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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.