Can athiests be parents? - Time Magazine

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Wow. Just wow.

Can Atheists Be Parents?

Monday, Dec. 07, 1970

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."

The Burkes are now living in Carterville, Ill., near Southern Illinois University, where John Burke has worked for the past year as a speech pathologist. Nevertheless, Judge Camarata ordered the parents to send David's sister back to the New Jersey adoption agency. Two weeks ago, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Burkes appealed directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. If they fail in their appeal, Eleanor Katherine may have to leave the only family she has ever known and await adoption by another couple whose religious convictions satisfy the State of New Jersey.

- 30 -

I have no idea how those parents feel. I also have no idea how that judge could defend his reasoning.

Pangloss
 
Last edited:

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
If you overturn that ruling you're an activist judge. ;-)
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
157
63
Edmonton AB
The dateline is 1970 - Maybe I'm reading this wonky, but is that when this article was written or is that referring to the date of adoption for their first child?
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Zan:

I never noticed the dateline - I found this on the Time website. My bad if this is a 38 year old article.

Does it say anything that I thought this was credibly a recent article?

None the less, I feel a fool.

Pangloss
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
157
63
Edmonton AB
aw I'm sorry Pangloss - not my intention.

I was just so flabbergasted by the story I reread it a couple times before I saw the date and frankly I was relieved!

If this was going on now, I'd say it's about the right time for us all to bend over and kiss our collective illusion of any kind of personal freedoms buh-bye.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The scary part, it took almost 38 years for anyone to talk about it.
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
157
63
Edmonton AB
Thanks for the link gerry, I liked this:

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.

and this:

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.

 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
The article is old but the situation has not gone away. Didn't Bush say that atheists should not even be considered human?
Looling for linky.:cool:
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
The article is old but the situation has not gone away. Didn't Bush say that atheists should not even be considered human?
Looling for linky.:cool:

The "people" of the United States have an electoral system that many contend has been highjacked, the judiciary of "the people" exercises a similar prejudice as the Mullahs and Islamists and the"government of the people" is rife with liars and theives.... what's so shocking about the preparedness of these "people" to dictate beliefs and everything else to the world?

Why do Canadians insist on embracing their delusion that America (whether they care what the world thinks or not...) like Canada is a "model" for "freedom" "democracy" etc..?

Whomever has the gold makes the rules: The golden rule....

That's changing though and it's poetic justice that the mindless throngs have allowed their own prejudices and greed to dismantle a nation.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
So is the Constitution now updated to more logical terminology ??? I'll go back and see if I can find an answer

The judge was only repeating what the N.Y. State Constitution dictated at the time - even if he disagreed with the content.

It is up to the people to amend their outdated Family Laws - such as Canada did in 1965 when Divorce was unbelievably archaic.

Perhaps bringing this case to the public arena was the objective hoping to introduce an
Amendment.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
actually that date was the first thing I noticed when I opened this thread, lol....

But that is also a perfect example of just how much society has changed since then. It was religion which forced my parents, as well as many others into marriage because of a pregnancy etc.

Just because the parents didn't believe in any super glow worms in the sky, doesn't mean that they wouldn't allow their children to do so themselves.

What's the difference between this and some religious wing nut parents who force their own beliefs onto their children? The US Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of individuals to worship whatever they want, even when it's to worship nothing at all.... they are also supposed to be protected from other's forcing their religious views onto your life and freedom of choice..... church and state were also supposed to be kept seperate.... but this case in paticular clearly shows how religion has rotted away the state, perhaps even worse today.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Re Adoptions

Good moral character would indicate fully the intent of the couple who live their lives with the ability to rear a child with many benefits unavailable as a non-adoptee.

Many strictly religious families have lost their children from their own choice of church worship because that is the nature of some children to have diverse opinion from the family upbringing - whether they are born to or adopted into a family.

Conversely, many athiest or non-practicing families have raised children who turn to a
religion as they mature.

There is no guarantee a family is going to be a successful role model for a child when it is limited to worship alone.