In the heart of Tennessee, a couple's fight to adopt a child has sparked debates about religious freedom in America. Rutan-Rams, along with six other plaintiffs, recently filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and its commissioner. The catalyst for the lawsuit was an email from the Holston United Methodist Children's Home, a religious organization that provides services to adoptive families, stating they would only work with families who share their religious beliefs to avoid conflicts and delays in future service provision.
The Holston United Methodist Children's Home explained to the Washington Post that their decision to prioritize families sharing their beliefs was prompted by their leadership. They argued that requiring them to place children in families with differing beliefs violated their religious freedom. Although the agency receives funding from taxpayers responsible for serving all children and offering services to future parents, they claim that this alleged discrimination is protected by their religious freedom.
Regardless of religious beliefs, all individuals, including Maggie Siddiqui (Muslim) and Guthrie Graves Fitzsimmons (Protestant Christian), should be able to offer a loving home to a foster child without discrimination. However, Siddiqui may face barriers to accessing certain state services due to her religious beliefs, while Graves Fitzsimmons, as a gay man, faces similar obstacles in Tennessee and other parts of the country, even though he was ordained as a deacon in a Baptist church.
Religious freedom, a cherished American value, allows individuals of different faiths to practice their beliefs without fear or coercion. Regrettably, conservative Christian groups in several states undermine this freedom in the name of religion, discriminating against religious minorities, nonbelievers, and other Americans of different faiths.
As Paul D. Miller from Georgetown University notes, American Christian nationalism is more political than religious in its objective to define America as a Christian nation and impose a specific cultural norm as the official culture of the nation. In doing so, Christian nationalism excludes non-Christians and others who do not align with its cultural beliefs, such as people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ individuals.
It is crucial to recognize that Christian nationalism is the antithesis of religious freedom. By advocating for legal privileges that shield certain Christians from laws inconsistent with their theology, they are promoting religious freedom through an "immunity from law" that does not apply to everyone equally.
Christian nationalism is also closely linked to White Supremacy, with a focus on preserving America for those with a white Christian identity, thereby excluding Jewish Americans. In the face of growing antisemitism in America, characterized by violent acts and discrimination, it is essential to protect the rights and security of religious minorities in our country.
Another noteworthy legal challenge is occurring in South Carolina, where a Catholic woman and a Jewish woman were rejected as a potential foster parent by a Protestant-funded youth agency. After filing a lawsuit, the agency changed its policy and began working with some Catholic and Orthodox families, although it continued to discriminate unlawfully. The organization's CEO acknowledged that their strong belief in God can offend others, but they do not wish to be "speakers against another religious or personal group." Instead, they seek only to advocate for their beliefs and serve others as best they can.
Unfortunately, the conservative 6-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court seems to approve of this legal advancement by conservative Christians. Ian Millhiser, writing for Vox, observes that the Supreme Court has increasingly become a forum for conservative Christians' complaints, bending legal rules in their favor quickly and aggressively[1].
It is imperative for nonreligious and minority groups, including LGBTQ individuals, to advocate for religious freedom that upholds equality and justice for all. By collectively supporting one another, we can determine what genuine religious freedom entails and challenge unconstitutional religious exemptions that lead to discrimination.
In conclusion, the Holston United Methodist Children's Home's stance on religious freedom in the context of adoption is not an isolated incident. The broader issue encompasses several aspects, including legal decisions, policies, and social attitudes that can impact religious freedom in the United States. As Americans, it is our responsibility to ensure that religious freedom is preserved for all, regardless of faith, ensuring a vibrant, inclusive, and diverse nation.
[1] Millhiser, I. (2022, May 9). The Supreme Court’s aggressive approach to religion is a tangible threat to our democracy. Vox.
