![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
In what has to be the most blatant violation of the First Amendment ever recorded, an Indianapolis judge has told two parents who are in the midst of their divorce that neither one may teach his or her religion to their child. Before signing the parenting plan, the judge wrote in a provision that prohibits either parent from teaching the child Wicca or other "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."
Now, in the past when there have been cases like this it's arisen because one parent is pagan and the other Christian. In this case, however, both parents are Wiccan.
The judge's rationale? "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."
Apparently, the judge believes that the Catholic school the child attends is "closer to the truth" than the parents and has ruled in favor of the school's religious teachings over that of the parents. That's the only conclusion I can come to. (And, hey, if the mother sounds a little new-agey in her article, remember that the reporter picked and chose the quotes, and when interviewing Christians is careful to elide the whole "I commit ritual cannibalism of the body of my savior every Sunday morning" thing.)
If the judge thinks living in a world with more than one religion is "confusing," wait until the kid figures out he's supposed to be living in a country where the First Amendment is the law of the land.
I can't imagine this surviving on appeal. It's as brain-damaged as it gets. Their lawyer had the best response: "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"
Now, in the past when there have been cases like this it's arisen because one parent is pagan and the other Christian. In this case, however, both parents are Wiccan.
The judge's rationale? "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."
Apparently, the judge believes that the Catholic school the child attends is "closer to the truth" than the parents and has ruled in favor of the school's religious teachings over that of the parents. That's the only conclusion I can come to. (And, hey, if the mother sounds a little new-agey in her article, remember that the reporter picked and chose the quotes, and when interviewing Christians is careful to elide the whole "I commit ritual cannibalism of the body of my savior every Sunday morning" thing.)
If the judge thinks living in a world with more than one religion is "confusing," wait until the kid figures out he's supposed to be living in a country where the First Amendment is the law of the land.
I can't imagine this surviving on appeal. It's as brain-damaged as it gets. Their lawyer had the best response: "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"
no subject
Date: 2005-05-26 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-26 05:36 pm (UTC)I've posted a link to the article in my journal as well. I find it interesting that this is the second issue I've read about today regarding a parent's right to make decisions about what's best for their child.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-26 10:20 pm (UTC)W. T. F.?
no subject
Date: 2005-05-26 10:33 pm (UTC)On a completely different subject...
Date: 2005-05-27 12:04 am (UTC)Wait, so... Ayreon is too cheesy to live, but Saga is ok by you?
Re: On a completely different subject...
Date: 2005-05-28 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-27 12:49 am (UTC)Or is the court now deciding to re-educate children regardless of their parents' beliefs?
no subject
Date: 2005-05-27 01:36 am (UTC)So a lot depends on how exactly the school handles the religion issue. Given that the parents are *paying* for the kid to attend (very few Catholic schools are free) and stated that the kid is attending as a "non-christian", I'd expect that the issue was already dealt with.
There is even a joke about this...
Date: 2005-05-27 03:04 am (UTC)So his parents decided he needed more a challenge. The best rated school in the area was a Catholic school.
Johnny's family wasn't Catholic, or even Christian, but they were reassured that was not a problem, so they enrolled Johnny.
The change was immediate. Little Johnny came home every day and first thing, sat down and carefully did his homework, starting with math.
Then the first report card came. Johnny had straight a straight A average! To top it off, an A+ in Math!
His parents where so happy! They were also very curious, so they asked Little Johnny was different about this school.
Johnny looks at them and says, "Hey! I got the message they were serious the first day! I walked into the classroom and they have this guy nailed to a plus sign on the wall!"
[insert rim shot]
Disclaimer: I'm the only Christian in my house, and a generic Army Chapel Protestant to boot.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-27 06:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-27 02:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-02 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-02 10:21 pm (UTC)The appeals court will throw this out so fast...
Date: 2005-05-27 04:17 am (UTC)It is pretty scary that the Judge, who is supposed to be the child's advocate, is acting in this fashion.
Re: The appeals court will throw this out so fast...
Date: 2005-05-27 11:15 am (UTC)