Congress shall make no law...
January 5, 2008 8:07 PM Subscribe
A New Jersey judge has ruled that a couple can be denied the right to adopt a child because they don't believe in a religion. Let the firestorm begin.
This post was deleted for the following reason: There's newsfilter, and then there's 37-year-old newsfilter. -- cortex
Second time I've seen this today. It's from 1970, so thanks for the newsflash.
posted by aaronetc at 8:17 PM on January 5, 2008
posted by aaronetc at 8:17 PM on January 5, 2008
"no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience."
this means by the GOVERNMENT - not someone's adopted parents - did this judge get his degree in a crackerjack box?
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."
or parents who are baptist, or catholic, or muslim, because who the hell can tell how a child is going to worship as she sees fit before she grows up? - she could be buddhist and any christian religious upbringing would be a violation of that
what a stupid, stupid judge
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 PM on January 5, 2008
this means by the GOVERNMENT - not someone's adopted parents - did this judge get his degree in a crackerjack box?
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."
or parents who are baptist, or catholic, or muslim, because who the hell can tell how a child is going to worship as she sees fit before she grows up? - she could be buddhist and any christian religious upbringing would be a violation of that
what a stupid, stupid judge
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 PM on January 5, 2008
Doh.
Umm.. 'splain to me how a 37-year-old article from Time is BOTW?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:18 PM on January 5, 2008
Umm.. 'splain to me how a 37-year-old article from Time is BOTW?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:18 PM on January 5, 2008
This keeps getting posted over and over again in every place I read/post.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:18 PM on January 5, 2008
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:18 PM on January 5, 2008
Well, he did rule that. About 40 years ago, apparently.
posted by puke & cry at 8:18 PM on January 5, 2008
posted by puke & cry at 8:18 PM on January 5, 2008
Pope Guilty: This keeps getting posted over and over again in every place I read/post.
Same here. I don't have any idea how it ended up entering the collective consciousness, but I think people keep seeing it, being outraged, and posting it to their favorite site - before they check the date or read the comments. This is about the third or fourth place I've seen it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:20 PM on January 5, 2008
Same here. I don't have any idea how it ended up entering the collective consciousness, but I think people keep seeing it, being outraged, and posting it to their favorite site - before they check the date or read the comments. This is about the third or fourth place I've seen it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:20 PM on January 5, 2008
So... its from 1970. Anyone know what the outcome was?
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:20 PM on January 5, 2008
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:20 PM on January 5, 2008
Which begs the question, did it actually get overturned?
posted by maxwelton at 8:20 PM on January 5, 2008
posted by maxwelton at 8:20 PM on January 5, 2008
Yeah... This article is thirty seven years old. So... what ended up happening? Did the decision get overturned? I'm assuming it did.
posted by delmoi at 8:21 PM on January 5, 2008
posted by delmoi at 8:21 PM on January 5, 2008
« Older It has been a Subprime year | Japanese Bug Fights Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:10 PM on January 5, 2008