Atheists Denied a Child

WTF?

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."  -- Link

Umm...

WTF?

Those darned Activist Judges!

Ill be really surprised if this ruling isnt promptly overturned.

Not so much 'activist judge' as 'archaic judge'...  Perhaps he secretly bemoans the fact that he can't burn witches at the stake any more.  Presumably if the prospective parents had been the bible-thumping bigoted types... or alternatively cynical liars who had filled in the form inaccurately simply to achieve an end... that would be OK.

Sounds like the New Jersey state constitution needs an amendment...  Whatever happened to freedom of religion?

So much for freedom of religion.  Perhaps he should just go ahead and stomp on the rest of the Constitution.  How do the children of those polygamist cults have freedom to worship as they please? 

If the judge wants to be fair, he shouldn't give a child to a religious couple either.  That child has just as much of a right to not be religious and growing up in a religious family means that he/she will not be exposed to atheist "beliefs". 

In the end, the judge is a nutjob...

In the end, a child has been denied a loving family..... far more tragic.

I have one question: How did this end up in court to begin with?

Most adoption cases don't end up in court.

Did you notice the date on that article?  My computer says, "Dec 07, 1970"...  think things may have changed a bit since then?

Original Post by coach_k:

Did you notice the date on that article?  My computer says, "Dec 07, 1970"...  think things may have changed a bit since then?

haha.  that's just awesome.

regardless, the fact that we thought that it could be a plausible contemporary story says a lot too...

Original Post by kbella24:

In the end, the judge is a nutjob...

Totally. How can people with such a perverse idea of justice and equality end up as judges?

This was 40 years ago. Hope we have grown since then.

Original Post by coach_k:

Did you notice the date on that article?  My computer says, "Dec 07, 1970"...  think things may have changed a bit since then?

I will say that I hope things have changed since then, but honestly, this kind of thing wouldn't surprise me.  Has anybody seen that movie Jesus Camp?  This is the kind of America the people in that film want...and that movie was made in 2006. 

Original Post by hkellick:

I have one question: How did this end up in court to begin with?

Most adoption cases don't end up in court.

HK - all adoptions are a court process.  There is a petition and the judge has to sign an order approving the adoption.  Apparently, in this case, he did not do so.

what a shame for the couple!

Insane! When was the last time a Christian couple got pegged for trying to raise their child believing in God? If only one religion can be right (if that) then we should probably deny child custody to anyone in the "wrong" religion. Since we don't know what that is, obviously, an Atheist has as logical of beliefs as anyone, and deserves the same rights as everyone.

Is that judge still around?

Original Post by gi-jane:

In the end, a child has been denied a loving family..... far more tragic.

Exactly. This is completely unfair both to the atheists and the child in need of a home.

"Give it up for adoption! Give it up for adoption!" Oh wait---we're not adopting it to THEM..."

Wait, is this actually from 1970 or is that a typo?

My parents were foster parents when I was growing up. They wanted to adopt a young child. They asked for kids of other ethnicities to be placed in our homes (because at the time there were more african american kids, and not enough homes, so they were ending up in group homes). They were told no. That it wasn't allowed, and they would not place a black child with a white family.

Hows that for progress?

Ironically enough, they did eventually adopt a hispanic baby, because he was 6 weeks old, ill, and there were no available hispanic foster families. If he was healthy, he probably would have put in a group home too. He's 9 now, and my fantastic little bro who I should be helping right now with a school project, but I am procrastinating on CC instead : )

Weird, this article popped up as current along with other current articles.  If this is indeed from 1970 I apologize.

Still messed up though.

 :-/  I'm curious about the outcome even if it happened in 1970.

There's a paragraph which reads:

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.

So maybe this is an old article with a circa-2001 update? If this part isn't a typo they obviously adopted their daughter long after their son was grown up. But it still doesn't explain the 1970 date!