Scott Hardie | January 4, 2008
A New Jersey judge has ordered an atheist couple to return an adopted baby because state law 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," and a child raised by atheists would be denied the chance to worship God. (link)

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to start. Am I the only one made sick by this?

Kris Weberg | January 4, 2008
If we interpret the last clause strictly, then no child ever really gets to worship "in a manner agreeable to the dictates of [his or her] conscience"; parents generally determine the mode of a child's worship or lack thereof.

If we don't interpret it strictly, I'm not sure what would violate the statute. Anyway, I expect this will run up against the Supreme Court's past decisions regarding the so-called "establishment clause" soon enough.

Eric Wallhagen | January 4, 2008
I would be shocked if the supreme court doesn't overturn this decision. I agree with you Scott, it does sicken me. I also don't believe this judge is interpreting the spirit of the law correctly. Just because the parents are atheists, doesn't mean they will deny the child right to worship. Religion is always forced on children until they're old enough to decide for themselves. There's nothing right or wrong about that, it's just something passed from parent to child. I agree with Kris, that you could easily argue a child in a Christian family isn't being allowed free worship, because what if say the child "wanted" to be Unitarian?

Ultimately the spirit of the law is to protect the freedom of religion. In this case I believe the judge's ruling, despite seemingly following the wording of the law, denied the adopting family's rights and thus ultimately clashed with the law's intent.

Amy Austin | January 4, 2008
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Erik Bates | January 4, 2008
Well, Amy, you are. But that's a different story altogether.

Tony Peters | January 4, 2008
wow....just wow this is the first bit hit that the freedom from religion folks have taken.....I'm not sure that I agree with the ruling though as stated above until you can decide what you want you only worship what your parents do/don't so IMHO a minor shouldn't be subject to this law...I know that I didn't decide my faith until I was in my 20's though my catholic upbringing has stained my moral code to some extent regardless. My problem with this is the same I have with the folks who want the cross to be torn down from Mt Soledad and as Kris said above with the "Free Exercise Clause"...freedom of religion should be to practice or not practice as you see fit .

Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.

Other Discussions Started by Scott Hardie

More Celebrity Marriages

You know that creepy but mildly exhilarating feeling you get when you find out that two seemingly arbitrary celebrities from different worlds are actually married to each other? I just got that when I found out that "Dateline NBC" host Jane Pauley and Doo Go »

Bad Medicine

Have you ever taken medicine, had surgery, or done something else for your health that wound up doing considerably more harm than good? Was it worth it? Go »

Exemplary Episodes

Think of one or two of your favorite tv series. If you could pick one episode to introduce someone to the show that would demonstrate its best qualities, and it couldn't be the first episode, which episode would you pick and why? Go »

You Cheating Bastard

Matt's cousin Scott is a mass consumer of video games. As it's told, he's beaten Final Fantasy games in mere days. Go »

Vanilla Coke

I just wanted to say real quick, I tried Vanilla Coke. What's the big deal? Go »

Best Movies of 2017

The ballots are open. You have until December 31 to cast your votes. I can't wait to see what you all choose. Go »