[FoRK] Atheists can't be parents?

[Stephen D. Williams]

The dissenting / concurring opinion is great, classic really:

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=8
"... Rather the simple question is whether the State may inquire into an 
individual's religious, spiritual and ethical concepts in order to 
decide whether that individual is fit to raise a child. I think it is 
not the State's business to prowl among anyone's thoughts and to label 
him fit or unfit, in whole or in part, because his views are distasteful 
to someone in a placement agency or in the judiciary.
The majority opinion finds the State would violate the demand for 
neutrality in religious matters embedded in the First Amendment 
guarantee of freedom of religion if adoption were denied "solely" 
because of an applicant's religion or lack of it. With that, I agree, 
but I cannot understand how the constitutional violation is a whit less 
because the applicant's religion or lack of it plays some lesser role in 
the judge's decision. Whether the price of the heresy is the destruction 
of a man's good character or merely a blot upon it, it is equally true 
that the State stamps its approval upon some tenets and its disapproval 
upon others. This is precisely what the First Amendment forbids.
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. I assume the 
majority would never deny adoption "solely" because of a belief in that 
area, but if the belief may be considered as the majority say it may, 
then how much may be charged against an applicant who is a Jehovah's 
Witness and therefore opposed to blood tranfusions, or a Christian 
Scientist, who, as I understand his faith, would turn to medical aid 
only as a last resort? And since a man's religious, spiritual and 
ethical views may be more evident in his position on specific subjects 
than in his abstract statement of his faith, will it be all right to 
inquire of his attitude toward the war in Vietnam, or capital 
punishment, or divorce, or abortion, or perhaps even public welfare, or 
income taxation, or caveat emptor, in all of which some people find 
evidence of moral fiber or lack of it?
Nor is there anyone competent to pass judgment upon religious, spiritual 
and ethical matters. I do not know how a placement agency tests or 
equips its staff for this demanding task. I do know that neither when 
they were admitted to the bar nor when they were appointed to the bench, 
were judges asked to establish the acceptability of their own tenets or 
a capacity to appraise the tenets of others. As for me, I disclaim any 
expertise whatever. I have already interred too many of my eternal truths.
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. Every incursion is sure to repeat the spectacle now before 
us. I think it strong evidence of good moral character that an applicant 
wants to rear a child, and that should be quite enough in the absence of 
positive conduct revealing unfitness for parenthood."

sdw

Sat N wrote:
> Well, things were better in 1971
>
> http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=1
>
> So, the ruling was reversed...
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 4:24 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Daniel Grisinger wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> you did notice the article is 37 years old, right?
>>>       
>> LOL, no I completely missed that, the site stamps the current date at
>> the top of the page, I didn't notice the dateline on the article itself!
>>
>> Still, I can't help but think that the situation today's probably
>> even worse than in 1970...
>>
>> jb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FoRK mailing list
>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>