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.
Originally Posted by Tennessee Chancery Court complaint
1. “Finding permanent, nurturing homes for children/youth in state custody creates stability and normalcy while reducing the trauma of ‘not belonging.’” Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram, a Knox County married couple, sought to provide children with exactly this stability, normalcy, and belonging by becoming foster and adoptive parents.....
2. The Rutan-Rams sought these services (the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services’ requirements that they complete a foster-parent-training program) from Holston United Methodist Home for Children, a child-placing agency that receives state funds from the Department to provide placement, training, and other services on the Department’s behalf to prospective and current foster parents..... Holston initially told the Rutan-Rams that it would provide them with the training and home-study services they needed. But the day that the Rutan-Rams were scheduled to begin Holston’s foster-parent-training class, Holston told the Rutan-Rams that it would not serve them because they are Jewish. Holston explained that it “only provide[s] adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our [Christian] belief system.” *************
Should a taxpayer-funded state agency be permitted to deny a Jewish couple from adopting a child, based on the agency's insistence that adoptive parents must adhere to "Christian values"? I'd like to hear all views and arguments either "for" or "against." My viewpoint is obvious, but there are other considerations, such as same-sex couple adoptions, etc.
Personally, I thought that state-sponsored anti-Semitism went out with the discovery of the Shoah by General Eisenhower in 1945. I hope that the world has not forgotten the Shoah in the seventy-seven years since Russian troops "discovered" the camps.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 01-24-2022 at 05:51 AM..
Reason: Corrected spelling of Shoah; fixed non-working link.
A State-funded agency has no business discriminating against U.S. citizens in the way that this adoption agency is doing.
Having said that, I will state that I personally believe that adoptable Jewish children should be placed in Jewish homes. There are many non-profit Jewish adoption agencies that are NOT State-funded, but instead rely on endowments and other donated support, generally from the Jewish community. Some of these Jewish agencies even offer financial assistance to Jewish families who adopt.
I don't say this out of prejudice against those who practice "Christian values." I say this because, from historic waves of forced conversions to outright genocide to the threatening acts of antisemitism that are even today on the rise again, Jews are and have always been an endangered people in this world.
Most every Jew that I know would prefer that a child born of Jewish parents be brought up as a Jew, to preserve the Jewish people. Race does not matter, as Jews come in all colors. Additionally, I have no objections to a same-sex couple adopting a Jewish child, so long as that same-sex couple are themselves Jewish and intend to raise the child as a Jew.
If Christians want to adopt their own children only to families with "Christian values," then fine, but get your resources entirely from your own Christian community -- don't ask American citizens to fund you through tax-payer dollars.
I have to agree with the OP. If an agency is receiving government money, then they have no business tell the adoptive parents how to raise the children (with regard to religion).
I personally know several Catholic and Mormon families that have adopted children from overseas, and it never occurred to me to think that the children are possibly being raised in a religion that doesn't match their biological parents'. The top priority ought to be the emotional and financial stability of the adoptive parents, not their religion (or even lack thereof).
I just read the decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1878, 1882, 210 L. Ed. 2d 137 (2021), on a similar issue. These are excerpts that are notable:
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Supreme Court
These considerations cannot save the City here. As Philadelphia rightly acknowledges, “principles of neutrality and general applicability still constrain the government in its capacity as manager.” Brief for City Respondents 11–12. We have never suggested that the government may discriminate against religion when acting in its managerial role. And Smith itself drew support for the neutral and generally applicable standard from cases involving internal government affairs. See 494 U.S. at 883–885, and n. 2, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (citing Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 106 S.Ct. 2147). The City and intervenor-respondents accordingly ask only that courts apply a more deferential approach in determining whether a policy is neutral and generally applicable in the contracting context. We find no need to resolve that narrow issue in this case. No matter the level of deference we extend to the City, the inclusion of a formal system of entirely discretionary exceptions in section 3.21 renders the contractual non-discrimination requirement not generally applicable. ....
As Philadelphia acknowledges, CSS has “long been a point of light in the City's foster-care system.” Brief for City Respondents 1. CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else. The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.
In view of our conclusion that the actions of the City violate the Free Exercise Clause, we need not consider whether they also violate the Free Speech Clause. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1878, 1882, 210 L. Ed. 2d 137 (2021)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court forced the City of Philadelphia to certify a foster care agency that refused, on religious grounds, to provide services to same-sex couples. In the Tennessee matter, the Turan-Ram family does not seek to terminate the Holston United Methodist Home for Children from providing services. It weeks to require that there be no "religious test" for parents. That is a huge distinction.
That being said the "free speech" and "free exercise of religion" cases are notoriously muddy and result rather than reasoning-oriented.
Seeing as how the Tennessee Department of Children's Services is a State-run agency, then presumably they deal with any and all adoptable children in the State of Tennessee, regardless of that child's origin of birth.
This means that they may already be dealing with Jewish-born children within their agency, yet refusing to adopt these children out to Jewish families.
This strikes me as a possible means of forcing Christian conversion on Jewish-born children -- which may not seem like a big deal to some people, but it is a very big deal to Jews who have historically endured many forms of forced conversion.
One of the most heinous forced conversions was the Mortara case of the late 19th century, in which the Catholic Church with the help of the police kidnapped "a six-year-old boy named Edgardo Mortara from his Jewish family in Bologna, on the basis of a former servant's testimony that she had administered an emergency baptism to the boy when he fell ill as an infant." The poor child never saw his family again (who were powerless against the Church authorities), as opportunity had presented itself for a Jewish child to be converted to Catholicism.
I wonder whether the (however faint) possibility of Jewish-born children being denied adoption by Jewish families, in light of historic forced conversions, might provide an additional point to be brought up in this lawsuit?
I didn't see exhibit A attached to the complaint (email from Holston United stating decision was faith based) but the complaint filing should have it accessible soon. The burden of proof will be placed on the couple and their legal representatives.
If this is in fact true, Holston Methodist should reconsider their quiet policies or risk the loss of tax dollar funding.
A few things that bother me about this are that husband Gabriel is a digital marketing expert who works for ChangeTN, a progressive political activist group (which he incidentally doesn't even follow), hundreds of digital media outlets have reported on this and searches on his spouse Elizabeth (with zero social media presence except for a hastily assembled facebook placeholder) brings up search suggestions that touch on adoption ethics.
This looks and feels like a 'bake my cake' awareness campaign in the lane of anti-semitism on the rise. I'll be following it's progress with keen interest (and hope that I'm wrong).
Last edited by AKA Bubbleup; 01-24-2022 at 11:29 AM..
Reason: sp
Seeing as how the Tennessee Department of Children's Services is a State-run agency, then presumably they deal with any and all adoptable children in the State of Tennessee, regardless of that child's origin of birth.
This means that they may already be dealing with Jewish-born children within their agency, yet refusing to adopt these children out to Jewish families.
This strikes me as a possible means of forcing Christian conversion on Jewish-born children -- which may not seem like a big deal to some people, but it is a very big deal to Jews who have historically endured many forms of forced conversion.
One of the most heinous forced conversions was the Mortara case of the late 19th century, in which the Catholic Church with the help of the police kidnapped "a six-year-old boy named Edgardo Mortara from his Jewish family in Bologna, on the basis of a former servant's testimony that she had administered an emergency baptism to the boy when he fell ill as an infant." The poor child never saw his family again (who were powerless against the Church authorities), as opportunity had presented itself for a Jewish child to be converted to Catholicism.
I wonder whether the (however faint) possibility of Jewish-born children being denied adoption by Jewish families, in light of historic forced conversions, might provide an additional point to be brought up in this lawsuit?
The issue of Jewish children being adopted by non-Jewish families and raised non-Jewish is an interesting issue. However, I wonder what the statistics are on the placement of Jewish-born children for adoption. Jewish families have pathologies to be sure but from what I gather rarely the kind that would result in children being forced into foster care or separated from their families. I would have to assume that there is typically less than an average amount of violence or child abuse in Jewish families. There is probably a relatively low rate of illegitimacy.
Seeing as how the Tennessee Department of Children's Services is a State-run agency, then presumably they deal with any and all adoptable children in the State of Tennessee, regardless of that child's origin of birth.
This means that they may already be dealing with Jewish-born children within their agency, yet refusing to adopt these children out to Jewish families.
This strikes me as a possible means of forcing Christian conversion on Jewish-born children -- which may not seem like a big deal to some people, but it is a very big deal to Jews who have historically endured many forms of forced conversion.
One of the most heinous forced conversions was the Mortara case of the late 19th century, in which the Catholic Church with the help of the police kidnapped "a six-year-old boy named Edgardo Mortara from his Jewish family in Bologna, on the basis of a former servant's testimony that she had administered an emergency baptism to the boy when he fell ill as an infant." The poor child never saw his family again (who were powerless against the Church authorities), as opportunity had presented itself for a Jewish child to be converted to Catholicism.
I wonder whether the (however faint) possibility of Jewish-born children being denied adoption by Jewish families, in light of historic forced conversions, might provide an additional point to be brought up in this lawsuit?
There are three people in my immediate family circle, all of which have hailed from China, were adopted as infants by Jewish couples and raised as Jewish. If forced conversions are a very big deal to Jews, might the opinions and actions of people from other religions where forced conversions are also a very big deal, carry similar weight in the conversation?
The issue of Jewish children being adopted by non-Jewish families and raised non-Jewish is an interesting issue. However, I wonder what the statistics are on the placement of Jewish-born children for adoption. Jewish families have pathologies to be sure but from what I gather rarely the kind that would result in children being forced into foster care or separated from their families. I would have to assume that there is typically less than an average amount of violence or child abuse in Jewish families. There is probably a relatively low rate of illegitimacy.
I was thinking more along the line of out-of-wedlock births by Jewish girls opting to place the child up for adoption. I don't know what the rate of illegitimacy is for Jews, but I do know that, with adoption records becoming more open these days, we are hearing more about people who had been adopted as infants and later discovering that they had a Jewish birth-mother. Many of these people acknowledge the wistful feeling that they have had something missing from their lives all the years that they were unaware of their Jewish heritage.
There are three people in my immediate family circle, all of which have hailed from China, were adopted as infants by Jewish couples and raised as Jewish. If forced conversions are a very big deal to Jews, might the opinions and actions of people from other religions where forced conversions are also a very big deal, carry similar weight in the conversation?
Perhaps. Do you know whether citizens of The People's Republic of China place as great a concern on such matters? I would tend to think it's rather the opposite, as religion is not something encouraged by their government. It's also my understanding that infant girls are more likely to be put up for adoption in China, due to not being as valued as infant boys. At least, this seemed to be the case in years past. I don't know whether the practice is as prevalent today.
In any case, I should think that non-Asian adoptive parents would not be able to hide from an adopted Chinese child the fact that he/she has a Chinese heritage.
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.
