Can Atheists Be Parents?

[jgraz]

Update: it turns out that this story actually is from 1970. Thanks papau for the correction.

Yep, that's the headline Time chose for this story on an unbelievable abuse of judicial power.

Can Atheists Be Parents?

After six years of childless marriage, John and Cynthia Burke of Newark decided to adopt a baby boy through a state agency. Since the Burkes were young, scandal-free and solvent, they had no trouble with the New Jersey Bureau of Children's Services—until investigators came to the line on the application that asked for the couple's religious affiliation.

John Burke, an atheist, and his wife, a pantheist, had left the line blank. As a result, the bureau denied the Burkes' application. After the couple began court action, however, the bureau changed its regulations, and the couple was able to adopt a baby boy from the Children's Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange.

Last year the Burkes presented their adopted son, David, now 31, with a baby sister, Eleanor Katherine, now 17 months, whom they acquired from the same East Orange agency. Since the agency endorsed the adoption, the required final approval by a judge was expected to be pro forma. Instead, Superior Court Judge William Camarata raised the religious issue.

Inestimable Privilege

In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes' right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes' "high moral and ethical standards," he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that "no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." Despite Eleanor Katherine's tender years, he continued, "the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being."

More if you can stand it at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html

(Ironically, some glitch in Time's website has this story dated at Monday, Dec. 07, 1970. It almost makes sense. )

[demnan]

1. Of course they can

They just have to be able to reproduce. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.

[Gormy Cuss]

2. The adopted son is 31?

Me thinks that's another typo.

The judge should turn in his robes and gavel.

[papau]

25. LOL - this 1970 case was reversed in 71 - DU dumps on evil of religion are getting - ah - revealing

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF "E", A CHILD, BY JOHN P. BURKE AND CYNTHIA D. BURKE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

Supreme Court of New Jersey

59 N.J. 36; 279 A.2d 785

July 1, 1971, Decided

In view of what we have said above, it is unnecessary for us to consider plaintiffs' further contentions that the trial court's decision denied both them and the child "E" equal protection and due process of law.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Since the sole ground for denying the adoption was the Burkes' beliefs regarding religion and it is clear from the record that they are otherwise fit, we grant the adoption in the exercise of our original jurisdiction. See R. 2:10-5; In re Adoption by B, supra, 63 N.J. Super. at 104.
Judgment is entered in accordance with this opinion.

[The Straight Story]

27. I guess the question now is - if atheist were in Majority, would they rule against religious parents

based on what I see on DU, I would have to say they probably would...

[jgraz]

At least we'd have a good bit of evidence to back us up.

Wouldn't make it right, but it would probably result in a lot less child abuse.

[KaptBunnyPants]

31. Of coure we would. Look at how we persecute all you poor religous folks

with our evil opinions on DU. Disagreeing with religious people is identical to denying their human rights based on their beliefs. I'm just glad that you have somehow survived the oppression and maintain the courage to express yourself on this hate site.

[The Straight Story]

35. well, with replies like yours....

;)

The point is - demonizing those who don't agree with you. When people in power (be they christians/islamics/jews/atheists/etc) deny you something (like adopting kids) because your beliefs are 'weird' to them, that is wrong.

It is wrong when Christians do it. Based on what I have seen here (Christians are crazy loons) I can see the same people who complain about such treatment doing the same thing.

Not all of them of course. But then all Christians are not loony rw'ers either.

[KaptBunnyPants]

45. Most Christians don't bother me, but the fringes of the religon are growing in size and extremism.

The fundamentalist movement is terrifying to me. When I watch TBN and see them telling their congregations that atheists (secularists) have covertly seized control of the government and are persecuting Christians, I take notice. It's never a good thing to be in the minority when the majority declares itself to be victimized by internal parasites. Poll after poll have shown that, even following 9/11, atheists are more feared and hated than followers of any other religion. Less than half of Americans would even consider voting for an atheist. The President's father publicly stated that atheists don't deserve citizenship, and a fundamentalist preacher is currently in the lead for the Republican Presidential candidate. While some atheists on DU might oppress Christians if it were possible, it's a bit like saying some Jews might oppress Christians. It might be true, academically, but it's not said in a vacuum. In both cases, the minor group is completely powerless to actually do so and is targeted by far right wing movements with the stated purpose of eliminating the "threat to civilization" posed by the existence of those people. It does tend to make one sensitive to that argument.

[The Straight Story]

46. Hell, the fundies scare me too :)

As does anyone from a group that says people who don't see as they do should be screwed over.

I want a free America where we can practice a belief, or not practice one. I sure as hell don't want people telling me what to believe and punishing me if I don't go along (which is why I hate smoking bans...).

I agree the problem we currently have revolves around the majority (fundies) but I can also see where we could have similar problems if other groups got into power and wanted to force their beliefs/non-beliefs on others because their way is the 'only way'.

Freedom, to me, means being willing to live with others we don't agree with and allowing them to have as many rights as we do in a society. From smoking in bars to adopting kids - when we try to force others to be as we are we are trampling on their freedoms.

[jgraz]

29. Hah! Punked by Fark.

It seemed a bit far-fetched for modern times.

[papau]

33. I agree! - but even in 1970 we were a 100 years from the time kids were "slaves" & "best benefit to

child" was not the legal rule - and I can't find an appeals court case that in that period upheld an adoption denial because of belief in no god, or belief in god. You sometimes get a circuit court judge that marches to his own drummer - and needs to be constantly appealed.

[Chovexani]

34. It isn't far-fetched at all.

Kids are taken away from good, law-abiding parents all the time due to religion.

Wiccans and other Pagans know this all too well.

[papau]

44. I could not find a case not reversed on appeal - do you have an appeals court upholding such an

action cite?

Thanks

[LittleClarkie]

38. Cobwebs

Yeah, things have changed a tad since 1970.

[jgraz]

39. But, sadly, only a tad.

[LittleClarkie]

41. But why pull it out of mothballs now?

May I ask?

[jgraz]

42. This showed up on a newsfeed as a new story.

[HughMoran]

3. huh? Have we gone back to the dark ages? That judge must be removed

There is no excuse for such a decision - remove that moran now!

[Sanity Claws]

4. OMG

This is ridiculous. He should be removed from the bench.
His thinking would also cause the removal of children from homes where the parents do not believe in a Supreme Being.

[jgraz]

6. I'm sure he'd be fine with removing kids from existing homes

You just know he's got a job waiting for him in the BFEE.

[gollygee]

5. Or maybe 1870

maybe 1670 if they were burned at the stake afterward.


"inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God" ROFL

I wish I could muster up some outrage but I'm too busy being stunned and amused. Maybe by tomorrow I can be outraged. I'm very sad for this couple though. I have a friend who has been trying to adopt for AGES and has had no luck, and her belief is that one of the reasons is that she and her husband aren't religious. So I guess I'm not outraged because this isn't news to me.

[Adsos Letter]

7. How does one even begin to address such blatant

disregard for the rights of these parents, and the judicial stupidity of this judge...

I am speechless...

[Chovexani]

8. arhgrhjgahgfwfhi

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Okay people, let's play a game:

"The child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being worship Jesus as Lord and Savior."

Is it persecution yet?

(This reminds me of the SubGenius woman who had a child taken away recently. :()

[Adsos Letter]

20. The persecution which our GLBT brothers and sisters...

experience on a daily basis will come to all of us if we don't stand up strongly for their rights as well as our own.

:hi:

[Chovexani]

21. You said it

We're all in this together and fundies hate everyone who isn't just like them.

I'm not an atheist but I am Pagan and have seen religion come up way too often in custody cases. :(

[Adsos Letter]

32. And I am a Christian...

but my religious beliefs must remain seperate from the governance of our nation, which exists for the benefit of all.

In my belief system I put heavy weight on Paul's admonition to "be ready to give a reason for my hope," and that is about as aggressive as I believe it should be: respond when asked, but leave coercion absolutely out of it...

Persecution is persecution, no matter how one looks at it. IF (remember, I said IF) I were to hold some belief regarding homosexuality which others did not agree with, it would still allow me no room to deny another person of their natural rights, and I find the whole concept abhorrent.

I admit I am at a loss to understand why others who claim to believe in Jesus don't see things this way...and I am quite familiar with the teachings of both Old and New Testaments.

:hi:

[Der Blaue Engel]

9. OMF...uh, self

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[Christa]

10. Sick reasoning

Are all believers good parents? Do believers never abuse their children?

[Der Blaue Engel]

16. You never see "I drowned my babies because science told me to"

now do you?

:evilfrown:

[and-justice-for-all]

11. That's descrimination.

There is no moreal high ground in the OT or the NT, there people are fooling their selves with that bullshit.

Just because you 'think' there 'might' be an invisible man in the sky does not land you on top of the morality mouantain. Some religous people actually harm kids with their ideology, it can and has done some terrible things to people emotionally. The brainwashing of some religious folks should be considered child abuse.

[jgraz]

13. ya think?

:grr:

[Der Blaue Engel]

17. I can attest to that

My fundie upbringing was emotionally abusive and frequently physically abusive (in the name of "God's love").

[knitter4democracy]

12. So, it's better for the kid to be lost in the foster care system?

Loving parents, regardless of belief, non-belief, gender, whatever, should be able to adopt. This is insane! I really honestly don't get his stupid reasoning.

[RedCappedBandit]

14. Athiest parents aren't the ones brainwashing their children.

What a ridiculous question. Anybody has the ability to be a parent, so long as they can prove they are adequately responsible to care for another person.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The judge must have skipped that class on the 1st Amendment.

[jgraz]

18. Eh, who needs the Constitution when you've got Jeeebus on your side.

:crazy:

[WillyT]

19. God I Hope So...

:hi:

[Dukkha]

22. no, they would let their child die

by irrationally demanding science cure their illness rather than sensibly depending on God to heal them

[Book Lover]

23. Rather than rend this family apart,

could the judge have imposed a requirement that this child be taught about religions and religious practice? I would ask for anything if only to keep my family together...

[jgraz]

24. Taught? You mean indoctrinated.

Her parents likely could have taught her all about religion. What the judge didn't like was their viewpoint on religion.

[Book Lover]

36. Actually, no, what I meant was "taught"

like a comparative religion course. My point was that I would lie or whatever to keep this one old man quiet and out of the way of me keeping my family together.

[Demeter]

26. The Judge Has No Right To Do ANYTHING About Religion

and he ought to get a lightning bolt in the ass from the State, the Feds and the voters if possible.

[Book Lover]

40. I'm not saying I agree in any way with this restriction

and I see above that his situation was resolved nearly 40 years ago anyway. My point is, I guess, that I would say or do whatever to keep my family together. There would be other ways to fight this particular battle. I'll be interested to find out the details of how this played out.

[TomClash]

28. I smell the holy stink of the Conservative Catholic Hierarchy nt

[KaptBunnyPants]

30. I hope those poor, persecuted Christians are proud of themselves.

Their efforts to create a biblical justice system are paying off. I don't know why they just didn't execute the couple, to prevent them from denying the people who live and work around them "the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience."

[LittleClarkie]

37. Past tense. 38 years ago. Who knows, they might BE atheists by now

Some fundies go that way.

[Time for change]

43. God, what an idiot judge!

I don't suppose that he even asked the parents if they would allow the child to worship Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of her conscience.

[ladjf]

47. A more important question: "Can religious people be good

parents?"