Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/02/2008 4:38:40 PM PST by Dawnsblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Dawnsblood

“Can Atheists Be Parents?”

Yes however they understand when they look into their child’s eyes and smiles, they only see worm food.


2 posted on 01/02/2008 4:40:03 PM PST by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood
I misread the headline as "CAN ATHEISTS BE PRIESTS?"

Ha.

3 posted on 01/02/2008 4:41:38 PM PST by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

Alternate headline: “Can Time be in more love with Atheists”?


5 posted on 01/02/2008 4:45:23 PM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

Only by accident.


7 posted on 01/02/2008 4:45:37 PM PST by kjam22 (see me play the guitar here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHy7Cuoucc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood; Admin Moderator

Exuse me, but the date you posted on the article was “ 1/7/08”. This article was published 12/07/1970, 37 years ago.


8 posted on 01/02/2008 4:45:51 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (I'm not celebrating Kwanza!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood
The freedom to practice religion includes the freedom to practice no religion.

My Protestant faith is so strong is needs no legislation to strengthen it.

9 posted on 01/02/2008 4:45:57 PM PST by MindBender26 (Is FR worth our time anymore? All the "fun" sees to be gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

Makes me wonder if there are other issues at hand. Seems pretty arbitrary to reject because of a lack of religion.


11 posted on 01/02/2008 4:47:15 PM PST by onja ("The government of England is a limited mockery.") (France was a complete mockery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood
Since the woman is a “pantheist”, which means she believes in God in some form, why didn’t these two join a Unitarian Church so they’d have a religion to put down on the adoption forms? If they really wanted a baby, they would have done something that accommodated his atheism while (ethically) enabling them to claim a religion. I think there’s more to this story. (Antoher point: a woman giving her baby up for adoption is free to choose the religion of the adoptive parents. How many such women do you think say it’s fine if their baby’s parents are atheists?)
14 posted on 01/02/2008 4:47:56 PM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood
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.

I think I'd be more concerned about the age of the parents. If they have a 31 year old adopted son, they'd have to be rather old to be adopting a 17 month old girl. Considering this article was published 37 years ago, the 31 year old son would now be 68, and the girl would now be 38½ years old.

15 posted on 01/02/2008 4:51:59 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (I'm not celebrating Kwanza!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

I think even athiests are able to figure out how to insert tab A in slot B. Thats about all it takes to become parents.


17 posted on 01/02/2008 4:54:12 PM PST by festus (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood
Eleanor Katherine, now 17 months, whom they acquired

Isn't that a heartwarming statement. "Acquired." Like a land transaction. God help us all.

18 posted on 01/02/2008 4:57:41 PM PST by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood
For any who care to know, it was reversed on appeal. Sorry about the old article.
20 posted on 01/02/2008 4:59:49 PM PST by Dawnsblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

I can’t believe this happened in NJ! It sounds more like something that would take place in the “Bible Belt”.


21 posted on 01/02/2008 5:00:50 PM PST by basil (Support the Second Amendment--buy another gun today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood
The original article is from Time ^ | Dec. 07, 1970

Just a tad "out of date" don't you think?

29 posted on 01/02/2008 5:14:03 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

Better atheists than muslims. At least with atheists there is hope: someone gets sick, someone sees the light, etc.

With muslims the child’s chances are limited.


31 posted on 01/02/2008 5:16:52 PM PST by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

Well, if they could produce a kid on their own without having to adopt through ‘the gubmint’ or a private agency, yes.

If not, they have to meet the same criteria EVERYONE ELSE has to. Not everyone can adopt, even if they ARE religious. There are many factors that disqualify all sorts of people and they may not like it, but that is too damn bad. If the adoption group believes that it is important for those children to grow up in a family that believes in God (god), and that it is in the best interest OF THE CHILD, NOT THE PARENTS, then they ought to either meet the requirement or they don’t get to adopt.


33 posted on 01/02/2008 5:35:52 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

Wow. This in the PRNJ. I would think atheism would be the state religion.


34 posted on 01/02/2008 5:40:53 PM PST by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

This judge deserves to be thrown out of his position, and thereafter sued into oblivion for violating the rights of these two. Unfortunately, his position prevents him from suffering the latter consequence of his egregious action.

He automatically assumes that because most religious people indoctrinate their children in their religion that atheists must indoctrinate their children into having no religion. It’s not true. Hasn’t also he noticed that kids raised in one religion do convert to others, or to none at all? How a child is raised here may influence the end religion, but it is not a guarantee. Thus in this case it’s not a guarantee that the child will have no religion.


38 posted on 01/02/2008 6:45:30 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

Interesting how this old article has been making the rounds all over the internets today.


41 posted on 01/02/2008 10:03:57 PM PST by happinesswithoutpeace (You are receiving this broadcast as a dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dawnsblood

Unless infertile they are able to be parents.

The author would have be wiser to title this: “Should Atheists be Parents?”

I’d answer that it’s up to them.

So far as adopting is concerned, I wouldn’t want my surviving, dependent children adopted by atheists, but there are probably atheist parents who wouldn’t care.

That’s why wills are important.


48 posted on 01/02/2008 10:19:41 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain! True Supporters of Our Troops Support the Necessity of their Sacrifice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson