pan6467

Interesting that noone has commented on this. I guess it shows that maybe people are more interested in the high profile news items so the small stuff can slip through. Not to sound paranoid but if I wanted to destroy freedom, I'd use that subterfuge.... let people fight over what I planted in the news and then take away the "small stuff" more unnoticed and with less resistance.

Anyway, I find it refreshing that several Christian leaders find this offensive also (there were a couple quoted in the Yahoo news article but not this one).

I go to a Unitarian Universalist church because I do not put any religion above another. I have my faith and am strong enough in it to not pass judgements on another's nor feel mine is the only one. MY spirituality and beliefs are MINE, just because I believe them to be true doesn't mean that they are true for everyone.

Wiccan is a very interesting study and way of life and I cannot believe a judge has deemed that parents cannot pass on their ways to the child.....

This is only going to get worse unless people stand up. What is sad is that this will become a left and right issue and the GOP will find massive unreasonable reasons to support this judge. I hope I am wrong but why should things change. They want it all their way and no dialogue which ends upcreating issues like this and polarizing the country.

This should be an issue BOTH sides that truly want to seperate church and state and keep freedom of religion a huge right should protest against. Of course there are those on the Right that use my favorite phrase to take rights away........ "It's a privelege not a right... the founders of the country didn't mean for things to go this far.... religion is a privelege, speech is a privelege (whatever they deem as not "their way of thinking" is a privelege) and as such priveleges can be taken away." Of course owning a gun though is a right...... Watch Pat Robertson (who unfortunately has too much political clout) talk about the 1st ten amendments as priveleges).

=============================================================

Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs
Father appeals order in divorce decree that prevents couple from exposing son to Wicca.



Challenging the court: Thomas E. Jones Jr. says a judge's order tramples on his and his ex-wife's constitutional right to share their religious beliefs with their son. -- Frank Espich / The Star

What is Wicca?

Wicca is not a centralized religion but a belief system observed by 50,000 Americans that is recognized by reference texts such as the U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook.

Wicca is related to European tribal nature worship. Wiccans regard living things as sacred and often show a concern for the environment.

They do not worship Satan, but some cast "spells." Some worship in the nude as a sign of attunement with nature.

The core value of Wicca states, "As it harm none, do what you will."

-- Star report




By Kevin Corcoran
kevin.corcoran@indystar.com


An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy's outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall.

Through a court spokeswoman, Bradford said Wednesday he could not discuss the pending legal dispute.

The parents' Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford's attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights. Jones' son attends a local Catholic school.

"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," the bureau said in its report.

But Jones, 37, Indianapolis, disputes the bureau's findings, saying he attended Bishop Chatard High School in Indianapolis as a non-Christian.

Jones has brought the case before the Indiana Court of Appeals, with help from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. They filed their request for the appeals court to strike the one-paragraph clause in January.

"This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones, who has organized Pagan Pride Day events in Indianapolis. "It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox."

The ICLU and Jones assert the judge's order tramples on the parents' constitutional right to expose their son to a religion of their choice. Both say the court failed to explain how exposing the boy to Wicca's beliefs and practices would harm him.

Bristol is not involved in the appeal and could not be reached for comment. She and Jones have joint custody, and the boy lives with the father on the Northside.

Jones and the ICLU also argue the order is so vague that it could lead to Jones being found in contempt and losing custody of his son.

"When they read the order to me, I said, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Alisa G. Cohen, an Indianapolis attorney representing Jones. "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"

Some people have preconceived notions about Wicca, which has some rituals involving nudity but mostly would be inoffensive to children, said Philip Goff, director of the Center for the Study of Religion & American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

"Wiccans use the language of witchcraft, but it has a different meaning to them," Goff said. "Their practices tend to be rather pacifistic. They tend to revolve around the old pagan holidays. There's not really a church of Wicca. Practices vary from region to region."

Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University.

"The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side."

At times, divorcing parents might battle in the courts over the religion of their children. But Kenneth J. Falk, the ICLU's legal director, said he knows of no such order issued before by an Indiana court. He said his research also did not turn up such a case nationally.

"Religion comes up most frequently when there are disputes between the parents. There are lots of cases where a mom and dad are of different faiths, and they're having a tug of war over the kids," Falk said. "This is different: Their dispute is with the judge. When the government is attempting to tell people they're not allowed to engage in non-mainstream activities, that raises concerns."

Indiana law generally allows parents who are awarded physical custody of children to determine their religious training; courts step in only when the children's physical or emotional health would be endangered.

Getting the judge's religious restriction lifted should be a slam-dunk, said David Orentlicher, an Indiana University law professor and Democratic state representative from Indianapolis.

"That's blatantly unconstitutional," Orentlicher said. "Obviously, the judge can order them not to expose the child to drugs or other inappropriate conduct, but it sounds like this order was confusing or could be misconstrued."

The couple married in February 1995, and their divorce was final in February 2004.

As Wiccans, the boy's parents believe in nature-based deities and engage in worship rituals that include guided meditation that Jones says improved his son's concentration. Wicca "is an understanding that we're all connected, and respecting that," said Jones, who is a computer Web designer.

Jones said he does not consider himself a witch or practice anything resembling witchcraft.

During the divorce, he told a court official that Wiccans are not devil worshippers. And he said he does not practice a form of Wicca that involves nudity.

"I celebrate life as a duality. There's a male and female force to everything," Jones said. "I feel the Earth is a living creature. I don't believe in Satan or any creature of infinite evil."
============================================================

link: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...WS01/505260481

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Cynthetiq

sorry, but my take on some of the fringe religions is that some people change those like they change socks. I don't discredit the religious beliefs nor the system/people, but it does get discounted quickly and easily.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

raveneye

Like somebody said, the ruling is flagrantly unconstitutional. Getting the restriction lifted should be a slam dunk.

I think it's basically a judge who is incompetent or ignorant or simply made a mistake. It happens all the time; in this case it involved religion so it got some press, which is a good thing.

pan6467

I would not call Wiccan a fringe religion. In their eyes it is no more different than Christianity and Judaism or Maoist, Buddhist and Hindu.

I see nothing wrong with a religion that teaches "Do as you will but harm none" or that we must get closer to Earth and thank the mother for her generosity that gives us life.

The problem lies with attitudes that "fringe religions" are to be discounted. I have many many friends that are Wiccan and NOT 1 changes their beliefs nor challenges other religions and belief systems. So what gives Christianity and Christians the right to challenge or call "fringe religion" or brush it off as a cultistic element that doesn't deserve recognition?

Raveneye, I believe it is 2 judges that allowed this. The original judge who heard the divorce and set the visitation rights and the judge today a year later whoi upheld the ruling and refused to take it out.

Either way, this is proof the religious right are taking things way way too far.

I wonder where the cries from those conservatives, who demand we get back to the true meaning of the Constitution, are. The Indy Star is a relatively conservative paper in a very conservative city and state and yet not 1 republican was quoted. Did no republican have anything to say against this ruling or are they favoring it by staying silent?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Here's the link that names a Christian leader as condemning the ruling and tells that a court commissioner put the order in and then the judge let it stand.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ivorce_order_1

the article:

Divorced Wiccans Fight Judge's Order By KEN KUSMER, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 26, 8:26 PM ET



INDIANAPOLIS - 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 calls their "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The Indiana Civil Liberties Union has appealed the stipulation written into the couple's divorce order, saying it is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define mainstream religion.

Thomas Jones, a Wiccan activist who has coordinated Pagan Pride Day in Indianapolis for six years, said he and his ex-wife, Tammy Bristol, were stunned by the order. Neither parent has taken their son to any Wiccan rituals since it was issued, he said.

"We both had an instant resolve to challenge it. We could not accept it," Jones said Thursday. "I'm afraid I'll lose my son if I let him around when I practice my religion."

A court commissioner wrote the unusual order 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.

In the order, the parents were "directed to take such steps as are needed to shelter Archer from involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The judge let the wording stand.

The order has been criticized by various religious and advocacy groups.

Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said judges cannot substitute their religious judgment for that of parents in regard to the upbringing of children.

"This is an absurd result, because in the eyes of the law being a pagan should be no different from being a Presbyterian," he said.

Wiccans contend their religion is becoming more mainstream. The parents' appeal says there were about 1 million pagans worldwide in 2002, more than the numbers who practice Sikhism, Taoism and other established religions in the United States.

Wiccans consider themselves witches, pagans or neo-pagans, and say their religion is based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons.

"There continues to be misunderstanding and prejudice and discrimination, not only against Wicca but against any religion that is not centered on monotheism," said the Rev. Elena Fox, high priestess and senior minister of Circle Sanctuary, a Wiccan church and pagan resource center near Madison, Wis.

The head of a conservative Christian group also sided with the Wiccans.

"The parents have the right to raise their child in that faith, just as I have the right to raise my child in the Christian faith," said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

The question of course is are they just the run of the mill Wiccan types or is there more to it beyond what the story says.

I see most Wiccans are basicly harmless people trying to get back at their Christian parents.

http://www.wrcf.org/faq.shtml

Perhaps it was something like this which turned a few heads. Not a big deal to you and me, but I'm sure how such activities could be interpreted as not healthy for a child.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

moosenose

Teaching a kid paganism and then sending him to a CATHOLIC school should be grounds for the State to intervene and take custody of the child for reckless child endangerment.

Cynthetiq

Just going by world wide numbers of followers, there's no disrespect to the religion itself. It's just the facts of distribution.

They (the christians and christianity) have the right, it's been given to them by God according to the constitution as do the Muslims, the Jews, etc. You and I don't have to believe it, but that's the same right we were given to challenge or call it as such.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Locobot

Ahh moosenose always good for a good laugh.

No one has mentioned yet all the crazy shit in the book of Morman. Status as a "religion" in the U.S. has more to do with skin color and $$$ than any kind of belief system. Try getting tax-exempt status for your voodoo temple and you won't get very far, depending on your state. Nonetheless the voodun tradition predates the Mormans and most other Christian flavors.

sprocket

Wow, this judge made the right call. If theres nudity involved it must be evil. The litte ones must be protected. *sarcasm.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

martinguerre

Bill: What's up, Judge? How’s it going? Uh, we have sort of a problem here. Yeah. You apparently didn't leave out undue interferance with religious expression in one of your decisions.
Judge: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry for that. I, I forgot.
Bill: Yeah. You see, we're not performing undue interferance with religious expression in our decisions. Did you get the memo about this?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

jonjon42

I find it amazing that they were even able to think about these type of rullings. Now imagine we were talking about christian parents? Imagine the lynching these judges would be in for. This better be overturned.
I know a few Wiccans and they are for the most part good people, I myself am a bit fringish religion, with my experiments with zen.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

pan6467

See that is where our differences lie. I choose to believe freedom of religion means that we have the right to worship how we choose without any harrassments from anyone else, esp. a government. I believe our Constitution and the Bill Of Rights were written to protect ALL, especially the minorities. If we choose not to protect the minorities then we have thrown the Bill of Rights out of the window, and eventually all minorities will be looked upon as inferior.

To say the Constitution gives Christians or any religion the right to challenge or use political power (as in this case) to regulate how a person should worship or what the parent teaches the child or to discredit another religion is ludicrous.

In my 37 (very soon to be 38) years, I have found that how a person worships or their spirituality is very sacred to them, a part of who they are and very much individualized. I find any argument calling someone's spirituality or religion "wrong, shallow, fringe or whatever" a problem lying more with the individual labeling than with the individual being true to oneself.

Granted most religions preach that they are "the one anointed" and any other is wrong, however, who is to truly say what philosophy or style God really deems is the correct one. I am not God, I cannot pass judgement on how another worships because that entitles others to pass judgement on my form of worship and I will not allow that. And noone should, how you worship is between your God and you.

To pass your beliefs to your child is no more wrong than than passing on any other cultural belief system. To teach your child that there are other systems of beliefs and that when the child is old enough to decide the parent will gladly accept IS the best any parent can do in that situation.

I believe that the parents in question are doing just that. Showing the child their ways and beliefs but allowing him to be of open mind and to learn other forms of worship (this is shown by their allowance of sending the child to a Parochial school). This is also far more rewarding and mind opening to the child in my opinion. For when the child matures he will see what many fail to allow themselves or their children to see, and that is there are other ways of thinking and not all are right and not all are wrong but one must learn what is best for oneself and not pass judgements on others.

I see this as more of a way for children and adults to share and learn from each other and I see this as a sanctimonious government and a controlling religious group as working to prevent such experiences and growth.

Just because a smaller percentage worships a different way does not mean that way is wrong. It may be wrong for many and many may not understand but that is no reason to hold that belief system as wrong and insignificant, or non mainstream and therefore should not be taught to their children.

The question is if we allow this to set a precedent, who is to say that Shaoism, Taoism, Hindu, Buddhism, Scientology, Aetherius Society and even some Christian denominations such as Seventh Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientism, won't face the same criticism and governmental interventions because their numbers are not significant?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Elphaba

From a historical perspective, I recall one fringe religious group that needed to use secret signs to identify one to another to avoid persecution. I suspect that there couldn't have been more than a few thousand followers at the time of it's leader's death. That fringe group was eventually named "Christian."

Cynthetiq

you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. I am in agreement with you on the freedom of religion for all from tree worship to catshit worship it doesn't matter if it's your religion, so be it.

You asked what gives them the right... and I answered it pedantically.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Ustwo

At what point does a cult become a religion?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

What is your answer to that question, Ustwo?

pan6467

Why don't you ask Dubya and one of his biggest contributors and supporters.... the Rev. Moon.

I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to say that Wicca is a cult, if so, then I think you are trying to pick a fight, by trying to use the word "cult" in a negative fashion.

Merriam Webster defines "CULT" as:

Link: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ionary&va=cult

I see nothing truly negative in the definition. By the #1 and #2 entries ANY religion can be classified as a cult, including Christian denominations (or even Christianity as a whole), Judaism and Islam.

So, again I have to ask what exactly is your point if not to try to stir up a fight by insinuating that Wicca is a cult and therefore not a religion?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

My point is quite obvious to anyone not looking from a biased viewpoint trying to get the 'evil right wing'. Had the parents been in Heavens Gate instead would there be a story here? Had they been giving the child peyote to go on a vision quest would there be a story?

My question is the fundamental question of the story. What makes something a 'religion' and therefore protected?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

Actually, if you have read my previous posts, I am not condemning the GOP, but simply asking how any true person loving their freedoms and the Constitution can support this. I do find it sad that you apparently agree with the judge or are trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I also stated I find it quite saddening that noone in the GOP party has stood up and pronounced this unconstitutional and wrong. I guess it is support through silence on the party's part.

This was a story some years back in that Waco had children and that was one reason, perhaps the major reason the Feds. didn't just go in. And then some GOP slammed Clinton because it was a "religious attack with no foundations".

What seperates a cult from a religion? I am not a law major and do not know the answer, but I can say that comparing Heaven's Gate to a religion that is recognized already by our government as having merit, Wiccan, shows ignorance and IMHO is arguing a non-issue and trying to win approval for a disgusting, prejudiced, anti-constitutional judgement.

Again, nowhere did I slam the GOP as a whole, basically it's the Religious Right that I feel probably stands behind this and is more or less testing the waters to see what kind of protestations come before trying this as a nationwide principle.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mantus

Political power.

pan6467

As for this if you read the article it mentions the nude sect and the father says he does not practice that portion.... next argument.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Lebell

Actually, given that you titled it "The Government..." as opposed to "Two judges", it would seem to me as well that you are slamming the current party in control.

As to the case at hand, regardless of my personal feelings and experiences with wiccans, I fully support their rights to raise their children as they see fit and I think these judges were way over the line and need to be censured.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Ustwo

I do too, all I want to know is are we getting all the facts or is there more in the report then has been released.

Its very easy for the press to fuck up a story, misslead, and missrepresent. I am wondering was it truely a case of religious intolerance, or was there more to it. We are only getting one side here as stated

Since the judge isn't allowed to speak about the case, we have to take the parents word. I'd like to know more before I get my panties in a bunch. If the judge is basing this over personal opinion only it should be overturned faster than a 9th Circus court ruling.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

I see so now it's a press issue for you.

First you insinuate Wicca as a cult, then you compare Wicca with Heaven's Gate, and now the press isn't telling the full story.

Let's see, the first article and most found online come from the Indy Star. Having lived in Indy (12th and Rochester '94-'95) I know firsthand that the paper is one of the most conservative in the nation. I don't think they would try to put a "liberal bias" on anything.

Also the article says why the ruling was included (from a previous posting of one of the articles):

I have attended many Wiccan rituals and I have found them more loving, caring and individualistic than most Christian rituals. Nor does ANY Wiccan friend I meet ever put down another religion in any way, push their beliefs onto me, they are in fact probably the most accepting of others group that I have ever met. I can not say the same for mainstream Christianity.

Also, Wiccan is not something that just sprouted, it can be traced farther back than Christianity.

If the judge had cause to leave the ruling in, I believe he would have been smart enough to word the ruling better. I just think this is a case where the Religious Right has so scared judges that they are willing to throw rights away to appease.

I find the wording very offensive, condemning and prejudicial, if the child were in any danger I am sure that would have been brought out. Instead, to just state that (the parents have been)"directed to take such steps as are needed to shelter Archer from involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.", is simplistic and cannot be read in any other way than prejudicial and self serving to the author.

Christ was a great teacher of love, acceptance and understanding. Unfortunately, in organized Christianity the leaders view the religion as a means for power by spreading fear and prejudice, and this ruling is proof of that. That practice of those in control of the Christian churches, IMHO goes against everything Christ taught. But that is another thread for a different forum.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Lebell

Umm, I'll say it another way.

I don't see Bush mentioned anywhere in that article.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Ustwo

I thought Bush was a Baal worshiper

At any rate someone proved my point it seems despite denying it at first. Thanks.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

No, I was just pointing out something a friend said to me, that is relevant to the article.

A judge is part of the government, the fact that rulings like these go through many public officials hands and that NOT 1 (Dem or GOP) is quoted in ANY article on this subject as coming out strongly against it, IMHO shows that they support it through silence.

IT is not just Bush or the GOP, it is also Dems. However as Indiana is predominantly very Rep. (even the Dems are very conservative), I singled out the fact that not 1 GOP has mentioned anything. (I just don't see any Dems. in Indiana speaking out against anything controversial as they would probably not survive a re-election in that state.)

Was I partisan? Yes, my political opinion is that our government and GOP are so ass kissing to the religious right that they turn blind eyes and allow things like this to happen (the GOP happens to be the party in power esp. in INDIANA and the GOP is the party that many of the leaders firmly support the actions of and listen (pardon the pun) religiously to the Religious Right).

Bush just happens to be the party's leader and therefore becomes an easy target to speak against, much as some religious right claimed WACO was Clinton attacking religion. Easy targets to speak out against the platform. That's politics.

Is this a partisan subject? NO, it should not be and as stated in my very first post, I would love to see a GOP or righty come out against this..... INSTEAD Wicca was insinuated as a cult, a fringe religion that people change like socks, compared to Heavens Gate and then the press article itself was challenged.

To me that shows turning a blind eye and saying..... well let me come up with an excuse as to why this is ok....... which in turn proves my friend to be very accurate with his prediction...... one in which I stated I laughed at and thought he was just being paranoid.

This issue is not about Bush or left or right POLITICS but over civil rights and the 1st Amendment. But I am curious as to what he would say on the issue.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Lebell

But you are ignoring our entire system of government and how it is structured.

First, you are talking about state judges that are probably elected locally.

Second, the framers of the constitution were very specific in how they seperated the branches.

So even if the Indiana state government was overwhelmingly Republican, it would have no real bearing on what judges (the judicial) was doing. They could attempt to pass a law which the judges would be required to follow, but then such a law itself would be open to judicial review.

Third, Bush is NOT the head of the GOP, the GOP National Party Chairman is the head of the GOP.

Forth, there is a real separation between state level politics and national level politics.

So I hope you can at least see why some people feel you are unfairly bashing Bush in your post.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

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.

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.

Clinton wasn't the head of the Dem. party but people bashed him. it is appearance and what perceptions are as to who gets bashed. Bush is the man in the GOP with the power... he has the office, therefore he allows himself to be held to the perception.... just as Clinton did and Reagan did and Nixon and LBJ and so on. To say he (the president any president) isn't the head (or at least figurehead) of the party would be to say he's just a puppet.... which is another topic.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

alansmithee

Yup, no Bush bashing here, folks .


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.

host

What prompts you to make a blanket statement about what society currently "considers harmful"? At most, there is conflicting opinion from the scientific community.
I am not going to argue if exposing children to nudity is harmful, I'll just provide some opinion from an NIH study, leading psychologists, and from a 1997 medical journal:

alansmithee

Seriously, is it necessary to challenge everything just because you don't agree with it? Despite numerous laws regulating just how nudity can be presented to children, are you seriously going to try to say theres just "conflicting opinion"? It's funny, that I knew by saying society there would be someone who would jump all over that one word, and just ignore everything else.

If you weren't going to argue it, why did you bother posting? Just to show your mastery of google.com? And also, if that's the best you can do for support, you have failed. What qualifies the 3 individuals actually quoted in your articles as "leading" psychologists? I'm glad you had the time to research their credentials in the approx. 40 minutes between our posts to determine that they are, indeed, leading psychologists. In the link you posted, the psychologists identified as "leading" felt that nudity in the home WAS damaging to children. And in your article from '97, there was nothing talking about the potential psychological side effects about nudity being exposed to children, it was dealing with a microscopic jellyfish being trapped in clothing. And it doesn't even identify the "medical" journal that said that swimming nude would prevent the rash from the jellyfish. It even states that in the original source DIDN'T mention swimming nude as a prevention method.

So what was the purpose? You commented nothing about the original thread, or what I had to say about the original thread.

pan6467

In answer to USTWO's question about what is a cult........ A very legitimate answer considering the Rev. Moon is considered the nations largest cult head. Yes it was also sarcasm, but the Rev. Moon is a huge contributor to Pres. Bush and through his papers and media a huge supporter.... so Wicca is to be a cult but Moon is ok now????????


This was covered in the next 2 posts I wrote. And basically it is coming true as I see it. No, Bush hasn't said anything but I find it sad and hypocritical that the Feds (from US REPS and SENS to BUSH) who cried legislating from a bench about the Schiavo judges are now silent and not saying the same in this case..... and it is still legislating from the bench....and ignoring of the 1st Amendment and a court putting themselves above the 1st Amendment


First did you read all my posts or just the ones that contained Bush's name????

Again, someone who obviously has not read the article where the father says he does not practice in the nude..... And if that were so offensive and the sole reason why didn't the judge put that into wording???????

Most Judges and law clerks (esp in a city the size of Indy) have some form of legal training and should know how to word rulings to express their true intent...... that being the case..... the true intent ( prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.") and it is very obviously a thumbing of the nose at the 1st Amendment.

Again another right winger who wants to point to posts that have Bush's name in them and cry Bush bashing and holding desperately to excuses for a judge's prejudicial ruling.

So now from the Right I have:

- Wicca insinuated as a cult,
- a fringe religion that people change like socks,
- compared to Heavens Gate
- then the press article itself was challenged
and now.....
- Bush bashing as the sole reason for this thread.
- and another who seems to want to use the "nudity" issue even though it has been shown where the father says he doesn't practice in the nude already.... in the articles and in posts.

Have yet to hear a Righty say that this ruling is flat assed wrong and not make excuses as to why the ruling is ok.........

Where are you Righties? Show me that you can demoan a conservative judge as much as the Shiavo Judges..... (and by the way Schiavo was not a Fed. case (nor a Constitutional case) but was IMHO wrongly made to be one...... this is very much a Constitutional case, very much legislating from the bench and yet silence, excuses and not 1 of you are saying the judge is wrong.

Show me that you mean it when you say Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.... because that is EXACTLY what this judge did.... he allowed unconstitutional wording to be put into his ruling and upheld it as law....

If this had happened to a Christian family regardless of denomination (snake handlers, tongues, the polygymous sect of Mormonism... etc) there would be an outcry heard that would make Schiavo's case small in comparison. It would be on every news channel and the Right would be demanding the Judge's head.

And yet.......... silence and excuses and very very little national media coverage. So in all honesty, was my friend truly wrong? Because right now the party that Bush represents is giving it the silent approval IMHO.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

alansmithee

Are you interested in getting opposing viewpoints, or just validation of yours? Is this supposed to be yet another liberal circle jerk thread where you all congratulate each other over how much better you are than those intolerant, hateful, warmongering conservatives? Because that's all I'm getting.

You seem to immediately want to classify his decision in the most negative light possible. The father said he didn't practice in the nude? OK, sure let's just run our legal system on the honor system now and see how well that works. And does that mean those he associate with don't practice in the nude? You seem way to ready to dismiss other reasonable options in favor of one that proves your point-that being that conservatives are all evil hatemongers.

And as for the Bush bashing, you didn't explain why his name had to be brought up. If i'm talking about a particular position of the left that I don't agree with, or a isolated incident, I don't immediately work to tie in Clinton (either one), Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, or any of a number of liberal/democrat leaders. But liberals have to tie every thing wrong that happens in the world to Bush. You are starting to become like Confederate southerners-fighting battles that not only were lost long ago, but ones where the poeple have all moved on. You even try the same revisionist history. I can just see years from now parents telling their children about how in 2000 and 2004 the evil red-staters stole the elections from the noble Al Gore and John Kerry, when everyone else will remember these people about as much as Jefferson Davis is remembered today (and in the same light). This hatred of Bush has tainted anything liberals do or say now.

lurkette

Good god, I find myself siding with alansmithee and ustwo...where are the other three horsemen?

I fail to see what this story has to do with cults, Bush, or anything besides the actions of ONE judge (or two?) who made a questionable call that's no doubt going to be struck down on appeal. Ustwo asked an innocent question about what makes a religion a cult and people went all batshit about the Moonies funding Bush.

It'd be great if this thread somehow magically got itself back on track but I'm not holding my breath.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

pan6467

I would love to hear a reason why the wording is ok. So far all excuses are debunked and this is not a Lib. circle jerk thread.... I am honestly calling all the supporters of the Rights "war on legislating judges" and asking why you can support this but Schiavo's case was rightfully ok to fight.

I am not trying to say you are hate mongers, I am trying to very honestly ask why this is ok and so far all I get is:

As for the nude part I already covered that in the very post you quote.........


Again I did cover "this Bush Bashing" in the very post you quote and posts before it........ However again it seems that another Righty would rather this be about Bush bashing then answer the question...... or grasp at the "nude" part and believe that is the reason for this to be ok.

BTW, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and so on NEVER NEVER bring Clinton or Kennedy or any Dems name up in issues totally unrelated to them???? I guess it is ok for them but not for me?

Again, I have been to my share of Wiccan events, worships, celebrations, parties and so on and I have yet to see any nudity .

So to argue that nudity is commonplace is not true nor based on any foundations other than some quick searches and a sentence in the article saying that SOME Wiccans practice in the nude.

It's the same as basing a judgement on Christianity by saying "they handle snakes" or "speak in tongues" or "judge others with prejudice even though Christ preached love and understanding, tolerence and NOT to judge anyone." But the judge phrased his/her ruling "The parents shall not expose their child to non-mainstream Christian beliefs." with no other rationale or reasoning explicit in the ruling.

Would that be ok?????? It's the same thing? I have a feeling like I stated before..... the Religious Right and GOP would be calling for the judge's head, getting 24/7 media coverage and doing all they could to get that ruling changed.

What's the revisionist history..... where is it in this thread??????? If you can prove ANYTHING I have said wrong then I'll accept your criticism of me.... otherwise you are personally attacking me fraudulently and with malice because you cannot reasonably argue the topic of this thread.... but instead choose to rehash this "Bush bashing" and this "us against them" mentality that would allow this ruling to set a precedent and affect other parents the right to teach their children whatever religion they so desire.

You want so much to discredit or tear down this thread because the Right has yet to come up with one solid argument as to why this is ok ..... or to disprove the hypocrasies that Schiavo's case was "ok to hound judges about legislating from the bench" however this judge legislating from the bench is OK and right on..........

You Righties are even showing that you only read in this thread what you want and not the whole thing .... or even the article for that matter.

Which is it judges can't legislate from the bench or they can??????
Which is ok for you Righties?
Or are there "circumstances where it is ok for a judge and not ok for a judge to make new laws with prejudice?"

Which is it........ it's ok to worship how the Religious Right and the government allows or does the 1st Amendment give the blanket that it was meant to and NO GOVERNMENT BRANCH (LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL) HAS THE RIGHT TO PASS LEGISLATION ON WORSHIP???????

I thought the Right was supposed to be "the guardians of Democracy and the Bill Of Rights" and yet NOT 1 ON HERE CAN TRULY DEFEND THIS JUDGE'S RULING EXCEPT TO

- insinuate Wicca as a cult,
- a fringe religion that people change like socks,
- compare Wicca to Heavens Gate
- then the press article itself was challenged
- Use the "Bush/GOP bashing" excuse as the sole reason for this thread.
- and yet a third who seems to want to use the "nudity" issue even though it has been shown where the father says he doesn't practice in the nude already.... in the articles and in posts.

And yet still silence on why this judge can make laws from the bench but Schiavo's judges were and all these other judges that do are a disgrace and need to be replaced.

Why do you not answer the questions I pose but instead resort to "Bush bashing" excuses and attacks on me?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

Pardon, but doesn't this happen to polygymous mormons quite frequently?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

Does it?

Show me an article or when or where a judge has ruled saying the parents couldn't allow the kids to be taught their religion because it was "non mainstream beliefs". I really want to see that.

And if there is such a ruling it is just as wrong as this is and I would fight against that ruling as vehemently as I am this one.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"