BF2S Forums Atheists Can't Be Parents, Appearently.

Last edited by rh27 (2008-01-03 12:11:19)

rh27 wrote:

That's exactly the opposite of what should be ruled.

If anything, religious prospective parents who can't prove they'll bring up their child without imposing religion on that child should not be allowed to have children.

The child should have all rights to choose their own religion, not have it imposed on them by parents.

For that reason, Atheists make the best parents in that respect.

Mitch wrote:

Im speechless.

The Article wrote:

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."

Theres much more:

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

Fuck.You.Religion.

DesertFox- wrote:

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.

Well there's an easy decision for the Court.

I didn't know that atheists had time to be parents, with all that time they spend with Satan and the liberals. jk <3

Last edited by KylieTastic (2008-01-03 12:32:51)

Mitch wrote:

Fuck.You.Religion.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Fuck.You.Religion.

No Mitch. F*$% You.  Religion has nothing to do with this.  ..unless of course you can show me a religion that says atheists can't have or adopt children, or if it forces states to regulate things as the article indicates.

And more importantly, all you yahoos on this forum bashing religion like you know what you're talking about, you obviously have NO clue based on how you're somehow blaming "religion" or actual taught doctrines of the mainstream faiths of the world for what someone says or does.  And until you can show me teachings, scriptures, or declared doctrines that advocate the things you claim, you are as ass backwards as the OP's assumption based on the article quoted.

Protecus wrote:

Unfortunately, Ironchef, we live in a world with two different forms of religion. You stand and defend a more enlightened, more open form of religion. While it still has its problems, religion has more or less left behind its witch burning, gay bashing, hell damning past.

Unfortunately, we are still having to deal with the past religion that has weaved itself into both our culture as well as our government. Religion is a powerful means of good, but it has also been an undeniable cause of some of the most atrocious acts in human history. We all recognize that this law is ridiculously and painfully stupid, yet it is still there. For people who don't really embrace religion to begin with, its hard to see a difference in the two.

Christbane wrote:

are you kidding me???  ass backwards to me is someone who lives there life by bible stories from a couple thousand years ago.  that would be like using the maintenence guide for a 57 chev on a 2008 vette.  the world has changed.  nothing is remotely the same.  maybe it's time for a new son of god to come and set us straight  <eye roll>

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'd agree if it were the actual religions declaring such "behaviors" as doctrines, but they're not (for the most part).  The behaviors of adherents of religion are not "the religion" as people suggest.  Religion is a set of principles, doctrines, and practices as a means to an end.  Professional decision making that speaks on behalf of government saying such unfounded things as this judge is saying has NO semblance of religion.  It does however speak of first amendment rights in a backwards way..backwards because yes, a parent DOES have the right and privilege of teaching their children whatever they want.

Anyway, hopefully this stupid judge will get yanked for her misconduct and reprimanded or disbarred or something if this isn't overturned.  I think this situation is also typical of most US adoption procedures keeping good parents from kids.  It's a barbaric business.