Posted on 01/02/2008 4:38:37 PM PST by Dawnsblood
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
“Can Atheists Be Parents?”
Yes however they understand when they look into their child’s eyes and smiles, they only see worm food.
Ha.
Yeah, sure, but they have to do to the schools for it just like everybody else.
Alternate headline: “Can Time be in more love with Atheists”?
What a dumb ass thing to say.
Only by accident.
Exuse me, but the date you posted on the article was “ 1/7/08”. This article was published 12/07/1970, 37 years ago.
My Protestant faith is so strong is needs no legislation to strengthen it.
Care to explain that idiotic comment?
Makes me wonder if there are other issues at hand. Seems pretty arbitrary to reject because of a lack of religion.
Time was online back in 1970? Algore had the internet invented by then?
My apologies, you are correct.
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.
I think I'd be more concerned about the age of the parents. If they have a 31 year old adopted son, they'd have to be rather old to be adopting a 17 month old girl. Considering this article was published 37 years ago, the 31 year old son would now be 68, and the girl would now be 38½ years old.
No, we see a beautiful child that we hope to raise to be a good person and a benefit to humanity. What a depressing outlook you're projecting onto others.
I think even athiests are able to figure out how to insert tab A in slot B. Thats about all it takes to become parents.
Isn't that a heartwarming statement. "Acquired." Like a land transaction. God help us all.
I saw the same thing. My eyes are failing fast :(
I can’t believe this happened in NJ! It sounds more like something that would take place in the “Bible Belt”.
Thank you. I was just going to go bounce around the web in search of the outcome. : )
Okay—maybe 37 years ago, things were different in NJ. I didn’t yet realize the article was this old. Why is it being posted now?
I’m not going to answer that, I’ll just leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.
Actually, the reverse is more true. My 9 year old came by and I asked him the question - after a few moments thought he simply said, “no”.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, so I’ll end this here.
Just a tad "out of date" don't you think?
Pantheist believes in God in some form?
They believe nature is god. Hence the calf, crocodile, cat, gods of Egypt, the various nature gods of American Indians, etc.
Pantheism = idol worship, paganism, Hinduism, occultism, witchcraft.
Better atheists than muslims. At least with atheists there is hope: someone gets sick, someone sees the light, etc.
With muslims the child’s chances are limited.
How many such women do you think say it’s fine if their baby’s parents are atheists?)
Not very many, I would guess about 1/2% would not care.
Well, if they could produce a kid on their own without having to adopt through ‘the gubmint’ or a private agency, yes.
If not, they have to meet the same criteria EVERYONE ELSE has to. Not everyone can adopt, even if they ARE religious. There are many factors that disqualify all sorts of people and they may not like it, but that is too damn bad. If the adoption group believes that it is important for those children to grow up in a family that believes in God (god), and that it is in the best interest OF THE CHILD, NOT THE PARENTS, then they ought to either meet the requirement or they don’t get to adopt.
Wow. This in the PRNJ. I would think atheism would be the state religion.
see antiRepublicrat’s reply at #16
I think you and I are on the same page: any woman giving her baby up for adoption would want parents who believe in (some kind of ) God.
This judge deserves to be thrown out of his position, and thereafter sued into oblivion for violating the rights of these two. Unfortunately, his position prevents him from suffering the latter consequence of his egregious action.
He automatically assumes that because most religious people indoctrinate their children in their religion that atheists must indoctrinate their children into having no religion. It’s not true. Hasn’t also he noticed that kids raised in one religion do convert to others, or to none at all? How a child is raised here may influence the end religion, but it is not a guarantee. Thus in this case it’s not a guarantee that the child will have no religion.
This is the judge -- the government -- deciding in this case. It's not a private matter between private people and groups that can therefore base any criteria on religion.
Well it is a logical assumption that atheists are not going to take their kids to church, so it is a good conclusion that atheists are not going to expose their kids to religion, unless they are pointing out the negatives of it and why it’s a waste of time. You don’t teach your kids to believe in things you don’t believe in.
That is why they have atheist summer camps for kids(ie freethinkers). It ain’t religious people sending their kids there - it’s atheists and secular humanists. The whole point is to have a camp that is not religious. So these people illustrate they are doing things to not put their kids in a religious setting.
Interesting how this old article has been making the rounds all over the internets today.
Not me. From a single photon to a possble multiverse, connectivity in God.
I think there's better evidence than none.
whatever.... we’re obviously not going to agree, so I’ll let it go.
Though All Good to You and Yours.
Since the article is 37 years old, the Judge is probably dead by now.
He must be sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court.
This was from 37 years ago.
The judge has since passed away. I found a “In Memoriam” blurb on the Rutgers Alum page for a Hon. William J. Camarata.
Atheism and secularism wouldn't stand a chance.
Unless infertile they are able to be parents.
The author would have be wiser to title this: “Should Atheists be Parents?”
I’d answer that it’s up to them.
So far as adopting is concerned, I wouldn’t want my surviving, dependent children adopted by atheists, but there are probably atheist parents who wouldn’t care.
That’s why wills are important.
Maybe the only thing an Atheist assumes is that the a-holes know who they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.