So now atheists can't adopt!?! [circa 1970 - ed. title]

The BBQ Pit
1

According to this story in Time a New Jersey judge has decided a decent couple who’ve already raised one adopted child are not to be allowed to adopt another because

This is apparently based on the New Jersey constitution which says “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.”

Okay, fine. I can agree with that clause, but how does this differ in any way from an atheist (and a pantheist, according to the article) raising their own biological child? Presumably that child would be under the same influence.

Can I just say to this judge, I HOPE YOU FALL AND ACCIDENTALLY SHOVE YOUR GAVEL UP YOUR TIGHT ASS!!!

2

I’m wondering how a 17 month old has any wishes to worship any being, Supreme or otherwise.

3

Wow. Just wow. I keep wishing the article explained more, but it’s pretty simple. The judge refused to let the parents adopt the child because they have no religious affiliation.

4

Jesus Christ, that’s fucked. I can only assume this decision will be overturned on appeal. If not, we just need to build a fence around New Jersey.

5

I don’t know if it is related, but babygirl and I have been on the list to foster/adopt in North Carolina and have yet to receive one call regarding placement. I indicated atheist on the application that I filled out. Many of the of the bios on the children looking for placement state that religion is important to the child.

It is amazing how many things that couples capable of producing their own children can do that couples looking to adopt cannot. I will refrain from the hijack though.

SSG Schwartz

6

I wondered the same thing.

7

Good luck on the process. I hope it works out for you. I also hope this ruling is overturned so fast the papers get scorched.

8

Heck, why stop with atheists? Why not deny adoption rights to anyone who is insufficiently observant? I mean, if you believe in God but never go to church, aren’t you denying the baby’s freedom to worship just as much as if you don’t believe in God at all? Not to mention if you chose the wrong religion for the baby – forcing your child to be a Jehovah’s Witness is hardly allowing them to worship “as they see fit”, now is it? Clearly, you need to take them to a nice broad spectrum of churches and mosques until they’re 18.

9

Couldn’t this apply just as equally to parents who want to raise their kids as Christians instead of Hindus?

I don’t see how this decision could possibly survive an appeal.

10

Thanks for the support. I want to see the ruling overturned as well. Damned judge.

SSG Schwartz

11

“Monday, Dec. 07, 1970”

12

I don’t get it. The article is dated “Monday, Dec. 07, 1970”.
ETA: Simulpost

13

Did anyone notice the date on the article?

ETA: Apparently, the answer is “yes.” :slight_smile:

14

This is ridiculous.

In four years, when I’m born, I will dedicate my life to overturning this decision.

15

It was.

16

Apparently, we aren’t the only ones to miss the date.

SSG Schwartz

17

Hey, the dateline on that story is from 1970.

photopat, were you aware that this story is 38 years old?

18

Aha! I’ve been seeing that story all over the place. I wonder why Time re-ran a very old story on their website?

19

Umm. Hmm. :dubious: I just found this on another board while doing a search.

My apologies to any participants who happen to be dead already. :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:

20

For anyone who is curious, the NJ Supreme Court reversed the decision in 1971. So it had a happy ending.