Look, it’s the world folks like Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson wish for!
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.
…
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."
UPDATE: Talk about egg on the face. As my commenters point out, this is a story from 1970 and the case was decided in favor of sanity. Time to update the time machine.
This one will hopefully be reversed in NJ Supreme Court. If not, I’m sure the ACLU will take it into Federal Court. This kind of case is why I’m proud to be a member of the ACLU.
Judge Cammaratta is going to have to explain how being raised by atheists is depriving a child of the ability to know god.
Funny, both of my parents were believers and I never was. My parents didn’t deprive me of my right to laugh at the silly idea of invisible men in the sky.
This raises even more questions. I’m an atheist and my wife is a druid. Our daughter is not adopted, nor will be her impending sister. Can the state take our children away because we don’t believe in this Almighty God character?
So, what has happened in the intervening 37 years?
I think I shall have to join the ACLU just to send them money to defend this case.
I noticed this when I first looked at the TIME article and assumed it was a glitch in their web page server, but it seems to be correct:
This article is from 1970!
And the insanity of the judge in this case was reversed on appeal by the NJ Supreme Court. Unanimously.
I think this must have started making the rounds because for some reason it showed up on reddit or some other indexer/aggregator today.
Still, it’s heartening to know the good guys won in the case. And the amicus curae brief filed in the appeal by various religious groups all argued to overturn the original ruling. (No doubt they understood that if children could be taken away because the parents were atheists, then they could also be taken because the parents were Jewish, or Catholic, or Mormon…)
Actually, the adoption of the SON, 31 years old at the time of his sister’s adoption in somewhere around 2001, occurred in 1970. The reasonable ruling occurred in LAST century. The unreasonable one occurred in this century with the DAUGHTER’S adoption.