Muslim woman denied approval as foster parent because she won't serve pork????

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-muslim-foster-parents-20100416,0,1156696.story

A code for religious discrimination
Our view: Must one serve pork to qualify as a responsible foster parent?

With all the orphaned and abandoned children in need of loving homes, does anyone really believe that serving pork should be a requirement for good foster parenting? Crazy as it sounds, that's apparently the belief of a private company authorized by the state of Maryland to place foster children. And it's so absurd that it's hard to conclude the real motivation is anything but religious bias.

The case came to light Wednesday when the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint with the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission against a company called Contemporary Family Services, which has a contract with the state to screen foster-parent candidates. The complaint alleges the agency illegally discriminated against a Middle River couple when it denied them a license to become foster parents because they refused to serve pork or pork products in their home.

The couple, Tashima Crudup, 26, and Andre Moore, 39, are Muslims. But in their application and interviews with the licensing agency, both indicated they would welcome a foster child of a different faith in their home. A social worker who visited them reported they had "an understanding that there are many religions and that they are accepting of religious practices other than their own. ... Additionally, they express a willingness to make arrangements to have a child attend the church of his or her own choice if so requested."

According to the agency's own report, the couple had a spacious home in which they were raising five children, had completed 30 hours of training as foster parents and had no criminal record. Mr. Moore was employed as a truck driver, and Ms. Crudup, who had been a foster child herself and wanted to give back some of the love she had received as a kid, was a stay-at-home mom. And though the family attended a mosque in Baltimore regularly, and the women wore traditional head coverings, there was no suggestion they were religious zealots. Ms. Crudup even said she would have no objection to her foster children eating pork in venues outside her home, including school outings or restaurants.

>snip<

More at the link.

quote from above: both indicated they would welcome a foster child of a different faith in their home.

so they will not allow those children of other faiths foods that those other faiths think are ok.

hmmm

Msongs

RFTA.

This seems like an absurd reason to deny kids a loving home.

i mean if he's more charming than that arnold on green acres, would that be ok?

:rofl:

They're OK with a foster child eating pork outside of their home. They're willing to help a child attend a church of a faith other than their own.

Not serving pork does not equal imposing your religious beliefs on others.

... deeply mysterious. The bread is toasted on the altar candles at midnight.

Don't forget the mayo. :eyes:

Hekate

of announcing that they will allow their foster children to attend any church of their choice?

Sounds like these people are more tolerant and accommodating than 90% of Christians I've ever met. I bet they'd be great foster parents.

Your post defends blatant bigotry.

seems you're imposing your own interpretation in the absence of evidence for it.

because eating pork is the most important feature of a child's life, & an important symbol of freedom, of course.

... eat anything they wanted to OUTSIDE the home. The cooking utensils and dishes have to remain ritually clean -- kosher, if you will -- and ritually clean has nothing to do with washing things in boiling water. It has to do with the integrity and continuity of religious practice inside the home. Foster kids would be deprived of nothing, and according to this couple's application they would be happy to have children of a different faith attend whatever religious services they wanted.

My first roomie away from home in college was a Jewish girl. The dishes and pots in our apartment were hers; she asked that I not bring treif home, so I didn't. It wasn't some big hairy deal, it was a matter of respect. After several months I started to crave canned pork'n'beans, but so what? Anytime I wanted to I could go to a coffee shop and order a BLT if I started jonesing for pig products that badly.

I think the Dept of Social Services is discriminating on the basis of religion, and that's not right.

Hekate

to anyone who responded to them.

The article says that they have no problem with them eating pork outside their home. They just didn't want to serve it.

roast beef in their home?

Strangely enough, one can live a very full and happy life without pig meat.

Guess that makes me a bad parent.

considering MANY other-than-Muslims who won't serve pork, like KOSHER JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS!

:thumbsdown:

..... not s'possa mention that.

"the game" doesn't support "open & honest" at this time.

To h*ll with all of the wrest (and, yes, I spelled the word CORRECTLY ~ look it up if you don't know) of it!

Calling on Adel Foxman of ADL.....

:puke:

I can't see it. Bacon, maybe.

the placement because the home already had 5 children in it.

Almost like it was designed to offend someone.

The only thing that surprising is this story didn't originate from someplace like lower Alabama or Toad Suck, Arkansas.

for bigots.

what about vegetarian's are they also excluded, or just Muslim's?

too. I guess I would be excluded because I won't serve ANY meat. :yoiks:

I'd be shocked to find this "qualification" raised in those other circumstances.

Denying someone the 'other white meat'

:sarcasm:

Some people are fucking idiots. :banghead:

:argh:

I was thinking about that, too.

What if the parents were vegetarians, or Jews, or just didn't like pork - would they be banned too?

Are children better off in institutions than in a good home that doesn't serve pork???

This is crazy, and probably just an excuse to discriminate against Muslims.

I don't understand this decision in the least.

So much potential for abuse. So little oversight.

;)

is the absolute height of disfunction. Forget about alcoholism, depression, verbal/spousal/child abuse, emotional distance and all that other good stuff. That's nothing compared to the home that deprives children of really good, falling off the bone ribs.

Not the least of which is an obvious attempt to rule out both Muslims and Jews as foster parents.