This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Adoption and religion (UK)

Adoption and religion (UK) - Comments

gordon's Avatar Comment 1 by gordon

Genetically Muslim? Are my kids genetically atheist?

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:05:47 UTC | #860155

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 2 by Sean_W

I don't see how a policy like that could survive even just one case of a child being relegated to foster care indefinitely because no parents of a suitable faith could be found. -nuts

For a bit of levity, you can't adopt children here that have been removed from abusive families if you own a trampoline. Yes, the state is a beast to be reckoned with.

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:23:02 UTC | #860159

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 3 by Neodarwinian

" Serious matters?!?! "

When that attitude changes, the automatic respect given delusion, then everything will change,

Hang in there. What you are doing is beyond such " serious matters. "

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:24:10 UTC | #860160

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 4 by Jos Gibbons

This is worrying for many reasons, including its limiting how quickly lots of children can be adopted.

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:29:15 UTC | #860165

emastro's Avatar Comment 5 by emastro

I would like to point out that the term "genetically Muslim" is obviously ironic and comes from me, not from Social Services. Also, the child was deemed to be a Muslim by the mother, again not by Social Services.

I must say I have a lot of admiration for the social workers I have met so far. Even when I do not agree with some of the policies, I find that they do a great job with a lot of dedication for salaries that most people would find insulting.

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:45:58 UTC | #860169

Sample's Avatar Comment 6 by Sample

Are you able to get your hands on a written policy and post it here?


Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:49:49 UTC | #860172

emastro's Avatar Comment 7 by emastro

@Sample #6: I have never seen a written policy on these matters, as I have never seen one for the ethnicity of the adoptive family having to mirror that of the child (which makes mixed-ethnicity children almost impossible to adopt, incidentally). I'll try and see if I can find anything in writing, especially of the "right" of the birth parent to stick an unalterable "religion" label on the child

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:31:40 UTC | #860187

Sample's Avatar Comment 8 by Sample

Well, certainly I'd be interested (as so many would) to see what they are working off of. But only if it is of interest to you. I have no power so-to-speak to help you in an adoption capacity, I'm just supremely interested in the wording.

Sorry the process has been made difficult for you.


Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:45:05 UTC | #860191

mjs31's Avatar Comment 9 by mjs31

That's a little odd. In the U.S. we have the Multiethnic Placement Act that prevents discrimination against adoption placement on the basis of race, color, ethnic background, or national origin but I don't know if that also applies to the religion of the birth parents, I would assume it does.

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:46:31 UTC | #860193

MartinRobsonUk's Avatar Comment 10 by MartinRobsonUk

Here is a link to adoption UK which you may find interesting , the change in policy as opposed to a change in law seems to be in your favour as far as ethnicity or religion is concerned . I am a Social Worker and can tell you by getting involved with an external support group will certainly make your own Social Worker sit up and change their tact , it means you are speaking to an organisation that will support you if they miss inform you in any way.

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:59:00 UTC | #860241

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 11 by Premiseless

Religions' really wild card - In order to preserve our unquestionable rights to abuse and abuse, play the 'Roots for identity and culture' game of life. The psychological abuse is just an aside, of course. This is, in part, what institutionalises psychology and sociology as pseudo sciences.

I often ask myself if any of the Royal family consider themselves born with a chain around their necks - damned if they defend religion and denounced if they don't - de facto, irrelevant of any sincerity, goodwill or competence to perform duties as a ruling class? It's as though the meaningful things in life always pay homage to fiction and delusion.

It's tragic to be human!

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:56:59 UTC | #860302

Goldy's Avatar Comment 12 by Goldy

How utterly bizzare!

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 02:58:41 UTC | #860320

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 13 by Sean_W

Comment 9 by mjs31

My understanding is that an attempt is made to place children in like religious households but there is no policy enforcing it. There is of course the natural bias of the worker at play.

ps- To clarify an earlier point, it turns out that the trampoline bit is not entirely accurate. A home study is required and a trampoline is frowned upon. It is still possible to pass the study but efforts will be made to encourage you to remove the trampoline.

Comment 5 by emastro

You didn't come across as negative on social work.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 03:08:18 UTC | #860321

RDfan's Avatar Comment 14 by RDfan

Thanks for the link, MartinRobsonUk (comment 10 above). Here it is once again: Adoption UK.

From the link:

Current advice states that social workers must give "due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background", but does not specify whether race should be regarded as outweighing other factors. (emphasis added)

I would like to know how - exactly - they establish the child's, as opposed to the parent's, religious persuasion. (Also, what's, say, a one-year-old's "cultural and linguistic background'?)

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:39:00 UTC | #860325

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 15 by SoHelpMeReason

I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in the US, adopting is as expensive as buying a new car. Some family members of mine recently adopted an infant and it was outrageous. Not to wander off topic, but if anti-abortion advocates see adoption as the heavenly ethereal-lighted perfect option for women who don't want kids but get pregnant, the ridiculousness of the situation needs to end promptly. Children need homes. They're not designer puppies. Quit making them impossible to adopt and start concerning yourself only with their well-being. And that goes for religion, too. Trapping them in a loveless home for unwanted kids because they wouldn't be getting the right kind of Jesus is unethical.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:58:53 UTC | #860327

Jumped Up Chimpanzee's Avatar Comment 16 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

I was born a Roman Catholic but after the nurse slapped me on my back I realised the error of my ways and became a member of the Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until I was 2 years old and converted to Mormonism, of which I was a staunch defender right up until I was 2 and a half, before realising I'd had enough of this crazy life and became a hermit...

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:49:29 UTC | #860344

RDfan's Avatar Comment 17 by RDfan

Hahaha; nice memory you've got there, Jumped Up Chimpanzee! I guess the proposed guidelines were made with toddlers like you in mind! Were you some kind of religious child prodigy? What of those kids, like me (I did not form any views of religion until about age 4 when I was dragged off to a madrasa; even then I was just mumbling what I was told...), who aren't equally gifted?

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:56:29 UTC | #860359

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 18 by SaganTheCat

what happens if an unfit birth parent changes religion? do they need to contact social services to update their abandoned child's profile?

I live in the south and don't plan to adopt but I suppose I'd raise a child to be a good yorkshireman if the government felt it was in the best interests of the child

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:36:16 UTC | #860363

MarkOnTheRiver's Avatar Comment 19 by MarkOnTheRiver

Many years ago, my wife and I went through the adoption process in order to adopt her children from a previous marriage. We both had to be approved by social services, despite her being their biological mother.

It's an invasive process, but was made as painless as possible by the professionalism of our assigned social worker. A lady of great experience, and dare I say, somewhat "old school" in her attitudes to certain aspects of modern sociological bullshit.

Neither my wife or I were religious, and once this was made known, no further reference was made to the subject, other than to say we would both allow our children to make up their own minds, should the subject arise. Fortunately, neither gave religion a second glance.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:57:40 UTC | #860368

Layla's Avatar Comment 20 by Layla

I've heard about this before. I find it pretty appalling really.

There's lots of things a birth parent would have liked to have taught their child and instilled in their child had they not been given for adoption. They would have passed on their worldview, their ethical principles, their habits, their way of speaking. Now it falls to the adoptive parents to do those things.

A birthparent should have no more right to decide their child should be raised in a Catholic household than they should to decide it should be raised in a household which supports Leeds United.

On the contrary, the only right which anyone should have in this situation is the right of the child to be free from indoctrination and to be able to make their own mind up.

Anyone who is bothered by the labelling of children as Muslim children or Catholic children or Hindu children ought to be concerned about this issue because in this case children are not merely being labelled, their actual future is being decided based on it to some degree.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:43:50 UTC | #860384

Dr. monster's Avatar Comment 21 by Dr. monster

this is mental. the rules only make sense if you are adopting a child that is already indoctrinated and be able to think for them selves. they would have to be much older for this to be an issue. there should be a cut-off age or better yet just delete the whole rule.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:12:21 UTC | #860390

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 22 by aquilacane

I'm sure they don't look for Satan worshipers for the dark side of religious adoption. I'm sure the parents wishes don't matter at all.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:42:59 UTC | #860393

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 23 by irate_atheist

What a bunch of fucktards they are.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:27:39 UTC | #860440

green and dying's Avatar Comment 24 by green and dying

There is this idea that people are born with a culture. They aren't. Their culture is the one they were brought up in whether it's the same as their ancestors or not.

Although, I can understand wanting to place children within the same racial background if possible if they aren't white. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to be sure that the parents would not be subtly racist and/or make the child feel like they don't belong, even unintentionally. It's probably better to remove that possibility. I don't think we should pretend that race could not possibly have any effect, because that's not the world we live in. I wonder whether some social workers are using religion as a euphemism for race.

It's obviously not something you should leave a child in foster care over, though.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:51:04 UTC | #860446

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 25 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:10:36 UTC | #860451

emastro's Avatar Comment 26 by emastro

@Green and Dying: I agree completely about the ethnicity of the adopters having to resemble, where possible that of the children. Statistics seem to confirm that this approach is better for the children so I really have no problems with that.

@Layla: let's not push it too far. If I had children and they had to be adopted, I would obviously want them to grow up as AC Milan supporters whatever family they ended up with. I mean, that is in the genes, isn't it?

@Everyone: thanks for the info and suggestions. I'll probably whinge a bit more as the thing progresses.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:57:15 UTC | #860465

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 27 by Premiseless

One has to wonder what it is that motivates the powers in charge to employ such criteria. I wonder whether to some extent a collective insanity prevails in many holistic features of society due the various departments all looking after their own pieces of the puzzle and then letting them (the pieces) make their own picture and fall in place since they be the only pieces produced/empowered to do so. This certainly IS the case with religion and its marriage to leadership and power - where inherited dogma gathers kudos beyond reason and law positions it beyond challenge - a de facto pass and ipso facto community servility no matter how ridiculous under rational analysis. The right thing , or most reasonable things has no voice and no channel for success. And who are they who ' schadenfreude ' such situations? Is this an insane holism that gets away with its chaotic entropy, or some more sinister subversive power at play?

I see this characteristic in everyday interchange between humans - the press, the passing street gossip, the 'I know what they think and why they do what they do' types of individuals. The prevailing consciousness in aspects of law and order, political debate and thus top down entropy of how to respond and how to let oneself think. It's a suspicion rules, collective, type consciousness , a litigation damage power control mindset to rule which seems an entrapment from all that is reasonable, well intended and sincere which becomes a denial of all that represents the holistic best solution for everyone.

Schadenfreude, and its offspring, rules OK in the UK, whether by intent or chaos!?

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:49:46 UTC | #860490

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 28 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:05:05 UTC | #860496

Layla's Avatar Comment 29 by Layla

Comment 24 by green and dying Although, I can understand wanting to place children within the same racial background if possible if they aren't white. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to be sure that the parents would not be subtly racist and/or make the child feel like they don't belong, even unintentionally. It's probably better to remove that possibility. I don't think we should pretend that race could not possibly have any effect, because that's not the world we live in. I wonder whether some social workers are using religion as a euphemism for race.

Whilst I can understand your position at the same time I wonder at the logic of removing children from (in many cases) a white birth mother and then deeming those children unsuitable to be placed with a white adoptive parent. I appreciate that when placing children we want to find the ideal home for that individual child but I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the implications towards mixed race families.

Another thing I'm less than comfortable about, is the way in which they're effectively singling out children and condemning them to be raised within religions which, in some cases, you're not allowed to leave, and in many cases, are also sexist and homophobic. So hardly an ideally chosen environment for a little girl or any child destined to grow up to be gay then.

A birth parent wouldn't have the right to demand their child be brought up a racist because the birth parent is a racist but if you pick from a wide range of religions you can effectively opt to have your child be raised to be a homophobe or a sexist, with their blessing.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:33:11 UTC | #860503

Stonyground's Avatar Comment 30 by Stonyground

I was brought up as a Christian by my natural parents.

I think that Christianity is the worst idea that ever occurred to the human race. Can there possibly have been a more poisonous and stupid idea ever inflicted on humanity? The harm that it has done over two thousand years is there in plain sight, and this harm continues to this day.

Those parents who insist on indoctrination and fail to raise your kids to choose their own world-view, shame on you. As for those of you who can't be arsed to raise your kids and insist that others raise them and indoctrinate them on your behalf, well you are beneath my contempt.

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:47:17 UTC | #860525