16 4

Should religious adoption agencies exist?

Many states have argued their right to be able to reject applicants to adopt orphans on religious grounds. This means non-believers and gay adoptions can be refused by religious adoption agencies.


On what grounds should an agency be allowed to refuse parents? When is it discrimination vs. child welfare?

And, should religious adoption agencies even exist?

View Results
silvereyes 8 Dec 10

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


It should beO.K. In the religious community .I mean Phish should be able to adopt Phish orphans. O m i s h . My tablet will not allow me to write this sects name.


Starting with the fact that religious indoctrination is child abuse any parents who claim to want to indoctrinate their children with any religious beliefs prior to the age of consent should be barred from adoption as they would be if any other form of possible abuse was suspected. Any agency should consider potential parents for their financial ability to take on a child as well as their stability. Single parents, gay parents, straight parents should be accorded equal consideration based solely on their practical abilities to rear children and keep them safe from mental or physical abuse in a loving home.


I've been thinking about this tax-exempt status issue with "religions". (I've been watching Leah Remini: Scientology And The Aftermath" ) "Churches" are tax exempt; so that means EVERY tax payer agrees to put up part of the taxes that the churches would if they weren't tax exempt. Perhaps the non-religious citizens should have a say about how adoptions are done.

Churches sell snake oil, fanciful lies to comfort the truly ignorant. They are businesses that keep books and make profits. They should be taxed like anyone else selling patent remedies They have long abused the principle of separation of church and state. Why should the state honor its obligations when the church does not?


I have a very good friend with a masters in social work, who works for the province in child welfare, I put this question to her. Her answer was this: "No Fuck No!". Apparently about 50% of the children see has to apprehend are from what she refers to as, weird christian fundamentalist homes where molestation and abuse are rampant, she removes far less children from home because of substance abuse and use.


I don’t believe the idea of stopping adoptions based on religious dogma is right. The child’s welfare should always be the first priority.


This is a tough one. Many kids would be without a loving family. Strict oversight. As twisted as it seems many religious people are caring.


It should be based on an extensive survey.


I don't think they should exist, but I know that will probably never happen so I voted for strict oversight.
The agency should have no say in the religious beliefs of the applicants, only that they meet the requirements for adoption.
The parents will raise that child with or without religion as they see fit.


For the sake of kids receiving a good home and getting out of the system, i have no issue with it either way.


This story and the Supreme Court case about the baker make me wonder if such businesses should have to be classed as churches, with all the limitations that entails, which I'm sure includes no funding from the state and federal governments, as well as restrictions on revenue.

I'm pretty sure churches have the opposite strictures.


The child welfare is the no. 1 concern. The 2 important factors; 1. can they be financially be cared for, and 2. will they be free from abusive behavior [criminal, sexual, physical, mental, drugs etc.]
Ideology is the least important.

mzee Level 7 Dec 10, 2017

If they are to exist-every religion has had or has them-even Judaism-they should be regulated with strict oversight vs. such discrimination.


I don't mind if religious adoptions agencies exist, but I don't think religion should be a criterion for adoption.


There is a false assumption that Christians are good people... ROFL

You can't put a statement out there say all Christians are bad. It's like saying all men are tall. I've met a lot of good people who are Christian. Just because I disagree with them it doesn't make the horrible people, just ignorant to a point.

LOL... I didn't say "All Christians are bad". I meant exactly what are said. Most con artist will start off saying they are Christians or Jesus reference, why is that... because of the "false assumption" and puts people's guard down and assume they are good people. My ex's uncles (I highly respected them, Christians) all told me this when they rent their house out. "Whenever during the negotiation stage and they mention Christ or Church, watchout, these renters are going to be trouble."

That's why politicians invariably pronounce their religious connections. Con artists all!


Sadly in the US and elsewhere it would be difficult to do away with religion based adoption agencies. Equally it is sadly their "mission" to indoctrinate these orphans during their stay. Even more sadly in the US we have a sociopolitical climate which accepts these institutions and, as such, provides very little in secular alternatives.

Now for the STATES to make such requirements is entirely unconstitutional. I just have to remind myself we are now living in a oligarchy (with too many citizens thinking its a theocracy). Not that its that hard...I get reminded every time I turn on the news these days. bleh


They may be biased in who they adopt to.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:7529
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.