|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 22, 2022 19:33:39 GMT
What made you conclude I was okay with all this? You seem to defend them on one level - at least appear to be conflicted. That may be me misinterpreting your words. Would you feel the same way if they discriminated against Black couples? For me, it is cut & dry in this case. I wonder if it would be more so for you if you were being discriminated against? Maybe not. I’m somewhat sensitive to antisemitism right now and am having a hard time defending allowing them to continue this practice on any level, including that it is better for the children to allow it. Elaine, not that she needs any explanation from me; she can stick up for herself-but I did not interpret her words that way. My interpretation was that at the present time, there does not seem to be any effective way of fighting these agencies. When given an ultimatum, they fold their tents and leave town. If we ever get a decent SC, maybe something could be done about this reprehensible practice. You are two of my favorite Peas, and I hope that the above does not offend either of you. |
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,236 
|
Post by pilcas on Jan 22, 2022 23:26:31 GMT
What made you conclude I was okay with all this? You seem to defend them on one level - at least appear to be conflicted. That may be me misinterpreting your words. Would you feel the same way if they discriminated against Black couples? For me, it is cut & dry in this case. I wonder if it would be more so for you if you were being discriminated against? Maybe not. I’m somewhat sensitive to antisemitism right now and am having a hard time defending allowing them to continue this practice on any level, including that it is better for the children to allow it. I did not interpret her words as any kind of a defense. Just pointing out that it was pretty much a “between a rock and a hard place” situation. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jan 22, 2022 23:42:48 GMT
You seem to defend them on one level - at least appear to be conflicted. That may be me misinterpreting your words. Would you feel the same way if they discriminated against Black couples? For me, it is cut & dry in this case. I wonder if it would be more so for you if you were being discriminated against? Maybe not. I’m somewhat sensitive to antisemitism right now and am having a hard time defending allowing them to continue this practice on any level, including that it is better for the children to allow it. You would be mistaken in your impressions: Yes. Protected by the First Amendment. Sad, but true. Yes, of course it’s fundamentally unfair. And it only succeeds in reducing the pool of prospects. One would think the goal would be to broaden the pool so more children could be adopted. So, yes, it’s outrageous that tax dollars are funding agencies with discriminatory practices. "Discriminatory" would include race. Is there anything at all in my history here that would indicate to you that I'm an anti-Semite? If it's cut & dry with you, I have no quarrel with that because that's how you feel. I differ because it's not such with me as I've seen the results in my state. I asked a question as to what’s the alternative given the reality I illustrated. The reality being that it’s not the agencies that end up being punished; it’s the thousands of children. I have no answers. Does anyone on this thread have any? My apologies for misunderstanding you. I should know better than discussing these issues when I’m sensitive. That is on me. I don’t think you are an anti-Semite. I am sorry. The question/thought that I will leave and then I’ll bow out since I have muffed it up so royally - not directed at you - is that there are 1.6 MILLION Jewish children in the USA. Government sanctioned anti-semitism - including funding adoption agencies that won’t place children with Jewish parents - is damaging to them also. If the concern is about children, there are children on the other side of the coin being hurt by the decision to allow the taxpayer-funded discrimination to continue. More than simply the children that would have been placed by the discriminatory agency but couldn’t if they closed their doors when the government funds were removed. Where is the concern for the over 1 million Jewish children or millions of LGBT children and what it means when there is government-funded approval of discrimination against adult people like them? What are the solutions to counteract the messages they receive by being raised in a society that includes government-funded discrimination? It is easy to see how damaging it is for children who are POC to be raised in a society rife with racism - and well it should be. It should be equally evident how damaging it can be for Jewish children to be raised in a society that still is, by-and-large, (and growing more so in recent years) anti-Semitic. Not to mention the impact it has on those over 18. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jan 22, 2022 23:51:27 GMT
You seem to defend them on one level - at least appear to be conflicted. That may be me misinterpreting your words. Would you feel the same way if they discriminated against Black couples? For me, it is cut & dry in this case. I wonder if it would be more so for you if you were being discriminated against? Maybe not. I’m somewhat sensitive to antisemitism right now and am having a hard time defending allowing them to continue this practice on any level, including that it is better for the children to allow it. Elaine, not that she needs any explanation from me; she can stick up for herself-but I did not interpret her words that way. My interpretation was that at the present time, there does not seem to be any effective way of fighting these agencies. When given an ultimatum, they fold their tents and leave town. If we ever get a decent SC, maybe something could be done about this reprehensible practice.
You are two of my favorite Peas, and I hope that the above does not offend either of you. Keep in mind the Philadelphia decision was UNANIMOUS - while narrow, the legality was not even slightly in question. In my mind, if an area is not able to access agencies who are non-discriminatory to outsource part of the process, the counties need to set up their own process for adoption/foster care than does not rely on faith or other agencies who cannot fulfill their mission without discriminating. It may not be an easy answer, but a status quo of not allowing those of other faith, race or sexual orientation to adopt/foster is not acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 23, 2022 0:13:09 GMT
Whether this discrimination is currently protected by law or not, I wonder if anyone is concerned about the implications for when - not if - many red states do away with public education and instead funnel those tax dollars to church-run charter schools? Will those schools have the freedom to educate only the children of families who agree with their faith? What happens when they are the only school in town?
To me, this federally sanctioned discrimination is disturbing. We are halfway to theocracy in much of the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 23, 2022 0:26:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 23, 2022 0:35:33 GMT
Elaine, not that she needs any explanation from me; she can stick up for herself-but I did not interpret her words that way. My interpretation was that at the present time, there does not seem to be any effective way of fighting these agencies. When given an ultimatum, they fold their tents and leave town. If we ever get a decent SC, maybe something could be done about this reprehensible practice.
You are two of my favorite Peas, and I hope that the above does not offend either of you. Keep in mind the Philadelphia decision was UNANIMOUS - while narrow, the legality was not even slightly in question. In my mind, if an area is not able to access agencies who are non-discriminatory to outsource part of the process, the counties need to set up their own process for adoption/foster care than does not rely on faith or other agencies who cannot fulfill their mission without discriminating. It may not be an easy answer, but a status quo of not allowing those of other faith, race or sexual orientation to adopt/foster is not acceptable. Something should be done. It is infuriating that these organizations can get taxpayer dollars. It just isn’t right to give taxpayer funds to these bigots. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 23, 2022 0:39:27 GMT
Whether this discrimination is currently protected by law or not, I wonder if anyone is concerned about the implications for when - not if - many red states do away with public education and instead funnel those tax dollars to church-run charter schools? Will those schools have the freedom to educate only the children of families who agree with their faith? What happens when they are the only school in town? To me, this federally sanctioned discrimination is disturbing. We are halfway to theocracy in much of the country. It’s very concerning. As an atheist, I am uncomfortable with any public money going to any religious organizations. And some of the money making charters are also disturbing. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 22, 2024 9:36:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2022 21:03:48 GMT
As a Jew, I want to take the Old Testament back from Christians. This made me think of you, elaine.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,525
|
Post by casii on Jan 24, 2022 21:13:06 GMT
As a Jew, I want to take the Old Testament back from Christians. This made me think of you, elaine .
So much of this about the Hebrew language. And different meanings for one word depending on the context it's used in. There was a guy recently who did a great series on this and posted his links on Twitter along that was really eye opening. I loved it! He also talked about how men in power have monkeyed around with 'scripture' for centuries to retain their power structure by interpreting words in a way that suits their purposes. But on the original subject, a loving home is a loving home. I can't with all that hateful Christian love. Especially when we're funded to some degree by our money. |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jan 24, 2022 21:14:27 GMT
I wonder if they bother to take into account the religion of the children they're placing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Jan 24, 2022 21:34:19 GMT
Elaine, not that she needs any explanation from me; she can stick up for herself-but I did not interpret her words that way. My interpretation was that at the present time, there does not seem to be any effective way of fighting these agencies. When given an ultimatum, they fold their tents and leave town. If we ever get a decent SC, maybe something could be done about this reprehensible practice.
You are two of my favorite Peas, and I hope that the above does not offend either of you. Keep in mind the Philadelphia decision was UNANIMOUS - while narrow, the legality was not even slightly in question. In my mind, if an area is not able to access agencies who are non-discriminatory to outsource part of the process, the counties need to set up their own process for adoption/foster care than does not rely on faith or other agencies who cannot fulfill their mission without discriminating. It may not be an easy answer, but a status quo of not allowing those of other faith, race or sexual orientation to adopt/foster is not acceptable. This is exactly what needs to be done. The money clearly exists if they are paying other agencies to do this. So the government needs to keep adoption/foster care “on house” so people are. Or being discriminated against based on protected classes. Get private organizations out of the process weather they are non-profit or for profit. I think this is one of the areas where privatization of government functions ultimately does a lot more harm than good. |
|
pantsonfire
Drama Llama
Take a step back, evaluate what is important, and enjoy your life with those who you love.
Posts: 6,239
|
Post by pantsonfire on May 4, 2023 9:19:18 GMT
***OLD THREAD***
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 4, 2023 10:15:18 GMT
Here’s where I get confused. Why are they then entitled to taxpayer money? If they discriminate, that seems all kinds of wrong. Because Congress hasn’t done anything about it. I’m not even certain they can because it implicates the First Amendment. As far as I know, equal treatment of prospective parents cannot supersede the free exercise of religion. But, we'll see what happens with this case. What I've observed with such is it's usually narrowly decided, meaning it's applicable only to that specific case. It was the same with the Philadelphia one--in fact, lucyg was the one who said on that thread it was a narrow decision so its import was extremely limited. Freely excercise your ‘religion’ without my tax dollars all you want. But MY TAX dollars are SUPPOSED to be separate from any religion! I put ‘religion’ in quotes not because I don’t think it’s a religion but because I reject that it’s Christian as in Jesus like Christian. This is not Jesus like actions ( Jesus was a Jew with a ‘step father’ ) |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 4, 2023 13:35:46 GMT
As a Jew, I want to take the Old Testament back from Christians. This made me think of you, elaine.
Well, technically much of it was written in Aramaic which is pre modern Hebrew semitic language but closely related and definitely not completely lost But same point. Like when certain radical catholic sects insist mass be in the “original” language - Latin Hey, wasn’t the last supper the first mass? Yes Well then why isn’t your mass in Aramaic ( aka ancient Hebrew ) since Jesus was Jewish? Silence… Then Uhhhhhhh ummm uhhhh Yes, I had that conversation with someone Somewhere along the line they took the Christ out of Christian |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 4, 2023 13:42:03 GMT
Keep in mind the Philadelphia decision was UNANIMOUS - while narrow, the legality was not even slightly in question. In my mind, if an area is not able to access agencies who are non-discriminatory to outsource part of the process, the counties need to set up their own process for adoption/foster care than does not rely on faith or other agencies who cannot fulfill their mission without discriminating. It may not be an easy answer, but a status quo of not allowing those of other faith, race or sexual orientation to adopt/foster is not acceptable. This is exactly what needs to be done. The money clearly exists if they are paying other agencies to do this. So the government needs to keep adoption/foster care “on house” so people are. Or being discriminated against based on protected classes. Get private organizations out of the process weather they are non-profit or for profit. I think this is one of the areas where privatization of government functions ultimately does a lot more harm than good. “Non-profit” isn’t always what the label implies either. Have to look into where the money goes. It’s ‘easy’ to not turn a ‘profit’ for the agency if you just pay the higher up administration employees a big enough salary. Voila your non profit. Happens at “non-profit” charter schools often enough. It’s not like the teachers are getting those high salaries either. |
|
None
Full Member
Posts: 453
Sept 17, 2017 13:10:30 GMT
|
Post by None on May 4, 2023 22:31:47 GMT
This makes me sick. How can you keep needy children from loving families because they are a different religion? So very wrong.
|
|
