May 28, 2005

Judge To Parents -- You May Not Pass On Your Religion To Son

In one of the most arrogant, anti-constitutional decisions made by a judge that I have ever encountered, an Indiana judge has forbidden a pair of Wiccan parents from teaching exposing their son to their religious faith as a condition of the child custody provision of their divorce decree.

A Wiccan activist and his ex-wife are challenging a court's order that they must protect their 9-year-old son from what it terms their "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

Thomas E. Jones and Tammy Bristol of Indianapolis are fighting a Marion Superior Court stipulation that they shelter the boy from their religion. The Indiana Civil Liberties Union has taken on the case, appealing the December decree to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Jones, a Wiccan activist who has coordinated Pagan Pride Day in Indianapolis for the past six years, said he and his ex-wife were stunned when they saw the language in the judge's dissolution decree on Feb. 13, 2004.

"We both had an instant resolve to challenge it. We could not accept it," Jones said.

Neither parent has taken their son to any Wiccan rituals since the decree was issued, he said.

"I'm afraid I'll lose my son if I let him around when I practice my religion," he said.

Now I disagree with Wicca. I have some very firm beliefs on what fate eternity holds for those who practice Wicca. But when you have two parents who both practice the religion, it is unreasonable and intolerable for a judge to tell them that they cannot pass their religious values on to their child. For that matter, I have a problem if a judge were to order that one parent not pass on any or all of their religious beliefs to their child. Short of an immediate demonstrable harm to the child's well-being, it just is not a matter for the court to be involved in. It is the fundamental right of parents to oversee the religious upbringing of their children.

What was the basis for the ruling?

A court commissioner wrote the unusual order into the couple's dissolution decree after a routine report by the court's Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau noted that both Jones and his ex-wife are pagans who send their son, Archer, to a Catholic elementary school.

"Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon Archer as he ages," the report said.

The dissolution decree said "the parents are directed to take such steps as are needed to shelter Archer from involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The splitting parents challenged that section of the decree, but Judge Cale Bradford, who reviewed the commissioner's work, let it stand.

Uh, I thought that "diversity" was a good thing. I guess not in the eyes of these people. If the issue was the "confusion" that would be created by having the parents teaching one thing and the school something else, why not order the child removed fromt he Catholic school? After all, the kid is not Catholic, and everyone at the school knows that -- and have known that since he enrolled. The decision of the court simply does not make sense.

Additional commentary from Dolphin & Watching the Watchers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Well said. Diversity should be all-inclusive, as long as it isn't hurting anyone. I am a Buddhist myself, and I can only imagine how that could be twisted into a "non-mainstream" religion, if this sets the precedent.

I have no problems with people practicing the religion of their choice. This simply doesn't make sense.

~A!

Posted by: ~A! at Sat May 28 12:12:22 2005 (XYt5w)

2 Amen,

I'm not in favor of Pagenism, but I'm even more opposed to some Judge dictating what religion a child should be raised in.

Posted by: Rachel Ann at Sun May 29 08:21:19 2005 (r410j)

3 How dare you twist the article around by not quoting every letter of it. Oh well, I guess it's just another case of an attack by The Dishonest And Intellectually Deficient Right.

Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 23:12:15 2005 (V5cZa)

4 Whomever it was that posted these zillions of posts in Dolphin's name (including if it was Dolphin) is an immature child.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. There's a difference between excerpting text from an article, screed, or post, and deliberately modifying the context of a statement to make it appear as if the author is saying something they did not.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 1 02:44:38 2005 (lkCzp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0057, elapsed 0.0193 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0156 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]