I do not disagree on any of the statements made here. I know the truth of them.
I just personally feel a need to put freedom of religion above societal restrictions. Many other situations could be alluded to that would make our skin crawl while contemplating them.
Should we then implement laws that remove the children of cults from the parents? Who decides what cults are included? The children would be better off wouldn't they if removed from JW's, Amish homes? How about the homes of right wing [another subjective] Muslims? Perhaps some of these children would be taught that 'jihad' against the infidels is acceptable?
Why would natural and adoptive parents be seperate from such laws? If it is bad for adopted children it is bad [or maybe worse] for natural children. Let's get them all out of these destructive cults. Perhaps the next step would be forced sterilization for those who select non approved religions?
Do you see where I am going? The Catholics killed hundreds of thousands in the purges of the dark ages. Saddam decided it was acceptable to gas Kurds due to them being of less importance than his other people.
All I am saying is that if we start to take away rights from parents [adoptive or natural] based on some subjective opinion that persons of one religion or another, or of one sexual orientation or another, or of one skin color or another, we open a legislative nightmare in which rights are trampled upon based on the same judgementalism that Jw's use. Once that floodgate opens - history has comfirmed where it always goes - people are oppressed and mistreated, not based on objective personal criterion, but instead on the basis of religion or orientation of some sort that society judges unfit.
It is a proven scientific fact that alcoholism is more frequent among the children of alcoholics as example. Do we wish to prevent then all children of alcoholic parents from adopting children due the higher probability that the children will be subjected to abuse and danger in the household? Some of these children may in turn become alcoholic if we allow that. But at the time of adoption should we not measure instead the individual and his qualities, not judge him on his religion or race?
If it could be demonstrated in some way that children adopted by persons of a particular ethnicity progress slower and become criminals more frequently, do we ban adopting to parents of that ethnicity too? It could be demonstrated with statistics that certain ethnic groups make up the majority of poverty in some areas. Do we ban adoption to that race due to the possible dangers to the child of being poor, in spite of the fact that most persons appying to adopt are not poor? And most likely will not become poor due to race?
Even on this forum we have encountered hundreds of mature adults who have stated that as witnesses they would not have allowed their children to die without blood transfusions as example. They did not isolate them from society in general. Many sent their children to college. While it is true that the religion itself has beliefs that society in general does not agree with - do we wish to dictate to others what religion they can or cannot practice in order to achieve the same privilages as general society?
Society that chooses to discriminate based on the factors stated - in any area not just adoption - are setting themselves up for a future in which rights and privilages will be routinely denied to persons based on position, color, or street address. It is a pandora's box to begin taking rights away from others based on these reasons.
Not too long ago in America it was illegal for black people to adopt white children. Let's not take away rights from anyone based on race, religion or origin. It is too dangerous a trend and often irreversable. I speak of Macro not Micro here.
Jeff
