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

[Schiff for Senate]

Though I do admit I don't see how the thread title is correct - the ban is much worse and doesn't apply to just Jews. Non-Christians would be much more accurately describing it.

[Brittain33]

Though I do admit I don't see how the thread title is correct - the ban is much worse and doesn't apply to just Jews. Non-Christians would be much more accurately describing it.

It’s because the couple who was actually banned by the state-funded adoption agency is a Jewish couple.

[Schiff for Senate]

Though I do admit I don't see how the thread title is correct - the ban is much worse and doesn't apply to just Jews. Non-Christians would be much more accurately describing it.

It’s because the couple who was actually banned by the state-funded adoption agency is a Jewish couple.

Ah, I see.

[SteveRogers]

A) Receive state funds

B) Have discriminatory practices

Pick one. You can't do both.

I would agree, except B shouldn’t even be an option here because there’s no such thing as a fully privatized adoption agency. It’s not a free market issue. The adoption process is inextricably intertwined with the power of the State. There’s no such thing as the private enterprise of selling children.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Are you blind? It's literally in the 1st Amendment. This displays a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution on your part, and I'd advise you stop talking about the Constitution now if you don't even know about the 1st Amendment. Though frankly, I'd guess only the 2nd Amendment and a few others are the amendments you care about / consider to be in the constitution.

(Though to be more precise, actually separation of church and state on a state level pertains more to the 14th Amendment, according to the constitution, but you might have a problem with it, too. Who knows?)

[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.

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.

Are you blind? It's literally in the 1st Amendment. This displays a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution on your part, and I'd advise you stop talking about the Constitution now if you don't even know about the 1st Amendment. Though frankly, I'd guess only the 2nd Amendment and a few others are the amendments you care about / consider to be in the constitution.

(Though to be more precise, actually separation of church and state on a state level pertains more to the 14th Amendment, according to the constitution, but you might have a problem with it, too. Who knows?)

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.

[John Dule]

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.

First line of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This has historically been construed to (A) Apply to all state and local governments (as do all Constitutional amendments), and (B) Preclude governments from adopting policies calculated to specifically advantage one faith tradition over another. You are free to disagree with this interpretation, but to do so is to ignore centuries of legal precedent and legal thought. Such a gross dismissal of the law (both in letter and in intent) is analogous to, say, arguing that the right to privacy grants women a federal right to abortion.

[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.

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.

Are you blind? It's literally in the 1st Amendment. This displays a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution on your part, and I'd advise you stop talking about the Constitution now if you don't even know about the 1st Amendment. Though frankly, I'd guess only the 2nd Amendment and a few others are the amendments you care about / consider to be in the constitution.

(Though to be more precise, actually separation of church and state on a state level pertains more to the 14th Amendment, according to the constitution, but you might have a problem with it, too. Who knows?)

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.

To paraphrase, it says that the government can't favour any religion over another ('establishment of religion') and can't ban the free practice of religion ('or prohibiting the free excercise thereof'). This law does a little bit of both by subsidizing what's clearly a Christian-only adoption agency (the former), and the latter (not really, but it's discriminating against non-Christians and not giving them the right to adopt).

But there's also some moral questions to be asked.
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?

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

First line of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This has historically been construed to (A) Apply to all state and local governments (as do all Constitutional amendments), and (B) Preclude governments from adopting policies calculated to specifically advantage one faith tradition over another. You are free to disagree with this interpretation, but to do so is to ignore centuries of legal precedent and legal thought. Such a gross dismissal of the law (both in letter and in intent) is analogous to, say, arguing that the right to privacy grants women a federal right to abortion.

This is anethma to ER, which is why it's impossible that it's true, and while though this 'religious liberty' law is unconstitutional, really, it is constitutional because ER supports it.

[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.

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.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I suppose those Jews who died in the holocaust deserved it. They all could have survived if they had just converted to evangelical christianity.

[jojoju1998]

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.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I suppose those Jews who died in the holocaust deserved it. They all could have survived if they had just converted to evangelical christianity.

Well, Catholics barely count as Evangelical Christianity these days...... so....

I guess they would be gone too.

[pbrower2a]

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.

I think that we can all leave the threat of eternal damnation to those  egregious sinners who have done horrific sin -- literally crime, It would be terribly unjust for God to condemn people to Hell after being gassed for being Jews while Nazis who have a death-bed atonement get to heaven on cheap grace after having participated in "selections" or having loosed vicious dogs upon helpless prisoners. . .    

[Del Tachi]

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-$#^&)

[John Dule]

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-$#^&)

Wisconsin v. Yoder grants parents the right to make choices for their children based on their religious tradition. The adoption agencies here do not have that right because they are not the children's legal guardians.

[Brittain33]

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 rights of the child and the rights of taxpayers are involved here, too. The world doesn’t revolve around the preferences of an org which chooses to accept state funding and i don’t understand why their interests outweigh those of the children or the First Amendment.

[SteveRogers]

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.

[Del Tachi]

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-$#^&)

Wisconsin v. Yoder grants parents the right to make choices for their children based on their religious tradition. The adoption agencies here do not have that right because they are not the children's legal guardians.

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

[Del Tachi]

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 rights of the child and the rights of taxpayers are involved here, too. The world doesn’t revolve around the preferences of an org which chooses to accept state funding and i don’t understand why their interests outweigh those of the children or the First Amendment.

For the record, I don't think an adoption agency using public funds this way should be able to discriminate against non-Christian parents.

But the whole line of reasoning permeating this thread that religious adoption agencies invalidate an invented "right" of children to a secular or religious upbringing of their choosing is fancifully contrived and irrelevant.  The injured party in this case is the Jewish parents, not any of the adopted kids. 

[Ferguson97]

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.

Same energy as "we're not a democracy, we're a republic".

[John Dule]

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.

[SteveRogers]

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.