[HoosierDaddy]

A hypothetical quick fix to this: National rights are incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment, the US Constiutution protects the right to be both religious and non-religious, up steps the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and problem solved.

The question is who at the adoption agency has a problem with this in the first place? Many, many adoption agencies in the U.S. are faith based organizations.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 23 August 2009 - 11:29 PM

[Morgoth]

I just don't see how this man can be allowed to keep his job after this.

[HoosierDaddy]

There is a large amount of people who have, thus far into the game, done things poorly. The judge could very well have been prone to a genius advocate, Morgoth.

[councilor]

alas, such things have ceased to surprise me.

[cauthon]

WTF? This just seems plain wrong to me! What about a child who wishes to remain unreligious, but who gets baptised because his adoption-parents are catholic? Aaargh! What a bunch of morons. Time to remove that judge.

[Morgoth]

HoosierDaddy, on Aug 24 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

There is a large amount of people who have, thus far into the game, done things poorly. The judge could very well have been prone to a genius advocate, Morgoth.

No matter how gifted the advocate was, basing your decision on the religious afiliations of the people in question is just not acceptable. As a judge one should base decisions on the actuall law, and though it's impossible to completly keep out ones own opinions, being this blatant about it seems to me like wilfull malpractice.

I don't see how a judge would be able to keep his position if this ruling had happened in Norway, and though the US is a more religious country it has always been my impression that keeping religion seperate from the law has been much stricter in the US than here.

[Icarium Kalam]

caladanbrood, on Aug 23 2009, 08:15 AM, said:

I get the impression I may have been misinterpreted here, I'm not trolling Americans. I'm just saying that religion in the US seems to bring the idiots to the forefront.

i'm american and i have no problem with you trolling us

[Gothos]

this ruling wouldn't be that terribly disastrous if the american system wasn't based on precedent. it creates a precedent for further discrimination of the faithless, isn't that right?

This post has been edited by Gothos: 24 August 2009 - 01:12 PM

[drinksinbars]

Bubba, on Aug 23 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

caladanbrood, on Aug 23 2009, 08:47 AM, said:

Well, since all athiests are perfect, they would of course bring up the child with absolutely no bias, so why would it make any difference?

Also, this is dumb. Why does religion turn americans into morons?

Morons are morons, Nationality and religion are just the targets people aim for.

amen

[Obdigore]

Gothos, on Aug 24 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

this ruling wouldn't be that terribly disastrous if the american system wasn't based on precedent. it creates a precedent for further discrimination of the faithless, isn't that right?

Not entirely based on precedents, but precedents are used to help round out the laws, if you get what I am saying.

Of course, when the Appellant court overrules this idiot, stating something along the lines of 'the section of hte NJ constritution referred to ensures freedom or religion or freedom for a lack of religion, not the forcing of religion upon a child' this case will no longer be a precedent.

Also, since it is based on NJ Constitution, it is only a precedent in NJ. The Garden State.

[D'rek]

Gothos, on Aug 24 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

this ruling wouldn't be that terribly disastrous if the american system wasn't based on precedent. it creates a precedent for further discrimination of the faithless, isn't that right?

That it does, and that precedent could be taken far indeed. I'm sure no one here doubts that when the judge said a "supreme being" he was referring to christian-god. If the child were adopted by buddhists, muslims or any non-chrisitian religion, would the judge have the same verdict because the child would still be "deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God" ?? So, worst case scenario, the precedent could then be used in cases of differing religions and you get no adoption allowed for anyone who isn't christian. It might not even stop there: I'm sure a radical judge could take the precedent and pronounce that Anglican parents could be considered to be depriving the child "the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God" in the proper manner, and then it becomes only a single branch of christianity and all the un-adoptable orphans go unfed and die or some such.

That being said, I think enough people (and especially the higher-up judges) are going to declare this ruling stupid and undo it. This judge may be an idiot but I still have some confidence in the higher-ups of the system.

This post has been edited by D'rek: 24 August 2009 - 01:38 PM

[Aimless]

It was pointed out to me just now that this article was originally published in Time in 1970. I wonder if we may breathe a collective sigh of relief

[Terez]

ahhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahaha.

EDIT: So what happened to the judge?


Oh, and Apt...you need to stop getting your 'news' from Reddit!

This post has been edited by Terez: 24 August 2009 - 02:36 PM

[Illuyankas]

I like how this shows the amount of work we put in to looking for other sources on stuff like this.

EDIT: Ha ha, this is hilarious.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 24 August 2009 - 02:39 PM

[Terez]

Apparently more than other forums would, since Aimless did figure it out. And figuring such things out does happen fairly regularly...

[Obdigore]

Found the appeals case brief.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/...le_id/2435?pg=1

Here is the best part:

Court Case said:

JUDGES:
For reversal -- Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain.
For affirmance -- None.

Also

Court Case said:

The facts are undisputed. Cynthia Burke, holder of a Ph.D. in Psychology, is a past Associate Professor at Seton Hall University. Her husband, John, holder of a Master's Degree in Speech Pathology, is currently working toward his Doctorate at Southern Illinois University. In 1965, the Burkes applied to the New Jersey Bureau of Children's Services n2 for assistance in the adoption of a child. They were informed that, pursuant to a department regulation, they would be required to demonstrate some church affiliation before they could be considered suitable applicants. Since they could not demonstrate such an affiliation, they were denied the opportunity to adopt a child, and they instituted a suit for declaratory judgment seeking resolution of the question whether such "a religious qualification" might properly be required as a prerequisite to an adoption. The suit was dismissed by stipulation, however, when the Bureau of Children's Services revised its regulations which now provide in pertinent part:
Opportunity for religious or spiritual and ethical development of the child should receive full consideration in the selection of adoptive homes. Lack of religious affiliation or of a religious faith, however, should not be a bar to consideration of any applicants for adoption.

In July of 1967, after the regulations had been amended, the Society placed a baby boy (David) with the Burkes. With the recommendation of the Society, the county court granted final adoption on September 28, 1968. David has been living with the Burkes ever since and there is no dispute that he has been well cared for.
On June 27, 1969, the Society placed a three week old baby girl, "E", with the Burkes and she has been with them continuously since that date. On May 23, 1970, plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking adoption of the child. After conducting an investigation, the Society compiled and filed a report recommending the adoption. The report noted that both Cynthia and John Burke were in excellent health, intelligent, well educated, attentive to their children, and able to provide a physically suitable home. The report also noted that "***the Burkes' attitude toward the children is one that is healthy, and one that is full of warmth and love***. Mr. and Mrs. Burke have no church affiliation; however the agency has found them to be people of high moral and ethical standards."
At the hearing, the trial judge focused on the area of religion. He directed almost all of his questions to the plaintiffs' lack of church affiliation and their lack of belief in the existence of a Supreme Being.

It is a long case brief, but pretty entertaining. They also quote the judge being an ass and the Burkes as being intelligent, well spoken, and good people.

I think it is good to note that the Adoption Agency pushed for full adoption both times, and the second time the judge told them they couldn't.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 24 August 2009 - 02:53 PM

[Shinrei]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


madz

[Aptorian]

HA HA HA... I.. *cough* uhm, fooled you good... yes I did

Stupid reddit. This has been happening a lot recently. People submitting old but controversial articles to get tons of upvotes, only after they've gained like 500 points does someone realise how old the article is.

Anyway, story time was fun.

[Shinrei]

Finally a thread where that dopey avatar was APTropriate......

Ok, Shin is drunk and bad puns are funny. when drunk.

[Illuyankas]

This is a much funnier article to discuss, and a lot easier to work out that it wasn't created recently. I think the writer's living in a cave on a mountain somewhere right now.