Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

Should Christians be stopped from fostering because of their faith/belief?

LINK

But would you place a mixed race child with a family who thought that black people were inferior, because that is the equivalent here.

And again, fostering is not the same thing as adoption.

What are the chances tho? they are a minority so why should kids be stuck in care on the off chance they may decide they swing both ways.

They all need loving homes not care homes, everyone has questionable views, me I'm a anarchist, I'd teach kids to be anti-establishment, my mother hates men and would teach kids to be anti-men.

As I said no one is perfect but there is all ready a shortage of foster homes without adding more trouble to the whole thing.

As I said no one is perfect but there is all ready a shortage of foster homes without adding more trouble to the whole thing.

Its the would-be foster parents who are adding to the trouble. When asked the hypothetical question, they gave more importance to their beliefs than to being able to fully accept what a child might be.

I agree with Ryoko, I don't believe in school, I home ed my two, they are not subject to the influences of school.

Would I make a good foster carer, I'd like to think that I could but I dare say I wouldn't be accepted.

In order to protect the interests of all individuals it seems acceptable to discriminate against others.

Surely very young children or children from christian backgrounds would have flourished in their care, rather than languishing in a care home.

Would you rather they lie on the application?

the key word here is might, kids stuck in care homes because of what might happen, I don't know about any of you but I knew which way I swung from a very early age, just make sure you give them a straight kid.

So he can grow up to be a gay hater Great.

If you are going to be like that about it winnybella, then we had better introduce screening for all parents and take their children away should they fail the strict rules of how you are meant to think.

Can't have anyone growing up hating immigrants, gays, foreigners, Muslims, Christians, Jews, the opposite sex, the unemployed the rich etc etc.

just shove all the kids in care homes until they are 16 and then chuck em out expecting them to be fully functioning members of society with no questionable views.

I suppose it is a too obviouse a point to say that school takes care of this.

In school children are taught the mantra of equality and taught "citizenship"

It does children no harm to hear every possible oppinion.

obviouse=obvious,

Hate the sin but not the sinner

See, you keep saying that. So, is being gay a sin & being homosexual, does that make you a sinner?

As a Christian, I don't think that the messages in the bible are really relevant now a days.

The bible is a very old book & some of what it says is outdated & just doesn't fit in with our lives in many ways imo.

I don't think my God would look upon my niece as a sinner. And if he does, maybe he shouldn't be my God any more. Because I believe my God is all about acceptance. Tolerance.

And of course people hide behind religion! After all, terrorists believe they are killing for their God.

I don't agree with the views of Mr and Mrs Johns. As I don't know them I am not in a position to say whether a child in care has just been spared being raised by awful bigots, or has just missed out on being placed with a loving foster family.

My concern on this case is that it has opened foster families to the full glare of Equal Opportunities legislation if a social worker has the slightest suspicions.

If you agree with the outcome of this case then you are also agreeing that an atheist applying to be a foster parent then they can be refused on equal opportunities grounds relating to religion. What would happen if the child in their care started believing in God and wanted to go to church? What if they had a friend who was religious? What if their biological parents were religious? What if they were bullied at school for believing in God? Could they be genuinely supportive in such an instance, or would the foster parents atheism lead to a prejudiced environment for the child?

Having looked at the facts of the case in the court report (www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html), these were the sort of questions that were asked of the couple, but regarding homosexuality. The potential foster-mother said in some instances that she would try and support them, and said it wouldn't matter if the parents were gay as she would work with anyone. While you can doubt the sincerity of her responses, it shows that you can be doubted even if you say the right things.

This case has opened the door for conservative religious groups to complain about children being placed with atheists because it would leave the child open to anti-religious prejudice, and therefore breach their human rights under equal opportunities legislation. And the prospective athiest foster parent would have to do more than just say that their personal views would not affect the child, they would have to say it with sufficient sincerity to persuade the whims of the state. And if they were being assessed by a strongly religious social worker, would the social worker be able to make an impartial judgement?

Whatever your views on gay people, and I for one do not subscribe to the views of Mr and Mrs Johns, this case has opened up a whole can of worms. The state now has the role of the thought police, judging you on not having the right religious, political or social views - and condemning you for any suspicions it has as to how those views are worked out, no matter what you say to the contrary.

A sad day for liberal tolerance - we should not be celebrating.

No one is being descriminated against. Fostering is a job, not a right. They are unsuitable for this job - looking after someone else's children - because they made it clear that their beliefs about homosexuality are more important to them than fulfilling the requirements of the job.

If you read the thread, you will see that children of the relevant age group are not languishing in care homes. It just doesn't happen anymore. Residential care is a last resort and is pretty much only used for older children.

It is ridiculous to suggest that you only place straight children with this couple. What are you going to do, hand a distressed 6 year old a questionnaire?

[bangs head against wall]

There's a massive difference between holding a set of beliefs and your innate sexuality though!

Beliefs can be debated and you may even change your mind on the basis of those debates, as well as education and exposure to people who have other beliefs.

But you can't change your sexuality. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Therefore a gay child growing up in that kind of environment will always be made to feel that they are wrong. There's nothing liberal about that.

Basmati, the issue is not what they believe, it is that they were unwilling to put those beliefs aside in the interests of a child. There are many foster carers of all religions, and that is absolutely fine. Fostering is, however a job. I don't take my beliefs to work, and nor should a foster carer.

If an atheist were to be fostering a child who was raised as a church-goer, the foster carer would be required to maintain that child's link with their church, irrespective of the foster carer's feelings on the matter. If they refused to do so, they would not be suitable for the job, as they would not be prioritising the needs of a vulnerable child.

It is not the beliefs that are the problem here, but rather the insistence that should the issue arise, they would act in accordance with their church, not the child's needs.

I asked it before, but how would you feel if your children were cared for in an emergency, and were returned to you having been told that your home life was sinful, or that there was something wrong with them?

It is not the "thought police" to ensure that people entrusted with the care of vulnerable children are willing to put the needs of the child first.

Agree Basmati; This ruling is not a victory. It will put off lots of potential foster parents - (including homosexuals who may struggle with a few beliefs of their own.) If I were a child needing the help of social services, I'd far rather be placed with Mr & Mrs Johns - who seem like a lovely caring couple - than thrown in a childrens home and left to rot.

Should a homosexual foster parent tell a Catholc child about the popes teachings ? - and the pope must be right as he's head of the catholic church?

[bangs head against brick wall]

If I took a job at the CAB, and a Muslim family came in to the office in distress, saying that they were suffering discrimination as a result of their religion, should I be allowed to tell them that as an atheist, I believe that their problems stem from their false beliefs, and that the only help I will provide is in learning why religion is false? Or would that be a sackable offence?

I agree with Basmati. I'm going to quote myself now. It gives permission to social workers to discriminate against any view held which does not accord with their own, simply on the grounds that such a view is held.

Any view could be held to be negative to welfare. Would you let a 10-year-old walk to school? Yes wrong, neglectful. No wrong, overprotective. Would you talk to a 12-year-old about condoms. Yes wrong, encouraging sex. No wrong, repressive. Social workers can at whim decide that any view which doesn't accord with theirs is undesirable.

This is very dangerous I think. Not conducive to the overall welfare of looked after children at all.

Oh forget it, clearly people would rather believe in a fairytale of poor oppressed christians than engage with actual facts.

Oh dear Lord.

It will only put off those who hold their views that conflict with legislation aver and above their jobs. Their choice.

I don't know why I'm still trying to engage with people who keep spouting nonsense like "They all need loving homes not care homes". Loving homes are totally beside the point. All looked after children are placed in care homes of some kind; foster placements, informal care agreements, residential homes etc. are all care homes. However, this Dickensian notion of small children "thrown in a childrens home and left to rot" is nonsense, and entirely clouding your views.

The fact remains that this couple refused to do their job properly. There are manners in which they must agree to behave and agree to approach things, and they refused. No job. It really is very simple.

I totally disagree with the decision to stop this couple fostering.

I am a Christian but I am not homophobic.

My son who is 18 has gay friends at College and I treat all my son's friends the same. However, if my son asked me if I disagree with a gay lifestyle, as a Chrisitan I would tell him that I do.But I also
tell him I don't agree with other friends who sleep around, take drugs and drink far too much. I hope I am bringing up my children to have balanced views.

Why should the Sexual Orientation Act have precedence over religious belief? This is not tolerance at all. All this couple wanted was a level playing field and they don't have this.

I work with teenagers, many are troubled and above everything they want love and people to listen. This couple I am sure would have provided this.

This is a frightening road we are going along and leading to intolerence not tolerence.

Have you read any of the thread poppy?

They work in the public sector with vulnerable children, and must treat those children in the manner they have been trained. They have chosen that their prejudices are more important than doing that. They have therefore denied themselves their employment. This is nothing to do with their religion, and all about their inability to put the needs of the children over their own feelings.

"I am not homophobic."

"if my son asked me if I disagree with a gay lifestyle, as a Chrisitan I would tell him that I do"

So you are homophobic then. OR are you just confused?

Poppy, you can say whatever you like to your own children. That is your right as a parent. Would you say the same to the teenagers you work with? Or would you feel that when it is someone elses child, you should keep your views to yourself?

Yes, children want people to listen. Telling a child that they or their family are sinful is not listening.

poppy, so you are another poster that equates gays with promiscuity, drugs and alcohol abuse.

For your info, being gay is not a lifestyle as you put it. You say you are not homophobic yet you spout homophobic nonsense. I sincerely hope you do not work with troubled teens -that is the bit that frightens me.