Shocking case of discrimination against atheists

[Anathema]

You'd expect this sort of thing to happen in Malaysia or in Saudi Arabia. But not in the United States of America.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html

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."

Maybe there's more going on than what's mentioned in the article, but the paragraph above is absolutely outrageous. Hopefully this case is overturned and the judge sacked and sent off to North Korea  >:(

[Anathema]

Aargh, I just noticed that the article is dated Monday, Dec. 07, 1970. The person who told me about this is in for some trouble.

It's still disturbing to know that this could happen in the USA less than 40 years ago. I'll try to find out what happened next.

[Sneakgab]

Pretty funny. Indeed that judge was a moron. The logic about the child's freedom of belief can obviously be applied to potential parents of any religion, but perhaps typically less so to the atheists than all the other, as the typical atheist tries to exert his belief less than the typical religious person. At least that's what one would expect. After all, the parents of most religions think their child will end up in hell if they do not take their religion. Obviously any non super bad parent who truly believes such would make sure their child takes that religion and thusly avoids damnation.

(Edit: Dang, my little errors have been bad these days. Sometimes seriously changing my meaning)

[Anathema]

With the way it was phrased only atheists are left in the cold really, since they're the only ones who don't have a belief in a "supreme being".

Anyway, the decision was overturned:

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=1

This is from the concurring judge (meaning he agreed with the result, but not with all the motivations behind it)

WEINTRAUB, C.J. (concurring). I concur in the result but cannot join in the opinion of the Court. Although the majority opinion concludes the trial court erred in refusing to order the adoption "solely" on the basis of plaintiffs' lack of belief in a Supreme Being, the opinion does not condemn the trial court's inquiry into the subject. Since satisfaction of a judge's curiosity could hardly warrant that inquiry, I must conclude the majority opinion finds the subject to be relevant and a litigant's views upon it to be capable of constituting a factor in a decision to deny a judgment of adoption. Fortunately for us, the Burkes are not otherwise tainted and hence we are spared the task of deciding how many points should be charged against them because their articles of faith concerning a Supreme Being may deviate from our private views to a degree we severally cannot stand. I think none of this is the proper concern of a terrestrial judge.

We are not talking about honoring the express stipulation made by a consenting natural parent as to the religious faith of an adoptive parent. Nor are we concerned with the hypothetical case of a child whose prior religious training reached the point where a change of direction might inflict some psychological trauma. Rather the simple question is whether the State may inquire into an individual's religious, spiritual and ethical concepts in order to decide whether that individual is fit to raise a child. I think it is not the State's business to prowl among anyone's thoughts and to label him fit or unfit, in whole or in part, because his views are distasteful to someone in a placement agency or in the judiciary.

The majority opinion finds the State would violate the demand for neutrality in religious matters embedded in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion if adoption were denied "solely" because of an applicant's religion or lack of it. With that, I agree, but I cannot understand how the constitutional violation is a whit less because the applicant's religion or lack of it plays some lesser role in the judge's decision. Whether the price of the heresy is the destruction of a man's good character or merely a blot upon it, it is equally true that the State stamps its approval upon some tenets and its disapproval upon others. This is precisely what the First Amendment forbids.

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. I assume the majority would never deny adoption "solely" because of a belief in that area, but if the belief may be considered as the majority say it may, then how much may be charged against an applicant who is a Jehovah's Witness and therefore opposed to blood tranfusions, or a Christian Scientist, who, as I understand his faith, would turn to medical aid only as a last resort? And since a man's religious, spiritual and ethical views may be more evident in his position on specific subjects than in his abstract statement of his faith, will it be all right to inquire of his attitude toward the war in Vietnam, or capital punishment, or divorce, or abortion, or perhaps even public welfare, or income taxation, or caveat emptor, in all of which some people find evidence of moral fiber or lack of it?

Nor is there anyone competent to pass judgment upon religious, spiritual and ethical matters. I do not know how a placement agency tests or equips its staff for this demanding task. I do know that neither when they were admitted to the bar nor when they were appointed to the bench, were judges asked to establish the acceptability of their own tenets or a capacity to appraise the tenets of others. As for me, I disclaim any expertise whatever. I have already interred too many of my eternal truths.

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. Every incursion is sure to repeat the spectacle now before us. I think it strong evidence of good moral character that an applicant wants to rear a child, and that should be quite enough in the absence of positive conduct revealing unfitness for parenthood.

I found myself entirely agreeing with this statement until I got to the bolded part. Having parents who are Jehovah Witnesses is a potential health risk.

I could see how in that case it would serve a "valid secular purpose" (American lawyer speak) to inquire further about their personal beliefs and practice.

Then again, people could just as easily lie about the thing. Governments should not inquire their citizens about their beliefs, period.

[chatfsh]

This topic would be far more interesting if it were dealing with current events.  Before you posted the date, I clicked on the link and immediately saw that the case was about 40 years old??  Seeing this, I couldn

[TMA_1]

Is the article really that old??? If so, then why was it even brought up? That era in American history was much different than America has evolved into at this present time.

[Andrew]

Is the article really that old??? If so, then why was it even brought up? That era in American history was much different than America has evolved into at this present time.

Read the second post. :)

[Caid Ivik]

Aargh, I just noticed that the article is dated Monday, Dec. 07, 1970. The person who told me about this is in for some trouble.

It's still disturbing to know that this could happen in the USA less than 40 years ago. I'll try to find out what happened next.

It's disturbing people find this still actual after 40 years (btw 40 years ago in Czechoslovakia you won't have right to adopt a child if you were an open believer).

[Edric O]

It's disturbing people find this still actual after 40 years (btw 40 years ago in Czechoslovakia you won't have right to adopt a child if you were an open believer).

40 years ago? Are you sure? I would expect that sort of thing in the 1950s, but not in the 1970s.

Regarding the case Anathema brought up in the opening post (and ignoring the fact that it is so old): I agree on some level with the judge's view that it is better for a child to be raised in a religious family than an atheist one, but it should not be the state's job to decide these things - especially if the choice is between an atheist family or no family at all, like in this case.

[Caid Ivik]

40 years ago? Are you sure? I would expect that sort of thing in the 1950s, but not in the 1970s.

Regarding the case Anathema brought up in the opening post (and ignoring the fact that it is so old): I agree on some level with the judge's view that it is better for a child to be raised in a religious family than an atheist one, but it should not be the state's job to decide these things - especially if the choice is between an atheist family or no family at all, like in this case.

In 50s, the persecution was aimed at the clergy: the state tried to severe its ties with Vatican and ascetic orders. This, however, didn't affect the lay population, so the state changed the strategy and introduced a number of subtle advantages for people, who declared they had no religion. People could lie and hide their belief, but then they could become ostracized by those, who sacrificed these advantages instead. While the US judge could have simply show his personal opinion, it is the same attempt to control the belief of population.

[Anathema]

Well I disapprove of many things the eastern bloc countries did, and that would be no exception.

Regarding the case Anathema brought up in the opening post (and ignoring the fact that it is so old): I agree on some level with the judge's view that it is better for a child to be raised in a religious family than an atheist one' date=' but it should not be the state's job to decide these things - especially if the choice is between an atheist family or no family at all, like in this case.[/quote']

Really? Regardless of wich religion?

Would you say that a fundamentalist Hindu couple who believe that some people are inherently inferior due to caste-status is preferable to atheist couples? Or a JH' couple who would rather have their kid bleed to death instead of giving him blood transfusions?

We atheists should feel lucky that it's not up to the government to judge our beliefs, because otherwise we would always get the shaft!

[Sneakgab]

More because religion is useful to the government, and not because of THEIR beliefs on the matter though (It is the more common motivation behind such shafting).