I tried to take the offensive-- I asked them how come they were evangelizing when there were already more active JW's in the world than the number of souls-- is it 100,000?-- God is willing to save. They told me God would take a liitle bit of several different souls and combine them into one which he would save... I put "My God" by Jethro Tull on the cd player and they left... He was wearing a blue polyester leisure suit...
I pretended that I didn't speak English, and they started flowing to me in broken Portuguese! They do their homework. I also worked with a JW for 2 years. I can't even begin to explain what went on there.
If Catholics adopt children, they'll indoctrinate the children to send money to the IRA to help kill Protentants.
Putting aside the flimsy church-state connection, can someone explain what is offensive about a religious group restricting adoption to people that share its beliefs? If their only concern was the child's best interest, why limit it to Christians of any type? If you can only answer this question in theological terms, then you're no different than this adoption agency. Or, to put it another way, why not entitle this thread "Agency rejects all Jews as adoption parents."
This is a good point. However, it rankles Catholics - who freakin' invented Christianity - to be considered non-Christian.
As far as who the original Church is, I think there's several hundred million people in the east that contest that claim.
Ben's right. If one truly believes in separation of church and state, who cares if this sort of restiriction comes up. Catholics know in their heart of hearts that without the Catholic church, evangelicals would have nothing to preach about. How many fundamentalist sermons do not include phrases like "you don't need a church to be saved?"
I have no idea because I'm almost never subjected to fundamentalist sermons. Anyway, I never said that Ben isn't right. A private organization has the right to do whatever it wants. On the other hand, the rest of us have the right to criticize them for the decisions they make.
Hey, yous talkin' 'bout me? Don't sigh. You know I'm right. Is there a difference between adoption objections based upon religion and race?
Yes. Yes, there is. They might be equally icky to us but one is a lot more defensible than the other.
The nine protected classes under federal law: race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, age, disability, and veteran status. And considering that this agency receives state funding, they won't have much to stand on in court.
Well, if they receive public funding, you're right, that's an entirely different matter. My comments were predicated on them being entirely private.