Should state agency discriminate Against a Jewish couple from adoption Based Upon Religion?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could've fooled me on this. I work for the NYS ACA Marketplace; every time I answer a phone call from a Jewish caller, their account has a half-doxen or more children on it. One caller was calling to remove her oldest son because he was getting married, AND reporting she was pregnant again. 12 people on that account - 2 spouses and 10 kids.
My dad's father was born Jewish, and Dad ended up with 5 siblings, all but the youngest one was born during the Depression or WWII (1934, 1936, 1939, 1941, 1943,1948) .
While I disagree with the premise that family planning is the root cause of the stagnation of the American Jewish population (although lower birth rates certainly play a part), aside from Jews on the Orthodox end of the spectrum (who are probably most, if not all, of your Jewish callers), modern-day Western Jewish families tend to be small.
And this stretches all the way back to first-generation American born families. My great-grandparents had as many as ten siblings, but three of my grandparents were from two-child families and my maternal grandmother (whose parents were born in the Russian Empire) was one of four.
Adoption by Jewish family would be the best thing that could happen to most orphans. Such a child would be almost guaranteed a loving and caring childhood and could look forward to a useful and fulfilling life.
So, yes. While I despise this form of discrimination, merely receiving taxpayer dollars does not, in my view, allow the state to force you to be untrue to your religious, etc., beliefs. Also, I'd describe this case as one where the agency discriminated against the couple because they were not Christian, not because they were Jewish. Their being Jewish seemed to have nothing to do with things, and the same result would have been had if a Egyptologist or Muslim couple tried to adopt.
The state can choose to give no funds to any adoptive services agencies. But once the state decides to fund such agencies, the state cannot then come and try to discriminate on account of religious beliefs.
So, yes. While I despise this form of discrimination, merely receiving taxpayer dollars does not, in my view, allow the state to force you to be untrue to your religious, etc., beliefs. Also, I'd describe this case as one where the agency discriminated against the couple because they were not Christian, not because they were Jewish. Their being Jewish seemed to have nothing to do with things, and the same result would have been had if a Egyptologist or Muslim couple tried to adopt.
The state can choose to give no funds to any adoptive services agencies. But once the state decides to fund such agencies, the state cannot then come and try to discriminate on account of religious beliefs.
I would like to see more on this. Would the agency have turned away lapsed Catholics for example or do they only turn away those who are not of Christian heritage? But regardless, that is still religious discrimination regardless of where it is antiJewish or proChristian.
I tend to think of an organization is taking tax payer dollars, they should be open to all. For example, I don't have an issue with Catholic schools receiving public vouchers, but they shouldn't be allowed to only teach Catholics kids.
So, yes. While I despise this form of discrimination, merely receiving taxpayer dollars does not, in my view, allow the state to force you to be untrue to your religious, etc., beliefs. Also, I'd describe this case as one where the agency discriminated against the couple because they were not Christian, not because they were Jewish. Their being Jewish seemed to have nothing to do with things, and the same result would have been had if a Egyptologist or Muslim couple tried to adopt.
The state can choose to give no funds to any adoptive services agencies. But once the state decides to fund such agencies, the state cannot then come and try to discriminate on account of religious beliefs.
I agree, except I think that acceptance of public moneys implies a forfeiture of freedom to be selective on religious grounds. Where the rubber meets the road is public funding. Once that is involved, there needs to be a good deal less religious selectivity than otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
I would like to see more on this. Would the agency have turned away lapsed Catholics for example or do they only turn away those who are not of Christian heritage? But regardless, that is still religious discrimination regardless of where it is antiJewish or proChristian.
I tend to think of an organization is taking tax payer dollars, they should be open to all. For example, I don't have an issue with Catholic schools receiving public vouchers, but they shouldn't be allowed to only teach Catholics kids.
Public funding is the issue. If someone wants to open an adoption agency that is their privilege, subject to any applicable licensing requirements and neutral regulations.
I agree, except I think that acceptance of public moneys implies a forfeiture of freedom to be selective on religious grounds. Where the rubber meets the road is public funding. Once that is involved, there needs to be a good deal less religious selectivity than otherwise.
Public funding is the issue. If someone wants to open an adoption agency that is their privilege, subject to any applicable licensing requirements and neutral regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
I would like to see more on this. Would the agency have turned away lapsed Catholics for example or do they only turn away those who are not of Christian heritage? But regardless, that is still religious discrimination regardless of where it is antiJewish or proChristian.
I tend to think of an organization is taking tax payer dollars, they should be open to all. For example, I don't have an issue with Catholic schools receiving public vouchers, but they shouldn't be allowed to only teach Catholics kids.
I think that the public funding argument is important and worth while discussing. Where I diverge, however, is over the point that the government is now practicing viewpoint discrimination based on things that it does not agree on. While I can support the policy outcome of not discriminating against people based on religious differences, etc., my fear is more so about other issues that government may try to prohibit that are even more contentious.
This is a very timely debate, though, as the Supreme Court is set to rule within the next couple of months of so on a case out of Maine regarding whether the state can deny parents the ability to use public funds to send their children to religious schools: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/12/s...ous-education/ While not completely analogous to this situation (as you can have an organization that holds religion near and dear to its heart that still is accepting of all), I think that a lot will reverberate from this case if the Court rules against the state.
Below is the synopsis from SCOTUSBLOG (link above) on what the case is about:
Quote:
On Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a challenge to a Maine program that pays for some students to attend private schools. Two families that want to send their children to Christian schools in the state argue that the state’s exclusion of schools that provide religious instruction from the program violates the Constitution. Although the justices’ ruling will directly affect fewer than 5,000 students in Maine, the court’s eventual decision could have a significant impact on public funding for religious education well beyond the state’s border.
Note, this is a particularly interesting case as Maine isn't likely to decide to end its public funding for private schools as it remains, by far, the least expensive method to provide for a constitutionally protected education to children who live in extreme rural parts of the state, far from already established brick and mortar schools.
I'd have to read up on how the laws are written, and that decision you mention.
My thoughts... a state-run or state-funded facility should not be allowed to decide/discern who is allowed to adopt a child on the basis of demographics. Only on the basis of things like suitability (living conditions, income, ability to provide for the child).
If you are running a self-funded adoption facility, one that only donates based on religion or culture or whatever... the cake example might work. It's a fine-line, certainly one that narrows with each new legislation. It becomes a see-saw when it involves religion because you have separation of church and state, as well as anti-discrimination laws. So... hard for me to say in legal terms.
I suspect though that if a child "comes with a paycheck," for example... and that paycheck is paid for by the state, you'd have a hard argument trying to justify this. If the organization absorbs the costs, it would be a different story.
For me... any child that's adopted into a "good" home, is one less child that's an orphan.
I would like to see more on this. Would the agency have turned away lapsed Catholics for example or do they only turn away those who are not of Christian heritage? But regardless, that is still religious discrimination regardless of where it is antiJewish or proChristian.
I tend to think of an organization is taking tax payer dollars, they should be open to all. For example, I don't have an issue with Catholic schools receiving public vouchers, but they shouldn't be allowed to only teach Catholics kids.
That's a good question. What I've generally seen with such cases is that as long as you subscribe to the foundational Christian tenants (especially as it relates to the Trinity), you're generally welcome. Still, that's just my guess.
But, to the point about it being religious discrimination regardless, I agree. Still, I think that how things were worded in the lawsuit makes it seem that the organization is being anti-Semitic, with a particular animus against Jews. But this doesn't seem to be the case. It isn't clear that the organization has animus toward any group, even if their practice is still exclusionary and discriminatory. But this brings up another point of whether being pro-one thing means that you're anti-another thing
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
