http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html#disqus_thread

Should Christians have their natural children taken away as well to prevent the youngsters being "infected" with the religion?

Bit harsh truth now, I bat for the other side but if we are to do it it would be outright war.
Christians, and the bring her down Hewy brigade usually do a good job bringing up kids.
So no not for me, now if we can ban all reildgions teaching all kids, it would be worth the wars in 50 years.

Of course Christians make good parents as do Muslims, diabetics, paraplegics, smokers, receptionists, nudists, polygamists, plumbers, rock stars, xenophobes, ad infinitum.

Fostering a child is different to giving birth or adopting is all. You want a Christian couple to teach a kid being homosexual is wrong then the child gets sent to live with a gay couple next or their biological parent is gay?

If it is about the child as the priority and not the family as a whole (or just about the parents passing on their beliefs) then all the rules change. It is also good to remember that foster children usually have biological parents in their lives with access and certain rights.

You have to feel for the poms.

Now the poor UK has radical ratbag judges, appointed by "new Labor", full of all the self destructive cr4p we are starting to see here.

It is a strange world in dead, when everything that was immoral is now moral, & the citizens of a country have to defer to immigrants who were not invited.

Our grand kids are going to suffer because we let the ratbags take over our world.

I think you are over-reacting Truthnow78.
The courts were not suggesting Christians as such should not be foster parents at all, as you well know.

The court rightly refused to allow an obviously homophobic couple to foster children. I daresay it wouldn't have mattered if the potential foster parents were Muslim, Buddhist or atheist. If they show hatred in their home towards a whole group of other human beings, then it is not in the interests of the children to be placed in such a home.

Homosexuality is not a criminal offence in modern countries, and is not a learned behaviour. People are born gay and have no say in their sexuality. Therefore it is not right to teach hatred of gay people to impressionable children.

Obviously, the state has no control over what the parents belonging to some religions (or of no religions!) teach their own children, but they can certainly save the foster kids from a childhood of listening to homophobic adults rant and rave about other human beings.

We should no sooner want white supremacists fostering or adopting children if we know there is every chance the minds of children could be poisoned by a belief system that is divisive and hateful.

Imagine if the child was/turned out to be gay? How would the mental and emotional torment be any different to that of a black child who had been handed over to white supremacists? Sure, a gay youth would be able to at least hide their sexuality (to a certain extent anyway), but I’m not sure suffering in silence would be any better.

When I read the stories of people like the couple who lost the case, I wonder how we can possibly fix a world where so many have been so convinced in their Christian belief that they’re doing the right thing, out of compassion and love, when it is absolute poison; when it is absolutely destructive.

Christianity is a divisive and hateful religion.

Hasbeen where did the “defer to immigrants who were not invited” line come from?

I’m feeling more with Suze thoughts on this one while AJ that was almost as scary as what I think Hasbeen is saying.

And I reckon I can predict religion taking over the thread now rather than a subject about what might be better for a child in Out of Home Care.

Should the parents in question be parents at all? Yep I guess so, just not foster parents. Why? Because the child (in this situation) has to matter more and there will be other options out there with 45,000 foster families in the UK.

But having read more, it didn’t appear the couple were going to tell any child being gay is a bad thing and they were only stating their beliefs…. Stupid stupid stupid thing to do when dealing with govt.

Suzie spits out the usual dogma.
' People are born gay and have no say in their sexuality.'' People are born paedophiles and have no say in their sexuality'.
With this sort of warped thinking its no wonder the courts come up with such putried decisions.

"Should Christians have their natural children taken away as well to prevent the youngsters being "infected" with the religion?"

I can't believe my ears:

Should people whose name starts with a 'T' be enslaved?
Should those born on an odd day of the month be castrated?

Well, I suppose that as long as your name starts with an 'F', you were born on the 14th and you have the police/army-guns on your side, then this should not make your heart miss a beat.

Runner I do believe heterosexuals can also be pedophiles.

Looking back over history the majority of organizations and people that have hurt children placed in their care have been Christians. The first child in Australia to come into care because of abuse in the home came from the home of a Minister.

Unless a religious foster family is going to perform acts that are outside the law (cults like 'The Family' as regards child sexual abuse etc) why shouldn't Christians be foster parents?

Tolerance should however be a pre-requisite, if a child did turn out to be gay you want a supportive family structure not condemnation and abuse. But Atheists, Muslims and other 'groups' can be equally discriminatory towards homosexuality.

I agree with AJ that religion can instil hate, violence and division but that is not MOST religious people. Hate, violence and division can come about from political ideology, greed, Colonialism, economic disparity and poverty.

This is a stir-up and Al has posted a similar thread not so long ago.

But why does a foster child have more rights than a child with natural parents? If Christianity is harming children why does the State allow it in any form?

I think 90% or more Christians believe that homosexuality is innappropriate, doesn't this mean that basically all Christians are not allowed to be foster parents in the UK? My own parents, grandparents and most of my relatives are/were mainstream Christians, isn't this ruling saying that my whole family (unless they ditch the religion, which they won't do) should not have children? That they're not 'progressive' enough to have a place on planet Earth and should be irradicated from here?

If there's some other way to understand this ruling, I'm all ears...

Jewely, I'll tell you where it came from.

A friend of mine is a pom. Because of this his 27 year old daughter has a British passport, & is treated in the UK as a native, even though [I think] she was born here. She has been working in the UK for a year or so.

She recently saw a position, for which she is highly qualified, & experienced, advertised by the local county council. As she was not sure if her Oz qualifications would be accepted by the council, she went to see them.

She was told that she would be ideal for the position, but it would be a waste of her time applying. It appears that their ethnic balance was out, & no UK ethnics were being hired.

Yes that's right, ethnic balance. They have some law that requires the ethnic balance of the county employees to reflect the ethnic balance of the county population in general. To address this balance they were only hiring Pakistani, or West Indians at that time.

She did not think to ask, for how many generations someone born in England would still be a considered West Indian, she was too amazed to think much.

She was advised, quietly, to watch the paper. If after 3 advertisements on one from the desired ethnicity had applied with suitable qualifications, they would then be free to hire her.

She did not bother, as she preferred to be where people are still sane, definately not the case at that county council.

'Runner I do believe heterosexuals can also be pedophiles.

Oh I see Jewely so they were born that way to according to the dogma being used to justify this disgusting decision.

Your selective interpretation of history at least acknowledges that Christians were at the forefront of education, hospitals and care of the less fortunate. Your assumption that large numbers were involved in child abuse is deceitful and typical of dogma used to justify a foul decision. We see now under secularism the pereverts having a field day like never before.

Truthnow:”But why does a foster child have more rights than a child with natural parents? If Christianity is harming children why does the State allow it in any form?”

Trust me, foster children have zero rights in reality. The life of a foster child is complicated with many many different adults in their lives over time and several sets of parents. To reduce further harm to a child the people caring for them have to tread a fine line as far as what their beliefs are and which ones they purposely pass on to a child in their care for what could be a short time. It’s about balance because of the children’s circumstances in care.

Hey Pelican, I know awesome Christian foster parents and awesome gay ones as well. I don’t care who fosters children, it is how they foster and what they pass on that matters. I’m trying to think of an example – like nudists can foster but not practice being nudists while a foster child is in their home.

Wow Hasbeen, that is insane. I didn’t know they did that over there… anything similar here?

Runner nothing justifies active pedophiles far as I am concerned.

As for “them” building schools and hospitals etc I’m sure they got more than adequately reimbursed. Seems that is what it is all about - call yourself a not-for-profit then charge govt like a wounded bull. They are involved in child abuse, have been a very long time and continue to be today with systems in place that promote endangering children while they financially benefit.

And Runner those Christian not-for-profits recruit homosexual foster parents as well. Certain things always get overlooked when there’s money to be made. Non Church affiliated orgs are in on it too of course.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/foster-carer-linked-to-sex-abuse-slipped-past-the-barriers-20101212-18u1w.htm

I have no idea why the State allows any of it Truthnow, maybe because not enough people care enough to demand it stops?

suzeonline,
Please site studies that prove some male children have a homosexual gene at birth. That that they are predisposed to desiring anul sex over normal sex from the time of birth. Which is the abnormal act of homosexual relationships.

The Biblical view of Homosexuality is an act of anul sex performed by two males. This happens across the gender spectrum as hetrosexual males also indulge in anul sex. Both are the abomination condemned in a healthy religious society.

Because a boy displays effeminite characteristics from birth does not mean he has a preference to indulge in anul sex. The problem is that a secular society identifies that child as homosexual, and steers the child toward that relationship. Many men in Religious positions do show a rather effeminite side of their character, especially those who take vows of Celebacy, it would be better they marry.

Jewely, I sure hope it doesn't occur here.

She could not tell us if it is a local law, with only that council, or is national. It could be local, as come areas now have majority ethnic populations.

One thing she did find interesting was some of the different ethnic behaviour. She said she found in many areas some ethnic populations were more "English" than the locals. She found many of Indian, & West Indian extraction lived a 1940/50s conservative, respectable life style, now rarely seen among the natives.

She found the further north the better she liked the UK, with northern Scotland the best in her view, but then she is from a conservative "bushy" background.

It couldn't have been too bad, she has gone back now, & her mother fears it may be for keeps.

Philo, the issue for me is not the causes of homosexuality - gays are cool people. Rather it is the fact that the State is saying that Christians should no longer have children because their beliefs are out-dated and harm children. Would anyone be surprised if we start to hear suggestions that Christians should avoid having children if they plan to stay Christian?

There's a fair amount of discussion on the topic, Philo, if you care to look.

>>Please site studies that prove some male children have a homosexual gene at birth<<

"Proof" is not a concept that sits easily with the nature of the condition, but there have been many studies that provide evidence.

This is one of the more familiar...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.short

But if I dare to make a suggestion, for religionists the concept of "proof" doesn't actually stretch very far either.

Pericles,
According to this view then it should be understood that Priests and Judges who desire sex with young males may well have sexual orientation markers in their genes that predispose them to their behaviour. They have a genetic reason for their action. So are they performing a criminal act?

Jewely,

I found your take on my comment odd considering my comments align with suzeonline's comments so much more than they do with Hasbeen's Victorian sense of morality.

So what about my post was so "scary" anyway?

Was it my comparison of white supremacists with Christians who show hatred towards homosexuals?

Are there differences? Of course.

For one, white supremacists are more open and honest about their disdain for those they don't like, while Christians prefer to package it with a red ribbon and dress it as a mere "concern" with cleverly disguised hate groups such as James Dobson’s ‘Focus on the Family’. In this sense Christianity is more insidious.

Or was it the fact that I displayed a sense of despair about the whole situation and dared to ponder how we could fix a world where some hold such divisive beliefs that they actually think are inclusive?

Perhaps it was the last sentence of my post where I re-iterated the point that I alluded to in my first paragraph about Christianity being decisive and hateful (despite the fact that even the religion’s doctrine is inherently so and even the moderate Christians help demonstrate this)?

What about my comments was so "scary"?

I'd like to know, but if you're only going to say that you know many nice Christians then don't bother. So do I and it's beside the point.

Pelican,

My point about divisiveness, etc goes for virtually all Christians of all stripes and colours. It’s only to what degree that differs.

Most people are aware that most religious people are nice moderate people, but that’s beside my point. The Christian religion is hateful and divisive right through to its very core and its doctrine supports this; which is exactly why we don’t see too many moderates actively and publically speaking out against people like the Phelps family; they know that for every Bible verse that contradicts what the Phelps family does, there’s a verse that supports it.

I remember cutting ties with a friend that I perceived as someone who was rejecting god, although I got my comeuppance when I left the church and lost a lot friends. But it wasn’t me who ended those relationships, it was Christians who ended those relationships.

Now, these weren’t radical fundamentalists - I came from a very middle-of-the-road church - these were very pleasant, ordinary people who - like many Christians on OLO - you wouldn’t have thought butter would melt in their mouths.

To help illustrate what I’m getting here, people often tell me that I shouldn’t rub the moderates the wrong way because it is they who could possibly talk some sense into the fundies. But while this may, strategically, sound like a good idea, it’s actually a lot harder than you’d think because there’s still that divide where they think where they think they have hold of the truth and you don’t.

Most of my family are Christians and I have an obviously-gay brother-in-law. So you could only imagine the discomfort I felt at my own wedding. All my relatives are moderate Christians who would never have said anything, but they didn’t have to.

Even the most moderate Christians (with extremely rare exceptions) have deeply negative feelings in this respect. The only thing that changes, is how willing and able they are to hide it.

We should never feel the need to apologise for religious belief - moderate or not.

I, for one, am tired of doing so.

I just checked with my wife how many children we had fostered over the years and she reminded me it was 153 and she had kept photos of each one. How many of those children turned to homosexuality we will never know, most are in relationships with family and many still keep in touch.

I can say homosexuality was not discussed.

This scared me AJ:

“We should no sooner want white supremacists fostering or adopting children if we know there is every chance the minds of children could be poisoned by a belief system that is divisive and hateful.

Like the much touted possibility of Parental Alienation it takes more than adults assume to saturate a child in poisoned concepts about others to the point they believe them without question.

Upshot for me is… the parents chosen to foster children have to be people who do not have some burning need to make children believe as they do which is a separate issue to the organizations profiting from child abuse at present since some appear to have no affiliation with any church but do lobby alongside them.

What scared me is I got the idea that you believed anyone who believes in god hates gays the same as white supremacists do. Like Runner throwing a paragraph together with pedophiles mentioned alongside homosexuals. I suppose the way you came across to me as if your belief that someone is hateful because you seem to hate them is scary.

Truthnow kinda started with a confusing question about if they can’t foster children then should we let them be parents at all. Yes I think we can and have to and we have to stop confusing foster children and their complicated lives with that of adoptive and biological children.

Christians get the laws changed to suite themselves, no idea why they let the side down in the UK but I’m sure they’ll turn it around somehow.

Nice one Philo, wait until a small foster child looks up into your eyes and says "my mum is a lesbian". I wonder what many here would reply...

Well... yes, actually, Philo.

>>Pericles, According to this view then it should be understood that Priests and Judges who desire sex with young males may well have sexual orientation markers in their genes that predispose them to their behaviour. They have a genetic reason for their action. So are they performing a criminal act?<<

Priests and Judges who act upon those desires, and have sex with minors, are indeed performing a criminal act. As of course would homosexuals, should they have sex with minors.

The law treats people equally, you see.

Well, mostly.

But we are not talking about homosexuality itself being criminal behaviour, are we?

Or have I missed your point completely?

Hey Hasbeen, funny hearing the English people called natives – I always think of them as invaders. I recently read about the 40 million eastern Europeans who moved to the USA in the 18watevers. Amazing how they coped. I believe they still defer to them as many of them were Jewish. So now it happens to England.

Are we just grumpier now or is it easier for our complaints to be made public and receive more information concerning immigrants?

I also recalled years ago being told after a job interview that it was a shame I wasn’t deaf as I would have gotten an extra point as far as being chosen for a govt job and their requirements at the time. Can’t have been enough deaf women about the place I suppose.

The law reflects the changes in society and now it has upset the Christians in the UK. I’d just like to see laws in place that make it impossible to hide child abuse within the system. Last I read the UK has closed courts that place children in care and a horrible local council set up where the govt gives the councils more money the more children removed from parents. USA is similar with federal adoption bonuses per foster child.

Worldwide I dread to think what money is generated by allegations of abuse, the removal of children from their families and then hiding them unseen and unheard due to privacy laws in the fostering organisations.

Jewely,

I think the biggest problem here is that we’re only reading text and not seeing each other’s faces to interpret what others are feeling as they type.

When I write what I write on OLO, the majority of the time my tone is meant to convey concern, not anger.

Granted though, I knew beforehand that putting Christians in the same sentence as white supremacists could very well raise the need to rationalise it to someone later on. But I had thought my reasoning through beforehand and was confident it was sound, so to compare it to runner’s thoughtless, emotional and hateful shooting-off-of-the-mouth in mentioning homosexuals and pedophiles in the same sentence is rather inaccurate to say the least.

<<I suppose the way you came across to me as if your belief that someone is hateful because you seem to hate them is scary.>>

No, I don’t hate anyone, and it’s a sad world we live in if someone can’t just tell it how it is without appearing like they hate people.

Perhaps, in text, this is something that may not always be possible.

Jewely
No argument from me on who could make good foster parents.

AJ
Trouble is the divisiveness and judgementalism that you speak about in Christians is within all groups. We all make judgements and have values that might differ from others regardless of our religious stance.

In life we are going to meet many varied people with many varied ideas about what is 'good' and what is 'bad', some will not always take a more libertarian view.

Christians are no more likely in my experience to be against homosexuality but that is within a European and Australian context which is culturally more tolerant than say the US. The US, probably because of its religious pilgrim roots, has its fair share of wacky and corrupt sects.

We really are getting Big Brother if Christians are no longer considered to be suitable as foster parents especially as many Christian families have dealt positively with their natural children as regards homosexuality. The problem is with the extremists, even some on OLO, who deceitfully link homosexuality with pedophilia.

Pelican writes
'The problem is with the extremists, even some on OLO, who deceitfully link homosexuality with pedophilia.

No the problem is when people are in flat denial that if you claim homosexuals are predisposed that way the same goes for pedophiles. This simple fact destroys all logic for those wanting to blame their behaviour on 'being born that way.' It is also undeniable that most Catholic Priests who fiddkled with kids were homosexuals. The denial by those who can't defend their dogma can't change the facts.

Call me an extremist, terrorist or whatever you want but it does not change the fact that homosexuality is unnatural. To teach children otherwise is to teach them a lie.

pelican,
The only difference is the age of one involved, now UK courts are happy to place infant children into an environment where homosexuality is practised. The problem is the link of homosexuality with pedophilia.

One day we’ll have to have a discussion about hate and is it an acceptable emotion yeah? I’m all for it usually and feel it should often be embraced.

AJ:”No, I don’t hate anyone, and it’s a sad world we live in if someone can’t just tell it how it is without appearing like they hate people.”

Maybe so AJ but many would probably be okay with the fact that someone was reading what they wrote and it sunk in enough to comment on. :P

Philo:” The only difference is the age of one involved, now UK courts are happy to place infant children into an environment where homosexuality is practised. The problem is the link of homosexuality with pedophilia.”

Jesus H Christ Philo. Shut up shut up shut up.

Runner:” Call me an extremist, terrorist or whatever you want but it does not change the fact that homosexuality is unnatural. To teach children otherwise is to teach them a lie.”

It aint unnatural you extreme terrorist. Some might not be interested in it and even find it disgusting and I see nothing wrong with people feeling whichever way they please. I nearly vomit when I see people letting dogs lick their face, my problem and I wouldn’t make it theirs and I wouldn’t go labeling it unnatural just because I have an issue with it. How consenting adults spend intimate moments isn’t something I dwell on. Well okay sometimes I do but I try not to.

See why fostering isn’t easy Runner? You can’t dish those opinions you have up with dinner same as you can’t say to someone else’s child that dogs licking your face is disgusting – what if their dad lets their dog do it and it is a good memory they have from being at home?

What if they have two dads who they see twice a month on access visits that they love to bits or an older brother who is gay? Not causing further harm comes first and last. Opinions are for OLO not our displaced Aussie babies.

Christianity is a divisive and hateful religion.
AJ Phillips,
Religion is divisive & hateful, that is religion's sole purpose. To single out Christianity is as stupid as religion itself.

Last month I attended a funeral of a fine 42 year young man. He was gay. His parents, very close friends of ours, were devout Christians and loved that boy deeply. You should have witnessed to devotion they had for their son as they spent the last six months attending to his every need having to leave home and find accomodation 300 kilometers away so they could be with their son. You should have witnessed the tears they shed for their son. No parents wants to die before their child.

His parents will have outlived his life more than twice his age because they engaged in a natural hetrosexual relationship. Their son died of AIDS because he chose an unnatural sexual lifestyle. Please tell the gynacological profession that bacteria and viruses from the bowel in the urethra does no harm.

Morning Philo, I suspect the question of having unsafe sex is a separate one that concerns both hetro’s and homo’s alike.

Sorry to hear about the grieving parents and I have a lot of sympathy for them, similar to the sympathy I have for any biological parent who have lost their children to the foster care industry.

Are they all hateful Individual? Or do humans just have this knack of making everything hateful? Which team they pick in life seems to set up a natural dislike for the other side.

The children born into or placed with families that have been force fed certain beliefs suffer a lot as several sets of foster parents try and twist children to their way of thinking. Attending one interview with a 6 year old girl and her lawyer the lawyer asked if she liked living in my house. The little angel replied “yes there aren’t so many ni99ers around here”.

Another small boy for the first few days of arriving referred to me as “the white b1tch”. Quite a few have had a god thing going on in a variety of disturbing ways where this all powerful being is more frightening in their wee minds than any monster that may be lurking under the bed.

Mostly these kids are taught within the system that they do not matter, have no control and will not be heard. I imagine several thousand walk out of care each year as 18 year olds hating just about everything and everyone in their path. I’ve only seen American stats where the prisons there are full of ex foster children.

Thirty something thousand in care now in Aussie (16k of them in NSW) and the number is growing. Who raises them is important to all of us.

Jewely,
Thank you for your sympathies for our friends. There were about 40 of his gay friends at the funeral who shared a hug with his parents. There was no hatred or ill will expressed.

Of the many children we have fostered over the years, many came from drug addicts, parents in prison; single mum's not able to cope etc. These children never had a loving environment to start with; if they did they would not have been in a foster situation. To suggest that the foster parents had a deleterious effect on these children might be unfair

I can't believe the absolute bulk of ridiculous and retarded heads in this thread.

I'm a Christian and have gay friends. I would love my child just the same if they turned out to be gay. It's not my place to judge them, as they don't judge me. Some of the people in here making comments are just as disgusting as any parent turning on their child for who they are.

I was a drug addict and alcoholic and my parents came FOR me and didn't judge me. They just helped. They are VERY Christian. They learnt some things from that. So did I. And before someone says it. I've been a Christian all my life. Drugs and alcohol was me losing my way in life, not just spirituality.

I don't know why I feel the need to defend myself against you 'people'. You try to sell yourselves off as all enlightened, but you come across worse than the people you dislike. You should be ashamed at your ignorance and arrogance.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Philo, I think you need to read up on the HIV Aids virus. Both homosexual and heterosexual people have and do contract HIV from various sources other than sexual contact- including blood transfusions (in the past), dirty needles and other bodily fluids having contact with the bloodstream (eg after needlestick injuries or blood splatters in surgery, in the health profession).

Would you condemn all these unfortunate people as 'unnatural' as well?

No one is saying Christian parents should not be foster parents. You yourself said you didn't mention homosexuality to all the children you fostered didn't you?

I would suggest that all prospective foster parents are quizzed for their views on many subjects, and if they hold extreme views on any subject that might affect the child negatively, then fostering is not for them.

Pelican,

Thanks for your response.

I agree with everything you've said albeit with the the occasional qualifier to some of the sentiments.

But I am pressed for time at the moment and will have to get back to you a little later. Although I’m starting to think that any adequate response to your post would probably more constitute an entirely new thread.

Individual,

That’s not quite religion’s only purpose. Religion is also used to ease the fears and anxieties of the unknowns.

Anyway, I mentioned Christianity specifically because it is Christianity that is mentioned in the article linked to in the OP and because it is the religion that I have the most knowledge of and the most experience with.

I have never been a Muslim, Hindu or Jew.

To think that my singling out of Christianity necessarily means that I think Christianity is deserving of a special berating that the other religions aren’t, is as stupid as religion itself.

I mention what I think of Islam and why I focus on Christianity at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729#90588 if you really must know.

StG,

Thanks for the emotional outburst.

Now if you could back it some reasoning, rather than unfounded assumptions about me and insults containing out-of-place capitals that demonstrate nothing more than an out-of-control and irrational fit of rage, then that would be much appreciated.

Rage? Please, I wouldn't waste the blood pressure on someone like yourself.

He says with veins bulging from his forehead.

Thank you for demonstrating my point, St George.

“These children never had a loving environment to start with; if they did they would not have been in a foster situation. “

Aw no… no no no Philo you can’t believe that. It is just horrible to make the assumption that each child in care should be in care, govt makes no mistakes, they are better off in care etc. I know it makes foster parents feel better to believe all this but it just is not true.

“To suggest that the foster parents had a deleterious effect on these children might be unfair.”

I’d like to not only suggest it but scream it from the rooftops Philo. Many many do have terribly harmful effects on foster children, the way the system is set up endangers children and makes ignoring the abuse of foster children beneficial to those that should be reporting it and taking action to cause no further harm.

It’s 50/50 in my experience where half the children have been abused or neglected in some way by a biological parent while the other half were abused in the homes of foster parents.

You are so right Jewely.
Not all foster parents are paragons of virtue, regardless of their thoughts on God and religion.

The courts did the right thing refusing these bigoted people the right to foster children.

I hope they keep up the good work and continue trying to protect vulnerable children against any extremist's hate-fueled views on any important subject.

Says the arrogant and ignorant.

Just what DO you say StG?
Anything pleasant and constructive?
No?

In answer to your excellent thread raised Truthnow, I believe the question should be: Do you think children and their Foster Parents should be followed up on a more regular basis and continually until the child has turned of age.

I knew quite a few foster children growing up, some of whom, the day they turned 16yrs, flew out of their foster home, never looking back or returning. Religion or Christianity were not the reasons for leaving.

People who believe in God or Jesus Christ or a Spirit OR are you referring to people who follow religions Truthnow, termed the 'religious'?

Regardless of the above, how on earth is one able to pose a question that is based on generalisations of Australians who do believe in Jesus Christ and proclaim themselves to be Christians?

It is comparable to posing the following questions: Do you think Non-believers should be fostering children? Do you think Athiests should be fostering children? Do you think people who practice Buddhism should foster children? Do you think people who work full time climbing career ladders earning $400,000K between them, while placing their babies of 6 weeks old into full time day care all the way through their childhoods, should be parents? Do you think parents who stay at home with their children during their primary years, all the way through, and do not have a career, should be parents? The list goes on.

Suze”:You are so right Jewely. “

Just let me bask for a second. :)

Suze:“Not all foster parents are paragons of virtue, regardless of their thoughts on God and religion”

Hell no, they’re trudging along the path of good intentions often enjoying an insular but money making/drama enhancing/sympathy invoking environment.

Stg.. I totally missed your deleted response, which was probably important and honest but disallowed. If you feel like it please clarify the whole ignorant comment (carefully).

Bloody hell weareunique, how basic are these questions:

“Do you think Non-believers should be fostering children?”

Yep.

“ Do you think Athiests should be fostering children? “

Yep.

“Do you think people who practice Buddhism should foster children? “

Yep.

“Do you think people who work full time climbing career ladders earning $400,000K between them, while placing their babies of 6 weeks old into full time day care all the way through their childhoods, should be parents? “

Nup. A-holes but CS NSW would love them.

“Do you think parents who stay at home with their children during their primary years, all the way through, and do not have a career, should be parents?“

Yep.

“The list goes on.”

No it really doesn’t. Parenting another person’s child really isn’t that difficult to do well unless you are a moron. Problem is there is a hell of a lot of morons out there. AND AGAIN – it isn’t what you believe; it is what beliefs you will attempt to make foster children believe that is wrong.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/nsw-election-2011/coalition-plan-for-kids-in-care-to-return-to-their-families/story-fn7q4q9f-1226014979888

Gemma Jones From:The Daily Telegraph March 03, 2011 12:00AM
“Under the plan, most of the more than 16,000 NSW children in foster care would be looked after by charities and the private sector.”

Way to make me dry vomit NSW.

I wasn't talking to you, Suze. And constructive? Like this thread? Yeah, fantastic, they should teach it in schools.

Jewely,
The reason: “Under the plan, most of the more than 16,000 NSW children in foster care would be looked after by charities and the private sector.”

They are better organised to deal with fostering children than DOCS.

Philo:”They are better organised to deal with fostering children than DOCS.”

No they are not, but they are better organized to take money from DoCS without the burden of working under any threat of a child returning to demand compensation for years of abuse later since DoCS is the lead agency. It’s all really all very nicely packaged for them with the all cash no risk franchises.

They are not Charities; they are massive million dollar orgs that profit from pain.

Govt fault lies in the fact that they allowed the not-for-profits anywhere near children who should only have ever been placed and monitored in supervised govt recruited households. Children are spread between multiple companies, sibling groups divided amongst them.

If a child is abused in one of their homes they are not likely to nark on themselves since when a child is removed due to their failure it means a drop in their income.

Now Pru supports them doing more early intervention work so that they own both ends of the business, now they can find their own clients, suggest removals, place them and benefit without responsibility or repercussion for not protecting them.

Even the most moderate Christians (with extremely rare exceptions) have deeply negative feelings in this respect. The only thing that changes, is how willing and able they are to hide it.

AJ, you obviously do not know many Christian people who are gay. I know many through relatives of mine who are gay, and quite a few come from a 'Christian background'. Many christian adults swing both ways and/or are gay.

Those Christian people you mentioned were in all probability people in their 60's and 70's who are catholics, anglicans, presbyterians and so forth attending Church on Sundays, some of them may never have said a genuine prayer in their lives and only attended Church as a social item on their agendas out of loneliness or boredom, along with massaging their egos to point score among their cronies.

Love thy neighbour, and I've loved all my neighbours with the exception of one, who was a catholic regular church goer in her late 60's, and to the outside world, a 'do gooder' holding high society get togethers at her place while abusing and victimising all of her neighbours over past years hardly knowing them. I know the feelings of hypocrisy well.

It is intriguing to me, why you felt uncomfortable for your brother-in-law though, as a result of your family's emotions towards people who are gay. You are an intelligent 'individual/separate identity' AJ, regardless of your family, a free thinking spirited person who in my opinion, should never take responsibility for your adult siblings, parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents' viewpoints.

Ditto with any spouse.

[Deleted for abuse.]