Oh, Goddess...

[elfs]

Remember that divorce case back towards the end of May when a divorcing couple were both refused the right to teach their child Wicca because the judge feared that the boy might become "confused" between their beliefs and those of his Catholic school?

The superior court of the county where they live has upheld the decree.

This is not an attack on Wicca or the First Amendment. The judge and commissioner support the constitutional guarantee concerning freedom of religion. But this case is not just about freedom of religion. It's about the court's obligation to protect minor children from certain rituals that might be harmful to their well-being, whether or not those things are affiliated with a religion.

Like consuming the blood and flesh of your god isn't a twisted and repulsive ritual?

Comments

[fallenpegasus]

Americans give their courts too much power.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I think he is incorrect in some places. He seems to imply that that just because an elected body passed laws, that it means that the Supreme Court must allow the laws to stand. We are a Constitutional Republic. Every law has to be interpreted through the eyes of the one document that cannot be violated unless the Federal Congress alters it legally (through amendments).

The problem isn't the power of "changing" these laws. The problem is what happens when the justices make interpretations that a large portion of the country doesn't agree with. Is it the Supreme Court that is wrong, or the country? I can give you examples of both (but not right now...I've gotta pick up a little girl in a minute;).

However, in this particular case I think we have a couple of judges who have decided that religion must be defined. That in itself is a danger, since it means that they have lost touch with the Constitution from the start. I'd be interested in seeing what the actual "evidence of harm" each judge claimed to use as the reason for these decisions. "Confusion" is not a good enough reason. Having been in family court for about eight years, I oughta know. Heh.

[solarbird]

Joy. What lovely fuckheads they have in charge in Indiana.

[rowanf.livejournal.com]

Astonishing. Horrifying. Disgusting. I really had hopes for the Superior Court. On to further Appeals. Thank goodness for ACLU. *sigh*

[jenkitty.livejournal.com]

I have a friend who was raised in Indiana. She tells me that the public schools there are such utter unfiltered crap that lots of folks send their children to Catholic school, whether they're Catholic or not, just to give them a chance at a decent education. Too bad the judges either don't know that, know it but are trying to cover that fact, or are just getting hardons from the idea of being able to legally persecute Witches from the bench.

[polydad.livejournal.com]

Does anyone think it's *possible* to get any reality into brains like that posessed by the judge in question without the use of a sledgehammer?

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

That comment about Holy Communion is a bit snarky.

But, yes, theologians have been dancing around that problem for centuries. Is it symbolism, or is it something that sounds awfully like magic?

My religious upbringing leant towards symbolism; an echo of the Last Supper and an aide memoire.

Odd how the whole thing started in an age of paganism, isn't it. I wonder where they got the idea.

[atheorist.livejournal.com]

Um, Catholics are pretty clear on the question of 'is it symbolic, or literal?'. I think they call it 'transubstantiation', and taking the words literally is one of their central doctrines.

[tagryn]

Agree that the last part of the post could be an unnecessary rip, but if Elf really feels that way about Catholicism, well, its his blog.

The way I took his comments were "Hey, *any* religion can look strange if you really want to see it that way." If you're going to apply this standard to one religion - its odd to the judge, so it has to be restricted - that sets a very dangerous precedent for parental guidance with regard to any religion.

The court representative said this was not about a particular religion, but about protecting children from "certain rituals." OK, then the court needs to specify what rituals are being talked about, then explain why they are harmful for children to be exposed to.

In fairness, every religion has its extremes where followers do some fairly nasty stuff in the name of their beliefs. I'm not familiar enough with the case to say whether what the defendants were doing fell into this category or not, but again, in that circumstance the relevant part of the law would be under child endangerment/child abuse, which I believe is usually fairly specific as to what constitutes an actionable violation.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

That comment about Holy Communion is a bit snarky.

Of course it is. All religious rituals look bizarre to outsiders. "Each man calls barbarian what is not his own pratice" said the Rennaisance writer Montaigne back in the 16th century.