Judge Says Parents Cannot Teach Their Children Paganism

[Frodo]

-and please, read the article before commenting on it.  thanks.

Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs
-Father appeals order in divorce decree that prevents couple from exposing son to Wicca.

By Kevin Corcoran
kevin.corcoran@indystar.com
 
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.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

[Gabu]

So much for liberals being the only ones with activist judges.

What's even more bizarre is that this came out of absolutely nowhere apparently purely because the judge felt like it; neither parent wants it to be there.

[John Dibble]

No, and they should be able to get this fixed by appealing to a higher court. AND I bet they can get this coot fired if they really wanted.

[MasterJedi]

No they should be allowed to teach their kid. Pathetic.

[Palefire]

Damn, what a load of crap. This judge really needs to have his head looked at - after he has been removed from the bench.

[Richard]

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.

[Jake]

Obviously these parents have severe mental problems as it is, they sure as hell aren't competent enough to raise their children.

[John Dibble]

Obviously these parents have severe mental problems as it is, they sure as hell aren't competent enough to raise their children.

And why is that? Because they have a religion you disagree with?

[Palefire]

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'm a social liberal and a Christian. This board could use a whole lot less of these straw man arguements - even though it does seem to have its fair share of straw men and women.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If the ruling prohibited parents from teaching their kids the Bible, liberals will nod and think of it as acceptable

Complete bullsh**t and a strawman. I'm a Christian and a liberal, so obviously I wouldn't.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I think the judge had some justification here.  If one parent was taking their kids to the Branch Davidian house or Jim Jones's ranch... I'd sure as hell want custody to be with the normal parent.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think the judge had some justification here.  If one parent was taking their kids to the Branch Davidian house or Jim Jones's ranch... I'd sure as hell want custody to be with the normal parent.

How is paganism anything like the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think the judge had some justification here.  If one parent was taking their kids to the Branch Davidian house or Jim Jones's ranch... I'd sure as hell want custody to be with the normal parent.

that's not the case. BOTH parents are Wiccan, he's saying neither one can, it's not a simple custody case. Furthermore while Wicca is a loopy and stupid religion, it's clearly not as destructive as those cults you mentioned.

[Richard]

I think the judge had some justification here.  If one parent was taking their kids to the Branch Davidian house or Jim Jones's ranch... I'd sure as hell want custody to be with the normal parent.

that's not the case. BOTH parents are Wiccan, he's saying neither one can, it's not a simple custody case. Furthermore while Wicca is a loopy and stupid religion, it's clearly not as destructive as those cults you mentioned.

Are you saying that if that WAS the case, it would be permissble for a judge to make such a ruling?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If one parent belonged to a cult and the other didn't, then yes I would give custody to the parent that didn't. That was the scenario don mentioned.

[Richard]

If one parent belonged to a cult and the other didn't, then yes I would give custody to the parent that didn't. That was the scenario don mentioned.

Slide down the slope a bit.  How about if both parents are KKK and want to bring their child up as a KKK believer?

[Jake]

Who defines cult. According to opebo, every religious is a member of a cult, according to the Waco nuts, they were a mainstream group. Slippery slope here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Standard defintiions of a cult are included here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Problems_surrounding_the_definitions_of_a_cult

I would draw the line at religious groups that promoted illegal or destructive behavior. Wicca is stupid, but it doesn't. "Speaking in tongues" Pentecostal sects are also stupid, but they don't either. Now if these Wiccan parents peformed pagan human sacrifices like 4000 years ago or the hypothetical Pentecostal sect was one of those that handles poisionous snakes, that'd change the situation.

[Jake]

BRTD, do you want the government telling us what a cult is or isn't. You could end up with a complete radical in there who says Christianity is a cult. Very bad idea.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If one parent belonged to a cult and the other didn't, then yes I would give custody to the parent that didn't. That was the scenario don mentioned.

Slide down the slope a bit.  How about if both parents are KKK and want to bring their child up as a KKK believer?

that depends on the behavior of the branch of the KKK they belonged to. If it was one that promoted lynching blacks and putting burning crosses on the lawns of interracial couples, no it should not be allowed, if they were just a bunch of stupid rednecks that held rallies in their private property in their stupid robes then yes, I'd let the parents do so and just hope the kid rejects his parents' idiocy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, do you want the government telling us what a cult is or isn't. You could end up with a complete radical in there who says Christianity is a cult. Very bad idea.

I don't really care if the government defines a cult or not, I just draw the line at religious groups that promote illegal or destructive behavior. I doubt most would argue with such a definition.

We all know how I feel about Islam, but I wouldn't prohibit Muslim parents from raising their kid that way. However if the parents were supporters of al-Qaeda, most would agree that changes the situation a little. That's not the situation here though.

[Jake]

Some Islamic radicals promote terrorism as an important part of their faith. Is Islam a cult?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[7,052,770]

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.

no we wouldn't.  quit