I am *still* disgusted that such a decision could have ever been made in this country. Spanks to The Imp, I discovered that I was not the *only* one with knickers in a twist from an issue that happened in 1970. The good news is that the New Jersey Supreme Court *did* overturn the decision in 1971.
This article, as a social object, is causing quite a stir in the wankosphere. As of this moment, it's the most popular item on time.com. Wonder if they will do more to draw attention to the fact that this is OLD news?
Original post:
I'm disgusted.
I just read about the couple who were told by a judge that they couldn't adopt a child because of their religion - or more specifically, their lack of one.
As a rather famous fellow Virginian once wrote:
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
- Thomas Jefferson
Color me crazy, but I believe that adopting children falls within the realm of a "civil capacity". This couple had already proven themselves capable of adopting and raising one child. Who does this effing judge think he is to say that they aren't worthy of doing so again because of how they do or don't worship? Is he not familiar with the first amendment?
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for 60 years thereafter, the courts took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".) - From Wikipedia
I'm vehemently intolerant of intolerance. And yes, that makes me a hypocrite. But I'm a happy one. This judge failed to do his job, and is foisting his intolerance on others in the face of legal precedent. Here's hoping the New Jersey Supreme Court smells the bullshit for what it is.
/rant mode off
From Hugh MacLeod's gapingvoid.com
8 comments:
Wow, that is crap. You wonder how something like that could happen in our supposedly secular society.
er, the date on the article is 1970?
Second. I was so ready to have empathic pissed-offness, then I, too, noticed the article was from 12/70. The irony is I was just begining to spread my godless heathen wings in 1970. Those were the days.
whitenoise, perhaps you haven't noticed, as you live in Canada, but since Bush ASSumed "leadership" of the USA, this country's become less and less secular. Folks are welcome to get their religion on as they please, as long as they don't try to proselytize me or tell me I'm going to hell in a hand basket because I don't worship in their fashion.
Spanks, Imp, for pointing out the date. wtf?
Anon, spanks too for the poised empathy. Not sure what age is generally associated with "spreading wings" (I was 2 in 1970 - the big 4-0 is looming in a matter of days), but was godless heathenism more or less tolerated than it is today?
I chatted briefly with a nurse 3 weeks ago who'd returned from a one or two year relocation to Tennessee. She didn't like it there because they ostracized her for not joining a church. Guess I'd never fit in...
My mom stopped going to a church in her small town after many years because she had tried to join several times and was turned down - she wasn't worthy cuz she was from off.
Years later, she stopped going to another church because the preacher said - from the pulpit - that a child born of parents of different races was an abomination. He said this knowing full well that my niece's son - my Mom's great-grandchild - was of mixed race.
Intolerance sucks.
It seemed a bit odd in this day and age, especially in one of the Yank Election Years; that's what made me look for a date-stamp.
That being said, some of the most hilariously-libertarian / pagans I know live in the Deep South. :-D Ah, the stories... Like the time they held the Good Samaritans convention in the same hotel with DragonCon...
Ciao Cheek, and gracias for the deluge of hits to my content-challenged blog. Really, I may just have to go type something now.
Nah. Who am I kidding? ;-)
Nothing to do with this thoughtful post, but Cheek--your impending 4-Oh demands documentation! Public documentation : )
Details! Give. Share. Dish. What are the planned festivities? Let us celebrate with you at least cyberly : )
Post a Comment