WTF? Since when does the government get to impose this? And what if they were animists instead? Hindi? Shinto? Flying Speghetti Monster? Guess he doesn't realize that the kid is going to make her own choice anyway, and OFTEN will look actively OPPOSITE of what her parents believe.

Separation of Church and State anyone? Hopefully he can be voted off the bench, since obviously his personal views are getting in the way of the public law he swore to uphold.

Meanwhile I can't see how such a bald faced thing would stand... he doesn't have grounds for such an opinion, does he?

You really just cannot make this stuff up...

(Amy, you are a riot!)

The judges interpretation of this law seems perverted.

I fail to see the logic. The law was written with the intention of allowing citizens freedom to practice their faith. This should have never been used to prohibit a loving home to a child.

This article is from 1970. I am hoping the legal standards for adoption requirements have since changed.

Whoops! Didn't notice the date. Sigh.

A woman once got on me for posting something a couple years old. In 1970, I think I still wet my bed.

>> In 1970, I think I still wet my bed.

Too Funny.

Still, it's important to see how biased judges can really do damage with legal precedence. I am hoping this was overturned or appealed.

It looks like the case was overturned(however, this same couple had their adoption of their first child blocked in 1940).

In the article above it links a recent custody case (2008) where the religious parent is favored (despite driving drunk with his child in the car and more than one drunk driving arrest) over the athiest parent.

So it doesnt appear children's best interests are being favored over religious politics, which is a shame.

I'm sorry I didn't notice the article's date; it came up in the normal fashion, surfing other articles. I had no idea TIME put their older stuff on the Web.

Now, let us hope that it isn't repeated, and try to make sure that it doesn't.

In meatspace, I still get the argument that a public figure has to be religious, despite government being an out-and-out business with a mandate to treat equally under the law.

Well, I'm relieved its so old!

I wonder if the parents said they were going to forbid the child from exploring religion?

Just a few weeks ago, I had a wonderful conversation at a party with this girl in her 20s, untainted like you don't see in L.A. We got on the subject of religion, and she got really worried about me when she found out I didn't believe in god -- I think over the burning in hell lore she'd been fed. Yet, the same people who believe in that stuff laugh at native people who believe in witch doctors, etc.

This article highlights the fact that Judges get to legislate from the bench with impunity, most of the time.
Going to court on anything in this country is a crapshoot.
Our educational system preaches that our court system is wonderful and fair to all. This is just to give you the warm fuzzies that our government is really looking out for you. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have citizens, mostly men, who have been convicted of murder, rape etc... that have been on death row or incarcerated for years until freed by DNA. Google The Innocence project.
These people were not freed by the government or the state but by hard working citizens fighting for true justice.

sans evidence

Sigh.

Just a few weeks ago, I had a wonderful conversation at a party with this girl in her 20s, untainted like you don't see in L.A. We got on the subject of religion, and she got really worried about me when she found out I didn't believe in god -- I think over the burning in hell lore she'd been fed.

Isn't it admirable that she cares about the fate of someone she just met at a party? I have the opposite problem: not caring what happens to people.

Yet, the same people who believe in that stuff laugh at native people who believe in witch doctors, etc.

In my experience, fundamentalist Christians treat witch doctors with deadly seriousness because they believe that the power claimed by the witch doctor is real, and evil in its source. Wishy-washy Christians who don't believe in the devil might laugh.

My parents were told that they were likely too old (at ages 30 and 32) to adopt an infant, but they got me because I have some Jewish heritage. My birth mother had put that she was "half-Jewish" on the paperwork, so I was apparently considered kind of hard to place in Alabama in the 1960s. Lucky no judge cared that much about my spiritual upbringing.

"Yet the same people who believe in that stuff laugh at native people who believe in witch doctors, etc"

"In my experience, fundamentalist Christians treat witch doctors with deadly seriousness because they believe that the power claimed by the witch doctor is real, and evil is it's source"

Can I call your attention to a story of 21st century witch-burning?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8119201.stm

There is indeed very real evil here, and it's not coming from the "witches".

heh, that's the one thing I didn't notice in the article, was the date... seems like they would be more careful to flag that.

Thank you for posting that, Martin. Rural folks who practice their rural medicine (regardless if you think it's silly or not) are not the evil-doers simply because they choose a different way.

My mother was 45 and my father 57 when I was adopted. The only reason they were able to adopt me was because they were my foster parents and got first dibs. Mom got fired on my behalf because it was all about money, and, as my foster parents, they didn't have to pay much, which pissed off a number of people. A satanist with a fat wallet probably would have been welcome.

Teach a child to think rationally, whether she grows up in a religious family or not, and it's unlikely the child will believe in god.

Unlikely but not impossible. My youngest brother, despite being raised atheist in a family which has been atheist for at least three generations, became a fundamentalist Christian at age 16, and has maintained that belief to this day (38 years later). In every other aspect of his life he's as sane and rational as anyone I've ever met.

Have some fun with fundies - ask them how they can tell fact from fiction!

While I agree that the judge was out of her gourd using this reason to deny adoption of a child to the couple, I did have to take issue with some of the other stuff you said. But first, here's something that I believe in.
Religion is the death of faith. Whenever people get the idea that they have god all figured out and know all the proper ways to placate him/her so they can live a happy afterlife, they're already wrong. No matter the faith. Faith is not a destination, it's a quest, that if you're dedicated, can become a relationship.

To play devil's advocate to your statement:
"apparently being an irrational thinker (i.e., believing that there's a god, a guy who lets 4-year-olds die of cancer, in fires, and of rape-murders"
Would the same God who gives humans free will take that gift away if they decide to harm a child? You can't have it both ways. Either there's free will or there's not. I happen to believe that people do have the ability to choose. They may not often excercise it, but they do.
And if that God who is all powerful and has a place in eternal bliss for the souls of children has a good reason (whatever that may be) for letting a child die in a fire or of cancer, who are we to second guess? Life itself is pain. It can be joyous, it can be fun, and it's necessary to offer opportunities to grow, but it's not the greatest state of being possible. To think that this frail, unstable, imperfect body is the totality of my being is too much of a stretch for me. Those who have crossed over and come back (near death experiences) never fear death again, since they understand that it's not an end, just a transition to something new and perhaps quite wonderful.
A wise man I know said, "For us to try to understand the mind of God is like an ant trying to understand how to program a computer."
I guess my point, made as respectfully as I can make it is this: just because you haven't found faith, don't denigrate those who have.

rad, I will definitely keep that ploy in mind!

"It isn't a positive thing to believe without evidence"

Just like the 'believer' has no scientific evidence in the existence of God, so the 'non-believer' has no scientific evidence verifying the absence of God.
Your atheistic 'beliefs' are just that, not more or less than the theist...still a belief.

"and I'm not ethical because I'm afraid to burn in hell"

No, you may not be. But maybe you may want to read up a little more on some of the cases to be made for the existence of God if you are such a rational thinker as you proclaim here to be and not limit yourself Sam Harris for your education.

A nice start would be to familiarize yourself with Blaise Pascal.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

And here two very thought provoking articles I am sure you can appreciate:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110206C

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081005A

Actually, Josie, it seems like Sam Harris has a pretty good handle on ol' Pascal's wager: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/04/the_cost_of_betting_on_faith.html.

I'll stick with the rational, thanks, and bypass the sky fairies and imaginary friends.