Is Religion Influencing the Law?

When one reads about the case involving John and Cynthia Burke, one has to feel some sympathy for the couple, who came so close to adopting their first child, only to be thwarted by the controversy of religion.

In 1970, the Burkes, who had been a childless couple for 6 years, applied for the adoption of a baby boy from the Children’s Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange, New Jersey. The couple, being atheists, on the application form, left the space for religious affiliation blank. Due to this, their original application was denied, and only when the matter was brought to court was the decision overruled. The Burkes soon successfully adopted David, their new son.

The matter became a more debated issue, when the Burkes applied for a second adoption, this time for a baby girl. Normally, it would have been assumed that the application would have gone in the same way as the first. However, in this case, Superior Court Judge William Camarata denied their application, on grounds of a religious issue.

Judge Camarata’s decision was made on the basis that the Burkes lacked the belief of a Supreme Being. According to him, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit”, and her opinions should not be influenced or hindered by her atheist parents. Judge Camarata backed up his argument, by quoting the New Jersey constitution, which states 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.”

During the few weeks after the Superior Court’s decision, the Burkes have been told to return their “adopted” daughter to the New Jersey adoption agency. This decision has greatly riled the Burkes, who took the matter to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also supported the Burkes’ appeal.

This case raises an interesting question: Is religion playing too much a part in legislature and the justice system?

It has been seen before, that most of the time, when religion and religious opinions get involved in the law and the justice system, it often results in complicated and long, drawn-out court cases. For instance, take the Scopes Monkey trial of 1925. In that situation, some of the laws that were being drafted were in support of one religion and against other beliefs.

Religion is a very vague concept, and it varies in different ways, from person to person. How religion is interpreted greatly determines how it is perceived. Due to its ambiguity, in its concepts and interpretation, religion and its principles cannot be easily defined or explained. Therefore, if laws regarding religion are drafted, it makes it very hard for the judiciary to set a definite boundary which is encompassed by this law. In other words, the law does not become a definite and concrete one, but instead is one whose restrictions and guidelines can be interpreted and manipulated differently.

In any court case, the judge will definitely have some bias when making a decision. However, in the recent past, especially in cases involving the religion debate, it seems as though religious inclinations and bias are becoming more influential when a judge is in the process of decision-making. In most cases, the judge is usually a Christian, who is usually unwilling to put aside his religious beliefs when making his decision. This very much undermines the equality and bipartisanism that the judicial system is supposed to have. Religious bias is a very strong bias, namely because the judge is usually a devout believer, and he finds it hard to go against his religious beliefs.

The judicial system is one of the few platforms in a country where every man should be on an equal playing field. However, with religious biases having their say in the judicial process, some groups of people are being put at an advantage over others. How much of an impact this will have on the judicial system in the future only remains to be seen.

Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html