Faith and foster care: 5 key numbers as SCOTUS case pits religion vs. gay rights
Weekend Plug-in 🔌
Editor’s note: Every Friday, “Weekend Plug-in” features analysis, fact checking and top headlines from the world of faith. Got feedback or ideas for this column? Email Bobby Ross Jr. at therossnews@gmail.com.
(ANALYSIS) We voted.
And then we waited. And fretted over the outcome. And waited some more.
While we did, perhaps some of us missed Wednesday’s arguments in the latest U.S. Supreme Court case pitting religious freedom vs. gay rights.
The dispute involves the city of Philadelphia ending its foster care contract with Catholic Social Services over the faith-based agency’s refusal to place children with same-sex parents.
Here are five key numbers that stood out to me:
5,000 CHILDREN IN CUSTODY
NPR’s Nina Totenberg’s reported:
On one side is the city of Philadelphia, which has custody of about 5,000 abused and neglected children, and contracts with 30 private agencies to provide foster care in group homes and for the certification, placement, and care of children in individual private foster care homes.
Reuters’ Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung asked a city official about the potential impact if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic Society Services:
A ruling against Philadelphia could make it easier for people to cite religious beliefs when seeking exemptions from widely applicable laws such as anti-discrimination statutes.
“If individual organizations can begin to choose to discriminate against whom they want to serve, then it does begin to set an unfortunate precedent,” said Cynthia Figueroa, Philadelphia’s deputy mayor for children and families.
ZERO SAME-SEX PARENTS DENIED
The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes quoted Lori Windham:
“Zero” was the answer from Windham, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, when asked how many same-sex couples had been denied the opportunity to be foster parents because of CSS policy. She said if ever approached, the agency would refer the couple to one of the more than two dozen agencies that have no issue with same-sex marriage.
“The city has no compelling reason for excluding Catholic Social Services, which has exercised its faith by serving at-risk children in Philadelphia for two centuries,” Windham said. “Nor does it have any interest in refusing to allow the agency to step aside and provide referrals elsewhere. Yet, Philadelphia is refusing to place children with loving mothers … just because they chose to partner with an agency who shares their faith.”
FIRST MAJOR CASE FOR BARRETT
Agence France-Presse explained:
It is first major hearing to come before Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Catholic appointed by President Donald Trump and sworn in last week over the objection of Democrats.
For more details on Barrett’s faith, see this primer.
SIX CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES
The court’s new 6-3 majority makes a ruling in favor of Catholic Social Services likely, several news organizations noted.
The Associated Press’ Jessica Gresko noted:
Catholic Social Services, which is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, says its religious views keep it from certifying same-sex couples as foster parents. And it says it shouldn’t be shut out of a contract with the city to find foster homes for children. Philadelphia says it requires all the foster care agencies it works with not to discriminate as part of their contract.
With the addition of three appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, the court would seem poised to extend protections for religious objections to anti-discrimination laws.
THIRTY-YEAR-OLD PRECEDENT AT ISSUE
In a preview of Wednesday’s court session, the Washington Post’s Michelle Boorstein explained:
In Fulton, the court will consider whether the city violated the First Amendment by disallowing Catholic Social Services from being part of its foster care system.
The justices are also being asked to overturn a ruling that has been controversial for religious conservatives since it was made 30 years ago: Employment Division v. Smith. The decision, which says a person’s religious motivations don’t exempt them from neutral, generally applicable laws, was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and said that without limits “every citizen [would] become a law unto himself.”
However, the justices may decide this case without touching on the previous one, Religion News Service’s Yonat Shimron pointed out:
Short of overruling Smith, the court could opt for a narrow ruling that affects only Catholic Social Services. For example, in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to design a cake for a couple’s same-sex wedding. In that case — Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission — the court said the Colorado commission’s nondiscrimination policy was hostile to religion. It did not rule more broadly that the Constitution gives private businesses the right to religious exemptions from general laws.
Look for a ruling in June.
Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads
1. 5 things we learned about faith voters this election cycle: Last week’s Plug-in highlighted the religion questions to watch on Election Day.
As we begin our preliminary analysis of what occurred as roughly 160 million Americans voted, Religion Unplugged’s own Clemente Lisi cites early lessons learned.
Among them: Latino evangelicals helped President Trump win Florida. Catholic votes made a difference (but for whom?). Louisiana and Colorado went different directions on abortion restrictions. Washington state approved requiring sex ed in schools. And Muslims voted in record numbers.
Also interesting: the Washington Post’s exit poll results and analysis for the 2020 election.
2. Vote, pray, wait: Faith leaders reassure congregations, call for full vote count as election remains uncertain: Prayer figured prominently in religion journalists’ post-election coverage, including this colorful report by Religion News Service’s Emily McFarlan Miller.
Washington Post religion writer Michelle Boorstein witnessed gratitude, fear and stress as Americans prayed after the election, while The Associated Press’ Luis Andres Henao covered Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths praying and singing together “in post-election solidarity.”
3. How Hindu nationalism could shape the election: “Some activists and donors are trying to use the Hindutva ideology as a wedge issue to attract Indian American voters to the GOP — and to pressure Indian American politicians,” Sonia Paul reports for Politico magazine.
Unfamiliar with Hindutva ideology? You won’t be after reading Paul’s revealing, in-depth coverage.
More Top Reads
• Preaching or avoiding politics, conservative churches walk a delicate line (by Ruth Graham, New York Times)
• This election, Black churches face challenges getting ‘Souls to the Polls’ (by Ian Lovett, Wall Street Journal)
• The pastor thought Trump was ‘evil,’ so he quit his conservative church (by Jaweed Kaleem, Los Angeles Times)
• Most conservative Christians support Trump: Will they help him again? (by Elizabeth Dias, New York Times)
• How a Tennessee boy ended up on a priest’s path to sainthood (by Holly Meyer, The Tennessean)
• Teacher’s slaying becomes unsettling civics lesson in France’s schools (by Matthew Dalton and Valentina Pop, Wall Street Journal)
• France’s hardening defense of cartoons of Muhammad could lead to ‘a trap’ (by Norimitsu Onishi and Constant Méheut, New York Times)
• Social issues a priority for cardinal-to-be Wilton Gregory (by David Crary, Associated Press)
• The ‘Squad’ returns: 5 faith facts about the House’s firebrand group (by Bob Smietana, Religion News Service)
Inside The Godbeat: Behind The Bylines
What’s it like covering religion during an election year — and amid a pandemic — for an elite national newspaper?
New York Times religion writers Elizabeth Dias and Ruth Graham recently discussed the challenges.
Charging Station: In Case You Missed It
Here is where you can catch up on recent news and opinions from Religion Unplugged.
• Carl Lentz, former Hillsong pastor, admits to affair after megachurch fires him (by Meagan Clark)
• Another girl, another abduction, another forced conversion, another child marriage (by Ewelina U. Ochab)
• Why are U.S. voters so wary about electing atheists? What about voting for evangelicals? (by Richard Ostling)
• Bevelyn Beatty, 'Jesus Matters' activist who defaced BLM murals, stabbed outside White House (by Princess Jones)
• A centrist visits a gun store and finds it hard to shoot for the middle (by Paul Glader)
• Religious voters to have a big say following contentious campaign (by Clemente Lisi)
• God is not Republican, says former Fox News producer (by Jake Dinsmore)
• Inside Florida’s evangelical vote split along racial identity (by Hamil R. Harris)
• The oldest Black church in Alabama is driving voters to the polls (by Mattie Townson)
• Inside an oasis of religious freedom in northeast Syria (by Lela Gilbert and Arielle Del Turco)
• Chileans blocked from visiting cemeteries on All Saints Day (by Graciela Ibáñez)
The Final Plug
This lede by the New York Times’ Adam Nagourney has to be one of the best of the year:
A presidential election that has driven a nation to drink is being fought to the bitter end by two men who do not.
For the first time in modern history, both major party candidates for the White House are teetotalers. President Trump and his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., have not had an alcoholic drink over the course of their lives, by their own accounts.
Interestingly enough, religion — often a factor in teetotaling — does not seem to be a factor why either candidate has chosen not to drink.
Cheers!
Bobby Ross Jr. is a columnist for Religion Unplugged and editor-in-chief of The Christian Chronicle. A former religion writer for The Associated Press and The Oklahoman, Ross has reported from all 50 states and 15 nations. He has covered religion since 1999.