Judge Says Parents Cannot Teach Their Children Paganism

[ragnar]

teaching your children anything legal should never be forbidden by a judge

[A18]

teaching your children anything legal should be forbidden by a judge

Teaching your children anything legal should be forbidden by a judge... now that's an interesting statement. Are you sure you meant it? See, if this was opebo, I'd assume he was completely serious, but I don't know you all that well.

[ragnar]

teaching your children anything legal should be forbidden by a judge

Teaching your children anything legal should be forbidden by a judge... now that's an interesting statement. Are you sure you meant it? See, if this was opebo, I'd assume he was completely serious, but I don't know you all that well.

I forgot never :-(

[Jake]

See what I said above. Is Islam a cult? No, as much as I dislike it. Are the sects that promote terrorism cults? Yes. If the parents belonged were mainstream Muslims then yes I'd say they should be allowed to raise their kids Muslim, if they supported terrorism, than no.

You make the distinction between Islam and radical Islam here, why not in your anti-Muslim tirades? Are you drunk when you post that sort of stuff?

[Citizen James]

It could be worse - They could be teaching their kid about a hateful petty diety who demands human sacrifice for the smallest slight, has a kid of his own, who is then used as a 'sacrifice' in lieu of everyone else - but only if they idolerate Him.

Add to that the idea of symbolic canabalism - eating wafers and drinking wine (or fruit juice) and having it stand for (or beleiving it is) human flesh and blood.

There's a lot weirder stuff out there than Wicca, it just gets a pass because it's considered mainstream.   Just about any faith looks weird from the outside.

[Jake]

They could be teaching him to be a Democrat too

[Gabu]

They could be teaching him to be a Democrat too

Now, if they were teaching him to be a Nader voter, then I'd support this decision.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While I don't think this is a good ruling, I find it hard to feel outraged by it.  If the ruling prohibited parents from teaching their kids the Bible, liberals will nod and think of it as acceptable, and the media will mostly ignore it.

I hate wrong straw man arguments. Why must right-wingers always lie about liberals?

[opebo]

Teaching one's children Paganism is no different from teaching them any other cult, such as christainity or muslimism.  All consistute a shabby and abusive sort of parenting.  Is it worth State intervention to prevent this?  Probably not.  If we set ourselves against human stupidity and cruelty, we adopt a Sisyphean task.

[Jake]

muslimism? Isn't it Islam?

[opebo]

muslimism? Isn't it Islam?

I don't trouble myself about the exact appellations these cultists choose for themselves.

[bgwah]

While I don't think this is a good ruling, I find it hard to feel outraged by it.  If the ruling prohibited parents from teaching their kids the Bible, liberals will nod and think of it as acceptable, and the media will mostly ignore it.

Do you ever get tired of being an idiot?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I just about crapped when I read about this ruling yesterday.

This judge needs to be removed from office - by congressional action if necessary.

What a bigot.

It seems to me, based on the information provided, that the judge oversteped his authority.

However, Congress has no jurisdiction in the matter.

[KEmperor]

Ok, there are several weird things going on here in the article.  Obviously it's not up to the judge to decide what religion parents can teach their children.  Especially when both parents are Wiccan.  On the other hand, he has a point that Wicca goes against the Christian teachings of the school the kid goes to.  But that's the school's business, not the judge's.  My main question is why the hell are two Wiccans sending their kid to a Catholic school?

[Platypus]

While I don't think this is a good ruling, I find it hard to feel outraged by it. If the ruling prohibited parents from teaching their kids the Bible, liberals will nod and think of it as acceptable, and the media will mostly ignore it.

I've got no problem if someone want to tell their kid about some book written thousands of years ago of...doubtable veracity. Just so long as they don't force that child to follow their beliefs, and I think that happens far tpoo often-in mainstream and non-mainstream religions.

[Hitchabrut]

I agree with the judge personally, but there is absolutely no legal basis for making his ruling.

[phk]

I actually agree with the judge.

I personally don’t believe children have any religious needs.

When it is talked about children’s religious needs, it actually means their parents’ need to indoctrinate their children.

“Children have no religion”; they happen to be born in a family with a particular religion. I believe there should be no official religious teachings to children. Once they become of age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a particular faith or not.

I strongly believe that religious teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

[John Dibble]

I actually agree with the judge.

I personally don’t believe children have any religious needs.

When it is talked about children’s religious needs, it actually means their parents’ need to indoctrinate their children.

“Children have no religion”; they happen to be born in a family with a particular religion. I believe there should be no official religious teachings to children. Once they become of age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a particular faith or not.

I strongly believe that religious teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

Thusly, children shouldn't be taught anything about right or wrong, after all, that's indoctrination. They shouldn't be taught to care about other people - that's indoctrination, too, after all, because it's one particular moral set. Get my drift?

[phk]

I actually agree with the judge.

I personally don’t believe children have any religious needs.

When it is talked about children’s religious needs, it actually means their parents’ need to indoctrinate their children.

“Children have no religion”; they happen to be born in a family with a particular religion. I believe there should be no official religious teachings to children. Once they become of age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a particular faith or not.

I strongly believe that religious teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

Thusly, children shouldn't be taught anything about right or wrong, after all, that's indoctrination. They shouldn't be taught to care about other people - that's indoctrination, too, after all, because it's one particular moral set. Get my drift?

I think this is a very good and valid point. This refers to a sad reality of a life of indoctrination which is imposed on some children. I believe this must be stopped. This is wrong both from the child’s point of view and society’s point of view.

To deprive a child of a normal happy life and normal education has become integrated in the society as a way of life. It is wrong to do that. They should be integrated with other children in the society as citizens, with children of all backgrounds. I understand that there are families with different religions and cultures.

However, these religions and cultures must not be imposed on the children. In societies today, children are exposed to all kinds of religions and cultures. They should be given the right of choice. Once they reach adulthood, they can choose. And in any circumstance, education must be secular and based on the latest scientific achievements.

Children should be free from religious brain washing and teachings and preaching.

 

[John Dibble]

I actually agree with the judge.

I personally don’t believe children have any religious needs.

When it is talked about children’s religious needs, it actually means their parents’ need to indoctrinate their children.

“Children have no religion”; they happen to be born in a family with a particular religion. I believe there should be no official religious teachings to children. Once they become of age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a particular faith or not.

I strongly believe that religious teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

Thusly, children shouldn't be taught anything about right or wrong, after all, that's indoctrination. They shouldn't be taught to care about other people - that's indoctrination, too, after all, because it's one particular moral set. Get my drift?

Relativism.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that - all one's ideas of right and wrong make up one's ideology. By your logic, parents teaching their kids right from wrong, even if it is their own view of it, is indoctrination and therefore shouldn't be allowed. The idea that it's wrong to kill is part of one's ideology - we can't teach that to our kids though, because telling them murder is wrong is indoctrination and therefore shouldn't be allowed. Same goes for stealing, assault, rape, and various other things.

[phk]

I actually agree with the judge.

I personally don’t believe children have any religious needs.

When it is talked about children’s religious needs, it actually means their parents’ need to indoctrinate their children.

“Children have no religion”; they happen to be born in a family with a particular religion. I believe there should be no official religious teachings to children. Once they become of age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a particular faith or not.

I strongly believe that religious teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

Thusly, children shouldn't be taught anything about right or wrong, after all, that's indoctrination. They shouldn't be taught to care about other people - that's indoctrination, too, after all, because it's one particular moral set. Get my drift?

Relativism.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that - all one's ideas of right and wrong make up one's ideology. By your logic, parents teaching their kids right from wrong, even if it is their own view of it, is indoctrination and therefore shouldn't be allowed. The idea that it's wrong to kill is part of one's ideology - we can't teach that to our kids though, because telling them murder is wrong is indoctrination and therefore shouldn't be allowed. Same goes for stealing, assault, rape, and various other things.

Teaching, "Kill an abortion doctor", "kill gays", "hate people that are not like you" is not teaching right/wrong and is indoctrination.

You can say its wrong to kill without indoctrinating anything.

[John Dibble]

I actually agree with the judge.

I personally don’t believe children have any religious needs.

When it is talked about children’s religious needs, it actually means their parents’ need to indoctrinate their children.

“Children have no religion”; they happen to be born in a family with a particular religion. I believe there should be no official religious teachings to children. Once they become of age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a particular faith or not.

I strongly believe that religious teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

Thusly, children shouldn't be taught anything about right or wrong, after all, that's indoctrination. They shouldn't be taught to care about other people - that's indoctrination, too, after all, because it's one particular moral set. Get my drift?

Relativism.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that - all one's ideas of right and wrong make up one's ideology. By your logic, parents teaching their kids right from wrong, even if it is their own view of it, is indoctrination and therefore shouldn't be allowed. The idea that it's wrong to kill is part of one's ideology - we can't teach that to our kids though, because telling them murder is wrong is indoctrination and therefore shouldn't be allowed. Same goes for stealing, assault, rape, and various other things.

Teaching, "Kill an abortion doctor", "kill gays", "hate people that are not like you" is not teaching right/wrong and is indoctrination.

You can say its wrong to kill without indoctrinating anything.

How not? Teaching someone it's wrong to kill is teaching them an ideology, and your logic is that teaching ideology to children is indoctrination.