The Government is now attacking "non mainstream religions"
 

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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."

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.

At what point does a cult become a religion?

What is your answer to that question, Ustwo?

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?

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?

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.

Political power.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Umm, I'll say it another way.

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

I thought Bush was a Baal worshiper :rolleyes:

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

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.

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.

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.

Yup, no Bush bashing here, folks :rolleyes: .


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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???? :lol: I guess it is ok for them but not for me? :rolleyes:

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?

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

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.

That's a very good question. Maybe the degree that a belief system diverges from acceptability of the majority. Which automatically places all "fringe" religions in that gray area.

What makes Christianity a religion and not a cult?

I'm going to create a religion where people worship toasters and eat toast as a form of prayer.

...and people better respect it and treat it seriously.

I am dead serious.

Ustwo was called out for this question. I do not know why. It seems a valid one. Let's face it...at one time, Christianity was a cult. I do not have an answer to the question, other than political power and, of course, money. Money seems, to me, to be the driving factor in any religion obtaining "mainstream" status.

Insofar as the topic at hand goes, from what I know of Wicca, it is a beautiful, gentle and harmless religion. It is also a religion that is riddled with misconceptions and distrust. I see nothing wrong with two Wiccan parents raising their child in that religion. It is both normal, and natural. I do, however, question why they would choose to educate their child within the confines of a parochial school. Surely, they had to foresee some conflict there. Granted, a parochial school education is one of the finest available, so perhaps they were looking at it merely from a quality of education viewpoint. Still...they had to know that the religious issue was going to colide eventualy.

Well, this is why we have a Constitution with a Bill Of Rights. To protect those that choose to march to the beat of a different drummer from the tyranny of the majority.

right, just like in the early 90s Alternative music became mainstream.

Part of it is money based, there's a tipping point of critical mass that happens at some point, where something goes beyond fad or cult, to something more culturally or socially acceptable.

OK....I have not replyed here simply because it hits a bit close to home....literally.
My wife is Wiccan....and I was for some time as well. We do not use nudity any more than you do, in ritual, or practice. Yes there are aspects of Sex in the religion, just as there are in the day to day lives of every healthy human who walks the earth. Our children are not wiccan, simply because they have not asked to be. We do not practice "witchcraft" as many believe, we do not sacrafice bunnys to some Pagan Goddess, we simply hold a reverence for different things than Others might. Just as a Christian will differ from a Buddhist, So a Wiccan will differ from yourself in some ways.
Most Pagan people dont care to become involved in the petty politics of the world, as they would rather focus on the big picture, but obviously we all react when it comes to self preservation. That is in fact, how the wiccan faith came to be recognized by our Government.
My children are home schooled, and attend a Waldorf program. They would be in Catholic school as a second choice due to the quality of education. Should issues arise due to misunderstanding of what we, the parents believe, I would be dissapointed but not suprised.I am of the opinion that the descision by these judges is isolated and holds little wieght in the world, it is also unlikely to stand up for long. So my point is....If I can deal with this without overreacting, perhaps others might try to as well.

this seems to me one of those issues that lets you see how the peculiar world of the evangelical right interacts with wider matters--in other words, what can happen if the far right evangelical community actually gets power politically. think about it: recent evangelical discourse has been very much about a state of spiritual warfare that pits the good (themselves, of course) against Evil/satan (everyone who is not them)--this is not in itself a new worldview, but its social situation is new.

if this is your basic view of the world--spiritual warfare--and the animator is understood to be "satan" then it follows that, for these folk, the fact of wicca, the fact of paganism functions as a bizarre confirmation of the worldview as a whole--regardless of what the content of these formations might be--for the evangelical right--and this is based on my own experience within that world--what wiccans or pagans might say about themselves is discounted up front--they are "instruments of satan" pure and simple. it follows from this that these folk would not feel the need to know anything about wicca, anything about paganism in their current forms to be quite persuaded that both are bad bad things.

it makes some sense that, motivated by the above (more or less) you would find lawyers fronting for rthe religious right trying to exclude these groups from the category "religion"---and also that this argument would rest on the flimsiest possible logical grounds, in that it provides no answer for ustwo's question about the definition of a religion on the one hand (this agreement with ustwo indicates the possibility of radically opposed positions running across the same question for very very different reasons)--but it also introduces its opposite, which is a freedom of religion question. on these latter grounds, the decision cited earlier seems to me self-defeating for the right--they have set up the grounds for their defeat across what they might take as a victory.

two funny things within it: the usage of the term "mainstream" is idiotic outside the context of conservative ideology in general, within which the right's claim that it and it alone represents the "real america" and "the mainstream" are common currency--totally empty claims, but no matter.

second, is that i am not surprised to find folk who actually know something about contemporary wicca or paganism bewildered by the ruling--it only really makes sense if you assume the above concerning the ways in which these signifers operate in rightwingworld.

it seems that the right would prefer to see wicca through the lens of the inquisition than to take at all seriously what the beliefs systems are actually like, what they do and how they work from the viewpoint of practioners.

Heh, the way this thread is going is why I think the whole Left vs. Right thing is bullshit. The paranoid say that this is the way the government keeps us busy, by getting us fighting with each other, while they screw us over. I don't totally believe that, but I can definately see where they are coming from.

I was called out because I am me, by disagreeing with some people they think I must be trolling :p

Obviously money is a big part of it, but money alone isn't enough. If that were true Scientology would be 'mainstream'. I believe Scientology is officially labeled a dangerous cult in Germany, and I don't think its treated as a 'true' religion in the US, though I may be wrong.

I think part of it is the traditions involved and time.

Islam and Christianity are both 'young' religions. One required state sponsorship from the most powerful Empire in history, the other required a non-stop wave of violent invasions to take hold. Both draw upon a far older tradition. Even Mormonism stems for those same roots and traditions.

The only 'new' major religion I would think would be Buddhism, but to me true Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, and by now has been around long enough to have its own tradition and history.

Wicca is basically 50 years old. While the concept of druids and nature gods is as old as European history, the practice was lost long before Mr. Gardner came long. It has a 'made up' feel to it much like Scientology, and while the basic tenants of Wicca may be good and wholesome unlike Scientology, from a standpoint of tradition and 'believability' they are pretty much the same. We are taking one mans word for it.

So while I wouldn't place Wicca as dangerous, subversive, or unwholesome (even those who do it naked) I am very reluctant to give it a religion tag.

Ask me again in 500 years.

It's nice to see that the beautiful development of the human language has again failed us miserably...

Let us address the issues of both "cult" and "fringe". Both are words that at their most core meaning, do not denote a negative intonation, but do to their use in the common tongue have come to do so. Let us replace the word "cult" with the word "following" as it is a synonym listed in the Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus. This then provides a basis of comparison. Is Christianity a "following"? Yes, it is the following of the belief that Jesus Christ was the one true Savior. It is a belief that is based on Judaism (Old Testament) and continues forth where Judaism believes that the Savior has yet to come. Oh, and on the note, Mormonism is the Christianity as Christianty is to Judaism. It simply offers a third "testament" post Christ. So in this regard, Wicca is the same as Christianity, Judiasm and Mormonism (among others) which are protected religions. Another associated word with "cult" is "discipleship"... you know, like the disciples of Jesus!?

Let's look at "fringe". You could use the word "marginal" as a replacement. A marginal belief... much like Christianity was roughly 2000 years ago. It's crazy how similar they are.

As a side note, if one takes a look at Papal records, one might note the similarities of Christianity and many pagan beliefs that are, in fact, due to changes to the way the Catholic (and hence later Protestant) doctrine are viewed so as to make it a more friendly religion for pagans to convert to (worship on Sunday vs. Saturday, the true 7th day as worshipped upon by Jews and Adventists). Sunday was a convenient day for worship as pagans already worshipped (mostly) on Sunday... the day of the Sun. Also note the uncanny similarities between "spells" and "prayer" where in both you are asking a higher power to align reality to suit your own needs.

Sorry, I know this is jumbled, but I have oh-so-much to say on this topic...

Now let's move onto the possibility of nudity during worship and the potential negative effects this has on children... a) There are nudists colonies in the U.S. They are Constitutionally protected, and often include families with children. b) The U.S. is one of the few industrialized countries left where nudity is a horrific event. Most European countries have televised nudity, often even on daytime commercials. c) How is worshipping in the nude a worse value than teaching your child to partake of the "flesh and blood" of the savior, even symbolically (also uncannily akin to spellcasting and magic-weaving).

Lastly, WTF ever happened to freedom of religion in this country... the one thing, above all else, that caused people to come here in the first place?

*sigh*


~X

It could be that it was also in the way that you phrased the question. Hmmmm? ;)
And I may be wrong (Hey, it happens), but isn't Wicca, albeit a fairly "new" religion, based upon tenents that are thousands upon thousands of years old?

And he hits the nail right on its head!!

What happened to freedom of religion? This is exactly what I was talking about in other threads. They're taking away our freedoms. Slowly but surely. First, they'll take things that no one will notice, like religion and cases such as this one are a prime example. Until Americans stand up and say no more, this will continue.

Sure, but Chrisianity is older than 2000 years as well, in this light... being that's it's based on Judaism which is much older.

It could be but its not.

Anyways, no Wicca is not based on thousand year old tenants. No one knows any of the 'old religion'. All we really have is pieced together Roman or early Christian accounts. There are tales of mass human sacrifice, (aka the burning man where prisoners were stuffed into a life size wodden 'man' and set ablaze) which may or may not be true. One thing that is true is that human sacrifice was part of the religion as the victims have been found, but why/were they prisoners or volunteers etc is not known.

My guess is the true 'old religion' would horrify most modern day Wiccans.

This is a very interesting and long review of the subect of the 'age' of Wicca.
http://paganwiccan.about.com/gi/dyna...d_history.html

Here is a snippet, (and I think the author IS a Wiccan)

if we can agree on what defines a religion then maybe we'd find that atheism predates everything.

The judge is wrong. It's none of the government's business if the parents wish to pass on their Wiccan faith.

There you go. :)

In this case, I'd say Agnosticism predates it all... in the time before there was language, one can only assume there were still internal questions...

Cool.... I see another is more busy trying to debunk Wiccan as a religion rather than admit the judge made a mistake.

Now Fool, one quick question and I am really wanting an answer.... how is this judge legislating from the bench ok (silent approval) and Schiavo's judges were having their heads called for.

Is that not hypocrasy or am I missing something?

Sounds like it to me....

The right wants to have their cake and eat it too. This shit won't go on forever.

It's easy to find anything that debunks anything on the net and say "well this was written by I think a Wiccan and proves what I am saying."

What your site fails to mention is Gardner was brought into a coven in 1939 and because he felt the beauty of WIcca was dying he worked to bring it to people's awareness.


Anyway, when a religion has to be hidden or you face society's wrath.... then it's history will be shrouded and guarded because even today Wiccans face prejudices as the court ruling shows.

I don't see why debunking Wiccan is so far more important to you than admitting the judge was wrong.

Anyway, here is a site that that has a "true HIstory" with many dates. LINK:http://occoquan1.f2w.net/custom4.html
LINK:http://www.wiccanet.net/wicca/bookst...timeline.shtml

Then there is this very articulate piece: http://www.jaguarmoon.org/public/History/History1.htm

Again who's side is right doesn't truly matter..... Wiccan is a governmentally recognized religion and the judge is wrong for his decision so why argue the merits on the religion?

I already admitted the judge made a mistake (go back and read) provided all the facts as presented to us are true.

While you were trying to blame Bush I was trying to have a more serious discussion about what makes a religion and what makes something protected as a religion. It is far deeper than the usual for the board.


Yes you are missing someting vital. No one will die as a result of the 'Wiccan' judges decision. Big difference.

Again, I truly would like to know where I bashed Bush. I made 1 admitted sarcastic comment when you asked about Cults..... (and that was based in fact as Moon is the leader of a cult and a HUGE donator and media supporter of the GOP AND W).

(And yes USTWO.... it was your second post (#16) in which you phrased the question.... it was very trolling (and again in post #19 in which you compare Wicca to Heaven's Gate.... )

For that I was accused of Bush bashing..... it was solely a sarcastic remark in answer to your insinuating question that Wicca was a cult.

As far as your saying the judge made a mistake.... you have gone to great lengths to debunk Wicca as a religion and find many disclaimers to allow the judge to get away with this.

The judge is either right or wrong.... don't give the BS disclaimers you give and say ....... he's wrong but we don't have all the information or try to debunk Wiccan as a religion.

I have already said if he had logical reasons for not allowing the child to be present..... why not expound and not just throw in the blanket very prejudicial statement he did?

Perhaps, he has no logical reasons, other than prejudice, yet you seem bound to find him one.


I see, so it is ok to take rights away and throw the Bill of Rights away..... so long as noone dies?

Sorry still hypocritical and an unreasonable argument for me. Because the loss of rights is death..... at least to me.

By the way I am still waiting for these rulings where polygymous Mormons have had the same rulings against them that you said were happening.

I'm quite suprised that I hadn't heard of this case before now. I disagree with the judge's ruling. I think that people should have the right to raise their children in whichever faith that they feel is best suited for them and the child, despite marital status.

I don't know the details of the case, of course, and so I can't start screaming at one side. Perhaps there is more to this that we're missing? Perhaps the parents sacrifice goldfish and encourage the kid to eat peyote. I don't know, but I do believe that until it is proven that what you are teaching is harmful, or at least illegal, then it should be an option.

I was raised without a god, and instead with values and introductions to spiritualities, and I tend to think that this was the best possible way to be raised. But that's my business. No one elses. I wouldn't stop a Catholic family from teaching Catholic ideas, I wouldn't stop Sikhs from practising Sikhism, and I won't stop pagans from doing their thing.

I think that this ruling is fundamentally wrong, based upon my understanding of freedom of religion and the little I know of this case.

If only they'd stuck to sacrificing peyote and eating goldfish (crackers)... Crazy pagans!
:D

A single judge's ruling does NOT constitute Bush or Bush's administration coming after Wiccans. It DOES constitute an asshat judge making a mistake. Should get thrown out easily, as it's clearly unconstitutional.

[After reading the rest of the post (sorry about that!) I noticed that you've addressed this issue...but I still fail to see how or why Bush should get involved in this....UNLESS a superior court or two fail to make the obvious ruling to strike that portion of the order. The other question is this: are the parents challenging/appealing the order? If they aren't, I'm not sure a superior court or the President can even get involved!

I'm pretty sure that if they go along with it like sheep, nothing will happen on any level.]

Yes the whole article is about how the parents (in particular the father) are fighting the ruling.

The whole thing about Bush and the GOP staying silent is why was it ok to interfere and make Schiavo's case national and yet they stay silent on this....... it's just hypocritical and approval by silence in my opinion.

Appology accepted and I understood the attack.... no harm no foul. Thank you for appologizing.

Well, you can't make a huge deal about EVERYTHING... nobody has that much time. Frankly, I feel it's the other way around. I don't think GWB had any right or business getting involved in the Shiavo case at all. That's not the President's job.

He nor Congress didn't have any right or business but they did..... and the all these GOP Senators and Reps. started talking about how "liberal" the courts were. But they are all quiet when this a TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL issue has come up. NOT 1 has stood up and said the judge was wrong.... and no it may not be their job.... but Schiavo set the precedent that the FED Sen and Reps can say whatever they want and hold emergency meetings to make a case Federal.

The BS that someone was dying and therefore it HAD to be moved fast.... is just that BS.....

There's pressing questions on this case that are just as important and need immediate attention such as......

What about the time these parents aren't going to be able to practice their religion around their child???????

What about court costs and lawyers fees????????

Are these parents going to be financially able to fight this???????????????? And if so...... assuming they aren't millionaires..... how much will it cost them????

(There's the HUGE way the courts and Religious Right will win..... effectively bankrupt people into silence.... have them fight until they can't afford to anymore and then precedent is set and judges can get away with it for the next 20-30 years. Paranoia or economic truth???)

We always hear how backlogged they are and with political clout the Religious Right can get the judge to docket it as far back as possible so how long will this drag out in the courts??????

How will those parents explain it to their child?????

What repercussions will it have on the child????????

Loss of freedoms is ok for any amount of time???????

So IMHO, this may seem like an open and shut case but just look how the Right on this board have conducted themselves and if they did say it was a bad ruling, they had to throw in a disclaimer, and make sure that they insinuated Wicca as a cult. (Foolthemall and ScottKuma exempted, they came straight out said it was a bad ruling.... 2 out of how many?)

I really think this case is going to go a lot farther than many on here think it will. The judges are being pressured by the Religious Right to be conservative. Which is scary but on the other hand the one branch that so far has been able to maintain some center.... but not for much longer if the Right gets its way......

THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING..........

and I count on you to fight the fight pan.

I refrained from stating that it was a bad decision by the judge because my statement was simple, about non mainstream religions and what constitutes a religion by US government definition. I was more interested in the mechanics of the judge's thinking versus the ruling itself without prejudice of religious right pressure.

I'm refraining from descending deeper into the political dialogues because of people like yourself who SHOUT at the listeners who are just trying to digest what is being said.

I hear, "BUT look at this and this and this..." with quotes, links, books, media to watch. But I cannot digest all of that in 15 minutes as I read a thread. I cannot corroborate and discount or validate some of the mountain of links and threads that people inundate others with when trying to convince them that they need to act.

So like others I just stop.

i am increasingly unclear about this sort of statement, what you imagine it is doing when you make it into your part in a dialogue, cyn--
first: not everything is reducable to simple sound-byte form.
second: if you work in opposition to an ideology, you find that one disadvantage you have to work around is that you have to explain what you are doing, lay out your arguments, provide information--you cannot rely on, say, television to fill in the gaps for you. if i were to take your position seriously as a political and not a personal one, i would conclude that you are arguing for a particular political position not so much because you agree with it, but because it prechews information for you and so lets you feel connected to politics in the context of a busy life.
but it seems to me that you give up alot if you really operate along these lines.
like you disable your own ability to pose questions.
you make it much more difficult for yourself to step outside the dominant opinion management of the moment.
i wonder if this position you have of late taken to outlining here is worth holding, really...it seems to me that the costs outweigh the benefits.

for example: in the responses from ustwo above, you get an interesting idea of how difficult conservatives in the main find it to historicize their own position--they can't seem to get their heads around the idea that christianity has a history, that this history is very particular and quite important for understanding the particulrities of that belief system, etc. because they seem to have trouble imagining that the present was not always more or less thus. they even go so far as to claim their own innovations are simply righting a historical wrong--history then comes up as transient, while their own views are transcendent, ahistorical, true. this must be the happy result of thinking that god likes you better than he or she does others.

this is followed by an attempt--a disengenuous one, but i would expect nothing less--to further rationalize the court decision that prompted this thread by calling the term wicca into question on the one hand, and to insinuate that "we do not know the whole story"----while of course not providing anything like the whole story himself, and so on.
but his sentences are short.
does that in itself make his arguments more compelling for you?
he does not have to lay out the basis for his argument--sometimes it seems like a tv is going the whole time he writes and that to get arguments he simply has to turn and watch for a while--never any logic outlined, never any real information given, just the mirror of conservative media, apologies for the bush administration, for conservative organizations, for conservative legal decisions in ways that do not make any sense unless you watch these same tv outlets, listen to the same talk radio, read the same washington times-style press. but than again, maybe this is all just my problem.


on another note
i am well to the left of pan, but i have to say i find something really endearing about his tendency to yell "TO THE BARRICADES COMRADES"

No I don't give up alot. Anyone who knows me more than 5 minutes knows that I'm not one to give up on things.

What's the turn off point to ideology and dialogue isn't so much having someone prechew it. It's getting the message into the brain as simple as possible.

I'm sorry roachboy, but I skip lots of your posts. Why? Basically for the same reasons...quite simply because I cannot read it without a dictionary nearby checking and doublechecking the definitions to some of your vocabulary to make sure that I am getting the point that you are tyring to get across. Some of the references you make to literature and political commentators requires me to know some background of their ideas and writings, being unfamiliar with them, I cannot glean the information you are trying to get across.

what I said is frustrating is trying to understand these things, without having to resort to spending HOURS upon HOURS of time of looking up facts, critically analyzing them, looking for counter arguments and thoughts to those facts to either affirm or refute them. I have plenty of other interests in life that also scream for my eyeballs and min.

sure I ask questions, what do I get in return? Basically homework of having to read, refute or affirm more information... again.. it becomes a voluminous deluge of information. A turn off.

I engage things on my terms not someone elses, thus I'm not interested in getting hyper-educated via political threads. I'm trying to understand them on my own terms and own timeframe.

Your personal attacks grow tiresome. After your last smug and arrogant diatribe I tried to be the better man and just ignore it. I suppose I can blame Cynthetiq for this response, because I read his posts and if it were not for his reply, yours would have gone unnoticed. I find your posts cumbersome and often skipped, not due to vocabulary, depth, or their brilliant arguments, but due to the lack of capitalization and run on sentences. Regardless, while you attempt to obfuscate the meat of any issue with excessive script, I like to get to the point. Nothing is gained by a long build up if it bores your audience.

So while you may lament that your mighty prose is ignored while mine generates such interest, perhaps you can take a lesson and just get to the point.

Now it is quite true I did not provide the 'whole story'. My guess is, had I convinced the judge to break his required silence, or even perhaps snuck into the courthouse and stolen the sealed documents to give you the 'whole' story, I would have far more pressing issues to deal with currently than some petty prose.

I simply stated that we have only one side of the case at hand and later that if the parents claims are in fact true then the judge will indeed be overturned for an unjust ruling. I am not one to jump to conclusions based on one side of the story. I would hope that more people acted in a similar manner.

I do hope you forgive me for delving into a more pertinent issue, which includes and goes beyond the case at hand. What makes a religion protected under the constitution is a very tricky subject, and one worthy of a debate on the boards.

I hope the moderators forgive me for this post, but I can only leave such condescension unanswered for so long.

cyn: thanks for that clarification.
it is hard to know how to take things in messageboards sometimes--intent seems almost always to be garbled when what one is thinking is crunched into this form.
i hope that the political dimension to the questions i posed was evident: your posts push on one of the main problems faced by anyone who works in opposition to a dominant or near-dominant ideology--that you have to explain your arguments--folk who work within that ideology have the everyday frame of reference that explains their arguments for them, so shorthand is possible.

how i write is how i write. i dont necessarily expect everything to communicate with no residuum. i write this stuff while i am taking breaks from doing other things. i think about it, write what i have to say, and return to the other tasks. like now.

Well, what immediately comes to mind is that I don't think this has gotten nearly as much attention as the Shiavo case. Much, perhaps most, of the "silent approval" may come from people simply not knowing about this. People who don't watch/read/listen to the news at all knew about Shiavo.

But as for those who do know of it:

1. I think Ustwo's response is actually one likely possibility. Shiavo was life and death. This is case of religious freedom that I, myself, am not incredibly concerned with - I don't believe the infringement will survive and I think the damage will be nominal.

2. It's possible to hold the view that Wicca is a dangerous cult and that the judge in this case did the right thing, while also holding the view that the Florida judge legislated from the bench. I don't think this is correct, but I see a possible non-hypocritical assimilation of these views.

3. Yeah, there are probably hypocrites in this as well, people who neglected to sufficiently examine their positions or refuse to.

On a side-note, I lean towards both the "judge acted correctly" side and the "Shiavo should've lived" side. What gave me pause about the whole issue was that she only required what everyone else in the world requires - food and water. But enough of that, I don't want to derail the thread.

I agree with you taking in anything new or trying to find new dimensions, there's lots of "lingo" and "background" to learn, but trying to forcefeed someone this information is a fast way of getting them to not listen.

You write the way you write no fault to anyone and I'm sure that there are some there who can appreciate and understand your writing much better than myself.

ustwo: please.
in general i am not interested in arguing with you at an ad hominem level.
but for this, i'll take a little time.
remember this is about what i read from you, not you as a human being--as a human being, i know nothing about you apart from the curious factoids you occaisionally offer up to explain to us the basis for your superiority in things political.

when i bother to respond directly to your posts--which are consistent in a kind of tedious way--- i simply take you at your word and unpack such thinking as i can imagine possible behind them.

i figure that i am giving you benefit of the doubt in assuming there is much thought in what you write, frankly. i mean your own thought--your posts usually read like a pastiche of conservative commentaries.

so when i respond directly to your posts, ustwo, i usually walk through such logic as there is in them.
sorry if you dont like the results: the logic is usually yours--all i do is provide a gloss on it.
if you really dont like how i recast to your posts, maybe think them out more before you post them.

take for example, your comments about "socialism"--about which you clearly know nothing--or about people who oppose you "vandalizing society"--your assumption that if everyone was just like you--that is "grown up"----that they would see the world as you do--that, ustwo, is arrogance.
it is not arrogance to attack such a position.

what i see in your reactions is yet another conservative trope:
when you cannot control the terms of debate, and so cannot win an argument (the two are closely tied together in conservativeland--even you should recognize this) you decide that you are being victimized.

and on that one, i dont know what to tell you.


back out of this mode of argument.
it really doesnt interest me.

Let's try to keep it not at a personal level.

pre yellow warning

That roachboy is not only false, there was nothing disengenous about my posts, but it is also inflamitory. This is not the only example, but I'm sure a quick read through your posts will help identify them. I won't put up with it unchallanged anymore. You may disagree with what I post, in fact I'd be worried if you agreed with anything I posted, but do not claim to know my motivation, you do not sir. If you wish to accuse me of an action, do so directly, not in the third person.

this is a note i appended to the front of the previous post.

thought i'd remind you of its presence, what it entails.

as for the term disengenuous--i did not use the term with reference to your particular motives, ustwo: it pertained more to your use of source material--selective citation and/or misleading use of cited material--i understand this to be technical.

but i suspect you know this
and because i suspect you know this, i am backing out of this exchange altogether at this point.
it is obvious that there is nowhere productive to go with it.

Well done, Sir!
Amazing show there, Old Chap!!
This has redefined the word "PRESUMPTUOUS"!!
Downright Cocky, Sir!

I ASK: Does it get any more Arrogant, Smug or Obnoxious than this? Intellectually chastising a respected and long-standing member of this Board - nay, a Grown Adult! - charging that he is incapable of distinguishing between Right & Wrong, and unable to come to the Proper decisions in life?? That, in effect, he needs an Intellectual Babysitter to think for himself? That the political decisions he makes in his life are Null & Void? I thought it was The Left that lived and died by the tenet of respecting the Dignity, Ideas & Opinions of the Individual?

THE INDIVIDUAL, ARMED ONLY WITH THE POWER OF HIS IDEAS!!!, OVER THE OPPRESSION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT!!!

Apparently, this universal human right holds true only for those in-the-know, intellectually superior individuals such as himself.
How ironic! How exclusive! How CONSERVATIVE!!! :lol:


* * * * * * * * * * *

Let this thread stand as a terrifying glimpse into the intellectual bankruptcy of the Liberal Lunatic Fringe. Let this thread stand - for Generations to come - as an example of the hypocritical void that constitutes the bedrock that such radicals operate from. A curious day indeed.

My obsure mystic religion tells me that a bright yellow warning is on the way.

The judge must not have had his coffee, or the parents were dressed improperly. Then again, without strange cases to test our boundaries how would we have any?

Faith always provokes the loudest responses. Hope people can collect themselves so we see more deep thinking instead of the big Masterlock.

<img src="http://www.masterlockimages.com/SiteStuff/Images/splash_locks2.jpg">

Yes, o Mystical Elphaba!

And let us hope it's aim is True!

Wrong, wrong, wrong... this is one this we DON'T want to look at as a precedent. We want to look at it as a mistake, soon to be, hopefully, forgotten. We do NOT want the fed to hold emergency meetings about things outside of their scope of duty. Yes it happened, now let's all try to pretend it didn't... please!?



Did you not read my first post. I'm sorry, maybe I talked too much. My initial point was, this is an unconstitutional ruling. The whole point of my post was to show that "fringe" religions are bullshit, and that any religion should have the same merit in the US.

Before this thread gets closed as it has deteriorated fast ..... shame too because answers like yours Fool are what I was looking for so that dialogue could open and we could understand maybe each other's side, without having to resort to insinuations, namecalling and yelling and such.

FOOL YOU HAVE TRULY EARNED MY RESPECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Cyn: I am sorry if some of what I said complicates things for you and that you turned off. This is a very important issue to me, not because I am Wiccan, but because as I said my spirituality is unique to me.... someday I hope to have a child or 2 and teach my beliefs to him/her as well as other beliefs (one reason I go to a Unitarian Church to understand many religions and beliefs not just one).

As I have said the fact this could go on for a long time and bankrupt the parents into not being able to fight anymore, therefore allowing a precedent to be set is very scary. People need to see this and understand what is happening before it is too late.

Many of my posts were repetitive because some people kept choosing to insinuate Wicca as a cult, or bring the nudity into it or try to troll, change the subject etc. I was repetitive so as to keep the thread on track.... with some it worked and Dialogue could have been opened.... (have a feeling tho it is too late in this thread, tho.)

Don't let my passion and overzealous behavior turn you off to the truth though..... this is truly something that can have sever ramifications on everyone's rights.

One thing that scares me is IF and When this judgement gets overturned the appelate judges may tell other adjudicators exactly how to phrase the same ruling so that it will hold up.Again paranoia... but this day and age nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to our rights and freedoms).

Also I respond when challenged... I had one tell me I was a revisionist in this thread and I challenged where..... I never did get an answer. I had one tell me Mormons that are polygymous get the same rulings against them.... I challenged when and where show me the proof.... again the challenge went unanswered. It truly irks me when someone challenges me then when I respond asking for examples or proof they disappear or never mention it again.

Anyway... thanks to those who were productive, I did find a newfound respect for some here. :icare:

Roachboy..... your passion is great and strong never lose it, but learn how to use it better. As someone who learnt from mistakes.... never stoop to their level keep on topic and focussed.... You're a good man and I would hate to see you banned..... you have great debating skills..... use them wisely and you can go far :thumbsup:

:lol: :lol: wish that it were that easy to forget.... but I am with you ... Schiavo had no right to be Fed. And no emergency meetings.... well show how power hungry the party truly was....

However this case does constitute Fed. Court as it is a Constitutional issue.... however, I would hope it isn't ever necessary and the next court drives it down without even having to think about it.

I have a feeling this is one case that truly will be interesting to follow.


To be quite honest I was so used to having noone on the right comment truly and with thought on the issue, that I thought you were a "Lib" (sorry if you are insulted not meant to be).... Plus not sure we have ever crossed paths so I don't know where you truly stand politically.... Your post was very well written and I am sorry I didn't comment on it..... Again you showed me someone that wanted to open dialogue and is knowledgeable about the subject. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Interesting... I don't think anyone has ever thought me to be "right" of anything in particular, but I'm not a liberal either. Frankly, I'm not anything (though I tend to vote Libertarian). I am a strong supporter of the Xepherys party... where I firmly believe in my beliefs! At any rate, no offense taken (either way). I plan to be in this forum more often, so I'm sure we'll meet again!


~X

Congrats to you and Sexymomma. I promise to behave myself. Permission to slap others silly if they do not? :D

I guess the difference is that Schiavo's case was in the courts for something on the order of 10 YEARS!

By the way, even though I vehemently disagreed with the Schiavo case's ultimate outcome -- but let's not start debating that case again! -- I do agree with Xepherys's opinion that the Federal Government really had little right to interfere with the multiple lower courts' rulings on the matter. It was the Supreme Court's right & duty to rule on the case, should they find enough legal reasons to do so. They didn't, so end of game. Ultimately I don't have to agree with every court ruling...but if I don't agree with enough of them, it's time to vote for a change in those who would make laws and/or start a grass-roots effort to change the laws through referendum.

I'm not saying that a decision that affects this child's upbringing should languish for ten years. I'm just saying that, as in the Schiavo case, it's not the Executive Branch of the Federal Government's place to interfere. Even if they did before, two wrongs don't make a right. Let the court rulings stay their course, and I'm confident this will be overturned.

By the way, Pan...

We are on the same side of this issue - both of us agree that it was a bone-headed ruling by the lower courts. And I think that both of us agree that the judge trying to pin ANY religion as "non-mainstream" is absolutely abhorrent and unconstitutional.

I just don't think it's quite the time to start running around, shout that the sky is falling (KIDDING! :p) , or begin the protesting...yet. Should this ruling not be corrected in normal measure, or should rulings like this continue, I'll be right there next to you.

The key is that our system was DESIGNED that these types of decisions would correct themselves. These corrections just happen slowly - as I believe most governmental actions should happen. My argument is perhaps better applied to Congressional actions (law-making), but I think it applies here, too. A government that moves and acts too quickly often does so rashly.

Quick = rash? Like the USA PATRIOT ACT? Hmmm, 'nuff said...

My point exactly.

I agree somewhat that time will tell and hopefully this will be struck down, again, I feel with the GOP and Religious Right putting pressure on what they deem as "liberal" judges and this case being in Indiana (one of the most Cons. states....) it may be harder to overturn than people want to believe.... I pray not but.....

As for shouting, I am very concerned a judge tried to put this in let alone even think about it. This should concern anyone wanting and valuing their rights because obviously the second judge let this stand. And with court dockets, how long does this family have to wait before they can practice their freedom of religion with their child??????

And what about finances....... if they run out and the appeals stop then precedent is set. I can see this happening, and that is a scary thought.

So yes, it is 2 judges or a judge and moderator or whatever, and yes, it is early, but in cases like this I would rather panic too fast than watch as someone loses their rights until their case can be appealed.

I like your arguments and the facts that you provided to give me cause to think as to why someone would consider this ok. You have provided good dialogue and hopefully people (INCLUDING MYSELF ATY TIMES) can use yours, Fool's, X's examples of intelligent dialogues as standards, where we don't have attacks on people or ideas but rational viewpoints discussed.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

that happens all the time, usually it's deep corporate pockets that create these situations.

Thanks for the kudos. Too often, political debate devolves either into "liberal" vs. "conservative" name-calling matches, or people trying to out-shout each other instead of debate rationally. I like a good debate, but I skip over or quit a lot of threads that get....uncivil. Personal attacks don't help us to see each others' viewpoints -- it just shuts down debate & creates even more animosity between those on the "left" and the "right".

I think most people who use those labels don't realize that nobody is truly on the "left" or the "right"...we're all some semblance of moderates. I, for example, tend to be fiscally conservative, but a bit left-of-center on social issues. I listen to conservative talk radio and find myself equally nodding my head in agreement and shouting at my radio in disagreement. Throw into the mix the fact that I favor a strict constitutional interpretation...and everything goes amuck every now and again! :crazy:

I wasn't kidding when I said that I'd be right there next to you if the situation didn't change in this court situation. I live in Ohio, and this hits a bit too close to home for me. Even though I'm nominally Christian I am absolutely firm in my stance that peoples' beliefs should be inviolable from government intrusion.

Perhaps this will get this thread back on track.....pertinent to the issue, and worthy of debate. I myself find the below article, and the fact this proposed legislation has gone unnoticed to be somewhat disturbing. There does seem to be a pattern forming , aimed at some form of national religion.....I suppose we shall see.

Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God

05/18/05 "Vermont Guardian"

WASHINGTON — Conservatives balk at accusations that the current Congress and the Bush administration are intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. Yet, a bill sponsored by 28 members of the U.S. House and Senate looks like a move in that direction.

According to the text of the bill, the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

Commenting on the general trend, Bill Moyers noted in a March article for the New York Review of Books that the religious right backs nearly half the members of Congress. "Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups," he noted.

If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved "any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States."

Judges who fail to comply could be impeached or prosecuted.

Project Censored award-winning journalist W. David Kubiak charges that the bill would divorce U.S. jurisprudence from "our hard-won secular history and international norms." The Conservative Caucus has called it an important step that would prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from weighing in on "the acknowledgement of God (as in the Roy Moore 10 Commandments issue); and it also restricts federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.] as the supreme law of our land."

Thus far, the mainstream media has ignored the legislation. A May 16 search of Google News turned up no coverage, despite the fact that the office of lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL, told Kubiak last week, "We have the votes for passage."

Copyright: Vermont Guardian.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8923.htm

lets try to discuss this....rather than beat each other up.

Amazing..... it's my birthday and I don't want to get worked up, so I'll just leave it at that today.

It's easier just to copy/paste this:

---------------------------------------------------

[11:22] {blank}: why do people assume that a Government that doesn't shun relition is a Theocracy?

[11:22] xepherys: ?

[11:24] xepherys: well, if that quote is correct

[11:24] xepherys: I agree

[11:24] xepherys: "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

[11:25] xepherys: God is not, and should not be, the source of law, liberty or government in our country

[11:25] xepherys: it may not truly be a step towards theocracy

[11:25] xepherys: but I do believe that it's a step in the wrong direction

[11:26] {blank}: that may well Be...

[11:26] {blank}: but...The Ten Commandments form the basic tenets for our laws!

[11:27] {blank}: or at least a subset of the 10 C

[11:27] xepherys: *shrug* but they are man-made laws, they were not devised or provided as divine laws

[11:27] xepherys: oddly enough, the ten commandments are just good, common moral sense... and have been law to some degree or another for thousands of years

[11:27] xepherys: in many places

[11:27] xepherys: including Egypt (non-Jew/Christian)

[11:27] xepherys: uhhh... Persia

[11:28] xepherys: so, the bible is written around the same common sense that our laws are... *shrug* what difference does that make?

[11:31] xepherys: also, "remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." continues to try to remove a variety of checks and balances, granting greater power to the legislative and executive branches

Thank you for finding and posting this. The whole religion issue is becoming very scary, and yet people are silent. Silent approval is worse than vocal approval because the people who are silent now will be the ones crying in the future and the people like myself who begged people to pay attention and were laughed at, told they needed to chill and shunned as lunatics won't freaking care because the "silent majority" chose to piss their rights away.

What's sad is the majority of the GOP followers have no idea or turn a blind eye and don't want to see how the religious right ahave so much power in their party. I can understand the conservatives that want fiscal responsibility and believe their party can give them tax breaks and cut programs they dislike, however, they fail to see the price the rest of us pay by the devious actions of those in charge.

Bush and company are saying, "let's appease the rich and make the middle class think they are getting something, while we take away rights". And yet, these same people claim "to be the great protectors of the Constitution". Yet, what part of the Constitution says the courts cannot judge on people suing the government for their rights? That is what the bill is saying and the right wingers who claim the Dems take away rights are silently allowing their party to destroy the Constitution with bills like this.

I truly don't understand the blind following of a party and the belief that the party will not hurt them..... I'm a Dem. but when my party fucks up I admit it, unlike the GOP blind followers.



Again, as I said starting this thread, this forces judges to look over their shoulder and make judgements not based on the Constitution but based on what the GOP and religious right want.

Impeached or prosecuted for interpretting laws as constitutional or not???? What the fuck? Are the GOP and Religious Right going to have watchdogs and any judge who rules against their will is going to be thrown out of office or arrested and sent to some "reconditioning camp"? What about the judges ELECTED by the people, does this mean that even if a judge was elected to hold office that these power hungry people will thumb their nose to the people who elected the judge and say the people were wrong and the judge is going to prison for ruling against what "the GOP and Religious Right deem as right"?

Also, this allows for us to ignore the Geneva Convention, any UN laws, and any treaities we don't like. The GOP want to ship jobs overseas for cheap labor, and yet they don't want to have to abide by laws of those countries. Isolationism, in any form creates only enemies and any diplomacy is out the window. Need I remind the GOP that the USA is older and fatter than the hungrier nations and those nations have more people.



The GOP is destroying any opposition and silencing a whole 1/3 of the Constitutional branch. There will be no checks and balances, and this should scare everyone into action.

What this also shows me is that the Religious Right have sold their souls to a party (The GOP) that will tell them what they want to hear and get them elected and get these bills passed..... but what the Religious Right are so blind to see is that these bills can also be used eventually against them. The GOP is saying what the Religious Right wants to get the power, once they have the power the GOP will no longer need the Religious Right and they will destroy them so that the Religious Right will never again have any power.

IF that sound complicated let me use an example: the GOP needs to get elected and have power.... the join with the Religious Right, demonize the Dems. The Religious Right gives the GOP their approval in all things, but they want a Christian country where the religious leaders have more power.

The GOP agrees. The Religious Right gets the GOP Congress, the Presidency, the majority of Governorships and state legislatures and works to demonize everything the opposing party promotes.

The GOP once in power makes bills like these and poses as the Religious Right's best friend. However, as laws like this come into being it weakens the Religious Right yet they are blind. Eventually, the GOP has everything thanks to the Religious Right and uses these bills to silence and condemn the Religious Right thereby making sure the Religious Right can never help the opposing party once they realize they helped the monster they thought they were protecting themselves against into power.

Jesus is weeping right now because the leaders of his churches are so power hungry they have lost touch with HIS teachings because they are so power hungry and yet so freaking blind.

Beware the man that will give you whatever you want to gain power, because once in power he will no longer need you and he will destroy you so that you can never help his enemy.

If we are to stop this we must do so now or everyone who loves their freedoms will lose. But again according to the GOP leaders and their talking head puppets (and yes, those talking head puppets are far more powerful and influential than people want to believe), our God given rights guaranteed by the Constitution are priveleges..... given by the government and NOT rights given by God.... listen to what they say and how they say it.... they are indeed preaching that so laws like this can come into being without true opposition from within the party.