http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html
QuoteAfter 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.
Last year the Burkes presented their adopted son, David, now 3 1/2, with a baby sister, Eleanor Katherine, now 17 months, whom they acquired from the same East Orange agency. Since the agency endorsed the adoption, the required final approval by a judge was expected to be pro forma. Instead, Superior Court Judge William Camarata raised the religious issue.
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."
The Burkes are now living in Carterville, Ill., near Southern Illinois University, where John Burke has worked for the past year as a speech pathologist. Nevertheless, Judge Camarata ordered the parents to send David's sister back to the New Jersey adoption agency. 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. If they fail in their appeal, Eleanor Katherine may have to leave the only family she has ever known and await adoption by another couple whose religious convictions satisfy the State of New Jersey.
Clearly that Judge knows nothing about atheists, since everyone knows atheists believe in a Supreme Being. Most people call him Satan.
Never discussing religion with anyone ever again. I am now "Officially" Christian.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 28, 2010, 07:51:19 PM
Never discussing religion with anyone ever again. I am now "Officially" Christian.
I've been "officially" a Christian for 25 years.
WOW that is massively fucked up! FUUUUUUUCK.
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2010, 07:53:12 PM
WOW that is massively fucked up! FUUUUUUUCK.
Judge Punch is alive and well.
This sounds to me like it sets a precedent to keep anyone but agnostics from adopting in New Jersey, The first commandment rather clearly prohibits worshipping other gods, so Christians are right out.
Man, that's one for the 'Fucked Up Things' Tour Bus. "And on the left you will see the home of Judge Camarata, famous for denying adoptions where the villainous parents intended on denying their poor once-orphaned spiritual prisoners the right to worship a Supreme Being."
Remember, folks, it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
...
I don't have the words.
What is the sound of thousands of axes hitting thousands of braindead humans?
That.
Sick.
That is actually worse then NY trying to charge an 8 year old with manslaughter; for accidentally hitting some 80-some year old woman with a bike when she was 5, causing an irreversible hip injury, that lead to death.
Well maybe not worse..
But most definitely on par.
What about the right for a child not to want to worship a "Supreme Being", but being spoon fed worthless dribble every weekend at Sunday school??? No choice there eh?
Ugh, sore subject for me.
Can't say I'm Christian at all. Never baptized, nothing.
Led to a big fight in my family, that my folks didn't put me into that shit because they wanted to give me a choice they never had.
I am now ostracized on my moms side almost completely.
:vom:
Quote from: Xieante Antitheus on November 29, 2010, 12:22:58 AM
I am now ostracized on my moms side almost completely.
I am ostracized my entire extended family with the exception of The Terrible Old Man and one cousin.
I kind of prefer that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2010, 07:49:00 PM
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html
QuoteIf they fail in their appeal, Eleanor Katherine may have to leave the only family she has ever known and await adoption by another couple whose religious convictions satisfy the State of New Jersey.
Who wants to bet that the judge unironically calls himself "pro-family"?
I'm really really dreading visiting RF now. I just know I'm gonna end up listening to some cunt trying to defend this judges decision, and trying to justify it as 'religious freedom'.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 29, 2010, 06:51:26 AM
I'm really really dreading visiting RF now. I just know I'm gonna end up listening to some cunt trying to defend this judges decision, and trying to justify it as 'religious freedom'.
The judge is giving the kids the freedom to worship any religion they want... as long as it's Jesus.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, MORANS!
Interestingly, this position that a religion must have a Supreme Being to be a religion actually means Buddhists and some types of Hindus cannot adopt either. I would be also interested to see how many Christians etc who have argued "atheism is a religion" now agree with this ruling - without seeing any contradiction.
The quote doesn't mention religion. It mentions worship of a Supreme Being.
Sure, Buddhism is a religion, but they don't count. No Supreme Being.
I've also seen some Christians online describing themselves as not having a religion, since religions are man-made and the Bible isn't and that Bible Believing Christians (you know, as opposed to Christians who don't believe in the Bible... whoever they are) don't have a religion, just God worship.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 29, 2010, 07:24:03 AM
The quote doesn't mention religion. It mentions worship of a Supreme Being.
Sure, Buddhism is a religion, but they don't count. No Supreme Being.
I've also seen some Christians online describing themselves as not having a religion, since religions are man-made and the Bible isn't and that Bible Believing Christians (you know, as opposed to Christians who don't believe in the Bible... whoever they are) don't have a religion, just God worship.
Itz notta religion itsa relationship!!1!
:teabagger1:
Which, of course, means that we can start taxing their churches.
Um, someone just pointed out to me that this article is dated December 7, 1970.
There should be a rule that anything on the internet older than 1998 automatically be displayed in sepiatone.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 29, 2010, 12:30:57 PM
Um, someone just pointed out to me that this article is dated December 7, 1970.
There should be a rule that anything on the internet older than 1998 automatically be displayed in sepiatone.
The fact that none of us bothered to look at the date says terrible things about our society.
Oh, so now people from the past don't have any rights?
Timeists :roll:
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2010, 01:17:28 PM
Oh, so now people from the past don't have any rights?
Timeists :roll:
butbutbut... They don't!
They should've seen it coming.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2010, 07:50:58 PM
Clearly that Judge knows nothing about atheists, since everyone knows atheists believe in a Supreme Being. Most people call him Satan.
:potd:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 29, 2010, 08:52:33 AM
Itz notta religion itsa relationship!!1!
:teabagger1:
Which, of course, means that we can start taxing their churches.
...can we? That would give the teabaggers something!
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 29, 2010, 12:30:57 PM
Um, someone just pointed out to me that this article is dated December 7, 1970.
:oops:
That's what I get for copypasta'ing too fast.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2010, 06:41:33 PM
:oops:
That's what I get for copypasta'ing too fast.
The problem is, is that it's totally believable that it was a current event.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2010, 06:41:33 PM
:oops:
That's what I get for copypasta'ing too fast.
Roger, you're familiar with the SubG custody case, right? Damn, that dragged on for years.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 29, 2010, 12:30:57 PM
Um, someone just pointed out to me that this article is dated December 7, 1970.
There should be a rule that anything on the internet older than 1998 automatically be displayed in sepiatone.
Hahahaha
That's a relief!
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 29, 2010, 01:07:59 PM
The fact that none of us bothered to look at the date says terrible things about our society.
It does, as a matter of fact. Because that was in no way too strange to seem surprising.
Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2010, 11:23:20 PM
It does, as a matter of fact. Because that was in no way too strange to seem surprising.
Precisely.
Ooooohhhh. Sheesh. This is what I get for not scrutinizing.
What a terrible thing to lay on an already jaded and misanthropic crowd. :lol:
Here's one that's a little more recent.
Agnostic Dad Loses Custody of Kids (http://www.alternet.org/belief/149037/shocking:_agnostic_dad_loses_custody_of_kids/?page=entire)QuoteThey did address my religion with me on several different occasions during the hearings. However, I never posed a situation for my children or ever forced my beliefs onto the kids. Matter of fact, they continue to go to a christian daycare. When I had joint legal I agreed to take them to Church functions such as the Mother's Day Choir. As well as allow them to go to church with my mother who attends on a regular basis, in addition to Church camp, those kinds of things. We were able to show that in no way, shape, or form do my personal beleifs and decisions reflect onto the children at all.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 29, 2010, 06:45:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2010, 06:41:33 PM
:oops:
That's what I get for copypasta'ing too fast.
The problem is, is that it's totally believable that it was a current event.
*cough* AWS *cough* ...
What does AWS stand for?
As we speak
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 01:19:33 AM
As we speak
I still don't get it??
ALSO
This information is from the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy. http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=9
QuoteNew Jersey Court Case: The Adoption of E
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF "E", A CHILD, BY JOHN P. BURKE AND CYNTHIA D. BURKE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
Supreme Court of New Jersey
59 N.J. 36; 279 A.2d 785
July 1, 1971, Decided
JUDGES:
For reversal -- Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain. For affirmance -- None. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Proctor, J. Weintraub, C.J. (concurring). Weintraub and Jacobs, JJ., concur in result.
"...it is unnecessary for us to consider plaintiffs' further contentions that the trial court's decision denied both them and the child "E" equal protection and due process of law. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Since the sole ground for denying the adoption was the Burkes' beliefs regarding religion and it is clear from the record that they are otherwise fit, we grant the adoption in the exercise of our original jurisdiction. See R. 2:10-5; In re Adoption by B, supra, 63 N.J. Super. at 104.
Judgment is entered in accordance with this opinion. ...
I can think of nothing more unmanageable than an inquiry into a man's religious, spiritual and ethical creed. There is no catalogue of tolerable beliefs. Nor would the nature of man permit one, for man is inherently intolerant as to matters unknowable, and the intensity of his intolerance is twin with the intensity of his views....
No matter how it is phrased or explained, an inquiry into religious, spiritual and ethical views can mean no more than this, that a man or a woman is unfit, or a bit unfit, to be a parent, natural or adoptive, if his or her thoughts exceed the tolerance of the mortal who happens to be the judge in a placement bureau or in the judiciary. I find such an inquiry to be as offensive as it is meddlesome and irrelevant to the true issue."
my emphasis
The full article is considerably longer and well worth a look for the legal background it gives.
Andy Williams Society
Quote from: MMIX on December 02, 2010, 01:25:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 01:19:33 AM
As we speak
I still don't get it??
Ok Trip said:
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 02, 2010, 01:08:33 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 29, 2010, 06:45:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2010, 06:41:33 PM
:oops:
That's what I get for copypasta'ing too fast.
The problem is, is that it's totally believable that it was a current event.
*cough* AWS *cough* ...
My comment bolded to give context. This occured right after Zappathruster added this:
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 01, 2010, 10:20:08 PM
Here's one that's a little more recent.
Agnostic Dad Loses Custody of Kids (http://www.alternet.org/belief/149037/shocking:_agnostic_dad_loses_custody_of_kids/?page=entire)
QuoteThey did address my religion with me on several different occasions during the hearings. However, I never posed a situation for my children or ever forced my beliefs onto the kids. Matter of fact, they continue to go to a christian daycare. When I had joint legal I agreed to take them to Church functions such as the Mother's Day Choir. As well as allow them to go to church with my mother who attends on a regular basis, in addition to Church camp, those kinds of things. We were able to show that in no way, shape, or form do my personal beleifs and decisions reflect onto the children at all.
So I think Trip was making a commentary that it's still going on. Or AWS is some weird Danish word.
It stands for Adam Weishaupt Society
which is an inactive cabal of news media pranksters. Our primary MO was to release totally fake news and then score points when people treat it as real or pass it on.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 02, 2010, 03:43:03 PM
It stands for Adam Weishaupt Society
which is an inactive cabal of news media pranksters. Our primary MO was to release totally fake news and then score points when people treat it as real or pass it on.
Ah. That'll learn me to pay attention to apparent patterns.
Edit- no sarcasm, it seems to be a recent habit of mine.
Adam Weishaupt Society. See O:MF. Since it's so believable to be a current day thing, and even fooled us old skeptics, in a new form it would make some pretty good fake news.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 02, 2010, 04:27:53 PM
Adam Weishaupt Society. See O:MF. Since it's so believable to be a current day thing, and even fooled us old skeptics, in a new form it would make some pretty good fake news.
D'oh. . /bangs head on desk/ - some days I am too dumb to breathe, lol. I was actually tempted to go play devil's advocate in the AWS thread but here seems more appropriate now. I just wondered whether creating fake news and having it unwittingly picked up and brought back by a PeeDeer as real news would be a stunning success or a miserable failure; or both.
I once spent over ten years researching around an historical hoax and the one conclusive thing that stuck out for me was that you can never clear the waters once you have muddied them. Hoaxes are like bushfires, you can stamp them out in one place but they will flare up somewhere else when you are not looking. Once material exists it will continue to be cited long, long, after it has been categorically disproved. And spreading hoaxes is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, you know that you can't fool all of the people all of the time but you also
know that you can fool some of the people all/some of the time, and that is all it ever takes to disseminate BS.
Relating to the OP I ploughed my way through several hundred virtually identical refs to the original story Roger quoted and the thing that struck me was that many of them were passing on a faulty version which described the older son as 31 instead of 3 when the daughter was 17 months. Very few of them even commented on this huge discrepancy in ages and they obviously hadn't taken the time to check the original. This is, of course, totally predictable.
Bottom line. I have a vested interest in not waking up with a gun in my face some morning to be dragged off to Re-education Camp because some dumb jerk spread a chinese whisper that discordians are a "dangerous cult" and some equally dumb jerks thought that we needed to be rounded up and sorted out.
I question your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 02, 2010, 06:42:40 PM
I question your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
I guess you just had to be there, hunh??
What's a Sparkle Motion?
Srsly?
What the hell is wrong with kids today?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 07:45:09 PM
What's a Sparkle Motion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouFnQTq6gNQ
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 07:45:09 PM
What's a Sparkle Motion?
Something you are not sufficiently committed to.
Yes, srsly.
Thanks for the link Cram. I'm the only guy in the world who has never seen Donnie Darko. It surprises everyone who discovers the fact.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 08:49:09 PM
Yes, srsly.
Thanks for the link Cram. I'm the only guy in the world who has never seen Donnie Darko. It surprises everyone who discovers the fact.
I suggest don't bother. Watched it a few months ago. Decided to read a book instead.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 02, 2010, 08:55:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 08:49:09 PM
Yes, srsly.
Thanks for the link Cram. I'm the only guy in the world who has never seen Donnie Darko. It surprises everyone who discovers the fact.
I suggest don't bother. Watched it a few months ago. Decided to read a book instead.
You're the only one to have said so thus far. Everyone else gets horrified.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 08:49:09 PM
Yes, srsly.
Thanks for the link Cram. I'm the only guy in the world who has never seen Donnie Darko. It surprises everyone who discovers the fact.
If you are the only guy then I guess I must be the only gal. I tried, no I really, really, tried. But it just sucked so hard that I couldn't.
eta: a sparkle motion is what your pet sparkle vampire will leave on your carpet if you don't throw it outside a few times a day.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 08:49:09 PM
Yes, srsly.
Thanks for the link Cram. I'm the only guy in the world who has never seen Donnie Darko. It surprises everyone who discovers the fact.
I haven't seen it either. I just don't watch much TV or movies.
Quote from: MMIX on December 02, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 08:49:09 PM
Yes, srsly.
Thanks for the link Cram. I'm the only guy in the world who has never seen Donnie Darko. It surprises everyone who discovers the fact.
If you are the only guy then I guess I must be the only gal. I tried, no I really, really, tried. But it just sucked so hard that I couldn't.
eta: a sparkle motion is what your pet sparkle vampire will leave on your carpet if you don't throw it outside a few times a day.
It was probably the directors cut.
Donnie Darko is the only example Ive ever seen of the Directors Cut being significantly worse than the original film.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 02, 2010, 03:43:03 PM
It stands for Adam Weishaupt Society
which is an inactive cabal of news media pranksters. Our primary MO was to release totally fake news and then score points when people treat it as real or pass it on.
:crankey:
Quote from: Risus on December 03, 2010, 02:39:27 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 02, 2010, 03:43:03 PM
It stands for Adam Weishaupt Society
which is an inactive cabal of news media pranksters. Our primary MO was to release totally fake news and then score points when people treat it as real or pass it on.
:crankey:
Technically... we haven'y done anything with the revival yet. :oops: