NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm still shaking my head over it. Take a gander. (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481)

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.
I really wish I were making this up, but it seems that this judge has actually ordered two divorcing parents, both of whom are Wiccans, that neither of them are allowed to share their religious beliefs with their child. Now, you have to realize that if a divorce wasn't taking place, this judge wouldn't have the authority to even talk to these two people, much less determine what religion they're allowed to discuss with their child, but he's taken it upon himself to say that these particular beliefs are out of line.

Update on the story here (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS01/505270510/1006). Thanks to Stella Parvis for the update.

I'm still shaking my head over it. Take a gander. (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481)


I really wish I were making this up, but it seems that this judge has actually ordered two divorcing parents, both of whom are Wiccans, that neither of them are allowed to share their religious beliefs with their child. Now, you have to realize that if a divorce wasn't taking place, this judge wouldn't have the authority to even talk to these two people, much less determine what religion they're allowed to discuss with their child, but he's taken it upon himself to say that these particular beliefs are out of line.

Such a decision will never hold up. It's a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Isn't this a violation of...

...You know, I'm not even gonna bother. No one gives two shits about the Constitution anymore...

No, no. The dumbest court decision was when that Revolutionary French court determined that the value of Pi is 4.

This one's pretty close, though.

No, no. The dumbest court decision was when that Revolutionary French court determined that the value of Pi is 4.

This one's pretty close, though.
... Can you show a source for that? I have a hard time believing that someone would actually say that...

No, no. The dumbest court decision was when that Revolutionary French court determined that the value of Pi is 4.

This one's pretty close, though.
:eek: I have to call bullshit.

I am going to have to agree with Lunatic Goofballs on this one, definitely a violation of the 1st amendment, for what it's worth.

... Can you show a source for that? I have a hard time believing that someone would actually say that...
He! Sorry, I did a quick search but can't find a source. I read many many years ago, in Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts, I think. Of course, I may be remembering wrong, but the purpose was just to show how stupid the decision was.

Although I found that similar laws nearly passed in Alabama and Indiana!

Yeah, well, when courts in the US order gay parents to stay away from their children or take away their rights of custody, these sorts of things don't surprise me. Wicca, gay, whatever. The US is far from a secular society.

I am going to have to agree with Lunatic Goofballs on this one, definitely a violation of the 1st amendment, for what it's worth.
Of that I have no doubt. Here's the real question--how did someone who so clearly doesn't understand even the rudiments of the US Constitution wind up as a judge, even in family court?

I tend to agree -_-; aside from being part of a non-mainstream religion, this violates the constitution as well as the individuals. Undoubtedly it'll be repealed as others have mentioned... but depressing that it got across in the first place.

Of that I have no doubt. Here's the real question--how did someone who so clearly doesn't understand even the rudiments of the US Constitution wind up as a judge, even in family court?

Simple: He was appointed/elected by the people of the local area, and as long as he appeals to the locals' tastes and prejudices, he will remain a judge. It takes an astonishing display of ineptness or crime to get a judge removed. Too much, in my opinion.

It seems like the constitution is obsolete/nonexistant in the minds of some people.

If the parents try hard enough and the get rejected enough, this can go to the supreme court... cool...

Fuck, I would just ingnore the judge order (but then im an athist so I dont even have a non main-stream religean

wtf?!

I hope that judge feels very stupid for sleeping through whatever law classes he took, if any.

Yeah, well, when courts in the US order gay parents to stay away from their children or take away their rights of custody, these sorts of things don't surprise me. Wicca, gay, whatever. The US is far from a secular society.
You have a source for this? Because, while certain fundamental groups may be opposed to... most states are fairly lenient when gay couples adopt.

You have a source for this? Because, while certain fundamental groups may be opposed to... most states are fairly lenient when gay couples adopt.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/v71/no3/shapiro.html

You have a source for this? Because, while certain fundamental groups may be opposed to... most states are fairly lenient when gay couples adopt.I don't know about custody issues, although I suspect that when I lived in LA and got divorced, I could have gotten custody if I'd played the "my wife is a lesbian now" card. I'd never do that, of course, but I think it would have worked.

As to adoption, however, it really varies widely from state to state. Florida, which oddly enough has the gayest city in the nation (Wilton Manors), has an absolute bar on same-sex couples adopting children. Texas is pretty restrictive as well as I recall, while California is very non-discriminatory. Really depends on where you are.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/v71/no3/shapiro.html
This isn't a source saying that it's happening. This is an article that is basically an opinion piece.


I don't know about custody issues, although I suspect that when I lived in LA and got divorced, I could have gotten custody if I'd played the "my wife is a lesbian now" card. I'd never do that, of course, but I think it would have worked.

As to adoption, however, it really varies widely from state to state. Florida, which oddly enough has the gayest city in the nation (Wilton Manors), has an absolute bar on same-sex couples adopting children. Texas is pretty restrictive as well as I recall, while California is very non-discriminatory. Really depends on where you are.

Unfortunately what someone "suspects" would happen isn't really material. Fass posted like it was a pandemic occurance.

With America being what it is today, i'm not at all surprised.

This isn't a source saying that it's happening. This is an article that is basically an opinion piece.

You didn't even read it, did you? It is written by Julie Shapiro, an "Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law. J.D., University of Pennsylvania; B.A., Wesleyan University" and is extensively referenced and researched. (http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/v71/no3/shapiro.html#FN*)

But, sure, if you deem a professional analysis of the subject matter by someone very well versed in the subject "an opinion piece" and want some sort of simple, news paper clipping that you can digest without applying yourself, fine, here:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/05/050304mcGriff.htm
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/041205dadAppeal.htm
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/09/090904vaCust.htm
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/021705chicTS.htm

Fuck, I would just ingnore the judge order (but then im an athist so I dont even have a non main-stream religean

The problem with that is that the order is so vague, it's leaving the door wide open for CPS to swoop in and snatch the child up. I mean, they could just decide they believe the father (who has custody) is discussing Wicca with the child and take him. The burden of proof is then going to be on the father and how on earth is he going to prove that he hasn't been?

The judge made a really assine assumption in this case. The parents did get divorced, but they were still in agreement on how they wanted to raise their son and the beliefs they wanted to teach him. That there takes away any right the judge has to make a decision regarding the child's religious upbringing. The judge is only to get involved if there is a problem between the divorcing parents.

However, the reasoning the judge is using is completely....f***ed up! He made the decision because the parents decided to send the child to a parochial school. SO? Maybe the christian school is safer than the local public schools. The parents are paying the tuition, they can send him where they want. But this judge thinks that because they follow a non-standard religion and send their son to a mainstream religious school, that it is not in the child's best interests because it will just confuse him.

Hello?! Maybe they want their child to have an understanding of different world religions so that he grows up to be a more understanding and tolerant person. Is that so bad? This judge is way off his rocker and completely out of bounds and deserves to be taken off the bench.

Yeah, well, when courts in the US order gay parents to stay away from their children or take away their rights of custody, these sorts of things don't surprise me. Wicca, gay, whatever. The US is far from a secular society.

You don't need to be religious to oppose homosexuality.

You don't need to be religious to oppose homosexuality.
Yeah, but your even more of an idiot if you don't even have religious grounds.
Its not a choice, its been scientifically proven.

You know, I am hardcore Christian and Anti-alot, but even this creeps me out. Alright, I may think wicca is about as goofy as saying "I'm a Jedi" but if those two people believe it, fine whatever. And this isnt a gay or any other, kind of maybe constitutional right issue. This is bold print. I mean it may not say Freedom to be gay but it sure as hell says Freedom of Religion. That judge butchers everything me and everyother American serving in the military is working for

You don't need to be religious to oppose homosexuality.

No, just silly. Religious people happen to often be so by default.

Speechless.

I too am a Christian, and I believe that this judge may have been sipping on something that day.

Wow amazing. We can take a post that has nothing to do with Homosexuals and make it all about them.

Wow amazing. We can take a post that has nothing to do with Homosexuals and make it all about them.
True, my bad for not following the topic of the thread. I revoke my question about the genes in order to keep the thread on track.

I do not revoke my stance, however.

Are you serious? Do you want scientific proof that it's not a choice for people to have a certain taste in food or entertainment?

It's not a matter of science, it's a matter of common sense.

Anyway, as far as this judge is concerned, he needs to be kicked out of here. It's just plain sad.

Are you serious? Do you want scientific proof that it's not a choice for people to have a certain taste in food or entertainment?

It's not a matter of science, it's a matter of common sense.
This can be debated in another thread if you would like. It's not continuing in here though.

This can be debated in another thread if you would like. It's not continuing in here though.

Right, I really don't have much to say about it anyway, that statement was just an eyebrow raiser for me. Sorry.

Right, I really don't have much to say about it anyway, that statement was just an eyebrow raiser for me. Sorry.
It's cool man, I don't think anyone's paying attention to this thread anymore anyway. I like to raise eyebrows, by the way.

It's cool man, I don't think anyone's paying attention to this thread anymore anyway. I like to raise eyebrows, by the way.

Well the problem is, most people agree on the fundamental topic of this thread. While it is good people can agree about something for once on these Forums, it does kinda kill the vibe

Well the problem is, most people agree on the fundamental topic of this thread. While it is good people can agree about something for once on these Forums, it does kinda kill the vibe
One of the truest statements ever posted.

With that, it is bedtime.

You didn't even read it, did you? It is written by Julie Shapiro, an "Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law. J.D., University of Pennsylvania; B.A., Wesleyan University" and is extensively referenced and researched. (http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/v71/no3/shapiro.html#FN*)
Yea, I did read it. Just because it was written by an "associate professor etc" doesn't make it any less of an opinion piece than if you had written it.
It's just a well educated opinion piece.

But, sure, if you deem a professional analysis of the subject matter by someone very well versed in the subject "an opinion piece" and want some sort of simple, news paper clipping that you can digest without applying yourself, fine, here:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/05/050304mcGriff.htm

This is the only one that does seem to back up your earlier statement. But then siting from this particular website only gives one side of the argument. I would suggest that there was more to the courts decision than the simple fact that the father was gay.
And even then it's not about keeping a mans children from him because he's gay, it's about having the partner move out.
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/041205dadAppeal.htm
This isn't about a court decision saying that a gay parent had to stay away from his/her child, it's about the partner having to move out. The difference is slight, but significant.
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/09/090904vaCust.htm
This isn't about a court decision saying that a gay parent had to stay away from his/her child... it's about a biological parent getting custody instead of the non biological parent.
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/021705chicTS.htm
This isn't about a court decision saying that a gay parent had to stay away from his/her child... it's about a biological parent getting custody instead of the non biological parent.

This is why we must have seperation of Church and state. Some religious groups may think that it is so the government can impose non-religious ideas upon them, but it is not. It is meant to protect the Rights of the individual from an oppressive government. This is a clear over-step of boundaries by a government official. This is possibly the worst violation of First Amendment Rights to come along in quite some time. This judge has failed to do his duty to protect the rights of the people. Sad day here, people. Sad day.

REVIVER OF THREADS.

I'm not worried about this, since the judge is obviously an idiot, and the decision will eventually be overturned...

...I would, however, LOVE to see this go to the Supreme Court, as long as the ICLU or ACLU is footing the legal bills. :D

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.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB54ISN79E.html

Shelter him from involvement and observation...wha....?!? Stupid stupid people.

I'm still shaking my head over it. Take a gander. (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481)


I really wish I were making this up, but it seems that this judge has actually ordered two divorcing parents, both of whom are Wiccans, that neither of them are allowed to share their religious beliefs with their child. Now, you have to realize that if a divorce wasn't taking place, this judge wouldn't have the authority to even talk to these two people, much less determine what religion they're allowed to discuss with their child, but he's taken it upon himself to say that these particular beliefs are out of line.
Not newsworthy cause it will be overturned due to it violating the first amendment. And in America, schools have no right to dictate to parents how they raise their children. The fact that school complained smacks of Hillary Clinton brand of socialism.

Not newsworthy cause it will be overturned due to it violating the first amendment. And in America, schools have no right to dictate to parents how they raise their children. The fact that school complained smacks of Hillary Clinton brand of socialism.

Umm...the school didn't complain. Their son is attending a Catholic Elementary school, so the JUDGE decided it was in the child's best interests to be "shielded" from the nasty ole non-mainstream religion so's it don't confuse his little brain. :rolleyes:

What surprised me is the number of conservative Christian groups that are siding with the Wiccans on this one. For once, they all agree on something. That judge is going to be lucky if he's not kicked before he is ousted in the next election.

I'm still shaking my head over it. Take a gander. (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481)


I really wish I were making this up, but it seems that this judge has actually ordered two divorcing parents, both of whom are Wiccans, that neither of them are allowed to share their religious beliefs with their child. Now, you have to realize that if a divorce wasn't taking place, this judge wouldn't have the authority to even talk to these two people, much less determine what religion they're allowed to discuss with their child, but he's taken it upon himself to say that these particular beliefs are out of line.

Sigh, more Christian b.s. Yes, in the Christian way of the world, one can only subscribe to what Christians decree to be the correct faith, and yet, these people have the nerve to call themselves tolerant.

And before any of you self proclaimed Einsteins out there try frantically to tell me that this article doesn't mention Christianity, I'd like to personally offer you a loud and hearty, bullshit. Just what mainstream religion do you think a judge named "Cale J. Bradford" is talking about? Islam? Give me a f'in break, and save it for the rest of the fundy pep squad.

Fuck, I would just ingnore the judge order (but then im an athist so I dont even have a non main-stream religean

Just wait, atheism will soon be declared a non-mainstream religion. As will Islam and any religion besides Chrisitianity and possibly Judaism.

It seems like the constitution is obsolete/nonexistant in the minds of some people.

It is. Ask any child that has been told they cannot pray or bring a bible to school. It works both ways. I'm not offended when someone claiming to be a "Wikin" dances around to their god of the week, I'd like to be able to pray in school.

Ermarian, Judaism already is considered nonmainstream by a large number of people in the US. As is Islam.

Its not a choice, its been scientifically proven.

I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conculsion, though not in this thread (for fear of thread jacking). If your thinking of that recent pheromones study, then that was majorly flawed.

What surprised me is the number of conservative Christian groups that are siding with the Wiccans on this one.

That is not surprising at all - if Wiccan does not most really conservative Christian groups would probably not qualify as a mainstream religion either.

I'm still shaking my head over it. Take a gander. (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481)


I really wish I were making this up, but it seems that this judge has actually ordered two divorcing parents, both of whom are Wiccans, that neither of them are allowed to share their religious beliefs with their child. Now, you have to realize that if a divorce wasn't taking place, this judge wouldn't have the authority to even talk to these two people, much less determine what religion they're allowed to discuss with their child, but he's taken it upon himself to say that these particular beliefs are out of line.
Unconstitutional.

Ermarian, Judaism already is considered nonmainstream by a large number of people in the US. As is Islam.

But they haven't been declared so by court decision yet...

Ermarian, most Americans view the courts as either too liberal or too conservative. Court decisions are not what you use as a reflection of the society around them when it comes to the US.

It is. Ask any child that has been told they cannot pray or bring a bible to school. It works both ways. I'm not offended when someone claiming to be a "Wikin" dances around to their god of the week, I'd like to be able to pray in school.
You're a pratt.
What gives you the right to put someone elses religion down like that?
As a Pagan I find it very hard to smile nicely at idiots like you.
I would of defended your right to read what you like in school but now.....well stuff you.

Pagans have a hard time in many parts of the states and the UK because of the thick headed attitudes of christian judges, headteachers and towns (and school kids it seems).

More than one new age shop has had to close due to pressure from local communities who are "outraged" by the possibility of alternatives to "mainstream" religions.
And more than one teacher has been suspended when his religious beliefs (which he never brings into class) have been "outed"


Grrrrrrr. I need to go away and calm down under a tree.

I think this could be news worthy. Were I the parents, I wouldn't be calling the ACLU. I'd be calling a super-star ambulance chaser known for taking huge paydays. I'd want to sue the original author of the order and the judge who approved it for "violating my civil rights." Take their homes and pensions. And take that to the supreme court. Then people will think more carefully about keeping their religion to themselves. Why settle for moral people who are fighting for ideals when you can settle for an amoral asshole who just wants to get paid and doesn't care who's neck he has to step on to get it done? And if it pays for junior's college, bonus.

I think this could be news worthy. Were I the parents, I wouldn't be calling the ACLU. I'd be calling a super-star ambulance chaser known for taking huge paydays. I'd want to sue the original author of the order and the judge who approved it for "violating my civil rights." Take their homes and pensions. And take that to the supreme court. Then people will think more carefully about keeping their religion to themselves. Why settle for moral people who are fighting for ideals when you can settle for an amoral asshole who just wants to get paid and doesn't care who's neck he has to step on to get it done? And if it pays for junior's college, bonus.
It's a great idea but probably against the Wiccan Rede. You know, "do what you will as long as it harms no one" or words to that effect.
Generally Pagans have found that fighting the system quietly gets better results where personl issues are concerned. If you are too loud then the Christian Conservatives wake up and shout "devil worship" and it all gets a bit messy

God damn! If they're so wishy-washy how the hell did we all end up worshiping trees during the winter solstice?

Not newsworthy cause it will be overturned due to it violating the first amendment. And in America, schools have no right to dictate to parents how they raise their children. The fact that school complained smacks of Hillary Clinton brand of socialism.
Good lord, man, what is newsworthy in your opinion? Anything at all? It seems that, to you, if a story will stir up the slightest bit of controversy, it's not newsworthy, and moreover, is part of some socialist plot.

And for the record, Hillary Clinton's "brand of socialism" as you put it, is remarkably centrist. If you want an example of an American politician who's closer to actual socialism, I suggest you check out the person who will likely the next Senator from Vermont when Jim Jeffords retires--Bernie Sanders.

God damn! If they're so wishy-washy how the hell did we all end up worshiping trees during the winter solstice?
The power of all those closet Pagans.
Very few of us don't feel a conection with nature except, of course, those extremists who believe god (which god again) gave it to them to despoil.
And which god are we damning today?

And which god are we damning today?
I'm not particular, I find them all equally contemptable (except for Sun Wu Kong, he's just badass) and you can't see this, but I'm totally mooning all of them (including Sun Wu Kong, kindred spirits).

I'm not particular, I find them all equally contemptable (except for Sun Wu Kong, he's just badass) and you can't see this, but I'm totally mooning all of them (including Sun Wu Kong, kindred spirits).
Good man (or person of indetermined gender).
we should show some contempt for gods. If they exist they seem to show nothing but contempt for us and if they don't then who gives a toss anyway.
:D

No, no. The dumbest court decision was when that Revolutionary French court determined that the value of Pi is 4.

Can you say "Urban Legend"? I thought you could.

Yeah - so far, in this century anyway - this decision takes the cake. That judge really needs to get his comeuppance.

I'm still shaking my head over it. Take a gander. (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481)


I really wish I were making this up, but it seems that this judge has actually ordered two divorcing parents, both of whom are Wiccans, that neither of them are allowed to share their religious beliefs with their child. Now, you have to realize that if a divorce wasn't taking place, this judge wouldn't have the authority to even talk to these two people, much less determine what religion they're allowed to discuss with their child, but he's taken it upon himself to say that these particular beliefs are out of line.

Still there are appeals... This is a clear violation of the first clause of the second amendment.

It is. Ask any child that has been told they cannot pray or bring a bible to school. It works both ways. I'm not offended when someone claiming to be a "Wikin" dances around to their god of the week, I'd like to be able to pray in school.

Don't be ridiculous.

You can do both -- pray in school and bring a bible to school.

You simply cannot expect the school to lead you in prayer. Which you shouldn't want anyway -- unless you think having your school tell you how to pray is a good idea.

Sigh, more Christian b.s. Yes, in the Christian way of the world, one can only subscribe to what Christians decree to be the correct faith, and yet, these people have the nerve to call themselves tolerant.

And before any of you self proclaimed Einsteins out there try frantically to tell me that this article doesn't mention Christianity, I'd like to personally offer you a loud and hearty, bullshit. Just what mainstream religion do you think a judge named "Cale J. Bradford" is talking about? Islam? Give me a f'in break, and save it for the rest of the fundy pep squad.

Read some more of the topic beyond the first post. Two conservative Christians (three, now, if you include me) are siding with the Wiccans on this one.

The ruling violates Freedom of Religion. Kick the judge out of the courts.

Don't be ridiculous.

You can do both -- pray in school and bring a bible to school.

I've been threatened with expulsion from two different schools for praying over my lunch, and I live in red-state Texas.

It is. Ask any child that has been told they cannot pray or bring a bible to school. It works both ways. I'm not offended when someone claiming to be a "Wikin" dances around to their god of the week, I'd like to be able to pray in school.
I think the no praying in school came about because children would be directed by their teachers to engage in prayer before class. I don't think it should mean that individual students can't pray. As long as they don't disrupt class, of course, and don't try to force others into doing the same.

And if someone can wear a crucifix or a star of David, I don't see what the problem is with taking your Bible or Book of the Dead to school and read it during recess.

I've been threatened with expulsion from two different schools for praying over my lunch, and I live in red-state Texas.

I seriously doubt that is an accurate story.

If this happened, it was illegal.

There are any number of organizations that would be glad to intervene if such things actually occurred (and there are not more relevant facts to the story.)

The ACLU is one.

The Rutherford Institute is another.

I'm all for religious garments and necklaces and stuff in schools (I wear a symbolic necklace to school myself) and I think you should be able to pray in school. However I don't think the schools should encourage prayer. Let people make up their own minds of whether they want to say grace, worship a tree or meditate in school.

Judge probably just wanted to make the news.

Ha.



This is a violation of a whole lot of things, but I'm not even going to bother mentioning them all.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Just for the record, as a devout Christian, I am very much opposed this this judge's ruling. He is off his legal rocker and out to be removed from office for gross disregard of the law.

I've been threatened with expulsion from two different schools for praying over my lunch, and I live in red-state Texas.

Did your prayer include words like "and may all unbelievers rot in hell, just like those [expletive] [ethnic group]" ? Or did you insist doing it very loudly ? Or.. you get the idea.
Otherwise the actions of the school were probably not legal.

However - do you get sundays off ? Is that not an extreme favouring of Christianity ?

News Update

Paganism Ruling Sparks Outcry (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS01/505270510/1006)

You can easily see why other religious beliefs, though more accepted but maybe not considered mainstream, would be supportive of this family. I mean, this would just open the door for all kinds of crap.

Bloody Hell, this is a Bloody Outrage!

However, the reasoning the judge is using is completely....f***ed up! He made the decision because the parents decided to send the child to a parochial school. SO? Maybe the christian school is safer than the local public schools. The parents are paying the tuition, they can send him where they want. But this judge thinks that because they follow a non-standard religion and send their son to a mainstream religious school, that it is not in the child's best interests because it will just confuse him.

Hello?! Maybe they want their child to have an understanding of different world religions so that he grows up to be a more understanding and tolerant person. Is that so bad? This judge is way off his rocker and completely out of bounds and deserves to be taken off the bench.


I'm a Wiccan. I go to a Catholic school, and have no problems. Where does this Judge get off?

When it comes to the issue of separation of church and state, I like to turn to Thomas Jefferson for his wisdom in the matter:

...(O)ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (Notes on Virginia, 1785).

Does anyone have Judge Bradford's e-mail address?

News Update

Paganism Ruling Sparks Outcry (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS01/505270510/1006)

You can easily see why other religious beliefs, though more accepted but maybe not considered mainstream, would be supportive of this family. I mean, this would just open the door for all kinds of crap.
Thanks for the update--I'll add it to the original posting later with credit to you, of course.

In the meantime, I recommend everyone else take a look at the article and answer the poll at the bottom left of the page. The question is "Was a Marion County judge correct in prohibiting divorced parents from sharing their unorthodox religion with their son?" No is currently winning 79-21. Who's that 21%?

Does anyone have Judge Bradford's e-mail address?
I wish I did, but something that was included in that update article was that the father posted the story on a couple of websites with the plea not to bombard the judge with emails, so I'll respect his wishes.

I've been threatened with expulsion from two different schools for praying over my lunch, and I live in red-state Texas.
Then your school has no idea what the wording of the ruling states. School prayer only restricts people in power from forcing people to pray in a certain manner within the schools.
They obviously got their curdentials out of a bubblegum wraper & need to be put down.

Also being rather Pagan I find this insulting. Bradford & anyone who supports him needs to be ousted from making govermental decisions. Thats just awful.

I seriously doubt that is an accurate story.

If this happened, it was illegal.

There are any number of organizations that would be glad to intervene if such things actually occurred (and there are not more relevant facts to the story.)

The ACLU is one.

The Rutherford Institute is another.
It happens.

I have to call bullshit.ditto

ditto
It happend on these very forums. One person came on here to tell us all that a prayer group started up at his school and he was asking for help to break it up.

Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and suggested to him to live and let be.

It happens.

Probably. Very rarely.

But, as I said, it is illegal. And easily remedied.

(Although I highly doubt the same student was almost expelled from 2 different schools for merely quietly praying over his lunch).

Of course, school-led prayers and Bible readings over school intercoms still happen. They are also illegal.

It happend on these very forums. One person came on here to tell us all that a prayer group started up at his school and he was asking for help to break it up.

Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and suggested to him to live and let be.

1. Not what they were saying is bullshit.

2. One teen on an internet forum who is briefly opposed to an organized school prayer group is a far cry from a school administration actually banning a bible or prayer. Get some perspective.

It happend on these very forums. One person came on here to tell us all that a prayer group started up at his school and he was asking for help to break it up.

Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and suggested to him to live and let be.

I thought lots of public schools had prayer groups now. My high school had an organiztion called Warriors for Christ (reference to the school team the Warriors). No one really cares about this right? No screaming about seperation of church and state.

1. Not what they were saying is bullshit.

2. One teen on an internet forum who is briefly opposed to an organized school prayer group is a far cry from a school administration actually banning a bible or prayer. Get some perspective.
My point wasnt that the lone teen complaining ammounted to evidence of school administration banning bible study or prayer. My point was that we had to look no further than this forum to find those who would ban bibles/bible study/prayer at schools.

Just as we need to look no further than this forum to find those who would ban non-mainstream religions, what ever those might be.

My point wasnt that the lone teen complaining ammounted to evidence of school administration banning bible study or prayer. My point was that we had to look no further than this forum to find those who would ban bibles/bible study/prayer at schools.

Just as we need to look no further than this forum to find those who would ban non-mainstream religions, what ever those might be.

But your example proves the opposite of what you intended.

The teen's school has official Christian prayer groups.

The teen briefly thought this was a violation of the separation of church and state.

Dozens of people jumped all over it.

When it was explained, the teen understood the prayer group was not a violation of the First Amendment.

So, there was not attempt to ban anything Christian in your example. There was no desire to ban anything Christian in your example. There was a concern that the rules weren't being followed by a school that had a Christian prayer group.

Clearly not evidence of either the reality or the desire to ban voluntary prayer, bibles, or bible study in school.