Sometimes, I like to point out the obvious and treat it like a grand revelation, but today, the Washington Post wins. According to this article, the Archdiocese of Washington has noted that they will have to break contracts they have with the City if a proposed gay-marriage-related law passes.
Apparently, the District of Columbia has proposed that married gay Washington employees would be recognized and thus extended standard employee benefits. The Church, which organizes and provides various social service programs currently holds contracts with city organizations to such a degree that some of the workers are considered city employees. They would have to break contract and withdraw from those programs if this passes.
Duh.
Why is this so astonishing?
Good for the City of Washington to potentially support that (provided it goes through)! But, why pick on the Church for saying, "Sorry, Charlie, but we can't be a part of that"? Aren't Church and State supposed to be separate anyway?
It seems to me that the Church is saying to the City, "do what you must, but we can't continue to share resources if you support this thing in which we definitely (and very publically, vocally, and vehemently) don't believe." The Church is declaring that their values are more important than the City's money to them. GOOD! They should be! Right? It would be total hypocrisy if they weren't, wouldn't it? And besides, if breaking this contract means that the Gay Choir can't practice in the local Catholic church any more, so what?! If I were a homosexual, I wouldn't want to be anywhere NEAR a Catholic church filled with people and relics and reminders that so openly disapprove of my lifestyle. Plus, if I were a staunchly conservative Christian, and I knew my Church was conducting business with the very same types that they have been telling me weekly are immoral and sinful -- what kind of message does that send?
The article further reminds us that businesses are prohibited from refusing services to customers based on religious beliefs, and that a proposed amendment to allow business owners to turn away customers was rejected. What?! I didn't even know that was a law! I'm sorry, but if you hate money and want to lose customers, that's your prerogative as a business owner, isn't it? I mean, sure, go ahead and sue them if you think they're oppressing you, shaming you, libeling, slandering, violating your civil rights, but... how about just find another vendor and go on about your business?
Can you imagine an Orthodox Jewish baker being hired for a wedding and then the Bride tells them that she wants the entire cake constructed out of Bacon? Delivered on Saturday morning? Emblazoned with festively crafted frosting Swastikas? Should the baker be fined or jailed for refusing to complete the order and suggesting that the Bride go elsewhere to have her request fulfilled? That's nuts. Disallowing a business owner to make that choice is to me, a more disturbing part of this whole thing.
"This thing" being forcing us all to agree (or at least obey) an overly-detailed moral code voted into laws, opening people who mean no harm other than to protect their own personal values up to litigation and financial destruction.... this is too sci-fi for my comfort level.
Will there soon be laws prohibiting Muslim women from wearing Burquas to the grocery store? Will there soon be laws requesting that every business stay open 24/7 so that hours of non-operation aren't misconstrued as 'for religious reasons?' How far is too far for forcing 'fairness and equality' on people. I'm pretty sure there's a document in the National Archive that promises us that there will be no laws made prohibiting the exercise of our free religions of choice. And, between the lines, something about "you're not the boss of me."
I might be way wrong, but if anyone, anywhere, thinks that the Catholic Church is out of line about this, please... explain how.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Currer Bell
Kim Brittingham
Josey Buck
Colony of Losers
Brad Keena
Jonathan Wolfman
Salon.com
Comments
In other words, if the Catholic Church is allowed to break their contracts with the city because the city supports a proposal that the church does not agree with, does that same church have the right to deny an individual the same services based on the same logic? How many of those poor and homeless that the Catholic Church are supporting with these programs ARE gay? And are they allowed to deny a person a meal, or shelter based on the fact that they are gay? And what is the difference between denying an individual and denying an entire community based on those same morals, as the Catholic Church is attempting to do by breaking their contracts with the city, which will have wide reaching affects to not only punish LGBTS, but the community as a whole?
I would expect that at a faith-based shelter, some preaching or something will happen -- and I think that the State giving the Church money for their programs will quickly lead to "hey you can't do that God-stuff here," kinds of laws... and the Church, if it wants to maintain credibility, needs to back out before that comes up. Because ultimately, it's a church. And under its roof, you should play by its rules.
I think I was most stricken by the "how dare they" stance that the City was taking toward the Church; sort of like the City itself was trying to be a bigger Church than the Church. I think in the article, even, a City rep said that the role of Catholic churches in Washington's programs was practically negligible, so they didn't really care, they just wanted them not to be such doo-doo-heads.
Well, maybe they are doo-doo heads. Stop playing with them if you don't like them. Didn't we all get this lecture at some point on the playground?
The problem comes in when a church organization buys public property and uses it for church related activities that go beyond what would happen in the church. If a homeless/hungry person wants a meal and shelter, they go to a shelter, if they want a sermon, they can go to a church, but when there is no distinction between public service and religious services, especially if it is something that is funded by the government, things get tricky.
IF churches were willing to designate one area for sermon and one area for service, absent the sermon, there would be no problem. But there is a fine and dotted line when it comes to religious organizations (and it's not just Catholics, the Mormons do it too) and their call to serve the people in ways other than through sermon.
Look at the kerfluffle over The Mormon Church arresting a gay couple for kissing on Mormon property when THE ENTIRE STREET for several blocks is considered Mormon property and is not under a roof, it is open and free space where anyone should be allowed to congregate and show affection, but because the laws allow churches to purchase public lands and consider it church grounds, a person can be several BLOCKS away from the building and still be arrested if the church doesn't like that person
And THAT is wrong. If a church wants to purchase major swaths of land for their property, then build something on it to claim it, don't just buy the land as a means of restricting people's behavior, which is what I see Mormons did with their temple in Salt Lake City
It's a hard thing, untangling obligations and expectations from dollars. I'm with PK and Leonde both, though: there should definitely be separation of Church and State. (Which, I thought there already was!)
Thanks for your insights, have a great day! Get out (or stay in) and do some good works! :o)
Rated.