Right of each country to select the adoptive parents based on their religion... thoughts? Islam... - Page 2

[LessTraveledBy]

Yes, yes... I do understand all this, whether I am able to agree or not. And, once again, Morocco is not the only country doing it. The Philippines could be seen as stricter, as they require 5 years of having practiced Christianity, not just a future conversion. There probably are other countries out there, also, that I just don't know of.

I am in agreement with these countries in that they have the right to decide, assuming the child is part of the majority. (It is interesting to me that someone made the comment that when a child is taken away, it is ok to go by the majority's opinions. I must say I don't agree with that, but, practically, it of course works that way.) It makes at least as much sense to require a certain religion, as does saying the adoptive parents may or may not have certain illnesses, be too heavy, etc. In each case, the country is trying to find adoptive parents whom they consider suitable or good enough. It does get more difficult for me, though, when the attitude it that you are better off in an ophanage if the "good enough" family is not found for you, than living with a different family. This I am not so happy about. If a country wants to decide, then somehow (money talks, normally) they, IMO, need to find all the kids families, whether adoptive or foster. But, it is not up to me at all, of couse.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by LessTraveledBy 

(It is interesting to me that someone made the comment that when a child is taken away, it is ok to go by the majority's opinions. I must say I don't agree with that, but, practically, it of course works that way.)

I don't know Morocco. But if it is anything like other North African countries I do know there would really be no such thing as being "taken away." Orphanages would be for actual orphans and children voluntarily relinquished to the state.

[LaPaix]

Originally Posted by LessTraveledBy 

Strangely enough, a piece of paper signed in front of a Moroccan judge (or whatever the right term is) is exactly what is needed. Nothing more.

See, this bothers me more than the law itself, to me it seems like they simply put the law there to follow Islamic law and they don't really care about enforcing it, or maybe they realize that the number of Moroccans orphans outweighs the number of perspective Muslim parents? I don't know.

I was talking to a friend about this and she pointed me to this site http://pear-now.blogspot.com/2010/08/cautionary-statement-and-clarification.html

[Tjej]

Originally Posted by LessTraveledBy 

Yes, yes... I do understand all this, whether I am able to agree or not. And, once again, Morocco is not the only country doing it. The Philippines could be seen as stricter, as they require 5 years of having practiced Christianity, not just a future conversion. There probably are other countries out there, also, that I just don't know of.

I am in agreement with these countries in that they have the right to decide, assuming the child is part of the majority. (It is interesting to me that someone made the comment that when a child is taken away, it is ok to go by the majority's opinions. I must say I don't agree with that, but, practically, it of course works that way.) It makes at least as much sense to require a certain religion, as does saying the adoptive parents may or may not have certain illnesses, be too heavy, etc. In each case, the country is trying to find adoptive parents whom they consider suitable or good enough. It does get more difficult for me, though, when the attitude it that you are better off in an ophanage if the "good enough" family is not found for you, than living with a different family. This I am not so happy about. If a country wants to decide, then somehow (money talks, normally) they, IMO, need to find all the kids families, whether adoptive or foster. But, it is not up to me at all, of couse.

I don't see anything wrong with being very strict and picky about who children are adopted to.  They are giving up citizens - that's a huge deal!  Good on the Philippines too. 

Also, it isn't necessarily true that it is better for kids to be in a sub-par family (as determined by the person or people responsible for the children) than to be stripped of their culture, nationality, and life they've known.  There are many many groups that work very hard at making it possible for children to grow up healthy in their country and culture of birth - within the family itself or in orphanages.  If a country lets its children be internationally adopted, they are giving up a portion of their national future. 

Don't get me wrong, we are strongly considering international adoption for our family in the future.  Just because it is a hard option doesn't make it a wrong or bad option either.  I just fail to see how there is anything bad about countries having their own rules about who is eligible to adopt.

Tjej   

[LessTraveledBy]

Originally Posted by Liquesce 
I don't know Morocco. But if it is anything like other North African countries I do know there would really be no such thing as being "taken away." Orphanages would be for actual orphans and children voluntarily relinquished to the state.

Sure! Sorry, bad choice of words. Maybe it is true that the mothers giving up their children are not quite like the ones in the Western world. Not sure... It does seem that having a child out of wedlock is among the reasons that children are given away. Whether a biological mom in that situation cares about the religion of the adoptive parents, I suppose it is case by case. These are all theoretical thoughts, only, anyway. Just part of my process of trying to figure out what I think about int'l adoption and adoption from different countries.

[LessTraveledBy]

Originally Posted by Tjej 

Also, it isn't necessarily true that it is better for kids to be in a sub-par family (as determined by the person or people responsible for the children) than to be stripped of their culture, nationality, and life they've known.  There are many many groups that work very hard at making it possible for children to grow up healthy in their country and culture of birth - within the family itself or in orphanages.  If a country lets its children be internationally adopted, they are giving up a portion of their national future. 

Don't get me wrong, we are strongly considering international adoption for our family in the future.  Just because it is a hard option doesn't make it a wrong or bad option either.  I just fail to see how there is anything bad about countries having their own rules about who is eligible to adopt.  

Actually, I totally agree with you. The thoughts are affected right now by the fact that I have the face of a baby boy in mind and that this particular child needs surgery. Thus, in his case it may be a case of getting to keep his culture and never walking, or being taken out, walking, and then who knows what.. Not all adoptive families are great families, either... Sometimes I do think we glorify the culture of the child's country, though. There are places where the orphans have no future, because there is such stigma to being an orphan.

So far I feel that we should be putting more of these huge amounts of money into helping people right where they are. But that is not so simple, either... I do think that if we adopt from another culture, we will not adopt a child who does not need to have an obvious reason to need to get out, other than living in an orphanage. Special needs needing treatment seems to me like a good enough reason to be "taken out" of one's culture, assuming that treatment is not possible where the child is.

I do think that many people seem to think "I craved for a child" is a good enough reason to adopt someone, even internationally. (Not so much here, maybe, and maybe not anymore. I know things used to be different.) Yet, for that child, when grown up, that reason just likely will not mean much. I would imagine it may even be super annoying, if the only real reasons seem to be emotional ones, and may even seem selfish. I think this might be especially hard to hear for a teenager or young adult who is searching for an identity and has not been through infertility. (Not that all adoptive parents are infertile, I realize that.)

I just really don't know what the answers are... but I am looking for them and trying to figure things out...

[lamamax3]

My dad is from Iran, so that entire side is Muslim.  In the religion, an adopted child is not truly a part of the family, unless he or she is breastfed by the adoptive mother.  Women (beginning when they are only nine years old) have to cover their hair and figure (the burqua stuff isn't in the Koran, it's been added by extremists) from any man they could potentially marry.  For example, I have an aunt and cousin who visit the US every year.  They can keep their hair uncovered in front of my dad because he is the brother of one and uncle of the other.  Because cousins can marry, my cousin has to cover her hair from my brother.  Both women have to cover up from my husband, even though he's married.  It is within the realm of possibility (however unlikely) that he could marry one of them.  Confusing, I know.  What happens with adoption is that if you adopt a little boy, he's not really your son and your daughter's brother.  That means, that once he's not a small child, you would all have to cover from him.  If you adopted a girl, she would have to cover up from her adoptive father and any brothers. 

I don't think it's anti-Muslim to say that is ridiculous.  There are orphans in the world who will never find a home because the parents have to be Muslim and many Muslim families won't adopt because of the rules.  I recently read about a group who is trying to get Imams to formally change the rules so that more orphans will find homes.  I hope it works.

I have wondered if I would be able to adopt a Muslim child, since in the religion, kids automatically take the faith of their fathers.  That would mean I am officially Muslim.  Of course, my Catholic mom had me baptized...and my Atheist husband would be a problem ;)

Hope this helps!

[Liquesce]

Hijab is not turning people who would otherwise want to adopt against adoption. I have never, for example, known a woman to shy away from entering into a marriage in which she would have stepsons on the grounds of observance of hijab. That would be ludicrous. Your position is not anti-Muslim, but it is reading far too much hardship into dress.

And while if you had a Muslim upbringing you could perhaps make a case for being a lapsed Muslim, you are not yourself "officially Muslim" unless you affirm it.

[lamamax3]

Then maybe I wasn't clear.  Discussing the dress issue was meant to highlight the fact that adopted children are never considered the same as biological children, unless he or she was also breastfed by the adoptive mother.  None of that is made up; I have looked into it.  As for stepchildren, I have no idea how common it is.  I know 0 Iranian families with stepchildren in the mix.

I take a bit of exception to the term "lapsed Muslim" as I never claimed to have practiced the religion.  The faith doesn't really take free choice into the equation; your father is Muslim, then you are too.  Just like I'm an Iranian citizen because my father is.  It doesn't pass through the mother, which is why devout Muslims don't mind men marrying outside of the faith nearly as much as women doing it.  I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Catholic religion, but they have a similar deal.  I was baptized as a Catholic, which means that to the Church, I am a Catholic, whether I want to be or not.  I thought you had to go through Confirmation, but apparently not.  I am no more a "lapsed Catholic" than a "lapsed Muslim" because I made no choices about those things.  My dad's side of the family consider me one of theirs and so does my mom's.  Their idea, not mine.

[LessTraveledBy]

lamamax... While this is quote off the topic, you can officially leave the Catholic church, though. I have no clue whether Islam has something similar or not.

[Liquesce]

Your father's side of the family can consider you whatever they like, however in religion terms no, you are not Muslim merely because your father is. If your father did not raise you Muslim, if at the age of accountability you were not Muslim, then that's really all there is to it. I understand that there are people who will tell you differently, but those people are speaking from a point of cultural expectations and not religious mandate. It may get into the (rather sticky, charged, and controversial) subject of apostasy, but not basic identity without respect to choice.

As for the broader point about dress, I have never known bringing up children that are not one's own biological children to be looked down upon or stigmatized in any respect -- in religious terms it is explicitly an act of great merit, and no where with which I am personally familiar culturally contradicts that -- so again not sure how much that is really factoring in. "Not the same as one's own children" =/= "lesser than one's own children."