Comments on: Judge: Parents Can’t Teach Pagan Beliefs

By: Handmaid with a Tale to Tell

Handmaid with a Tale to Tell — Sun, 29 May 2005 23:34:16 +0000

This does not surprise me at all. I left Indiana -- a State I love, and in which I was born and raised, and in which various lineages of my family have resided since well before the Civil War -- because of the extremist conservative political and economic control of the state.

This is the state that rounded PI to 3.14, gave birth to the Klu Klux Klan, the John Birch Society, and saw Clarence Manion create an extremist conservative movement that broadcast rightist rhetoric through the air waves on the Manion Forum for decades that is now mirrored by the corporate media.

This is the wave of close future unless these folks are reigned back in, and quickly.

By: Wick Deer

Wick Deer — Sat, 28 May 2005 12:29:44 +0000

At the hearing on the Motion to Correct Errors, the judge was explicitly offered the option of a more narrowly tailored ruling banning nudity.

The judge did not take up the offer.

By: Wick Deer

Wick Deer — Sat, 28 May 2005 12:25:48 +0000

To the gentlemen who claims there is no such thing as an activist Federal Judge: Not so much.

Bush v. Gore was an extraordinary act of judicial activism.

Leaving aside whether you liked the result or not, it is also the worst piece of judicial reasoning that I have ever read. Ironically the reigning champion in bad craftsmanship that it knocked out was Roe v. Wade.

Wick

By: LJD

LJD — Fri, 27 May 2005 12:37:25 +0000

Is it legal to take peyote? Drink blood? Practice Incest? Polygamy? Depends on which state, perhaps.

The wife not being involved is telling. Remeber, this is the result of a divorce. Strange things happen when people are emotionally stressed. There must have been some incident that caused the judge to pry into this.

We'll see the rest of this story unfold. Right now, I'd say too early to tell.

By: ICallMasICM

ICallMasICM — Fri, 27 May 2005 12:29:22 +0000

Actually though the order isn't constitutional I don't think as a matter of personal advice it's so bad.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Fri, 27 May 2005 11:58:06 +0000

LJD you draw the line at things that actually illegal. It doesn't sound like there was anything illegal going on, it sounds like the issue was between the religion the parents practiced and the child's attendance at a Catholic school. Where the parents send their child to school shouldn't have any bearing on what religion they practice or teach their children.

The only thing I find curious in the case is that the father is the only one actually going to court on this. Why isn't the mother also joining in the suit, but it may be something procedural I just find it curious.

By: LJD

LJD — Fri, 27 May 2005 11:19:08 +0000

"Some people have preconceived notions about Wicca, which has some rituals involving nudity but mostly would be inoffensive to children" Just for some perspective, to those who readily jump on the freedom of religion bandwagon. We don't see the entire picture here. "Bradford said Wednesday he could not discuss the pending legal dispute." One would hope a judge is intelligent enough to realize the repercusssions of such a decision... However, I wonder about the "mostly inoffensive" disclaimer. Where do we draw the line? Chopping of chicken heads? Drinking human blood? Sacrifice? I'm not saying these things of Wicca, rather unchecked freedom of religion in general. So why the hell is this kid in Catholic shcool? There's more here than meets the eye.

By: Ragdrazi

Ragdrazi — Fri, 27 May 2005 03:07:22 +0000

Oh. Sorry about that. Coming in off of work. I'm a little tired. Yeah. That was dumb of me. Sorry.

By: Ragdrazi

Ragdrazi — Fri, 27 May 2005 03:05:47 +0000

I see. So you canât argue me on merit so you just have your spam filter take care of me? Hmm. Oh well. Keep yourself as dumb as you want to be.

By: The Wild Duck

The Wild Duck — Fri, 27 May 2005 00:59:55 +0000

Freedom Means To Stay the [Choose Your Favorite Expletive] Out of My Family, Your Honor

Family Court Means Never Having to Say You’re Constitutional

...

By: The Debate Link

The Debate Link — Thu, 26 May 2005 22:30:39 +0000

Out of the Mainstream

But is there any principled way to differentiate this outragous ruling, and a, in my mind anyway, eerily similar one handed down a short while ago by 4th Circuit judge (and potential Supreme Court nominee) J. Harvie Wilkinson III? I don't think there...

By: carpeicthus

carpeicthus — Thu, 26 May 2005 20:35:11 +0000

There's *definitionally* no such thing as right-wing activism? Totally ignoring jurisprudence is better than, um, not? Wow.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Thu, 26 May 2005 19:59:39 +0000

I don't know what he was thinking, but it looks like his ruling was based on a report by the domestic relations counseling bureau, what I don't understand is why the judge didn't recind the order, when he learned that the parents were not in any disagreement regarding religion.

The ruling makes no sense at all in light of the fact that both parents practice the same religion.

There is no way the ruling will stand up-there isn't a single constitutional or legal reason for the judge to have kept the ruling in place.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Thu, 26 May 2005 19:20:33 +0000

Not only should the ruling be overturned, but the judge should be sanctioned. I don't care if this is a first-time anomaly for him, the judiciary needs to make sure there isn't a second.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Thu, 26 May 2005 18:59:53 +0000

I am tired of anything the GOVERNMENT tells me to do or not to do in raising children....my goodness, my folks manage to get me to "majority" without carseats, bike helmets, or school distributed condoms. Et al.

LEAVE ME THE HELL, ALONE!