Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: ComEd trumps guns at town hall meeting
Next Post: No end in sight
Posted in:
*** UPDATE 1 *** From the Tribune…
A judge in Springfield today ordered that Catholic Charities can keep serving foster children despite the state’s decision to eliminate their contract.
The order is temporary and a hearing will take place in August on the issue.
Sangamon County Judge John Schmidt issued the ruling after both sides offered lengthy arguments in court this afternoon. Schmidt said that his order freezes the state’s contract with Catholic Charities as it was before the state decided to cut it off earlier this month.
*** UPDATE 2 *** SJ-R…
Sangamon County Judge John Schmidt said he was returning the situation to what it was on June 30, before the Department of Children and Family Services terminated contracts it held with Catholic Charities in Springfield, Joliet and Peoria.
“I’m putting a freeze on this case until we can (argue) the issues,” Schmidt said. “We’re not going to be removing children from homes.”
* As I see it, there are two very different, yet very persuasive arguments in this battle over whether Catholic Charities ought to be allowed to continue to provide foster care services even if the group refuses to comply with the civil unions law mandate. First up, Rep. Greg Harris, the sponsor of the civil unions law…
“They’re totally within their rights to determine who can or cannot be married under their church law or who can be married by a priest or rabbi or in their facilities, but this is different,” Harris said of the religious groups. “But here, they’re coming to the state to get contracts to provide government services on behalf of the state. They can’t pick and choose which Illinoisans they think are worthy of those services.”
It’s hard to argue with that. This is state money, which is controlled by state law. If you want some of that state money, it naturally follows that you should comply with state laws. If you don’t want to comply with the laws, then don’t ask for the money. After all, obtaining state contracts is not an inherent right. Simple, right?
* Well, it’s actually not that simple. For a very long time now, Catholic Charities has had an agreement with the state that allows it to get around some government requirements…
Before the civil unions law, DCFS and Catholic Charities had operated with the understanding that the agencies could refer co-habitating couples to other agencies.
So, it looks as if DCFS and the governor’s office have changed longstanding practice. However, the civil unions law did change the facts on the ground. That’s why it’ll be up to the courts to decide whether Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration has become radicalized, or whether Catholic Charities’ practices are so out of step with the law of the land that they cannot be allowed to continue in the foster care program.
* Then again…
Breen said it is clear the General Assembly did not intend to force religious institutions to recognize civil unions if it conflicted with their beliefs.
“We think we have a strong legal position and a reasonable interpretation of the law,” Breen said.
I would never want the state telling a religious institution how to practice its beliefs. Period. But that doesn’t mean those institutions are guaranteed a share of our tax money.
* Meanwhile, two conservative religious charities have decided to remain in the state’s foster care program, even with the new mandates…
Lutheran Child and Family Services and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency both have had policies that require foster care parents to be married. LCFS has renewed its contract and promised to abide by state law. Marlowe said the state will seek a similar promise from ECFA.
Ken Withrow, executive director of ECFA, said the agency will continue to uphold the same policies and principles, which includes licensing only married, evangelical Christian couples unless the prospective foster parent is related. Family comes first, Withrow said. He added that lawyers reviewed this year’s DCFS contracts before signing them and saw no language that prevented them from signing in “good faith.”
Lutheran Child and Family Services should not be confused with Lutheran Social Services of Illinois. Those are two very different groups.
* But what about the children? There are about 2,000 foster kids in Catholic Charities’ system, according to the state…
Peter Breen, a Thomas More Society lawyer who represents the three dioceses in the dispute, called the state’s termination of the diocesan foster-care and adoption contracts with DCFS “surprising and shocking.”
“It just seems reckless to take almost 25 percent of the state’s foster children and rip them out of the agency that’s been caring for them. They’ve been caring for Illinois children for over 100 years,” Breen said.
Indeed, Catholic Charities founded the first foster care program in Illinois back in the 1920s, then convinced the state to institute its own program shortly thereafter. But DCFS seems confident it can find groups to help all the kids…
Earlier this year, Catholic Charities in Rockford bowed out of foster services rather than have to place children in the homes of same-sex or unmarried couples. All 300 children in the Rockford agency’s care were placed with Youth Services Bureau of Illinois Valley by the end of June. Also, DCFS placed 1,000 children who were with Catholic Charities of Chicago with other agencies after ending contracts with it.
“Illinois has a strong non-profit child-welfare community that stands to reach to take these cases if necessary,” Marlowe said.
Catholic Charities of Chicago had to terminate its participation in the foster care program after it couldn’t find an insurance carrier to cover it. The organization was sued for millions of dollars over child abuse allegations. The vast majority of other states protect state-sanctioned, private foster care providers from lawsuits like the ones which hit Chicago’s organization, and the State of Illinois is itself immune from the same sort of suits.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: ComEd trumps guns at town hall meeting
Next Post: No end in sight
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
That longstanding agreement between DCFS and CC tells me people of good will can work things out sensible for the common welfare of orphans.
For Quinn to junk that sensible accomadation on cohabiting couples looks awfully extreme. That AG Madigan seemed to jump the gun on it before there were complaints on some of these agencies looks worse.
There’s going to be payback coming from voters on this one. I still think it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve seen pro-SSM advocates do. It’s senseless.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 5:29 am
i’m not sure the catholic church should be fighting to continue to work with children right now. that feels eecky, it’s unseemly. there are other voids for the catholic church can fill — it should seriously turn its attention elsewhere…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 6:55 am
===That’s why it’ll be up to the courts to decide whether Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration has become radicalized===
Actually, it’s up to the voters.
Helping widows and orphans is one of the key duties of the Christian church. It’s been that way since the beginning.
Church-affiliated groups do a public service is assisting in adoptions. That they also want to limit those adoptions to married couples not only fits the religious tenets of their faith but also works to the best long-term interests of the child.
At a time when DCFS is understaffed and underfunded, the radicals in the governor’s administration just increased their caseload. They put ideology over children.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 7:34 am
This article reads as though Catholic Charities and ECFA are in foster care for the money, and should therefore abandon any principled objections they have regarding who is fit to serve as a foster parent in their networks.
As a foster parent myself (licensed by Safe Families for Children), I doubt any good foster parent does it for the pittance IL now pays. Safe Families normally cares for kids outside the DCFS system for free.
We and others like us do this out of Christian love for “the least, the last and the lost” in society, as do the agencies supporting us.
IMO, the real problem here is one of freedom. Those demanding freedom for non-traditional lifestyles refuse to allow anyone to even passively disagree, just as when our state forced out pharmacists unwilling to personally dispense abortificants a couple of years ago.
Our DCFS license is up for renewal next year. Sadly, thanks to this issue, we don’t expect there to still by then be any DCFS-approved agencies with whom we’d be willing to work.
Comment by Man in the Middle Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 7:37 am
===This article reads as though Catholic Charities and ECFA are in foster care for the money===
MitM, you apparently misread the post because it wasn’t meant to imply any such thing. And as far as abandoning their principles, they shouldn’t be forced to do it. But, then again, many would say, neither should DCFS. Getting a state contract is not an inherent right, ya know.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 7:44 am
I’m a Catholic Charities foster parent. I have little confidence in DCFS’s ability to place children with other agencies with “minimal disruption”, nor do I have a desire to switch agencies because the state of IL wants to play games. There are myriad reasons a family chooses one foster care agency over another - reasons that have nothing to do with the issues at hand. We’ve worked in cooperation with other local foster care agencies a couple of times, and those experiences have confirmed the fact that we chose wisely.
The long-standing system of Catholic Charities referring out those who aren’t a good fit with the agency has worked well for years; there is no reason to mess with it. I would like to agree with previous commenter Bill that “people of good will” can work things out sensibly, but this is the state of IL we’re talking about here. Sensibility went out their window years ago!
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 7:51 am
One missing element in this story arises from the assumption that these religious-based groups are great in all other respects. Religion is inherently an in-group/outgroup dynamic, which breeds intolerance. Lutherans cannot be Catholics, for example, unlike the potential for having dual citizenship or enjoying both rock and country. As I see it, this religious group pushed its agenda of intolerance to the edge, and accidentally fell over the edge. If they were making an effort not to be intolerant, they would never have been near the edge. What bothers me is all the years our state gave them money while they were just inside the line, teaching other kinds of intolerance. Good riddance.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 8:06 am
The real defeat here is for SSM advocates. Democrats –who lacked the courage to vote marriage and instead came up with “Civil Unions”– have now managed to link SSM to an assualt on Catholic Charities and orphans. That’s a real piece of work on Quinn and Madigan’s part. This adds fuel to revoking the civil unions law, and rightly so if this is the price that has to be paid for it. The SSM lobby more than anyone else should be defending CC. They’ll be the biggest losers in the end.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 8:18 am
Bill Baar-
You couldn’t be more wrong on the politics of this. You think the Catholic church’s position of not placing foster children with perfectly qualified, capable adults because of their sexual orientation is something that the majority of the public supports?
There will be no payback because any voter who would cast their vote based on this issue already wasn’t voting Quinn.
Take a deep breath. If the Catholic church would rather discriminate them place foster kids with willing foster parents then they shouldn’t expect to receive state funds. Simple as that.
Comment by WizzardOfOzzie Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 8:56 am
Even as a non-Catholic, I still think that Quinn is being stupid by creating this issue. Pick your battles, guy. The state money surely doesn’t create a profit, only eases the load on the charities willing to carry it. This should not be about the SSM or the civil union people; it should be about the children and what actions provide the best basic support for their future.
Comment by JustaJoe Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 8:57 am
I absolutely agree that relgious groups should be allowed to practice their principles. If Catholic Charities wants to privately arrange care for children and only do so for couples that they count as ‘married’, that’s fine. Then just don’t expect money from the state to do so - fund it yourself with money you raise from the like-minded. The state has decided that civil unions are the legal equivalent of marriage, and its funds can only be spent in nondiscriminatory ways.
And I’m sick of people above labeling me as a “radical” for wanting enforcement of a law that was legitimately passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Since when is abiding the rule of law radical?
Comment by ChicagoR Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:05 am
A same-sex couple looking to be a foster parent could still find an agency nearby that would serve them. Yes, less rights than a heterosexual couple, which is not right, but these rights need to be balanced against the rights of the children currently in foster care who may face yet another disruption in their lives, as they switch caseworkers.
Too bad they can’t work out a solution in the middle - a penalty of, say, 25% less state funds per child placed for organizations that don’t place kids in same-sex couples, along with continuing the practice of allowing these religious orgs to refer same-sex couples elsewhere.
Comment by Robert Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:09 am
You think the Catholic church’s position of not placing foster children with perfectly qualified, capable adults because of their sexual orientation is something that the majority of the public supports?
Yes
Progressives had to go for Civil Unions because even in Progressive Illinois, Progressives couldn’t sell Same Sex Marriage in Springfield.
So the suppor there for SSM in the first place soft.
Couple that soft support with an assualt on CC because they wouldn place infants and children with UnMarried couples (not to mention UnMarried Same Sex couples) is not going to go over well.
I think SSM advocates –and I count myself as one and financially pledge to a Unitarian Universalist Church that’s been a leading advocate– have shot themselves in the foot badly here.
The long standing agreement shows Illinois and Faith Based agencies can work solutions for the best welfare of orphens.
Quinn and Madigan look like extremists who managed to damage the Civil Unions Law and SSM by linking it to an attack on Catholic moral values.
It’s just a dumb thing to do. Most Radical extremists things are just that… and this one smells of desperation to prop up a Progressive base disgusted with Quinn.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:11 am
Then just don’t expect money from the state to do so…
Money or not, CC can’t place kids under the Charge of Illinois w/o a contract from Illinois.
I can’t imagine CC made any money on this deal either. It had to be a massive loser. I doubt Illinois coverd the insurance Liabilities which must be massive.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:13 am
If they don’t want to give to same sex couples, no one is going to force them. But I’m not going subsidize ignorance, intolerance and bigotry with my tax dollars. They can still have a foster care program, but they should not receive state dollars.
Another point…This is why the Catholic Church needs to run commercials saying “come back to us”. They pull stuff like this and no young people want to be a part of it any more. Really, how many Catholics under the age of 40 do you know who don’t think same sex couples should be allowed to raise children? Maybe a few, but definitely not most.
Comment by danny Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:28 am
@Danny They can still have a foster care program, but they should not receive state dollars.
They can’t have a program w/o Illinois. Illinois has custody of the kids. The money is really not relevant. If CC wanted to do this w/o compensation, they can’t because of the AG’s ruling.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:35 am
Jesus was one intolerant dude. Not. Radical positions by the Catholic Church on social issues like this are the reason this Catholic stopped going to church and doing anything to support the Church years ago. They’ve fallen so far away from the tolerance Jesus taught I can’t stomach it, nor will I participate in it. I am of the belief that I would be committing a sin by doing so.
I think it IS cut and dried: you want state money to do something, you abide by state law. You don’t want to abide by the requirements, you’re free to do so, just not with state money.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:45 am
As a young Catholic, I think the church comes across as smug and entitled. One of the main components of being Catholic is helping the needy (ie. foster children), however, I must have missed the verse in the Bible where Jesus demanded state funds for it. If the church wasn’t such a mess to begin with, maybe they wouldn’t need to use public money and could operate however they deemed fit. Maybe it wouldn’t be a bad thing for the Church to stop administering this, and work on the other pressing issues that are making people leave the church by the boatload.
Comment by JL Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:46 am
What’s the point of the (small s) state [creating laws] if people can do whatever they want.
And I’m pretty sure this was the subject of week one of my freshman Poly Sc class and respect for rule-of-law won out. But I was 18 then and very naïve.
Comment by Redbright Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:47 am
I agree with Two Feet…the Catholic Church is the ultimate poster child for hypocrisy…find other agencies to work with…stick it to ‘em Pat…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:56 am
Having participated in a mentoring program for foster kids several years back, I feel terrible for any of them whose lives will be yet again disrupted by CC discontinuing its foster care program, but nonetheless I cannot condone giving state money to an organization that refuses to follow state law. Sorry CC, but I won’t subsidize your bigotry.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:57 am
why is everyone so quick to assume that other non-profits will step in to take over the CC caseload here? Ill State Govt. pays terrible rates and next to nothing for administration of services.
I would love to see a survey of how many provider contracts were terminated by providers as of July 1st, based on the 6% rate reduction and no immediate catch-up on overdue bills.
Non-profits have a public mission to serve the public good, but this does not mean that they are available for fiscal abuse by state government. Back in the 70s, with the advancement of the Johnson Administration Great Society programs, the decision was made in Illinois to not replicate the private sector in community based human services, but to establish a “Public Sector - Private Sector Partnership”. Let current providers deliver state direct services. Starting with the 1980s, that supposed partnership has been terribly abuse in both rates and now payment cycles. Providers are now often called “vendors” as if they are handling cigarettes or pencils, rather than the state’s most vulnerable residents.
Of course CC should be able to refer its tiny segment of its caseload of same sex foster parents to another agency, but don’t assume other groups are available or interested in picking up their full volume as one of the state’s largest service providers of child services.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 10:33 am
Anon - so people/orgs that will work cheap are allowed to discriminate?
Comment by Redbright Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 10:44 am
“DCFS and Catholic Charities had operated with the understanding that the agencies could refer co-habitating couples to other agencies.”
Separate but equal agencies I assume.
Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 10:58 am
Whatever DCFS and CC may have done informally regarding unmarried couples in the past is really irrelevant. Civil Unions is law; Catholic Church opposed and lost. It’s not Quinn who is making an issue about requiring the state contractors to comply w/ state law. Do they also refuse to serve foster parents where one of the parents has been divorced? That’s also against Catholic theology. Perhaps it’s just hypocrisy…
Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:06 am
Re: ….allowed to discriminate?
No one has a right to adopt a child. Illinois through it’s contractors is supposed discriminate. Discriminate real hard.
And there’s no necessity such discrimination be consistant. If for some agencies the criteria be couples of one-man, and one-womam, united in a Marriage; it’s hardly an extreme thing. It’s not Talibanisque of The Catholic or Lutheran Church.
There are alternatives for unmarried couples, singles, and unmarried couples of the same sex united in a Civil Union.
Discrimination isn’t a bad thing. Illinois’s not in the Biz of placing kids to any and everyone who wants one.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:16 am
This boils down to 2 groups granted protection and one group is demanding 100% protection at the expense of the other group. Gov’t funds going to a religious group has already been ruled constitution because they have a right to participate. Those arguments are a red herring. The real question here is who is suffering the greatest undo burden. Clearly it is the religious group who is being ejected from the activity so that gays can have unlimited participation instead of an alternate participation. This will come down to a legal ruling based on the Illinois constitution, not legislative rule making.
Comment by Liberty First Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:18 am
Whatever happened to the seperation of Church and State that is always shouted when the church wants their tax free, prime time real estate
Perhaps they just accept that other have some civil rights and go along.
And yes there are some big admin bucks to be made here
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:22 am
Perhaps Catholic Charities cold threaten to move to another state. Seems to work for others.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:32 am
Agencies have interpreted sections of Rule 402 in their own way and have felt they have had discretion to do so, because frankly DCFS has allowed this to occur for years. (Perhaps this should have been tightened up long ago- as the language in that section of the rule has not been changed/revised for a long time. I can’t say that The Office of Child and Family Policy hadn’t been working on this as Rule 402 has been open for Rule changes for some time now.) This is where we have been operating off of our own “don’t ask, don’t tell” premise because no one really wanted to rock the boat. This had been especially the case when Catholic Charities had such a monopoly for years on foster care/adoption in this State- they were pretty much able to call the shots because no one would dare go up against them. I think for the last few years due to scandals and changing times- they no longer can enjoy that head of the table position. ECFA and LCFS are minor players in this equation in comparison.
I liken this situation when as a parent you have allowed your children to run amok and then decide you want to enforce the rules- then the backlash/tantrums ensue.
Comment by carbaby Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:32 am
I think if you are paid with government funds, you can’t pick and choose which government laws you want to follow. I think few would argue in favor of allowing a government-funded religious-based non-profit to deny service to someone of a different faith or someone who was previously divorced. This is no different.
I also want to address the issue from my own Christian viewpoint. In Luke 10:25-37, Jesus is asked how to obtain eternal life. Jesus responded ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ When the person than asked who is his neighbor, Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan.
Please note that Jesus did not say “follow all the Biblical laws word for word” and he did not say “assist only people who believe exactly like we do.” Instead he stressed the golden rule and helping people regardless of their faith or background. This to me is the core principle of Christianity.
So for me it is appropriate from a governmental viewpoint and a Christian viewpoint to place children in good safe homes regardless of the faith, marital status or sexual orientation of the prospective parent(s).
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:35 am
ChicagoR…
You say, “I absolutely agree that relgious groups should be allowed to practice their principles. If Catholic Charities wants to privately arrange care for children and only do so for couples that they count as ‘married’, that’s fine. Then just don’t expect money from the state to do so - fund it yourself with money you raise from the like-minded. ”
I fully agree with you. The challenge is, that the state also requires that to provide any of these services a license is required (regardless if state tax dollars are accepted). CC, or other organizations like them, who want to provide these services, but also want to practice some level of religious liberty (whether it be on this issue (which as a side note I understand to be primarily over health/death benefits), or marriage, or financial viability of the adopting couple, etc.) are unable to do so without a license provided from the State. In this way, the State is actually reaching across the church/state line and dictating religious liberties/practice.
If, however, the State were to allow for a true ‘capital’ marketplace based on compensation to the agency at a rate/child, then they could compensate for differing opinions on this issue and let the free market show what us sustainable (with both ‘civil union’ and ‘faith based’ agencies truly looking to the best interests of adoptive/foster parents/couples/singles).
Comment by LarryJ Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:48 am
“why is everyone so quick to assume that other non-profits will step in to take over the CC caseload here? Ill State Govt. pays terrible rates and next to nothing for administration of services.”
Agencies that have good administrative oversight, competent staff and the ability to absorb these cases are more than willing to take these on. I will be the first to say that the margin is significantly tighter for Relative/Traditional foster care admin. rates. The same cannot be said of Specialized admin rates- not even in the same ballpark. Southern and Central Region Catholic Charities have the combination of Relative/Traditional and Spec foster care contracts. The Joliet Diocese and Lombard offices do not- but there are more agencies to choose from to absorb those cases.
Foster care payments are not on a delayed payment system as with other vendor payments. And I’m not aware of any reductions for any foster care contracts- I have many contacts and have not heard- unless their Intake is on hold. My agency received the same rates for all four contracts we have and if we choose to expand, we can.
Comment by carbaby Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 11:49 am
This is still cut and dried. The original arrangement regarding cohabiting couples was also wrong and should never have been implemented in the first place. And while I remember Breen coming across in the Dover trial as a decent enough guy, his argument is a weak emotional pander. ”Won’t somebody think of the children!” doesn’t really fly when people already have; DCFS says it can manage moving CC’s kids, and it’s already demonstrated that ability. Yes, it’s not good to shuffle kids around, but that’s happening because their guardians are breaking the law. CC wants a special privilege to break the law when it’s convenient for them.
And that’s what this is really about: Privilege. Many commenters have mentioned bigotry, and while I agree that’s at work, it isn’t the real problem here. Many of CC’s defenders probably aren’t really bigoted in the full-of-hatred sense…they just believe they should accept their church’s interpretation of scripture in this issue as they do elsewhere. And some of them have spent a lot of time doing genuinely good work with genuinely good people, even devoting their lives to it. How could you not feel defensive when someone says you were doing something wrong?
No, the real problem is that for a large chunk of American history, religion in general and a few Christian varieties in particular have enjoyed an enormous amount of deference and privilege when it comes to governmental law and policy. Either laws overtly support or make exceptions specifically for religious organizations, or people choose not to enforce laws when they conflict with those groups’ actions. This has gone on long enough that these organizations have come to view their privileged position as an entitlement. They honestly feel they have a right to these exceptions, one which is now being violated.
I disagree mightily with CC on this. Their position, the reasons for it, and the arguments they’re using to defend it are (in my opinion) intellectually and ethically bankrupt. But I can’t really be angry with them and I can’t really believe they’re acting out of overt evil or malice They’re not all nasty bigots, and we’ve let them become accustomed to this sort of privilege.
Comment by jaranath Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 12:09 pm
Seems to me that if Catholic Charities was concerned with being charitable, it would put the children first and agree to the stipulations that the State requires.
I wouldn’t have a problem with them registering their opposition and making a complaint or whatever, so long as they put things into perspective and realize that helping children out is more important than fighting the Civil Unions law. They should be worried about placing children into loving, protective homes, not about the gender of the adults and what kinds of pieces of paper that they can bring into the CC office.
CC’s just playing a game of political brinksmanship.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 12:19 pm
All of that said, if the state (DCFS) has historically allowed CC to get away with not placing children into homes with unmarried parents, then DCFS should also realize that playing a game of political brinksmanship isn’t worth putting the welfare of children at risk, provided that it doesn’t result in DCFS failing to obey the law.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 12:22 pm
…the real problem is that for a large chunk of American history, religion in general and a few Christian varieties in particular have enjoyed an enormous amount of deference and privilege…
Sure, Churches, Temples, Islamic Centers, etc can get a tax break because the law says the contribute to the common good.
I don’t think that’s a real problem.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 12:27 pm
“If, however, the State were to allow for a true ‘capital’ marketplace based on compensation to the agency at a rate/child, then they could compensate for differing opinions on this issue and let the free market show what us sustainable (with both ‘civil union’ and ‘faith based’ agencies truly looking to the best interests of adoptive/foster parents/couples/singles).”
Oh, yeah, the market place is a great way to resolve this. Since enforcement of civil rights is going to be auctioned off to the lowest bidder, let’s reinstate race and gender as part of the equation. /sarcasm
Comment by Thomas Westgard Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 12:29 pm
TWest…
I’m sorry if my reference to the ‘marketplace’ communicated a correlation to the enforcement of civil rights, not my intention at all. Certainly, I’m not intending to communicate any correlation to race or gender mistakes of the past.
In my mind, the major difference is that CC or other agencies who are similar are providing services as agents of the state. Although they might like it to be, CC is not asking for the law to be changed in this context, nor for CU/SSM agencies to cease existing, they are only asking to provide the freedom to provide services to those that agree with their religious practices/beliefs.
Comment by LarryJ Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 12:43 pm
Let’s be clear that most foster children are not orphans. They are abused/neglected/dependant/even young delinquent children who cannot presently be cared for by their birth parents. Most will eventually be returned to the birth parents after whatever issues caused them to be removed, are resolved. Others will “age out” and move on to “independent living”. I mention that only because there’s a tone in some of the comments that foster children are awaiting adoption placement. That is true only for a small percentage of children in foster care.
Comment by girlawyer Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 12:59 pm
I just thought of a decent (albiet not perfect) analogy. It is as if the state has decided it is best for our environment if we use more hyrbrid vehicles. To support this they offer tax dollars in the form of rebates and credits. All good so far, right? For those that agree with them it is a win-win situation. Drive the hybrid you want AND get a tax incentive, but the state has gone a step further. They have said that in order to sell ANY cars in the state of IL, the dealer MUST sell hybrids. Further, if you want to be licensed to drive a car in IL, you MUST buy a hybrid.
Comment by LarryJ Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:01 pm
Girllawyer…
Understood. But the licensing and appropriation of the law (at least as I understand it) is that the state is unwilling to provide a license and contract to agencies (most of which provide both services) unless they account for the CU law. Am I wrong in this?
Comment by LarryJ Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:03 pm
LarryJ: Your comments are thoughtful and informative. I hadn’t fully understood the ‘licensing’ portion of the state’s involvement. I’ll have to rethink how I view this. Perhaps if the state could separate the licensing from the financial aspect, there could be a way that the religious institution could practice their own beliefs (and put their money behind their beliefs) while state funds aren’t used to discriminate?
Comment by ChicagoR Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:15 pm
The gentleman’s agreement to refer co-habitating couples is a stretch of a comparison.
Co-habitating couples are not a protected class under the Illinois Human Rights Act.
People who are perceived to be gay are.
And that’s the real issue here.
There’s no conceivable legal theory that would allow the state to deny people the right to serve as foster parents because they are gay.
And Catholic Charities, acting as the state’s agent, cannot do so either.
@Larry –
A better analogy:
The state has decided that it should be illegal to discriminate against people because their race.
A non-profit group wants a state contract to provide meals to the homeless, but because of their mission, they refuse to serve people who are white.
@carbaby - Because when Catholic Charities was prohibited from providing child services in Chicago after the death of one girl and the sexual assault of another, other agencies stepped in to fill the gap.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:17 pm
LarryJ, you should confine your analogies to state contracts, not licensing. Nobody is talking about putting Catholic Charities completely out of business if they don’t do “X.” It’s faulty logic.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:21 pm
Also, discriminating against human beings is a heckuva lot different than discriminating in favor of a type of automobile.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:24 pm
We can all make rational arguments for or against Catholic Charities. However, nobody has yet explained why Catholic Charities is ENTITLED to receive government funding with no strings attached. Look at any state contract or grant and there are pages of laws and rules that contractors or grantees must follow.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:32 pm
@Demoralized They’re not entitled. No one is arguing an entitlement to recieve funding and place children.
AG Madigan’s letter says she’s terminating the contract because CC won’t place with Same Sex Couples in Civil Unions which she says is a violation of the CU law.
I don’t see how CC’s criteria on placement of a child with an UnMarried Same Sex couple is a violation of the CU Law.
It’s interesting the AG had to ask for the placement criteria in the first place, as I gather they are not uniform and were unknown to AG Madigan.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:38 pm
The Catholic Church has been taking care of poor and abandoned kids long before there was a State of Illinois and I’m sure they will continue to do so with or without undependable state money.
It is a Christian desire to help children in need that is paramount. You can’t expect faith based organizations to change their beliefs because you give them money.
Needless to say, these organizations will need to seek private funding and administer to communities willing to accept their religious beliefs
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:59 pm
I am heartened by some of the comments here on behalf of children and CC services. I am an adoptive parent (done in a different state & international), but don’t know whether this state control is about the state funding the CC activities or licensing CC to do adoptions. Why can’t a private agency pick and choose its own prospective parents by its own criteria, particularly if they are religious considerations, protected under the First Amendment? There are plenty of non-religious adoption agencies. If this is only about licensing, then the CC’s religious freedom is inhibited by the civil union law. Many conservative Catholics would be happy to see the Catholic social service agencies cease to take government money so as not to limit religious freedom.
Adoption is not about an adults wanting to fulfill their innermost desires. This is about children’s well-being. Placing children in a stable household with a married father and mother are the best conditions for raising stable and happy children.
I don’t think it mattered that the state went with civil unions instead of gay “marriage” as the effects are just as severe on religious freedom. I read on a pro-gay site that this bill would not affect adoption/foster policies in IL. Guess that was wrong.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:03 pm
Gotta wonder if CC also blocks the divorced from being fosters? That is a big no no too.
BTW Silent Shane “Fatso Tax” Cultra has the following wisdom from his taxpayer funded newsletter this week
This week’s ‘Only in Chicago’
Thanks to “Only in Chicago,” we are the only state in the Union without some form of legalized concealed-carry provision for citizens. This week, the Wisconsin Governor signed that state’s version of concealed-carry that enables citizens to protect themselves in about any location.
As we continue to seek a legislative solution to concealed-carry, several Second Amendment organizations are seeking a solution in the court system. They have a long track record of successes including the landmark decisions of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
Pretty scary …stick with the Fatso Tax
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:04 pm
“No one has a right to adopt a child. Illinois through it’s contractors is supposed discriminate. Discriminate real hard.
And there’s no necessity such discrimination be consistant. If for some agencies the criteria be couples of one-man, and one-womam, united in a Marriage; it’s hardly an extreme thing. It’s not Talibanisque of The Catholic or Lutheran Church.”
So if the Mormon church wanted to enforce it’s old teaching on the Stain of Cain and not give children to African American couples that would be ok? If a Jewish agency decided they didn’t want non-Jewish parents, they could turn away Chrsitians?
There has to be a consistent standard, so either all couples meeting state guidelines need to be eligible or anyone can discriminate to their heart’s content. And all personal beliefs are reason to prevent an adoption.
The state sets standards. The contractors need to abide by it. CC can do what they want on their own dime, but they cannot take money from taxes paid by all citizens of Illinois and then choose to discriminate against certain ones.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:07 pm
@CircularFiringSquad CC won’t place with cohabitating couples. I read that as a NO if the subsequent marriage not valid for the Church…that the parties not married regardless of what the State may say, but are cohabitating.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:10 pm
“Placing children in a stable household with a married father and mother are the best conditions for raising stable and happy children.”
Actually, studies have shown that gay and lesbian couples provide homes that are every bit as good as married straight couples for raising stable and happy children.
Comment by ChicagoR Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:25 pm
So if the Mormon church wanted to enforce it’s old teaching on the Stain of Cain and not give children to African American couples that would be ok? If a Jewish agency decided they didn’t want non-Jewish parents, they could turn away Chrsitians?
I do recall a big issue years ago about some African Americans not wanting AA Childrent placed with non AA Parents. Father Clements at Holy Angels became the first Priest to adopt a child back in 1981 and in part if I recall right he did it as a challange to AA’s to start adopting AA Children.
I would be tuned into heritage and culture in placing a child. I think it’s valid criteria. Heritage and culture slices both ways but I think it’s valid.
I’d be curious to see what the placement criteria are for the different organizations as I would like to think they are very discerning although not so high a bar that no one could qualify.
Now, curious to see who remembers Father Clements….and their comments.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:29 pm
It seems to me, especially in this economy, that there should be plenty of work for all folks willing to help children in need. Why Quinn and other pols decide to demonize Catholic Charities is mind numbing.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:44 pm
According to the criteria established by Catholic Charities (married, het couples only) this Father Clements should not have been allowed to adopt.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:45 pm
Touché, Cheryl44.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:47 pm
@Cheryl44 google around for his story. There was also a move made about him and his adoptive son with Lou Gossett playing Father Clements. He had to go to Rome to get an ok for the adoption.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:49 pm
@Chris 2:07pm: “There has to be a consistent standard, so either all couples meeting state guidelines need to be eligible or anyone can discriminate to their heart’s content. And all personal beliefs are reason to prevent an adoption.”
Agreed. The consistent standard that’s in place now is that an agency needs to act in the best interests of the child. Sometimes that means a two-parent family with one stay-at-home parent because the child needs constant supervision, or a single mother because the child was abused by a man and reacts negatively to adult males, or a Spanish-speaking family because the child doesn’t understand English. In some cases, an LGBT family would be in the best interests of the child (i.e. for a teenager who identifies as LGBT).
It’s also worth mentioning that LGBT families are more likely to consider adopting older children, children who have severe medical or behavioral issues, or children of a different race. That’s no small consideration, given the number of kids who linger in foster care for years.
Comment by Edge of the 14th Ward Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:51 pm
“It seems to me, especially in this economy, that there should be plenty of work for all folks willing to help children in need. Why Quinn and other pols decide to demonize Catholic Charities is mind numbing.”
And that’s the problem in a nutshell. Some of us think there should be minimum standards you have to meet before getting State money to assist in the care of children. Bigotry is one of the things that shouldn’t enter into the picture. Catholic agencies have done a TERRIBLE job of making sure that their adults don’t use the children as a tool for satisfying their own needs. We shouldn’t allow Catholic Charities to use State of Illinois money to promote anti-gay bigotry any more than we should stand by and let priests continue to rape children. The point is to put the children’s needs first, not use them as pawns. Will they be fed, clothed, and sheltered? Will they be abused? If the answers are Yes and No, that’s kind of the whole analysis. The Church inserts an extra barrier - Is anyone gay? that shouldn’t be there.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:54 pm
===Clements is the founder of the One Church-One Child, One Church-One Addict and One Church-One Inmate initiatives. In 1981, he became the first priest to adopt a child, and later adopted three more. His One Church-One Child program subsequently resulted in the adoption of more than 100,000 children nationwide. He has worked to help students from Africa secure higher education in the United States and has been active in the war on drugs. During the Million Man March in 1995, Clements announced plans for the One Church-One Addict program, wherein communities would provide aftercare for individuals who have been incarcerated. More than 1,000 churches in thirty-five states now belong to the program.===
And he did it all without any of Quinn’s money.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:55 pm
I think placing an LGBT teen with an LGBT couple would be perfectly valid. There are all incredibly specific case, but I consider this a very valid kind of DISCRIMINATION on placing kids.
As far as the charges raised above agains CC, I don’t recall EVER there being any such charges aginast them, and my Father Clements post ought to qualify me as having a pretty good memory.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:03 pm
BB, try 2007. Chicago Catholic Charities approached over two dozen insurance carriers. None would accept the risk. That’s when CCC dropped out of the foster care program.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:11 pm
@Edge of the 14th -
Or, most common regarding foster care or adoption, when the prospective foster parent is a relative.
It would be ludicrous to refuse to place an abused or neglected child in foster care with their grandmother because the grandmother has a longtime live-in “boyfriend.” A common occurrence since many widows choose not to remarry because they risk losing retirement benefits or because of their own religious beliefs.
It would also be ludicrous to refuse to place an abused or neglected child with an aunt or uncle because they were gay, civil union or not.
Agencies have an obligation to ensure that their top priority is the best interest of the child, not religious dogma.
These are two pretty clear and not uncommon examples where any child welfare expert would agree that religious doctrine conflicts with the child’s best interests.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:17 pm
Thomas Westgard
I appreciate your comments.
The Catholic Churches past crimes against children make it extremely vulnerable to your criticism and appear hypocritical to their position on gays and lesbians. It’s an unwinnable fight and they should refrain from fighting it. They are better off taking care of the flock and not using money that comes with conditions.
I’m not sure of the evolution of these social services but I would bet the State first came to Catholic Charities and asked for help caring for the kids rather than vice-versa. Perhaps they need to rebuild trust within the church community before setting conditions on those with dissimilar beliefs.
Having said that, I think reasonable accommodations could be made for all. I just don’t think people think reasonably on this issue.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:36 pm
I see it Rich, and the 2006 case that prompted the increased rating risk for Chicago CC that prompted them to stop adoptions (not Illinois interestingly).
This just seemed like a pretty sweeping slam Catholic agencies have done a TERRIBLE job of making sure that their adults don’t use the children as a tool for satisfying their own needs. without correboration.
If AG Madigan had pulled the contracts of all the CC agencies in Illinois because of abuse back in 2006 (or now) it be a different story.
But she’s investigating doezens of Faith Based agencies now without any charges but solely on alleged violations of the CU law.
If the allegation is the downstate CC’s are abusing kids, this whole series of posts would be different. But that’s not the Charge Illinois is making and as far as I can tell, Illinois has never pulled a contract with CC for that.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:40 pm
Bill Barr,
First, there is no reason why the AG should know the placement criteria.
Second, the AG is the state’s lawyer so she gets to interpret the laws for the “state” (i.e. state agencies). It is ok to ask individuals that receive contracts to abide by state law. If a court disagrees that is fine, but for now the AG’s opinion is all that matters.
Now, I think it is more than goofy that DCFS has let Catholic Charities and others refer placements prior to the law to other providers. The lack of consistency is mind boggling. It seems to me that perhaps DCFS should have been making Catholic Charities do any referral all along if this is the stance the state is going to take now with regard to the Civil Unions law.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:43 pm
The lack of consistency is mind boggling.
I have a feeling the variety may be as varied as are people and families.
That’s why I suspect Illinois has stood back a bit as far as I can tell in deference to Faith Based groups (and others) who bring a history, heritage, and ethics that may be beyond Illinois’s expertise.
That’s why I don’t favor these kind of universal applications of the Law on something this complex and personal.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:02 pm
I don’t see how the court can force the state to honor a contract that discriminates against newly recognized, legal civil unions.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:11 pm
==He had to go to Rome to get an ok for the adoption.==
Ah, yes, I just love those special dispensations the Church is so fond of handing out, excusing preferred customers from following their rules.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:16 pm
By CC’s logic, a heterosexual couple in a civil union would not be eligible to adopt as well, right? If so, the discriminated-against class is larger than just homosexual couples registered with the state.
Comment by Served Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:23 pm
Secondly, as one commenter noted, studies have shown that children raised by LGBT parents are every bit as healthy as those with heterosexual parents. There is no rational, data-based evidence that supports that placement with LGBT couples would be detrimental to the children.
If it doesn’t harm the children, I have trouble seeing this lining up with the goals of a state-supported foster care program.
Comment by Served Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:30 pm
YDD- my agency participated along with many, many others in the redistribution of CC cases in Cook. Given the sheer numbers, I was actually surprised it went as smooth as it did. But part of that was due to the amount of time we had to plan.
Also DCFS rules for Placement criteria and then Licensing of Foster and Adoptive homes are pretty clear in the language with the exception that I had previously noted in an earlier comment.
One needs to further understand that once a child is placed into a foster home, the foster parent has Rights and those include legal rights. CC knows this which would be exactly why they are screening people out before they get in the front door. Once a child is placed, they(CC) are stuck. There are only few reasons that an agency can legally remove a child from a foster home- but even then a notice has to be provided to the foster parent citing RULE and documented reasons for removal(imminent risk of harm/licensing issues, etc). The foster parent has a right to appeal(to DCFS, who makes the final decision) with very few exceptions- of which being gay/lesbian is not one of them.
It’s a falicy to believe that every single foster parent that CC has statewide is married. They have had many single parent foster homes- I know from personal experience in sharing cases over the last 17 years. Please consider that the overwhelming majority of children in care are African American and then Latino. The majority of foster homes licensed in the state reflect the children we serve and many of the homes are single female led be it single, divorced or widowed.
Adopt-Only families are an entirely different category- which is really the group that CC’s target audience of this. When they had to become licensed as an Adoption Agency separate from Foster Care, I believe this is where things began to unravel for them(among other timely things)- that occurred beginning in 2006.
girlawyer- actually the reunification rate for IL is less than 20%. So suffice it to say that most children do not return home to their parents. That’s another conversation for another day.
Comment by carbaby Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:30 pm
==By CC’s logic, a heterosexual couple in a civil union would not be eligible to adopt as well, right?==
Since this is not marriage in their eyes, you would think so. But, if Illinois recognized the right of gays to marriage, would CC agree to place children with them? No, they would still be fighting this.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:36 pm
===. I submit that it happened because===
Your submission has no basis in history or facts.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 5:43 pm
What’s so difficult to understand? You take state money, you follow state rules.
What’s disheartening and a little shocking about this is that it took generations for Catholics in America to overcome state- and establishment-sanctioned discrimination against them.
Why church leaders feel they can practice discrimination and still take tax money if beyond me.
And sorry, “the interest of the child” argument is just surreal coming from recent generations of church leaders.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 6:22 pm
Nothing has worked right since Jess MacDonald left.
Comment by Newsclown Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 8:42 pm
OK, it’s easy to take some shots at the Catholic Church, and they deserve a lot of it. But that’s not the issue here. We aren’t debating church dogma, were talking about civil law, our law.
Judge Schmidt has to decide what to do with the children currently in the care of organizations that until about two weeks ago weren’t denying anyone’s legal rights. Now they are, and the contract has to end. DCFS will finally have a chance to explain its transition plan, because by law, Catholic Charities is now ineligible for public funds. The judge needs to decide if the interests of those children are better served by DCFS or in the current situation.
DCFS can’t simply yank these children out en masse with deputies, then bid them out to whomever steps up to volunteer, simply because the state didn’t bother to come up with a plan to do so in a better way. The judge should consider a consent decree to buy some time to settle this mess.
This isn’t about money going to organizations that discriminate, and it’s not about religious persecution. It’s about what is going to happen to these cases. For some reason, this subject gets to me. I’m not an expert, and I’ve got no dog in the fight. But I saw this coming and it makes me mad that the people responsible didn’t see it, and they’re the experts. I’m just an anonymous commenter on a blog.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:28 pm
@BB - Yes, I certainly hope they are discerning, just not disqualifying groups based off of immutable characteristics or even changeable ones like Religion. All qualified parents need to be considered when state money is involved. If CC wants to self-fund a non-profit organization though, then by all means, I 100% support their right to choose parents by their own standards that fit their religious beliefs.
@EOTW - Yeah, case by case basis. The best parents for the kids, regardless of race, religions or sexual orientation.
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Jul 13, 11 @ 2:17 am
@47th Ward - Your comment is insightful. These kids have the problems they have because the adults in charge weren’t able or willing to plan for their needs, and now their backup, the state and the agency, have basically done the same thing. The parents, the state, the agency - all so wrapped up in their own crap that they couldn’t build a space in their lives to keep these kids safe. That’s the real shame and tragedy.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Wednesday, Jul 13, 11 @ 6:35 am
Seriously, Mike, anti-Catholicism in Illinois in 2011? The whole state establishment is run by Irish Catholic school boys.
Dude, sometimes you just have to face reality and humble yourself.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 13, 11 @ 11:35 pm
wordslinger:
According to your logic, no one should claim that racism exists against African-Americans in the United States anymore because we have an African-American president.
Just because Irish Catholics are in positions of power in the State of Illinois does not mean that there are not any anti-Catholics in Illinois.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 5:34 am
Wow, this Irish Catholic victim-playing would be funny if it weren’t such a weak ploy, and in this case, a clear cover for racism. That one’s not getting you anywhere. Try something else.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 6:19 am
Thomas Westgard:
How is my post a clear cover for racism? Can you give any reasons to back up your statements?
Thomas, please explain how you came to this conclusion because what you have said is completely false.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 6:29 am
Sure. Because, by any objective measure, Irish Americans have now assimilated very well, and especially in Illinois, hold many positions of power at all levels of government. So a claim to Irish victimhood cannot be based on objective fact, but instead is obviously a pretext for something else.
You disclose your real agenda through an obviously false parallel between Irish, who are not today disadvantaged as a group, to blacks, who (again by any objective measure) are. Defying reality, you twist a single extraordinary individual, President Obama, into “proof” that blacks no longer suffer racism. Who works so hard to protect whites who don’t need protection, by discounting the legitimate concerns of blacks? Racists. That is what you did.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 6:44 am
Thomas Westgard:
Please reread my post. You completely misread it.
I was not trying to prove that blacks are no longer victims of racism. I was pointing out how absurd wordslinger’s logic was that because there are Catholics in power in Illinois that there cannot be any anti-Catholicism in Illinois.
Catholics in power in Illinois does not equal no bigotry against Catholics in Illinois. African-Americans in power in the United States does not equal no bigotry against African-Americans in the United States.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 7:11 am
You said what you said. The reference to blacks was completely gratuitous, and your mind produced it for a reason. Since you’ve now gone into re-explaining mode, you obviously see the problem. But you still don’t have any explanation for the specious reference to blacks in a highly inappropriate context. We all have bias and prejudice, and in all of us, some of it is unconscious. Bringing up black prejudice and Obama the way you did revealed more about what goes on in your head than you realized at first. You can run from it if you want, or you can address it more directly. This is where I draw my boundary line.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 7:23 am
Thomas Westgard:
It was not gratuitous at all. You may claim this but you offer no reasons to back it up. I have already proven your previous post false. It wasn’t an inappropriate context. In a discussion on the discrimination and bigotry of a one group, it is not inappropriate to bring up the discrimination and bigotry that exists against other groups.
A decent human being in your position would have reread my original post, realized your mistake, and apologized to me already. Your refusal to apologize reveals how stubbornly hateful you are, bordering on sociopathy.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 8:08 am
Thomas Westgard:
All I did was simply compare the existence of discrimination between two groups that both face discrimination. You have the mind that made you misread my comments and view them as somehow racist when to any reasonable individual, they clearly were not. This speaks to who you are as a person and the racist and hateful views that you hold deep inside you.
Also, I should not have to disclose this information, and with an ordinary person I would not. However, I will inform you that I am an African-American. If you were a decent human being that was actually engaging in productive conversation, I would not have to reveal this fact. However, all you continued to do was just make outlandish and untrue statements that had no basis in reality.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 8:38 am
–Catholics in power in Illinois does not equal no bigotry against Catholics in Illinois.
Is the civil unions bill and its enforcement, supported by Irish Catholic leaders such as Madigan, Quinn, Cullerton, Daley and more, plus thousands upon thousands of the Catholic faith, an example of anti-Catholic bigotry?
What are you talking about, dude?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 14, 11 @ 7:53 pm