Baptist Home says church not optional

[NashVegas]

http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/03/48861301.shtml?Element_ID=48861301

State's contract requires giving foster kids choice

Religious freedom is at the center of a dispute between the state and a Baptist children's home that requires state foster children to attend Sunday morning church services.
.

But a new state contract says that if the Baptist home wants to continue to care for children in state custody, it cannot infringe on their right to religious freedom.

...

The home has never taken taxpayer money in its 113-year history, instead being funded by Baptist churches, Millsaps said. Because the home took no state funds, it operated without a state contract.

That has changed under a federal court order, called the Brian A. settlement, which requires contracts with the Baptist home and all other agencies DCS uses.


Because they take no money, this is somewhat of a gray area. But with the Feds demanding a contract, it kind of looks like a footstep in the door.

[BiggJawn]

1. What KIND of "foot in the door"?

This could be taken a few ways. One, it could be seen as "State" interference in the going-ons of the Church, which will get people screaming bloody murder about how Jefferson's Wall is really an osmosis barrier that allows the Church to meddle with the State, but not vice-versa.

Or

It could be seen as the State protecting the rights of the children to not be raised Baptist.

[Sulldogg]

2. Couldn't the state just not place

children in that foster home if there is a conflict....

[BiggJawn]

4. I see no problem with that.

It's logical, which is why the RW will claim that it's "exclusionary" and un-workable.

[NashVegas]

3. Like I Said

gray area.

[Florida_Geek]

5. I guess I have mixed feelings on this

They do not take money from the State to house these children. I just do not have as big a problem with that over them demanding money from the State and THEN saying no strings attached.

[David__77]

10. Let them do as they wish, but don't send children there.

The state shouldn't send children to homes where they won't have religious freedom, which of course includes freedom from religion. The home is free to operate as it chooses, provided it doesn't deal with the DCS.

[Ruby Romaine]

6. similar story in Michigan

FIA says religion is forced at center
Youth home is fighting moratorium in court

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/ranch25_20040325.htm

[NashVegas]

13. Wow

Not so gray an area there. That looks like an outright violation.

[Sinistrous]

7. The solution is

for the DCS (which IS taxpayer funded) not to place children in any facility where their fundamental rights are violated.

The home in question can obviously continue to shelter children who are placed there by parents or by a private agency acting in loco parentis which has no problems with their religious exclusivity.

[pennylane100]

8. If they take no state money

they should be allowed to take children who have already been raised as Baptist and are OK with going to church. This will certainly
limit the number of children for foster care but nobody will be forced to practice religion against their will.

[Toucano]

9. Not gray at all.

If the state has custody of the children, the state is obligated to protect the religious freedom of the children.

Otherwise you clearly have a situation where the child is being forced to attend Baptist services because the state placed the children in their care.

Where the money comes from for the care isn't an issue at all.

[SemperEadem]

11. any enterprise which deals with children should be monitored

especially churches, seeing that some sick minded jerks may think that because they are a bible-based facility and not answerable to the state, they can beat the children if they so choose solely on the basis that it's biblical. The feds having their foot in the door makes far more sense, if we're a nation that truly does not tolerate child abuse. Now, if it's a matter of "so what, it's not me or my kid...", then I can see why folks would say the feds should keep their nose out.

Children are already at too much danger as it is without being caught up in something like this and not having any rights to determine what they want. Especially if winding in a home like this is totally out of your control. Having a religion forced on you in exchange for food and shelter and you have no say so in it is wrong.

[Maat]

12. As an ex-social-worker, now law student, I have to speak up.

Foster children do not get a choice re where they are placed. There is one exception -- which someone here mentioned -- if there own parents place them there and pay. When I went out on an emergency call -- I placed at any approved-place that had an opening -- that is what we were instructed to do -- place quickly and safely -- remember those kids had to have stability pronto! We had to begin dealing with a whole slew of other issues! If you have a state contract -- you play by the rules -- and that means religious freedom for all! I used to see institutions breaking the rules all of the time - and I would report them. Catholic Charities had to hire therapists with all views, for example, not just those that were anti-choice. My tax dollars will not go to religious promotion, period! (if I can help it)

And besides -- have you read the hateful, bigoted resolutions posted on the Southern Baptist Covention website! The State should refuse to contract with them.

I should amend my statement -- there were a few homes that just coincidently never received children on my caseload! The social workers probably have to be extra careful not to put gay youth there. And besides, if the situation were tenable -- I always respected parents' wishes as to placement. Remember, many times we would be able to reunify (that was the goal).