Can Atheists Be Parents?

Reason 575 why Religion sucks big donkey wang in my book. This has me ptfo. As usual, in the name of Religion.

Excerpt from article:
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.

http://www.time.com/time/...55,00.html

Appeal:
http://www.americanadopti...urt_case=1
[Edited 8/24/09 12:26pm]

i blame religion less than i blame the people who abuse religion. as a result, they're abusing this child.

So this story happened in 1970?



This child will be 42 now.

You owe me $5. I caught the big fish....again

After some Googling i see people are spreading this "news" all over the web like it happened last month.
WTH?
Doesn't anybody check BEFORE re-posting something anymore?

You owe me $5. I caught the big fish....again

Atheists should have the same right as everyone else to have their views rejected by their children.

Genesia said:

Atheists should have the same right as everyone else to have their views rejected by their children.

PANDURITO said:

PANDURITO said:

So this story happened in 1970?



This child will be 42 now.

PANDURITO said:

So this story happened in 1970?



This child will be 42 now.

" LOVE YOU 4EVA GRANDMA LOLA, WATCH OVER US TILL WE MEET AGAIN. PRINCE: WH3N U L3T TH3 RAIN FALL DOWN, TH3Y ALL GONNA G3T W3T!

DesireeNevermind said:

PANDURITO said:

So this story happened in 1970?



This child will be 42 now.

right? I think we've come a long way since 1970s adoption restrictions. Plus each state pretty much does their own thing. Religion is not the problem, it's bureaucracy and back log. Besides, we've so many different religions in this country and so many people who don't actively go to church, mosque, temple or what have you; there really is no way to allow or prevent adoption for the sake of religion or lack thereof.

cborgman said:

PANDURITO said:

So this story happened in 1970?



This child will be 42 now.

it states he is 31 in the original post.

You owe me $5. I caught the big fish....again

cborgman said:

DesireeNevermind said:

right? I think we've come a long way since 1970s adoption restrictions. Plus each state pretty much does their own thing. Religion is not the problem, it's bureaucracy and back log. Besides, we've so many different religions in this country and so many people who don't actively go to church, mosque, temple or what have you; there really is no way to allow or prevent adoption for the sake of religion or lack thereof.

actually, we haven't.

sectarian adoptionas and agencies still VERY much exist and are often financed through public funds, a clear violation of seperation of church and state, amongst other things. they will openly and unashamedly deny adoption to someone for being of a religious denomination or sect other than theirs. many so-called "christian" adoption agencies refuse to place children with gay people or single people for fear they are gay folk pretending they are just single.

which is not even to speak of the states with outright bans of gay people adopting, and some in their fanaticism even created laws banning single people from adopting as a way of fudging the books so it doesnt vocally target gay folk. and you can bet your money on the knowledge that discriminatory christian groups are behind that.

adoption is still very much ruled by religious whackjobs, and because of that adoption has not come very far at all in this country.


.
[Edited 8/24/09 14:24pm]

" LOVE YOU 4EVA GRANDMA LOLA, WATCH OVER US TILL WE MEET AGAIN. PRINCE: WH3N U L3T TH3 RAIN FALL DOWN, TH3Y ALL GONNA G3T W3T!

Dancelot said:

Genesia said:

Atheists should have the same right as everyone else to have their views rejected by their children.

neither religious folks nor atheists or anyone else should even try to shove their religious (or anti-religious) views down their children's throat. so there would be no need for "rejection". give them all information they can have, debate different views and religions, answer their questions if they have some, and IF you voice your OWN opinions then at least make clear that it's YOUR opinion and not the absolute truth'n shit ...and then let them make up their own mind damit

I'm suddenly amused by the thread title. "Can athiests be parents?"

Well yeah...either fuck and make your own or borrow somebody else's if they don't want them.

" LOVE YOU 4EVA GRANDMA LOLA, WATCH OVER US TILL WE MEET AGAIN. PRINCE: WH3N U L3T TH3 RAIN FALL DOWN, TH3Y ALL GONNA G3T W3T!

PANDURITO said:

cborgman said:

it states he is 31 in the original post.

No. That one is 72 now if he is still alive

Maybe nothing has changed in 40 years
Then, why not use a more recent case?

As I said, I still don't understand WHY they use a 40 year old case to illustrate if atheists can be parents or not.

Oh, and in case you didn't re read it, johnart added that the Burkes appealed and won the case. So, no case. Those atheists got their baby after all

Sorry.

You owe me $5. I caught the big fish....again

PANDURITO said:

As I said, I still don't understand WHY they use a 40 year old case to illustrate if atheists can be parents or not.

Oh, and in case you didn't re read it, johnart added that the Burkes appealed and won the case. So, no case. Those atheists got their baby after all

Sorry.

DesireeNevermind said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

PANDURITO said:

johnart added that the Burkes appealed and won the case. Those atheists got their baby after all

but the issue still remains, is this still allowed?

You owe me $5. I caught the big fish....again

PANDURITO said:

As I said, I still don't understand WHY they use a 40 year old case to illustrate if atheists can be parents or not.

Oh, and in case you didn't re read it, johnart added that the Burkes appealed and won the case. So, no case. Those atheists got their baby after all

Sorry.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

PANDURITO said:

As I said, I still don't understand WHY they use a 40 year old case to illustrate if atheists can be parents or not.

Oh, and in case you didn't re read it, johnart added that the Burkes appealed and won the case. So, no case. Those atheists got their baby after all

Sorry.

but the issue still remains, is this still allowed?

cborgman said:

PANDURITO said:

As I said, I still don't understand WHY they use a 40 year old case to illustrate if atheists can be parents or not.

Oh, and in case you didn't re read it, johnart added that the Burkes appealed and won the case. So, no case. Those atheists got their baby after all

Sorry.

...and so no one was ever discriminated against in adoption again and they all lived happily ever after.

the end

You owe me $5. I caught the big fish....again

^ I blended them because I thought the agency in the original thread post was a public agency and we were talking about adoption agencies in general be they public or private. I merely make the argument that while discrimination against atheists or anyone seeking to adopt cannot be completely eliminated, it has been reduced compared to the 1970s. If that were not the case then somebody forgot to tell all these single, non-religious and gay couples who are currently adoptive parents or are going through the process as we speak. I bring up private agencies because they are the ones who can openly discriminate against whomever they choose because they are privately funded and working on behalf of the biological parent.

" LOVE YOU 4EVA GRANDMA LOLA, WATCH OVER US TILL WE MEET AGAIN. PRINCE: WH3N U L3T TH3 RAIN FALL DOWN, TH3Y ALL GONNA G3T W3T!

PANDURITO said:

cborgman said:

...and so no one was ever discriminated against in adoption again and they all lived happily ever after.

the end

DesireeNevermind said:

not that i mean you, des. i hope that is clear. i just have ZERO tolerance or patience for the for-profit adoption agencies, especially the so-called religious ones.

private religious based agencies that are for-profit are nothing more than people exploiting religion, people who can't or won't proiduce biological children of their own, and children.

it's disgusting.
[Edited 8/24/09 15:59pm]

cborgman said:

" LOVE YOU 4EVA GRANDMA LOLA, WATCH OVER US TILL WE MEET AGAIN. PRINCE: WH3N U L3T TH3 RAIN FALL DOWN, TH3Y ALL GONNA G3T W3T!

DesireeNevermind said:

cborgman said:

" LOVE YOU 4EVA GRANDMA LOLA, WATCH OVER US TILL WE MEET AGAIN. PRINCE: WH3N U L3T TH3 RAIN FALL DOWN, TH3Y ALL GONNA G3T W3T!

DesireeNevermind said:

cborgman said:

agreed with the exception of the profit issue. profit agerncies expect you to pay the mother's doctors costs, but that does not come out of the fee, it is a seperate line item on your bill. i do not support the adoption agency being paid to hook affluent people white folks up with white male newborns with perfect bills-of-health. that's how the sytem became so wildly overloaded with everyone that isn't a white male newborn, and how these profit-based agencies came into the ability to exploit everyone involved for cash.

unfortunately though, there is precious little regulation in most states when it comes to adoption.

because most people like to turn a blind eye to the terrible reality of the adoption/foster care system in this country (pro-lifers are a prime example), there are very few oversights on adoption.

since adoption is state-level, states can outright ban certain groups of people from adopting for no logical reason what-so-ever, as is the case in states that have bans (in various forms) on gay people adopting.

it's beyond insane.
[Edited 8/24/09 16:15pm]
[Edited 8/24/09 16:18pm]

Yep I agree there is explotation for cash. The parents footing these outragous bills are just as screwed up as the ones running the agency. It's all sad IMO.

Ugh pro-lifers! They get under my skin because they don't seem to care about the kids once they are born and are not encouraging adoption of those children. Nope, they want them to stay fresh in the womb or some shit. I think adoption agencies should just look at income, mental stability, extended family as a means of mental and emotional support, and a strong desire to parent and not just have a cute cuddly baby. It shouldn't matter if you are single, married, non-religous, able to breed a child but just choose not to or whatever the case may be.

I would only want to maintain some regulation to ensure that no crazy people get in there trying to adopt. That's the problem with the foster care system, so many whack jobs out there with kids and often kids that are hard to place. Plus they tend to foster more kids than they can handle. We had foster parents just up the street that had like 6 kids and the dad figure was hardly ever there. I think money is a tempting yet corrupting motivator. Just a damn shame so many people don't practice fuckin' birth control to begin with cuz we wouldn't have all these unwanted children but alas that is another topic for another thread.