That was then, this is now. Nowadays many adoption agencies don't require you to have a religious affiliation in order to adopt a child. There are some exceptions, such as agencies that are operated by religious organizations and not even that is set in stone.

FTA...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."


I wonder if that's still part of the New Jersey state constitution.

So will tomorrow's headline read "Camarata steps down from bench", or should we pretty much declare the American experiment a failure and start over?

Your Faith is Creepy: The case is from 1970.

D'oh. I thought the headline had a typo. So the lesson here is that TIME put all their back archives on the web?

CtrlAltDelete: Man, the spring semester at Kent State this year is going to be just swell.

Article's from December. Good one, though.

Those of you who think this is old, re-read the article. Reading comprehension, it's not just for kids. And those calling subby a dumbass, you just proved you are one.

BackAssward: Those of you who think this is old, re-read the article. Reading comprehension, it's not just for kids. And those calling subby a dumbass, you just proved you are one.

Pretty sure you're just being a jackass, but first two lines from TFA:

The Law: Can Atheists Be Parents?
Monday, Dec. 07, 1970

CtrlAltDelete: Man, I don't know how the world can go on without The Beatles.

I'm still pissed off about the Controlled Substances Act. Nixon, that f*cking fascist... Thank God the whole thing is unconstitutional as hell, and it'll be off the books within a year.

ninjakirby: he has ostensibly made it illegal to raise children if you are atheist, agnostic or just irreligious.



From my cold. Dead. Hands.

shadesofblack: An interesting snapshot of the era in our nation's history where everything went completely off the f*cking rails. Ugh.

It's from 1970, not 2007

Strange...

CtrlAltDelete: Man, I don't know how the world can go on without The Beatles.

I hear they're getting back together. By this time next year they'll have another album out, you'll see.

The Icelander: shadesofblack: An interesting snapshot of the era in our nation's history where everything went completely off the f*cking rails. Ugh.

It's from 1970, not 2007

Which makes me concur, it is an interesting snapshot of the era in our nation's history where everything went completely off the f*cking rails.

Hard to believe any judge could possibly say this in 2009. He should be removed from the bench.

Bathia_Mapes: That was then, this is now. Nowadays many adoption agencies don't require you to have a religious affiliation in order to adopt a child. There are some exceptions, such as agencies that are operated by religious organizations and not even that is set in stone.

Yes, but if you are homosexual, plenty of states won't allow you to adopt or foster care.

Yep, if you page through you'll even find 1970 letters to the editor.

It's amazing people don't look at the dates, there are no fewer than a half dozen "outrage" sites that have picked this article up in the last year thinking it's a contemporary story.

By the way, this was reversed on appeal. The decision is here:

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=1

Unanimously, although some of the justices had different reasons for their analysis than the official opinion.

rnatalie: It's amazing people don't look at the dates, there are no fewer than a half dozen "outrage" sites that have picked this article up in the last year thinking it's a contemporary story.

That's because it's totally plausible.

jsobota: Can you please tell me what this even means?

It means that atheists aren't Americans. A sentiment shared by at least one former president.

jsobota: orat-on-a-stick: Freedom OF Religion

not

Freedom FROM Religion

Can you please tell me what this even means?

It means "Pick a side, we're at war."

You know, I wonder what would happen if people applied the same "logic" to other rights. Say, "Freedom of speech, not freedom FROM speech." Stand up and air your innermost thoughts or go to jail, citizen!