If your an Atheist, you cant adopt rules NJ Supreme Court

www.time.com...


"Since the [adoption] 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"




____________________________________________________________________




Is there anything left that sacred in this country? First we allow the fed to force us

to empty

our pockets when we want to go on our vacations, now in some states you cant

marry someone you truly loved if they were the same gender, and now if

you are not religious you are denied from adopting a child? What is wrong with this

country?

Just because you are an Atheist does not mean your any less qualified to raise a

child. What about your religious fanatics that drown their children

because "God" or "Satan" told them or catholic priests that abuse children? Its

totally ludicrous to assume that an antheist cant raise a child, its absolute

discrimination and completely ignores the fact that this country was built on the

concept of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.




There are so many issues (Abortion, gay marrage, etc..) that should be up to the

individual but the Government continues to idealized them and turn them into a

religious issue. They incinuate that if we do not use religion as a guide in politics

the fabric of society will fray and corrode into nothing. Our leaders use religion to

perpetuate an agenda based on ignorance and intimidation.


The Government rules by the doctrine: Your eather with us

or against us, and if your against us... well good luck because you'll be labeled as

a "radical" or a "terrorist". This is what you get when you mess with us...





I ask my fellow ATSers what you think about being denied adoption because of

your religion?

What will it take before people actually express interest in what the government's role is in their life?

What will it take before people speaking their mind? Atheists being sterilized

by the government because they are "unfit" for parenting because they have a lack of belief in a Supreme Being?

What happend to Separation of Church and State??


I think this is a big issue I cant stand when religion leaks into politics.


Discuss, ATSers...

With the amount of religious fanatics and the seeming refusal to separate church from state in the USA, I'm not surprised.

This is bleeping disgusting though.

reply to post by Relentless.D


This is unbelievable. Does this not amount to religious persecution? The selective application of rights and privileges based on beliefs?

This judge makes me embarrassed to call myself an American.

What's worse, is that the Judge actually cites religious freedom as his grounds for the ruling.

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.

But it's okay to have the direction of ones entire life dictated by a judge who does?

Church and state, keep 'em separate. Hey asshole, this ain't a theocracy, and you're not the ayatollah.

[edit on 8/25/2009 by Unit541]

And now that I'm all ruffled up...

Did anyone notice the date on the article?

Monday, Dec. 07, 1970.

Wow.

In 1971, NJ Supreme Court reversed the decision:
www.americanadoptions.com...

[edit on 8/25/2009 by Unit541]

Im happy that this was not recent haha

I got really worried when i read it and posted it too see if anyone else heard anything about this.


Thanks good calllll

I don't think this is a establishment clause issue, it's a civil rights issue.

The judge incorrectly assumes that the child's right to religious freedom will be suppressed by atheist parents, it's rather amazing how he can see the future!

The precedent this would establish is far too un-american, the legal ramifications far too ridiculous to imagine. This should be easy to reverse upon review and honestly, I don't know what this judge was thinking.

edit--oh, from 1970 and reversed, good.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by monkcaw]

Science H. Logic! this is bullbleep. I feel bad for the intelligent NJsians who have to take flak for this idiocy. blah...who wants kids anyway. too many people on this damn planet.

The Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment and the protection of discrimination of Religion in the Fourteenth Amendment both fall under the Establishment Clause since the 1994 Supreme Court Ruling in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet where it was established that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

What this means is that you cannot be forced to abide a State Religion. You can choose whatever Religion you want, or change Religions as often as you want, or opt not to have any Religious beliefs whatsoever, and still be protected by both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The problem, in this particular case, is that there are some States which do attempt to establish State-Sponsored Religions, and do so with State Constitutional provisions that make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making Freedom of Religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. Unfortunately, these Clauses in those State Constitutions have not yet been challenged in Court, even though they are clearly in violation of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

On a side-note, even the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 protects an individuals Religion, or lack thereof, by International Law.

so what "religion" is belief in a supreme being? Inquiring minds want to know. It is hard to separate it if we don't know what it is. Belief in a "supreme being" does not denote religion. Belief in a supreme being does not come with any rules or guides. Belief in a supreme being does not require worship, or any particular lifestyle. Belief in a supreme being therefore does not denote religion. The mention of the word god or the belief in one is not what the constitution was set to declare. Notice there is no mention of separation of church and state in the document. It clearly states that there shall be not state religion. Which means that the nation cannot have a national church, such as the Anglican church seen across the pond.

O.K. flame away, but that is what it says.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

This is the second time this has come up in 2 days. Neither OP or most of the posters noticed that it was from 1970.

I have to ask.

How hard is it to read the complete article. The date is right under the headline?


While writing that question a thought popped into my head. I googled this threads headline and anyone want to guess what I found?

If you answered that this story is being heavily circulated throughout the atheist blogs and it is being passed off as a current article then you would be correct.

Seems as if this 39 year old story is being used to show that those poor atheists are being persecuted against. If that is all you have to show, then you are doing pretty dang well guys. Stop belly aching.

Originally posted by jd140

How hard is it to read the complete article. The date is right under the headline?

Incredibly difficult apparently; I went through dozens of blogs and forums that were hit with this wave none of which noticed the date before I found the proof of its overturn in the other thread.

reply to post by eNumbra


Everybody wants a sob story. Doesn't matter if its relevant or not.

This is their sob story.

It's easy to miss the date, and with so many sources across the net doing so, I think it's a stretch to chastise the OP for not noticing.

reply to post by Unit541


I chastise every fool who has read the article and thought it happened within the last month or so.

I didn't even read the article. I clicked on the link on the first thread about this to read it, I had every intention to read it. After reading the headline, I didn't have to anymore.

BECAUSE I SAW THE DATE.

Originally posted by jd140
This is the second time this has come up in 2 days. Neither OP or most of the posters noticed that it was from 1970.

I have to ask.

How hard is it to read the complete article. The date is right under the headline?

Good catch jd140. I totally missed the date of the article as well.

That would explain why the 1994 Supreme Court Ruling in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet would not pertain (or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Well, I guess this goes to show that Political Pundits of all persuasions like to dredge up old issues and masquerade them as current causes to incite the masses. Thanks for giving us a Reality Check and keeping us from being wagged.

reply to post by fraterormus


No problem and thank you for not making excuses for missing it. Thanks should also be given to eNumbra he brought it to the attention of the first thread.

This has already been posted...

Here

~keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


You want credit for passing along this info?