In the heart of Tennessee, a controversial case about religious freedom has made its way into the spotlight. Rutan-Rams, along with six other individuals, have filed a lawsuit against Tennessee's Department of Children's Services and its commissioner, following an email from the Holston United Methodist Children's Home. This religious organization claimed they would only work with families who share their beliefs, citing potential conflicts and delays in future service provision.
The Holston United Methodist Children's Home stated their decision was motivated by their leadership, arguing that placing children in families with differing beliefs violated their religious freedom. Despite their funding coming from taxpayers responsible for serving all children and future parents, they maintained that this alleged discrimination was protected by their religious rights.
All individuals, regardless of religious beliefs, should be able to offer a loving home to a foster child without discrimination. However, this is not always the case. Maggie Siddiqui, a Muslim woman, may face barriers to accessing certain state services due to her beliefs, while Guthrie Graves Fitzsimmons, a Protestant Christian and gay man, faces similar obstacles in Tennessee and other parts of the country.
Religious freedom, a cherished American value, allows individuals to practice their beliefs without fear or coercion. Unfortunately, some conservative Christian groups in several states undermine this freedom in the name of religion, discriminating against religious minorities, nonbelievers, and other Americans with different faiths.
Paul D. Miller from Georgetown University highlights the political nature of American Christian nationalism. Their goal is 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.
Christian nationalism is, in fact, 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. Furthermore, Christian nationalism is closely linked to White Supremacy, focusing on preserving America for white Christian identities, thereby excluding Jewish Americans.
Another legal challenge is unfolding in South Carolina, where a Catholic woman and a Jewish woman faced rejection as potential foster parents by a Protestant-funded youth agency. After filing a lawsuit, the agency adjusted their policy to work with some Catholic and Orthodox families, but they still discriminated unlawfully against others. The agency's CEO acknowledged their beliefs could offend others but argued they were merely advocating for their beliefs and serving others as best they could.
The conservative 6-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court appears to approve of this legal advancement by conservative Christians, as noted by Ian Millhiser of Vox. The Supreme Court has transformed into a forum for conservative Christians' complaints, often bending legal rules in their favor quickly and aggressively.
Nonreligious and minority groups, including LGBTQ individuals, must advocate for religious freedom that upholds equality and justice for all. By collectively supporting one another, they can determine what genuine religious freedom entails and challenge unconstitutional religious exemptions that lead to discrimination.
This is not an isolated incident, but instead part of an ongoing issue involving legal decisions, policies, and social attitudes that can impact religious freedom in the United States. As Americans, it's 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.
Enrichment Data:
The current debate surrounding religious organizations prioritizing placements with families sharing their beliefs in the adoption process involves complex legal and social implications.
Legal Implications
- First Amendment Protections: The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause safeguards the right to exercise religion, which is considered a "special case" in American law. Supreme Court precedents, like Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, protect individuals from government action that violates their religious beliefs, both in its explicit purpose and impact.
- Strict Scrutiny: Historically, the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to cases involving the Free Exercise Clause, ensuring government interference with religious exercise was the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose. However, the 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith narrowed the application of strict scrutiny to cases where government action explicitly targets religious practice.
- Covert Suppression: Regulations and policies that appear facially neutral can still operate to covertly suppress certain religious beliefs. Examples include the case of Blais v. Hunter, where administrative bias during the application and interview process can impact applicants' religious beliefs.
- Administrative Bias: Bureaucratic bias, where staff impose their personal, cultural, and religious beliefs on applicants, can occur. In the case of Mike and Kitty Burke, their Catholic faith was a reason for their foster parent application rejection despite qualifications.
Social Implications
- Foster Care Crisis: The foster care system faces a crisis, with thousands of children in need of care. Denying qualified foster parent applicants due to their religious beliefs exacerbates this crisis and violates their rights.
- Gender Ideology Policies: Many states have implemented policies requiring foster parents to affirm a child's gender identity, which can conflict with the religious beliefs of some applicants. These policies have been challenged in courts, leading to preliminary injunctions against their implementation.
- Broader Concept of Religious Freedom: The trend of denying foster parent applicants based on their religious beliefs threatens the broader concept of religious freedom in the United States. It further suggests that the right to exercise religion is becoming less significant as gender ideology policies dominate societal discourse.
- Public Perception and Policy: This issue has sparked public debate and legal challenges. Organizations such as the Interfaith Alliance have raised concerns regarding how these policies undermine religious freedom, while others argue they are necessary to protect LGBTQ+ children.
