I'm writing in response to Andrea Byl's column, "Adoption proposal allows for more freedom of religion," (SN 9/19).

One paragraph in the column stood out: "So now what's putting more adoptions in jeopardy? Helping faith-based agencies continue their outreach to the community, or asking them to please keep their beliefs to themselves and act upon government standards?"

The latter answer seems obvious. That is the way that civilized multi-ethnic societies work: Everyone abides by the secular law, despite potentially conflicting religious beliefs.

It's not the state's job to "help faith-based agencies continue their 'outreach,'" and it's not "outreach" if an agency turns away a gay couple on the basis of religious intolerance. A state-funded adoption agency shouldn't turn away candidates for adoption based on religious beliefs, because, yes, that violates the separation of church and state.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean the government pays people to practice their religion — it means that any religion may be practiced so long as that practice doesn't encroach upon the rights of another citizen.

Should an adoption agency funded by taxpayer money be allowed to turn away tax-paying homosexuals?

It's true "the separation of church and state and the protection of freedom of religion are two principles that can live side by side." For that to continue, this bill shouldn't pass.

If an adoption agency's "roots" are torn out because they can't suffer to let a gay couple adopt, and subsequently lose state funding, that's their decision.

Joel Reinstein
interdisciplinary humanities freshman