Friday, January 4, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Can Atheists Be Parents?

by Time

Thanks to Tony Newberry
This is an article from the TIME Magazine archives, dated Monday, Dec. 07, 1970.

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.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, January 4, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 42 of 42 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #107299 by mikecbraun on January 4, 2008 at 11:23 am

Disgusting.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

2. Comment #107300 by Mangala on January 4, 2008 at 11:23 am

You should point out this is from 1970. This would be outrageous today - though not suprising.

Other Comments by Mangala

3. Comment #107301 by room101 on January 4, 2008 at 11:24 am

Uhhhh, okaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy (*sacastically*)

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."

Huh??!? a 17-month old? Anyone else's mind implode upon reading this?

Other Comments by room101

4. Comment #107302 by clunkclickeverytrip on January 4, 2008 at 11:25 am

Total lunacy - many of us are parents, and better parents in most cases than religious parents simply for not indoctrinating our children into religious behaviour.
The only conclusion is that the judge is god-infected and is highly delusional. I hope he's not a parent.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

5. Comment #107304 by Jason1083 on January 4, 2008 at 11:26 am

I think it's worth pointing out that this article is from December 7th, 1970. Much as atheists may still be maligned, their status has certainly improved dramatically since then. Anyone know what the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled?

Other Comments by Jason1083

6. Comment #107305 by Dax on January 4, 2008 at 11:26 am

1970, today, what is the difference? With Huckabee doing so well, we should be seeing this more often in the near future.

Funny, how a "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." But being influenced by parents who do believe in a Supreme Being never was (and still is not) an issue?

Other Comments by Dax

7. Comment #107306 by clunkclickeverytrip on January 4, 2008 at 11:27 am

OK- it's from 1970. Did they eventually win the appeal?

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

8. Comment #107309 by HourglassMemory on January 4, 2008 at 11:29 am

I have never had religion mentioned in my family. Nor God.
that makes my close family atheist.

And they can sure as hell be parents.
I don't smoke, I don't like drinking and I don't curse thanks to the way they raised me.

If I see an old lady in the streets with heavy shopping bags I would help, if I didn't think I would look lame. I feel like having tea with them...
If I see a girl crying I feel like I could give so many hugs and sit next to her for as long as she needed.
I couldn't hurt a fly, not to mention human beings.
I beleive that I should use my life to the maximum, that's why I try to learn as much as possible before something stupid like....dying...happens.
that's why I'm writing my novels.
I'm constantly laughing.
I'm constantly learning from other people's mistakes.

The only thing that gets me depressed is thinking about the innevitability of death. I find depression stupid and boring.
About all the rest I'm VERY optimistic.

I have to also mention that my parents educated me in such a way that I'm able to dodge stupid websites and come to forums such as the one here on this site.

....and I'm only 18. Go figure.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

9. Comment #107311 by Rudism on January 4, 2008 at 11:34 am

As was mentioned, this story is from 1970. The ruling was overturned and the adoption was allowed the next year.

Details:
http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view?article_id=2435&state=NJ&court_case=1

Other Comments by Rudism

10. Comment #107321 by AshtonBlack on January 4, 2008 at 11:47 am

Phew!

Being an athiest does not a bad parent make.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

11. Comment #107332 by PrimeNumbers on January 4, 2008 at 11:59 am

Completely disgusting.

The quality of your parenting relies totally on the quality of your parenting.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

12. Comment #107333 by mikecbraun on January 4, 2008 at 11:59 am

Ah, I did not notice that this was from 1970. Thanks for the heads-up. Scary how it can easily be misconstrued as having happened yesterday...

Other Comments by mikecbraun

13. Comment #107336 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm

What... the... x_x

That law is probably 230 years old. It's as if a judge in the UK actually tried to enforce one of their blasphemy laws with hanging.

Oh, wait, it's from 1970?

Other Comments by quill

14. Comment #107339 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 12:05 pm

NJ has come a really long way has it not? Why now they are trying to let gay people marry. Make expecting mothers do the responsible job getting HIV testing and all.

NJ is known as the arm pit of the United States. But I must add, I spent some of my happiest days there.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

15. Comment #107348 by kev_s on January 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Reminds me of when I applied for a visa to Indonesia some years back. You had to put your religion on the form. I was advised that if I didn't put any religion it meant I must be a communist and therefore the visa would be refused.
I put Church of England, because that is scarcely a religion, and therefore it did not feel like I was lying.

Other Comments by kev_s

16. Comment #107355 by BlessedCheesemaker on January 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Anybody read the supreme court ruling? There's an dissenting opinion of one of the judges, saying he agrees with the overturning, but disagrees with the court ruling because it justifies the inquiry into Burke's beliefs in the first place.

Seems like there are actual standards to be met if you want to be a **supreme** court judge. Although, there's always Scalia to testify to the contrary.

Other Comments by BlessedCheesemaker

17. Comment #107364 by jargo on January 4, 2008 at 12:27 pm

If this is from 1970 why is it listed under current news?

Other Comments by jargo

18. Comment #107384 by will young on January 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

My plumbing works so I would have to say yes.
**
Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffery Dahmer each fine examples of fanatical religious upbringing.

Other Comments by will young

19. Comment #107396 by konquererz on January 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Wow, its amazing that this happened in a free country at all. And its rather frightening. However, an appeal that overturned it should have made sure that this can't happen again, not with a precedence now set.

Other Comments by konquererz

20. Comment #107435 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Yes konquererz ,

And it is precedence like these that Pat Robertson and his henchmen at Regent University hope to overturn.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

21. Comment #107436 by notsobad on January 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

It's a good reminder about what happens when religious beliefs are allowed to be the law.

Has NJ changed the constitution, or are they just not enforcing this part of it any more?

Other Comments by notsobad

22. Comment #107444 by NormanDoering on January 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm

This is the kind of thing that happens when we let theists claim the moral high ground:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/claiming-moral-high-ground.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

23. Comment #107452 by jim.lloyd on January 4, 2008 at 2:37 pm

To those saying this happened in 1970: reread the article. The original adoption was from 1970, but this is a second adoption happening now (the first child is now 31 years old).

Other Comments by jim.lloyd

24. Comment #107463 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm

jim.lloyd
I think you misunderstood. It was the second adoption that happend in 1970.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

25. Comment #107470 by ivellios on January 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm

I think it is a misprint since the link from Rudism states the first child was 3.

And they did get to keep her.

Other Comments by ivellios

26. Comment #107477 by Pilot22A on January 4, 2008 at 3:26 pm

It makes one wonder what the birth parents were like.

They may be drugged out murdering psychopaths but this fundamentalist theist society allows them to breed.

Let the judge give the kid back, and see what kind of life she has.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

27. Comment #107499 by Corylus on January 4, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Hmm 1970 – this triggered a dim memory of a book first published in 1941 that I have just had to rummage through my shelves to find. (I wasn't born on either date, but I like old books)

It was called Let the People Think . Here is a quote from it.

My father was a Freethinker, but died when I was only three years old. Wishing me to be bought up without superstition he appointed two Freethinkers as my guardians. The Courts, however, set aside his will, and had me educated in the Christian faith. I am afraid the result was disappointing, but that was not the fault of the law. If he had directed that I should be educated as a Christadelphian or a Muggletonion or a Seventh-Day Adventist the Courts would not have dreamt of objecting. A parent has the right to ordain that any imaginable superstition shall be installed into his children after his death, but has not the right to say that they shall be kept free from superstition if possible.

Bertrand Russell

Yes, you can say that 1970, 1941 and especially 1876 (when the events described above occurred) were a long time ago, and in a different country. However, thinking and understanding advances slowly: occasionally, it even goes backward.

There is indeed "nothing new under the sun" and it is always worthwhile to keep an eye out for old mistakes.

Other Comments by Corylus

28. Comment #107513 by BlessedCheesemaker on January 4, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Considering the fact that "In God we Trust" was lobbied onto US currency, that "under God" was bullied into the Pledge of Alliagence (completely ruining the rithm by the way), all while under the supposed protection off the seperation of church and state, it seems obvious that we need to stay vigilant.

I wonder why religious moderates don't understand that the wall of seperation is there also for their benefit. Maybe we should point this out in public more often.

Other Comments by BlessedCheesemaker

29. Comment #107546 by DNAtheist on January 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Dax wrote:
1970, today, what is the difference? With Huckabee doing so well, we should be seeing this more often in the near future.

Actually things have changed for us. Today even Huckabee is publicly acknowledging our right to serve in politics.

Hardball January 3, 2008 (After Iowa caucus)

OLBERMANN: ...Do you think at some point you would face a question of what do you do about those who do not share not necessarily your religious beliefs but any religious beliefs or religious beliefs to the degree that you have expressed them?

HUCKABEE: No, I don't think Americans necessarily vote for or against somebody just because of their religion. At least, I certainly wouldn't want to believe that, whether they vote for or against me or somebody else. I think they want, however, you to be consistent with your own religion.
You know, I said on Bill Maher, and got a lot of people surprised and their eyebrows raised when I was asked about Pete Stark, a congressman from California, who is an openly declared atheist. And I said, that doesn't bother me. I'd rather have somebody who is an openly declared atheist who is honest about it than a person who claims to be a Christian but doesn't live like it.
That is what disturbs me, is when people claim a faith and then they don't practice it. People are looking for authenticity, not necessarily someone who just absolutely goes right down the line of their own personal doctrine.

Hardball November 29, 2007

MATTHEWS: So when the Constitution says no religious test shall ever be used as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, that phrase in the Constitution means what to you?

HUCKABEE: It means just what it says, there shouldn't be a religious test. There's no requirement that a person has a religious at all. It may have been on your program, Chris, that a few weeks ago, we talked about Pete Stark, an avowed atheist. My point that day, and I'll say it again, I'd rather have a person serving in Congress who's an avowed atheist who's honest about it than a person who tries to pretend he's a Christian when he doesn't live like it and he's filled with hate and venom and anger toward people.

Glenn Beck October 19, 2007

BECK: Would you vote for a Mormon?

HUCKABEE: You know, I don`t know that that would be an impediment, but what I really want to do is I want for somebody whose views are not just compatible with mine but whose views are compatible with their views. I want somebody to be consistent. I want someone whose compass points north and always has. I don`t care if a person disagrees with me. Quite frankly, Glenn, I can live with someone who is 180 degrees different from me. I just want him to look me in the eye and tell me, "This is what I believe." Not because the political winds are blowing this way. And if the person says -- let me give you an example. Pete Stark is a member of Congress. He`s a Democrat. He`s an announced, professed atheist. I was asked on Bill Maher`s show does that bother me. And I think I shocked him. I said, "No, Bill, I have more respect for Pete Stark, who says, `Hey, I`m an atheist`"...

BECK: That`s why I vote for Joe Lieberman. I vote for Joe Lieberman. I know when he closes the door he`s going to say the same thing behind my back that he said to my face.

HUCKABEE: Well, character has often been described and defined as character is who you are when nobody else is looking. And I think that`s so important. People are looking for authenticity in their leaders. Not perfection. Because none of us can provide that. None of us can be perfect. But we can be authentic. And you know, there are times I have to look at people and say, "Look, you guys disagree with me on this, but I can live with that. But..."

Granted he isn't endorsing atheism and he treats it like a religion, but he is at least acknowledging our existence and he is praising our honesty over the mealy-mouthed religiousity of "moderates" who don't take these questions seriously. So much for those who claim that publicly coming out will just bring scorn. Vive le OUT Campaign!

Other Comments by DNAtheist

30. Comment #107555 by NormanDoering on January 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm

DNAtheist wrote:

Don't be fooled by Huckabee's doublespeak, take a look at who he is associating with and what he's saying to them:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/huckabee-and-christianists.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

31. Comment #107566 by ChrisMcL on January 4, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I know not if it is appropriate say such things here, but...

THAT FUCKING PISSES ME OFF!!!

My wife and I are atheists and we have a 3 year old son, and are expecting another child before September. My sister was adopted, and we grew up together in a godless household. Who the fuck does that judge think he is to deny atheists the same rights to be parents as anyone else!

I hope that the ACLU kicks the judges ass, and that he gets run out of town.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

32. Comment #107577 by BlessedCheesemaker on January 4, 2008 at 7:11 pm

ChrisMcL, calm down.

It's a case from 1970. It has longsince been overturned. (38 years ago is still too close for comfort, mind you)

Other Comments by BlessedCheesemaker

33. Comment #107586 by DNAtheist on January 4, 2008 at 7:37 pm

NormanDoering,

I'm not fooled by Huckabee at all. He's a theocrat to the core. My point wasn't that he likes us, but that we have become mainstream enough that he has to treat us as legitimate opponents. I don't think those with similarly evangelical world-views would have done the same back in the 1970's. I consider that progress.

Other Comments by DNAtheist

34. Comment #107613 by aznxscorpion517 on January 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Yes, the article is from 1970. However, the fact that it is possible to not be surprised that this could happen in the world today is really scary.

Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

35. Comment #107715 by Synchronium on January 5, 2008 at 3:34 am

If I was religious, this is one more thing I'd be incredibly embarrassed about.

Other Comments by Synchronium

36. Comment #107758 by Matt7895 on January 5, 2008 at 8:21 am

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."

The use of 'Almighty God' in that constitution is well and truly terrifying, especially as it's not even the constitution of a Bible Belt state. The founding fathers got it right when writing the federal constitution, but whoever wrote this must have been theocratic.

Other Comments by Matt7895

37. Comment #107861 by tuibguy on January 5, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Even though the ruling was overturned and the Burkes were allowed to adopt the second child, the provision in the New Jersey Constitution which the Judge used still remains.

I have an entry about the constitutions of Minnesota and New Jersey at Tangled Up In Blue Guy.

Other Comments by tuibguy

38. Comment #107924 by SakuraKaijuu on January 5, 2008 at 3:20 pm

That is absolutely ridiculous. That really shouldn't be an issue. Ever. That child wasn't being denied the right to believe in a supreme being. In fact, since her adopted parents hold two different belief systems, she probably had more of a choice than so a lot of other children. She just didn't make that decision until she was old enough to understand.

I was raised in a highly Christian community by atheist/agnostic parents, but I was never denied the option to become Christian or Jewish or anything I wanted to believe in. It's absolutely ridiculous to imply that just because a person's parents (biological or adopted) hold a certain set of beliefs that the child will never get a chance to think on their own and make their own decision.

A person's parents are there to guide them along and make sure that a kid grows up to be a decent person (hopefully). Whether or not the Judeo-Christian God is a part of that has very little to do with that particular part of a parent's job. I mean, it could be what a parent uses as their own guidelines for raising children, but my siblings and I are living proof that you don't need to have God in your life in order to grow up to be a pretty decent person.

Other Comments by SakuraKaijuu

39. Comment #107935 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 5, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Hi all! I just started this topic on "raiding parties" in the forum. Please have a look and contribute. Thx:-)

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=33112&p=602964#p602964

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

40. Comment #108388 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 6, 2008 at 5:29 pm

even though this is from the 1970's it has something of a chilling resonance, and that quote the fellow up there gave from russle is more evidence of the lack of progress on this issue. that was from 1940's, the time from 1940 to 1970 is about the time from 1970 to 2000.

and actually based on that constitution, only atheists should be allowed to adopt, or people who would adopt their child, or raise their child, to NOT believe in one perticular god. since the indoctrination of a child early on precludes the childs ability to chose rationaly what god they wish to follow, so sticking to their constitution, the teaching of religion to a child would be illegal.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

41. Comment #108515 by bamboospitfire on January 7, 2008 at 5:31 am

An outrageous decision at first instance, but surely the relevant words of the state constitution are "in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience". The only requirement is that a person should not be prevented from worshipping as he or she sees fit. In other words, the views of the parents are irrelevant, as long as they don't seek to limit the adoptive child's freedom of religion and there is no evidence provided to suggest that they would have done so. Moreover, the dictates of one's own conscience may well result in an absence of worship altogether. I have less of a problem with the wording of the state constitution than I do with the one-eyed, theist judge who interpreted it so badly.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

42. Comment #112361 by asupcb on January 17, 2008 at 12:57 am

Huckabee and others in Arkansas are actively pushing to make it illegal for gay people to adopt children or from what I understand if there is even a gay person living in the home that would prevent an adoption from occurring.

Arkansas really sucks sometimes :(

Other Comments by asupcb