May 27, 2005
CAN WE GET UNANIMOUS CONSENT?
This court order has not become a great public issue, at least yet. It may be one of those issues readers across the board can agree is a no-brainer for overturning, at least in America. And that’s probably why it won’t become a major issue. “An Indianapolis father,” the story runs, “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.’” Anyone seeing a gray area? Not me. (Via Radley Balko.)
Posted by Matthew Hogan at May 27, 2005 12:44 PMYeah, I heard about this nutty judge, and you’ll certainly get agreement from me that his clause should be overturned. Maybe it was a ploy on his part to get the parents back together. ;-) They were certainly united on this issue. Don’t ever expect unanimity though - I’ve learned not to. It’s a pretty sure bet that most who agree with the judge on this one come from the far right, though.
Posted by: Walker at May 27, 2005 01:16 PMI couldn’t find what sort or “non mainstream religion/cult” that the judge was trying to protect the minor child from.
If its a 6 yr. old, and the cult ect. is biting the heads off chickens or some such nonsence, I can see the judges point!
A lil more info would help?
Posted by: Beagle at May 27, 2005 01:44 PMThe parents practice Wiccan. They are Witches. That means they worship Nature.
The Child was studying in a Catholic School, I think. If he was in an Evangelical Southern Baptist School, I MIGHT understand the Ruling.
Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2005 02:04 PMI agree with a lot of Sean Hannity’s views but he has gone so far over to the entertainment side of radio it’s gotten too annoying for me. How many times can you hear the Robert Bird speech? How many times can you hear the Ted Kennedy singing? How many times can you hear the Dean scream or the Gore yelling? God sean get over it already and get back to your to the point political views. The more you get on Al Franken the more you sound like him. And what’s with having guests on your program that differ from your views only to force them to answer yes or no questions? The more Hannity claims to be fair and balanced the more he sounds one sided. He has gotten into a habit of changing the subject or cutting the person off if they start to make sense or give a good answer. It’s now his trade mark. You’re over the edge Sean and you’re going to start hurting your party if you keep going. I sure don’t value your opinions anymore when it comes to politics or social issues. I’ll stay conservative but not because of anything you say
Posted by: K at May 27, 2005 02:12 PMThe ruling will obviously be overturned. I only hope this ruling is an aberration by the judge and not indicative of the judge’s general approach to law. Unfortunately, as the story spreads in the media, it will further discredit an otherwise honorable profession.
Posted by: ant at May 27, 2005 02:20 PMUmmm, sounds like an activist judge to me. It will be overturned in a minute if Dobson keeps his paws off. If he doesn’t, it will take a bit longer.
Posted by: Dave at May 27, 2005 02:26 PMAldous,
Thanks for clearing that up.
I knew that farmers, sportsmen, and the green party had a great love of nature, I would never guess that witches did also.
That judge is way out of line!
A young Catholic child will suffer no emotional harm by being exposed to slashing the throats of goats and making batwing and toadwart soup.
Who appointed the radical judge anyway ?
Posted by: Beagle at May 27, 2005 02:36 PMMy daughter was into Wicca for a while. It is mostly harmless and a largely synthetic faith (i.e. a recent creation based on an amalgam of disparate ancient practices). She gave it up after she did a little more reading. The judge has no business interfering in any case.
It is just a silly case.
Posted by: jack at May 27, 2005 02:39 PMJudges in Indianapolis are not appointed, they are voted on. There is little reason to really pick judges though, a list of x number of judges are listed and we have to pick a smaller x number of them.
Trust me though, I will be running a local campaign to have this judge lose any chance at re-election. Cale J. Bradford shouldn’t get comfortable in his position…
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 27, 2005 02:41 PMBeagle:
Err… I suggest you research Wicca first before posting a Charmed rerun.
Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2005 02:44 PMWalker-
That would have to be, like, as far right as Genghis Khan. I don’t know anybody, right or left, who agrees with that ruling. Who is the judge to decide what is “mainstream” and that “mainstream” religion is superior to other religions? Didn’t he ever have to read the Constitution and all that “freedom of religion” stuff? I mean, I’m in 11th grade and I know that.
Posted by: Justin Marble at May 27, 2005 03:20 PMThe Great Khan believed in big government (his), he didn’t tolerate private enterprise outside his control and he made laws to regulate all aspects of his people’s lives. He was on the far left by today’s standards.
Posted by: jack at May 27, 2005 03:37 PMThere is no mention whether or not the judge’s ruling was based on precedent, on an actual law that is on the State’s books or, what has been presumed to be the judge’s own interpretation.
A clear violation of the individual’s freedom to worship as he or she sees fit appears likely and this will all go away in due course.
My personal action as a parent of that child would be to discourage him in pursuit of Wiccan in that I understand it’s extremes to be very bizarre in it’s teachings and practices. Any “religion” with reference and reverance to Witches (yes I have heard there are good witches and bad witches) would not meet my approval.
Posted by: steve smith at May 27, 2005 03:46 PMAldous,
Point well taken, if wicca is a valid religon his ruling will likely be overturned.
Religous freedom often has to accept the good with the odd.
If the judge is elected I doubt that most voters will vote against him over this ruling, even if it is deemed unlawfull under current law and overturned.
If we only look a religous freedom shouldn’t the mormons be allowed mulitpal wives(many of those being children)?
How about some muslim’s in the mid-east marrying children as young as 8 yrs old? If they move here shouldn’t we allow that?
I would have ruled exactly the same as that judge, even if it cost me my job.
I would go with what I thought was in the childs best interest and let the chips fall where they may.
It wouldn’t be the first time a judge made up his own law, and most of those cases wern’t based on an honest opinion about a child’s welfare.
Posted by: Beagle at May 27, 2005 04:00 PMI would agree that this judge overstepped his authority if all that’s said is true.
Posted by: tomd at May 27, 2005 04:20 PMBeagle,
Your response is the exact reason why judges shouldn’t be allowed to decide what people believe and how they raise their children. Your stated view of what Wiccan is shows that you don’t know anything about the religion and are reacting to fears and ignorance.
Do us a favor and don’t become a judge, ok? My concern would be about teaching the child Catholocism over Wiccan, and I do have a good knowledge of each being an ordained minister…
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 27, 2005 04:20 PMJack says “The Great Khan believed in big government (his), he didn’t tolerate private enterprise outside his control and he made laws to regulate all aspects of his people’s lives. He was on the far left by today’s standards.”
Far left? perhaps you’re confusing the Great Khan with my ancestor, Ghengis Kohen. Jack, I guess this means that you do consider yourself to the right of Ghengis Khan? :-)
A little more seriously, I think the current neo-con administration is doing a great job at big government and laws to regulate our private lives. After seeing Clinton balance the budget and reduce govt spending, and then seeing Bush’s deluge of red ink and giveaways to his (wealthy) supporters…I don’t see how the right still has the nerve to trot out those old tired old big-government fiscal-irresponsibility lines.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 27, 2005 04:48 PMBeagle,
Three things. First, we Mormons don’t do the polygamy thing anymore. You’re a little over 100 years out of date on that one.
Second, as the brother of a Wiccan, I can tell you that there’s nothing in that religion (short of it not being Christianity) that is harmful to that child. When properly practiced, it is as loving as Christianity and as peaceful as Buddhism. It teaches loving your fellow man, respecting others’ beliefs, and harming no one. It does NOT involve animal sacrifices, devil worship, desecration of corpses, fornication with demons, or any other such things that propaganda has associated it with.
Finally, as a citizen of Indianapolis, I can guarantee you this guy won’t get my vote in the future.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 27, 2005 05:05 PMAfter seeing Clinton balance the budget and reduce govt spending, and then seeing Bush’s deluge of red ink and giveaways to his (wealthy) supporters…
Actually it was the Republican Congress that balanced the budget and reduced spending in the ’90s. They pretty much forced Clinton to run a tight ship, financially speaking.
Too bad they’re not willing to do the same when one of their own is in the White House…. :-(
Rheinhold,
As a resident of Indianapolis you have indicated that you would not vote for the judge in question again. You further stated that you would be organizing a group to ensure that the judge would not get reelected. You finish by informing us that you are an ordained minister.
This case has curious similarity to the discussion regarding the James Dobson situation. Where relidion was having an unwanted impact on politics. It would have been great to have had you involved in that discussion.
Posted by: steve smith at May 27, 2005 05:33 PMRhinehold,
Well, I’m not a minister(not even in the cyber world), we both have about the same chance to become a judge, so that is a moot point. I still stand by my post because it was my opinion of what I’d do, not something I told someone else to do.
Rob cottrell,
The mormons don’t do the poligomy thing anymore?
I’ve been watching/reading the wrong news for the past 100yrs?, I’ll tune into the Disney channel for updates, thanks for the tip.
Posted by: Beagle at May 27, 2005 05:41 PMNo, Beagle, we don’t. Although there are some fringe groups practicing polygamy who claim to be Mormons, they were kicked out of the Church a long time ago. The Church banned the practice in 1890. It’s grounds for excommunication today.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 27, 2005 05:45 PMSteve,
I wish I had been, it’s sort of up my alley. Unfortunately I have been busy the past few weeks with work. Thankfully that seems to have died down a bit so I can be here more often.
I should detail a bit more… I was a christian preacher in college in the middle ’80s. I have since seen the ‘error of my ways’ and am no longer a christian, but I did go to catholic school as a child and am technically an ordained minister. However, these days I am a practicing Taoist. It is a philosophy more than a religion and goes along with my libertarian leanings quite well.
I do not believe that there should be any laws based entirely on ‘religious’ doctrine. I have an ariticle ready to be posted that you should see in the middle column tomorrow that dives into blue laws and how they are affecting our economy and society, turning people against each other and legislating religious dogma at the point of a gun.
If Dobson or any other republican is supporting laws that serve only to force others to act in a way that spelled out in their religious dogma, that should be stopped. However, I see no problem with people deciding moral questions by basing them on their religious teachings. I only ask that you not for me to act in a manner that fits YOUR religion if it affects only myself. Don’t try to make me a christian, and I won’t try to make you not one. :)
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 27, 2005 05:50 PMJustin,
That would have to be, like, as far right as Genghis Khan. I don’t know anybody, right or left, who agrees with that ruling.I erred in throwing out the phrase “far right”. Ironic since this is my song and dance. I guarantee you more than a million, and probably more than ten million Americans, would agree with this judge’s ruling - but it has more to do with whether they have theocratic leanings than anything to do with where they stand on economic policy. Whether Beagle is being tongue in cheek or not, the types of statements in his comments here are typical of those that would support the ruling. (And trying to place Genghis Khan on the left-right continuum of American politics only serves to point out how silly it is to constrain anybody to that one-dimensional analysis.) Posted by: Walker at May 27, 2005 05:54 PM
Beagle,
You might try visiting a mormon church too. I have many Mormon friends out here in LA, and all of them resemble the religious right, none of them are into the polygamy thing.
It’s like comparing the Waco guys to Baptists.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at May 27, 2005 05:54 PMWalker,
I suppose up hear in the northeast I don’t get the full flavor of people who would agree with this ruling. I imagine these fanatical religous people I hear about must be truly warped. The Genghis Khan analogy was more of an expression than meant to be taken literally. I consider myself to be a “conservative” but I definately agree with you that its hard to place anyone within boundaries these days. You’d probably need another axis to deal with moral issues and the like.
Posted by: Justin Marble at May 27, 2005 06:36 PMRheinhold,
Thank you for clearing up your position vis a vis the ordained minister issue.
Taoism, isn’t that the herbs and spices, accupuncture, ying and yang and, martial arts mumbo jumbo.
It is absolutely amazing that since the Dobson issue came up we have had more religious affilliations mentioned on Watchblog than imaginable. It almost seems as if some people are trying especially hard to distance themselves from “traditional Christianity” to avoid guilt by association with it’s purported impact on politics.
Today alone we have had Wiccan, Taoism, Budhism and Paganism.
Posted by: steve smith at May 27, 2005 06:47 PMI’m surprised that anyone who values his or her own freedom of religion would approve of what that judge did.
I’m a born-again type Christian, conservative, etc, and what I see in that ruling is another wedge to be used to deprive me and others of our right to worship as we choose.
FWIW, I have nieces and friends who are Wiccans and a niece who was Wiccan and is now Christian. I also have friends and relatives who are other sorts of “pagan” - Taoist, Buddhist, Neo-Platonist, Asatru, etc. I love them all, even though I think they are deluded. But deluded or not, they have a legal right to choose what they want to believe. Just as I do!
ET
Posted by: ET at May 27, 2005 06:52 PMJulia,
I have no problem with mormons or their religion.
I don’t even have a problem with the several wives deal, as long as they are adults and nothing is forced.
I don’t know any mormons personally, none in this area that I know of.
I do know lots of Amish (sp?), nice people and hard workers, they seem to marry quite young, however, they do that within the confines of the law, (16 I think).
I personally don’t care what religion anyone has, but if someone harms children, beats a woman, or kicks a puppy around me, they will have a real bad f**kin day.
Pass any politically correct laws you wish, I’ll accept any punishment it calls for, a thousand years or so ago I likely would have been eaten by the lions, but those bastasrds would have known they had been in a fight!
I have little more to say on this thread.
Posted by: Beagle at May 27, 2005 07:12 PMET,
“I’m suprised that anyone who values his or her religon wpuld approve of what that judge did.”
Unfortunately there are a lot of people that DO value their religon that agree with that judge. And that is to their determent.
I agree that this ruling is just another wedge that those who oppose religion or want to force their religion on others will use to try to force their beliefs on everyone everyone else.
I’m about as conservative as you can get both politicaly and religously and one thing that I strongly beleive in is EVERYONES right to their beliefs. Those that don’t ARE NOT conservitive.
Rhinehold
If Dobson or any other republican is supporting laws that serve only to force others to act in a way that spelled out in their religious dogma, that should be stopped.
The 2nd President, of the United States of America, John Adams made the following statements:
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people . It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Upon his Father’s passing, President John Quincy Adams stated the following:
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this, it connected in one indissoluble bond, principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
President George Washington stated:
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ .”
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”
“Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education of minds, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle .”
I believe the Word of God is the only foundation our Nation should have. A sound democracy can not be built on a Nation with no morals or religious convictions.
And Rhinehold, just how does one MAKE another, a Christian?
Posted by: Ronok5 at May 28, 2005 04:34 AMThis Judge has violated his oath of office and
the constitution of the United States. He should
be removed from office. Religious bias is a threat
to a free society and can not be tolerated, it is
the reason the founding fathers put in the
separation of church and state clause in the
constitution. They were the victims of it in england
and other countries.
When I read this in the Indy Star, I was sickened. As I stated on my humble little blog, who is to decide what is a “Main Stream” religion anyway?
Today the advocates who influenced this judge claim Wicca is non-mainstream and confusing to this poor child, but what will be the Denomination du Jour tomorrow, or next week? What of Jewish parents who place their children in a parochial school because of academic standards? Will they no longer be able to observe so not to confuse their kids? What of families which belong to small, unaffiliated Christian churches with unique belief systems and practices?
You might think this is a couple of way-out-there individuals with wacky beliefs belly aching about an unfavorable decision, but it goes far beyond that. Today, it’s Wicca. Tomorrow, the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Church of Christ Scientist. After that? Well, the possiblities are endless, aren’t they?
Posted by: Mamamontezz at May 28, 2005 06:15 PMJames Nelson….
Please advise where in the Constitution you find this separation of church and state clause…
The only one I can find states;”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
Nothing about separation….
slyca
Posted by: slyca at May 29, 2005 07:48 PMslyca,
The only one I can find states;”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”Nothing about separation….
The Supreme Court has interpretted this to mean that the government (e.g. public schools) cannot make laws regarding or be obviously biased in favor of a religion. So while there’s nothing specific in the Constitution, you will find that in Supreme Court cases the “separation of church and state” has been well established.
Posted by: Zeek at May 30, 2005 12:09 AMReligious bias is a threat to a free society and can not be tolerated, it is the reason the founding fathers put in the separation of church and state clause in the constitution…
Surely Mr. Nelson, you’re not one (no doubt deluded by the deceptive deluge of disinformation by disingenuous didacts of the digerati)of those that actually believe this “separation of church and state” occurs verbatim in the Constitution of these United States. To wit, Article One (a.k.a. the 1st of the provisory addenda known as The Bill of Rights) states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Now it is true that Jefferson, that patron saint of humanist civil libertarians looking for Constitutional cover (though his being a founding father vis-a-vis that document is rather tenuous since TJ himself happened to be in France at the time of its composition), did in fact see said amendment “…with sovereign reverence [as] that act… building a wall of separation between Church and State” in the most quoted of his convictions on the supposed antagonism of civil and religious obligations (many of which were posited in his campaign for and use of the Presidency (see a fairly thorough compilation by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State called WWJD: What Would Jefferson Do?) and that from such extra-constitutional contemplation (Jefferson’s word) comes the interpretation of a “separation clause” existing in the federal government’s charter.
No, this is actually a case of separation of state from family.
Indeed this is a decidedly activist judge who went with Indiana’s Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau recommendations in observing “…a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school… . and [that they] display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon the boy as he ages,†—a finding which I personally happen to agree with. However, since these decidedly non-mainstream parents are in agreement as to the bias of their particular unit of society, Judge Bradford’s ruling is egregious to the faiths of all families which are equally established and are afforded all reasonable toleration (see the much too over-looked “no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof†clause) in their right to influence free society —whatever threat you or others may find in such religious bias.
So, what we —and especially every judge advocate of the left or right—should take from this affair is an understanding with Jefferson that “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”
