Religious discrimination alleged by Catholic group that lost federal funding to stop human trafficking

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 5:45 p.m.

    Human trafficking is forcing people to do things against their will with no concern for their health or well-being.

    Human trafficking exists in many industries, but the most prominent and talked about is the sex-trade.

    The Catholic Church wants to rescue victims of human trafficking and then place restrictions on the victims with what they can do with their new-found freedom.

    A young girl who finds herself pregnant after repeated raping is forced by the Catholic Church to bear that child - regardless of any risk to her mental or physical health and her ability and willingness to care for that child.

    It is exchanging one form of slavery for another.

    Sure, the Catholic Church is (hopefully) a kinder master - but they are a master none the less.

  • evensteven Sandy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    While we are talking about fairness and discrimination, how "fair" is it to deny funding to a charitable organization that consistently (and in this specific case) scores higher than similar organizations in service delivery and goal achievement according the the government's own criteria? If the goal is success, denying funding to the standout organization providing such success would seem to indicate some other agenda on the part of those awarding the funding.

    At any rate, this is exactly why the government should not be in the business of providing social services, and Elder Oaks' Senate testimony along with other economic analyses of charitable giving (both monetary and non-monetary) illustrate the true unfairness (discrimination) that government involvement perpetuates.

    Again, if success is the goal, Catholic Charities seems to be the leader and denying them funding is inherently unfair to those whose successful recovery might now be jeopardized because some other more PC program provides inferior services but is favored by the government. This is the definition of corruption.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 9:21 p.m.

    @voice of reason
    once again the federal government did not take away the catholic churches tax exempt status or ability to give charity. It did tell them they would not receive government funds to do so. The catholic church can continue on with their charity as they please with their own money.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 8:48 p.m.

    Phranc, if you haven't watched the recent congressional hearing where Dallin H. Oaks spoke, I would invite you to. Further, I strongly suggest watching his entire portion. He doesn't speak for very long, fyi.

    In this he talks about the problem of taking away from charities as less charity will happen in the end.

    Despite a charity still existing, despite any disagreements about fairness, a charity is designed to help those in need. Even if a charity gave funds to white children only... while I'd disagree with it (completely!) I wouldn't want to take funding away. If the children are truly in need, I wouldn't want to hurt others from giving. It's one thing to disagree with a charity and it's philosophy/policy. It's another to force, coerce, or even bring enough attention to the charity to harm it, and so on. The underlying point is... despite their prejudices, if those prejudices are still being used to help others... they ought to be permitted and not argued about. I'd welcome a counter-balance charity, I just don't welcome any idea that may hurt a charity that despite poor motives... is ACTUALLY helping someone. Not fair? Yes, but it's helping.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 8:06 p.m.

    @lost in DC

    "This is exactly the type of thing the founders were trying to prevent when they wrote the 1st amendment." how so? keeping in mind the Catholic church can continue to offer these services they just cannot receive federal funding to do so.

    Nov. 4, 2011 7:53 p.m.

    @voice of reason

    the charity did not go away the federal funding for these services/charity went to an agency that doe not seek to restrict these women's access to healthcare of choice. The catholic church can also continue to offer this charity out of their own coffers and impose their religious restrictions they just cannot do so with federal funds.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 6:04 p.m.

    The bottom line is this- imperfect people, doing things their own way... just like we all do... things OUR biased way... and no one will ever agree on what way is best... BUT- imperfect people doing things their own way, and other people saying "STOP! You can't help others your way cause we don't think it's fair!"

    So... you'd hurt and potentially even stop charity altogether just because you think it's unfair? Giving is giving, and whether you like their policies or not, whether you think they are prejudiced, or anything else you think is wrong with it- they are GIVING.

    The ACLU would rather have fairness than good works. It's like everything they do has to be making an example of a good work into something evil.

    But then again, evil never looks like good and good never looks like evil- according to these people anyway.

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 4, 2011 4:47 p.m.

    I totally stand behind government NOT funding organizations that engage in discrimination. If the Catholic Church or any other church wants to limit its services they may do so if they do not accept government funds. It is this easy. Quit yer whining! The government may NOT discriminate, and that includes giving money to private agencies and allowing them to discriminate.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Nov. 4, 2011 4:29 p.m.

    "As a Catholic organization, the group didn't refer victims for abortions, sterilizations or contraceptives"

    Women and girls victimized in this sex trafficking system need health care; . "But what they also need is a restoration of respect for them as people capable of ethical decision-making where their bodies, minds, and spirits are concerned. Reproductive services, including contraception and legal abortion, are part of that restoration for them, to choose or not to choose as part of their journey toward wholeness."

    I agree with the governments decision. This is another example in which the Catholic Church instead of working on behalf of the government, as a contractor, they use state money to promote and enforce their religious agenda.

    The cruelty and arrogance of religious organizations believing that they know best. Dictating victims of one of the most hideous crimes what they can or cannot do.

    Here the victim is not the Catholic Church but the Victims who are not receiving the services they need and the government for paying for services that were not fully provided.

    Of course they claim Religious discrimination. However they are the ones denying the services they agreed and receive government money to provide.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 3:19 p.m.

    so the ACLU is trying to force their preference for abortions, sterilizations and contraceptives onto the Catholic Church and have that "morality" established through the granting of government contracts. This is exactly the type of thing the founders were trying to prevent when they wrote the 1st amendment.

  • Straitpath PROVO, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 2:16 p.m.

    I stand behind the Catholic Church in this matter.