We have discussed the issue of religious rights and private property before on this forum and I thought this might be an interesting article to look at with those issues in mind.
First, let me point out that even though the article doesn't specifically mention it, I assume that the "statement of faith" would pretty much bar all non-Christians from adopting. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, the rest of the religious enchilada. The article only mentions Catholics, but one question to me is whether this organization should only be allowed to adopt children out to any specific group, barring discrimination on the basis of generic factors like income, criminal history, what have you. Even if they included Catholics in the group of people they adopted out to, the possibility exists that they would still be unfairly discriminatory to the non-Christian couples in the area in a way that would seriously impact those couples who weren't Christian who were seeking adoption. My thinking is that, given the difficulty of adoption for many couples in general, cutting down the pool of children from which to adopt substantially hurts the ability of people who aren't Christian to adopt children. A group that which I assume is a minority in Mississippi.
As to the issue of government funds, I'm not sure how exactly that should play out. While I'm sure there are specific legal guildelines already in place, from a theoretical, what should happen standpoint, the issue to me is less that the agency is getting funding than to make sure all couples who are looking for children have the same opportunities to adopt. To kind of switch things around, if Christians were a significant minority in the area and the adoption agency got government funds, but this didn't really impact the ability of everyone to get children, then let them keep the money.
Now, beyond the issue of equal access and fairness, there is the other issue of belief and whether the state should impose its beliefs on a religious organization. It seems to me that the adoption agency can't really lay claim to following explicit religious beliefs in this case. That is, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Bible that specifically says anything about adopting out to 'non-Christians, but I'm sure their beliefs are the motivating factor in how they are treating non-Christians. I suppose that the reason they only adopt out to 'real' Christians is because their faith teaches them that their beliefs are the ones that will insure that someone gets to heaven or something, so in that respect they want to do what is best for the children.
For me, I think the issue of equal access is paramount here, not necessarily discrimination, but I'm curious what the rest of the forum thinks.
posted
The article does not answer the questions that I have: How does this agency acquire the children that they are adopting out, and how much of this policy is based on the birth parents' wishes? If I was going to release a child for adoption, I would want a say in what kind of family would be raising him/her. Personally, I count Catholics as Christians, but that is a minority view in many Protestant churches, particularly Baptist or non-denominational.
So while I disagree with the choice this adoption agency has made, I think they had the right to make that choice. People who disagree with them should use a different agency. It's not like they are a monopoly, after all.
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wondered from the first about the "Choose Life" license plate. The groups that were supporting it in Florida were supposedly supporting adoption, but there was also a strong anti-abortion message and strong ties to particular Christian denominations. All well and good, except that the government ended up serving as a collector and pass-through of charitable contributions for these groups. And the government takes a slice of the funding too.
But...the government doesn't control the groups or their practices.
To me, this crosses a line where I prefer that the church and state be separate. For the charities, the risk that somewhere down the road the state will get sued and have to have more control over the disbursement of funds (only charities that spend the money regardless of one's religious affiliation should get it, for example, if it is government money). Then, these groups that built up based on having the affiliation with the government will have to choose between changing their standards or losing the funds.
On the government side, it is clear to me that they have a problem in serving as the collection agent for a group that then uses the funds for purposes that appear to violate state antidiscrimination laws. I realize that the rules are different because of the way the license dollars are collected and because of the fact that the purchase of this particular license plate is, of course, voluntary.
BUT...
It's still the state involved in an act of discrimination that would be illegal if the state did it.
I think there's a problem there and it makes me uncomfortable to think that our legislators found this loophole and exploited it. Even though I agree with the idea of promoting adoption. I don't agree with promoting only certain KINDS of adoption, and especially not ones based on religious affiliation if there are state dollars and efforts involved in the processing thereof.
There can't be a religious litmus test in anything government funded. Even if those funds are just the amount of staff time it takes to process the pass-through check to the charity in question.
Sorry, I think this was a bad idea from the word "Go" and the people who thought it up were not listening to any counter arguments.
So now the state will probably have to spend taxpayer money defending a program that violates its own laws.
I think we could do better.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure how these agencies work. If they get government funding, they may not be allowed to guarantee a particular set of wishes on the part of the birth parents. If they are independent, and are brokering private adoptions, then I suppose it's whatever the involved parties agree to.
This seems somewhere in-between a government-sponsored program and a completely private one.
As another thought, I'm curious why a Catholic couple would approach one of these services. I mean, you'd pretty much know going in the door, wouldn't you, that they don't consider Catholics proper Christians? And there are Catholic-based adoption services out there.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of this discrimination, but I sure don't understand why a Catholic wouldn't know to just not bother with any charity run by any number of Christian groups in the South. Or at least, check them out thoroughly first and ask a few telling questions.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I only skimmed the article and didn't quite make the connection that they were getting government money. I mean I saw it, but it didn't really sink in. That probably changes things a bit, but I don't have enough law knowledge to determine how much. It seems to be something of a gray area, legally speaking.
Leaving the question of public money aside for a moment, I still believe that this is one of those cases where if you don't like their practices, don't patronize them. As you said, there are other adoption agencies that don't have religious restrictions.
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need to think on this more before I respond fully. The license plate issue is essentially a free speech one, believe it or not. The government has little control over the groups and can't discriminate based on viewpoint or content if they open up the license plates to a general class of groups (charities, etc.). I'm inclined to think that the license plate doesn't give the government any additional say in the matter.
So the issue becomes whether a private charity can discriminate in this fashion. I'd tend to think it can, if full disclosure is made to parents putting their children up for adoption and to parents seeking children before any money changes hands.
The big problem would come if this is the only adoption agency around - i.e., if the government doesn't run one and no one else does, either. Don't worry about the Catholics in this regard. Even where we're a minority, we tend to create our social services organizations as needed. Edit: Other groups probably don't have the support structure, though.
I'm thinking it's a little like AA. I favor the government allowing people to use AA as a treatment program when mandating treatment, but there's a problem when no other option is available. This leaves agnostics/atheists in the position of violating their personal beliefs or going to jail.
More tomorrow, I think. These are off-the-cuff and I may change my mind.
posted
Dag, I've been trying to figure out what I feel about this, and I think you're on the right track. Thanks for being so eloquent.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am Catholic, and I am not horrified by this.
BTW the Choose Life license plates were banned in my state, because the ACLU threatened to sue and the state didn't want to risk it. Anti-Civil Liberties Union, it seems.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question. If this were a non-religious organization that were doing this just because Catholics are notoriously Bad People, would those that support them still support them in their choice?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If their criteria were presented up front to both biological and adopting parents, I would still think it should be legal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I need to think on this more before I respond fully. The license plate issue is essentially a free speech one, believe it or not. The government has little control over the groups and can't discriminate based on viewpoint or content if they open up the license plates to a general class of groups (charities, etc.). I'm inclined to think that the license plate doesn't give the government any additional say in the matter.
But I'm assuming they do, since I've never seen any pro-choice license plates, or nazis4ever, or beer license plates. Not vanity plates, but the fancy stamped ones like the choose life and environmental people get.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Virginia organization successfully sued to be allowed to display the confederate flag on their specialty plates. In several of the Choose Life cases, suits have been struck down because a pro-abortion-rights person has no standing to challenge someone else's use of a public forum; the rulings essentially said, "Apply for your own specialty plate and come back to court if it's denied."
A court has upheld a vanity plate advertising the Aryan nation.
This is all from memory, and I don't have time to provide links, but the essentials are accurate.
I do wonder why more groups don't choose to take advantage of that particular form of advertising? You'd think, for instance, small political groups like the Libertarians or the Greens would be all over those kinds of license plates, and like I said, I've never seen any kinds of license plates but the usual ones in Florida--pro-education, environment, what have you--the usual mostly non-offensive ones.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The KKK got an adopt-a-highway sign in Virginia. I think they had to take Virginia to court to do so. But the highway was yanked after a year of non-performance - they got the sign and didn't clean the trash up.
I would think third parties would have a hard time coming up with something pithy to put on the plate. "Choose Life" or "Protect Choice" both say a lot in a little.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize we've now gone far afield of the original topic. I think it's no surprise that I'm against the use of license plates as speech forums. It just complicates a necessary government function with a bunch of free-speech concerns.
Vanity plates are less problematic than specialty plates, because the vanity plates are unique within a state and don't have quite the official imprimatur. Also, the state collecting the money for the charities presents the entanglement problems highlighted here. I think the states make money off it, though.
In short, if the states want to offer these, then I'm against most regulation of them. And since there's a lot of crap I don't want to see on license plates, I'd just as soon see random letters and numbers. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm envisioning the Libertarian license plate to be an eagle with a .45 in one talon and a joint in the other and "Libertarian" emblazoned in a stars and strips motif across the top.
Greens would be, like, a group of smiling multiethnic people standing around a tree, "Green Party" banner being held by the group.
Rove, watch out! Here comes Storm Saxon!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: In short, if the states want to offer these, then I'm against most regulation of them. And since there's a lot of crap I don't want to see on license plates, I'd just as soon see random letters and numbers.
And nobody get their message on them. Sounds reasonable.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even when I disagree with him, I can't help but say that what he says is totatlly reasonable.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No surprise I think that I'm with Dag on this one. I think it is perfectly reasonable.
I actually have a specialty plate - it's for firefighters, but it wouldn't bother me at all to go back to random letters and numbers for everybody.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll have to look for hard data. But, I heard from a reliable source (my boyfriend, who works at IDOT) that NAMBLA had "adopt-a-highway" signs in Illinois. This insencesed a high muckety muck so much that he has suspended all adopt a highway signs. I don't know if they've figured out exactly what they will do yet. On the other hand, suspending the entire program is definitely not discriminating against a particular group. Or, at least equally discriminating against all groups.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
