Freedom of Religion used against Atheists

[Ink Asylum]

This story is very frustrating. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html)

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."

The decision has been appealed to the state Supreme Court, but the fact that the judge used language designed to protect freedom of religion against atheists is very disappointing. The freedom to worship also means the freedom to not worship. The judge's argument is completely illogical, as I'm sure he would have no objection to a Christian couple adopting, even if that couple's religious influence will affect the child's freedom to "worship as she sees fit" just as much, since the child will be more likely to worship the same way her parents do.

[Voodoo]

That judge does not understand freedom of religion at all. That said, his judgement was severely unconstitutional and I believe he ought to be removed from the bench. BTW, they aren't both atheists - the wife is a pantheist.

[DoctorFinger]

The judge should be removed from the bench if not disbarred. It would be a different story if it was an already religious child being adopted, but this is just punishing someone for their faith.

[Ink Asylum]

It is absolutely discrimination based on religion. The judge is violating the very section of the constitution he is quoting.

I have faith the higher court will easily overrule the decision, at least.

[Johan]

This cracks me the hell up. Welcome to the sauce; enjoy the basting!

[Generation ABXY]

For a fleeting moment, I can almost see how this idea popped in their head, but no...that's just too bizarre. I mean, a number of our parents likely believed in some higher power when we were younger, and we weren't afforded protection against that kind indoctrination (and I use that in the nicest ways - I have no ill will towards religious people). I agree that someone needs to rethink the appointment of that judge.

Mind you, navigating the religious waters always has been, and likely always will be, a bit tricky for some folks. I remember a story from some time ago where a foster mother was punished when her ward, originally a Muslim, decided to convert to Christianity, though I think that was in the U.K.

[Hawkzombie]

Technically, the freedom of religion applies to religions...atheism in its core isn't a religion.

However, this is just asinine and splitting hairs. I agree with you guys: He should be disbarred and they should be allowed to adopt. It wouldn't be any different if she were born to them naturally. EVERYONE is affected by their parents, but EVERYONE is free to make their own choices when they grow up. This judge obviously believes the letter of the law is far greater than the spirit.

[Generation ABXY]

Technically, the freedom of religion applies to religions...atheism in its core isn't a religion.

Technically, you are correct...and as you're getting flamed, I'll keep rotating you to achieve a nice, even roasting. :p

[Voodoo]

Technically, you are correct...and as you're getting flamed, I'll keep rotating you to achieve a nice, even roasting. :p
The judge is using Article 18 from the NJ Constitution of 1776...
That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience;I have no doubt that this ruling will be held unconstitutional. This is because...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...which went into effect on 12/9/1791.

So, technically, this isn't about them being Atheist or Panthesit (remember the husband and wife are not both Atheist), it is about the judge respecting an establishment of a particular religion.

[Shieldmaiden]

This is absolutely ridiculous. I hope he faces some serious reprucussions for this.

[Generation ABXY]

Ah, I should have shortened it more, Bacalou – I was agreeing that technically atheism isn't a religion. I mean, in the post just before his, I agree that the judge is in the wrong.

[Voodoo]

By the way, this all took place in 1970... I was so enamoured by the article I skipped right over the posting date (12/7/1970)... Here's the result of the appeal:

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=1

[cppcrusader]

Monday, Dec. 07, 1970

Looks like Time is posting a 39 year old article.

[Johan]

By the way, this all took place in 1970... I was so enamoured by the article I skipped right over the posting date (12/7/1970)... Here's the result of the appeal:

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=1

Oh man...this thread keeps delivering! If only there were a God to thank for the funny!

Monday, Dec. 07, 1970

Looks like Time is posting a 39 year old article.

It's clearly labeled on the article itself. :D

[Shieldmaiden]

Heh, last time I comment on anything without checking the article date first. Bad Inky, bad! No cookie for you!

[Voodoo]

Monday, Dec. 07, 1970

Looks like Time is posting a 39 year old article.
It's actually out of their article archive. It looks like the firestorm about this article started at a rather popular atheist blog, got posted on Digg and then spread around the internet as a new story. Even on the originating blog people started to realize it was a 39 year old story and lambasted the blog author. LOL...

[Ink Asylum]

Well, that's a little egg on my face. I missed the date stamp as well, and there's nothing in the article to give away that it's a nearly four decades old story.

Yeah, I saw the link in my RSS feed, which naturally didn't include the date stamp in the quoted text.

[Johan]

there's nothing in the article to give away that it's a nearly four decades old story.

Other than the date. Posted at the top. Right beneath the title.

[Voodoo]

Other than the date. Posted at the top. Right beneath the title.
http://i31.tinypic.com/xbhb28.jpg

[Generation ABXY]

...I have no idea what that picture is supposed to mean. O_o

[TheKeck]

...I have no idea what that picture is supposed to mean. O_o
I am in the same boat.

[carnage11]

A struggle.

[Ancalagon]

Wow, this judge laid the smack down (he concurs with the court but differs in opinion, excuse me for not understanding exactly what his position in the appeal was).

CONCUR:

WEINTRAUB, C.J. (concurring). I concur in the result but cannot join in the opinion of the Court. Although the majority opinion concludes the trial court erred in refusing to order the adoption "solely" on the basis of plaintiffs' lack of belief in a Supreme Being, the opinion does not condemn the trial court's inquiry into the subject. Since satisfaction of a judge's curiosity could hardly warrant that inquiry, I must conclude the majority opinion finds the subject to be relevant and a litigant's views upon it to be capable of constituting a factor in a decision to deny a judgment of adoption. Fortunately for us, the Burkes are not otherwise tainted and hence we are spared the task of deciding how many points should be charged against them because their articles of faith concerning a Supreme Being may deviate from our private views to a degree we severally cannot stand. I think none of this is the proper concern of a terrestrial judge.
We are not talking about honoring the express stipulation made by a consenting natural parent as to the religious faith of an adoptive parent. Nor are we concerned with the hypothetical case of a child whose prior religious training reached the point where a change of direction might inflict some psychological trauma. Rather the simple question is whether the State may inquire into an individual's religious, spiritual and ethical concepts in order to decide whether that individual is fit to raise a child. I think it is not the State's business to prowl among anyone's thoughts and to label him fit or unfit, in whole or in part, because his views are distasteful to someone in a placement agency or in the judiciary.
The majority opinion finds the State would violate the demand for neutrality in religious matters embedded in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion if adoption were denied "solely" because of an applicant's religion or lack of it. With that, I agree, but I cannot understand how the constitutional violation is a whit less because the applicant's religion or lack of it plays some lesser role in the judge's decision. Whether the price of the heresy is the destruction of a man's good character or merely a blot upon it, it is equally true that the State stamps its approval upon some tenets and its disapproval upon others. This is precisely what the First Amendment forbids.
I can think of nothing more unmanageable than an inquiry into a man's religious, spiritual and ethical creed. There is no catalogue of tolerable beliefs. Nor would the nature of man permit one, for man is inherently intolerant as to matters unknowable, and the intensity of his intolerance is twin with the intensity of his views. I assume the majority would never deny adoption "solely" because of a belief in that area, but if the belief may be considered as the majority say it may, then how much may be charged against an applicant who is a Jehovah's Witness and therefore opposed to blood tranfusions, or a Christian Scientist, who, as I understand his faith, would turn to medical aid only as a last resort? And since a man's religious, spiritual and ethical views may be more evident in his position on specific subjects than in his abstract statement of his faith, will it be all right to inquire of his attitude toward the war in Vietnam, or capital punishment, or divorce, or abortion, or perhaps even public welfare, or income taxation, or caveat emptor, in all of which some people find evidence of moral fiber or lack of it?
Nor is there anyone competent to pass judgment upon religious, spiritual and ethical matters. I do not know how a placement agency tests or equips its staff for this demanding task. I do know that neither when they were admitted to the bar nor when they were appointed to the bench, were judges asked to establish the acceptability of their own tenets or a capacity to appraise the tenets of others. As for me, I disclaim any expertise whatever. I have already interred too many of my eternal truths.
No matter how it is phrased or explained, an inquiry into religious, spiritual and ethical views can mean no more than this, that a man or a woman is unfit, or a bit unfit, to be a parent, natural or adoptive, if his or her thoughts exceed the tolerance of the mortal who happens to be the judge in a placement bureau or in the judiciary. I find such an inquiry to be as offensive as it is meddlesome and irrelevant to the true issue. Every incursion is sure to repeat the spectacle now before us. I think it strong evidence of good moral character that an applicant wants to rear a child, and that should be quite enough in the absence of positive conduct revealing unfitness for parenthood.

[Straximus]

Wow, this judge laid the smack down (he concurs with the court but differs in opinion, excuse me for not understanding exactly what his position in the appeal was).

My brief reading of it is that he believes his colleagues language left the door open to future discrimination against atheists in adoption cases, by saying that the question of religion may be brought up and might be a supporting factor in determining the fitness of adoptive parents. They reversed the decision by saying it can't be the sole determining factor, and he believed it should never be a factor at all.

[Ultima Thulian]

People still read Time? It's a fucking rag.

Then again, this article came from a time when it was a still somewhat respectable magazine, hence it actually being popular.

Old news is old, but it was an easy thing to miss. I'm kinda curious what Burke's child thinks of "Almight God", over 30 years later.

[wyeast]

People still read Time? It's a fucking rag.

Quoted for the mother fucking truth. Ever since I discovered that they outright fucking lie in their articles, I haven't looked back.

[Sandman]

This thread delivers!

[carnage11]

This thread delivers!

But is it 30 minutes or less or it's free??