Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
I understand, and I agree. If someone wants to read and go through this whole thread and believe that the whole purpose of this was to bash Bush ..... to me that is an excuse to ignore the true issue and not have to comment on the issue..... approval by silence.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Why don't you ask Dubya and one of his biggest contributors and supporters.... the Rev. Moon.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
You know what's funny, one of my good friends told me that if Bush were reelected one of the first groups he'd come after were Wiccans. I laughed thinking he was just paranoid and insecure with the religion he has practiced for 40 years.
I do owe him a huge appology when I see him again.
|
|
Yup, no Bush bashing here, folks
.
Quote:
|
I know full well that noone can change the judge's decision except a higher court, HOWEVER, again not 1 elected official (local, state or national) has come out publicly or has been quoted in anything I have read about this incident yet. No matter the seperation, as proven recently with the Schiavo case, the different branches can and do comment on what they feel is right or wrong and yell for judges heads. Again, in this case.... approval by silence is very apparent.
|
Maybe it's because the judge feels that exposing children to nudity is wrong, and people agree with this concept. It's no secret that there is often nudity involved with wicca; I doubt that the parents would expose their child to it, but it's also not something the judge wanted to risk. The concept is much the same as in the cases where children have medical attention forced upon them despite their parents' religious objectons, or if a judge wrote an injunction banning snake handlers from introducing their children to that sect.
Currently in society, exposing children to nudity is considered harmful, You can argue if nudity is harmful or not, but the judge was doing what he felt was right, and was wholly within his rights. You want people to be mad about this decision? Start attacking nudity taboos, not the lawful implementation of them.