The following was reported at Indystar.com (the full link is posted below):
“An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge’s unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.”
The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.
Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple’s divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.
Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy’s outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall.”
This is a real new one on me. We don’t have a case of one parent complaining to a judge that the other parent is raising their child in a religious faith that they themselves object to, and it’s part of a custody dispute. This is a judge who unilaterally didn’t like the faith in which a child was being raised and endeavored to take action. The article goes on to say:
“The parents’ Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford’s attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights.”
Understand, there’s no Satanic rituals here. They don’t even practice skyclad. Nor is there the slightest indication that the child is being harmed.
I have little doubt that this ludicrous decision will be overturned, but the notion that it occurs at all…I mean, is there any more pure travesty of the First Amendment than the courts telling two parents in what faith they can and cannot raise their child? Maybe the parents should reconsider the whole divorce thing; if this is how they want to raise their child, they’re going to be a lot stronger together than separately.
Me, I’m wondering if Tom DeLay is going to be speaking up in outrage over this clear abuse of power by an activist judge. Unless, of course, he’s too busy whining about being ill-used on “Law and Order: Criminal Intent.”
PAD
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481
• 
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. Hëll, 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”.