Posted on 06/19/2021 3:49:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Supreme Court just ruled against the city of Philadelphia, which was trying to prevent Catholic Social Services (CSS) from helping children in foster care get placed in homes, due to CSS's views on homosexual marriage. Had the Supreme Court ruled differently, the case would have been heralded as a Pride Month win. But the Supreme Court went a different way. And this should give us hope that everything doesn't have to be about sex and politics. Sometimes it can be about our common humanity and the needs of the most vulnerable.
"Maximizing the number of foster families and minimizing liability are important goals, but the City fails to show that granting CSS an exception will put those goals at risk. If anything, including CSS in the program seems likely to increase, not reduce, the number of available foster parents." Thank you, Chief Justice John Roberts, for writing that in the decision. Thank you, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, for joining in this unanimous decision. We don't agree on a lot of things, and that's what makes this decision such a treasure.
The ruling has me thinking about a book by Mary Eberstadt, "It's Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies," published in 2016. It was framed as a plea from a conservative Christian to people of good will on the left, saying that the secular mindset goes too far when it loses sight of pluralism and becomes hostile to real, lived religion.
Eberstadt asserted that the sexual revolution had effectively set up a religion to rival Judeo-Christian morality. This new creed "elevates pleasure and self-will to first principles." This understanding "explains the outsize hostility toward believers who have been minding their own business, or trying to educate their children, or expressing their faith in public forums -- or otherwise behaving in ways that that once invited no penalties and now do."
This is what caused the city of Philadelphia to cut off ties with CSS, a storied and superior player in the foster-care and adoption space, because of its views on marriage and the family. And the good news is: The Supreme Court agrees with Eberstadt. Things have gone too far.
The ruling suggests that we can, in fact, work together for the good of children, even when we adults disagree on some fundamental things.
"Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature," wrote Roberts in the decision. Again, thank you, Chief Justice John Roberts! This is how we live together, protecting religious freedom, even when we have disagreements about the nature of marriage and the human person.
In "It's Dangerous to Believe," Eberstadt writes: "Reasonable people of a-religious or even anti-religious inclination might also err on the side of magnanimity by acknowledging the possibility that believers have something to offer the wider society -- including not only their charitable operations, but also their expanding critique of a revolution that continues to transform the whole world."
She cites Jonathan Rauch, who was a proponent of same-sex marriage before it was law, who said: "If Catholic Charities doesn't want to place children for adoption with same-sex couples in Massachusetts, but lots of other agencies will make the placement, we can live with that." And so, it should be in Philadelphia and anywhere else there are children in need. As we head toward Independence Day, let's rally for freedom -- true pluralism in the United States again. It might just dial down our political and cultural temperatures.
It won't be a "written policy" but strangely enough, there will be no referrals.
So it will be back to a local court and the 3-4 year charade begins again.
Any religious organization worth a damn would carry out its mission without holding out its hand for money from Caesar.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court may have muddied these waters in a big way because from a legal perspective, Catholic Charities isn't really a religious organization at all.
Will there be lawsuits filed charging sexual abuse in the same ratio as in normal families?
Justice Alito wrote a separate and strongly argued concurring opinion that revealed his exasperation with the Court’s refusal to revisit bad precedent. Rather than face the erroneous decision in Smith head on, Alito argues, the Court makes temporary rulings that only partly solve the real problems. In Alito’s estimation, “This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops. . . . If the City wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power. If it does that, then violá, today’s decision will vanish—and the parties will be back where they started.” Alito closed his opinion with a sharp rebuke of the Court for writing “a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state.
-Exc. fr. Am.Assoc. Of Christian Schools “The Washington Flyer” June 28th
I remember this event
The Crooked River Gorge Murders in Oregon, 1961:
On May 12, 1961 the nude and mutilated bodies of Lawrence Gene “Larry” Jackson, aged 6, and Martha May Jackson, aged 4, were spotted on the floor of the Crooked River Gorge, about 360 feet below. Their identity remained unknown until the 15th when Jeannace Freeman’s sister, Mrs. Phyllis Round, identified the bodies.
A hunt for the Freeman (19) and Jackson (33) was initiated and on the following day they were tracked down and were arrested in Oakland, California along with Letha June Little, whom Freeman claimed was a hitchhiker they had picked up, but was later identified by Freeman as her “wife.”
They were extradited to Madras, Oregon and on May 19 were indicted in Jackson County Court and charged with two counts of first degree murder. Jackson confessed to her part in the murders by Freeman maintained her innocence, claiming she took no part in the assults, killing or disposal of the bodies.
On August 31, 1961 the eve of the trial Jackson turned state’s evidence in order to avoid facing a death sentence. She testified on September 13 that it was she who killed the girl and Freeman who had killed the boy. The girl was still alive when she was thrown down the ravine. The following day Freeman testified, offering a radically different relation of events which would render her inculpable. The trial closed the next day; the jury not believing Freeman, found her guilty of first degree murder. Freeman’s sentencing hearing took place four days later, on September 19, and she was given a death sentence, to be effectuated in the Oregon gas chamber.
Jeannace Freeman: “A lesbian woman shouldn’t take up with a woman who’s got children – it just isn’t any good.”
Seems it isn’t good for the children, either.
And a male nonfather feline will kill the kittens that are not his.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.