Separation of Church & State.

[Godless]

Separation of Church & State has not gone far enough, we all know that. However not many of us become victims of the vicious state discrimination against atheist. This young couple was denied adopting a child even though that the Children's Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange had accepted their application after filing a law suit against them for denying their application. The Society changed it's policy and the young couple where hopeful, now all they needed was to come before a judge for final decision.

Can atheist be parents?

This is blow to the "fading" policy of separation of church&state.

Where the hell is the ACLU?

 

[Bells]

That is wrong on so many levels.

If they fail their appeal, they will have to send the child back. So many children without homes and a loving couple who can adopt, are denied that right because a judge is not happy with their lack of religious affiliation. The agency approved it, and a mere formality has now turned into a nightmare. Surely this will be overturned.

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.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html

 

[mikenostic]

That is wrong on so many levels.

Surely this will be overturned.

I hope it gets overturned as well. That is blatant discrimination.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why do they ask about religion in the adoption process?

 

[Anti-Flag]

Why indeed do they ask? I'd have thought it's the most irrelevant thing when it comes to raising a child.:shrug:
I'm not quite sure how the judge got away with such statements - denying the oppurtunity of growing up with a belief in God?!? Who decided they were going to prevent her believing anything? Of course however it's fine for someone to be raised to believe and denied the oppurtunity to grow up without a god.
Disgracefully hypocritical, but not too surprising unfortunately, there are all too many cases where a judge pulls a prejudice ruling out of his ass and undermines the entire system of justice.

 

[Myles]

How do such dickheads get to be judges ? The wisdom of Solomon is evident in their rulings ?

Why can't the idiot see that the child can worship in any way she wishes, once she is old enough to make her own mind up ?

 

[Cris]

That is so sad.

 

[spidergoat]

Totally asinine, a clear violation of the establishment clause.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Wait...wait...if instead the athiest parents copulated and manufactured a child, does a judge have a right to overturn that parenthood?

Why does this guy still have a job?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Egads, that makes me proud to be an American .

 

[Myles]

Wait...wait...if instead the athiest parents copulated and manufactured a child, does a judge have a right to overturn that parenthood?

Why does this guy still have a job?

Because he is a fully paid up member of some organization ?

Copulation is not a problem because the Vatican will provide condoms on request.

 

[Myles]

Egads, that makes me proud to be an American .

You can be proud because there are many other Americans like you. Just keep fighting these morons.

I can't say for sure but I don't think that could happen here in the UK unless the childs parents stipulated that they only wanted the child to go to adoptive parents who subscribe to a particular religious view.

 

[Bells]

Why do they ask about religion in the adoption process?

They should not. Adoption form a state run agency, in a supposedly secular state, should not ask about religious affiliations of the adopting parents. The judge in this case was hiding behind the State's constitution:

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 judge should have recognised that the State's constitution allows people to believe in and not believe God. It is clear, from his language, the judge was biased in this case.

The agency had no issues with the adoption and had approved it. What was meant to be a mere formality has resulted in the judge, viewing them as unfit parents because they did not believe in "a Supreme Being". What he did not recognise, be it due to his own stupidity, blindness or bias, is that the constitution does not state that an individual is not allowed to not believe. The State's constitution allows people the freedom to believe in God as they so choose. This is discrimination in its purest form. The courts should never force someone to believe in God, nor should it discriminate against those who do not believe.

He also discriminated against the adoptive mother as she is a pantheist.

 

[superluminal]

I can't say for sure but I don't think that could happen here in the UK unless the childs parents stipulated that they only wanted the child to go to adoptive parents who subscribe to a particular religious view.

Right. I was always under the impression that the UK and Europe in general were far more secular than the US. Is that right?

 

[S.A.M.]

They should not. Adoption form a state run agency, in a supposedly secular state, should not ask about religious affiliations of the adopting parents.

Thats what I thought. I know of a multireligious couple that adopted a baby of a third religious background and no one asked. But this was in India.

 

[Incriminating Convoy]

Why do they ask about religion in the adoption process?

That is a good question indeed. As far as I know, the application process is known as an interview of sorts, and it is illegal in an interview to ask your religion!

I find this case down right discrimination. I hope that the couple wins this case.

 

[Tiassa]

As a term of my own adoption, my parents were required to subject me to religious education. Where the New Jersey court has ruled that the child cannot be denied the right to worship as she sees fit—and absurd presumption in the first place, all things considered—I was specifically denied the right to be religion-free.

Equal protection has a long way to go.

• • •​

On Edit:

Look, I hate to be the one to dredge up the obvious, but it well may be that the thirty-seven years 'twixt the Time story and now have seen some changes in New Jersey law.

What? Did nobody else notice the date?

Monday, Dec. 07, 1970​

Now, I would not suggest that this in any way minimizes the offense of Judge Camarata's decision, but what has changed in the years since?

Depending on who you ask, not much. Ed Brayton reports on an ongoing situation in New York—

I've got a friend in New York who just went through this and I'm gathering all the legal documents to publicize that case. The outcome was beyond outrageous. The mother, who had full custody during the divorce and custody fight, lost custody because the father would make the child attend church while the mother would not.

This despite the fact that the father had multiple drunk driving arrests and even admitted under oath that he still drove with the child in the car after drinking. This also despite the fact that he had a history of violence, enough to warrant a personal protection order granted to the mother. But the judge felt that raising the child in a "Christian" environment trumped all of that.

(ScienceBlogs.com)

—which has had a chilling effect for some atheist parents:

During the divorce, with the understanding that the courts value a religious upbringing, I chose to write into the divorce agreement that the children would be raised in the Jewish tradition. This wasn't a huge issue to me - I was raised Jewish, and I believe that of all of the various religions, there is the least... uh... "evil" in the current form of liberal Judaism. Jews are taught to question everything, including the actual existence of gods - and the intense emphasis on education and knowlege has served to bring a minority population into serious power in our country. The kids will one day come to the same conclusion I have, I'm sure - but I'd rather that they see religion from the inside for now. As a kid, I learned more that way about why I didn't want to be a member of an organized congregation than from any book by Dawkins I've read recently.

I still have no real issue bringing them up in that way - but I am an atheist. I really, really don't think there's a god. If that's brought up, I won't be able to lie about my (lack of) beliefs. They're public knowlege in my family and friends, and I would morally have a big issue about lying to the courts (they've done an amazing job, and I've been very happy with the level of honesty and caring I've found with the family court system in our area). The article I linked above, however, leads me to think that I may be making myself vulnerable in an area which defies logic, in my mind.

(EndCycle)

One thing's for sure: the last several years of hearing Christians complain about how they're being discriminated against just got even more laughable. And I say laughable because it's better than the alternative. Quite frankly, I think it's sickening.

 

[Asguard]

HUH do american courts force parents to put there kids in religious education?

if so how do they do it?

Is it like john saffron vs god where you try a new one every week, that could be good, could teach tolerance of different religions

 

[Myles]

Right. I was always under the impression that the UK and Europe in general were far more secular than the US. Is that right?

I believe so. In the UK the church and state have not been seperated but as the whole thing is a bit of a joke, it doesn't really matter.The Queen is still head of the church and coins still bear the inscription FD ( defender of the faith), a title granted to Henry VIII by the Pope . When Henry didn't get his way over divorce, he fell out with the Pope and declared himself head of the church of England.

The good news is that only about 2% of the population go to church and congregations are made up almost entirely of elderly people who are not being replaced as they die.The rest of the population, excluding immigrants, are just totally uninterested in religion. We haven't got any of the ranting pastors like you have. They would just get laughed at.

From our side of the pond the US seems to be full of religious nutters because that's what we see on TV from time to time. Phelp's ranting, for instance, would be illegal here because there are laws against discriminating against people on grounds of sex, race and incitement to hatred.

We have a large population of Muslims, most of whom go to their mosques on Fridays but that's about it as far as religious fervor goes.

France seperated church and state about 1920. I believe. Religious symbols of any kind are not allowed in schools, for example.

In Germany, Lutherism is the state religion and "church tax" has to be paid. But other than that, most people show no interest in religion even though the get confirmed at about the age of 12. I worked there for two years and saw no sign of religious fervour. Much the same goes for the Netherlands. Sweden is almost completely atheist.Polls have shown the non-believers to be about 96%.

Spain and Italy are Catholic but religion is slowly on the decline. Ireland, my native country, probably has the highest per capita church attendance in Europe. When I was a youngster, it was virtually a theocracy. It has improved a bit but it is taking its time. It might have something to do with its being cut off from the rest of Europe but membership of the EEC is having some influence.

Myles

Ps I have been to the US on three occasions when I managed to combine business with pleasure.I have driven coast to coast and loved most of what I saw and the people I met. But I was appalled by some of the things I saw in the Bible belt. My other overriding impression was that Americans seemed be obsessed with money; it was certainly true of the business people I met.

 

[superluminal]

Ps I have been to the US on three occasions when I managed to combine business with pleasure. I have driven coast to coast and loved most of what I saw and the people I met. But I was appalled by some of the things I saw in the Bible belt. My other overriding impression was that Americans seemed be obsessed with money; it was certainly true of the business people I met.

Most non-americans seem very suprised when they experience first hand the level of some of the religious "fervor" exhibited, especially in the "bible belt". I'm an east-coaster, but I'm still subjected to daily threats of hell and damnation as advertised on at least three large signs on my way to work.

And the money thing - yes. We seem overly concerned with spending more time (as a nation) than any other nation in getting it. Maybe it's because we can't afford simple health care?