PDA

View Full Version : As a friend said, this is what an activist judge looks like.



Ysobelle
05-26-2005, 03:09 PM
Ten years ago, this would have made me laugh. Now? It terrifies me. Yes, the ACLU will slam dunk this twit of a judge. But I'm worried that this is only the tip of some horrible iceberg.





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

May 26, 2005

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




By Kevin Corcoran
[email protected]


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.

Through a court spokeswoman, Bradford said Wednesday he could not discuss the pending legal dispute.

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. Jones' son attends a local Catholic school.

"There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.

But Jones, 37, Indianapolis, disputes the bureau's findings, saying he attended Bishop Chatard High School in Indianapolis as a non-Christian.

Jones has brought the case before the Indiana Court of Appeals, with help from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. They filed their request for the appeals court to strike the one-paragraph clause in January.

"This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones, who has organized Pagan Pride Day events in Indianapolis. "It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox."

The ICLU and Jones assert the judge's order tramples on the parents' constitutional right to expose their son to a religion of their choice. Both say the court failed to explain how exposing the boy to Wicca's beliefs and practices would harm him.

Bristol is not involved in the appeal and could not be reached for comment. She and Jones have joint custody, and the boy lives with the father on the Northside.

Jones and the ICLU also argue the order is so vague that it could lead to Jones being found in contempt and losing custody of his son.

"When they read the order to me, I said, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Alisa G. Cohen, an Indianapolis attorney representing Jones. "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"

Some people have preconceived notions about Wicca, which has some rituals involving nudity but mostly would be inoffensive to children, said Philip Goff, director of the Center for the Study of Religion & American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

"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."

Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University.

"The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side."

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.

"Religion comes up most frequently when there are disputes between the parents. There are lots of cases where a mom and dad are of different faiths, and they're having a tug of war over the kids," Falk said. "This is different: Their dispute is with the judge. When the government is attempting to tell people they're not allowed to engage in non-mainstream activities, that raises concerns."

Indiana law generally allows parents who are awarded physical custody of children to determine their religious training; courts step in only when the children's physical or emotional health would be endangered.

Getting the judge's religious restriction lifted should be a slam-dunk, said David Orentlicher, an Indiana University law professor and Democratic state representative from Indianapolis.

"That's blatantly unconstitutional," Orentlicher said. "Obviously, the judge can order them not to expose the child to drugs or other inappropriate conduct, but it sounds like this order was confusing or could be misconstrued."

The couple married in February 1995, and their divorce was final in February 2004.

As Wiccans, the boy's parents believe in nature-based deities and engage in worship rituals that include guided meditation that Jones says improved his son's concentration. Wicca "is an understanding that we're all connected, and respecting that," said Jones, who is a computer Web designer.

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

During the divorce, he told a court official that Wiccans are not devil worshippers. And he said he does not practice a form of Wicca that involves nudity.

"I celebrate life as a duality. There's a male and female force to everything," Jones said. "I feel the Earth is a living creature. I don't believe in Satan or any creature of infinite evil."

Call Star reporter Kevin Corcoran at (317) 444-2770.

Sidebar:

What is Wicca?

Wicca is not a centralized religion but a belief system observed by 50,000 Americans that is recognized by reference texts such as the U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook.

Wicca is related to European tribal nature worship. Wiccans regard living things as sacred and often show a concern for the environment.

They do not worship Satan, but some cast "spells." Some worship in the nude as a sign of attunement with nature.

The core value of Wicca states, "As it harm none, do what you will."

-- Star report

RichardMacHugely
05-26-2005, 03:22 PM
Sadly Conservatives, who are currently in power in most of the country and who "claim" to oppose all forms of judicial activism, in fact only oppose liberal judicial activism. Having said that, this ruling looks to be so far out of the mainstream that it will never stand.

Eric McTavish
05-26-2005, 03:33 PM
I posted this to the religons forum nice chat going on about it too!!!

Morgana
05-26-2005, 04:58 PM
I thought that there was freedom of religion in the US ?!? '

Morgana

Ysobelle
05-26-2005, 05:41 PM
Sorry, Eric-- didn't see it.


Richard-- it's not so much this ruling, which I agree is just waiting to get brutally dismembered, but what preceeds it and what comes after. If it makes more of a national splash, I'm worried what spin the Neocons will put on it to justify the judge's actions. Everyone and his cousin SHOULD be absolutely outraged and declare this judge a loony, but how many people are going to say, "Ah! See? A JUDGE agrees with us!"

Dmitri
05-27-2005, 08:39 AM
Ummm... Isn't this like...ummm... unconstitutional...

Buxom Wench
05-27-2005, 09:16 AM
Ummm... Isn't this like...ummm... unconstitutional...

Not only unconstitutional,.............. it's just plain lunacy.
I'm surprised that this judge hasn't been pulled from the bench.

BOTH parents agree to what religion they want their child to know. THAT was not an issue. The question is, why did the JUDGE make it an issue?
This debate could go on forever and, I dread to think what else this will start.

Ysobelle
05-27-2005, 09:58 AM
Absolutely it is. But the judge isn't going to slap himself in the forehead and say, "Oh, gosh, what was I thinking?" He's going to come up with some carefully-worded argument about how he was acting in the best interest of the child, and how his concern for the child is of paramount importance, and the child this and the child that, and it will all sound perfectly reasonable to a whole lot of people, And in law, it's all about precedence. Someone at some point is going to use part of the judge's argument in another case. And win. And so on and so on.

I can only hope for a huge enough outcry that this doesn't play out that way. But again, this troubles me greatly.

Cyranno DeBoberac
05-27-2005, 10:39 AM
Absolutely it is. But the judge isn't going to slap himself in the forehead and say, "Oh, gosh, what was I thinking?" He's going to come up with some carefully-worded argument about how he was acting in the best interest of the child, and how his concern for the child is of paramount importance, and the child this and the child that, and it will all sound perfectly reasonable to a whole lot of people

"But we must think about the children!" is a common battle cry (or rather, plaintive wail) for those who are really streching to find a justification for curtailing freedoms. :roll:

erinrai
05-27-2005, 11:48 AM
It is crap and totally typical of an Indiana court. Trust me all the judges up there have their heads shoved so far up their arse that it isn't funny. (sorry bit bitter with Indiana law in general). They don't ever seem to make decisions in the best interest of any one but them selves when it comes to custody of any type. They try too often to tell the parent how they shall parent not just in cases where religion is involved but in other matters as well. Heck in Indiana one can't even get the other parents address unless the other is willing to be honest and give it. The courts can't give it to you due to privacy issues. Makes it easier for the parent that would take child for visitation just to run with said child.

Cyranno DeBoberac
05-27-2005, 11:55 AM
Ummm... Isn't this like...ummm... unconstitutional...
Yeah, but it follows the Ten Commandments, so it's okay.

Didn't you get the memo? Those take precedence now. :roll:

Kyas Dreffen
08-23-2006, 11:47 PM
Ten years ago, this would have made me laugh. Now? It terrifies me. Yes, the ACLU will slam dunk this twit of a judge. But I'm worried that this is only the tip of some horrible iceberg.

As someone from IN, attended parochial school (dispised it, BTW, (lousy hippocrites)) I'm well aware of *hitard, and yet not surprised how this movement is sweeping the nation. There is freedom of religion around here, but only if you agree with the folks in charge.

Kyas

SilverMirth
08-24-2006, 10:17 AM
if it mkes anyone feel better the decision was overturned in appeal