40,381	Oh, pish posh! SC are mere pikers when it comes to wanting to legislate people out of existence. The ironically named Liberty Council is canvassing congress critters to get LGBTQ folk written out of the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act!! https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...id=recommended Seems that their head bigot thinks anti-lynching is a gateway drug and once you acknowledge that they have a right not to by lynched, why pretty soon they'll be wanting to sit at a lunch counter or marry your sister. It's so sad when you hear these themes reworked after a hundred years and just being applied to whatever the new target group is.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

10th January 2019, 09:51 AM	#25
CaptainHowdy Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,176	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Of course they are, who didn't see this coming? https://theintercept.com/2018/10/19/...ll-ministries/ Forcible transfer of children (which is what the state is doing when children are taken into foster care) from one group (like Protestants) to another group (like Jews) is genocide. Would a Jewish family be OK with their child being taken into foster care and placed with a Catholic family? Would the Jewish community at large be OK with this? Of course, this policy isn't about the Jews but since the news story is spinning it that way, I'll go along.

10th January 2019, 11:32 AM	#26
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Arizona Posts: 4,630	********. Bad parents losing their children and people who aren't bad parents taking them in do not a gene group make. Some might argue that if you've decided that 'bad parents' is a group, then it deserves to go extinct before its children die or are forced to grow up maimed. The religion or ethnicity of ether bad parents or people who aren't bad parents is irrelevant as all are represented in those two groups. Should there be a massive push to take children away based on religion, it'll hardly be a minority group managing to absorb the children of the majority. Even the First Nations children weren't all adopted and had to be housed in orphanage boarding schools. Speaking of orphanages, when was the last time you heard of one locally (or statewide, or nationwide)?
	__________________ Normal is just a stereotype.

10th January 2019, 02:12 PM	#27
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 15,360	Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy Forcible transfer of children (which is what the state is doing when children are taken into foster care) from one group (like Protestants) to another group (like Jews) is genocide. Religion is not a race or ethnicity, and no one is being killed. This is patently ridiculous.
	__________________ "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams "The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf "Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

10th January 2019, 02:54 PM	#28
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 17,955	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey Some might argue that if you've decided that 'bad parents' is a group, then it deserves to go extinct before its children die or are forced to grow up maimed. The religion or ethnicity of ether bad parents or people who aren't bad parents is irrelevant as all are represented in those two groups. I thought of it in sort of this way. The law allows for consideration of religion in cases where religion matters. In principle, you could argue that Christian parents have the right to insist that their children are exposed to a Christian environment. But in this case, the issue is that supposedly-Christian parents have created a situation that is dangerous to their kids, and so the kids need to go live with someone else. I'm not sure these are the parents we want to defer to in determining what is best for the kids. "Yeah, I'm an alcoholic drug user who beats my kids, but it is important to me that they are in a Christian home" I'm not seeing it.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

10th January 2019, 02:59 PM	#29
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 5,208	Originally Posted by Myriad They require prospective foster parents to provide a reference from their "pastor," and also to submit a written testimony of their faith and salvation. I'll prepare a template document right away and make it publicly available. I'll even advise people how to start a non-profit "Reformed Jewish Protestant" church if I have to. So I will ask again: How will they determine who is Jewish or non-Protestant? If I say I'm Protestant, how do you prove I am not?
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015} Last edited by Norman Alexander; 10th January 2019 at 03:00 PM.

10th January 2019, 05:26 PM	#30
theprestige Penultimate Amazing TLA Winner Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 34,115	Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy Forcible transfer of children (which is what the state is doing when children are taken into foster care) from one group (like Protestants) to another group (like Jews) is genocide. No. The destruction of a distinct ethnic or cultural people group is genocide. Forcibly separating all the children from their heritage is one way to accomplish this. Fostering some children is not genocide. You may want to stop and consider how thoroughly you've poisoned the well of all your other arguments, past and future, with this absurd and dishonest hyperbole.

11th January 2019, 11:50 AM	#31
CaptainHowdy Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,176	Originally Posted by theprestige No. The destruction of a distinct ethnic or cultural people group is genocide. Forcibly separating all the children from their heritage is one way to accomplish this. You're definition is rather narrow. I'll stick to UN definition. Quote: Fostering some children is not genocide. You may want to stop and consider how thoroughly you've poisoned the well of all your other arguments, past and future, with this absurd and dishonest hyperbole. You know that using an official definition of genocide undermines all the arguments I will make in the future? That's quite a skill you have there.

11th January 2019, 03:09 PM	#32
theprestige Penultimate Amazing TLA Winner Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 34,115	Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy You're definition is rather narrow. I'll stick to UN definition. The UN definition actually makes sense. Your interpretation of it does not. Quote: You know that using an official definition of genocide undermines all the arguments I will make in the future? That's quite a skill you have there. You're not using the official definition, though. You're trying to apply a context-free snippet of the official definition in a context where it doesn't make sense.
	Last edited by theprestige; 11th January 2019 at 03:10 PM.

12th January 2019, 03:50 AM	#33
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 20,546	Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy Forcible transfer of children (which is what the state is doing when children are taken into foster care) from one group (like Protestants) to another group (like Jews) is genocide. Would a Jewish family be OK with their child being taken into foster care and placed with a Catholic family? Would the Jewish community at large be OK with this? Of course, this policy isn't about the Jews but since the news story is spinning it that way, I'll go along. Except that having a non-religious approach does not prevent people adopting into the same religion as the parents. It just prevents it being compulsory. Or indeed this: Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey ********. Bad parents losing their children and people who aren't bad parents taking them in do not a gene group make. Some might argue that if you've decided that 'bad parents' is a group, then it deserves to go extinct before its children die or are forced to grow up maimed. The religion or ethnicity of ether bad parents or people who aren't bad parents is irrelevant as all are represented in those two groups. Should there be a massive push to take children away based on religion, it'll hardly be a minority group managing to absorb the children of the majority. Even the First Nations children weren't all adopted and had to be housed in orphanage boarding schools. Speaking of orphanages, when was the last time you heard of one locally (or statewide, or nationwide)?
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

14th January 2019, 11:03 AM	#34
CORed Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Central City, Colorado, USA Posts: 8,667	Originally Posted by 3point14 Nothing to see here. Just an attempted subversion of possibly the most revered legal document in the world. Who's worried about that. Pansies. Well we all know that Republicans revere the Constitution. Except for the parts they don't like. Of course, only a left wing activist judge would rule that discriminating against non-Christians violates the first amendment.

6th February 2019, 05:26 PM	#35
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 43,816	From the wonderful state that started the Civil War......
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.