Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Babble.com: 8 Parenting Lessons To Learn From 'Arrested Development'
Our Favorite Tweets From Parents This Week
Atheism and parenthood
Filed under: Just For Moms, Toddlers Preschoolers, Just For Dads, Adoption, Divorce & Custody, Activities: Babies, In The News, Alcohol & Drugs
Not so long ago I wrote a few articles about my religious convictions (I have none) and the possibility of those for my son. He doesn't have any, yet, that I know of. After all, he's a wee nine months old.
Recently, Time Magazine posted an article about a couple denied the ability to adopt a child because of their religious beliefs. The husband is an atheist and the wife is a pantheist. Before I read this short article I admit I didn't even know what a pantheist was.
John and Cynthia Burke, originally of Newark, New Jersey, who were almost not allowed to adopt their son over thirty years ago for the same reason, were denied the ability to adopt toddler Eleanor Katherine due to their lack of religious beliefs--or, rather, lack of belief in God as a single deity. The judge denied them the right based on New Jersey's constitution that states "no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience."
Apparently that applies to people who are less than two years old and probably do not have any idea of a higher power. It's possible, perhaps, but questionable. So little Eleanor is once again denied a home, with two people whom the judge claimed had good morals and were ethical. Naturally the Burkes are appealing.
I can see the point in a way--many people believe it is imperative to provide some sort of religious backdrop when raising a child. Many, however, do not feel it's necessary and believe the child can make his or her own decisions when ready--and that could be at any age.
I simply feel terrible for the Burkes and very saddened for the little girl. The chance for adoption is, as we know, like catching a shooting star in some ways. This little girl had a chance for a loving home and family. Now she's back in an orphanage where she doesn't belong.
Even if you don't necessarily agree with me, or with the judge in this case, don't you think Eleanor deserves to be in a home and not in an orphanage? It's not like these people are murderers or drug dealers or something of that nature. In fact, as the judge himself pointed out they seem like wonderful people.
I hate to see a child denied the right to a family. When there are so many, many children out there without homes it seems foolish to deny one of them the ability to go home.
Pic of atheist A by mikebdoss.
**Ed. note: The article cited in this post was actually featured in Time in 1970 -- which we didn't realize at the time of this posting. Apologies for any confusion caused. --Kristin
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
The Difference Between a Cult and a New Religious Movement
In preparation for upcoming investigative report on Doug Perry, a cyber preacher who stresses a vow of spiritual martyrdom to his congregation, "Our America with Lisa Ling" producers sit down with an expert to gain perspective on the subject of cults vs new religious movements. Dr. Charles Strozier, Psychoanalyst and Professor of History at The City University of New York, has been studying and teaching classes on new religious movem
-
How to Handel a Difference Like a Strong Religious or Cultural Background
Learn how to handle a difference like a strong religious or cultural background in this video with relationship expert Gloria MacDonald.
-
2013 NFL Draft Preview (For Experts)
Do you follow the NFL religiously? Are you as excited about 7th Round draft picks as 1st Round picks? Then check out this 2013 NFL Draft preview for experts from WSJ Sports.
-
Jewish-Mormon Relations: 2012 Presidential Elections
The American Jewish Committee, a global Jewish advocacy organization, hosted a conversation between Jewish and Mormon policy experts during the week of the Republican National Convention. As Mitt Romney accepts his party's presidential nomination, the AJC roundtable discusses the religious differences and similarities between the two faiths.
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
1-03-2008 @ 7:52PM
Eva said...I agree with you. The way that state constitution is worded is really inappropriate.
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 7:56PM
Maureen said...My lower jaw is now sitting on my desk! I cannot even believe that this story could be true. How can you deny a child a good home because of one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof? Ridiculous. You know, when I was younger, I was of the mind that children needed a religious background in order to get started on a moral path. After meeting wonderful people who were raised in communist countries, I changed my tune. These people were raised in atheist families and have more morals than many Bible believers I know. Shame on this judge and shame on New Jersey.
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 7:57PM
Greta said...Wow, that's frightening. I can't believe that would happen in this day and age.
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 8:25PM
Nancy Toby said...I'd call the decision both an unconstitutional intrusion of religious views into governmental actions, and reprehensible.
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 8:26PM
Jennifer said...This just absolutely terrifies me. It scares the crap out of me. I don't know what else to say.
I'm not an atheist, but my husband and I don't practice a particular faith. I guess we're unfit parents by New Jersey standards...
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 8:30PM
Shakespear said...Wellllllll
alot/most of times the birth mother/parents have say so over who adopts.
So it may have been a parental choice
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 8:39PM
OmegaMom said...While I totally agree, and think it *was* outrageous, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed and tossed the ruling out. This was almost 40 years ago; the date on the article is 1970...
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 8:54PM
Jenn said...As OMegaMom said, the article is from 1970. Here's the link to the final findings by the NJ Supreme Court
Very odd that they would post this article today?? It's all over the Web now, and just like here, everybody is reacting like it's a current story!
1-03-2008 @ 8:44PM
Greta said...Thanks for pointing that out, OmegaMom - I hadn't even noticed the date - makes a big difference! I certainly hope something like this would not happen today.
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 8:55PM
Jenn said...And, since I don't know what happened to the link in my post, or why it's showing as a reply to OmegaMom, here's the link again:
http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=1
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 10:24PM
SKL said...First of all, if the birth parents stated a preference that the child be raised in a particular religion, I think their wishes should be upheld.
Also, if the adoptive parents have made statements such as that they will forbid their child to explore religions, that would, in my opinion, indicate the child's home would be unhealthy in that respect.
Thirdly, if anything went wacky with their first child as a result of extreme positions held by these parents, it would be right to prevent the same from happening to a second child.
Since we don't know if any of these occurred, I won't take a position on the outcome of this case. It does seem surprising but I don't think we know enough.
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 2:46AM
W. H. Heydt said...Since when is atheism an extreme postion? There are more atheists in the US than there of any of a number of smaller religions.
1-04-2008 @ 3:27AM
SKL said...WH, I did not say atheism is an extreme position. Please read what I wrote and don't make assumptions.
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 12:11PM
Meagan said...Since this is such an old case, commenting on a law that may have been changed since may be irrelevant, but...
"no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience."
It's impossible to apply that to a child. Nearly every child in the world will be raised with his or her parent's views, not "the dictates of his own conscience." That means Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists. Claiming that an Atheist would deny a child of this right, but a Christian would not, is ridiculous.
Reply