NationStates Jolt Archive

A New Jersey couple has not one, but two run ins (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html) with adoptions over their lack of religion. [EDIT: This is from 1970, something I didn't notice until someone else pointed it out...'cause I suck just a little...]

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.

So that would be the end and a 'meh,' but nope-

Last year the Burkes presented their adopted son, David, now 31, 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."

Fucking fantastic. Of course this won't stand up. The family, with the ACLU are suing and it's going to be heard by Jersey's Supreme Court. As the ever clever girlfriend points out, the application of Inestimable Privilege would apply to any religion or lack there of-which is to say, Catholic parents would restrict the child to a Catholic worship in the same way that atheist parents would restrict them to none-except that in the atheists case it's even clearer that the child has more of a chance to decide, really.

It's this kind of crap (and the fact that missionaries came to my door at 9:30 AM on New Years Day, but that's more of a personal thing...) is why atheists can't just sit quietly on their hands.

Being raised by athiests wouldn't prevent someone from being able to worship a deity... What a dimwitted reasoning for the verdict.

Being raised by athiests wouldn't prevent someone from being able to worship a deity... What a dimwitted reasoning for the verdict.

There is that and the fact that the statement is fucking contradictive to itself.

No one should be denied the privilege of worshiping God, if they feel like it. But if they don't feel like it, they are dirty, filthy heathens. Some one is getting strung up for this.

A New Jersey couple has not one, but two run ins (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html) with adoptions over their lack of religion.



So that would be the end and a 'meh,' but nope-



Fucking fantastic. Of course this won't stand up. The family, with the ACLU are suing and it's going to be heard by Jersey's Supreme Court. As the ever clever girlfriend points out, the application of Inestimable Privilege would apply to any religion or lack there of-which is to say, Catholic parents would restrict the child to a Catholic worship in the same way that atheist parents would restrict them to none-except that in the atheists case it's even clearer that the child has more of a chance to decide, really.

It's this kind of crap (and the fact that missionaries came to my door at 9:30 AM on New Years Day, but that's more of a personal thing...) is why atheists can't just sit quietly on their hands.

You have every right to be upset. Anyone would be upset. Everyone should be upset. This sort of ideology threatens any belief system (or lack thereof if you prefer), as you said.

Hell I'm upset. And I'm an on-again off-again Agnostic Psudocatholic who'd much rather live and let live and be left alone about my spiritual beliefs and the beliefs of others.

that's retarded...

"inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." - that includes disbelieving it.

I object to the suggestion that atheists are angry people.

In fact, that really fucking pisses me off, take it back!

Good, the godless heathens probably wanted the baby just to sacrifice it to..erm...science or some other sacrilegious witchcraft.

I was more shocked by this part:

Last year the Burkes presented their adopted son, David, now 31, with a baby sister, Eleanor Katherine, now 17 months
They adopted another child 30 years later? Not that there's anything wrong with it, but 30 years? :eek:

Oh, and yeah, atheists should be allowed to adopt and all that good stuff... :D

That's a ridiculous and ignorant statement, we sacrifice babies to Dawkins!

Damn! I should have remembered that. But with so many false beliefs running around these days, its hard to remember them all.:p

Good, the godless heathens probably wanted the baby just to sacrifice it to..erm...science or some other sacrilegious witchcraft.

That's a ridiculous and ignorant statement, we sacrifice babies to Dawkins!

A New Jersey couple has not one, but two run ins (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html) with adoptions over their lack of religion.



So that would be the end and a 'meh,' but nope-



Fucking fantastic. Of course this won't stand up. The family, with the ACLU are suing and it's going to be heard by Jersey's Supreme Court. As the ever clever girlfriend points out, the application of Inestimable Privilege would apply to any religion or lack there of-which is to say, Catholic parents would restrict the child to a Catholic worship in the same way that atheist parents would restrict them to none-except that in the atheists case it's even clearer that the child has more of a chance to decide, really.

It's this kind of crap (and the fact that missionaries came to my door at 9:30 AM on New Years Day, but that's more of a personal thing...) is why atheists can't just sit quietly on their hands.

It sucks they've got to go through so much to get a kid, but I'm pretty sure it's going to get overturned.

Definitely very, very stupid. Using the judge's logic, I guess everyone who ever had practicing Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist (etc...) parents became practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists... Just dumb.

Idiocy. But me personally, I would have simply written down Christian to avoid the trauma and stress. Especially for the poor child. Sometimes one should not be selfish and deign to not make a stubborn point but think about those that need you. But then again, all people are different and hold different priorities.

Wow. Just wow. That's completely and utterly ridiculous.

New Jersey just lost a few more points in my book.

I am completely unmoved.

However, that is a bad peice of legislation.

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever - Lenin

Article dated Monday, Dec. 07, 1970.

Article dated Monday, Dec. 07, 1970.

/thread


This is what I get for rarely following the links.

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever - Lenin

But that pretty much would apply to any belief, though, wouldn't it? So how is the line determined? Keeping in mind the separation of Church and State...

Article dated Monday, Dec. 07, 1970.

Huh. Obviously, I don't read byline dates...

Alright, so then naturally this has been resolved...favorably (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20F1FFD3A5B1A7493C0A9178CD85F458785F9)...but I still stand by the statement that it's this kind of bullshit is what gets us riled, as you can see it's been going on for a while.

Huh. Obviously, I don't read byline dates...

Alright, so then naturally this has been resolved...favorably (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20F1FFD3A5B1A7493C0A9178CD85F458785F9)...but I still stand by the statement that it's this kind of bullshit is what gets us riled, as you can see it's been going on for a while.

Yes, I can see the froth on your mouth from here, no need to step any closer. :p

Yes, I can see the froth on your mouth from here, no need to step any closer. :p
Aw, c'mon...

What's a little rabies between friends?

just nuke the US :rolleyes:

Aw, c'mon...

What's a little rabies between friends?

Key word.


I am such an arse. :(

just nuke the US :rolleyes:

Yeah, 'cause the fact that a couple of atheists couldn't adopt in the 70s basically equals genocide.

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."

They got it backwards.

I just heard the thirteen U.S. colonies are thinking of combining and i was wondering what you guys think about http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

It'll never work.

I just heard the thirteen U.S. colonies are thinking of combining and i was wondering what you guys think about http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

I just heard the thirteen U.S. colonies are thinking of combining and i was wondering what you guys think about http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
:p

*consoles Ctoan, though, because apart from the date nothing on that page says "Archives" or anything* *pats*

And it's not like anyone else noticed it all through the first hour it was posted. << >> ><

I just heard the thirteen U.S. colonies are thinking of combining and i was wondering what you guys think about http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

They are?!?! I'm as angry as I've ever been!!!
yeah, okay, I deserved that...

I just heard the thirteen U.S. colonies are thinking of combining and i was wondering what you guys think about http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

I really hope they don't, I predict it will end very badly if it happens.

http://patf.net/blogs/media/patf/mission_accomplished.jpg

I really hope they don't, I predict it will end very badly if it happens.

http://patf.net/blogs/media/patf/mission_accomplished.jpg

:eek: Oh noes! Let's hope Boony isn't psychic!

Jeeze. There may be strong circumstantial evidence that a "supreme being" exists, but where is the evidence that he wants to be worshiped?

What nonsense. Compare the parents to zealot terrorists.

Catholic parents would restrict the child to a Catholic worship in the same way that atheist parents would restrict them to none-except that in the atheists case it's even clearer that the child has more of a chance to decide, really.


While I do not think that not letting the Ahteistic or other Irreligious amongst us to adopt is morally correct, let alone in adherence to the Constitution, I must refute the bolded statement.

A child raised as religious, while maybe not in theory, but in reality, has more of a chance to decide their faith or lack thereof.

Why? Simply because, in the eyes of someone brought up faithless, the whole concept of religion and the obligations of attending a church or mosque are undesirable, mislead, and quite frankly, stupid. However, a child raised with religion often turns away from the faith. I've met the daughters of priests that are strong atheists. Post-Christian does have a meaning. In fact, many people on NS General claim to have been raised with religion and stopped believing.

Imagine it. You have been raised from birth being told that there is no God, and (for the purpose of this passage) no spirit, life force, or anything other than the physical, and that the religious are a group of mislead, superstitious, necrophobes. Will you ever decide to pick up Torah and stroll into the synagouge every Saturday? I doubt it.

Now, let's look at the other side. You have been raised from birth being told that an invisible, non-corporeal(most of the time, at least), omnipotent being exists, and is responsible for the creation of the Universe, and that he sent a half-human, half-divine person named Jesus into this world to spread his will.
Now, a bunch of your mates don't go to this 'church'. Frankly, they think God is a myth, and that Jesus was some crackpot Isreali witch doctor. You find out that the Church is just a bunch of people who regularly decide to rescind what they fervently preached a decade earlier. Hm...This 'God' is looking pretty shabby at the monment.

Being raised by athiests wouldn't prevent someone from being able to worship a deity... What a dimwitted reasoning for the verdict.

The judge is an asshole. I am religious and I really don't give a flying flip through a rolling doughnut whether someone else is or not -- if they can provide a safe, nurturing home for a child there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to deny the child a loving family or a loving family the chance to raise a child.

Jeeze. There may be strong circumstantial evidence that a "supreme being" exists, but where is the evidence that he wants to be worshiped?

What nonsense. Compare the parents to zealot terrorists.

There is? :p

The judge is an asshole. I am religious and I really don't give a flying flip through a rolling doughnut whether someone else is or not -- if they can provide a safe, nurturing home for a child there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to deny the child a loving family or a loving family the chance to raise a child.
Ah, but that would mean the child would have a choice in religion! Horrors!:rolleyes:

A child raised as religious, while maybe not in theory, but in reality, has more of a chance to decide their faith or lack thereof.

Not necessarily. A child indoctrinated by someone of any faith - or lack thereof - is being denied the choice to decide their own faith (and is likely to rebel against that denial when given the chance). I see no reason whatsoever to believe that a child raised by an atheist would necessarily be indoctrinated with atheism. On this very board there is an atheist whose daughter is a Southern Baptist.

I see no reason whatsoever to believe that a child of an atheist is any less likely to reject their parents' philosophies on religion than any other child.

that's retarded...

I'll see you, and raise you fucktarded.

Idiocy. But me personally, I would have simply written down Christian to avoid the trauma and stress. Especially for the poor child. Sometimes one should not be selfish and deign to not make a stubborn point but think about those that need you. But then again, all people are different and hold different priorities.

Really? And if the situation were somehow reversed, you'd write down "atheist" to avoid trauma and stress? I think not. It isn't about selfishness, it's about principles upon which the US was purportedly founded. Statements like yours are kinda scary -- "abandon your principles to get less hassle" is how the seeds of oppression are sown.

Even if this is from 1970, it says an awful lot about the United States that it could be believed as happening now, and I wouldn't be surprised if something like this has happened somewhere in the US more recently. Or will happen *shudders*

It's necessary for religious parents to try and indoctrinate their children as young as possible, for the older they get the greater the risk gets that they will continue to ask difficult questions and eventually see through religious dogma entirely, as they often do. This is because religious parents will often manipulate the lives of these children, including selecting educational institutions which will limit the amount of diverse information offered in education and enforce a monopolistic view which is usually Christianity or Islam. These days this doesn't work so often because information is so readily accessible for children, which has resulting in a general reactionary backlash by 'conservative' parents against perceived 'leftism' infiltration of academia and education, but in reality they are merely frustrated by their inability to make their own children think as regressively as themselves.

Funnily enough, according to this judge only multireligious-agnostic-atheists would be able to raise children, since any other form and/or combination of religions takes choices away from the child. :D

"Judge" Camarata should be banend from ever working for a government again.

I just heard the thirteen U.S. colonies are thinking of combining and i was wondering what you guys think about http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Shah Darius has just invaded Scythia! http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/behistun-t45.html. What do you think this is going to do to the relations with other kingdoms?

I personally think it might cause some fear with the Macedonians and possibly lead to some kind of invasion of Persian territory.

All of you wingeing, moaning, atheists why don't you just move away from your repressive governments and come to the UK instead?

Because the UK is heading the way of the US....?

All of you wingeing, moaning, atheists why don't you just move away from your repressive governments and come to the UK instead?

"inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." - that includes disbelieving it.

btw this rules out polytheists... fucking discriminatory.

I propose a punishment for the judge. Write 1000 times on the blackboard the following: "RELIGION AND STATE ARE SEPARATED ENTITIES - NONE OF THE TWO SHALL MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE OTHER ONE, WTF!".

Because the UK is heading the way of the US....?

What as far as Atheism is concerened? Naaa mate we are poles apart on that score!

It's necessary for religious parents to try and indoctrinate their children as young as possible, for the older they get the greater the risk gets that they will continue to ask difficult questions and eventually see through religious dogma entirely, as they often do. This is because religious parents will often manipulate the lives of these children, including selecting educational institutions which will limit the amount of diverse information offered in education and enforce a monopolistic view which is usually Christianity or Islam. These days this doesn't work so often because information is so readily accessible for children, which has resulting in a general reactionary backlash by 'conservative' parents against perceived 'leftism' infiltration of academia and education, but in reality they are merely frustrated by their inability to make their own children think as regressively as themselves.
*Applauds* Glad to see people like you telling it like it is. Religious dogmatic brainwashing has to prey on the young, otherwise people will see through it. Even then some can see through it though; I remember when I was in Sunday School (and I don't think that deserves the title "School") the books the churches were giving out refuted doubts like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are only doubts that the DEVIL fills your mind with" etc... demonizing doubt, stifling skepticism... yeah, so much for "Christian tolerance"; cut the crap. At least schools teach people about different religions in the world; schools give people knowledge, heck, even MAKE them take knowledge, that churches want to hide from them. Religion thrives on fear and ignorance. It is the choke chain of the mind.

All of you wingeing, moaning, atheists why don't you just move away from your repressive governments and come to the UK instead?
Maybe they can't afford to? Maybe some of them are nationalistic? (Though granted, nationalism is kinda dogmatic as well...)

*Applauds* Glad to see people like you telling it like it is. Religious dogmatic brainwashing has to prey on the young, otherwise people will see through it. Even then some can see through it though; I remember when I was in Sunday School (and I don't think that deserves the title "School") the books the churches were giving out refuted doubts like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are only doubts that the DEVIL fills your mind with" etc... demonizing doubt, stifling skepticism... yeah, so much for "Christian tolerance"; cut the crap. At least schools teach people about different religions in the world; schools give people knowledge, heck, even MAKE them take knowledge, that churches want to hide from them. Religion thrives on fear and ignorance. It is the choke chain of the mind.


Bwahahahah telling it like it is? Massive generalisation there though innit! I'm religious, and I bring my kids up explaining to them that God and belief in God is a hugely personal thing, I'll leave it up to them. Unfortunately they both seem happy being atheist. Ohh and for the record, my atheist parents brought me up much the same way, so no your beliefs do no really have to trickle down to your children.

Maybe they can't afford to? Maybe some of them are nationalistic? (Though granted, nationalism is kinda dogmatic as well...)

What there are poor people in America?;)

Article dated Monday, Dec. 07, 1970.

Yeah, 'cause the fact that a couple of atheists couldn't adopt in the 70s basically equals genocide.

This made me think for a minute, then it came to me. You know something, if you replaced Atheist with Homosexual, you'd have the modern issue we're facing that this couple did in the 70s. As if belief and sexual orientation dictated how fit people are to parent.

Really? And if the situation were somehow reversed, you'd write down "atheist" to avoid trauma and stress? I think not. It isn't about selfishness, it's about principles upon which the US was purportedly founded. Statements like yours are kinda scary -- "abandon your principles to get less hassle" is how the seeds of oppression are sown.

I would. There is more to life than principles and pointless idealism. For me it matters more to make sure I am there for the ones that need me and for whom I care greatly about than to jeopardize everything out of an egoistic sense of pride. I would write down I were a nazi or homosexual if that is what it took to get the matter over with. Labels don't truly matter anyway as long as you know who you are.

I would. There is more to life than principles and pointless idealism. For me it matters more to make sure I am there for the ones that need me and for whom I care greatly about than to jeopardize everything out of an egoistic sense of pride. I would write down I were a nazi or homosexual if that is what it took to get the matter over with. Labels don't truly matter anyway as long as you know who you are.

I believe the dilemma the couple got into resulted from them not being actually aware that they were required to BE Christian... I know I would suspect no such thing on filling in that form.

Even if this is from 1970, it says an awful lot about the United States that it could be believed as happening now, and I wouldn't be surprised if something like this has happened somewhere in the US more recently. Or will happen *shudders*

Wiccan parents Thomas Jones and Tammie Bristol were recently told by an Indiana judge that they could retain custody of their son (after a divorce) only by agreeing to a stipulation that they could not share their religion with him because the non-mainstream beliefs might confuse him.

I'm not sure how the case ultimately panned out, but it was just a year or so ago.

Bwahahahah telling it like it is? Massive generalisation there though innit! I'm religious, and I bring my kids up explaining to them that God and belief in God is a hugely personal thing, I'll leave it up to them. Unfortunately they both seem happy being atheist. Ohh and for the record, my atheist parents brought me up much the same way, so no your beliefs do no really have to trickle down to your children.
See, thing is nowadays since we have more access to better information one might not be as inclined to be religious unless they were brainwashed into being so. Mainstream religion tends to be dogmatic, and as such it would take a lot of push to prevent someone from rejecting whatever they see as coming from religion.

And when and where did I say beliefs have to trickle down to one's children? I was extending on the point I was quoting on WHY some force indoctrination.

Wiccan parents Thomas Jones and Tammie Bristol were recently told by an Indiana judge that they could retain custody of their son (after a divorce) only by agreeing to a stipulation that they could not share their religion with him because the non-mainstream beliefs might confuse him.

I'm not sure how the case ultimately panned out, but it was just a year or so ago.
Because the "non-mainstream" beliefs would somehow for that reason be inherently more confusing than the idea that there's a big invisible magic spirit in the sky who knows everything about what billions of people are doing at the same time, can listen to millions of prayers and has a specific system of punishment such that if you "sin" (a juxtaposing description ranging from crimes like murder to cultural beliefs like polytheism) without apologizing or speak against him with or without apologizing, will send you (after you die, and as such when the brain, with which human consciousness functions, is rotting in the ground) to a place where you will be subjected to neverending torture, because he is so merciful. What the damn hell?

What there are poor people in America?;)
Obviously. You had better damn well be being sarcastic...

See, thing is nowadays since we have more access to better information one might not be as inclined to be religious unless they were brainwashed into being so. Mainstream religion tends to be dogmatic, and as such it would take a lot of push to prevent someone from rejecting whatever they see as coming from religion.

And when and where did I say beliefs have to trickle down to one's children? I was extending on the point I was quoting on WHY some force indoctrination.

Let me take this one backwards(ohh -err!) It is true that you never said beliefs trickle down; I, like you, was extrapolating from your words, and extending the point you did make. So I am wrong on that score apologies to you.

However you did say:

Religious dogmatic brainwashing has to prey on the young, otherwise people will see through it.

Which sorta indicates that you believe that religious parents do actually trickle down their faith to their kids.

Now let me tackle this whole brainwashing malarkey. again that is a rather general statement to make. My parents are all atheist, so I was not brainwashed into religion, nor non-religion.

I choose freely, of my own accord, after a time of contemplation and study, that such a thing as a creative God does indeed exist.

You are also assuming that because you see no 'value' in religion that it is obvious that there is none. I obviously disagree, I find great 'value' in my personal relationship with God, as I'm certain do many others.

However, yes religion has a lot of dogma involved.

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever - LeninDidn't Stalin's only surviving child move to the United States after he died?

I was expecting this from Kansas. New Jersey? What gives?

I was expecting this from Kansas. New Jersey? What gives?In the 1970s. Ctoan should put that in the OP...

Now let me tackle this whole brainwashing malarkey. again that is a rather general statement to make. My parents are all atheist, so I was not brainwashed into religion, nor non-religion.
Irrelevant. Religion itself normally takes brainwashing, even though granted some people like yourself would have religious beliefs off your own accord. But my point was that given the dogmatic nature of religion things like this that this thread is about probably should be something to expect, which I would guess is to some extent the point made by the person I was initially responding to.

Actually, I'm angry because a dog bit me earlier and it STILL HURTS (a bit).

This is one of those things which is just easy to whine about, and everyone can agree about how bad it is. Intellectual circlejerking for the lose.

In the 1970s. Ctoan should put that in the OP...

CToaN put it in the OP a long ass time ago...

CToaN put it in the OP a long ass time ago...Make it red, so people really have no excuse for not noticing. That way, we can reduce the amount of righteous-read-only-the-article posts in this thread ;)

There is? :p

Well, in my opinion. If you say there is not a God, than it is somewhat difficult to explain why anything exists.

So that is decent evidence that something not bound by traditional physical laws created it all. How this thing would do it, why it it did, is all irrelevant. If this force had an ego of the size we like to think it does, that we are in big trouble. Its logic swystem would likely be infinately superior to our own. Seriously, why would it care if you believed in it or not?

Really? And if the situation were somehow reversed, you'd write down "atheist" to avoid trauma and stress? I think not. It isn't about selfishness, it's about principles upon which the US was purportedly founded. Statements like yours are kinda scary -- "abandon your principles to get less hassle" is how the seeds of oppression are sown.

Seriously, what would be wrong with a kid raised by atheists? Do you think atheists are immoral or something? If you are worried about the kid going to heaven, remembe: that is not our legal jurisdiction.

Well, in my opinion. If you say there is not a God, than it is somewhat difficult to explain why anything exists.

Not in the slightest. Not only do we have workable theories about it, but in the history of things we didn't know but now do, not once has the answer turned out to be 'magic.' So there is no reason to believe that suddenly it will be.

Not in the slightest. Not only do we have workable theories about it, but in the history of things we didn't know but now do, not once has the answer turned out to be 'magic.' So there is no reason to believe that suddenly it will be.

True. But could not God be a scientific thing? I do not think a being creating things is magic. However, matter just appearing out of no where is. God seems a perfectly viable theory to me, though not the God you generally read about.

True. But could not God be a scientific thing? I do not think a being creating things is magic. However, matter just appearing out of no where is. God seems a perfectly viable theory to me, though not the God you generally read about.

If you're going to call a process 'god,' it doesn't really have much meaning, does it?

If you're going to call a process 'god,' it doesn't really have much meaning, does it?

I call the process God because it functions beyond traditional boundaries. If it always existed, then it is indeed special. Other traits I can only hypothesize. I very much doubt this force is anything like any religion's version of it (Zeus, Odin, and *ahem* others).

True. But could not God be a scientific thing? I do not think a being creating things is magic. However, matter just appearing out of no where is. God seems a perfectly viable theory to me, though not the God you generally read about.

No. A Creator deity would, by definition, exist outside of our universe. The scientific method, on the other hand, is confined to said universe, making it an useless tool in discussing that deity.

No. A Creator deity would, by definition, exist outside of our universe. The scientific method, on the other hand, is confined to said universe, making it an useless tool in discussing that deity.

Beyond our known laws but science has not discovered everything. It used to be impossible for science to explain how a we would stick to a round world. A laptop 400 years ago would seem like magic, especially with video games and movies.

Would the couple's application have been rejected if they wrote down "The Great Old Ones"?

Would the couple's application have been rejected if they wrote down "The Great Old Ones"?

or better yet... Hastur.

and they dive for cover everytime someone says his name. :p

or would agnostic be better. then they can say they will explore all religions with their child.

Well, in my opinion. If you say there is not a God, than it is somewhat difficult to explain why anything exists.


Now, see, I would call that a God of the gaps argument; and that has a rather poor track record, don't you think? It's failed to explain weather, earthquakes, the origins of life... what makes you think it'll end up being correct on the origins of the universe?

I dont see any logic in a god creating the universe, what or who created god? Stupid circle argument, refrain from using it creationists.

You can private adopt. It bypasses social services and the religion issue altogether.

Or you can lie and tell them you will teach the child about xtianity.

xtianity explained to a child:

The belief that some cosmic jewish zombie can make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul, that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Makes perfect sense.

:headbang: I hate this garbage. We all know that it is guaranteed that a child raised by atheist parents will grow up to be atheist, just like a child raised by Christian parents always grows up to be Christian.

On a more sarcastic note, the fact that his wife is a pantheist should make things alright. No god + many gods balances out.

[QUOTE=The Great Oak Tribe;13341853]:headbang: I hate this garbage. We all know that it is guaranteed that a child raised by atheist parents will grow up to be atheist, just like a child raised by Christian parents always grows up to be Christian.

not true my mom and dad R christian and I'm Athiest. Also contrary to popular believe some athiest beleive in god, but don't think he should be worshiped I mean after all he flooded the world because people did'nt worship him. that's like annialating every girl that refuses to have sex with U!

Beyond our known laws but science has not discovered everything. It used to be impossible for science to explain how a we would stick to a round world. A laptop 400 years ago would seem like magic, especially with video games and movies.

It was never impossible for science to explain how we would stick to a round world or to create a laptop. We didn't have the information to do it, but the rules of the universe that allow these things were already there. We just had to gather the empirical evidence and use it to form theories.

However, by its own axioms, the scientific method is limited to the natural universe. The knowledge of the universe that we can gain using it is virtually unlimited. However, it does nothing for gaining knowledge of anything outside of the universe. We have no reason to believe that our axioms would fit and no way to empirically measure it.

A state court cannot rewrite its own guidelines.:rolleyes:

just nuke the US :rolleyes:

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/508/owlsimmernq7.jpg

...and I really don't give a flying flip through a rolling doughnut...

Oh, I'm definitely stealing that line for later use. :D

You can private adopt. It bypasses social services and the religion issue altogether.Oh, deary me, no. Privatising adoption is an open door to human trafficking.

I'll see you, and raise you fucktarded.


I fold

However, matter just appearing out of no where is.
Actually, that's quantum fluctuations in space-time, IIRC, not magic, but I could see how you could confuse the two, what with them being completely different and all.

On a more sarcastic note, the fact that his wife is a pantheist should make things alright. No god + many gods balances out.

You misunderstand the common usage of pantheism, pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are equivalent, everything is God.

Oh, deary me, no. Privatising adoption is an open door to human trafficking.

LOL No it is a basic human right. By using these stupid agencies, you open the door to subjective criticism and social engineering.

Sorry, leave the decisions in the hands of the more qualified. The people involved.

not true my mom and dad R christian and I'm Athiest. Also contrary to popular believe some athiest beleive in god, but don't think he should be worshiped I mean after all he flooded the world because people did'nt worship him. that's like annialating every girl that refuses to have sex with U!

An Atheist who believes in a God is NOT an Atheist but rather either a Deist or a Theist, depending on how they view the god. If they view them as simply just existing, then the person is a Deist.

Also, you might want to proof read a little because that post is bordering on incomprehensible gibberish.

Actually, that's quantum fluctuations in space-time, IIRC, not magic, but I could see how you could confuse the two, what with them being completely different and all.

I think it is somewhat egotistical of you to assume anything more complex and capable that a human cannot possibly exist and must be called "magic".

You also have failed to examine where these fluctuation emanated from.

In short, the old argument:

Religion: "Magic! Santa Claus put the presents under the tree!"

Atheist: "Preposterous! A fat man from the North-Pole flying a magic sleigh puts them here? No. I am favor of the more reasonable explanation that random fluctuations made them appear. To say some being put them here is to believe in magic."

Agnostic: "Wha...? I haven't had ma' coffee."

Deist: "Perhaps something did put them here; something a little different from this 'Santa Claus'. Something more scientifically possible."

Atheist: "Preposterous! A fat man from the North-Pole flying a magic sleigh puts them here? No. I am favor of the more reasonable explanation that random fluctuations made them appear. To say some being put them here is to believe in magic."

What is it with the assumption that it's either intelligent design or random chance? Are people really that ignorant of natural science, that they are oblivious to everything that has happened in the last several centuries of research?


Agnostic: "Wha...? I haven't had ma' coffee."

It is neither creative nor witty to parade one's ignorance of agnosticism. Might as well just skip it.

What is it with the assumption that it's either intelligent design or random chance? Are people really that ignorant of natural science, that they are oblivious to everything that has happened in the last several centuries of research?

Yes.

Yes.
But...

If they...but why not read...but...

:(

But...

If they...but why not read...but...

:(

*hugs*
There, there. Won't be long until the scientists take over the world.

*hugs*
There, there. Won't be long until the scientists take over the world.
And people wonder why we're always at work on Doomsday Devices. Sheesh.

:D

What is it with the assumption that it's either intelligent design or random chance? Are people really that ignorant of natural science, that they are oblivious to everything that has happened in the last several centuries of research?

I understand what has happened. Evolution, the Big Bang, yes I know. I am not saying that God was necessary to design it, I am merely saying that something very special started it all. Even if all that existed a blue polygon I would still have to say something made a motion.

It is neither creative nor witty to parade one's ignorance of agnosticism. Might as well just skip it.

Unfortunately I am not a creative nor witty person. I am an over-verbose fop.

Anyway, I am semi-agnostic myself. One of my favorite literary characters is agnostic--Lodermulch. Google him.

Lodermulch had been asked his opinion of the so-called Funambulous Evangels,
who, refusing to place their feet upon the ground, went about their tasks by
tight-rope. In a curt voice Lodermulch exposed the fallacies of this
particular doctrine. "They reckon the age of the earth at twenty-nine eons,
rather than the customary twenty-three. They stipulate that for every square
ell of soil two and one quarter million men have died and laid down their
dust, thus creating a dank and ubiquitous mantle of lich-mold, upon which it
is sacrilege to walk. The argument has a superficial plausibility, but
consider: the dust of one dessicated corpse, spread over a square ell, affords
a layer one thirty-third of an inch in depth. The total therefore represents
almost one mile of compacted corpse-dust mantling the earth's surface, which
is manifestly false."
A member of the sect, who, without access to his customary ropes, walked in
cumbersome ceremonial shoes, made an excited expostulation. "You speak with
neither logic nor comprehension! How can you be so absolute?"
Lodermulch raised his tufted eyebrows in surly displeasure. "Must I really
expatiate? At the ocean's shore, does a cliff one mile in altitude follow the
demarcation between land and sea? No. Everywhere is inequality. Headlands
extend into the water; more often beaches of pure white sand are found.
Nowhere are the massive buttresses of gray-whie tuff upon which the doctrines
of your sect depend."
"Inconsequential claptrap!" sputtered the Funambule.
"What is this?" demanded Lodermulch, expanding his massive chest. "I am not
accustomed to derision!"
"No derision, but hard and cold refutal of your dogmatism! We claim that a
proportion of the dust is blown into the ocean, a portion hangs suspended in
the air, a portion seeps through crevices into underground caverns, and
another portion is absorbed by trees, grasses, and certain insects, so that
little more than a half-mile of ascestral sediment covers the earth upon which
it is sacrilege to tread. Why are not the cliffs you mentioned everywhere
visible? Because of that moistness exhaled and expelled by innumerable men of
the past! This has raised the ocean in exact equivalence, so that no brink or
precipice can be noted; and herein lies your fallacy."
"Bah," muttered Lodermulch, turning away. "Somewhere there is a flaw in your
concepts."
"By no means!" asserted the evangel, with that fervor which distinguished his
kind. "Therefore, from respect to the dead, we walk aloft, on ropes and
edges, and when we must travel, we use specially sancified footgear."
The best stuff since Gulliver's Travels.

[QUOTE=Fucking fantastic. Of course this won't stand up. The family, with the ACLU are suing and it's going to be heard by Jersey's Supreme Court. As the ever clever girlfriend points out, the application of Inestimable Privilege would apply to any religion or lack there of-which is to say, Catholic parents would restrict the child to a Catholic worship in the same way that atheist parents would restrict them to none-except that in the atheists case it's even clearer that the child has more of a chance to decide, really.

It's this kind of crap (and the fact that missionaries came to my door at 9:30 AM on New Years Day, but that's more of a personal thing...) is why atheists can't just sit quietly on their hands.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure why in the atheist's case its even clearer that the child has more of a chance to decide?

I agree that this will not stand up on appeal (if it is being appealed). I think it is a poorly decided case from what I can tell.

It's necessary for religious parents to try and indoctrinate their children as young as possible, for the older they get the greater the risk gets that they will continue to ask difficult questions and eventually see through religious dogma entirely, as they often do. This is because religious parents will often manipulate the lives of these children, including selecting educational institutions which will limit the amount of diverse information offered in education and enforce a monopolistic view which is usually Christianity or Islam. These days this doesn't work so often because information is so readily accessible for children, which has resulting in a general reactionary backlash by 'conservative' parents against perceived 'leftism' infiltration of academia and education, but in reality they are merely frustrated by their inability to make their own children think as regressively as themselves.

This is a pretty jaded way of looking at things. One has the duty to contemplate the difficult questions presented by our faith. Difficult thoughts are not synonymous with dangerous thoughts that needs to be hidden away and fought with brainwashing.

Sometimes we have to fight terribly hard against sin but it is not a sin to use the brain the Lord gave us. Brainwashing if that is even the right term for it may be helpful to cure the schizophrenic but it has no role in matters of faith.

And people wonder why we're always at work on Doomsday Devices. Sheesh.

:D

We? I wasn't aware neurologists were working on doomsday devices.

But I sure am...MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

I am not sure why in the atheist's case its even clearer that the child has more of a chance to decide?

I agree that this will not stand up on appeal (if it is being appealed). I think it is a poorly decided case from what I can tell.

It was appealed and the child was adopted. There's an edit in the OPs first line that indicates that this is from 1970 (something I didn't notice until someone pointed it out to me...).

Because for an atheist there isn't a reason to discuss or indoctrinate, religion or god is non-issue unless brought up (by, say, being denied an adoption or woken up at 9:30 am on New Years Day by missionaries...) so it is more likely (admittedly it could be 'angry' atheists who would rant about religion as the result of stories like this) that the subject simply wouldn't come up. This blank slate is more open for the child to then discover faith on their own and make their own decision about it, rather than being dragged at a young age to a specific church, and spend Sundays in a special school teaching a specific brand of faith.

Bwahahahah telling it like it is? Massive generalisation there though innit! I'm religious, and I bring my kids up explaining to them that God and belief in God is a hugely personal thing, I'll leave it up to them. Unfortunately they both seem happy being atheist. Ohh and for the record, my atheist parents brought me up much the same way, so no your beliefs do no really have to trickle down to your children.

Any rational, logical and free thinking person will eventually reject religion entirely if given free access to information, it's as simple as that, modern science and developments completely refute everything that common Judean bronze-age myth is based upon. Anyone who would honestly believe it has had this information either directly blocked by reactionary parents, educational institutions and the like, or this person is refusing to see logic out of a cognitive dissonance and a desire for their ego to continue having their simplistic world view.

I'm sure they'll also agree with you on politics and the best type of ice cream as well, right?

Seriously, comments like this are patently ridiculous.

Well, Tin Roof Sundae is undeniably awesome.

Any rational, logical and free thinking person will eventually reject religion entirely if given free access to information,

I'm sure they'll also agree with you on politics and the best type of ice cream as well, right?

Seriously, comments like this are patently ridiculous.

Any rational, logical and free thinking person will eventually reject religion entirely if given free access to information, it's as simple as that, modern science and developments completely refute everything that common Judean bronze-age myth is based upon. Anyone who would honestly believe it has had this information either directly blocked by reactionary parents, educational institutions and the like, or this person is refusing to see logic out of a cognitive dissonance and a desire for their ego to continue having their simplistic world view.

No way man! Science helps us understand the mysteries of the Lord. We are so lucky to live in an age where our understanding of the world is so advanced. Simply knowing what a sperm cell looks like is something that most people never knew. Science is not anti-religion. Although there are some cooky religious nuts out there that believe some whacky stuff and you may have these people in mind.

I am a pretty rational, free thinking guy, and I get paid some pretty big bucks to be logical and I cannot wait to get up and go to services tomorrow. Not all religious people are loony just like not all atheists are loony. I may happen to think that atheism is a bizzare belief but it is all a matter of faith. Atheists have faith that there is no god. Theists have faith that there is no god. All atheists and theists (except those that talk to burning bushes and whatnot) are agnostics in that we do not know if there is a god or not but we all have faith that either he does or does not exist.

No way man! Science helps us understand the mysteries of the Lord. We are so lucky to live in an age where our understanding of the world is so advanced. Simply knowing what a sperm cell looks like is something that most people never knew. Science is not anti-religion. Although there are some cooky religious nuts out there that believe some whacky stuff and you may have these people in mind.

I am a pretty rational, free thinking guy, and I get paid some pretty big bucks to be logical and I cannot wait to get up and go to services tomorrow. Not all religious people are loony just like not all atheists are loony. I may happen to think that atheism is a bizzare belief but it is all a matter of faith. Atheists have faith that there is no god. Theists have faith that there is no god. All atheists and theists (except those that talk to burning bushes and whatnot) are agnostics in that we do not know if there is a god or not but we all have faith that either he does or does not exist.

Now that's an incredibly silly thing to say. We only have faith that there is no God to the same degree that we have faith that there is no tooth fairy or that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or no Celestial Teapot.

There is no evidence that points towards God's existence, so there is no reason to believe in Him.

Now that's an incredibly silly thing to say. We only have faith that there is no God to the same degree that we have faith that there is no tooth fairy or that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or no Celestial Teapot.

There is no evidence that points towards God's existence, so there is no reason to believe in Him.

To be fair, he's probably describing explicit atheists.

Implicit atheists don't need faith because they truly espouse a lack of belief. Explicit atheists, on the other hand, espouse a belief in a lack.

I can't believe extreme-Christian nutjobs would be allowed kids and normal Atheists wouldn't... I mean, who would you rather be raised by?

Hah! An atheist marrying a pantheist. Must've been fun times. :p

This blank slate is more open for the child to then discover faith on their own and make their own decision about it, rather than being dragged at a young age to a specific church, and spend Sundays in a special school teaching a specific brand of faith.
Indeed.

Religious parents can claim they're not indoctrinating their kids, or that they leave it up to their kids to decide, but if they're bringing their kids to ONE church for ONE type of religious worship from the time the kids are small then I don't really give their claims much weight.

Face it, you're the parent. You are going to be leading by example whether you like it or not.

I was never required to attend any religious worship. My mom took me to a variety of religious services throughout my childhood, but only when I agreed to go and was interested in the experience. I selected some of the places we visited. I was, of course, completely drenched in religiosity in daily life--I'm American, after all--but at home we were a secular household.

I honestly believe that being a secular household (NOTE: NOT THE SAME AS AN ATHEIST HOUSEHOLD) is the only way to really leave the choice up to the child. Now, if a parent feels that they should not leave the choice up to the child, that's a whole other subject, and one that is absolutely open to debate. But if a parent claims that they want to leave it to their child to choose her own religious/spiritual path, then I think they should walk the walk.