Jaggernaut Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Jaggernautess made the "bonkers" comment this morning when watching an interview with a nice couple who are foster parents and devout Christians, who have refused to make a positive statement somewhere (not sure where) in support of gay people. Result?: They are now barred from fostering children. Gay couples, on the other hand, who presumably would be positive towards homosexuality in discussions with children, may foster and even adopt children. Does Jaggernautess have a point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Jaggernautess made the "bonkers" comment this morning when watching an interview with a nice couple who are foster parents and devout Christians, who have refused to make a positive statement somewhere (not sure where) in support of gay people. Result?: They are now barred from fostering children. Gay couples, on the other hand, who presumably would be positive towards homosexuality in discussions with children, may foster and even adopt children. Does Jaggernautess have a point? Personally, I would rather devout christians are barred from ever fostering childern if they are going to indoctrinate them with their barmy, outdated views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Jaggernautess made the "bonkers" comment this morning when watching an interview with a nice couple who are foster parents and devout Christians, who have refused to make a positive statement somewhere (not sure where) in support of gay people. Result?: They are now barred from fostering children. Gay couples, on the other hand, who presumably would be positive towards homosexuality in discussions with children, may foster and even adopt children. Does Jaggernautess have a point? Or maybe they would just have balanced, non-judgemental views on homosexuality like the majority of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Personally, I would rather devout christians are barred from ever fostering childern if they are going to indoctrinate them with their barmy, outdated views. This. I find most 'devout' christians that I come across these days to be stark raving bonkers, so letting them anywhere near defenceless, impressionable children would be the height of irresponsibility in my opinion. Even if they promised to do their worshipping thing and other bizarre practices based on their delusional fantasies in private, I don't think it would be safe to trust them as they'd probably go ahead and do it anyway. And, as if the poor wee mites hadn't had enough turmoil in their lives - not having (fit and proper[?] parents - the final nail in their developmental coffins could be occasioned by putting them in the care of these nutters. Just my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Surely the main concern should be the safety and well being of the child who is fostered? As long as they are not going to harm the child physically or mentally does it really matter what their views are? By the sound of it this couple were not actively denouncing homosexuality but they fact that they would not promote it seems to have been enough for them to be ruled out of fostering. Quite sad that some kids will know not get a loving home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 This. I find most 'devout' christians that I come across these days to be stark raving bonkers, so letting them anywhere near defenceless, impressionable children would be the height of irresponsibility in my opinion. Even if they promised to do their worshipping thing and other bizarre practices based on their delusional fantasies in private, I don't think it would be safe to trust them as they'd probably go ahead and do it anyway. And, as if the poor wee mites hadn't had enough turmoil in their lives - not having (fit and proper[?] parents - the final nail in their developmental coffins could be occasioned by putting them in the care of these nutters. Just my view. To be honest BJ you sound just as bigoted as those you claim are bonkers To portray all Christians as you have just done is as stupid as saying all homosexuals are paedophiles or that all muslims are terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Surely the main concern should be the safety and well being of the child who is fostered? As long as they are not going to harm the child physically or mentally does it really matter what their views are? By the sound of it this couple were not actively denouncing homosexuality but they fact that they would not promote it seems to have been enough for them to be ruled out of fostering. Quite sad that some kids will know not get a loving home. So it is OK for them to tell these impressionable childern that gay people are commiting a 'sin'? I wonder what else is a 'sin' to these nutters. The mental well being of childern is just as important as their physical well being. Bigotry has no place in society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Surely the main concern should be the safety and well being of the child who is fostered? As long as they are not going to harm the child physically or mentally does it really matter what their views are? By the sound of it this couple were not actively denouncing homosexuality but they fact that they would not promote it seems to have been enough for them to be ruled out of fostering. Quite sad that some kids will know not get a loving home. That's pretty much what I got from it too. The people didn't come across as raging homophobics in any sense, but they made it clear that they did not actively support homosexuality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 This. I find most 'devout' christians that I come across these days to be stark raving bonkers, so letting them anywhere near defenceless, impressionable children would be the height of irresponsibility in my opinion. Even if they promised to do their worshipping thing and other bizarre practices based on their delusional fantasies in private, I don't think it would be safe to trust them as they'd probably go ahead and do it anyway. And, as if the poor wee mites hadn't had enough turmoil in their lives - not having (fit and proper[?] parents - the final nail in their developmental coffins could be occasioned by putting them in the care of these nutters. Just my view. That view sounds much more extreme than anything the interviewed couple were saying this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 This. I find most 'devout' christians that I come across these days to be stark raving bonkers, so letting them anywhere near defenceless, impressionable children would be the height of irresponsibility in my opinion. Even if they promised to do their worshipping thing and other bizarre practices based on their delusional fantasies in private, I don't think it would be safe to trust them as they'd probably go ahead and do it anyway. And, as if the poor wee mites hadn't had enough turmoil in their lives - not having (fit and proper[?] parents - the final nail in their developmental coffins could be occasioned by putting them in the care of these nutters. Just my view. To be honest BJ you sound just as bigoted as those you claim are bonkers To portray all Christians as you have just done is as stupid as saying all homosexuals are paedophiles or that all muslims are terrorists. Like I said, just my own opinions based on my own experiences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 The comments by the christian legal centre guy in theBBC article are very worrying. He seems to take the view that it is the view of all christians that it is wrong to be gay. These bigots have no place in the 21st century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 The story They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable. So they weren't "banned". They withdrew their application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 The story So they weren't "banned". They withdrew their application. Hmm, whose views do you think would have prevailed, theirs, or the social work department's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 More "back story" here. Mrs Johns said she would love a child unconditionally no matter whether the child was homosexual. She said: "They asked 'what would you do if a child came home at the age of 10 and said to you that they've been picked on because they're homosexual?' 'Do you know you'd have to tell them it's ok to be homosexual'? "I said, I can't do that. My Christian beliefs won't let me do that. "I would try and assure the child the best I can and tell them... I am a Christian and I don't believe in homosexuality but I can give you as much love and security as I possibly can." I don't think the couple are "religious nut-cases", but when you are dealing with adopted/fostered children you need to realise that they are already in a vulnerable position - they need to be supported regardless of their issues and the social work department are fully aware of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 More "back story" here. I don't think the couple are "religious nut-cases", but when you are dealing with adopted/fostered children you need to realise that they are already in a vulnerable position - they need to be supported regardless of their issues and the social work department are fully aware of this. I wonder if the 15 other children that they fostered, apparently successfully, have been damaged in some way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I wonder if the 15 other children that they fostered, apparently successfully, have been damaged in some way? I doubt very much whether they have. Then again, perhaps those children didn't need support in that area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asylum Resident Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 As long as they are not going to harm the child physically or mentally does it really matter what their views are? All religions are mentally harmful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I wonder if the 15 other children that they fostered, apparently successfully, have been damaged in some way? How do we know that they haven't been brought up to share the same ridiculous views? Just because they haven't committed a crime does not mean that their 'teaching' hasn't given these children prejudiced views that have no place in a modern society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.C.G. JAG Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) From the BBC article: They asked 'what would you do if a child came home at the age of 10 and said to you that they've been picked on because they're homosexual?' 'Do you know you'd have to tell them it's ok to be homosexual'? "I said, I can't do that. My Christian beliefs won't let me do that. These kids will be going through enough turmoil in their lives. If their carers were to, with all in the love in the world, denounce their sexuality as sinful or wrong in any way then that I'm afraid to say that is very wrong. Intolerance and bigotry is unacceptable from anyone, and we shouldn't be afraid to offend 'good' christian folks by pointing out that their opinions and actions are harmful to other human beings they profess to love so much. Edited March 1, 2011 by B.C.G. JAG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 The Bible is so full of contradictions that anyone can use any part of it to justify any view. To try and claim that you hold a particular view because it's written in the Bible is just a smokescreen because elsewhere in the Bible the opposite view is written too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Actually, social work view having a religious background as being positive when considering prospective adopters and foster carers. It's viewed as an addition level of support available to the family. Nonetheless, if you want to be considered you don't get to choose which areas of the policy you want to adhere to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alx Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 The Bible is so full of contradictions that anyone can use any part of it to justify any view. To try and claim that you hold a particular view because it's written in the Bible is just a smokescreen because elsewhere in the Bible the opposite view is written too. Too right. Fundamentalist "Christians" believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament, which is about as un-Christian as you can get. At least the muslims have invented 'abrogation' so that the more recent ones supercede the older ones, but at the same time saying 'there is no compulsion in religion' on the telly whilst sniggering up their sleaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Funny how the people who seem to see things in black and white sound the most bigoted. Not a surprise with some people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alx Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Another cracker this week is the EU 'judges' (snigger) decision to outlaw insurance discrimination on grounds of statistical risk. What do these actuaries know anyway? We should start a new equality and diversity campaign to stop employers discriminating on grounds of intelligence. It's a disgrace the way society discriminates against stupid people, it's so unfair.... we need quotas to increase diversity dontcha know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) Another cracker this week is the EU 'judges' (snigger) decision to outlaw insurance discrimination on grounds of statistical risk. What do these actuaries know anyway? We should start a new equality and diversity campaign to stop employers discriminating on grounds of intelligence. It's a disgrace the way society discriminates against stupid people, it's so unfair.... we need quotas to increase diversity dontcha know. The EU judges decision was based on grounds relating to gender discrimination which is illegal. Why should statistical risk outweigh discrimination considerations? You might equally say that you should be allowed to discriminate against employing women because statistically they take more absence and might inconveniently become pregnant and take maternity leave. Discrimination law in the UK (as contained in the new Equality Act 2010) now aims to provide rights to people who have "protected characteristics". This is designed to prevent discrimination on a number of grounds including sexual orientation, age, disability, sex, race, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership and political or religious belief. Any attempt to discriminate against people on grounds of sexual orientation is now illegal. Any attempt at discriminating against people on the grounds of political and/or religious belief is now also illegal. Making anti-religious comments in a workplace is now potentially on a par (in Employment law terms) with making sexist or racist ones. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messanger! Edited March 1, 2011 by The Devil's Point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.