Concerned Catholics, disgusted so many people from Massachusetts live in a state of poverty and have no health insurance, are organizing three huge rallies across Massachusetts on Saturday. Concerned Catholics, an organization created to protest the growing wealth gap, will urge the state legislature to overturn Mitt Romney's vetoes and to properly fund the new healthcare bill.
The rallies are taking place in Boston, New Bedford and Barnstable on this coming Saturday.
Bee Martin, the group's leader, was worried about the children. "So many kids are worrying about getting a new playstation this Christmas," she explained, "but other kids are worrying about whether or not there'll be food on the table." She said "it's a simple matter of having the right moral priorities."
Martain was angry that key social programs have been cut. She blamed them on the President's "mistakes." The government is "too worried about tax cuts and a foreign war killing innocent people," she said. Instead of spending hundreds of billions in Iraq, "let's spend that money on the poor." It's time to start focusing on issues that impact "every day Americans," she explained.
When asked about her thoughts on gay marriage, Bee Martin exclaimed "What!?! Them gays are getting married!? FUCK THE POOR!" Her group has shifted plans to rally for homophobia instead, because a man kissing another man is way worse than 45 million people in this country without health insurance.
Posts
16 comments:
*sigh* oh Ryan, you had me going there for a sec. i was thrilled to hear of some Catholics actually militating for social justice. i should have known it couldn't be true.
lol it was a tough decision to decide how long to string my readers along before revealing the cold, hard truth. Hotbutton issues are the only thing the church seems to care about - as an institution, not individual members. Some of them are okay. LOL.
Ryan,
If you go over to Blue Mass Group you can find much talk about the health care bill and reformation. Leaders of this cause are Barbara Roop and Ann Maloney, I think Ann is the one that posts a lot there. I have been trying to help them campaign to get the HC bill out of the way of the oncoming train that is to run over the anti-gay marriage bill. If you have any spare time I invite you to help.
You can care about more than one issue at a time, as I'm sure you do, Ryan. It is disingenuous at best to say that the Catholic Church or the Catholic laity would ever say "Fuck the poor." In fact, they put their money where their mouths are to the tune of $40 million a year. From The Globe, hardly a church defender:
"Catholic Charities is the social services arm of the Archdiocese of Boston, but is separately incorporated. The agency, with a $40 million annual budget, is the largest nongovernmental provider of social services in the state, assisting 200,000 people last year, most of whom were not Catholic.
The Catholic Charities board features many of the city's leading Catholic corporate elite. More than 10 percent of the board is non-Catholic, including the Rev. Ray Hammond, founder of the Ten Point Coalition, and Robert Leikind, executive director of the Anti-Defamation League."
I might also point out that this is a private group of citizens putting on the rally, not the church leadership. Both the institution and the laity care about more than hot button issues, but the good work they do in soup kitchens and after school programs and literacy classes don't sell newspapers. The death penalty and gay marriage does.
Thanks, John. I should get back into touch with Ann and see how I can help. At one point I needed a few days off and I sort of lost steam on the issue, out of frustration.
Catholic Charities is wonderful, but when it came to queer issues, the Boston Archdiocese did indeed say 'fuck the poor' as the leapfrogged right over the "seperately incorporated" charity and mettled with it. Instead of finding good homes for children who needed to be adopted, the Church decided to just stop allowing Catholic Charities to do adoptions - because a total of about 10 of those adoptions in YEARS went to glbt parents (and those kids tended to be the worst off, too, with disabilities, etc.). Oh, yes, hotbuttons rank very highly in the church - and, indeed, in this case as many others, higher then a lot of far more impactful and important issues.
My memory isn't short.
Ryan, loved the post. You had me going for a bit since I know Bea Martin. I actually thought she had turned around an actually cared about an issue other than same sex marriages.
I also followed the link and can't believe that they are saying "this isn't about gay marriage its about the process". That is BS. She and her group have been at the State house every Con Con and even charter buses to get the old people from Fall River up to the State House. These people are shameless because they wouldn't put the same energy into helping the poor or unfortunate.
It's for the best that kids don't have anything to eat. If they eat, they'll live, and if they live, they could either grow up to be teh gay or potentially harm a fetus. With nothing to eat, they'll just die off and avoid the greater evil. It's all part of the great circle of life.
Catholic Charities didn't decide to "just stop" doing adoptions, they tried every avenue available to them to try and gain an exemption on religious freedom laws, but none was given to them. There are plenty of adoption agencies who do work with gays and lesbians, so it wouldn't have been a huge loss if one didn't. I agree, though, it was an absolute shame it came to this. Sad part is, none of it ever would have happened if the Globe hadn't gone looking for trouble.
I can't agree that one decision cancels out all the good Catholic Charities, and the Catholic Church with all its members, has done over the years.
Plenty may discriminate against gays and lesbians in general, but not in Massachusetts. That's illegal. So, the Boston Archdiocese decided it was more important to discriminate against gay people than to help find homes for needy children.
Not quite, Ryan. They decided that it was more important to follow their religious convictions than the Commonwealth's. They didn't want to stop helping needy children who need loving homes, they simply could not comply with the wishes of their God and their government at the same time. I say good for them for taking an unpopular stand based on their convictions.
The point is, though, individual Catholics and their Church do plenty for the cause of social justice. Not everyone is going to agree with every issue they (or any politician for that matter) take, but that doesn't mean you should wholesale dismiss them. Worse yet, you shouldn't distort the truth to fit your own ends. When the Church runs the largest hospital system in the state, you can't say they don't care about health care for the needy. Disagree with them all you want on gay marriage, that doesn't change the fact that they do a lot of good as well, both politically and in venues that don't make the 11:00 news.
They faced a moral dilemma: what was more important to them - the welfare of children or two guys kissing and they chose the latter.
There's nothing to say "good for them" about it. What they did hurt hundreds and hundreds of kids who NEED homes and now won't get them or won't get homes nearly as good and loving. It was a perfect opportunity to see just where the church's priorities were - whether you like it or not.
The church "may do a lot," but ultimately they care more about gay marriage than the poor - as the example unequivocally proves - thus, my thread's last few sentences are perfectly accurate.
If you have any inner demons to confront on that, that's something you'll have to deal with, but the Church has seriously warped priorities and it's no coincidence people have been leaving that ancient instution en mass - including me.
Anon, "they decided it was more important to follow their religious convictions than the Commonwealth's"? The Commonwealth's "religious conviction" is providing good homes for children who have no families. Period. The Church decided that their political, not theological, commitment to hate was paramount, therefore consigning kids who have nothing in this world to loneliness and abuse in the foster care system. That's awesome, let's give them a medal. Who cares about the kids when their commitment to hate is pure? Good for them indeed, every time an abused child cries in a hellhole of a foster home, they can think how righteous they are.
Definition of charity: 1 : benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need 4 : lenient judgment of others--hmm, nope don't see any part of making help available only by trying to hold the state hostage, bend civil laws to your religious doctrine, and making aid contingent upon others kowtowing to your bigotry in there. "If you let us discriminate between subhumans and humans we'd give, but if we can't, those kids can die for all we care"? Not in there either.
Charity goes to those in need.
And yeah, hating gays and not giving a damn about kids except as they can be used as a political football is an "unpopular stand" in America--what planet do you live on? Oh, it would be an unpopular stance with their God and Jesus, but they don't seem to care about that. Saying screw you to those in need because they're unworthy and putting hatred above doing the right thing isn't exactly an unpopular or unusual or brave stand either, 19th century Social Darwinism never goes out of style.
"When the Church runs the largest hospital system in the state, you can't say they don't care about health care for the needy."
That would be the hospital that refuses to sell health insurance to the spouses of their married gay employees. And please note that many such employees have children. So this grand 'charity' is putting children in peril all for the overriding need to discriminate against gays. Nice.
That should be illegal. If people are married, don't you *have* to provide health insurance to their spouse - at least if you offer a package? Otherwise, it's discrimination.
Ryan, the answer is yes and no. any business that is self-insured, like the catholic hospital, is regulated by federal law. as we know, federal law does not protect agains discrimination based on sexual orientation, and doe snot recognize the existence of married gay spouses. however, businesses not self insured are regulated by state-level law. since MA includes sexual orientation in it's non-discrimination law, these businesses must offer benefits to all employees equally. so, it is perfectly legal, if immoral, for a self-insured company like Krist's Katholic Kingdom to openly discriminate against their gay employees. some self-insured companies actually choose NOT to so discriminate. they are the true moral leaders in our community.
*my* credibility, 'Anonymous'? Hard to be credible when you won't even put your name behind your words.
Does the Catholic church use the direct lynching methods of the KKK? Not to my knowledge. However, the Pope repeatedly spews vile hatred towards gay people and teaches his followers to consider us as sick individuals. He insists that people have unprotected sex, which is tantamount to murder in countries rife with HIV. He instructs his priests to pass out petitions during mass while they lay on a thick homily about obedience. The petition? Not to demand from the legislature better health care for all, not to demand that all citizens are treated equally under the law, but to demand that gays be stripped of their civil rights so that heterosexuals can keep their special civil marriage rights. How pleasant. How loving. I could go on. and on. and on.
I think *you* owe everyone who reads this blog an apology for not owning up to the rather sad defects in the church.
You might also ask yourself why you feel attacked by my comments. They were aimed at the church, not at individual catholics, who i know can have very different views and actions than does the church. Do you?
Finally, you never addressed my point, that the church chooses to discriminate against it's gay employees by not allowing them to cover their legal spouses with health insurance. If you can find a way to explain that as a loving and compassionate thing, I'm all ears.
Post a Comment