However, the spotlight in the article on religion is a bit disingenuous, and certainly designed to garner the reaction that it seems to have. Every adoption agency also does a "family lifestyle" evaluation prior to adoptions, and there are plenty of athiests, mixed-religion and non-churchgoing families with adopted children... I can name you one, personally.
The fact that religion is not a diagnostic criterion is not important. The fact that it is comparable to a criterion already in place in a "similar" situation is also not important. My point is that religion should not be relevant to either of these decisions and should not be on the list of criteria at all. Your stating otherwise is rather like if I screened prospective parents for political orientation, claiming that it's a bellwether of ethics and we want to make sure our children go to ethical homes, and then came back with two token cases of Republicans who miraculously got through to prove that I was unbiased. There's no reason to have the question at all if you aren't biased.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-06 12:33 pm (UTC)The fact that religion is not a diagnostic criterion is not important. The fact that it is comparable to a criterion already in place in a "similar" situation is also not important. My point is that religion should not be relevant to either of these decisions and should not be on the list of criteria at all. Your stating otherwise is rather like if I screened prospective parents for political orientation, claiming that it's a bellwether of ethics and we want to make sure our children go to ethical homes, and then came back with two token cases of Republicans who miraculously got through to prove that I was unbiased. There's no reason to have the question at all if you aren't biased.