Can Atheists Be Parents?

[hongkongluna]

Can judges be complete idiots?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 55,00.html

Its amazing that that is what took up (past tense) the judicial calendar in that county....

R

[curiosityandthecat]

I tweeted about this over the weekend. Check the date of the article:

[Recusant]

Its amazing that that is what took up (past tense) the judicial calendar in that county....

  It wasn't just the county court.  This case went to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

  The county judge denied the adoption, but allowed the child to stay with the adoptive parents, pending appeal.  The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled unanimously to reverse the county court's ruling.  From the Supreme Court's ruling:

 

The trial court's reasoning does not confront the fundamental constitutional problem. The issue is not whether an individual has a right to choose religion or non-religion, but whether the government has the power to impose religion or to place a burden on one's beliefs regarding religion. Burdening the opportunity to adopt with religious requirements does both and if, as we believe, the government lacks such a power, religious requirements violate the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The courts are an arm of the state and, as such, they are required to maintain a neutral posture on the issue of belief and non-belief. We, as judges, regardless of our own personal beliefs and religious affiliations, cannot take the position that children may be placed only in the homes of believers until they are able to choose for themselves which course to pursue. Under the First Amendment we are incompetent to do so. Should we invade the province of religion in this instance, the religious beliefs of every citizen would be imperiled. We cannot forget that many of our forebears fled to this country to escape religious persecution for professing beliefs which were unpopular in their homeland. It was for this very reason that the Amendment was adopted, and if it is to have any meaning, it must protect minority rights in this area. If judges are to have the power to deny adoptions on the basis of the applicants' lack of religious beliefs, the door is opened to other judicial intrusions into this sensitive field. It is obvious that, in arriving at any decision, a court may not be influenced by its religious predilections.

Full text of the ruling may be found here.

[buttercupbaby]

I can't believe it had to go that far.   That's almost embarrassing for our country to have people who are so close minded.   The longer I am atheist, the more these religious people annoy the shit out of me.

[Whitney]

...I put this on twitter and just saw someone post it again (this time just the article link instead of to the forum).  I bet it goes viral among the freethought community.  Nothing against anyone who thought it was new at first (I probably would have thought so if I hadn't seen curio's post first) but why do you think that a group of people who bitch about religious memes would be so able to start a meme of their own?