Does this
story illustrate some of the problems inherent in religious charities,
especially when they get state support?
To what extent, if any, does a society or an institution have the
right to “protect” children from being raised in or converted to a minority
religion?
Saturday, February 5, 2022
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isn't the entire point of adoption agencies to determine if couples are going to be good parents towards a child they're in charge of? Who decides what makes a couple acceptable future parents? Well the agency itself. Therefore if a specific agency regards the religious background of a couple as important in becoming a parent in a specific community, should they still be forced to ignore religion in their decision? These agencies want to safeguard their right to practice their faith and culture, should we ignore their wishes and force them in the name of freedom and liberty to give up theses rights?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if an adoption agency is state funded, this “protection” of faith could be regarded as the state participating in religious discrimination. Doesn't such discrimination clash with the idea of freedom in a country? In our belief of freedom for all minorities we shouldn't discriminate against couples of certain religions. Because of this it would probably be for the best if adoption agencies wouldn't have the right to reject adoption applications based solely on the couples religious practices. However, if there was a genuine concern for the child's upbringing due to the couple's religion, the agency should be allowed to reject applications, if they provide sufficient causation for concern. This way the agencies would still be able to prevent adoption in case they deem it necessary, while being less able to religiously discriminate.
-Maxim
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteReply to Maxim
DeleteI agree strongly with you on the point that this entire situation sort of goes against what the United States of America make themselves out to be. Supposedly, America is “The Land of the Free”, so why is it such a problem that a jewish family wants to adopt a child from a state-funded Christian adoption agency? Obviously, there is a bit of a problem here, since if we let anyone adopt any number of children, I am rather afraid of what that would lead to, for obvious reasons. You make a good point that an application should be rejected the moment the adoption agency is able to provide a sufficient cause for concern. The problem is that this term is rather ambiguous. Whether a circumstance is sufficient cause for concern depends completely on who you ask, which especially applies for more controversial topics. For instance, some would say that same-sex marriage is something that is most definitely a sufficient concern, while others completely dismiss that notion. The same could be said about anti-vax couples. Of course, there’s cases that an overwhelming majority of people would consider to be actual hazards for children, cases that objectively fail to provide the most basic needs. However, for many other circumstances the issue is not as black-and-white as one might think.
I find this whole situation completely absurd. The whole point of a “home inspection” is to determine the eligibility of a couple to become foster parents. Naturally, you’d think this considers their emotional and financial stability, lifestyle, or even their values. But why is it that religion is so important? If out of two couples, equally stable and virtuous, the Christian one is preferred to the Jewish one, something has gone wrong. This is clearly a matter of religious discrimination, excused for BS reasons. Of course it is fine to practice one's faith, and even to make decisions based on it. But why should this inhibit the right of another to do the same? If state laws are supposed to protect religious sovereignty, why is one side the preference?
ReplyDeleteIf we look at the bigger picture, America, despite being the land of the free, seems to have issues with this sort of discriminaiton. Of the top of my head, I can think of many such controversial cases, such as the christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake depicting a gay couple. In my personal judgment, although personal freedom is valued by every American, there seems to be a tacit inclination to one side by government bodies. Although there is supposed to be religious neutrality and freedom of expression, it is not put into practice. The solution is to simply do away with government interference in religious ordeals.
- Teo
Dear Teo,
DeleteAlthough I wholeheartedly agree that there *should* be a religious neutrality and freedom of expression in place, I have to say I see potential complications if such a system were to be imposed upon people as they are now. Most human beings are naturally prejudiced against things or people of foreign origin. I think that having a religion of preference when it comes to juridical judgment is in fact discrimination, and indeed I think it is representative of the biases the people possess. To illustrate, people have definitely more reasons to prefer a Christian to a Muslim, e.g. Islam has been thematically present in a few terrorist attacks in the recent past. If a Muslim couple were to become foster parents of a child, I could very well see that child being bullied for it on top of the vulnerable subject that they are a foster child. In this case, putting the child in the care of foster parents that are subject to less prejudice against them works to protect the quality of life of that child. Of course, I think this system isn’t morally perfect and should eventually be remade into what you are suggesting. In fact, you could make the argument that if the government won’t change first, the society won’t follow or won’t have a real reason to change. However, as it is now I think people themselves are simply too prejudiced for such a change, and a religion of preference in jurisdiction might not be entirely inhumane, even if it sounds ridiculous.
-Lucas