This makes me sick

dukeofbaja

New Member
What year is this?

After six years of childless marriage, John and Cynthia Burke of Newark decided to adopt a baby boy through a state agency. Since the Burkes were young, scandal-free and solvent, they had no trouble with the New Jersey Bureau of Children's Services—until investigators came to the line on the application that asked for the couple's religious affiliation.
John Burke, an atheist, and his wife, a pantheist, had left the line blank. As a result, the bureau denied the Burkes' application. After the couple began court action, however, the bureau changed its regulations, and the couple was able to adopt a baby boy from the Children's Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange.
Last year the Burkes presented their adopted son, David, now 3 1/2, 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.
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."
The Burkes are now living in Carterville, Ill., near Southern Illinois University, where John Burke has worked for the past year as a speech pathologist. Nevertheless, Judge Camarata ordered the parents to send David's sister back to the New Jersey adoption agency. Two weeks ago, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Burkes appealed directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. 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.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html?iid=digg_share#ixzz0iVZVJiUi
 

landracer

Active Member
Fuckin A man. Fuckin A
i am a religious person and a scientist and i am appalled at the thought that a state would take an action in direct and obvious conflict with the constitution. it is like the state of NJ is still in the dark ages. i have to add, that from my personal experience a person taught to reason and raised with clear and consistent moral and ethical values is a good candidate to believe in a creator. on the other hand some of the most unreasoning, ignorant, immoral, and unbalanced people i have ever known were deeply religious.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
That ruling gets overturned in a heartbeat. First, it is well-established that freedom of religion equally extends to freedom of no religion. This ruling violates that freedom on the part of the parents. Second, the ruling would also apply to christian parents whose adopted child might not have the freedom to be jewish etc etc. And actually, the judge is not citing anything about abortion so would apply to naturally born children as well. If they can prevent non-religious parents from adopting, with the same logic they could remove birth children from non-religious parents.
 

Katatawnic

Well-Known Member
That article was published Monday, Dec. 07, 1970. Perhaps a follow up investigation would be in order. I doubt the state has any legal right to do this now... or so I would hope.
 

Hobbes

Well-Known Member
.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

59 N.J. 36; 279 A.2d 785
July 1, 1971, Decided

JUDGES:
For reversal -- Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain. For affirmance -- None. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Proctor, J. Weintraub, C.J. (concurring). Weintraub and Jacobs, JJ., concur in result.

"...it is unnecessary for us to consider plaintiffs' further contentions that the trial court's decision denied both them and the child "E" equal protection and due process of law. 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.
Judgment is entered in accordance with this opinion. ...

I can think of nothing more unmanageable than an inquiry into a man's religious, spiritual and ethical creed. There is no catalogue of tolerable beliefs. Nor would the nature of man permit one, for man is inherently intolerant as to matters unknowable, and the intensity of his intolerance is twin with the intensity of his views....

No matter how it is phrased or explained, an inquiry into religious, spiritual and ethical views can mean no more than this, that a man or a woman is unfit, or a bit unfit, to be a parent, natural or adoptive, if his or her thoughts exceed the tolerance of the mortal who happens to be the judge in a placement bureau or in the judiciary. I find such an inquiry to be as offensive as it is meddlesome and irrelevant to the true issue. ..."

From the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy.

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=9


.

bongsmilie
 
Top