Sunday, May 16, 2010
Meant To Be, My Foot!
If you read the Bible, you know they put a lot of emphasis on blood lines in the more ancient texts, and natural children of both spouses were favored over the children of concubines and mistresses. Moses was watched over and "wet nursed" by his own natural mother and reverted to his own people when he observed the cruelty of the Egyptians to the Israelites.
Even Solomon, when testing the ultimate love of a mother, decided that the prostitute, who was willing to give up her child to save his life, was worthy of continued motherhood. Jesus protected the woman "taken in adultery" and said, "let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7)
This is why I cannot get this "meant to be" and "ordained by God" idea that church-based agencies push about adoption. I named my oldest child Sarah. Her adopters named her Sara. Because of that, the adopter told me her adoption and the "as if born to" section meant that it was "meant to be" and "the work of God." As I remember, it was the work of the social workers, society and the church that took my children. To paraphrase Dickens, "There was more of coveting than covenant" in that tragedy. God/dess didn't have a dang thing to do with it.
Usually, I keep my posts about the interference of religion in the legal system of our nation on my other blog, "Slightly Left of Center," but I am getting so sick of people twisting what they call the Word of God to facilitate their agenda that I had to shake a finger in their face and say, "Shame on you!"
Jesus taught tolerance, compassion and love. The intolerance of his followers leaves me aghast. I doubt that the Son of the Almighty would have demanded that a mother surrender her child because of her so called "sin" of loving not wisely, but too well. Hell, his mother was single and pregnant with him. From what I have read, he understood the human condition and felt empathy and love for all of us.
Of course, along came the post-crucifixion apostles, such as Paul and John, and these guys really twisted the message. From the Paulist writings and John's so-called apocalyptic visions came the fundie Puritans who were so fanatical that they murdered whole villages who did not agree with their theology. Just as the mythical Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden, so were the Puritans invited to leave the British Isles. Lucky us, we got them and their heritage.
So I defy and argue that specious idea that God is behind adoption. I am sure that God/dess looks favorably on those who take in children that need care, but trying to change what She has wrought is a bit presumptous and arrogant of humanity. I also believe that God/dess would look with approval on those who work to keep mother and child together. Gee, that would go along with the idea that natural heritage is important. Ya think?
I think the biggest insult to the natural family is that misnamed "Angel In Adoption" award give out by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption. Angels don't do adoption. Self-serving, pseudo "experts, toadies to the industry and adopters, and the very misguided do adoption. So, with that in mind, I might suggest that SMAAC and other organizations institute the "Angel in Natural Family Respect and Preservation" awards each year. Anyone who has ever received the AIA award would be disqualified from this award.
While we are at it, we could also have the "Baby-Step Pratfall" award for those who worked to push through dirty records access bills and the state legilators that passed them. There could also be the "Golden Egg" award for the most vacuous, insipid barfmuggle of the year. The acceptance speech could be one thanking those who gave her child a "better home." (Pass the dramamine)
Adoption is an industry, one instituted and run by human beings. There is nothing of the Divine in it. To say so is not just sacreligious. It's arrogant.