![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsIn 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?"
