PeterDavid.net

FIRST POST!

(sorry, wrong website)

Anyway -

I'm wondering if Tom DeLay is going to be speaking up in outrage over this clear abuse of power by an activist judge

Of course not. Someone's only an activist judge if they rule against the far right wing. Since Frist is part of, & supported by, the far right wing that wants the U.S. to become a "Christian" theocracy, this ruling is just fine.

(Christian in quotes because I'm referring to the self-proclaimed Christians whose behavior is anything but.)

Another reason to hate modern "America"

Preach to the rest of the world about the greatness of freedom and demcracy, but don't practice a single fucking word of here here in America....

This story has been circulating all over SFnal cyberspace, drawing the expected howls of outrage. But almost everyone, at least at first, makes the mistake of characterizing the incident solely in terms of the judicial error.

What ought to be looked at just as closely is the agenda and practices of the "Domestic Relations Counseling Board", which issued the report on which the judge (inappropriately) relied. Getting the judicial order modified will solve the immediate problem, but not necessarily the underlying one.

Getting the judicial order modified will solve the immediate problem, but not necessarily the underlying one

For now, it can be modified on appeal. But if The Constitution Restoration Act is passed, rulings like this cannot be appealed in Federal court.

Actually, I've been anticipating something like this, ever since I read that Focus on the Family (actually, Focus on What Dobson Says is the Family) was funding lawyers for grandparents and divorcees to have the child of a parent taken away from that parent's custody due to a "non-Christian" (read gay or lesbian) lifestyle.

Of course, a judge will rule a Wiccan family is non-Christian, too. I'm waiting for the same sort of ruling for any non-Christian denomination as part of a "mixed" marriage to find their children being taken from them, too. And, if one of the parents is agnostic or atheist, that's too bad for them.

That's just my thought. I could be wrong.

Bladestar: Another reason to hate modern "America" Preach to the rest of the world about the greatness of freedom and demcracy, but don't practice a single fucking word of here here in America....
Luigi Novi: But if you and I are both Americans, and we both agree that this is outrageous, then isn't that part of America too? Doesn't your outrage and mine mean that you and I do practice it? Why does one American judge mean that "hating" America is justifiable, when there are presumably a whole bunch of other people against it, like those on this board, to name a few, and who will no doubt have the ruling overturned? Why do you see "America" personified solely by this one idiot judge? Instead of "hating" America, why not simply oppose people like this judge who are trying to turn it iinto something that you hate, in order to maintain the version that you love?

When I was a working scientist, someone made a comment during a lab meeting about religious beliefs.

I replied "Ever seen a politician struck down by lightning?"

The lab chief then said "Well, that's it for God, then!"

Much of the problem that the judge has here seems to stem from the fact that the child is enrolled in Catholic school, and he's using the excuse that the child will therefore suffer "confusion" between the religious stuff taught in school and what's learned in the home. Which bothered me when I was going to yeshiva (as my parents weren't nearly as religious as most of the folks in the school) but I, you know, got over it. Confusion isn't a life-threatening situation.

It does strike me as absurd, although we all seem to be laboring under the presumption that DeLay knows anything about this. The Schiavo case had been a big deal in the media long before DeLay got involved, and Law and Order is a popular enough show that if someone references a public figure like DeLay, news of that is going to filter back to him through one of his many associates. But we're supposed to treat a three-day old item in the Indianapolis Star as though it were common knowledge?

DeLay's from Texas, not Indiana, folks. Let's not let our heads get too unscrewed on this one, okay? If it builds up to Schiavo-type proportions and nothing is done, well, DeLay has dropped the ball. Otherwise, let's not pretend this is on the national radar screen.

-Dave O'Connell

1 // Much of the problem that the judge has here seems to stem from the fact that the child is enrolled in Catholic school, and he's using the excuse that the child will therefore suffer "confusion" between the religious stuff taught in school and what's learned in the home. Which bothered me when I was going to yeshiva (as my parents weren't nearly as religious as most of the folks in the school) but I, you know, got over it. Confusion isn't a life-threatening situation. //

I'm confused, Don't the parents have the right to send thier kid to the school of their choice, even if the religious beliefs of that school don't match the religious beliefs taught at home? If this was the judges concern why didn't he take the kid out of Catholic School, because the school didn't match the teachings at home? I suspect because Christianity is, (in his mind), the real religion. I went to Catholic school and knew of at least 3 other students who attended who were not Catholics, (one was Jewish, one was Hindu, and the other was of some Christian denomination that was not Roman Catholic). They were sent there because thier parents thought the public schools in the area were "not good" and the Catholic school was the best education around. They made a trade off that thier kids got some religious indoctrination that they didn't teach at home in exchange for a better education. In retrospect, it's actually kinda cool that the parents were so sure of thier own faith and thier own practices that they knew thier kids would not be brainwashed by Catholic teachings. The parents in this case seem to be making the same choice, and divorce or not, it's thier choice to make. Judges and the government have absolutly no right to get involved in this. And come on, protecting the child from confusion, as if confusion isn't a normal part of childhood.

Perhaps because idiots like this judge run this country, are owned and bought by the wealthy, and we the people don't have the power to do SHIT about it...

We don't have the money, and there are just enough of these religious fucking idiots in the electorate who keep these people in power and to enact more and more ridiculous legislation.

Capitalism killed this "democracy" long ago, and the sheep of America don't care, but the cancer is too ingrained for the rest of us to do anything...

...and yet another example of abuse of power. ::sigh::

I hope for the kid's sake this gets cleared up quickly.

"Another reason to hate modern "America""

Bladestar, you don't need a reason to hate. It's just what you seem to enjoy doing. Had you read the article you might have noticed the part that said "At times, divorcing parents might battle in the courts over the religion of their children. But Kenneth J. Falk, the ICLU's legal director, said he knows of no such order issued before by an Indiana court. He said his research also did not turn up such a case nationally."

See, what all the big words mean is that this is NOT something that happens very often, which is why it made the news, that is, you see. But hey, whatever makes you happy.

Back in the real world...NOTHING and I mean nothing that some judge decides in divorce/child custody cases surprises me. Live long enough and you will have a collection of horrid divorse stories--just hope you aren't the main character.

The good news is that the internet allows us to make this a bigger story than the mainstream media may decide it to be. Like most slimy things I'll bet this decision will slither away under the glare of light.

One possible warning--I note that the mother is NOT part of the appeal and was not available for comment. Since the kid lives with the father and it's the father who seems to be most active in the wicca movement it is not inconceivable that the ex wife or someone in her family could have instigated the trouble, though I'm more likely to believe that the judge is just a jerk.

Prediction: either there ends up being more to the story (like the "Zombie Terrorist" kid)or this will be quickly overturned and this judge will be very closely watched by bloggers everywhere for his next brain malfunction.

This isn't really all that new or unexpected.

We've had a bit of a dust up in Chesterfield (just South of Richmond, VA) with a Wiccan. They hold town hall meetings for the locol area community where, at the start of each meeting, they invite a member of the community to step up and give the invocation. The let any and every Jewish, Baptist, Luthran, etc step up and give the invocation anytime they wanted. She stepped up and was told, while not in these words, that she wasn't a member of the community that counted in the eyes of the elected office holders. That nonsense, while a part of the community, would not be allowed to open thier christian community's town hall meetings. It became a big noise when she went to court with it (she lost) and the paper and TV covered it. Now, working around the Capitol of VA, I saw a lot of nasty garbage from elected officials. Quite a few of the elected R's, when no camera or reporter was around, made comments like "she'll be suprised when she ends up in hell" & "there should be a law against people like that." And, yeah, there were a few D's that said stuff about wishing people "like that" would just shut up and go away.

Have you watched CSPAN? when the R's up in the nation's Capitol (House & Senate) are playing to thier crowd they say things that are proof that they view thier faith as the One and nobody else has one that counts. When R's bring up how "insane" the country is they point out thimgs like how the crazy left has shoved such PC stuff as having Wiccan, Muslim or other non-Christian priests on base in the areas where they have recruits who skew to those religions. They go on about how insane it is and how we're wasting "tax payer money" on this kind of thing. Yet, I've never heard word one from those same R's about taxpayer money paying for a chaplin. Why would they? That's, after all, the real faith being supported in a country that was founded on Christian beliefs. They complain about public displays of these "new age cults" and "whacky religions" but turn around and demand that we have Christian prayer in school, Christian idols built with taxpayer money and that Christian views and values be espoused at the highest elected offices as a sign of love of God and (by Gawd)Country.

These are the same jakasses that have stated that the D's are godless, hate Christians, hate "people of faith" and would destroy what this country stands for because the D's would do something as "insane" or "dangerous" as treat other faiths as equeal to the christian faiths. Well, studies on the numbers show that most of the appointed judges in this country were appointed by some one with an R in front of thier name (despite all the tears from the R's about all the "lib" judges out there.) Is it any wonder that we've reached this point?

As always, I think there's going to be more to this story.

I'm not condoning the ruling "but" I do want to point out that Wicca is not just "a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

While I'm sure that's part of it I do know that all that is just a fancy way of saying, "witchcraft".

Of course, like any religion, it can be meaningful and powerful, used well and abused.

But let's not cut off the corners of our sandwich here, Wicca is a form of witchcraft.

While I don't know the specifics and I'm sorry, I do have relatives who practice it and the most certainly refer to themselves as witches and warlocks and we're not talking about Dungeons and Dragons here.

If you read on through the article you find suspicious quotes and dubious remarks:

"Wiccans use the language of witchcraft, but it has a different meaning to them," Goff said. "Their practices tend to be rather pacifistic. They tend to revolve around the old pagan holidays. There's not really a church of Wicca. Practices vary from region to region."

I'm sorry but I'm not so relieved when you throw in "tend to's"

"Jones said he does not consider himself a witch or practice anything resembling witchcraft."

At this point, do you think he would say anything but that?

Obviously the judge has a good reason for doing what he did. He may be off based, and I'm not even getting into the debate on whether or not he was right to do so, but tying this into comics we should all know that any well written villian is usually doing something he believes is right, and sometimes, even the heroes do something that they believe ie right, but it doesn't turn out so well.

My point?

Let's wait for more of the facts to come out.

Don't forget Bush The First said that "Athiests should not be considered American citizens"

"Don't forget Bush The First said that "Athiests should not be considered American citizens"

Does that mean i don't have to pay taxes any more? If so, more power to em! Then i'll just let the system take care of me too like other illegals...

I'm sorry but I'm not so relieved when you throw in "tend to's"

"Tend to's" can be applied to any religion. i.e. 'Christanity tends to be charitable' or 'Islam tends to be a religion of peace'

"Jones said he does not consider himself a witch or practice anything resembling witchcraft."

Obviously the judge has a good reason for doing what he did

Bullshit. Unless the judge can point to some specific threat, there is NO good reason for any judge to tell parents what religion they can or cannot raise their child in. And if there is a threat, then the child would need to be removed from the parents who are causing the threat

But let's not cut off the corners of our sandwich here, Wicca is a form of witchcraft.

So? As you say, any religion can be misused. This is not a reason for the government to decide a child's religious upbringing.

This case is no different than if the judge ruled that the child could not be allowed to attend Catholic schools because some priests have abused children.

The good news is that the internet allows us to make this a bigger story than the mainstream media may decide it to be.

Well, this should be a bigger story if it is indeed true.

And it just shows how pathetically useless and afraid the "mainstream" media is these days.

Either they're sucking up the Bush Adminstration lies, or not reporting them at all.

Nobody should be surprised if this story is true, we should only be surprised that something like this hasn't happened before now.

But it will happen again, as long as some Christian right-wingers continue to try and make God the leader of this country in all but name.

But let's not cut off the corners of our sandwich here, Wicca is a form of witchcraft.

And Christianity is a form of of fascism.

See how easy that is?

But hey, the only ones who actually bother to use the terms of "witchcraft" and "devil worshipper" are the Christians, who rule by fear and persecution.

And so what if it were witchcraft? Do you honestly believe that people can suspend the laws of physics at will, merely by muttering a few trite phrases in pseudo-Gaelic or illiterate Latin?

I don't consider "witchcraft" any more dangerous to children than Christian Science, and the rights of Christian Scientist parents to raise their children in their faith has been upheld multiple times - to the point that in some jurisdictions, parents who refused to seek medical treatment for their children because it ran counter to their faith were able to use this as a defense against neglect charges.

Why hold Wiccan parents' faith against them, even if you think it's "witchcraft"? I don't remember an exception anywhere in the First Amendment for "weird religions"...

I know a little about Wicca -- dated a practicioner for 9 months -- and, like any other religion it can be very positive or very negative. There are those who see Wiccan as a force for spiritual renewal and respecting nature, and there are those who try to cast spells on their enemies and gain power and influence. It's no better or worse than other mainstream religions. (I leave it to the fellow PAD fans here to toss out their favorite examples of the good and bad in others.)

That said, the idea of a judge deciding that parents cannot expose their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals" is abhorrent. Parents can raise their children in any belief system -- Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, Islam, atheist, Big Purple Tree Called J -- and as long as nothing is done that's against the law, the parents are perfectly within their rights.

And I can guarantee that you will hear nothing against this from DeLay or the Right Wing. They're already angered the Religious Reich (thanks to INWO for this title) by not keeping Terri Schaivo alive, and for failing to allow up-or-down votes to have pro-life judges automatically approved. There's no way the politicians will seem to act in a way that endorses a non-Christian religion. (You probably won't hear anything from the Democrats either, as they want to make inroads into the once-definite religious base the Republicans used so well last election. It woulda been amusing, if it wasn't to sad, to hear Hilary Clinton talking about domestic partnerships and making sure to say that no Democrat she knows supports gay marriage.)

"Wiccans use the language of witchcraft, but it has a different meaning to them," Goff said. "Their practices tend to be rather pacifistic. They tend to revolve around the old pagan holidays. There's not really a church of Wicca. Practices vary from region to region."

I'm sorry but I'm not so relieved when you throw in "tend to's""

Fine. But you can replace "Wiccans" in that same statement with "Christians" and the same point is made and 100% true (well.. maybe not the pagan holiday part.)
Most any religion tends to vary from region to region. Why do you think that there are so many forms of the Catholic faith? How many Jews do you know with giant beards? Ever heard of a Southern Baptist? They're a wee bit different then the other kinds. Have you counted how many faiths are all based on the same book and the same god (big G) and claiming that the others based on that same book have all got it wrong to some degree?
Same holds true for most, but not all, members of the faith being pacifistic. I can only think of one or two faiths were the standard for joining is being a 100% pacifist and they aint the big C faith.

"But let's not cut off the corners of our sandwich here, Wicca is a form of witchcraft."

Yeah. And a study of the history of the faith shows that many of the followers weren't bad people. It also shows that a few were but you can say that about any faith. Hell, there was even a Pope who was famous for having written a porn novel way back when. Read it in school. Tame as hell by today's standards. That study would also show that a lot of the perception of witchcraft formed first by the Holy Church and later by pop culture was hogwash. Thing is, pop culture just wanted to have fun. The Church went out of its way to tell lies. And, in an example like this but 100 times the scale, the Church and the State got together in merry ol' England and made it against the law to worship any faith but that of the holy Catholic Church and later, after the rift, the Church of England. Granted, back then you could die for your worshipping of the faith but I don't think "just going to jail" is a great step up for a country that claims the goals and ideals that this one does.

I can't wait for this to get overturned and for that little twit to be kicked off the bench.

"But hey, the only ones who actually bother to use the terms of "witchcraft" and "devil worshipper" are the Christians, who rule by fear and persecution."

Now you want to show that you're as dumb as the judge?

I'm Christian. My wife is Catholic. Neither of us use those words unless we're talking about the latest novel coming out or quoting things like this. We don't try and rule by F&P either.
We, like a growing number of mainstreamers, are getting sick of this kind of thing as much as you are. We can't stand the fact that the faith, much like some times in the bad old days, is being hijacked for politics by a bunch of right wing nut jobs (elected or otherwise) and used to make us all look like wingnuts as a whole. It pisses us off to no end to see people winning elections by spewing insane, right wing, hate speach garbage and holding that up as "our country and our faith."
Say what you want but realize that there are a whole lot of Christians out there that worship everyday who despise this kind of thing even more then you do or ever could.

"The good news is that the internet allows us to make this a bigger story than the mainstream media may decide it to be."

Actually, the day this story broke, it was the lead story on the front page of print edition of the Indianapolis Star. I don't know how much national coverage it's had, but since more and more people are getting their news off the net, I think we've got it covered.

Now, on to the particulars... Anyone who actually knows the slightest bit about Wicca knows that the one universal tenet of the faith is, "As it harm none, do as you will." Of course most conservative religions will find such a faith system threatening. A simple admonishment to be good to others (and yourself) and encouragement to explore for yourself doesn't put butts in the pews or cash in the Church coffers, and the Church has done a VERY good job over the years of brainwashing a great many people into reacting negatively when they hear the word "witch."

On a side note, the assumption that anyone who practices the Wiccan faith is a witch or such is just ingorant. If somebody says they're, say, Jewish or Catholic, do we automatically assume they're a rabbi or priest?

What's happened is religious persecution, ladies and gentlemen. The sad thing is, it's happening all the time. This is just one case that's made the media.

-Rex Hondo-

"But you can replace "Wiccans" in that same statement with "Christians" and the same point is made and 100% true (well.. maybe not the pagan holiday part.)"

Actually, a whole lot of, if not most Christian holidays are co-opted Pagan festivals, so that part can stay. ;)

-Rex Hondo-

P.S.- I'll be quiet for a while now.

"Now, on to the particulars... Anyone who actually knows the slightest bit about Wicca knows that the one universal tenet of the faith is, "As it harm none, do as you will."

Some, but not all. There are quite a few Wiccans who follow a darker path. Not evil. Just the same type of path that Christians who believe that "an eye for an eye" is a great thing do. They believe that they are perfectly within thier faith's bounds by attempting to do harm to some one who has tried to harm them and not just wishing them out of thier lives and outa thier way. There are lots who live by the no harm rule but there are still a fair amount who don't.

"And so what if it were witchcraft? Do you honestly believe that people can suspend the laws of physics at will, merely by muttering a few trite phrases in pseudo-Gaelic or illiterate Latin?"

I think you have to be able to twitch your nose, too.

PAD

Rex

"Actually, a whole lot of, if not most Christian holidays are co-opted Pagan festivals, so that part can stay. ;)"

Yeah, I know the whole Easter Bunny and eggs, fir tree, Goddess Brigit, moved holidays to make them Christian, etc list. But you KNEW what I meant.

Smartass.
;(

I'm Christian. My wife is Catholic

Ummm ... I thought that Catholics were also Christians?

>>And I can guarantee that you will hear nothing against this from DeLay or the Right Wing.

Let's just say this straight up; I'm part of the religious right; I'm a Christian Conservative, a fundamentalist.

That said, the judge has no buisness going against the wishes of both parents. I understand (don't like) the courts getting involved when parents are fighting, but not in this case. The states should never step in on the rights of the parents except to save the child from imminent physical danger.

Of course, this just proves the point that judges (on all sides) operate with too much autonomy and no one is able to stop them if they overstop their bounds, unless a superior court decides to intervene.

KIP

// Ummm ... I thought that Catholics were also Christians? //

Depends entirly upon which "Christians" (or which Catholics for that matter), you talk to. There are lots of sects of Christianity that will tell you that Roman Catholics are not only not in the same "class" as them but are inherintly evil and will "rot in hell" with all the Jews, Moslins, Hindus and other non believers. And of course a lot of Roman Catholics consider all other Christians to be "Pegans", no different then Wiccans or Santanist. Even though they both believe in Christ, the specifics can be very different.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at May 30, 2005 12:00 AM

I know. I'm just curious about someone who identifies himself as Christian & his wife as Catholic. I can see 'I'm Protestant & she's Catholic', but this one just seemed unusual.

Michael Brunner,
"I thought that Catholics were also Christians"

I always thought that too. But some Christians, especially the born-again kind, actually hold Catholics in contempt for believing in things like saints. Strange - and sad - but true.

Bladestar and Craig Ries,
I'm not even going to bother putting any of your posts in quotes, because basically they're all the same. Bladestar, if you would use all of this anger you have toward virtually everyone - politicians, religious people, "the wealthy" - and channeled it in a productive way, you and perhaps we would be a lot better off. You're only as "helpless" as you allow yourself to be. It's easy to criticize but hard working with people toward solutions. You should try it sometime.
But at least you're consistent. You don't like any religious people. Unlike you, Craig. Who I have never heard (read) say one bad thing about Islamic fanatics who repress and kill people, or Jews or Buddhists, but see repeatedly bashing Christians. Or as you love to say, "THE CHRISTIANS", who, oh yeah, RULE BY FEAR AND PERSECUTION." My God, you make it sound like they're badass Star Trek villains or something. That it doesn't bother you one bit being a vile bigot toward a whole group of people is quite sad. Of course, this is just the latest asinine generalization you've made. Telling Russ that the military he knew is dead was probably the biggest bunch of bullshit to spew out of your increasingly ignorant mouth. Do you actually KNOW any Christians? Or anybody actively serving in Iraq? I do. I know quite a few of the latter. They are proud of the things they've done to help make people's lives better. What exactly do you do all day besides whining about everything from corporations to the wealthy to the Bush Administration to Christians to the military? Do you ever even try to do something constructive?

Alright, granted, there are going to be those in any faith system, Wicca included, who give lip service to its tenets, then go off and do evil crap anyway. All of which is fairly beside the point of the issue at hand, I think.

If we're waiting for the other side of the story, we'll be waiting for a while. I think we've already gotten all we're going to get. Think about it, if they had evidence the parents were doing blood rituals or some such with the kid, then they'd have a case, and they would say so. If the best argument the judge and company can muster is it's going to confuse him going to a Catholic school, then they don't have a leg to stand on.

-Rex Hondo-

Unlike you, Craig. Who I have never heard (read) say one bad thing about Islamic fanatics who repress and kill people, or Jews or Buddhists, but see repeatedly bashing Christians.

Well, it's the Christians (yes, those evil, evangelical ones) that are ruining this country.

Not the Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists.

None of which are, apparently, "mainstream" enough to hold major positions of power in this country. Like, oh, the presidency.

Do you actually KNOW any Christians?

As shocking as this must be, yes, I do.

Or anybody actively serving in Iraq

Another shocker: yes. The son of two of my married coworkers is currently on his second tour in Iraq.

He hates the fact he's there. So do his parents.

Everybody is proud that he's willing to serve.

Nobody is proud that he's doing it under a bunch of bullshit lies from Bush.

Do you ever even try to do something constructive?

Yep. I sit here and present honesty and truth, as does PAD and many other posters here.

But those are things you won't find coming out of the White House.

If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to stop responding to my posts, because, quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you think about the posts I make.

If you want to bitch, whine and moan about the Islamics, who aren't ruining this country btw, be my guest.

Or, perish the thought, you too could say that, yes, assholes like Pat Robertson and his ilk need to shove off and let this country head back to the land of sanity. Maybe they can pick up this judge in Indiana along the way.

By the way, there's a good reason that religious groups are often referred to as "god-fearing".

Nothing induced obedience like a healthy dose of fear. Don't believe in God? You're going to Hell. Gay? Hell. Voting Democrat? Hell.

And yes, persecution - Jews, Muslims, Wiccans. And, as others have mentioned, even Catholics.

So, quite frankly, I don't see a need to bash these other religions.

Apparently you think I should, just to be consistent? My, aren't you a hypocritical jackass.

So... if this judge says that children can't see non-mainstream religous views... does this mean Battlefield Earth is now rated NC-17? Or do they just assume it was such a bad film that nobody would watch it anyway?

Two thoughts:

1.) If the facts are as stated (which is always a big "if" when it comes to a news story), then I would agree the judge has way overstepped his bounds. Thing is, you find less "conservative" judges doing this. Yes, there are exceptions, such as Moore and the whole 10 commandments rabbit trail. But there is no doubt that Delay is on the side that generally does less damage to what is actually written in the constitution.

2.) I believe people have the right to practice Wicca. But I am amazed at the ignorance there is about the origins of this religion. I know it is not as "coherent" of a system as the major religions, but the teachings and concepts it adopts come from ancient tribal religions that enslaved women and sacrificed children. No, I am not saying the modern form of Wicca embraces those beliefs. But it is fascinating how its origins are not honestly dealt with.

One final thought: The only Christians who want a theocracy are a very fringe group who have no real power or sway over most Christians. Christianity does not have the powerful clerics that Islam has. Even in the Catholic church, the most heirarchical (sp?) part of Christianity, the pope is ignored by a large portion of American Catholics when it comes to things like abortion or birth control. For all of the fear that James Dobson seems to strike in the hearts of some of you, he only has the same sway that a Rev. Jesse Jackson has -- he preaches to the choir. He gives voice to what some Christians think and believe.

Evangelical Christians (or any other form of "Christianity") are not tearing this country apart. Forget, for the moment, Bush winning the last two elections. Look at Congress. It has become much more conservative over the last few years. Conservatives in general, which includes Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, etc., are winning in the arena of ideas. There is no conspiracy. And quite frankly, it could all change tomorrow if democrats actually offered some solid ideas rather than just making fun of Bush and trying to block his ideas.

Bottom line, if the country is being pulled apart, the liberal side is on the other side of that rope in this political tug of war.

Iowa Jim

But let's not cut off the corners of our sandwich here, Wicca is a form of witchcraft.

While I don't know the specifics and I'm sorry, I do have relatives who practice it and the most certainly refer to themselves as witches and warlocks and we're not talking about Dungeons and Dragons here.

What's your point? That because it's "witchcraft" it's not a valid religion in your eyes? Well, that's not your choice to make any more than it is the judge's. Like you, I have some close friends who are practitioners. I even attended a service with them once. It's been an eye-opening experience for me to know them and see them raise their children. If a judge were to deny them their right to practice their faith, I'd want the judge impeached.

Western society has a lot of preconceived ideas about witchcraft that have been passed down over the years, and I'll admit it's a hard habit to break out of. However, these parents should not have their rights taken away by some idiot judge. You should not be so quick to defend the judge based on your own preconceptions either. You say "wait for the facts", well, I don't see where any judge has any place telling an individual what faith they can practice - just to keep from confusing a child. The burden of proof should be a LOT higher.

I know it is not as "coherent" of a system as the major religions, but the teachings and concepts it adopts come from ancient tribal religions that enslaved women and sacrificed children. No, I am not saying the modern form of Wicca embraces those beliefs. But it is fascinating how its origins are not honestly dealt with.

So? Judaism started out as a tribal religion. Christians have used the Bible to justify slavery. Origins are important, but not as important as the modern-day teachings. If we were to disqualify religions based on their origins, then most of them would be tossed out for one reason or another.

Go back far enough, and ALL religions have their roots in similar tribal chuck-another-virgin-in-the-volcano sources.

Besides, Wicca is hardly alone in the ignoring unpleasant episodes from its past department. Do we REALLY want to play another round of "Who's Religion has Committed the Most Atrocities?"

Admittedly, this particular case has gotten me a bit hot under the collar, but it's mildly amusing to me that even though it looks like most, if not all of us agree this judge is a kook, we've still found things to argue about. Gotta love this board. ;)

-Rex Hondo-

We don't have an arena of ideas, only a curtain of bullshit. And the conservatives are definitely winning. They just aren't leading, or governing, or administrating. Their only policy is winning.

"If you want to bitch, whine and moan about the Islamics, who aren't ruining this country btw, be my guest."

I accept the challenge! Dammit, the islamics, jews, Wicca and other non christians need to get off thire collective butts and start ruining this country too! I'm sick of them being lazy and leaving it to the christians. I'm looking at you PAD, why arn't you running for some office?

:)
Jeff Coney
Jeff Coney

Hey look the idiot above me typed his name twice by accident....oh wait.

Jeff Coney

// 2.) I believe people have the right to practice Wicca. But I am amazed at the ignorance there is about the origins of this religion. I know it is not as "coherent" of a system as the major religions, but the teachings and concepts it adopts come from ancient tribal religions that enslaved women and sacrificed children. No, I am not saying the modern form of Wicca embraces those beliefs. But it is fascinating how its origins are not honestly dealt with. //

Might want to take an actual look at the Christian Bible before you get on your high horse. Did Wicca come from traditions that endorse slavery? Maybe? But the Bible also has several passages in it that say Slavery is ok, (and indeed the Bible was used by many to justify the holding of Blacks as Slaves in Pre Civil War Times). The Bible also has dozens of passages that seem to exist for no other reason then to hold women back, it's a men's Bible and when the rules are laid down men definatly got the better deal. And then of course there's all the bigotry and hated in there, (gays are bad, Jews are bad, non believers are bad). Passages that have been used by believers to justify such atrocities as lyching, gay bashing, slavery, the Crusades, restricting civil rights from certain areas of the population and, oh yeah, what was that big thing that happened 50 years ago or so, several million died horribly and systematically, you know, the Holocust. A lot of religions have "blood on thier hands", (so to speak), how come Christianity gets a free pass for realitivly recent crimes, and for doctrine that still in thier holy book, but Wiccins get condemmed for stuff that happend 100's, (if not thousands) of years ago, that for the most part, they don't follow anymore?

Rex wrote- Do we REALLY want to play another round of "Who's Religion has Committed the Most Atrocities?"

No, not really, and I think we're off on a rather nasty tangent.

The main problem in this specific instance seems to be a judge who needs to get some sense knocked into him - or at least read a few books on Wicca.

Too bad we can't force people to truly learn about religions before they make judgements - whether in court or on a posting board.

PAD wrote: I think you have to be able to twitch your nose, too.

That's it! I *knew* I was forgetting something. ::goes off to practice her nose wiggling:: :)

Obviously the judge has a good reason for doing what he did

Excuse me while I go dislodge the slice of toast I just inhaled.

"Well, this should be a bigger story if it is indeed true.

And it just shows how pathetically useless and afraid the "mainstream" media is these days.

Either they're sucking up the Bush Adminstration lies, or not reporting them at all.

Geeze...it's not ALWAYS about Bush, y'know. The story ain't that old, doesn't really shake the world, and BTW we are discussing it on a blog devoted to (an admittedly great) comic book writer so I'm thinking the news actually HAS pierced the darkness. So it's not real great evidence of the republican/media axis o' evil.

Meanwhile, in Italy, a writer goes on trial for saying bad things about Islam. This gets hardly any play. Something to think about for those considering the EU as a possible destination when they flee Amerikkka.

But let's not cut off the corners of our sandwich here, Wicca is a form of witchcraft.

Even if true, so what? There's no reason to think that child sacrifices are part of the current dogma, any more than we Catholics need to explain that the burning of heretics is part of Tuesday's bingo nights.

There are those who see Wiccan as a force for spiritual renewal and respecting nature, and there are those who try to cast spells on their enemies and gain power and influence.

Wouldn't people kind of figure out at some point that spells don't work? I teach some kids at school who are "Satanists" and claim to be able to do spells and crap but I have to wonder why they have never tried the mystic Chant of Non-Greasy Hair or the Incantation to Clear Up Acne. personally I think the whole thing is little more than a chapter from The Book Of Ways To Piss Off Your Parents.

And I can guarantee that you will hear nothing against this from DeLay or the Right Wing.

It wasn't too long ago that they were being told to butt out of criticizing judges rulings...now they will be criticized for not doing just that...once again, another case of it all depending on whose ox is getting gored.

I think you have to be able to twitch your nose, too.

See, that's why Jeannie was so much more powerful than Samantha....it's hard to twitch your nose but anyone can nod their head.

Well, it's the Christians (yes, those evil, evangelical ones) that are ruining this country.

Not the Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists.

None of which are, apparently, "mainstream" enough to hold major positions of power in this country. Like, oh, the presidency.

Gee, according to many in Europe it's those evil Jews (or "neocons" if you want to speak in code) that are running the country. Part of the whole Zionist plot, dontcha know. Sounds nutty as hell, though not much worse than "it's the Christians (yes, those evil, evangelical ones) that are ruining this country".

Just one little thing. No self respecting Wiccan I know (and I know, well, a lot of 'em) would ever refer to themselves as a warlock.

And as for suspending the laws of physics, they're just being bent in different ways. The power of belief and the mind can do that....

Since I've taken so much heat for saying "I'm sure the judge had a good reason for doing what he did" allow me to clarify what I meant.

I in no way meant to say that I personaly thought he was justified and that he was right, I merely meant that I was sure he himself had a good reason, or at least, he felt he had a good reason, not that the reason was actually right.

There is a difference and if you bothered to read anything else that I said and kept it in context you would have saw that.

But I like how everyone wants to dismiss Wicca and witchcraft practices as silly since they don't belive in them. Harmless!

However, I also only meant to say that like any other religion, it can be dangerous if taken too far and many Wiccans take their religion very, very seriously. As I said, I have relatives and they do take it seriously enough to call themselves witches and warlocks and believe in spells and other such things.

And sometimes believing can be more dangerous than it actually being true.

Everyone wants to jump on the religion aspect, I myself choose to believe it was the judge trying to protect the kid. I could be wrong but that's how it struck me.

And not once did I say that I thought the judge was actually right, but if in fact he had reason to believe that the parents were harming the child with their beliefs than I have to give him points for at least trying (it's not like he doesn't know it will be overturned).

Sometimes trying and knowing you'll fail is better than not trying at all.

I'm not naive, I'm just not so jaded yet.

I think Craig said it all perfectly above...

Christine commented:
"PAD wrote: I think you have to be able to twitch your nose, too.

That's it! I *knew* I was forgetting something. ::goes off to practice her nose wiggling:: :)"

I'd take Samantha Stevens over Jeannie any day :)

So.... 'neocon' is code for Jewish? So... Bush, Chaney et al are Jewish?

Who knew?

Talk about a cover-up...

The only Christians who want a theocracy are a very fringe group who have no real power or sway over most Christians

Unless you count both Bushes, Frist, DeLay, and seceral others. These are just the top of the list.

Christianity does not have the powerful clerics that Islam has

Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson's son
James Dobson
Donald Wildmon

For all of the fear that James Dobson seems to strike in the hearts of some of you, he only has the same sway that a Rev. Jesse Jackson has -- he preaches to the choir

Except Dobson's choir occupies the White House, top positions in congress, and seats on the Supreme Court.

if the country is being pulled apart, the liberal side is on the other side of that rope in this political tug of war.

Yes, because the liberals are the ones
* saying those with different values are condemed to hell
* People who don't fall into lockstep with the government are 'anti-American', 'unpatriotic', and 'hate America'.

yes, liberals do their share, but to say the blame is only on the liberals, or any one side alone, is crap.

I know it is not as "coherent" of a system as the major religions, but the teachings and concepts it adopts come from ancient tribal religions that enslaved women and sacrificed children. No, I am not saying the modern form of Wicca embraces those beliefs. But it is fascinating how its origins are not honestly dealt with.

Nearly all religions have been used as such. There are still those today who use the Bible to justify that women are secondary to men & should obey their fathers &/or husbands.

And I can guarantee that you will hear nothing against this from DeLay or the Right Wing.

It wasn't too long ago that they were being told to butt out of criticizing judges rulings...now they will be criticized for not doing just that...once again, another case of it all depending on whose ox is getting gored.

No, the point of this is will they condemn this "judicial activism" or will they keep quiet when it's a ruling they will agree with?

I in no way meant to say that I personaly thought he was justified and that he was right, I merely meant that I was sure he himself had a good reason, or at least, he felt he had a good reason, not that the reason was actually right.

I myself only question the "he had a good reason" part. If he did, then when didn't he say so in his decision? The only justification he cited was that the kid might be confused by being exposed to more than 1 belief system. If this is true, then why not bar the parents from sending the kid to Catholic school?

BTW, If a kid could be so easily confused if he/she is exposed to more than 1 belief system, then wouldn't this be an argument against teaching Creationism or prayer in school? Or will all parents be barred from exposing their children to any religion other than the one taught in school?

One final thought: The only Christians who want a theocracy are a very fringe group who have no real power or sway over most Christians.

Really?

So, when those in the fringe called for the removal of judges and whatnot after the Terry Schiavo case, DeLay and company *did not* leap to their side and offer up the same asanine opinions?

The "fringe" seems to have more power than you think, Jim.

Evangelical Christians (or any other form of "Christianity") are not tearing this country apart.

This is no longer a battle of ideas in Congress & the White House. It's about, as somebody else called it, "winning".

Nuclear option on the filibuster? The Repubs wanted to take that route because they weren't getting their way, whining and crying like 2-year olds in the candy isle. They want total control, at any cost.

Almost forgot - a state legislator in New Jersey is trying to get the Devils hockey team to change their name & logo because of it's symbolism.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=4&u=/ap/20050529/ap_on_sp_ho_ne/hkn_devils_name_change

well, first things first, why hasn't this clear cut Church/State issue been taken care of by the state supreme court throwing out his ruling, and why is this Judge not being disciplined for letting his personal beliefs dictate a ruling that has to go by our constitution?

inanity, all of it...

Insanity, that is...

So.... 'neocon' is code for Jewish? So... Bush, Chaney et al are Jewish?

Who knew?

Talk about a cover-up...

Oh, well, you see, they might not be jewish per se but smarter folks than I have said that they are under the thumb of the all powerful Israel lobby and Jewish controlled media. The most powerful neo-cons, whether they be jewish (Wolfowitz,Tommy Franks (who knew?),Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, etc) or just dupes of the Israeli State (Bush, Cheney) all make their foreign policy decisions solely on how it will best benefit Israel.

Paranoid anti-semitism? Sure, I'd think so but I guess I'm just not smart enough to connect the dots.

Actually, it's pretty inane, too, in addition to being insane.

Man, that's another of those things that just bugs me about English. Someone who isn't insane is sane. But something that isn't inane isn't described as "ane."

PAd

well, first things first, why hasn't this clear cut Church/State issue been taken care of by the state supreme court throwing out his ruling, and why is this Judge not being disciplined for letting his personal beliefs dictate a ruling that has to go by our constitution?

Due process. An appeal has to be filed & then the petitioners have to wait their turn to face the court. They can request that the case be expedited, but as it isn't a life-threatening matterit might not happen.

"I'm looking at you PAD, why arn't you running for some office?"

Oh yeah, I can just see it.

"Please vote for me on election day."

"Nah..."

"Why not, you idiot?"

Sure. That'll work.

PAD

PAD

"And as for suspending the laws of physics, they're just being bent in different ways. The power of belief and the mind can do that...."

Okay, that's got to be, hands down, one of the stupidest statements ever to appear on these boards.

You know, if Wiccans, or any other group for that matter, could actually demonstrate ANY supernatural abilities whatsoever, they would instantly become the most popular belief system out there.

I always wondered why, in the Marvel Universe, churches devoted to the Norse Gods didn't start springing up all over he place. They'd have a great slogan--something like "OUR God is real...and he just beat up Stilt-Man!" and the kids could join up with the Church of Loki just to honk off Mom and Dad.

"I always wondered why, in the Marvel Universe, churches devoted to the Norse Gods didn't start springing up all over the place."

Well...they did. We did it first in 2099 with the Church of Thor and the Thorites. And then it was eventually done in the pages of the Thor comic just a couple years ago.

PAD

Wasn't Nate Grey worshipped as a God when he was alive?

No, Tom, I'd have to say that honor goes to Iowa Jim, and his claim that Wicca comes from a tribal tradition that "enslaves women and sacrifices children."

You mean like those passages in Leviticus that make a female worth intrinsically less than a male, or that tell us that we may take slaves from neighboring countries?

Or are you referring to such obviously "enslaved" women as Boadiccea?

Jim, my friend, even a careless reading of the Old Testament will show that JudeoChristianity is hardly clean on this score...

(Of course, this also leads me to the poster above who claimed that discrimination against Jews is in the Bible. This ignores the plainly stated fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and was often referred to as "Rabbi", as well as ignoring Paul's entire Epistle to the Hebrews...)

// (Of course, this also leads me to the poster above who claimed that discrimination against Jews is in the Bible. This ignores the plainly stated fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and was often referred to as "Rabbi", as well as ignoring Paul's entire Epistle to the Hebrews...) //

Yes, but then again the "Christians" who have used the Bible for Jew Bashing pretty much since the time Jesus died have had no trouble ignoring those facts so I didn't have any trouble ignoring them either. There's plenty of contridictory stuff in the Bible, (both new and old testimates). Most people practice what has been termed "cafiteria style religion", that is they take what they like and ignore what they don't. It's that kind of logic that leads people to ignore such passages as "Thou Shalt Not Kill", "judge not least yea be judged" and "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and go right to the parts about Gays being an abomination who don't deserve to live and will rot in hell for thier sins.

I have met an awful lot of christians and Catholics who are completly unaware that Jesus was Jewish, (seriously), but they know the Jews were responcible for his death. That's a little factiod they've been told all thier lives and, like it or not, there's plenty in the Gospells to support that interpretation. Historical fact, Hitler used the term "Christ-Killers" in speachs and Nazi propaganda to whip up anti-Jewish feelings. The Catholic Church only recently absolved Jews of thier guilt over thier lords death, (how nice of them).

Like it or not, the Jew Bashing stuff is in the Bible, it's contridicted by a ton of other stuff but that's not the same as saying it isn't there. People have been using those "Jew Bashing" passages to justify bigotry, oppression, murder and even genicide (see the Holocust), since Christ left the world 2000+ years ago. To think otherwise shows an outstanding denial of real world history.

So, when those in the fringe called for the removal of judges and whatnot after the Terry Schiavo case, DeLay and company *did not* leap to their side and offer up the same asanine opinions?

The "fringe" seems to have more power than you think, Jim.

I used a very specific word: "Theocracy." That means setting up God as the monarch, the real king of our country. Your example has nothing to do with setting up a theocracy. Unless you want to arbitrarily say any thought derived from a religious source, or that happens to agree with the same, is an attempt to establish a theocracy. If that is the case, then there is no room for discussion. You have already ruled out a line of reasoning that you personally have rejected. I doubt that is actually the case, but that is the logic that is being used against Christian beliefs.

Iowa Jim

You know, since the judge didn't define "mainstream religion", there's nothing stopping the parents from saying that Wicca IS a mainstream religion, is there?

Christianity does not have the powerful clerics that Islam has

Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson's son
James Dobson
Donald Wildmon

You have got to be kidding me! You are comparing apples to oranges. Dobson and Robertson are no different than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. They are not clerics who control hit squads. They are not religious icons who are instigating terroristic acts. The few that do (Jim Jones, the occasional bomber of abortion clinics, etc.) are most definitely on the fringe.

There is no doubt that James Dobson is an influential figure. But it is not the power of a cleric. His power is the same as that of a Rush Limbaugh or a Molly Ivins. They tell the story from their point of view and try to motivate people to action. PAD does the same on this site, and that is his right.

I agree that in my short 38 years, I don't remember it being this polarized. But I am very plugged into the Christian right. I occasionally listen to Dobson. I come across things from Robertson. I never, ever hear them suggesting any thing other than appropriate political action (such as voting or calling your conrgressman or senator). And quite frankly, I don't agree with a lot of what Pat Robertson says and don't always agree with Dobson.

So called "right wing" Christians/Evangelicals are not mind numbed robots who wait for marching orders and then blindly accept them. Nor do we want to take away over the country and set up a theocracy. On certain issues (eg., abortion), we do have a moral view on the issue that does have roots in both common sense and our belief that the Bible is a revelation from God. So what? Others have views based on many other sources.

One last thought: Delay, Bush, etc., do not necessarily represent most Christian's viewpoints on every issue anymore than Bill Clinton represented all of the democrats views on issues. All leaders play the political game.

Iowa Jim

Might want to take an actual look at the Christian Bible before you get on your high horse.

Actually, I have read it quite extensively. First, although the Bible did permit slavery, it vastly improved it and protected those who were slaves. The same is true about women. When you the Jewish culture to other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, the biblical standards were as revolutionary as our freeing slaves was in the 1800's and our insisting on civil rights was in the late 1900's. You don't change societies overnight, and so I have no problem living with the fact that the Bible permitted slavery.

Second, I agree that atrocities and injustices have been done in the name of virtually every religion, including Christianity. My point was not to compare religions at their worst. Instead, my reference was to go back to the core teachings that established the religions. As I mentioned above, biblical standards always improved the lives of people in the culture in which they were given. It put a far higher value on human life. The principle of "an eye for an eye" was an improvement because it limited the retribution. You could no longer kill someone because they put out your eye. It was not a barbaric requirement that equal pain be inflicted on the other party. Instead, it stopped the cycle of violence by limiting the justice that could be executed in response.

When it comes to the source of Wicca, here is a quote from a Wicca website:

"Thanks to archaeological discoveries, we now have basis to believe that the origins of our belief system can be traced even further back to the Paleolithic peoples who worshipped a Hunter God and a Fertility Goddess."

http://www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm

That religion believed in sympathetic magic. That means they would enact rituals in the hopes that the "gods" would then follow. These practices regularly included using women as sexual objects (this was NOT an "orgy" where it was enjoyable for all; it was a power/control issue of a man dominating a woman). And that is just one example.

My point? Wicca claims to be descended from the very same pagan religions that would use and abuse people in an effort to make the gods do as they asked. Have Christians tried to the same? Perhaps on occassion, but reading the Bible shows that was not what we were taught to do. There is a radical difference between the two religious systems.

Iowa Jim

I never, ever hear them suggesting any thing other than appropriate political action

Like when Robertson said he wanted to put a nuclear bomb under the state department building?

Let's face it, folks. The ancient world could be a very violent and ugly place. I have no doubt that followers of traditions today loosely followed by Wiccans could be savage to modern sensibilities (just like lots of stuff done in Christ's name was and is savage).

This is besides the point. I know plenty of MODERN Wiccans and they're no more threatening than the average Christian (they're often less threatening actually in my humble agnostic oppinion).

What should be discussed here is, why the f... it would be considered abusive or endangering to teach your kid "witchcraft" if that is what you want? Is it any different than teach them to pray to the saints or whatever rocks your boat?

As long as said rituals don't involve exposing the child to physical violence, sex, or drugs, what is the damn problem? Endangering the child's immortal soul? That is only a problem from the Christian perspective, but the parents aren't Christians...

// Actually, I have read it quite extensively. First, although the Bible did permit slavery, it vastly improved it and protected those who were slaves. The same is true about women. When you the Jewish culture to other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, the biblical standards were as revolutionary as our freeing slaves was in the 1800's and our insisting on civil rights was in the late 1900's. You don't change societies overnight, and so I have no problem living with the fact that the Bible permitted slavery.

Second, I agree that atrocities and injustices have been done in the name of virtually every religion, including Christianity. My point was not to compare religions at their worst. Instead, my reference was to go back to the core teachings that established the religions. As I mentioned above, biblical standards always improved the lives of people in the culture in which they were given. It put a far higher value on human life. The principle of "an eye for an eye" was an improvement because it limited the retribution. You could no longer kill someone because they put out your eye. It was not a barbaric requirement that equal pain be inflicted on the other party. Instead, it stopped the cycle of violence by limiting the justice that could be executed in response.

When it comes to the source of Wicca, here is a quote from a Wicca website:

"Thanks to archaeological discoveries, we now have basis to believe that the origins of our belief system can be traced even further back to the Paleolithic peoples who worshipped a Hunter God and a Fertility Goddess."

http://www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm

That religion believed in sympathetic magic. That means they would enact rituals in the hopes that the "gods" would then follow. These practices regularly included using women as sexual objects (this was NOT an "orgy" where it was enjoyable for all; it was a power/control issue of a man dominating a woman). And that is just one example.

My point? Wicca claims to be descended from the very same pagan religions that would use and abuse people in an effort to make the gods do as they asked. Have Christians tried to the same? Perhaps on occassion, but reading the Bible shows that was not what we were taught to do. There is a radical difference between the two religious systems. //

Sorry, your whole argument still doesn't hold up, basically you hold Christian/Jewish beliefs up as self correcting, (hey they did allow slaves but not any more), while ignoring the fact that Wiccans have also self correted. Thus Wiccan's get held to a standard of things that happened 100's/1000's of years ago, and don't happen anymore, but Christians/Jews get a free pass on past mistakes.
(You also ignore mistakes still being made, like the whole "hate gays", "Jews are Bad" "anyone who doesn't believe as we do will be condemmed to eternal torment", mistakes not currently being made by the other religions you put Christianty above, but hey lets not quible).

As far as the Bible not teaching scarfice, ect, to get on thier Gods good sides, you might want to check that old testimat again, not only were there tons of animal scarfices but Abraham was ready and willing to sacrifice his son because God told him to, (And yes I know God changed his mind at the last minute but that doesn't change the point that us humans had no problem scarficing human life for God, something in the Bible you give a "free pass" but judge other religions for).

There's also an awful lot of orgies in there and the last time I looked Christianity still has plenty of rules that have no other purpose but to keep women in thier place. But apparently keeping the women folks down in the here and now is morally superior then some forced orgies that happened a few thousand years ago that has no effect on any one actually living today.

Once again, you might want to think a little before stepping on your high horse.

I always wondered why, in the Marvel Universe, churches devoted to the Norse Gods didn't start springing up all over the place."

Well...they did. We did it first in 2099 with the Church of Thor and the Thorites. And then it was eventually done in the pages of the Thor comic just a couple years ago.

Well, there you go. Boy, there was a time when I could have written an encyclopedia of the Marvel Universe but those days are obviously long gone. (I do wish I'd jumped on board the whole 2099 thing when it came out).

Unless you want to arbitrarily say any thought derived from a religious source, or that happens to agree with the same, is an attempt to establish a theocracy.

I suppose that depends on how many countries God has told Bush to bomb, doesn't it?

Which was my point: When our president says he's been told to do something by god (like, bombing the hell out of innocents), I think it's time for said president to take a hike, because it might as well be putting a god in a position of leadership.

It's why I've never understood the Catholic church, even though I'm baptized - they have the Pope, the Speaker for God (in a nutshell).

Why? Why the hell does anybody need the Pope to tell them what god supposedly says? Can't people figure it out for themselves?

First, although the Bible did permit slavery, it vastly improved it and protected those who were slaves.

A slave is a slave is a slave.

There's no way to "improve" slavery short of abolishing it.

Iowa Jim: But I am amazed at the ignorance there is about the origins of this religion. I know it is not as "coherent" of a system as the major religions, but the teachings and concepts it adopts come from ancient tribal religions that enslaved women and sacrificed children. No, I am not saying the modern form of Wicca embraces those beliefs. But it is fascinating how its origins are not honestly dealt with.
Luigi Novi: Much of which can be said of any other religion, including Christianity.

Iowa Jim: I used a very specific word: "Theocracy." That means setting up God as the monarch, the real king of our country. Your example has nothing to do with setting up a theocracy. Unless you want to arbitrarily say any thought derived from a religious source, or that happens to agree with the same, is an attempt to establish a theocracy.
Luigi Novi: Except that we all know that we're not talking about "any thought." We're talking about LEGAL RULINGS and other LEGAL efforts to force people to live by the religion of one group.

Iowa Jim: My point? Wicca claims to be descended from the very same pagan religions that would use and abuse people in an effort to make the gods do as they asked. Have Christians tried to the same? Perhaps on occassion, but reading the Bible shows that was not what we were taught to do.
Luigi Novi: Oh really? So when God commanded his followers to bring him the foreskins of those in a neighboring tribe, that wasn't abuse? When God slaughtered the first born sons of Egypt, that wasn't abuse?

// Why? Why the hell does anybody need the Pope to tell them what god supposedly says? Can't people figure it out for themselves? //

Why did I have the sudden image of James T Kirk asking "um, excuse me, Why would God need a starship?"

I haven't been reading the thread (i will later). I just wanted to add that this lack of separation is happening more and more frequently.

As reported in the Jewish Advocate (jewish boston newspaper) Check out the article in the bottom left hand corner (only good for this week 05/27-06/02).

http://www.thejewishadvocate.com

A quote from said article to help give the gist of it:
"Recent Graduate Casey Weinstein claims he was subject to proselytizing by his teachers, restriction of kosher food, the inability to observe the Sabbath and Christian themed parties sponsored by the academy."

And then a quote from later on by Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State told this to the Jewish Advocate:
"There is a clear preference for Christianity at the academy, so that everyone else feels like a second class citizen."

I'll try and find a better link for the entire story if I can. this will have to do for now.

I do wish I'd jumped on board the whole 2099 thing when it came out

You didn't miss much. Spider-Man & the early issues of the Punisher were the only ones worth reading.

Why the hell does anybody need the Pope to tell them what god supposedly says?

Because for centuries non-clergy were not allowed to read the bible, let alone consider or discuss it.

//a slave is a slave is a slave.//

True and not true. Yes a slave, in the traditional sense of any person being held in thrall against their will, is a slave is a slave. The biblical definition of slavery is quite different. It provides for indentured servitude, or signing up to work for someone for a period of years without pay, but with some recompense at the end. It was a VOLUNTARY action taken only by people who were destitute. You would work for someone for a period of four to seven years, and at the end of that term, you were released with some money, and reinstituted as an equal member of society. This is the same idea that was used in our country at it's founding. Slavery in America grew up out of this when Black people started being treated differently. True, there are better ways of dealing with poverty (like social security) but still, this isn't forcible capture of innocents. Also, as to the idea that we are supposed to follow the old testament exactly, it surprises me that no one has EVER mentioned the fact that the rules were that harsh because the Israelites backslid at every opportunity. Moses leaves for 40 days, they can SEE the storm on the mountain, and what do they do? make a golden calf. C'mon, if you were God, you'd crack down too.

Like when Robertson said he wanted to put a nuclear bomb under the state department building?

Say what? That is a new one. I would love to get the full context. It was a stupid thing to say if he really did say it, but anyone who listens to him knows it was in no way a command or request or even a hope that it would happen. I would vote for McCain before I voted for Robertson. He really is a nut at times. But he is not as influential as Dobson or other conservative Christian leaders.

Iowa Jim

A slave is a slave is a slave.

There's no way to "improve" slavery short of abolishing it.

No, there are many forms of slavery. Ancient slavery was not the modern racial type of slavery we had here in America. It was an indentured servant in some cases, and a captive in another. Either way, it was the only way for them to eat. There was not welfare system. There was no economy to support them.

You also are forgetting (or do not know) that the Israelite legal system mandated the freeing of all indentured servants on the year of Jubilee (every 49 years). While it is likely this was not practiced as the Jewish Law required, it in essence should have freed all of the Jewish slaves on a regular basis. There would not have been the generations of slaves as we had here in America. (As I recall, this was not true for "alien" slaves, most of whom were captives from war. But there was stict rules of how to treat them. This was more humane since it served as a welfare system and took care of their essential needs.)

I agree that the ultimate solution is to abolish it, but you are living in a dream world if you think it could have been abolished overnight 2,000 years ago, even within the confines of the nation of Israel. The reality is, Christianity is the religion that led the way to obliterate slavery worldwide. You don't find any other world religion doing so. It is the same Christianity that established hospitals and orphanages, and has taken care of the poor and the abused. Yes, it has not had a perfect track record, but who does? The reality is Christianity has done much to make America a place of freedom, including freedom of religion. Name me any nation that has allowed the freedom of religion that we have enjoyed that did not have a strong Christian foundation? You don't find it among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other tribal religion. So it is rather frustrating to hear people say it is Christianity that is the threat to our freedom. That is not the case. It has, on occasion, been twisted that way, as has any religion or philosophy. But it consistently has been a religion that embraces freedom.

Iowa Jim

In June, Robertson told his television audience, "Well, it looks like Congress had better do something, and maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up."

October 2003
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/740.html

Foggy Bottom is where the U.S. State Department building is located.

// The reality is, Christianity is the religion that led the way to obliterate slavery worldwide. //

And your source on this would be? Saying it doesn't make it so.

//You don't find any other world religion doing so. //

Well aside from the fact that there were abolitionist who were not Christians, (some were athiest, some were quakers, ect. ect), And there were plenty of Christian preachers telling the faithful that holding black people as Slaves was perfectly OK, (said so in the Bible, see), it should also be pointed out that several eastern religions were preaching the golden rule, (including forbidding slavery) years before Christ birth. Abolishing Slavery was a social issue that included religion, not a religious issue that became social.

// It is the same Christianity that established hospitals and orphanages, //

Bull, hosptials and orphanages existed in places before the Christians came, hell at one time the best medical care you could get was in the Muslin controlled countries.

// and has taken care of the poor and the abused. //

Again this is not unique to Christianty.

// Yes, it has not had a perfect track record, but who does? The reality is Christianity has done much to make America a place of freedom, including freedom of religion. //

Bull. It's the fundumentalist Christian Right that attempts to squash religious freedom every chance they get. And the people who came up with the concept of "freedom of Religion" were for the most part not Christian. They were a group of radical guys, some were Freemasons, some were Quakers, some were Athiest and Agnostics, and none of them thought government and religion should ever mix.

// Name me any nation that has allowed the freedom of religion that we have enjoyed that did not have a strong Christian foundation? //

The myth that this county was founded on a Christian foundation has been debunked so many times, but like many lies if you keep saying it people keep believing it. The people who first landed here weren't even Christians, they were for the most part, Quakers. Many of our founding farthers, (you know the guys who thought up the freedom of religion concept), were at best, non religious, and at worst outright athiest. Christianity has nothing to do with the constitution, other then the people who wrote it were aware of Christianity and a few of them may have practiced it. The same could be said to be true of the charter of any organization, so what? You can't draw a line from one to the other without either changing history or making incredible leaps in logic. Of course that hasn't stopped the religious right from doing just that over the years.

// You don't find it among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other tribal religion. //

Bull, Buddhist and Hindus are incredibly tolarent of other religions and beliefs. And the only problem most Jews have with other religions is when those religions have people strap bombs to themselves and blow up thier citizens. Which seems a resonable complaint, don't you think.

// So it is rather frustrating to hear people say it is Christianity that is the threat to our freedom. //

Not Christianity per say, just radical religious Christian right, many of whom are currently in power or very close to those who are. Could radical Muslisms, Jews, ect. be a threat, sure, but they currently aren't close to the power base in this county, hence they aren't the big threat.

Name me any nation that has allowed the freedom of religion that we have enjoyed that did not have a strong Christian foundation? You don't find it among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other tribal religion. So it is rather frustrating to hear people say it is Christianity that is the threat to our freedom. That is not the case. It has, on occasion, been twisted that way, as has any religion or philosophy. But it consistently has been a religion that embraces freedom.

I got one for you: America. America is not a Christian country (though it is predominantly Christian). It was not founded on christian principles (as the constitution does a pretty good job separating religion from government). You want to call it Deism, fine; a humanistic approach, fine. Christian, nope.

And for the record, historically speaking, Jews generally were treated better (up until this past century) in Muslim countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Turkey) than they were in Christian countries (Spain, France, Russia, England, most of Eastern Europe). And even this past century hasn't been so hot for the Jews in Europe. I would say it more inconstantly embraced freedom (which is the case of most religions, even mine-Judaism). But it, like all religions, is still evolving, and I really do have the utmost respect for Christianity and those practicing Christianity. I just get bothered (and a little scared) when Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is used as a measuring stick for government decisions.

It is the same Christianity that established hospitals and orphanages, and has taken care of the poor and the abused.

Yes, that is true, though that can be said of Islam, Judaism, and many other religions. Christianity is amazing at charity, it is something to be respected and admired, yet does not hold a monopoly on charitable actions and organizations world wide.

I'm not quite sure how this tangent started, but to get back onto the main topic, even if a religion is not mainstream that does not give the government to legislate how a parent raises a child. The only way the government should be able to intervene is if said religion was dangerous and harmful towards the child, which wicca, in it's current practice in America, is not.

The wall seperating church and state is slowly crumbling. As I posted previously, this is a link to more of the story.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/airforce.religion/

Michael Brunner

""I'm Christian. My wife is Catholic"

Ummm ... I thought that Catholics were also Christians?"

Yes they are. But the churches I grew up around were the types of chuches that viewed Catholics as lost and the people that killed/destroyed the faith. Jenn's been around Catholic churches that were as tight about who a Catholic could date or wed as some Orthodox Jews are. If you weren't Catholic you needed to convert or bug off. While neither of us live by those standards (nor, thankfully, do are parents) we still tend to seperate "Christian" & "Catholic" when talking about faiths and standards of belief.
Not that we care really. Just kinda habit.

I'm not quite sure about this new tangent. But it underscores a lesser point from my other posts. The faith gets highjacked by someone who wants to hold it up while trashing some other faith. All religions have a history of leaders and followers that acted like pinheads, did bad things and rewrote the books to get away with murder. No one religion, to me, is better or worse then any other. Now, what the leaders do with it and what the people allow themselves to be talked out of or into doing is another matter all together. But you can't knock a faith for what the most vocal, and most often minority, voices are kicking up.

Oh, and if anyone is so stupid as to think that being a slave under Christian values isn't really all that bad then come on down/up/over to VA. I could really use all the free lawn help I can get and promise to only abuse you in Christian ways.

I would just like to make a point of clarification. Christian and Catholic is not the same thing.

A Christian is one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Christianity is a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history.
Thus anyone who believes in the teachings of Christ is a Christian this includes Quakers (a Christian sect founded by George Fox about 1660; commonly called Quakers [syn: Religious Society of Friends, Society of Friends, Quakers]) and Puritans(A member of a group of English Protestants who in the 16th and 17th centuries advocated strict religious discipline along with simplification of the ceremonies and creeds of the Church of England.)
To say that Quakers are not Christians is just wrong. Also most of the founding fathers were religious Christians as was the custom for that time, to claim that this country was not founded by Christians is just wrong. Unless you are referring to the Indians who were here before the white men came, and their religion more closely resembles Wicca than not.

The reason for the separation of Church and State as set forth in the Bill of Rights was because our founding fathers were cognizant of the fact the first colonies that were set up in the new world were done by people seeking to escape from religious persecution. Something that this Judge seems to have forgotten.

I would just like to make a point of clarification. Christian and Catholic is not the same thing.

A Christian is one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Christianity is a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history.
Thus anyone who believes in the teachings of Christ is a Christian...

I'm confused. Are you saying catholics aren't cChristians or that they are christians. Based on your definition it sounds like "not all christians are catholic, but all Catholics are Christian", which is what I thought to begin with.

to claim that this country was not founded by Christians is just wrong.

I don't know who's saying that, I just meant that the founding fathers weren't using Christian doctorine or theology in regards to the founding of the country, thus - as you said, they created to seperation between church and state.

Craig,
"Yep. I present honesty and truth"

Oh, you have a monopoly on what is the truth? Why don't you include justice and the American Way while you're at it. Oh, I forgot, you don't care for Superman.

"as does PAD and many other posters here."

In other words, the ones you agree with. You can always tell an insecure person when he has to point out that "OTHER PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME" rather than making a point on the merits. Something that it seems outside of your capabilities to do.

"But those are things you won't find coming out of the White House"

No. No. Of course not. YAWN.

"If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to stop responding to my posts, because, quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you think about the posts I make."

What a wonderful, open-minded little progressive you are, so receptive to different opinions.

"If you want to bitch, whine and moan about the Islamics, who aren't ruining this country, btw, be my guest."

Hold it right there. That is NOT what I said. I NEVER said that. I NEVER broadly condemned all practitioners of Islam. See, unlike you, I don't bash a whole group of people based on the actions of a few or because they beleve in things I don't.
What I DID condemn was Islamic FANATICS, who actually kill people. And I have yet to see you (or many here) have one angry word to say about those who have chopped off heads and fly planes into buildings than you do over a case like this, which is an anomaly and will likely be overturned.
Don't you see what the danger is here?
If EVERY time something like this happens you turn your outrage meter to 10, then if jack-booted thugs ever do start breaking down doors, if rights truly are repressed no one will listen because you are screaming at the top of your lungs every day over minor incidents and abuses that don't exist.
THAT is scary. So is your justifying hating a whole group of people. That is what skinheads do. That is what militant blaCKS do. That is what anti-semitic people do.
You really want to be like them? Be my guest.

"So, quite frankly, I don't see a need to bash these other religions. Apparently, you think I should, just to be consistent?"

Apparently, you need to take a course in reading comprehension. I am saying that bashing any group in broad strokes like you do with Christians is an ugly, disgusting thing to do.

"My, aren't you a hypocritical jackass."

My, don't you need to get a dictionary and learn the definition of hypocritical, since you obviously don't know what the word means.

Something's been gnawing at me for a bit, and I think I know what it is. A lot of people who meet some messed up kid who's trying "dark magic" and says he's a "Wiccan" just shrug, accept it, and move on.

Would people have the same reaction if the same kid said that Jesus wanted him to sacrifice a goat? Why not? He obviously believes in Jesus. He's also obviously a complete nutbar.

Just because somebody says they're something doesn't make it so. If they're not so much as paying attention to even the most basic tenets of the belief system, they're not of that faith, no matter what they say.

The Church and popular culture have done such a good job over the centuries of discrediting anything remotely pagan that most people are automatically ready to accept the worst, but when something positive is said, they start digging for the "other side" or the "real story."

Sad really, when all it is, when you boil it down, is a different name for God and a different approach to speaking to him.

-Rex Hondo-

And your source on this would be? Saying it doesn't make it so.

Any decent history book. Some of the earliest opposition to slavery in the Roman Empire came from Christians. Of course, the fact that a very large number of slaves were becoming Christians may have played a role in the process. Nonetheless, Christians have opposed slavery virtualy from the inception of Christianity.

Jump ahead to the 1800's. I never said Christians were the only ones who opposed slavery. But they were very much at the forefront pushing for it to be abolished. The movement very much coincided with a Christian revival that spread through both England and America. It was Christian preachers who were campaigning for the end of slavery. (If it was today, they would have to worry about losing their tax exempt status.) Yes, there were also Christians who supported slavery. And there were also many secular enlightenment leaders who also supported slavery, based in part on evolutionary ideas.

Go do some research on William Wilberforce. He would be considered a very conservative Christian in todays terms. He is widely credited as a driving force behind the abolition of slavery in England. The opposition to slavery in America did include a wide range of people, both religious and secular. But without the strong and unwavering support of many Christian leaders, it would not have suceeded. There are plenty of books that address this issue. An article written by Charles Colson lists some of those resources:

http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/BP_Christianity_and_Slavery.htm

Concerning other humanitarian issues, I do not deny others have offered help and aid. But I would suggest that Christian aid has very often led the way and offered help to those others have shunned, especially when you go back 100 years or more. You may disagree that Christians have been at the forefront, but you cannot deny that Christians have been known for their humanitarian efforts for hundreds of years.

Iowa Jim

Perhaps I should make my point a different way. My point is simply this: The so called "separation of church and state" that I hear described would have greatly hindered much of the good that Christianity has done in this country's history and done little to have stopped the bad. The original concept, that a specific church/denomination should not be "the" state sponsored religion is an important and necessary concept. But the current idea that James Dobson is threatening democracy as we know it because he is against gay marriage and for conservative judges is a joke. Dobson has a right to express his views, whether they come from a Bible or a dream he had after eating pizza. So does any atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Budhist, etc. If elected, he has the right to act on those views. If his actions violate the boundaries set by the constitution, bill of rights, etc., then he should be stopped.

Bottom line, Christianity is not a threat to democracy. On the contrary, Christianity played a crucial (though not exclusive) role in the birth of modern democracy. Religious freedom in America did not happen in spite of Christianity, it happened in large part because of Christianity. And most Christian leaders today, such as Dobson, have no agenda or desire to take away freedom of religion or to create a state church.

Agree or disagree, that is your choice. I have said my peace and will drop the matter.

Iowa Jim

The people who first landed here weren't even Christians, they were for the most part, Quakers.

Quakers aren't Christian? So Richard Nixon was our first non-Christian President?

Bill, shhhhhhhhhh! You don't want to interupt a good rant with little things called facts.

Iowa Jim ignorantly spewed:

"And your source on this would be? Saying it doesn't make it so.

-->Any decent history book.

And how does Jimbo define a decent history book, one that agrees lockstep with him...

Sure, it's just a fringe group that feels that way! Not to sound TOO paranoid, but it's ALWAYS a fringe group until it becomes the main group. I'm sure that Herman the Homo Habilus looked at his crazy neighbors that were sheedding hair and walking upright and said hey, they're just a fringe group! Nothin' to worry about! Where'd I put my cave keys? And Pilate looks around and says "That goofy carpenter and his pals? Just a fringe group, just a fad, next week nobody'll remember His name..."

"On the contrary, Christianity played a crucial (though not exclusive) role in the birth of modern democracy."

The funny thing is, even though I'm not a Christian and I'm even very suspicious of it, I kinda agree with this analyzis.

Still, some words from the late Pope John Paul don't leave my mind. Sometimes he seemed to be saying that democracy and Christianity (or at least Catholicism) were less "eternal friends" and more like "travelling companions" that now must part ways.

For a time, Christianity and civil freedoms reformist were on the same side. Perhaps the last big fight when the two of them could be allies was against Soviet-style communism.

But the humanist/democratic impulse has never stopped evolving and never stopped asking for new and wider civil freedoms. And right now the last few freedoms being fought about (homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion) seem to be threatening to Christian doctrine.

The Pope used to say that democracy is NOT and can not be an end in itself. Meaning, it's only good as long as it furthers Catholic agenda... He couldn't have been any clearer. Whatever could be said of Pope John Paul, he certainly didn't hide his objectives behind fancy words and misdirection.

What a wonderful, open-minded little progressive you are, so receptive to different opinions.

Yeah, just like those "step in line" Republicans currently in control of Congress & the White House.

The founders of this country were Christians, but not in the sense that the word is mostly used today. So-called "modern" Christians mostly refers to evangelicals and born-agains, those that embrace a more modern outlook on the teachings of Christ. In a larger sense, the term "Christian" does still refer to all the other denominations that follow Christ and the various forms of the Bible, including Catholics and Protestants.

As I understand it, many of the Founders were Christians of some sort, but were more of what would be called christian deists, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington (taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm if you want to fact-check me). So to say that Christians in a modern sense played a large role in founding this country is to come dangerously close to misrepresenting history...while grammatically true, the statement is about as accurate as saying that we sailed to the moon: it describes the act, but not in any really meaningful way.

Some of the founding fathers were Christian, others weren't. However, they didn't found the United States to be a Christian nation, but one to be free for all.

If you read the Treaty Of Tripoli, it states "The United States is not, nor was it founded as, a Christian nation."

This thread started with an (assuming Ohio matches other states) elected judge imposing his will into a divorce proceeding, supposedly in the best interests of the child. And because of his concerns that the child could be confused or encounter discrimintory actions directed at him at school because he had been raised wiccan. Note, it appears that both parents wanted him to continue in his progression in wiccan.

The judge's ruling stated that the child was not to be exposed to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." Does that mean he can't see any of the Star Wars movies? Jedi is an acknowledged, albeit minority and fringe, religion in some countries (Great Britain comes to mind). How about Star Trek? The ritual to rejoin Spock's katra with his Genesis rejuvinated body sure seems like some religious ritual...and I think there's some reference along the Trek timeline that refers to Vulcan religion.

What if his community is mostly jewish? Would any of the Christian faiths then be seen as "non-mainstream?" So he can't even do Christmas presents, or an Easter Egg hunt?

Someone has suggested that the judge had to have some reason for this. Here's a reason: he brought his pre-concieved notions of religion and wicca to the courtroom with him, and when he read that DRCB report, he saw a clear opporunity to act. He probably equates the fictional "witchcraft" with the relgion wicca. They aren't the same thing. Think about it: if witches really did exist, they'd be millionaires. Every sports team would have them on the roster...countering curses would be a full time job. You'd probably have offensive and defensive witchcraft specialists.

So, this judge bring in his notions of "evil" witches, covers it with the DRCB report and claims he's acting in the best interests of the child. Which he is...if it's society's overriding goal of producing good little, God-fearing Christian citizens. Which, last time I checked the Constitution, it's not.

This is just like that time my gaming group tried to decide on a role-playing system, and one guy's wife vetoed using Dungeons and Dragons, 'cause her mother had told her when she was a child that it was evil and the work of Satan.

Of course, she promptly said she'd happily play a game use Lord of thr Rings rules.

Thanks, Mr. David. I'm circulating the story at all my haunts in the hopes to get people riled enough to send a letter to the Court and/or the State of Indiana.

Oh, look, another "activist judge" who might know what separation of church & state is:

Judge Gives Offenders Option of Church

LONDON, Ky. - A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab — a practice some say violates the separation of church and state.

District Judge Michael Caperton, 50, a devout Christian, said his goal is to "help people and their families."

"I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church," he said.

Alternative sentencing is popular across the country — ordering vandals to repaint a graffiti-covered wall, for example. But legal experts said they didn't know of any other judges who give the option of attending church.

Caperton has offered the option about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders. It is unclear what effect the sentence has had.

David Friedman, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said the option raises "serious constitutional problems."

"The judge is saying that those willing to go to worship services can avoid jail in the same way that those who decline to go cannot," Friedman said. "That strays from government neutrality towards religion."

Judge Gives Offenders Option of Church

Interesting article but do you have the source for this, where it was reported and by whom?

Well, there's not enough fact in the London, KY, story to really tell what's going on. If the sentence option really is for "worship services," and the convicted has a full range of religious services to chose from, I don't see a problem. It's an alternative form of rehab, to my mind. And it's one that has been successful, for some. Judges can commute sentences for things like this, in their discretion. It's seen as very progressive, and with the right kind of violation and defendant, can be more effective than jail time.

This would be a totally different story if the list of acceptable "worship services" was restricted to only those of a christian denomination.

CNN has the story here

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/31/churchsentence.ap/index.html

Interesting article but do you have the source for this, where it was reported and by whom?

It's on the main page of Yahoo atm, and somebody already gave the link to it for CNN.

RE: Kentucky -

I say worship services instead of church

Does praying at the porcelion altar count?

Seriously, how does he verify if someone worships? What if the judge doesn't agree with your choice of worship? Does this mean that if you're an atheist you have to go to jail?

Lastly, How about a third option - a rehabilation program? Worship isn't the only way for someone to solve their problems.

Lastly, How about a third option - a rehabilation program? Worship isn't the only way for someone to solve their problems.

Good thought, only that's covered in the article.
A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab

I can support most things (though not everything) that will help Drug abusers reform, but mandating worship has paramters that are either too far too wide if complying with seperation between church and state, or far too narrow, if we are using a solely christian alternative to be helpful or legal.

Not to stray off topic too much, but in the same vein as drug rehab, I found this article through Warren Ellis's blog (Warrenellis.com):

heroin addiction gene identified and blocked

Um...did any one ask the places of Worship or people who conduct the worship events how they feel about this? My aunt’s boy friend recently went to a rehab clinic voluntarily. He said that the people that were court ordered to the program treat it the same as if they are doing time in jail. Forget the constitutional implications for a second. Even if the convict gets to choose his/her place of worship, they are still being forced to do some thing that they other wise would not be doing. This could have a negative effect on the people going to services voluntarily if judges start doing this to lots of convicts.

going to jail or rehab

You're right - I missed the 'or rehab' part.

But they were very much at the forefront pushing for it to be abolished.

In Europe and America, sure, because they were the majority in these regions to start with. But Muslims fought (and engaged in) slavery in the Middle East and North Africa. Buddhists and Confucians and Shintoists fought (and engaged in) slavery in East Asia. That's simple demographics. Slavery was abolished in Japan long before it was in the Europe.

And it never occurred to this judge to question the wisdom of letting an alcoholic suck down that ol' sacramental wine...? :-)

You don't find it among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other tribal religion.

Well, ignoring the fact that Democracy was invented by pagans in the first place, I think you will find that polytheistic religions, generally, have been far more tolerant than monotheistic ones, for the obvious reason that polytheism is not exclusivistic. The Romans didn't care what gods you worshipped on your own time, as long as you didn't speak out against the state religion in the process. THAT is where the Christians got in trouble: they told people to worship their god INSTEAD of worshipping Iuppiter, Mars, et al.

This isn't exactly freedom of religion as we envision it today, but it was a measure of freedom the Christian world didn't return to the pagans once the tables were turned.

"Slavery was abolished in Japan long before it was in the Europe."

Only to be brought back with a vengeance in the early 30s--the enslavement and abuse of the so-called "comfort women" was government sanctioned and should qulaify as slavery by any definition.

There is something I always wanted to ask some Christians regarding religion and legislation.

I can understand how a Christian could want to enact laws against abortion or stem-cell research on grounds that these are extermination of defenseless human life.

But I simply can't understand why some of them are in favour of laws against homosexuality, for censorship, or against euthanasia. Because, if I understand Christian notions of sin correctly, good and evil is about *free* will.

So, if a man suffering from cancer wants to end his life, but he just don't do so because there is a law against euthanasia, this man ALREADY is a sinner, isn't he? Because he already chose "evil", he only can't carry it out because there is a law forbidding it.

So, what good is this law, from a Christian viewpoint?

I ask the same thing of censorship. If you're trying to building a world devoid of temptations, then how could the faithful be tested? It seems to me that trying to suppress sin by removing the objects of temptation or stopping people from sinning by "force", is not quite logical, since sin is about free will.

It's akin to destroying all booze in the world and declare alcoholics cured. Nope, they're not cured, they just don't have the object of their addiction anymore, but they're as addicted as ever.

Rene, that's a resonable question but why stop at homosexuality, censorship, and euthanasia? If you take it further you could argue that NO evil should be opposed by a Christian. So why should Christians have opposed slavery since, in doing so, they did not actually stop the evil of those who thought it right that they should be allowed to own slaves?

Keeping in mind that I myself am for gay rights, against censorship and sort of on the fence on euthanasia, I would conjecture that some of those who oppose all 3 on religious grounds may do so not only or even primarily to save those who have chosen the "sin" but to prevent these issues from becoming so ingrained into the culture that they encourage more people to engage in them.

At any rate, I see no reason why Christians or atheists or pretty much anyone should suppress the right to attempt to enact legal change in society. Ok, maybe anarchists might have a little trouble agitating for new laws but that's about it.

Just a couple of points, and I'll try to avoid rambling...

First, we should be clear on one thing, America is NOT a democracy. It is a republic. It's a democratic republic, but a republic nonetheless.

Second, and I can hardly believe I see myself typing this, Iowa Jim makes a good point. Christianity is not to blame for the ills that plague out nation. A portion of the blame in question lies with people doing things in the name of Christianity. There's an important distinction there, I think.

If you want to vote based on your religious beliefs, that's cool. I might not agree with you, but that's your right. However, the burden falls on you, as it falls on everyone, to find secular support for your position. The Bible has no place in a government debate, and as soon as the word "sin" pops out of your mouth, you lose all credibility with a lot of people, Christians included. The problem is, a lot of people in power currently (certainly the ones making the most noise) have no defensible arguments to support their policies once you get past their religious reasons.

Lastly, I was wondering earlier, why do so many people seem to have such a hard-on for what the "Founding Fathers" intended? The world, for all intents and purposes, was barely out of the Dark Ages, and this group of guys popped up whose main concept of a good government, to start, was "not a monarchy." Sure, they tossed in a fair dose of Roman and Greek political theory, since it seemed to work fairly well before, but this was a time when they still thought bleeding was a nifty cure-all. We're supposed to think that they had some nigh-prophetic concept of what the future was supposed to bring for the nation and world. Bull. What they did was good, yes. They stood up to the superpower of the day and won freedom. (With the support of the French, I would point out.) At the end of the day, though, they were (white) men (and no women), no more infellible than anybody before or since. I think it's well past time we retire the tired old saw of "Well, the founding fathers wanted...", take a good, hard look at the world TODAY and start thinking for ourselves.

Thus endeth the rant.

-Rex Hondo-

Thanks, Bill.

I was implying (through my correlation to abortion and stem-cell) that some sinful conducts can be easily justified as laws in the basis that they hurt others directly.

To go with your explanation. Even if we're not theologically too worried about the sinners who commit slavery (i.e. they're making their own bed), we should worry about the helpless victims of it, the slaves. So we should have laws banning it.

That is not the case with euthanasia, where the only one being hurt is the sinner. And stopping him from hurting himself through forceful means don't make him any less of as sinner, I suppose. The correct way to "save his soul" would be to convince him that he is sinning and make him repentant, right?

I understand what you said, but even if such "sinful" behaviours become more widespread,it still comes down to free will, right? The only people being hurt are still the ones bringing it on themselves. Of course I see it how the abundance of temptation could make it easier to "sin", but it would still be about choice, when everything is considered.

And maybe not to sin in a society where sin is abundant would make the true believers even more... I dunno... worthy? I mean... it's easier not to lay with a woman when you're in a desert island. But the guy who strolls by a place full of eager chicks hitting on him and still keeps his marriage vows, that is a real tough hombre, theologically. ;)

And there's some good news from the Supreme Court regarding those non-mainstream religions:

"The Supreme Court sided Tuesday with an unusual alliance of the Bush administration, liberal activists and conservative religious groups, agreeing that state prisons must accommodate the beliefs of witches, Satanists and other followers of non-mainstream religions."

"The justices agreed unanimously with inmates in Ohio who complained that they were denied access to religious literature and the opportunity to conduct services. Ohio prison officials had argued that the inmates’ requests hampered their ability to manage prisons."

So, while I'm somebody who thinks the world is better off without organized religion, here's a decision I can agree with: it's all or nothing. You either make materials available to all, or don't make any available; jails do not get to pick and choose.

"That is not the case with euthanasia, where the only one being hurt is the sinner."

Well, there is also the person or persons who actually perform the euthanasia--in fact, they would be more "guilty" of any sin than the person would be, since one could argue that pain and suffering may make a person incapable of making a sound mental judgement.

"The Supreme Court sided Tuesday with an unusual alliance of the Bush administration, liberal activists and conservative religious groups, agreeing that state prisons must accommodate the beliefs of witches, Satanists and other followers of non-mainstream religions."

Wow, this will doubtlessly come as a shock to some of the posters on this thread---the Bush administration actually fighting for the rights of Wiccans and Satanists??? I thought they were supposed to be in favor of killing them or jailing them or something. What happened to pandering to the religious right?

"Well, there is also the person or persons who actually perform the euthanasia--in fact, they would be more "guilty" of any sin than the person would be, since one could argue that pain and suffering may make a person incapable of making a sound mental judgement."

Certainly.

I'm not sure what US legislation says about this, but I suppose that a law *compelling* a doctor to perform an abortion or euthanasia, under pressure of losing his or her license, would be real controversial and, even to a reasonable number of non-christians (including me), immoral.

This reminds me of something I use to say to some Christians. "Guys, if gay marriage were to be made *mandatory*, you can be sure I'd be as much against it as you folks. But as it is, it is just for people who WANT to marry in their own gender. So, no skin off your nose, right?"

"I'm not sure what US legislation says about this, but I suppose that a law *compelling* a doctor to perform an abortion or euthanasia, under pressure of losing his or her license, would be real controversial and, even to a reasonable number of non-christians (including me), immoral."

There was some talk recently about forcing med students to learn how to perform abortions because so few were willing to do so. Raises some interesting issues.

I'm with you on the whole gay marriage thing. Hell, it seems to me that conservatives ought to ENCOURAGE it and Republicans ought to be trying to make it mandatory (married men and women were much more likely to vote Repub than are singles).

But all that aside, whatever makes folks happy and does no harm, what's the problem? Yet I'm amazed to see a number of folks I know, far far more to the left than I'll likely ever end up, who just can't stomach it. I think it will just take time for some to get used to the idea.

"Think about it: if witches really did exist, they'd be millionaires."

And thus are both Donald Trump and George Steinbrenner explained in one shot.

PAD

Heh... I'm a witch, and I'm no millionaire... and should I object to being lumped in with Trump and Steinbrenner? I'm from Baltimore! I hate the Yankees!

See ya at Shore Leave, Peter!

Karen =)

Peter David should be in jail too.

Oh, he hasn't been charged with a crime?

Neither has Mr. DeLay.

Well, what's good for the goose...

Peter David should be in jail too. Oh, he hasn't been charged with a crime? Neither has Mr. DeLay.

Nor have the prisoners in Guantanamo, but that hasn't stopped Bush & Co (include Mr. "I have no ethics" DeLay).

Did you have a point in this little exercise?

Yes ... BUSH SUCKS!

Nothing major, but just something interesting I found out... I was searching the web for mental state altering music (the kind that cycles your brain from Aplha to Beta etc.) while I was at school, and one of the filters that popped up was "'Non-Traditional Religions and the Occult' is filtered".