A letter to Kathleen Parker - Dispatch Columnist
Hey Folks,
Ms. Parker's column appeared in the Columbus Dispatch Mon., March 20
http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/03/20/20060320-A7-01.html
This is my response.
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Parker,
It is unclear from your column whether the Massachusetts Catholic charity involved with adoption receives public money or not. Only you can say whether not reporting on this point was an oversight or by design.
In any case, if the charity receives no public money, I think you make a good point regarding the "question of conscience.”
If, however, the charity does receive public funds (which seems likely to me), then I must disagree.
The Church is entirely free to follow its conscience regarding its privately financed religion – and it does regularly discriminate. For example, the Church refuses to marry divorcees, refuses the sacraments to those not “in a state of grace,” and recently allowed some groups of Catholics to eat meat on Saint Patrick’s Day (a Friday in Lent).
No one has to be Catholic. Catholics voluntarily submit to the authority of the Church. If the Church discriminates against any of its voluntary members, that is a private matter.
If the Church, on the other hand is employed (paid with public funds) by the state to administer social programs, then the discrimination is public and, if in conflict with the law, illegal.
The question of conscience is not about “controlling the church,” not about whether the Church will be allowed to follow its conscience. If the Church is receiving public funds, it is doing so voluntarily; it is not required to.
The question of conscience is the Church’s to answer. Will it continue its work in harmony with the law but at odds with its beliefs? Will it renounce public money so as to be free to continue its service legally and in harmony with its beliefs? Or will it end its service altogether? Those are the qustions of conscience that demand answers.
The argument that the Church does so much good that gays have put themselves before children is fallacious. It may seem to make sense on the surface, especially to straight, religious folks; but consider it in general.
Religions are free in this country to look down on, dislike, or demonize any group they want; and within their private functions, such behavior is protected by the law. In many cases – depending on the contemporary laws – this discriminatory behavior is illegal in the public sector.
It doesn’t make sense to say “Religion X discriminates illegally in the public sector against groups A and B, but they do so much good for the rest of the alphabet (and since I personally am not a member of group A or B), religion X should not have to obey the law. That is a case of justifying the means by the end; and that is considered, by the overwhelming number of people who study issues of ethics and morality, to be a questionable and dangerous tactic.
Yours - Tom Harker
Circleville, Ohio
Ms. Parker's column appeared in the Columbus Dispatch Mon., March 20
http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/03/20/20060320-A7-01.html
This is my response.
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Parker,
It is unclear from your column whether the Massachusetts Catholic charity involved with adoption receives public money or not. Only you can say whether not reporting on this point was an oversight or by design.
In any case, if the charity receives no public money, I think you make a good point regarding the "question of conscience.”
If, however, the charity does receive public funds (which seems likely to me), then I must disagree.
The Church is entirely free to follow its conscience regarding its privately financed religion – and it does regularly discriminate. For example, the Church refuses to marry divorcees, refuses the sacraments to those not “in a state of grace,” and recently allowed some groups of Catholics to eat meat on Saint Patrick’s Day (a Friday in Lent).
No one has to be Catholic. Catholics voluntarily submit to the authority of the Church. If the Church discriminates against any of its voluntary members, that is a private matter.
If the Church, on the other hand is employed (paid with public funds) by the state to administer social programs, then the discrimination is public and, if in conflict with the law, illegal.
The question of conscience is not about “controlling the church,” not about whether the Church will be allowed to follow its conscience. If the Church is receiving public funds, it is doing so voluntarily; it is not required to.
The question of conscience is the Church’s to answer. Will it continue its work in harmony with the law but at odds with its beliefs? Will it renounce public money so as to be free to continue its service legally and in harmony with its beliefs? Or will it end its service altogether? Those are the qustions of conscience that demand answers.
The argument that the Church does so much good that gays have put themselves before children is fallacious. It may seem to make sense on the surface, especially to straight, religious folks; but consider it in general.
Religions are free in this country to look down on, dislike, or demonize any group they want; and within their private functions, such behavior is protected by the law. In many cases – depending on the contemporary laws – this discriminatory behavior is illegal in the public sector.
It doesn’t make sense to say “Religion X discriminates illegally in the public sector against groups A and B, but they do so much good for the rest of the alphabet (and since I personally am not a member of group A or B), religion X should not have to obey the law. That is a case of justifying the means by the end; and that is considered, by the overwhelming number of people who study issues of ethics and morality, to be a questionable and dangerous tactic.
Yours - Tom Harker
Circleville, Ohio
1 Comments:
Hi Tom,
A great letter to a stupid woman! I think you were right about the picture. Keep up the good work. Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home