Similar situation in our extended family too Suze. In one case it was a girl who was always into dressing as a boy and preferred the company of boys, played boys games but also had female friends. She is a wonderful person who has a great sense of humour to get her through although thankfully in her generation homophobia is rare and she has not had to deal with any real abuse as far as I am aware.

Wise words Danielle.

Regardless of the labels the bottom line is that a child should be placed with a suitable family whose only agenda is to provide love and care to a child in great need.

I suspect as Al said the report is there to agitate Christians into an overreaction. It would be the same if a child was from a Christian family and someone wanted to place them in a fundamentalist Muslim home and vice versa.

In some ways, I think the influence of a (longer term) foster family is just the same as any other family and children will eventually make up their own minds about religion. It really depends on the nature of the child but foster care should be a 'safe' environment free from any form of force or abuse - and that can be had in any type of family including atheist, Christian or pentacostal (insert any label here).

GORE...........at the end of the day, once the child gets to have a mind of its own...it will quickly figure out that the truth will present its self in the secular world.......where non fancies behaves in some-what balanced way............not to say the child wont be normal in the end.....but as to how the world....has come to terms with the popular future. (Secularism)

"I suspect as Al said the report is there to agitate Christians into an overreaction." and of course it is. ( The leaders of religion will not go quietly into the night....they will play any card they can, and maybe even illegal one's)

"It would be the same if a child was from a Christian family and someone wanted to place them in a fundamentalist Muslim home and vice versa."

And again.......religion comes under the spot-light by being out of date once more. Problematic at its easiest understanding.

So it comes down to whom the child sits with ( and not for whats best for the child ),but for what the cults want for there numbers game.

Still exploiting children which ever way you look at it.............SHAME SHAME SHAME.

Pelican....we share the same concerns.

BLUE

The title to this thread is totally misleading.

Rather this is about normal people, including I will say most decent Christians, attempting to mitigate the terrible damage homophobia inflicts on our societies particularly our children.

People charged with fostering out our less fortunate should be deeply concerned about them being exposed to this blight whether from a fundamentalist religious family, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, or from a red neck 'fag hating' environment.

There is the additional benefit that these abhorant views will have less chance of being propagated through fostered children to pollute further generations.

I can only applaud the effort.

Dear Pelly... wise words indeed.

1/ Regardless of the labels the bottom line is that a child should be placed with a suitable family whose only agenda is to provide love and care to a child in great need.

2/ In some ways, I think the influence of a (longer term) foster family is just the same as any other family and children will eventually make up their own minds about religion.

It's only an "issue" because the Derby council made it one by asking a question which I'm sure they knew would evoke the 'appropriate' answer for their rather deliberate purpose, of isolating Christians.

This topic is to highlight the increasing (but gradual-think Fabians) marginalization of all beliefs but secular. In many ways it's a secular 'Theocracy' involving the deificiation of the natural man.

It would be UNTHINKABLE for any council to act in this way in 1960.
It would also be unthinkable that any Christian would ever be exposed to such a blatant attack on their values by a government body.

The shoe would be on the other foot. If a couple wished to foster, I'm sure the council of 1960 would want to know if they had any 'unusual' sexual or social habits which might negatively impact the 'normal'(assumed) child.

"Normality" has been progressivly inverted (and distorted) over time.

This is, of course, what often happens when you try to make a federal case out of an isolated incident.

The meat of the discussion is clear, as Boaz points out here:

>>Regardless of the labels the bottom line is that a child should be placed with a suitable family whose only agenda is to provide love and care to a child in great need.<<

The "family" is not defined in one dimension only. It can be Christian or Muslim, rich or poor, city or country, Labor or Liberal, old or young, athletic or couch-potato, PhDs or leavers-certificate etc. etc.

The council is required to make a judgment on whether this or that family can deliver the requisite love and care that Boaz identifies.

(Actually, that too is something of a generalization - it is an individual within the council who makes the assessment and the recommendation. Sure, they rely on a bunch of rules too, but the final decision is likely to be a personal one. Especially where the decision may be "line-ball".)

So the "clash of 'rights'- Secular vs Christian" is not present here in this case.

A decision was made by a representative of the council that the attitude displayed by the putative adopting family might not be in the best interests of the child.

Not their attitude towards their religion, which is their own responsibility. But the attitude they displayed as it applied to the child, which was the responsibility of the council.

Nothing in the council's action says "Christians need not apply".

Dear Al,

What is considered "normal" is dependent on the society of the day. It is not, and never has been, a static concept .