Support NeoGAF

[videogamer]

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."

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

 

[Instigator]

Insane.

 

[Azih]

what the hell kinda people do you turn into judges down there?

 

[olimario]

Wicca may be out there, but it's our right to practice any beliefs no matter how out there they are. The judge needs to be removed.

My friend was into the Wicca things for awhile. We were doing yard work at her house and before she could trim the bushes she had to tie a bow on it and ask its permission. :lol

 

[ronito]

Darn activist judges....

 

[Phoenix]

WIll be interesting to see how this transpires because there isn't enough evidence to say either way what should happen. However, on the surface it certainly appears that the judge has overstepped bounds. No on can mandate 'mainstream religion' as a requirement for anything, nor can anyone define it - certainly not in the legal sense.

There are good grounds for appeal here.

 

[Phoenix]

My friend was into the Wicca things for awhile. We were doing yard work at her house and before she could trim the bushes she had to tie a bow on it and ask its permission. :lol

Would be scary as hell if the bushes actually responded I wonder if lazy wicca people have successfully fought home owners associations saying that "I asked my lawn for its permission to be cut, but it did not grant it".

That would simply be hilarious.

 

[Azih]

WIll be interesting to see how this transpires because there isn't enough evidence to say either way what should happen.

what?

 

[Phoenix]

what?

We don't have access to the actual courts opinion, the findings by child care services, how the case was argued in the court, what evidence was presented - etc. The only thing we know is the decision and how it was interpreted by the person who wrote this story. Without that information we are making VERY uninformed opinions.

 

[DarienA]

What... the... hell.

 

[Hitokage]

Well, duh. Religious freedom is only for protestant christians.

 

[Loki]

Wicca may be out there, but it's our right to practice any beliefs no matter how out there they are. The judge needs to be removed.

I was just about to say that. Pretty outrageous story, really.


The only possible justification for something like this would be if the rituals in question were of an illicit nature (e.g., animal sacrifice etc.), since I'm of the mind that all religious rituals/services must comply with the law of the land. However, I doubt that's the case; if it is, though, I reserve the right to change my opinion.

 

[DarienA]

Other quotes from the article:

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."

And

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 judge put this in because the kid attends a catholic school?

What the f*ck?!?!?!



"But catholic girls are the biggiest hoochies!"

 

[Instigator]

For the record, I have never heard of Wiccans nor met any. Where are they from? Is it something fairly new or ancient?

 

[maharg]

Wicca is basically a modern amalgamation of various older pagan belief systems.

See wikipedia.

 

[Instigator]

There are some cafeteria pagans as well? :lol

 

[ConfusingJazz]

For the record, I have never heard of Wiccans nor met any. Where are they from? Is it something fairly new or ancient?

They try to act like the druids of the celts and such, before they were converted. Granted, its all new age bullshit and watered down, but they still have a right to practice it and raise their children in it (unless they cause bodily harm or something on the child).

 

[Lakitu]

Heh, what bullshit. A friend of mine is Wiccan, don't think he'll be very happy once hearing this news.

 

[Triumph]

ACTIVIST JUDGES ARE RUINING AMERI-

Wait, wrong talking point. Let me dial up the other one... *click click whirrrr*

WE MUST INSTILL TRADITIONAL VALUES IN OUR CHILDREN TODAY OR TOMORROW THEY WILL BE ENGAGING IN ALL SORTS OF ILLICIT BEHAVIOUR, SUCH AS SHOWING THEIR ANKLES, HOLDING HANDS AND GOD FORBID, NOT BELIEVING IN JESUS.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

We don't have access to the actual courts opinion, the findings by child care services, how the case was argued in the court, what evidence was presented - etc. The only thing we know is the decision and how it was interpreted by the person who wrote this story. Without that information we are making VERY uninformed opinions.

Phoenix, how dare you suggest that a brief news report contains less than the needed information for a million internet reactionaries to develop a lockstep mindset to a complex legal issue!

 

[ronito]

As a religous person I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other.

 

[909er]

For the record, I have never heard of Wiccans nor met any. Where are they from? Is it something fairly new or ancient?

It's ancient, technically. Bunch of hippies practice it though, but it's their first amendment right. Where the hell did this judge get his law degree, Iran?

 

[Boogie]

As a religous person I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other.

And as a religious person, I'll say this again. Religion does have an important role to play in politics: at the grassroots level, but not an institutionalized one.

 

[Zaptruder]

And as a religious person, I'll say this again. Religion does have an important role to play in politics: at the grassroots level, but not an institutionalized one.

As a none-religious person, I have to say that a secularist government is the only righteous way to go. It's not against religion, but independent of religion; and thus neutral to all forms of religion, popular and unpopular.

 

[Archaix]

Would be scary as hell if the bushes actually responded

Yet people constantly ask their imaginary friend in the sky for help and expect him to respond.

 

[Boogie]

As a none-religious person, I have to say that a secularist government is the only righteous way to go. It's not against religion, but independent of religion; and thus neutral to all forms of religion, popular and unpopular.

I agree with that. The government should be secular. I just think religion does have an important role to play in advocating support for issues, and lobbying. I don't mean the Religious Right, but I rather believe that religion should have a role to play in advocating relief and help for the poor, and social justice.

I just read Jim Wallis' God's Politics, and I rather like his message.

 

[Triumph]

I I just think religion does have an important role to play in advocating support for issues, and lobbying. I don't mean the Religious Right, but I rather believe that religion should have a role to play in advocating relief and help for the poor, and social justice.

Yeah, we'll get right on that after we get rid of all them gay folk. Priorities, people, priorities.

 

[Boogie]

Yeah, we'll get right on that after we get rid of all them gay folk. Priorities, people, priorities.

You know, there are many Christians who aren't thrilled with the tactics of the Religious Right either

 

[Hitokage]

Yet people constantly ask their imaginary friend in the sky for help and expect him to respond.

So yeah, anyway....

 

[Mermandala]

I always wondered why the burning bush was burning since it seems a talking bush would've be enough of a statement. Burning + talking = overkill, why not throw in dancing for the triple threat? I think the burning must've been an embarrassing accident and the talking was just a way to change the subject.

 

[Boogie]

I always wondered why the burning bush was burning since it seems a talking bush would've be enough of a statement. Burning + talking = overkill, why not throw in dancing for the triple threat? I think the burning must've been an embarrassing accident and the talking was just a way to change the subject.

umm, okay, thanks for sharing.

 

[Zaptruder]

I always wondered why the burning bush was burning since it seems a talking bush would've be enough of a statement. Burning + talking = overkill, why not throw in dancing for the triple threat? I think the burning must've been an embarrassing accident and the talking was just a way to change the subject.

Hahaha. That's standup comic material.

 

[geogaddi]

As a religous person I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other.

That's impossible.

1. Philosophical worldviews affect any system (science, politics, religion, etc.) necessarily.
2. Religion, Science, Culture necessarily shapes one's worldview.
3. Everyone has a worldview

You are basically saying that people should eliminate their worldview when it comes to politics, but that is something absolutely impossible to do.

If anything, it is your own philosophy/worldview that upholds that "Religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other". That statement is on the same philosophical boat as any of the philosophies a religion is constructed upon.

 

[videogamer]

That's impossible.

1. Philosophical worldviews affect any system (science, politics, religion, etc.) necessarily.
2. Religion, Science, Culture necessarily shapes one's worldview.
3. Everyone has a worldview

You are basically saying that people should eliminate their worldview when it comes to politics, but that is something absolutely impossible to do.

If anything, it is your own philosophy/worldview that upholds that "Religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other". That statement is on the same philosophical boat as any of the philosophies a religion is constructed upon.

You're taking it farther than what he said. He said used the word "religion". You've expanded it to "worldview" and tried to include things such as "science" and "philosophy".

 

[Fatghost]

If only the judges could get rid of the Mormons and Scientology we'd be all set.

 

[Boogie]

You're taking it farther than what he said. He said used the word "religion". You've expanded it to "worldview" and tried to include things such as "science" and "philosophy".

Umm, no he's not. He's saying that for many people, religion is a strong part of their worldview, and to say that it should play absolutely no role in their politics is unreasonable.

 

[videogamer]

Umm, no he's not. He's saying that for many people, religion is a strong part of their worldview, and to say that it should play absolutely no role in their politics is unreasonable.

Read his post again:

That's impossible.

1. Philosophical worldviews affect any system (science, politics, religion, etc.) necessarily.
2. Religion, Science, Culture necessarily shapes one's worldview.
3. Everyone has a worldview

You are basically saying that people should eliminate their worldview when it comes to politics, but that is something absolutely impossible to do.

He's talking about worldviews here (with the assumption that everyone has a worldview). He's not just talking about religion. He's talking about worldviews. The other poster mentioned only religion.

 

[geogaddi]

You're taking it farther than what he said. He said used the word "religion". You've expanded it to "worldview" and tried to include things such as "science" and "philosophy".

Religion is not merely just a "word" as you are making it so to be.

Any specific religion can be defined as a set of ideas and these set of ideas constructs one's worldview about everything else; politics, art, music, science, other religions, cultures, living, etc.

He is basically saying that religion should have nothing with politics, but politics happen necessarily under a backdrop of one's worldview and quite frankly, many worldviews have been constructed upon the sets of ideas from a religion.

Here's the root of his bias; Which worldview is more valid/correct for the job of politics? Is he saying that other worldviews aren't sufficient enough for the job? If so, he needs to give reasons as to why...

 

[Boogie]

Read his post again:



He's talking about worldviews here (with the assumption that everyone has a worldview). He's not just talking about religion. He's talking about worldviews. The other poster mentioned only religion.

That's right, he is. He's saying that because religion is an important part of many people's worldviews, and to say that they should not be allowed to contribute to politics because of that is unreasonable.

 

[videogamer]

Religion is not merely just a "word" as you are making it so to be.

Where do I do that? If you can interpret it as so, then you are overreaching...

Any specific religion can be defined as a set of ideas and these set of ideas constructs one's worldview about everything else; politics, art, music, science, other religions, cultures, living, etc.

He is basically saying that religion should have nothing with politics, but politics happen necessarily under a backdrop of one's worldview and quite frankly, many worldviews have been constructed upon the sets of ideas from a religion.

Here's the root of his bias; Which worldview is more valid/correct for the job of politics? Is he saying that other worldviews aren't sufficient enough for the job? If so, he needs to give reasons as to why...

In other words, I was right? He was talking about religion. Now you bring in other kinds of worldviews?

That's right, he is. He's saying that because religion is an important part of many people's worldviews, and to say that they should not be allowed to contribute to politics because of that is unreasonable.

In other words: Yes, he took it farther than what ronito posted.

 

[geogaddi]

In other words, I was right? He was talking about religion. Now you bring in other kinds of worldviews?


In other words: Yes, he took it farther than what ronito posted.

ok...I'm lost now.

 

[Boogie]

In other words: Yes, he took it farther than what ronito posted.

Yes, he did. He expanded on it to show just what it means to say "religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other", in order to demonstrate why that is an unreasonable expectation.

ok...I'm lost now.

This is Hammy's usual arguing style. He doesn't actually address the intent of your post, but just tries to pick it apart on some irrelevant grounds in order to confuse you.

 

[videogamer]

Yes, he did. He expanded on it to show just what it means to say "religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other", in order to demonstrate why that is an unreasonable expectation.

Then why did you post this:

Umm, no he's not. He's saying that for many people, religion is a strong part of their worldview, and to say that it should play absolutely no role in their politics is unreasonable.

 

[geogaddi]

Yes, he did. He expanded on it to show just what it means to say "religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other", in order to demonstrate why that is an unreasonable expectation.

Yes. It's a nice expectation (or whatever you may think of it ), but its just not feasible.

 

[Boogie]

Then why did you post this:

Why don't you just address my fucking point, for crying out loud. If you can't figure out the point of my posts, just ignore me. Otherwise, tell me whether you agree whether or not it is unreasonable to expect religious people to completely disregard their beliefs when it comes to politics.

 

[videogamer]

Why don't you just address my fucking point, for crying out loud.

Why don't you address mine? I quoted two statements that do not agree with each other. Both of which originate from you.

Anyway, why address the point? I haven't said anything to the contrary.

If you can't figure out the point of my posts, just ignore me. Otherwise, tell me whether you agree whether or not it is unreasonable to expect religious people to completely disregard their beliefs when it comes to politics.

Why bring in my personal stance? Re-read my other post... it does not say anything about my stance.

 

[geogaddi]

Why don't you just address my fucking point, for crying out loud. If you can't figure out the point of my posts, just ignore me. Otherwise, tell me whether you agree whether or not it is unreasonable to expect religious people to completely disregard their beliefs when it comes to politics.

:lol

 

[Boogie]

Why don't you address mine? I quoted two statements that do not agree with each other. Both of which originate from you.

Anyway, why address the point? I haven't said anything to the contrary.

Why bring in my personal stance? Re-read my other post... it does not say anything about my stance.

I was conceding. Something foreign to internet discusions, I know. I was conceding the precise nature of your criticism, while still trying to demonstrate that he did have a good point to make. But you were more concerned with nitpicking to actually acknowledge his point.

So why are you posting in this thread, if not to contribute to the actual content of the discussion, rather than just jump on people for expanding upon the thoughts of others?

 

[geogaddi]

Surely no GAFFER need NOT to Read it!!!!!11111

 

[Boogie]

?

:lol

Is that directed at me, or him?