Tennessee religious liberty law allows publicly funded adoption agencies to ban Jewish parents

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

The free exercise clause does not give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are mere facilitators for establishing a relationship between the interested parties (children and adoptive parents). If the children did not want to go to non-Christian households, that would be an entirely different matter, and the free exercise clause would apply-- but it does not apply to the agents of the organization facilitating the exchange. If a person's worldview is so warped and deranged that they cannot imagine a child receiving a decent upbringing in a household of a different faith tradition from their own, I would argue that they have no business working in adoption-- or with children at all.

Honestly, this is exactly what I wanted to articulate with regards to this entire thing about 'religious freedom', but yours is much better written, clear and articulate than mine could have been. Very well written and absolutely correct.

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

Separation of church and state is literally not in the Constitution.

This is sick. Clearly the 1st Amendment is nothing to you, right? Only the 2nd Amendment matters? Who knows if you even think the 13th Amendment exists? You don't pick and choose what amendments are in the Constitution, and this is fundamental ignorance if you don't know what's in the 1st Amendment (though again, I'm guessing only the 2nd Amendment and a couple more matter to you).

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

I agree with you (at least the entire second paragraph), but it's really a question of a child having a decent home. If a young child is actually such a religious fanatic that they refuse to go with non-Christian parents, as John Dule said, that's their choice (though a very stupid one). Parents don't need to necessarily be wealthy or well-educated as long as they can care for and love their child, but it obviously wouldn't hurt for this to be the case.

Also, I love the bolded part...saying Jews are rich is kind of a stereotype (not sure how it's negative but apparently it is)...and your saying it obviously comes from a place of love (since you are Jewish yourself, unless I'm wrong). It reminds me of when I say Indian-Americans are really wealthy and successful (they are!) or that the Bay Area is great.

Yeah. I believe ER is a baptist, which has an average household income of $33,000, with only 19% living in households making more than $100,000. Jews have an average income of $117,000 (inflation adjusted from a study decade back), with only 10-12% living in a household making less than the average baptist household.

Not to mention, 81% of Jewish adults have at least some college, behind only Hindus with 85%.

If I was a poor mother, I'd prefer my child was adopted by a couple with at least one bachelor's degree and an income of nearly $120,000 rather than a couple making $33,000 without a college degree.

[progressive85]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

Yes but taxpayer funded?  Why should a Jewish (or gay, which was the true target of TN's law) couple in Tennessee pay to have their tax dollars sent to an organization that engages in a disgusting outdated form of discrimination?  Religion has its place, but this goes way too far.  This is unacceptable and highly inappropriate, and I pray that the courts strike this law down in total.

[jojoju1998]

Oh Jesus. Not literally.

[Schiff for Senate]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

The free exercise clause does not give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are mere facilitators for establishing a relationship between the interested parties (children and adoptive parents). If the children did not want to go to non-Christian households, that would be an entirely different matter, and the free exercise clause would apply-- but it does not apply to the agents of the organization facilitating the exchange. If a person's worldview is so warped and deranged that they cannot imagine a child receiving a decent upbringing in a household of a different faith tradition from their own, I would argue that they have no business working in adoption-- or with children at all.

Honestly, this is exactly what I wanted to articulate with regards to this entire thing about 'religious freedom', but yours is much better written, clear and articulate than mine could have been. Very well written and absolutely correct.

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

Separation of church and state is literally not in the Constitution.

This is sick. Clearly the 1st Amendment is nothing to you, right? Only the 2nd Amendment matters? Who knows if you even think the 13th Amendment exists? You don't pick and choose what amendments are in the Constitution, and this is fundamental ignorance if you don't know what's in the 1st Amendment (though again, I'm guessing only the 2nd Amendment and a couple more matter to you).

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

I agree with you (at least the entire second paragraph), but it's really a question of a child having a decent home. If a young child is actually such a religious fanatic that they refuse to go with non-Christian parents, as John Dule said, that's their choice (though a very stupid one). Parents don't need to necessarily be wealthy or well-educated as long as they can care for and love their child, but it obviously wouldn't hurt for this to be the case.

Also, I love the bolded part...saying Jews are rich is kind of a stereotype (not sure how it's negative but apparently it is)...and your saying it obviously comes from a place of love (since you are Jewish yourself, unless I'm wrong). It reminds me of when I say Indian-Americans are really wealthy and successful (they are!) or that the Bay Area is great.

Yeah. I believe ER is a baptist, which has an average household income of $33,000, with only 19% living in households making more than $100,000. Jews have an average income of $117,000 (inflation adjusted from a study decade back), with only 10-12% living in a household making less than the average baptist household.

Not to mention, 81% of Jewish adults have at least some college, behind only Hindus with 85%.

If I was a poor mother, I'd prefer my child was adopted by a couple with at least one bachelor's degree and an income of nearly $120,000 rather than a couple making $33,000 without a college degree.

Happy to see the bolded. Don't want to brag but us Indian-Americans also have the highest average income - $132,000.

Still, let's not discuss that.

The point is quite simply, religion should not be a factor one way or another, in deciding who adopts an orphan (unless that orphan actually wants it to be a factor, which I highly doubt to be the case most of the time). Case closed.

[jojoju1998]

If Jewish People were the Majority in this country, and the controversy was about Christian Parents....

[Schiff for Senate]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

The free exercise clause does not give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are mere facilitators for establishing a relationship between the interested parties (children and adoptive parents). If the children did not want to go to non-Christian households, that would be an entirely different matter, and the free exercise clause would apply-- but it does not apply to the agents of the organization facilitating the exchange. If a person's worldview is so warped and deranged that they cannot imagine a child receiving a decent upbringing in a household of a different faith tradition from their own, I would argue that they have no business working in adoption-- or with children at all.

This is a (purposeful?) misconstruction of the Free Exercise clause.  Raising and instructing children in a religious tradition is an integral part of religious practice.  Free Exercise guarantees the right of parents to insist on a religious education for their children, for example.  This is pretty basic Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1L-type stuff, lol.     

An adoption agency that insists on only working with Christian parents is likewise protected in doing so under the First Amendment.  The only constitutional issue here is whether they get to use public funds to do so. 

All you've done here is demonstrate your unseriousness with the issue while attempting to assassinate the character of anyone with possible sincere religious beliefs (i.e., typical JD bull-$#^&)

The problem with that line of reasoning is that there’s no such thing as an adoption that doesn’t involve the government.

I hardly see how letting religious parents adopt is some intractable entanglement between church and state lol

That's a very gross misrepresentation of this. This is telling kids that religion is key and making the decision for them between a two-parent, happy household and living in an orphanage because muh Christianity.

This discriminates against all non-Christians, and it's really hurting those orphans who will be stuck in orphanages because of fanatics like you and ER. It's not your, ER's or the adoption agency's choice what the religion is of the person who adopts an orphan. What matters is their character and if they can support the child. At the very least, this disgusting, shameful, discriminatory and I daresay un-Christian practice shouldn't be funded by taxpayers, not unless only Christian taxpayers are paying (since clearly everything should be separated by religion). I want to ask you the same questions I asked ER, and hope I'll get more than static back from you at least (though in honesty, some of these questions were really specific to ER since he's the one who really has defended this monstrosity of a law) -

If you were an 8-year-old Christian orphan at an agency, and a non-Christian family that seemed very nice offered to adopt you, would you actually say no and rather remain at that orphanage than live with them?
(Conversely, if a family that seemed shady/suspicious offered to adopt but was Christian, would you agree?)
Moreover, do you think the adoption agency has the right to make that choice for the child (not the child themself)?
Do you think non-Christians are inherently worse parents than Christian parents?
Or that they will force their Christian foster child to conform to their beliefs?

[Ferguson97]

Is your suggestion that courts not let religious parents adopt at all?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

The free exercise clause does not give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are mere facilitators for establishing a relationship between the interested parties (children and adoptive parents). If the children did not want to go to non-Christian households, that would be an entirely different matter, and the free exercise clause would apply-- but it does not apply to the agents of the organization facilitating the exchange. If a person's worldview is so warped and deranged that they cannot imagine a child receiving a decent upbringing in a household of a different faith tradition from their own, I would argue that they have no business working in adoption-- or with children at all.

This is a (purposeful?) misconstruction of the Free Exercise clause.  Raising and instructing children in a religious tradition is an integral part of religious practice.  Free Exercise guarantees the right of parents to insist on a religious education for their children, for example.  This is pretty basic Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1L-type stuff, lol.     

An adoption agency that insists on only working with Christian parents is likewise protected in doing so under the First Amendment.  The only constitutional issue here is whether they get to use public funds to do so. 

All you've done here is demonstrate your unseriousness with the issue while attempting to assassinate the character of anyone with possible sincere religious beliefs (i.e., typical JD bull-$#^&)

The problem with that line of reasoning is that there’s no such thing as an adoption that doesn’t involve the government.

I hardly see how letting religious parents adopt is some intractable entanglement between church and state lol

That's a very gross misrepresentation of this. This is telling kids that religion is key and making the decision for them between a two-parent, happy household and living in an orphanage because muh Christianity.

This discriminates against all non-Christians, and it's really hurting those orphans who will be stuck in orphanages because of fanatics like you and ER. It's not your, ER's or the adoption agency's choice what the religion is of the person who adopts an orphan. What matters is their character and if they can support the child. At the very least, this disgusting, shameful, discriminatory and I daresay un-Christian practice shouldn't be funded by taxpayers, not unless only Christian taxpayers are paying (since clearly everything should be separated by religion). I want to ask you the same questions I asked ER, and hope I'll get more than static back from you at least (though in honesty, some of these questions were really specific to ER since he's the one who really has defended this monstrosity of a law) -

If you were an 8-year-old Christian orphan at an agency, and a non-Christian family that seemed very nice offered to adopt you, would you actually say no and rather remain at that orphanage than live with them?
(Conversely, if a family that seemed shady/suspicious offered to adopt but was Christian, would you agree?)
Moreover, do you think the adoption agency has the right to make that choice for the child (not the child themself)?
Do you think non-Christians are inherently worse parents than Christian parents?
Or that they will force their Christian foster child to conform to their beliefs?

Sorry- let me answer your questions as best as I can.  What I would want as an 8-year old isn't super relevant to me right now.  I'm sure life might be more comfortable in a wealthy non-Christian home than in an orphanage or in a poor Christian home.  But, eternal Salvation is more important than Earthly comfort.  If I were a teenager and had strong faith, I could see an argument for going to the non-Christian home to witness to them, but very few 8 year olds have that strong of faith.

I wouldn't say that non-Christian parents are worse parents by Earthly standards.  My mom is an atheist and gave me what the world would call a good and comfortable upbringing.  With that said, the role of a parent is not just to get your kid to college at 18 physically safe and capable of doing the work.  The most important role of a parent is to lead their child spiritually.

I would also add that the rights of the birth parents are relevant here.  I could easily imagine a scenario where parents want to give their biological child up for adoption but want to be certain that their child will be raised in a Christian home.  That's where faith-based adoption agencies come in.  Likewise, I wouldn't be angry if a Jewish adoption agency refused to place children with non-Jewish couples.

[Del Tachi]

You said the Free Exercise clause does not "give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals."  Cases like Yoder clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Yoder applied only to the rights of parents, and is inapplicable to a case involving people who are not children's legal guardians. Obviously if you are someone's legal guardian or custodian, you are given an explicit legal right to make decisions for that person. This is not the case here, so everything you're saying is a non-sequitur. You can stop bringing it up now.

What you're suggesting doesn't even make any sense.  Adoption agencies cannot unilaterally "place" children with whomever they please.  Adoption is a legal process, overseen by courts.  An adoption agency assisting this process only for Christian parents does not implicate the religious upbringing of the child any more than a Christian couple using a secular adoption agency.

An agency that receives public funding cannot unilaterally decide that it will only serve customers of one faith tradition. This would be analogous to UC Berkeley (an institution that receives only a small portion of its funding from the state) banning non-Buddhist students from its classes.

Is your suggestion that courts not let religious parents adopt at all?  lol

No one suggested that, you know that no one suggested that, and your attempt to bring such an absurd proposal into this conversation demonstrates your complete inability to engage with what other people are saying.

You're just trying to soften your argument and backtrack on what you said in your OP, which is that an adoption agency has no right to Free Exercise because its role is only in "facilitating the exchange."  You did not limit this characterization to agencies that receive public funding.  Your disdain for people who think it is important that children be raised in a specific religious tradition is explicit. 

This conception of the Free Exercise clause as not applying to private individuals or religious organizations working closely with secular legal processes (i.e., adoption) is incorrect and what I take issue with in your OP. 

The free exercise clause does not give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are mere facilitators for establishing a relationship between the interested parties (children and adoptive parents). If the children did not want to go to non-Christian households, that would be an entirely different matter, and the free exercise clause would apply-- but it does not apply to the agents of the organization facilitating the exchange. If a person's worldview is so warped and deranged that they cannot imagine a child receiving a decent upbringing in a household of a different faith tradition from their own, I would argue that they have no business working in adoption-- or with children at all.

[Brittain33]

Literally nobody is trying to keep religious parents from adopting children.

Well, some people are trying to stop religious Jewish parents from adopting children. But they don’t want to look at it that way.

[Schiff for Senate]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

The free exercise clause does not give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are mere facilitators for establishing a relationship between the interested parties (children and adoptive parents). If the children did not want to go to non-Christian households, that would be an entirely different matter, and the free exercise clause would apply-- but it does not apply to the agents of the organization facilitating the exchange. If a person's worldview is so warped and deranged that they cannot imagine a child receiving a decent upbringing in a household of a different faith tradition from their own, I would argue that they have no business working in adoption-- or with children at all.

This is a (purposeful?) misconstruction of the Free Exercise clause.  Raising and instructing children in a religious tradition is an integral part of religious practice.  Free Exercise guarantees the right of parents to insist on a religious education for their children, for example.  This is pretty basic Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1L-type stuff, lol.    

An adoption agency that insists on only working with Christian parents is likewise protected in doing so under the First Amendment.  The only constitutional issue here is whether they get to use public funds to do so.  

All you've done here is demonstrate your unseriousness with the issue while attempting to assassinate the character of anyone with possible sincere religious beliefs (i.e., typical JD bull-$#^&)

The problem with that line of reasoning is that there’s no such thing as an adoption that doesn’t involve the government.

I hardly see how letting religious parents adopt is some intractable entanglement between church and state lol

That's a very gross misrepresentation of this. This is telling kids that religion is key and making the decision for them between a two-parent, happy household and living in an orphanage because muh Christianity.

This discriminates against all non-Christians, and it's really hurting those orphans who will be stuck in orphanages because of fanatics like you and ER. It's not your, ER's or the adoption agency's choice what the religion is of the person who adopts an orphan. What matters is their character and if they can support the child. At the very least, this disgusting, shameful, discriminatory and I daresay un-Christian practice shouldn't be funded by taxpayers, not unless only Christian taxpayers are paying (since clearly everything should be separated by religion). I want to ask you the same questions I asked ER, and hope I'll get more than static back from you at least (though in honesty, some of these questions were really specific to ER since he's the one who really has defended this monstrosity of a law) -

If you were an 8-year-old Christian orphan at an agency, and a non-Christian family that seemed very nice offered to adopt you, would you actually say no and rather remain at that orphanage than live with them?
(Conversely, if a family that seemed shady/suspicious offered to adopt but was Christian, would you agree?)
Moreover, do you think the adoption agency has the right to make that choice for the child (not the child themself)?
Do you think non-Christians are inherently worse parents than Christian parents?
Or that they will force their Christian foster child to conform to their beliefs?

Sorry- let me answer your questions as best as I can.  What I would want as an 8-year old isn't super relevant to me right now.  I'm sure life might be more comfortable in a wealthy non-Christian home than in an orphanage or in a poor Christian home.  But, eternal Salvation is more important than Earthly comfort.  If I were a teenager and had strong faith, I could see an argument for going to the non-Christian home to witness to them, but very few 8 year olds have that strong of faith.

I wouldn't say that non-Christian parents are worse parents by Earthly standards.  My mom is an atheist and gave me what the world would call a good and comfortable upbringing.  With that said, the role of a parent is not just to get your kid to college at 18 physically safe and capable of doing the work.  The most important role of a parent is to lead their child spiritually.

I would also add that the rights of the birth parents are relevant here.  I could easily imagine a scenario where parents want to give their biological child up for adoption but want to be certain that their child will be raised in a Christian home.  That's where faith-based adoption agencies come in.  Likewise, I wouldn't be angry if a Jewish adoption agency refused to place children with non-Jewish couples.

I agree with your point about parents deciding (though you'd have to be a terrible parent to first decide to put your kid up for adoption and then refuse to let them get adopted by certain people because of your prejudices). But I have two other problems - one, when the parent isn't deciding (i.e., they're dead and the kid is an orphan) and the kid has no choice but to go to this adoption centre, and then some other moralist makes that choice of orphanage over non-Christian parents for them (I have not much problem if the kid themself is so religious they'll only go with a Christian, but that's their choice or the choice of their parents, not of the adoption agency), and two (and more importantly), the state funding any such institutions (if there are any that discriminate against non-Jews, or non-Hindus, or non-Buddhists, or non-Muslims, or non-any other religion, those shouldn't be funded, either), since it violates the separation of church and state (which, like it or not, is in the Constitution - 1st Amendment, in fact - though not literally written as 'separation of church and state', and even if somehow not in the constitution, is still a pretty obvious idea that shouldn't be violated).

[John Dule]

You're just trying to soften your argument and backtrack on what you said in your OP, which is that an adoption agency has no right to Free Exercise because its role is only in "facilitating the exchange."  You did not limit this characterization to agencies that receive public funding.  Your disdain for people who think it is important that children be raised in a specific religious tradition is explicit.

This conception of the Free Exercise clause as not applying to private individuals or religious organizations working closely with secular legal processes (i.e., adoption) is incorrect and what I take issue with in your OP.  

You will find no backtracking here. I admit my disdain: Christians are ridiculous. However, that does not mean that parents do not have the right to raise their children according to their values. As legal guardians, they are responsible for making these decisions for their children, and no one here has questioned that right. That is the right established in Yoder that you cited.

But adoption agencies do not have such extensive legal rights over the children they serve. They are not the same as orphanages; they are also not state agencies granted guardianship over wards. Because of this, the Yoder precedent you cited is completely and utterly irrelevant. I am still waiting for you to concede this.

A better argument would have been that adoption agencies, like the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop, are essentially private organizations and can choose to do business with whomever they please by utilizing their rights under the Free Exercise clause. This argument fails here because the agency in question is partially state-funded. And it also fails more broadly because the service provided by a bakery is fundamentally different from the one provided by an adoption agency. Here, the "customer" will be forever affected by the choices the agency makes over the course of providing its service. The modern conception of adoption is that it serves the best interests of the child-- not the interests of the agency facilitating the arrangement. A person who places their own beliefs (whatever those beliefs may be) above the interest of the child in finding a stable and safe family environment has thus violated the cardinal rule of their industry. You might as well have a surgeon who believes in faith healing.

[Del Tachi]

That's a very gross misrepresentation of this. This is telling kids that religion is key and making the decision for them between a two-parent, happy household and living in an orphanage because muh Christianity.

This discriminates against all non-Christians, and it's really hurting those orphans who will be stuck in orphanages because of fanatics like you and ER. It's not your, ER's or the adoption agency's choice what the religion is of the person who adopts an orphan. What matters is their character and if they can support the child. At the very least, this disgusting, shameful, discriminatory and I daresay un-Christian practice shouldn't be funded by taxpayers, not unless only Christian taxpayers are paying (since clearly everything should be separated by religion). I want to ask you the same questions I asked ER, and hope I'll get more than static back from you at least (though in honesty, some of these questions were really specific to ER since he's the one who really has defended this monstrosity of a law) -

No one in this thread really seems to know what adoption agencies do.  Adoption agencies cannot force certain kids onto certain parents.  Adoption agencies may put birth parents and would-be adoptive parents in contact and help them (together or separately) navigate the legal process, but the finalization of a child's placement happens in court.  No child is denied an opportunity to be adopted because an adoption agency chooses to only work with Christian parents.

It also should be said that minor children are not party to their own adoption.  The youngest age at which a few states require a child to consent to his own adoption is 12.  A court determines what's in the best interest of the child as a ward of the state, not an adoption agency or child himself. 

[Tartarus Sauce]

1. If your organization receives public funds, it should adhere to the same laws all other publicly funded organizations are required to follow.

2. If your organization receives public funds, said organization's income should be taxable.

Any other arrangement is special privilege seeking. Religiously affiliated organizations need to get out of state coffers.

[Boobs]

Show me where in the 1st Amendment it says that there is "separation of church and state".  It only protects religion from the government, not the government from religion.

I’ll play ball.

The government here is giving funds to an agency denying a couple from adopting because they are Jewish. That couple’s  free exercise of religion is thus violated by the government. The First Amendment protects religion from the government. Ergo, the government funding this agency violates the 1st Amendment.

[Horus]

ER might have the most anti-American views of any poster here, and this forum includes literal CCP hacks.

[jojoju1998]

ER might have the most anti-American views of any poster here, and this forum includes literal CCP hacks.

It was Martin Luther who was one of the most Anti Semitic Men ever, founder of the Protestant Reformation......

[David Hume]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

However, this is clearly discriminatory against non-Christian adoptive parents.  It's functionally equivalent to putting up a sign on the door to a restaurant or hardware store saying "we serve Christians only."  You might argue that the right to discriminate against people of other religions is an inherent part of freedom of one's own religion, but I believe that argument would not hold up in court.

Do you agree that the biological parents should have a say about what kind of  adopting parents they want to choose?

If so, do you agree that the biological parents can choose only Christian parents?

If so, do you agree that the adopting agency can choose to carry out the wishes of the biological parents?

In my opinion, if the adoption agency receiving government funding discriminate based on religion, this is illegal. But if they are just carrying out the individual parents' wish, it should be allowed.

The grey area is if the agency have every biological parents sign a wish to only choose Christian adopting parents. I personally think this is illegal, because the agency is discriminating against clients (in this case biological parents) based on religion.

[Del Tachi]

You're just trying to soften your argument and backtrack on what you said in your OP, which is that an adoption agency has no right to Free Exercise because its role is only in "facilitating the exchange."  You did not limit this characterization to agencies that receive public funding.  Your disdain for people who think it is important that children be raised in a specific religious tradition is explicit.

This conception of the Free Exercise clause as not applying to private individuals or religious organizations working closely with secular legal processes (i.e., adoption) is incorrect and what I take issue with in your OP. 

You will find no backtracking here. I admit my disdain: Christians are ridiculous. However, that does not mean that parents do not have the right to raise their children according to their values. As legal guardians, they are responsible for making these decisions for their children, and no one here has questioned that right. That is the right established in Yoder that you cited.

But adoption agencies do not have such extensive legal rights over the children they serve. They are not the same as orphanages; they are also not state agencies granted guardianship over wards. Because of this, the Yoder precedent you cited is completely and utterly irrelevant. I am still waiting for you to concede this.

A better argument would have been that adoption agencies, like the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop, are essentially private organizations and can choose to do business with whomever they please by utilizing their rights under the Free Exercise clause. This argument fails here because the agency in question is partially state-funded. And it also fails more broadly because the service provided by a bakery is fundamentally different from the one provided by an adoption agency. Here, the "customer" will be forever affected by the choices the agency makes over the course of providing its service. The modern conception of adoption is that it serves the best interests of the child-- not the interests of the agency facilitating the arrangement. A person who places their own beliefs (whatever those beliefs may be) above the interest of the child in finding a stable and safe family environment has thus violated the cardinal rule of their industry. You might as well have a surgeon who believes in faith healing.

Read again.  I only brought up Yoder to point out the inaccuracy of you stating the Free Exercise clause "does not give individuals the power to make decisions for others."  Precedents like Yoder clearly demonstrate this conceptualization of Free Exercise as too limiting.  Do you concede this?  I never argued Yoder was particularly relevant in answering under what circumstances religious adoption agencies get to use public money.

If an agency has a sincere religious belief that being raised by Christian parents is in a child's best interest, the adoption goes before a judge and he agrees to the placement, then who exactly is being wronged?  Not allowing such an agency to work alongside the legal adoption process is the only possible Free Exercise violation imaginable under our system.

There is no Free Exercise issue for either the children being adopted or the would-be Jewish parents in this case.  The Jewish parents can argue they're subject to illegal religious discrimination, and the defense brought up by the adoption agency (hopefully unsuccessfully) will be a Free Exercise claim, lol   

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I'm sure life might be more comfortable in a wealthy non-Christian home than in an orphanage or in a poor Christian home.  But, eternal Salvation is more important than Earthly comfort.  If I were a teenager and had strong faith, I could see an argument for going to the non-Christian home to witness to them, but very few 8 year olds have that strong of faith.

This isn't a theocracy. The job of government isn't to be concerned with salvation. Any government that tells its suffering people to focus on god is a government that should be overthrown.

I wouldn't say that non-Christian parents are worse parents by Earthly standards.

Last I checked, we live on Earth, so Earthly standards suffice quite well.
  My mom is an atheist and gave me what the world would call a good and comfortable upbringing. 

With that said, the role of a parent is not just to get your kid to college at 18 physically safe and capable of doing the work.  The most important role of a parent is to lead their child spiritually.

The most important role of a parent can be debated, but leading their child spiritually is not by any measure a part of that discussion.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

The free exercise clause does not give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are mere facilitators for establishing a relationship between the interested parties (children and adoptive parents). If the children did not want to go to non-Christian households, that would be an entirely different matter, and the free exercise clause would apply-- but it does not apply to the agents of the organization facilitating the exchange. If a person's worldview is so warped and deranged that they cannot imagine a child receiving a decent upbringing in a household of a different faith tradition from their own, I would argue that they have no business working in adoption-- or with children at all.

This is a (purposeful?) misconstruction of the Free Exercise clause.  Raising and instructing children in a religious tradition is an integral part of religious practice.  Free Exercise guarantees the right of parents to insist on a religious education for their children, for example.  This is pretty basic Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1L-type stuff, lol.     

An adoption agency that insists on only working with Christian parents is likewise protected in doing so under the First Amendment.  The only constitutional issue here is whether they get to use public funds to do so. 

All you've done here is demonstrate your unseriousness with the issue while attempting to assassinate the character of anyone with possible sincere religious beliefs (i.e., typical JD bull-$#^&)

The problem with that line of reasoning is that there’s no such thing as an adoption that doesn’t involve the government.

I hardly see how letting religious parents adopt is some intractable entanglement between church and state lol

Literally nobody is trying to keep religious parents from adopting children.

Literally the adoption agency turned down a couple because they were Jewish. They don’t want Jews (or Muslims, or Hindus, etc) adopting children.

[jojoju1998]

I am a practicing Catholic, and let me tell you, the Catholic Church does not endorse forced Religion.

It did before, but ever since the Second Vatican Council, it has backed off.

You have to be able to choose Jesus out of your own free will, not forced as a Theocratic Monarchial state.

That's why in the Catholic Church, the rite of Confirmation is done during the young adult years, because you have to be able to commit yourself, out of your own free will. I choose the call. Right ?

[Badger]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

 And that, Sir, is completely sh**tty and absolutely Exhibit A as to why such laws permitting the discriminatory use of tax dollars should not be permitted.

[Badger]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

 Then lose every single penny of Is tax funding today.

[Badger]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home. 

No, it shouldn't. Adoption should be about finding a good home for a kid, above anything else. A family's religion should not a determining factor in whether or not they're suitable to adopt. There are plenty of non-Christian families with good homes who want to adopt and care for a kid — to make a kid wait longer to find a Christian home than they could've had to wait if non-Christians were allowed is a policy that should disqualify someone from running an adoption agency.

Some people believe that a Christian home is a good home. Maybe you disagree, but you can’t bully people into following your beliefs with the law.

 No one is saying a Christian home isn't a good home, they're just saying it's not the only good adoptive home.