US Judge: Atheists Can't Adopt

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
P

Pudding Time

Banned
Messages
2,933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Can Atheists Be Parents? - TIME

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."
Click to expand...


So you have a state constitution contradicting the US constitution. Which one takes precedent? I'm all for state laws to trump federal laws, but I'm utterly against any law in favour of any religion.
 
  • 10
    Replies
  • 251
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list
P

Pudding Time

Banned
Messages
2,933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Just noticed the date on this article (1970).

So I did some research to find the outcome of the appeal, and found this:

Fortunately, their appeal, granted 1 July 1971, was successful.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Since the sole ground for denying the adoption was the Burkes' beliefs regarding religion and it is clear from the record that they are otherwise fit, we grant the adoption in the exercise of our original jurisdiction. See R. 2:10-5; In re Adoption by B, supra, 63 N.J. Super. at 104.
Click to expand...

Guess it all turned out well for the Burke's. Though I'm still baffled on how the State of New Jersey can have such a law in their constitution.
 
Tim

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
The law may have been removed from the constitution since then. Laws are never perfect and as time goes on, those questionable laws are challenged in court and changed if needed. I don't mind seeing stupid outdated laws on the books since they may have been written a long time ago. We have a process in which they can be challenged and changed. That is the MOST important thing in my opinion.
 
Maulds

Maulds

Accidental Bastard
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
I would think the state law would be upheld until it was overturned on appeal by a higher federal court.
 
All Else Failed

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
"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."

Ok, so, atheist influence is bad....but...religious influence is ok....hmmmm I smell a dumb ass.
 
Tim

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
You have to take in account that this was in 1970... we have progressed since then.

Because any rational person could also argue that a child adopted by a Catholic family would be raised Catholic and not have freedom to "worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." by the judges own logic. You can substitute Catholic with any religion above.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top