Log in

No account? Create an account
Evangelical leaders promote ‘orphan care’ Idea is to take positive… 
3rd-May-2007 08:13 am
Pro Life
Evangelical leaders promote ‘orphan care’
Idea is to take positive steps beyond opposing abortion, same-sex adoption
Prominent evangelical Christians are urging churchgoers to strongly consider adoption or foster care, not just out of kindness or biblical calling but also to answer criticism that their movement, while condemning abortion and same-sex adoption, doesn't do enough for children without parents.

With backing from Focus on the Family and best-selling author Rick Warren, the effort to promote "orphan care" among the nation's estimated 65 million evangelicals could drastically reduce foster care rolls if successful.

Yet sensitive issues lie ahead: about evangelizing, religious attitudes on corporal punishment, gay and lesbian foster children, racially mixed families, and resolving long-standing tensions between religious groups and the government.
Wait a minute, are Pro-Life Evangelical Christians starting to put their money where their mouths are? Did I miss something? Is there a new world order?
(Deleted comment)
3rd-May-2007 12:31 pm (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure the white orphans will be well taken care of. Provided they look WASPy enough.

3rd-May-2007 12:42 pm (UTC)
oh wait til you hear their list of caveats which reduces, conveniently, the number of children worthy of adoption, to about 3.
3rd-May-2007 02:10 pm (UTC)
oh come on, jude. they're continuing the ages old tradition of covering their ass. if their sheep truly held sacred anything they're spewing, they wouldn't have to go to such great lengths to inspire positive action.

nice effort, nice facade, no cookie.
3rd-May-2007 02:31 pm (UTC)
And a bigger question: Do we want these idiots proselytizing to America's youth?

I think not.
3rd-May-2007 02:40 pm (UTC)
I have to say I'm stunned as well.

Nothing good will come of this.


3rd-May-2007 02:46 pm (UTC)
We in the choice movement have long called for them to do just this. I'll give them some credit here. But as you point out, they're only to happy to set up rules about who should adopt regardless of the needs of the children.

What would be a real shock, and more productive, would be for them to support family planning programming to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place. And instead of abstinence pledges, how about improving educational and job prospects for young people so delaying pregnancy is an attractive prospect.

I've never understood why people who believe that abortion is unethical think that the best way to stop it is to prohibit it. That's like putting an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff. An upstream approach that prevents unwanted pregnancies will be much more effective.

I can't help but think that even this sort of gesture on their part is motivated by malice.
3rd-May-2007 03:20 pm (UTC)
My only fear is the life long trauma and brainwashing that these adopted kids will be forced into. I think they might be better off growing up where they are. I can just see the whole Mommy Evangelist thing. "I spend all my time and money to adopt these ungrateful children and this is the thanks I get. No more homosexuals, NO MORE HOMOSEXUALS, EVER!"
5th-May-2007 08:42 pm (UTC) - Don't drink the kool-aid, Brad...
This is no different than the Boy Scouts thing. It's an effort to indoctrinate as many people as possible. You start taking in children that are unwanted or cannot be cared for and then you have (half-asses though it may be) an argument against abortion.
Why kill them when some fundie will take them in? Then you get a crack at raising all of those children as Christians, with beliefs that you dictate. You always have that thinking different was what got your parents in trouble in the first place.

And foster care subsidy will wind up going to fundies, which will wind up back in the church. Because that's just what we need: more powerful churches.

For anyone to think (and I don't believe you do) that agenda has ANYTHING to do with children is naive, and dangerously so.
This page was loaded Nov 23rd 2017, 3:59 am GMT.