General Question

LadyMarissa's avatar

Should Catholics or Jews be banned from taking in foster children?

Asked by LadyMarissa (6873points) 1 month ago

In making sure that gay couples aren’t allowed to foster or adopt children, SC’s Governor asked for a special designation from the current administration & received same. Now one of the main fostering agencies in the Upstate of SC has decided that only Christian families should be allowed to adopt. They have excluded those of the Catholic faith because they don’t believe that you must be born again & therefore are not true Christians in the eyes of the leaders of said agency.

Although it hasn’t been mentioned yet, it will also mean that Jews will be excluded because they don’t believe that Jesus was ever born which also means that they aren’t Christians even though God said they are His chosen people!!! Now I’m wondering where these exclusions will stop??? They are begging for people to foster children & at the same time excluding many who would be willing to give a stable home to a much needed child. I think that this will be interesting to follow through the court systems & I’m wondering how it’s going to turn out in the end. What is your thoughts on the subject???

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

50 Answers

kritiper's avatar

I think anyone who is religious should be banned. Why stop at just Catholics and Jews? Why not Mormons too, at least?

LadyMarissa's avatar

^ I’m sure that they could find a reason to exclude the Mormons; but, there are few to no Mormons residing in SC, so I doubt that any Mormons will be applying to foster children in the state. I’m thinking that IF SC gets away with this that here’s a good chance that it will spread across the country like wild fire!!!

I disagree that anyone who is religious should be banned as I find that to be the same as picking & choosing which religions fit their need. The “Miracle Hill Children’s Home” is a faith based organization supported by many local churches most of which are of the Baptist faith.I don’t believe that any one religion is more right than any other.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

It is the PENCE effect.

Born again or it is not real!

The USA of Baptists !

Caravanfan's avatar

Of course not. That’s fucking crazy.

Demosthenes's avatar

If they can provide a stable and loving home, it doesn’t matter what their religion is or what their gender is.

The push to ban same-sex couples from adopting children is bigotry, plain and simple.

Zaku's avatar

No, but with this going on, I think everyone sane should just flee South Carolina.

JLeslie's avatar

Is the foster care agency a state agency? If it’s a private Christian agency that takes no government funds, I’m not sure how I feel about it. It seems to me all foster facilities must be tied to the government somehow though.

That state really is unbelievable.

I do think for foster placement religion is ok to consider in terms of ideal matches, but to exclude people from the foster system based on religion is an outrage, and I don’t think Jesus would approve.

If I’m honest, if my children were taken to foster care temporarily, I do not want them with strangers who are born again Christians ideally, even though I have wonderful friends who are born again, and whom I would trust with my kids (if I had kids). But, I’d much rather the children be with a good family than in a government facility no matter what the religion.

It’s incredible what these people will do and legislate.

I’m sure it isn’t just Catholics and Jews. They won’t be ok with Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, I’m sure the list will go on.

LadyMarissa's avatar

In this case Miracle Hill receives about $600K per year from state & Federal funding with the balance comng from donations of local churches. They say their rules clearly state that the fostering parent must be a Protestant which excludes all listed above.

The woman filing the lawsuit grew up in a home that took in foster children…many of which were disabled & she says she just wanted her 3 children to know the wonderful bond of foster siblings as well as giving the foster children a stable, loving home. Her intent was to accept the physically challenged children that most don’t want to take in. She said they were very encouraging until she was asked the name of her church. When she gave them the name of her church they immediately stopped processing her application telling her that they could not place any children in her home because she was a non protestant. So, she’s filing a lawsuit claiming they are discriminating against non-protestants.

MrGrimm888's avatar

If they intend on converting the child, neither.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

In this case Miracle Hill receives about $600K per year from state & Federal funding

I would expect either the public funding or religious discrimination won’t survive any test in court. If it does, it’s another of example of conservatives dragging us all backwards towards the Dark Ages.

stanleybmanly's avatar

At first glance the immediate reaction is: “how in this day & age do people pop up with this crazy shit?” But when you think about it, this sort of nonsense is obviously mounted specifically to counter any progress in gender acceptance or religious tolerance. Such stupid measures are deemed necessary when it is no longer accepted without comment that gays and Jews are unfit for parenthood. The laws are there to enforce what everyone formerly took for granted. The courts will of course shred this insulting obscenity & I hope the troglodytes responsible are fully exposed to the full blast of ridicule and derision they most assuredly deserve.

kritiper's avatar

At some point I think it would/might matter to the child as to who raised them.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

At some point I think it would/might matter to the child as to who raised them.

It always matters who raises a kid. What are you implying?

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

It is the PENCE effect.

Pence was a committed Catholic who drifted to Evangelical churches in the 90s. He’s never quite said he’s not Catholic anymore.

He has said, he’s “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.” Note that “American” conspicuously absent.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course it matters who raises a child, but the state has no business certifying one cult and excluding the next. The poor kid is at the mercy of the religious roulette wheel, adopted or not. As fo the gay contagion arguments driving these obtuse absurdities, there is no rational need to even grant such crap the dignity of formal discussion.

Dutchess_III's avatar

This world has gone mad.

Yellowdog's avatar

This question is regarding whether private. religious- or faith-based adoption or fostering agencies should be required to adopt or foster children into couples or families whose values are very different, or diametrically opposed, to the values and beliefs of the agency, if the agency is receiving state funds,

It is NOT about discrimination against Jews or Catholics or gay couples unilaterally across the state if South Carolina, as the question appears to imply.

That is a great debate across the nation right now. Its kind of like asking if schools should be allowed to teach religion if they accept state-sponsored vouchers and scholarships. The involvement of state money certainly makes it precarious. When I worked in an Afterschool Activities program which was part of the outreach of a fairly liberal Disciples of Christ church, even we couldn’t accept any state money or grants from individual families, lest we should have to remove every religious emblem and every religious book or bible from the building. As a result, we could only provide a much needed service to families with their own money to pay, or people with grants or monies from the church itself.

Children from low income families who needed State financial assistance could not be a part of our program, even if they did not object to the presence of a Bible or a logo with a Communion cup on a wall in a building.

If the Miracle Hill (or whatever) agency doesn’t like having to adopt or foster its children out to non-Christians, the only option seems to be to shut down and let the secular, non-religious State of SC take on this responsibility. After all, they can provide a service but not a ministry, or meeting the needs it perceived the children and families to have, I presume there is a Christian counseling agency related to this foster service.

So, let the State of South Carolina take in all those foster children. That’s what taxes are for.

In any case, those who do not meet the ethos of the adoption agency certainly have options to adopt or foster children from state- or other agencies, such as Catholic and Jewish agencies. Not sure that there are any Gay or LGBT agencies that adopt children, but the State agencies might be an option.

Even State agencies will not often adopt children to single parents, usually. A 25 year old man cannot adopt a 14 year old girl. Darn it.

Probably, Miracle Hill will cease operations if it has to comply because Evangelical Christianity is part of its core purpose, and it needs state funds to operate.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I just read the first paragraph, but @Yellowdog has a good point. If there is a private adoption agency putting these kids up for adoption, I suppose they can declare whatever parameters they want, within Federal laws.

Yellowdog's avatar

The government discriminates, also. Not to be crass, but State and Federal health insurance such as Medicare does not pay for disorders involving sexual dysfunction such as erectile dysfunction (common especially for diabetics), even though sex, reproduction, and families are very much a part of life.

Is that a value judgement? I kinda think it is.

But private insurance usually WILL pay for this.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, they figure it’s not a life or death situation if a guy can’t get it up. It’s a cosmetic issue.

ragingloli's avatar

Private actors should not be exempt from anti discrimination laws.
Or do you think that Islamic honour killings should be legal?
Or female circumcision?

Yellowdog's avatar

There are several in congress now who believe in sharia law, so maybe we’ll be seeing those provisions really soon!

But, to stay on topic since this is a “General” question, I cannot understand why Baptists and Evangelicals would object to Roman Catholics adopting their children since they certainly believe in the same things regarding Jesus. Catholics certainly have strong faith-based communities, listen to the same Christian music and read many of the same Christian books and Christian movies.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t take it that the foster company is saying Jews and Catholics are bad parents, I take it that they want the children raised Protestant. That is two different things.

@Yellowdog Many Christian groups don’t accept Catholics as Christians. They don’t accept Mormons as Christians either.

Yellowdog's avatar

JLeslie is crafting a response. Finally some sanity,

In Memphis. Jewish Family Services helps everyone, even Christians, even helping Christians finding Christian services. And quite generous in letting Christians partake of their own Jewish services

Mormons’ beliefs are clearly different from Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mainline protestants like Methodists and Presbyterians. But Mormons have very tight-knit, stable, wholesome families, as do most Jews. The problem isn’t with good parenting, its the place of Christ in the family covenant of Christians.

Dare I say most Jews and even Mormons would probably make better parents and foster parents than many Christians (who sometimes provide too narrow a view of the world). But the religion I think is what Miracle Hill or whatever is concerned about. Not how good the parents are at parenting.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Name one person in congress, much less “several,” who believe in sharia law @Yellowdog. Just one.

JLeslie's avatar

@Yellowdog I think the Catholics also, at least usually, open their services to people of all faiths. My sister was a big sister with Catholic charities, her little sister attended Catholic school. My sister was Jewish and atheist, I don’t think they ever even asked her her religion. If they did, they didn’t care about it.

I don’t think of mainstream Mormons as much different than other religious people.

Yellowdog's avatar

Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I think @Yellowdog is saying they are Muslims THEREFORE they support Sharia Law as envisioned by Fundamentalist Christians.

Jumping to conclusion.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I’ve a friend that is of the firm belief that if the don’t eat bacon then the must walk around with dynamite wrapped around their waists.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why don’t you first do a little research as to what Sharia Law actually is and what it’s not.

Also Rashida Tlaib is a progressive female who was born in Detroit of Palistinian parents. There is nothing anywhere that suggest she supports Sharia Law or any other particular way of life.

Yellowdog's avatar

Keith Ellison, then. He may’ve not called it that, but he practiced it.

kritiper's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay I didn’t mean to who raises a kid does it matter, I meant it matters, or might matter to the child, separate from the adults. All anyone was talking about, at that point in this discussion, were adults.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Okay now I see @Yellowdog All Democrats support Sharia Law ! SMH

Keep making up shit, next you tell me Trump is a virgin !

JLeslie's avatar

@kritiper You mean the religion might matter to the children? I thought the same. If I had been put in foster care as a 10 year old, it’s bad enough it’s strangers, but if they had said grace before every meal, prayers before bed, and taken me to church on Sunday it would have greatly increased my discomfort and feeling out of place. Just being over a friend’s house where they said grace felt uneasy, and that’s with people I knew, trusted, and liked.

Yellowdog's avatar

Yeah, @Tropical_Willie why don’t you do as @Dutchess_III says and do a little research on what Sharia Law is and what its not.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Just an excerpt from this source Sharia provides women with certain rights that were practically unheard of in the premodern world. It requires that both men and women have equal access to knowledge; it requires a woman’s consent before marriage; and it allows her the right to initiate divorce under certain conditions. Muslim jurists allowed abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, especially if the mother’s health was in jeopardy.

Above all, Sharia allows a woman to inherit property from her male relatives and to keep this property for herself, even after marriage – her husband cannot lay any claim to it. In contrast, European Christian women were not allowed to hold on to their property after marriage until the 19th century. Muslim feminists campaigning for equal legal rights in Muslim majority societies today draw their arguments and strength from Sharia.

Doesn’t sound all that different from American law, and it is far more progressive than American law was prior to the 70s.

LostInParadise's avatar

If Sharia requires that both men and women have equal access to knowledge , then why are the Taliban and other Muslim fundamentalists so opposed to having girls in classrooms?

ragingloli's avatar

Because people interpret their vague religious texts in whatever way that justifies their preconceived beliefs.

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^^ What @ragingloli said.

Plenty of “Christians” use the Bible as an excuse to treat women, and children, like shit, too.

Yellowdog's avatar

Yeah, there are plenty of examples just like this on the nightly news.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Another example of selective morality.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Not allowing girls in the classroom is not that different than Catholics not allowing women to be priests until 2016. It’s all about control and power over those who are weaker.

Yellowdog's avatar

No, seriously! there are at least six examples every night about Christians abusing their children and many of them dying, in my town alone. If there weren’t so many Christians, something could be done about this.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Dutchess_III So physical strength is what its all about? :)

Lots of girls have beaten ME up over the years,

Dutchess_III's avatar

Of course. For many men with very little brain, being able to beat the shit out of someone smaller to get them to conform is their final recourse.

Yellowdog's avatar

Well, I don’t agree that only men should be clergy, let me make that clear.

But it isn’t about strength and physical prowess, either.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You don’t think so? Well, then why have men ruled the world up until the last couple of generations? Why, in the past, were women not even allowed to vote? Why was have a female president just unheard of until now? Why, until now, were men the “kings of their castle,” and abused women and children had to just keep their mouths shut?
Why, if it wasn’t for superior physical strength as the last word in any dissension? What else could account for it?

Yellowdog's avatar

It may seem like an irrelevant point to start with, but in Christianity there is really no place for the office of a ‘priest.’ The early church acknowledged the ‘priesthood of all believers.’ or, in the book of Hebrews, Christ being the High Priest.

Catholicism has had no female priests because of its position that Priests were representatives of Christ and that the church was the ‘Bride of Christ.’ hence the Priest was ‘married’ to the church. Of course, taken literally, would mean that the church must therefore be collectively female. It has to do with the role of a priest that made their position a masculine one. Again, this is not an office (Priest) that would be in New Testament Christianity but in Judaism.

Early Christians, including those in the Celtic church, certainly DID have female leaders as many of them were house churches, and not many official titles. The role of male and female in the respective cultures usually influenced the way churches handled the offices. For instance, many churches in the Wesleyan and Holiness tradition in the Second Great Awakening had female leaders in the early 19th century to the present in the U.S.

Your points about the role of women in American culture up until just a couple of generations ago are well taken, however. America was very resistant to taking up the cause of women and children until the end of the 1960s, if not even as late as the the 1980s,

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, the Romans soon got their hands on that new religion and rewrote it so it would benefit their empire. That’s when the male dominance thing came in, I’m sure.

Yellowdog's avatar

Agreed—even some offices in the church, and the Basilica itself, were inherited from the government of Rome.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther