INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: GalileoAce on January 04, 2008, 12:01:58 AM
-
From Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html)
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 31, 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.
-
wtf
-
:orly: :orly: :orly: :orly: :orly:
-
wtf
My point exactly...I'm glad I don't live in the US...and the US should be glad too.
-
Big fat country full of crazy people! :orly:
-
You do realize that this article is dated Dec. 07, 1970, don't you, Galileo Ace?
The county court decision was reversed on appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court and it was unanimous:
http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=1
New Jersey Court Case: The Adoption of E
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF "E", A CHILD, BY JOHN P. BURKE AND CYNTHIA D. BURKE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
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.
PROCTOR, J.
The county court denied plaintiffs' application for a final decree of adoption. The court held that plaintiffs' lack of belief in a Supreme Being rendered them unfit to be adoptive parents. The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division, and prior to argument there, we certified the case on our own motion. We reverse.
John and Cynthia Burke were allowed to keep Eleanor Katherine pending the appeal, so she was not removed from their care, as far as I know.
-
I didn't see the date :orly:
-
I also voted in your poll.
I think that birth mothers are often allowed to have some say as to whom their children are placed with and I think that it is reasonable if a birth mother has certain religious convictions and she wants her baby placed with adoptive parents who share these beliefs, then she should be allowed to consider religion as a factor if she wants to do so.
I do not think that the state should consider it if she does not.
-
I didn't see the date either...didn't know the net was around then :P
And you raise a valid point Callaway, but I think the adoptions in question were from orphanages.
-
I didn't see the date either...didn't know the net was around then :P
And you raise a valid point Callaway, but I think the adoptions in question were from orphanages.
I'm not sure whether they were or not, Galileo Ace.
Here is what I found about the CHILDREN'S AID AND ADOPTION SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY: Records, 1899-1978.
Children's Aid and Adoption Society of New Jersey: non-sectarian social service agency which arranges adoptions and provides day care and adolescent services; formed in 1899 as the Children's Aid and Protective Society of the Oranges (headquartered successively in Orange and East Orange, N.J.); provided foster home care for many years; adopted the name Children's Aid and Adoption Society of New Jersey in 1958 to reflect its revised emphasis and broader geographical base; moved its headquarters to Hackensack; merged in 1973 or 1974 with the Sister Mary Eugene Foundation and moved its headquarters to Bogota, N.J.
-
It's what I felt the article inferred. Though I could easily be wrong.
-
too many words for this horny drunk.
-
I was born to an agnostic couple. :toporly:
-
I was found,
under a leaf.
Probably drunk.
-
I'm just going to vote 'yes': it is the correct answer. :toporly:
-
How can they be you can't have sex before marriage and who would marry atheists not priests :laugh:
-
How can they be you can't have sex before marriage and who would marry atheists not priests :laugh:
Sarcasm? Or Seriousness? :P
-
How can they be you can't have sex before marriage and who would marry atheists not priests :laugh:
Sarcasm? Or Seriousness? :P
I can start quoting the bible too to support my words not my views just my words mind you :laugh:
-
Wow, that was U.S. in the seventies.
This was Sweden in the seventies:
The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974. This states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever. After the 18th and until the 22nd week a woman needs to get permission from the authorities to have an abortion. Permission for these late abortions are usually granted in cases when the fetus or the mother are unhealthy. The issue is largely settled, the question of the legality of abortion is not a political issue, and no relevant debates exist on the matter
Altough abortion got legal in Sweden 1938, but only if you had medical, humanitarian, or eugenical grounds. Then in 1946 we included socio-medical grounds and again in 1963 to include the risk of serious fetal damage.
-
Roe v Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) was decided by our Supreme Court in January 1973, so first trimester abortions were legalized in the US then.
-
Roe v Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) was decided by our Supreme Court in January 1973, so first trimester abortions were legalized in the US then.
But it's not legal in all the states?
-
Roe v Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) was decided by our Supreme Court in January 1973, so first trimester abortions were legalized in the US then.
But it's not legal in all the states?
I think that first trimester abortions still are legal in every state except South Dakota, but there are no doctors who offer abortions in some states.
We have a different balance of justices in the Supreme Court now, so I don't know how long first trimester abortions will remain legal here.
-
I think that first trimester abortions still are legal in every state except South Dakota
???
How does the supreme court decision NOT apply in SD?
-
I remember when all that South Dakota abortion stuff was going on. What a load of shit.
-
Thank god I am a male who has about zero chance if getting laid. That means I don't need to worry about this issue.
-
Thank god I am a male who has about zero chance if getting laid.
???
I'd consider that less of a blessing
than you do.
-
Well, let's put it like this then, in the seventies in Sweden the government tried to make more males stay at home at take care of the kids while women work.
-
I'm all for that.
Except the kids.
-
my parents were an atheist and agnostic. about. i didn't even have to be taught religion.
-
im not reading that (because i generally dont read news storys online) but if the adoption agency denied them a child to adopt because they are atheist and not christian thats fucked up