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.

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.

[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.

[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.