Tennessee religious liberty law allows publicly funded adoption agencies to ban Jewish parents (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 01:00:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Tennessee religious liberty law allows publicly funded adoption agencies to ban Jewish parents (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Tennessee religious liberty law allows publicly funded adoption agencies to ban Jewish parents  (Read 1147 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« on: January 20, 2022, 12:23:49 PM »

A new Tennessee law allowing taxpayer-funded adoption agencies to discriminate on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs is being used to make sure a child isn’t inadvertently placed with Jews.

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/20/holston-united-methodist-home-for-children-adoption-tennessee-refused-family-jewish/6582864001/
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2022, 12:29:25 PM »

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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2022, 03:57:06 PM »

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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2022, 05:21:37 PM »

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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2022, 07:51:42 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 10 queries.