Atheism Is the New Gay
It used to be that you could be denied the privilege of adopting children if you were gay, as if gayness were a disease, or somehow something that kids could pick up from their parents, something we would never want to inflict on kids. I mean, make kids gay? Think of all the horrible suffering they would have to endure at our hands!
Well, it’s not as if those days are past–the homophobes still usually win out when it comes to adoption. But now a new band of social pariahs have been added to the No-Adopt list: atheists.
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.”
Note: This article, it turns out, is from 1970. It should also be noted, however, that in such issues, atheism still puts a prospective parent at a disadvantage.
There is just so much in there that is disturbing and wrong that I don’t feel like delving into it in length at this late hour. Short story: Christian extremist judge assumes that only those who believe in a religion are fit parents, claiming that only religious parents will allow children to choose a god to believe in (as if that were an absolute imperative for kids). What unadulterated crap. Most atheists are of the agnostic stripe and feel that children should not be locked into one belief system, but rather exposed to all and allowed to make a choice. I cannot imagine that more religious parents will do the same. Religious parents tend to feel that their beliefs are correct, and therefore lock kids into one belief system, denying them this choice. But somehow I don’t think that such a thing bothers this particular judge.
The next time I see or hear some religious person going on about how religious people are being persecuted in America because Christianity is not allowed to be crammed into every public space, I will have the urge to have this article ready to shove into their face. But then, I am all too aware that if they believe the nonsense about religious persecution, they will already be predisposed to not comprehend the moral vacancy involved in decisions like the one this judge made. I can only take comfort in that most religious people are not that intolerant or blind. What troubles me is that the religious extremists who are ignorant and blind seem to be the ones with power and influence. My bias coloring my views, I can only hope.
Question: how long before a judge decides to grant custody to one parent because they are religious and the other one isn’t? Oh, wait–that already happens with regularity.
Okay, then: how long before judges start to remove children from atheist parents on the grounds that the child should have religion growing up? Don’t scoff: that is almost exactly what the court case above is doing, just one step shy. I would not be surprised at all if such a thing had already happened under some circumstance or another. And if not, it probably will soon.
Two things strike me about this. First, I think that the more serious objection to homosexuals adopting children is that children grow up healthier in family that includes both a father and a mother. I’m not convinced by that argument, but that’s the one that should be refuted, not the “they’ll catch teh ghey” argument.
Second, I think the judge is engaging in a subtle but willful misreading of the New Jersey constitution. His opinion would more correctly read (my additions in bold): “no person shall be deprived by the government of the inestimable privilege of worshiping or not worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience .” With those emendations, his conclusion no longer follows.
I saw this yesterday somewhere, and the blogger was good enough to go back and update the post. The reason? Note the dateline on the article: Monday, Dec. 07, 1970.
I quite agree with you about the prejudice against atheists in general, but this particular example doesn’t really help the argument.
And what if they don’t believe in the “right” God? I was raised in an Episcopal household, and was never exposed to the other religions except when I chose to study them myself. I quit going to church at age 14 with no argument from my parents, so I thank them for that.
How is this any different than the agnostics? If an Episcopalian wants to adopt, that child will more than likely be raised in that thought process. Same with Mormon, Catholic and so on, so how is that any fairer than an agnostic? It’s not.
This is actually so angering, I’m seething. There is NO excuse for what this Judge did, NONE!
I’ve submitted this to StumbleUpon and Digg btw.
Isn’t that article from the 1970’ish?
I just woke up, and as usual, the time differences presented me with many comments. Apparently, this article is being linked to all around the web, most notably (but not initially) via PZMeyer’s site, and apparently few people (including Meyers) noted the dateline, certainly me included. Usually, you don’t expect there to be web versions of articles from that far back, not without an introduction to context… but in any case, it makes a good case for checking all the data points of a source, no matter how mundane.
Reportedly, the case was reversed by the Supreme Court. But as to the timeliness, I believe my point still stands, if not for the general sentiment against atheists, then for the other piece of data I introduced: that in custody hearings, it is still quite common today for judges to grant custody to one parent on the basis of that parent’s religion.
On a less data-supported point, what is observed in custody cases only covers what judges actually note in their decisions; as with racism, one can assume much more goes practiced without the person doing the acting making the announcement, “I am not hiring you because of the color of your skin.” Judges more cognizant of of 1st Amendment issues will likely allow it to color their decisions without mentioning it in their decisions.
Meanwhile, Christians in Congress continue their attempts to tear down the separation between church and state. HR 847 (“Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith”), which passed resoundingly (372 to 9), was a tome for Christianity. But much more threateningly, House Resolution 888, subtly titled “Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as ‘American Religious History Week’ for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith,” has 31 co-sponsors. And while it seems to innocuously declare an “American Religious History Week,” the actual heart of the bill lies in the resolutions at the end of the bill. It’s a not-so-subtle way of making official the designation of America as a “Christian Nation,” founded upon Christianity–for the purpose of allowing Christianity to become the state religion.
If you read the bill, you’ll see that it reads like any tome written by some Christian extremist trying to claim that our government should be run like a church; it compiles a long list of 75 “whereas”‘s which try to establish every major injection of god and Christianity in a government context throughout our history. The punch line comes with the “Resolved” section, where the real meat of the law is revealed, and we see that it ain’t really about “American Religious History Week” as the title falsely proclaims (most relevant portions emphasized by me):
This thing hasn’t passed yet, and Xenu willing, it won’t. But it puts into perspective the fact that Christian extremists are continuously, up to this very day, trying to proclaim this country a “Christian Nation” subject to Christian law.
The point is, it’s not as if atheists can rest easy because that article was about something that happened almost 40 years ago. Now, keep in mind McCreary v. ACLU, and Scalia’s 4-member-strong dissent (which would be a 5-member majority since Alito and Roberts joined the court) which makes it clear that he saw mentions of god on money and in the pledge as sufficient to completely remove the wall of separation between church and state. With that in mind, I would make the point: if the same adoption case came before Bush’s Supreme Court today, the decision probably would be the opposite of what it was almost four decades ago. And we all know how the wingnuts love creating test cases when they feel the waters are just right.
…and Xenu willing, it won’t.
…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I don’t think you can prove any point with anecdotal incidents. Judges are people with the same prejudices as everyone else and do things which are not indicative of trends or even lawfulness. That’s why there are levels to the court system in the U.S. – to correct these sorts of misguided cases.
In order to prove any sort of nationwide prejudice against atheists, you’ve got to have more than a handful of cases of willful misinterpretation of the law. Sure, they’re good sensationalist news, but they mean almost nothing in the big picture.
Totally agree. It reminds me of the case in California, when the father (atheist) complained against “under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The court dismissed his case based on the fact the mother was the legal guardian, which is a committed christian.