NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this is VERY long, but as an Pagan in America, it scared the hell out of me. Is there anyone else who has similar articles or thoughts on what is going on here? Is this a common theme in Europe as well? What about the rest of the world? We seem to have gone from a country that was based on people in search of their own freedom to worship to one of the most uptight, prejudiced countries in the "free" world.

The Wrong Religion
Tom Jones Jr. and Tammy Burch believe a local court’s decision restricts their freedom of religion
Matthew Sledge
Sitting under a tree in Broad Ripple Park, Tom Jones Jr. remembers the day that changed his life. At the end of the divorce decree that had given him custody of his son, in the second to last paragraph, Marion County Superior Court Commissioner Mary Ann Oldham had forbidden him from teaching his religion to his 9-year-old.

Jones says the park is where he feels most at home. He is Wiccan. The religion is a derivative of paganism that stresses respect for the environment and extensive personal freedom. Shaking on his picnic-table bench, Jones remembers his reaction to the ruling: “What?” He says he couldn’t believe the court could force him to “shelter” his son Forest from Wicca. (Ed. Note: Forest is not his real name.)

But it had, and in a ruling that is being appealed with the help of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Marion County Superior Court Civil Judge Cale Bradford upheld the decree. It was Bradford’s job to oversee the work of commissioners like Oldham. He agreed with her decision: Jones and his Wiccan ex-wife, Tammy Burch, were to “take such steps as are needed to shelter Forest from the involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.”

Although the court did not clarify its language, the parents felt they were forced to assume that the prohibition of “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals” was targeted against Wicca. A parent who fails to follow a divorce court’s ruling faces being declared in contempt of court or losing custody of their child. Unless a higher court overturned Bradford’s decision, Jones and his ex-wife were faced with the possibility that they might never be able to teach Forest their religion. These days, when Jones takes his son to a park, he’s careful to watch his words.

Finding Wicca
When Tom Jones Jr. went to Bishop Chatard High School in the 1980s, he knew he would never become a Catholic, but the school didn’t have objections to his religious search. Over the years, he called himself a Shaman, an Animist or a follower of Native American religions. He describes a long journey to find a religion to call his own, but along the way the state didn’t interfere and his family generally accepted him.

Tammy Burch says her parents were less receptive of her unorthodox inclinations. She and Jones met in September of 1994, when Burch joined a Wiccan group of which Jones was a member. They hit it off, started dating and were married on Feb. 1, 1995.

They were both passionately involved in Wicca, and Jones was vocal about his religion. He wanted to get the word out about Wicca, one of the fastest growing religions in the United States. The numbers are difficult to estimate, but the City University of New York’s 2001 ARIS study estimates the religion now has more than 400,000 adherents. Hundreds of thousands more follow related neo-pagan or naturalistic religions.

Jones had found that most people he met didn’t know anything about Wicca, whose guiding principle is, in Jones’ words, “Do whatever you want to, just don’t harm anyone.” Wicca is a religion that stresses devotion to multiple gods and goddesses and respect for the environment. Jones found that the biggest misconception people had was that Wiccans “don’t respect life,” which he stridently disagrees with.

“We don’t run around drunk, naked and stoned,” he says. “I have very strong ethics and morals.”

Burch says colleagues and others around her frequently believed she claimed magical powers. She jests, “It’d be great if some of the things we’re supposed to be able to do we could, like flying around or making ourselves win the lottery.”

And when the couple had Forest, in 1995, they wanted to introduce him to their religion. He took to it eagerly, excited by Wiccan rituals like the Midsummer, a holiday where followers celebrate the longest day of sunlight.

The parents, with financial help from Jones’ father, enrolled their son in a Catholic elementary school.

In May of 2003, the couple filed for divorce. After initial discord, it was a largely amicable split. There were no major issues of contention, so the pair figured they would get a speedy approval from the courts.

“Divergent belief systems”
The first hurdle was the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau. The DRCB has a broad authority to determine factors that might affect a child’s well-being. It usually asks detailed questions about the conditions of the child’s family life. So when it started asking about Wicca, the parents weren’t particularly concerned.

“There’s a certain amount of combativeness built into the process,” Jones says, but he and his soon-to-be-ex-wife were largely unconcerned about the bureau.

The bureau made its report, which is sealed, to Court Commissioner Mary Ann Oldham. It was her job to rule on the divorce, subject to final approval of a Civil Court judge. The parents appeared before her to answer questions on the case. What they didn’t know was that the DRCB had included in its report a single passage on their religion.

“There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school Forest attends. Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones are self-proclaimed pagans. Mr. Jones said he desires for Forest to remain in [his] school, because he believes it provided quality education; he noted his father provides for Forest’s educational expenses. Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon Forest as he ages.”

The DRCB believed Forest’s Catholic elementary school upbringing would clash with what he learned from his Wiccan parents. Both parents say the school has been supportive of their argument in the case, and they both point to the frequent presence of non-Catholics at schools like Forest’s as a counterargument to the bureau’s position.

“I said, what?”
During the final divorce hearing in February 2004, Mary Ann Oldham, the master commissioner for Marion County Superior Courts 1 and 2, started questioning them about their religion, and at one point she asked something that shocked the pair: Do you worship Satan? They were startled — Wiccans see Satan as an Abrahamic concept, foreign to their cosmology. Jones remembers, “I said, ‘Ma’am, I can’t worship a deity I don’t believe in,’ then I apologized for my tone.”

It wasn’t until they got the commissioner’s ruling that they fully realized where the line of questioning was heading. “I said, what?” Jones recalls. They were bewildered by the implications of the decree: They were now supposed to shelter their son from “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.” Wicca was not mentioned by name, and no definition of “non-mainstream” was given.

Displeased with the outcome of their case, the parents got a new lawyer, Alisa Cohen. They filed a motion for correction. When they entered the courtroom of Judge Cale Bradford on Nov. 17, 2004, the judge’s demeanor took them aback. They say that like Oldham he seemed to be ill versed on the specifics and realities of their religion. Jones recalls that he was “not very open-minded,” and Burch is more direct.

“The way that Judge Bradford said your religion like he had just said something nasty ... I get the feeling that he thinks we’re all doing drugs and having orgies ... that there’s a lot of stuff going on that makes our religion a whole lot more fantastic than it is.”

Burch and Jones were considerably less enthusiastic about their prospects as they left the courtroom, and their fears were confirmed the next day. On Nov. 18, Bradford announced that Oldham’s ruling would stand — their son couldn’t follow their religion.

The court has released a statement through its spokeswoman, Beverly Philips. “The Judge and Commissioner involved in this case cannot comment about why certain decisions were made as it is pending appeal,” she said.

“As the case sorts itself out over time, it will become clear why certain decisions were made. This is not an attack on Wicca or the First Amendment. The Judge and Commissioner support the constitutional guarantee concerning freedom of religion, but this case is not just about freedom of religion. It’s about the court’s obligation to protect minor children from certain rituals that might be harmful to their well-being, whether or not those things are affiliated with a religion.”

Although it’s unusual for the court to issue a statement on cases, Jones criticizes this one, saying it’s an example of the court’s general attitude towards him and his former wife. He says, “We are still trying to make sense out of the statement ... it indicates that they’re unwilling to educate themselves about Wicca.”

For the sake of the child
The legal saga is far from over. Forest’s parents have appealed the case to the Indiana Court of Appeals with the help of the ICLU, and they are fairly confident of their chances. Deciding where to draw the line between parental liberties and child well-being is the difficult job of the court, but the parents contend Bradford overstepped the boundary.

Andrew Koppelman, a professor at Northwestern University who specializes in constitutional law and the enforcement of morals, says that the paragraph forbidding Forest from learning about Wicca “cannot be saved” because “the basic intention is unconstitutional.”

Those who work more directly with the courts say that more guidance would have been necessary if the judges wanted to curtail specific rituals they thought were harmful.

Anne Applegate, a law professor at Indiana University and the director of the family and children mediation clinic there, is sympathetic with the general difficulty of making decisions in the best interest of the child, but says, “There’s no specific practices or rituals that are being mentioned.”

Bruce Pennamped, an Indianapolis divorce attorney, says that the appeals court will need to look closely at Bradford’s reasons for the paragraph limiting their religious freedom. “If you’re going to impose restrictions on parents which you perceive to be in the best interests of the child, you’ve got to show some evidence.”

For now, no one can be sure what the court’s motivations were. The first attorney for the parents would have had to ask for a special explanation of the ruling before the court appearances under what’s known as Trial Rule 52, and it is now too late to do that.

Jones and Burch are so fearful of the possible repercussions of the decree that they say they have taken their son out of Unitarian Universalist Sunday school — they are afraid that it might count as “non-mainstream” because the state of Texas recently revoked Unitarianism’s tax-exempt religious status.

Committed to religious freedom
And what about Forest? Jones and Burch have been adamant about sheltering him from the involvement and observation of reporters and photographers. But the picture they’ve painted is of a boy both confused and determined. For Jones, his inability to teach his child his system of ethics and morals has been “crippling.”

The case was kept under wraps until Jones’ story was told on the front page of The Star. Burch was at first reluctant to talk to the media, knowing that her family would not react well to the news that she was Wiccan. But now that she’s “out of the broom closet,” another unexpected effect of Bradford’s ruling, she’s more than willing. “It’s about our son, so if we have to go all the way, we go all the way.”

“He knows what’s going on, he’s very conscious of everything,” Jones says.

Burch says Wicca is “a part of his life as much as it is ours.” The parents are particularly upset about the court’s order because they believe that its language may even obligate them to stop their child from independently pursuing Wicca.

“Here’s the judge’s accomplishment,” Jones says, “to create a child or a future adult that’s going to be very committed to religious freedom.”

Jones says that response to the case has been overwhelming. He says he’s repeatedly had to ask petitioners and demonstrators not to take action without his knowledge, pointing out that his child is still under the supervision of the court system until he is 18.

In January, two months after Bradford’s decision, Forest’s great-grandfather died. Forest was allowed to attend the Christian funeral, but Jones says it was a tough blow for his son, who enjoyed learning from the man.

When Forest’s great-grandfather died, Jones was under court order to protect him from Wicca. Wiccans customarily observe a ritual on Halloween, called Samhain, a remembrance of the dead. The parents are hoping that Forest will be able to participate.

Jones, wiping back tears, tells of his sadness at not being able to involve his son in the ritual. “I want my son to be with me when I say goodbye.”

This is just one of the stupid things goverment does on occasion. They'll pursue and win. And if they don't all they has to do is move to a more liberal jurisdiction in the US. Problem solved.

While freedom of religion is provided for in the Constitution, I don't it is being carried out very well. Some politicians have supported some positions that, in my opinion, very definately violate it. Such as Rep. Barr's position on wiccans in the military("Please stop this nonsense now. What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals?"), or Bush's idea that atheists cannot love their country and should not be considered citizens, or the case you just mentioned.

or Bush's idea that atheists cannot love their country and should not be considered citizens, or the case you just mentioned.

Wasn't that Bush Sr.?

This is just one of the stupid things goverment does on occasion. They'll pursue and win. And if they don't all they has to do is move to a more liberal jurisdiction in the US. Problem solved.
Problem ain't solved until the biased judge is removed from the bench.

There's not many pagans in Europe. I personally wouldn't care and I don't think many would care, but Europe doesn't have the tradition of religious freedom and also not the legal frame for founding religions that the US has. As far as I know, anyone can found a religion in the states, but in Germany, there's not many religions officially recognized. You can still congregate and all that, but there's certain privileges you get for being an official religion.

Wasn't that Bush Sr.?
I believe so, I should have stated it more clearly.

This is just one of the stupid things goverment does on occasion. They'll pursue and win. And if they don't all they has to do is move to a more liberal jurisdiction in the US. Problem solved.
I guess I am still of the opinion that they shouldn't have to move in order to get a fair hearing. At the risk of sounding whiny...
It's not fair...
In a legal matter I myself am currently dealing with, I was actually asked my religion in order to determine my "Character". It's not right. (And one of the resons I posted this was to investigate areas that are more "Open minded", to see if the bias is as wide spread as I think it is.)
I shouldn't have to leave my home to get the freedoms that are granted every US citizen.

Problem ain't solved until the biased judge is removed from the bench.
When they win, the judge will probably quietly retire or move into private practice. Honestly, I would just prefer the judge be shot, seriously, to fail so completely in their profensional function.... What a waste. Probably a crappy driver too.

This is just one of the stupid things goverment does on occasion. They'll pursue and win. And if they don't all they has to do is move to a more liberal jurisdiction in the US. Problem solved.
They shouldn't have to relocate. They've done nothing wrong whatsoever. The government is out to lunch on this, but it underscores systemic inequities, and needs to be addressed publicly, with transparency, to ensure this sort of nonsense is never repeated.

They shouldn't have to relocate. They've done nothing wrong whatsoever. The government is out to lunch on this, but it underscores systemic inequities, and needs to be addressed publicly, with transparency, to ensure this sort of nonsense is never repeated.
Bush is disappointed that Wicca is allowed in the military. Do you think he'll do something favorable to it?

Can you get us the name and address of the Judge who made this ruling? I'd love to get it out in teh pblic and start a letter writing campaign that will annoy the judge into early retirement and beyond.

Bush is disappointed that Wicca is allowed in the military. Do you think he'll do something favorable to it?
No. I don't.

I think he'd render it illegal if he could. I think there's a lot of things he'd illegalize if he could.

Like any form of political dissent.

That is one of the most absurd things i have ever heard, theyll apeal it and have it overturned, no doubt.

This is just one of the stupid things goverment does on occasion. They'll pursue and win. And if they don't all they has to do is move to a more liberal jurisdiction in the US. Problem solved.

Why should they have to go to the trouble and expense just to uphold a basic freedom? Judges like this need to go ...

Ugh. That's awful. Just...ugh.

Personally, I'm frightened by the fact that "non-mainstream" seems to be used here as a synonym for "evil." In a society that theoretically values personal freedom and individuality, it's unbelievably sad to hear that nonconformity is now punishable under the law.

I wish that family the best of luck.

I guess I am still of the opinion that they shouldn't have to move in order to get a fair hearing. At the risk of sounding whiny...
It's not fair...
In a legal matter I myself am currently dealing with, I was actually asked my religion in order to determine my "Character". It's not right. (And one of the resons I posted this was to investigate areas that are more "Open minded", to see if the bias is as wide spread as I think it is.)
I shouldn't have to leave my home to get the freedoms that are granted every US citizen.
See, I would consider the effectiveness of one's government part of the bargain made when one decides where to live.

You want to avoid this kind of thing, live near a northern or perhaps coastal metropolitan area. Not necessarily in the city, just in the same county, or adjoining county. You want to live in an area with enough people that they've gotten over their xenophobia.

Hell, in Washington, you can get an internet divorce. Fill out the webform and wait for a judge to sign it. (My neighbors did that).

I'd just like to reiterate something I'm known for spouting off about periodically on these threads:

Marginalized Americans, we sure could use you up here. Consider lending your collective voice someplace where your opinions can actually count for something. Let 'Whither Canada?' be more than a throwaway line from some old episode of Monty Python.

Seriously, we could more than accomodate you. I honestly think you ought to consider your options carefully before you find your options constrained. Seriously.

As for the rest, I'm sure they'd be only too happy to see you go.

Can you get us the name and address of the Judge who made this ruling? I'd love to get it out in teh pblic and start a letter writing campaign that will annoy the judge into early retirement and beyond.
Wonderful idea! Here you go!

Mary Ann G. Oldham
Marion Superior Court
(Civil, Criminal, and Probate Divisions)
200 E. Washington St., # T-1221
Indianapolis, IN 46204 [map]
Pho: (317) 327-4747
Fax: (317) 327-3844
Those phone #'s are for the court itself.
I found an alternate listing for phone and fax through the BAR
Phone: 317-327-4203; Fax: 317-327-4112

Wonderful idea! Here you go!

Mary Ann G. Oldham
Marion Superior Court
(Civil, Criminal, and Probate Divisions)
200 E. Washington St., # T-1221
Indianapolis, IN 46204 [map]
Pho: (317) 327-4747
Fax: (317) 327-3844
Those phone #'s are for the court itself.
I found an alternate listing for phone and fax through the BAR
Phone: 317-327-4203; Fax: 317-327-4112


Awesooome

It's an unfortunate situation in which we live today. Our nation, which was founded because people were fleeing from religious persecution, has become the very same thing from which our ancestors fled. Paganism and neopaganism is a very valid form of worship and it should be protected in the same way as Judaism, Islam (insert your religion here) is. Our nation has gone so far to the right, I don't think that our government can make a left hand turn in their cars. I voted. I voted against our conservative, right-wing government but HE won anyway. Keep voting, people. Eventually, things will have to change. :headbang:

When they win, the judge will probably quietly retire or move into private practice. Honestly, I would just prefer the judge be shot, seriously, to fail so completely in their profensional function.... What a waste. Probably a crappy driver too.
I agree with you. Personally I think that a judge who fails to uphold the people's constitutional rights, like freedom of religion, should be executed as a traitor to the USA. Unfortunately I don't think the law sees that as treason.

I'd just like to reiterate something I'm known for spouting off about periodically on these threads:

Marginalized Americans, we sure could use you up here. Consider lending your collective voice someplace where your opinions can actually count for something. Let 'Whither Canada?' be more than a throwaway line from some old episode of Monty Python.

Seriously, we could more than accomodate you. I honestly think you ought to consider your options carefully before you find your options constrained. Seriously.

As for the rest, I'm sure they'd be only too happy to see you go.

I do love Canada... (From the Port Huron area of Michigan, so spent much of my youth on the Canadian side of the bridge.) It's a good part of why I am who I am.
Wonderful culture.
Am seriously considering it...

I'd just like to reiterate something I'm known for spouting off about periodically on these threads:

Marginalized Americans, we sure could use you up here. Consider lending your collective voice someplace where your opinions can actually count for something. Let 'Whither Canada?' be more than a throwaway line from some old episode of Monty Python.

Seriously, we could more than accomodate you. I honestly think you ought to consider your options carefully before you find your options constrained. Seriously.

As for the rest, I'm sure they'd be only too happy to see you go.
How would Liberal American's opinions count more in Canada? If you really want to make a difference send some liberal Canadians to places like Texas and Florida. Change the most populous red states into blue states and you can actually swing the presidential elections toward Democrats.

I guess I am still of the opinion that they shouldn't have to move in order to get a fair hearing. At the risk of sounding whiny...
It's not fair...
In a legal matter I myself am currently dealing with, I was actually asked my religion in order to determine my "Character". It's not right. (And one of the resons I posted this was to investigate areas that are more "Open minded", to see if the bias is as wide spread as I think it is.)
I shouldn't have to leave my home to get the freedoms that are granted every US citizen.
Although it is true that you shouldn't have to move to obtain the freedoms which are guaranteed to you as an American citizen, it is also true that what you believe is an indicator of character. Should your religion be used as an indicator of character? No. Do your beliefs both indicate and help determine your character? Yes.

"Pagans in America...Is freedom of Religion a Farce?"

Although I think paganism, wicca, satanism, and for that matter, whorshipping an enormous stone phallus, are just as stupid as fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, etc., it should never be a question but what all of them should be treated equally.

How would Liberal American's opinions count more in Canada? If you really want to make a difference send some liberal Canadians to places like Texas and Florida. Change the most populous red states into blue states and you can actually swing the presidential elections toward Democrats.
DCD, most Canadians, even most Tories, are far more "liberal" than the so-called 'hard left' in America. There are many Canadians living and working in America, and the areas they work in tend to be (somewhat) less 'conservative' than Texas and Florida. I'm speaking of those in the entertainment industry, primarily. The aerospace engineers I knew who took work in Indiana fled in horror as soon as their contracts allowed them to. Ditto for the medical people in my circle of friends, who relocated to America's 'heartland'. They were terrified of the polarization they saw, heard and felt down among the red-states-people.

They sure as Hell didn't think talking openly about their beliefs and values was going to earn them more than heaps of trouble - and no amount of money is going to relieve the sense that you're one verbal slip-up removed from a firebomb stuffed through your mailbox in the middle of the night.

So it's good-bye, paranoiaville, and hello, sweet freedom. I just feel that Americans should be aware that there currently exists a handy escape hatch, but things may indeed change to preclude that option. In a very short period of time. And I think it's perfectly valid to remind them of their options, lest they be dragged down with their wild-eyed, Bush-enabling fellow citizens as America's fall down the pit of despotism is finally concluded.

You're more than halfway there, folks. Just a heads-up on that, okay?

Although I think paganism, wicca, satanism, and for that matter, whorshipping an enormous stone phallus, are just as stupid as fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, etc., it should never be a question but what all of them should be treated equally.

Wait, so non-fundamentalist paganism and wicca are somehow on par with fundamentalist versions of more major religions?

How the hell does that make sense?

It is no different from saying, "I think all Muslims are like fundamentalist Christians."

It's amazing how distracted they get when they hear the word "Wicca." People need to be educated properly so they don't get into these situations.

Although it is true that you shouldn't have to move to obtain the freedoms which are guaranteed to you as an American citizen, it is also true that what you believe is an indicator of character. Should your religion be used as an indicator of character? No. Do your beliefs both indicate and help determine your character? Yes.
The beliefs definately build the character, no doubt about that. The concern is misconceptions about what I believe being used against me (Or anyone else) in a court of law. I have actually read "Factual Articles" accusing pagans of sacrificing babies and eating them.
I would like to state now, for the record, I have NEVER eaten a baby.
These are some of the accusations that have been used against other severly persecuted religions . (The Jews were rumored to have killed babies in their "rituals" before WWII).
The whole thing just makes me nervous.

The whole thing just makes me nervous.
Please don't discount what I'm saying when I tell you there's absolutely every reason to feel nervous about this. It ought to make an awful lot of people nervous, but the fact it doesn't seem to makes it all the more disturbing.

Good luck, wherever you decide to take a stand.

I would like to state now, for the record, I have NEVER eaten a baby.
These are some of the accusations that have been used against other severly persecuted religions . (The Jews were rumored to have killed babies in their "rituals" before WWII).

That must be the favorite of those who persecute religions. The early Christians were accused of the same thing. They were said to take babies and cover them with flour to eat them at the Eucharist - forcing new recruits to make the first cut and thus be complicit in the crime.

Wait, so non-fundamentalist paganism and wicca are somehow on par with fundamentalist versions of more major religions?

How the hell does that make sense?

It is no different from saying, "I think all Muslims are like fundamentalist Christians."
Oh. Excuuuuse me for not phrasing my post exactly to your liking. So far as I am aware, there is no such thing as either "fundamentalistic paganism" or "fundamenalistic wicca." But if it will soothe your delicate sensibilities:

All religions are guaranteed the same protections under the Constitution of the United States.

How's that? Feel better now?

That must be the favorite of those who persecute religions. The early Christians were accused of the same thing. They were said to take babies and cover them with flour to eat them at the Eucharist - forcing new recruits to make the first cut and thus be complicit in the crime.Isn't the common rumor that Wiccans have un-Godly sex rituals?

The beliefs definately build the character, no doubt about that. The concern is misconceptions about what I believe being used against me (Or anyone else) in a court of law. I have actually read "Factual Articles" accusing pagans of sacrificing babies and eating them.
I would like to state now, for the record, I have NEVER eaten a baby.



You should try one... they're deeeelicious!

Thanks for the address. I will write directly to the judge as well as to the court and make complaints. I may print up a few of them and send one a week.

Oh. Excuuuuse me for not phrasing my post exactly to your liking. Don't take it too personal. I liked your original phrasing :D

Oh. Excuuuuse me for not phrasing my post exactly to your liking. So far as I am aware, there is no such thing as either "fundamentalistic paganism" or "fundamenalistic wicca." But if it will soothe your delicate sensibilities:

All religions are guaranteed the same protections under the Constitution of the United States.

How's that? Feel better now?

It doesn't change the fact that you clearly stated that all pagans, Wiccans, etc. are akin to fundamentalist versions of other religions. If you hadn't been trying to say that, you would have said that Paganism, Wicca, etc. are just as stupid as Christianity, Buddhism, etc. Instead, you pegged them at the level of fundamentalist Christianity, Buddhism, etc. - demonstrating an obvious bias against these religions.

Last I heard, you had spiritual and religious beliefs of your own. What makes you categorically list Paganism and Wicca as "stupid"?

Isn't the common rumor that Wiccans have un-Godly sex rituals?
Really??? Hmmm. Perhaps I should check out Wicca more thoroughly. :D

Isn't the common rumor that Wiccans have un-Godly sex rituals?

I don't know. I know very little about Wicca, but apparently know more than the common person. As far as I know, it all boils down to, "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt."

It doesn't change the fact that you clearly stated that all pagans, Wiccans, etc. are akin to fundamentalist versions of other religions. If you hadn't been trying to say that, you would have said that Paganism, Wicca, etc. are just as stupid as Christianity, Buddhism, etc. Instead, you pegged them at the level of fundamentalist Christianity, Buddhism, etc. - demonstrating an obvious bias against these religions.

Last I heard, you had spiritual and religious beliefs of your own. What makes you categorically list Paganism and Wicca as "stupid"?
I refuse to be baited. Goodbye.

Like the ultra-liberal Canadians are saying, just move to Canada. Please.

That way the ultra-liberals in Canada can have more of their own and the ultra-conservatives in America don't have to put up with dissent. It's a win-win situation.

Don't take it too personal. I liked your original phrasing :D

So you also think that all Paganism, Wicca, etc. is "stupid", along with fundamentalist versions of more mainstream religions (leaving out the non-fundamentalist versions of those religions)?

Good to know that not being mainstream = being stupid.

"Pagans in America...Is freedom of Religion a Farce?"

Although I think paganism, wicca, satanism, and for that matter, whorshipping an enormous stone phallus, are just as stupid as fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, etc., it should never be a question but what all of them should be treated equally.


OK, I'll bite. Why is Paganism stupid? Why is Wicca stupid? What Spiritual/Religious beliefs do you have that are so much more sensible?

Isn't the common rumor that Wiccans have un-Godly sex rituals?

For some reason, historically, the two favorite hysterical attacks against any relgion seem to be (a) they kill (and maybe even eat) babies, and (2) they have orgies.

Are these seen as the two ultimate evils or something, or are people just not creative enough to come up with a third thing to pretend all Jews/Catholics/gnostics/pagans/whatever do when you're not looking?

I refuse to be baited. Goodbye.

That's cute. You post obvious flamebait and bigotry and then accuse me of baiting when I call you on it.

There's not many pagans in Europe. I personally wouldn't care and I don't think many would care, but Europe doesn't have the tradition of religious freedom and also not the legal frame for founding religions that the US has. As far as I know, anyone can found a religion in the states, but in Germany, there's not many religions officially recognized. You can still congregate and all that, but there's certain privileges you get for being an official religion.
You are joking aren't you?
Are you Pagan?
There are hundreds of thousands of pagans in Europe. UK census results which I've posted in previous threads show UK paganism to be more healthy (in a numerical sense) than some of the so called mainstream religions and by the numbers that attend PFI meetings I think this is true across europe.

We tend not to have too much trouble in the UK. I know of a teacher who was suspended when his school found out he was wiccan but his union and the PF intervened and he was re-instated.

It's usually, in my experience, down to a few extremist Christians complaining and government bodies over reacting. And yes I'm sorry but it is always Christians who complain.

I refuse to be baited. Goodbye.

You say "This thing is stupid", they ask "Why is it stupid?" and you say "I refuse to be baited." huh??? :confused:

I believe so, I should have stated it more clearly.

Stupid Bush Sr. This is why I'm glad that I can live in Canada. Because I don't have to worry about the gocvernment taking away my citizenship because of my religion.

DCD, most Canadians, even most Tories, are far more "liberal" than the so-called 'hard left' in America. There are many Canadians living and working in America, and the areas they work in tend to be (somewhat) less 'conservative' than Texas and Florida. I'm speaking of those in the entertainment industry, primarily. The aerospace engineers I knew who took work in Indiana fled in horror as soon as their contracts allowed them to. Ditto for the medical people in my circle of friends, who relocated to America's 'heartland'. They were terrified of the polarization they saw, heard and felt down among the red-states-people.

They sure as Hell didn't think talking openly about their beliefs and values was going to earn them more than heaps of trouble - and no amount of money is going to relieve the sense that you're one verbal slip-up removed from a firebomb stuffed through your mailbox in the middle of the night.

So it's good-bye, paranoiaville, and hello, sweet freedom. I just feel that Americans should be aware that there currently exists a handy escape hatch, but things may indeed change to preclude that option. In a very short period of time. And I think it's perfectly valid to remind them of their options, lest they be dragged down with their wild-eyed, Bush-enabling fellow citizens as America's fall down the pit of despotism is finally concluded.

You're more than halfway there, folks. Just a heads-up on that, okay?

I would imagine that Americans who emigrate to more liberal countries -- be they democrats or republicans -- would find that the thing that hits them hardest (in terms of the difference between governmental policies) is the tax structure.

I like my 25% tax bracket (or whatever it is... somewhere around that)... I couldn't imagine moving to Sweden or France and paying twice that and not having to be rich to be taxed thusly.

Isn't the common rumor that Wiccans have un-Godly sex rituals?

That's sex magick, and only some Pagans use it. In fact, I've yet to meet a Wiccan who used it, but I'm sure there're some.

Anyways, I've always had some difficulty, but not much, being a Pagan in the US. It's still equated by some with being a heathen, in line with Satan, or people have no idea what it is/think it's some cult, which makes a lot of people feel that their beliefs are "superior". It's absolutely assinine for a judge to impose their own religious beliefs on a parent trying to teach their child the religion they feel is best. While I've heard this article before, it still worries me that this judge was allowed to get away with this .

You should try one... they're deeeelicious!

What's the difference between a Ferrari and a pile of dead babies?

I don't have a Ferrari parked in my garage! :D

What's the difference between a Ferrari and a pile of dead babies?

I don't have a Ferrari parked in my garage! :D

Time to fire up the barbque~!

You say "This thing is stupid", they ask "Why is it stupid?" and you say "I refuse to be baited." huh??? :confused:
Well I don't know what you and Dempublicants are going on about. I read what he wrote (perhaps just a teensy bit awkwardly written) as a strong attachment to any particular brand of magical belief is stupid. I might further infer that it's stupid because it misses the point.

He didn't object with the questioning of his statement, rather the questioning of the gross mischaracterisation/misinterpretation of his statement and the refusal of his restatement.

Oh. Excuuuuse me for not phrasing my post exactly to your liking. So far as I am aware, there is no such thing as either "fundamentalistic paganism" or "fundamenalistic wicca." But if it will soothe your delicate sensibilities:

All religions are guaranteed the same protections under the Constitution of the United States.

How's that? Feel better now?
Addendum - As long as the religion does not cause harm to the unconsenting.

OK, I'll bite. Why is Paganism stupid? Why is Wicca stupid? What Spiritual/Religious beliefs do you have that are so much more sensible?
Agnosticism.

Addendum - As long as the religion does not cause harm to the unconsenting.

Such as eating babies (which no religion that I know of does)? I only do it for the taste.

So you also think that all Paganism, Wicca, etc. is "stupid", along with fundamentalist versions of more mainstream religions (leaving out the non-fundamentalist versions of those religions)?

Good to know that not being mainstream = being stupid.Nah, I just thought his statement was funny, not that I endorsed it.

Agnosticism.


Are you answering for yourself or Eut?

Well I don't know what you and Dempublicants are going on about. I read what he wrote (perhaps just a teensy bit awkwardly written) as a strong attachment to any particular brand of magical belief is stupid. I might further infer that it's stupid because it misses the point.

Although I think paganism, wicca, satanism, and for that matter, whorshipping an enormous stone phallus, are just as stupid as fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, etc., it should never be a question but what all of them should be treated equally.

Ok, here he directly compares Paganism and Wicca to "worshipping an enormous stone phallus" and fundamentalist Christianity and Islam.

It has nothign to do with a "strong attachment to any particular brand of magical belief" because neither Paganism nor Wicca imply that any more than mainstream Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. (which are conspicuously left out of the "stupid" list).

He didn't object with the questioning of his statement, rather the questioning of the gross mischaracterisation/misinterpretation of his statement and the refusal of his restatement.

Demonstrate any mischaracterization. Everything I have said is directly from his statement. When called on it, he repeated the last sentence without the qualifiers he had at the beginning. He did not restate the qualifiers - which was what the problem was with. I never had any problem at all with him saying that all religions should be treated equally. It was his outright characterization of Wicca and Paganism, etc. as "stupid" and on par with fundamentalist versions of mainstream religions.

That's sex magick, and only some Pagans use it. In fact, I've yet to meet a Wiccan who used it, but I'm sure there're some.

Anyways, I've always had some difficulty, but not much, being a Pagan in the US. It's still equated by some with being a heathen, in line with Satan, or people have no idea what it is/think it's some cult, which makes a lot of people feel that their beliefs are "superior". It's absolutely assinine for a judge to impose their own religious beliefs on a parent trying to teach their child the religion they feel is best. While I've heard this article before, it still worries me that this judge was allowed to get away with this .
I know. It's just the main stereotype. Actually, you'd be surprised to find out what Satanism really is... I certainly was, and I was told by the guy from the Catholic church in charge of combating cults in the Freising-Munich area...

Well I don't know what you and Dempublicants are going on about. I read what he wrote (perhaps just a teensy bit awkwardly written) as a strong attachment to any particular brand of magical belief is stupid. I might further infer that it's stupid because it misses the point.

He didn't object with the questioning of his statement, rather the questioning of the gross mischaracterisation/misinterpretation of his statement and the refusal of his restatement.


If thats what he meant then I would have to disagree with it is just a teensy bit awkwardly written. There is nothing inherently wrong with a strong attachment to any spiritual belief. That does not equal fundamentalism. Are you suggesting that Eutrusca doesn't have any strong attachments to his spiritual beliefs? Also, what do you mean by "it misses the point?". I can agree that people can take things too far and that fundamentalism is stupid and harmful, but blanket flaimbaity statements like "Wicca is stupid" and comparing it to Fundamentalist Christianity and an unwillingness to back up your statement with anything substantial (or even anythign at all) makes one want to probe further.

Something wrong with asking him to clarify?

I guess I have to ask you these questions because it looks like Eutrusca needs a surrogate to explain his statments for him.

While freedom of religion is provided for in the Constitution, I don't it is being carried out very well. Some politicians have supported some positions that, in my opinion, very definately violate it. Such as Rep. Barr's position on wiccans in the military("Please stop this nonsense now. What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals?"), or Bush's idea that atheists cannot love their country and should not be considered citizens, or the case you just mentioned.

This Barr person has quite obviously never read the bible, which is full of incidents of sacrificial rites, indicating that the christian god is a god that
not only accepts but expects animal sacrifice. Satanism however does not include any form of animal sacrifice. I have read both religious texts in order
to expand my understanding of each.

This is just another example of neocon fascist attitudes towards building
an excusivley christian holy army.

Remarkable for a religion that upholds a commandment, from god,
(Though shalt not murder)

it looks like Eutrusca needs a surrogate to explain his statments for him.
That's cause Eutrusca is far more circumspect now that he's had two bans under his belt. Call it a fear of losing his post-count numbers.

being a wiccan myself this level of stupidity doesn't surprise me as I encounter every day :(

My significant other is Wiccan and though I don't have any hard data to hand you, I am assured that there has been a spike in the number of Pagans slipping over the border to Canada and not returning. Just FYI on that.

I know. It's just the main stereotype. Actually, you'd be surprised to find out what Satanism really is... I certainly was, and I was told by the guy from the Catholic church in charge of combating cults in the Freising-Munich area...

*laughs*I already know what it is, and what it's about, and I fail to see why I should have a problem with it. Never did, really..Well, when I was Catholic, I thought it was "Omg, Satan, evil, destruction!" but I've learned a lot since then. I explored as many philosophies and religions I could before settling on any of them, and found it rather good for me to know them.

There's Satanism and then there's devil-worshippers.

Satanists are just a bunch of hedonistic jackasses who drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane, piss on public toilets, and park in handicapped spaces.

Devil-worshippers are the unsavory virgin kidnappers who hang out in graveyards and sacrifice rabbits while snorting coke off each others' asses.

There's Satanism and then there's devil-worshippers.

Satanists are just a bunch of hedonistic jackasses who drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane, piss on public toilets, and park in handicapped spaces.

Devil-worshippers are the unsavory virgin kidnappers who hang out in graveyards and sacrifice rabbits while snorting coke off each others' asses.
I'd say that was a bit of a generalization.

Satanists are just a bunch of hedonistic jackasses who drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane, piss on public toilets, and park in handicapped spaces.



Ok....
Actually, i think it's worth mentioning that Satanists don't worship the Christian Satan...To them, Satan isn't a god, but a life force, a force that resides in all things. So really, Satanists aren't "just a bunch of hedonistic jackasses who drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane, piss on public toilets, and park in handicapped spaces". I'm glad you don't represent your religion very well, Catholic Paternia. 'Cuse i know a lot of Catholics, and they generally aren't bigoted assholes who've replaced their brains for bibles.

Yeah, Satanists are called Satanists because Satan means enemy. They were enemies of the church because they pursued an opposing lifestyle. It's not because they worshiped the Devil. Luciferan is a better title for the murderous devil worshippers than Satanist, because there actually is a difference between the two.

Christians, Satanists - feh. Opposite sides of the same coin. I think it's sad that so many discontented young Christians decide to 'rebel' by continuing to subscribe to the same Dualistic claptrap they came to revile. Sod the lot. Dualism is simplistic nonsense and should be left to twist in the wind.

Find your own frickin' path, and ditch the Dogma along the way.

Problem ain't solved until the biased judge is removed from the bench.

Problem ain't solved until the biased judge is dead and in the Hell of his choice.

Regarding this case:
Please do not write or call this judge. This story has been out for a while. The father has actually posted on websites (pagan and Wiccan) asking for people not to harrass the judge, fearing that it will interfere with the appeals case.
As one alternative, he recommended that supporters to congratulate the author Kevin Corcoran, for an objective and unbiased reporting of the case and of Wiccans and pagans in general.
The author can be reached at kevin.corcoran@indystar.com. (The skeptical can go to the Indy Star website and locate the story in the archive as well as the follow up articles.

Regarding religious freedom, as with all places, it depends which rail is on top. Wiccans, pagans, Taoists, etc, can worship in the United States.

Part of me really feels that the current "Christian is the only -anity" is a reaction to the slowly changing face of the United States. There are more people who feel that they should not be afraid to worship as they will. There are also more people that are not practicing Christianity that are becoming more prominent in places of power in the United States.

Caution!: I am attempting to argue what someone else was thinking when they quickly wrote an offhand comment. Obviously I cannot know with any degree of accuracy, and so anything I write about this is MY interpretation, perhaps mine alone. I'm going to argue in a more definative tone simply for my own convience.
Ok, here he directly compares Paganism and Wicca to "worshipping an enormous stone phallus" and fundamentalist Christianity and Islam.

It has nothign to do with a "strong attachment to any particular brand of magical belief" because neither Paganism nor Wicca imply that any more than mainstream Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. (which are conspicuously left out of the "stupid" list).

Demonstrate any mischaracterization. Everything I have said is directly from his statement. When called on it, he repeated the last sentence without the qualifiers he had at the beginning. He did not restate the qualifiers - which was what the problem was with. I never had any problem at all with him saying that all religions should be treated equally. It was his outright characterization of Wicca and Paganism, etc. as "stupid" and on par with fundamentalist versions of mainstream religions.
Right, it's one thing in a kinda long list where one of the options is a throw away "whatever" hyperbole (unless there is a serious phallus worshiping cult I'm not aware of). Fundementalism is brought into the mix to illustrate the difference between more flexible diffuse spirituality, or just the mechanical dispassionate excecution of tradition, such as practiced by some once a year Catholics. These aren't really part of the discussion, because they don't really care. A prohibition of Halloween might trigger the spontaneous appearence of pitchforks and torches however. But for the truly interested parties, all are equal before the law that binds us (extra words are inserted as an excersise for the reader). Using the extremes makes sense in another sense. By analogy, 'If the fundementalist version of more mainstream religions are protected, the other extreme minority religions such as Wicca, and stone phallus worshiping irrespective of what I or anyone might think of them." Which in itself is similar to the famous, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' I don't think we'll be finding much to disagree about when it comes to that sentiment.

That he restated his position at all indicates that he believes you mischaracterized/misinterpereted his original point. (I'm not overly concerned with your intent) It's quite clear, as we can still see, that you were completely unwilling to accept this, prefering to cling to your original interpretation. I don't know why you're doing that. I find it ... odd. And that's why I wrote my previous, and this post.

Sumamba Buwhan,

He completely restated his point, I fail to see how he could do much more. I don't know what should be expected. Should he set up a webcam and provide a video of himself genuflecting, or perhaps frollicing naked in a fairy ring? The thing is there are similarities between Wicca and particular fundementalist sects. One being, in the United States, they're all relatively uncommon. That people choose to make other connections that aren't explicity stated says something about what people choose to infer more than it does about what someone intended to imply. And of course the same goes for me.

Well, I think actually believing in thermodynamic law violating magic, that's stupid. Anyone who believes in that I deduct 20 to 50 IQ points based on the degree to which they're willing to press the issue. (Now this doesn't mean I'd want to outlaw it or wouldn't do my part to prevent that from being outlawed.) The spirituality which is a method of discovering a way a person can use to commune with the greater universe and understand themselves as an integral part of something greater, not so stupid.

I somehow doubt he needs a proxy to plead his case. I just thought it was perhaps a little silly, particularly in light of his restatement. Even as divergent as this has become, it's always interesting to see how people can take totally different, even diametric, meanings from exactly the same thing.

Several problems:

Right, it's one thing in a kinda long list where one of the options is a throw away "whatever" hyperbole (unless there is a serious phallus worshiping cult I'm not aware of). 1. Fundementalism is brought into the mix to illustrate the difference between more flexible diffuse spirituality, or just the mechanical dispassionate excecution of tradition, such as practiced by some once a year Catholics. These aren't really part of the discussion, because they don't really care. A prohibition of Halloween might trigger the spontaneous appearence of pitchforks and torches however. But for the truly interested parties, all are equal before the law that binds us (extra words are inserted as an excersise for the reader). Using the extremes makes sense in another sense. 2. By analogy, 'If the fundementalist version of more mainstream religions are protected, the other extreme minority religions such as Wicca, and stone phallus worshiping irrespective of what I or anyone might think of them." Which in itself is similar to the famous, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' I don't think we'll be finding much to disagree about when it comes to that sentiment.

1. Assumes that people with more "flexible" spirituality or those who are not fundamentalists automatically don't care about their religion. First off, not being a fundamentalist does not make you akin to a "once a year Catholic". I have a fairly flexible outlook on religion, and don't subscribe to any fundamentalist version of any religion, but I feel very strongly about my beliefs and would react very strongly to anyone trying to keep me from practicing them, or calling them "stupid."

2. Assumes that Wicca is automatically an "extreme" religion. Any such assumption demonstrates complete ignorance. Much like any religion, Wicca has its extremists, but most could not be described this way. For the most part, other than the "stupid" moniker, it was exactly this assumption in Eutrusca that bothered me.

That he restated his position at all indicates that he believes you mischaracterized/misinterpereted his original point. (I'm not overly concerned with your intent) It's quite clear, as we can still see, that you were completely unwilling to accept this, prefering to cling to your original interpretation. I don't know why you're doing that. I find it ... odd. And that's why I wrote my previous, and this post.

He didn't restate it at all. He said "Well, there aren't any fundamentalist Wiccans/Pagans that I know of," and then restated that all religions should be treated equally. The former does not answer as to why he called the religion "stupid", nor does it explain why he was lumping them in with extremism and fundamentalism. Does he think it is appropriate to say "I don't know of any fundamentalist sects, so they all must be fundamentalist"?

The latter is not an issue, as I never had any problem with it to begin with.

Essentially, he didn't restate anything. He completely ignored my objections and tried to skirt them.

The thing is there are similarities between Wicca and particular fundementalist sects. One being, in the United States, they're all relatively uncommon.

And being uncommon makes them "stupid"?

Well, I think actually believing in thermodynamic law violating magic, that's stupid.

Does every Pagan or Wiccan believe this?

The spirituality which is a method of discovering a way a person can use to commune with the greater universe and understand themselves as an integral part of something greater, not so stupid.

Wicca/Paganism can't be that method?

Several problems:

> Well, I think actually believing in thermodynamic
> law violating magic, that's stupid.

Does every Pagan or Wiccan believe this?

No. Indeed, magick can be easily explained without any violation of thermodynamic (or any other) laws, once you take holistics into account. I'm a chaoticist, therefore I don't know if I'm included in your definition of "pagan", but I do can tell you that.

1. Assumes that people with more "flexible" spirituality or those who are not fundamentalists automatically don't care about their religion. First off, not being a fundamentalist does not make you akin to a "once a year Catholic". I have a fairly flexible outlook on religion, and don't subscribe to any fundamentalist version of any religion, but I feel very strongly about my beliefs and would react very strongly to anyone trying to keep me from practicing them, or calling them "stupid."
It's not much of a stretch to say people who are more flexible, aren't as invested in the fundementalists. The fact that they put less energy into it should be self-evident. In absence of thought police it's going to be the everyday users who have their life impacted. Having someone declare one's own closely held beliefs stupid is generally pretty offensive, but didn't Eutrusca at most say that he thought they were stupid? And wouldn't that cast your argument as a demand that he personally endorse any uncommon religion?
2. Assumes that Wicca is automatically an "extreme" religion. Any such assumption demonstrates complete ignorance. Much like any religion, Wicca has its extremists, but most could not be described this way. For the most part, other than the "stupid" moniker, it was exactly this assumption in Eutrusca that bothered me.
By virtue of its numbers it might well be an extreme religion; I certainly would guess that it's numbers are probably no more than Judaism at best (and I think that's somewhere around 2 million in the US; less than 1%) Certainly, were one willing to search for more extreme views within it one would expect to find them (it is a well developed line of religious thought is it not). By in large what is ment by 'extreme' is something that's going to be infered by the reader. The writer ment to imply what was ment to be implied, and thought that it was so obvious misunderstanding was unlikely. For everyday use, *I'd* probably say extreme pointed to something two or more standard deviations away from the norm, or that was a concerned with the promotion of swift irreversible change.He didn't restate it at all. He said "Well, there aren't any fundamentalist Wiccans/Pagans that I know of," and then restated that all religions should be treated equally. The former does not answer as to why he called the religion "stupid", nor does it explain why he was lumping them in with extremism and fundamentalism. Does he think it is appropriate to say "I don't know of any fundamentalist sects, so they all must be fundamentalist"?< meta translation>This is gone off track. All Religions should be treated equally. EOL</meta> Who cares why he thinks they're stupid? Or how stupid he thinks they are? If anything, that he disagrees with them and strongly supports the principle of religious tolerance is a credit. That principle, and the willingness of those who might disagree with others religions to defend it is the only font of remedy for such injustices in this world, and perhaps at all. His opinion of Wicca (et al) isn't a reflection on that or any religion, but rather a commitment to the principle. I would imagine that Eutrusca doens't think about Wicca at all, but merely included that he thought is was stupid as a way to make his argument for the principle (which is what we should all really care about) more forcefully.And being uncommon makes them "stupid"?Being uncommon may make them extreme if they're uncommon enough. And other extremes make for good analogy if they're roughtly equal in their rarity.Does every Pagan or Wiccan believe this?Who cares? The ones that do, monotheists included, are stupid*.Wicca/Paganism can't be that method?One would hope. The fact that it is a resonable contender (low threshold) is what makes the judge's decision so offensive. Yay, back on track, no?

*I reserve a non-specific caveate relating to my views on "stupidity" which could potentially be something I write about at some unspecified future date.

No. Indeed, magick can be easily explained without any violation of thermodynamic (or any other) laws, once you take holistics into account. I'm a chaoticist, therefore I don't know if I'm included in your definition of "pagan", but I do can tell you that.

Depends..If you're a Chaos Mage (Which I believe is what you're saying), then most likely you could/would be classified as Pagan/Neopagan. I could be wrong.

I know this is VERY long, but as an Pagan in America, it scared the hell out of me. Is there anyone else who has similar articles or thoughts on what is going on here? Is this a common theme in Europe as well? What about the rest of the world? We seem to have gone from a country that was based on people in search of their own freedom to worship to one of the most uptight, prejudiced countries in the "free" world.

The Wrong Religion
Tom Jones Jr. and Tammy Burch believe a local court’s decision restricts their freedom of religion
Matthew Sledge
Sitting under a tree in Broad Ripple Park, Tom Jones Jr. remembers the day that changed his life. At the end of the divorce decree that had given him custody of his son, in the second to last paragraph, Marion County Superior Court Commissioner Mary Ann Oldham had forbidden him from teaching his religion to his 9-year-old.

Jones says the park is where he feels most at home. He is Wiccan. The religion is a derivative of paganism that stresses respect for the environment and extensive personal freedom. Shaking on his picnic-table bench, Jones remembers his reaction to the ruling: “What?” He says he couldn’t believe the court could force him to “shelter” his son Forest from Wicca. (Ed. Note: Forest is not his real name.)

But it had, and in a ruling that is being appealed with the help of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Marion County Superior Court Civil Judge Cale Bradford upheld the decree. It was Bradford’s job to oversee the work of commissioners like Oldham. He agreed with her decision: Jones and his Wiccan ex-wife, Tammy Burch, were to “take such steps as are needed to shelter Forest from the involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.”

Although the court did not clarify its language, the parents felt they were forced to assume that the prohibition of “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals” was targeted against Wicca. A parent who fails to follow a divorce court’s ruling faces being declared in contempt of court or losing custody of their child. Unless a higher court overturned Bradford’s decision, Jones and his ex-wife were faced with the possibility that they might never be able to teach Forest their religion. These days, when Jones takes his son to a park, he’s careful to watch his words.

Finding Wicca
When Tom Jones Jr. went to Bishop Chatard High School in the 1980s, he knew he would never become a Catholic, but the school didn’t have objections to his religious search. Over the years, he called himself a Shaman, an Animist or a follower of Native American religions. He describes a long journey to find a religion to call his own, but along the way the state didn’t interfere and his family generally accepted him.

Tammy Burch says her parents were less receptive of her unorthodox inclinations. She and Jones met in September of 1994, when Burch joined a Wiccan group of which Jones was a member. They hit it off, started dating and were married on Feb. 1, 1995.

They were both passionately involved in Wicca, and Jones was vocal about his religion. He wanted to get the word out about Wicca, one of the fastest growing religions in the United States. The numbers are difficult to estimate, but the City University of New York’s 2001 ARIS study estimates the religion now has more than 400,000 adherents. Hundreds of thousands more follow related neo-pagan or naturalistic religions.

Jones had found that most people he met didn’t know anything about Wicca, whose guiding principle is, in Jones’ words, “Do whatever you want to, just don’t harm anyone.” Wicca is a religion that stresses devotion to multiple gods and goddesses and respect for the environment. Jones found that the biggest misconception people had was that Wiccans “don’t respect life,” which he stridently disagrees with.

“We don’t run around drunk, naked and stoned,” he says. “I have very strong ethics and morals.”

Burch says colleagues and others around her frequently believed she claimed magical powers. She jests, “It’d be great if some of the things we’re supposed to be able to do we could, like flying around or making ourselves win the lottery.”

And when the couple had Forest, in 1995, they wanted to introduce him to their religion. He took to it eagerly, excited by Wiccan rituals like the Midsummer, a holiday where followers celebrate the longest day of sunlight.

The parents, with financial help from Jones’ father, enrolled their son in a Catholic elementary school.

In May of 2003, the couple filed for divorce. After initial discord, it was a largely amicable split. There were no major issues of contention, so the pair figured they would get a speedy approval from the courts.

“Divergent belief systems”
The first hurdle was the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau. The DRCB has a broad authority to determine factors that might affect a child’s well-being. It usually asks detailed questions about the conditions of the child’s family life. So when it started asking about Wicca, the parents weren’t particularly concerned.

“There’s a certain amount of combativeness built into the process,” Jones says, but he and his soon-to-be-ex-wife were largely unconcerned about the bureau.

The bureau made its report, which is sealed, to Court Commissioner Mary Ann Oldham. It was her job to rule on the divorce, subject to final approval of a Civil Court judge. The parents appeared before her to answer questions on the case. What they didn’t know was that the DRCB had included in its report a single passage on their religion.

“There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school Forest attends. Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones are self-proclaimed pagans. Mr. Jones said he desires for Forest to remain in [his] school, because he believes it provided quality education; he noted his father provides for Forest’s educational expenses. Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon Forest as he ages.”

The DRCB believed Forest’s Catholic elementary school upbringing would clash with what he learned from his Wiccan parents. Both parents say the school has been supportive of their argument in the case, and they both point to the frequent presence of non-Catholics at schools like Forest’s as a counterargument to the bureau’s position.

“I said, what?”
During the final divorce hearing in February 2004, Mary Ann Oldham, the master commissioner for Marion County Superior Courts 1 and 2, started questioning them about their religion, and at one point she asked something that shocked the pair: Do you worship Satan? They were startled — Wiccans see Satan as an Abrahamic concept, foreign to their cosmology. Jones remembers, “I said, ‘Ma’am, I can’t worship a deity I don’t believe in,’ then I apologized for my tone.”

It wasn’t until they got the commissioner’s ruling that they fully realized where the line of questioning was heading. “I said, what?” Jones recalls. They were bewildered by the implications of the decree: They were now supposed to shelter their son from “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.” Wicca was not mentioned by name, and no definition of “non-mainstream” was given.

Displeased with the outcome of their case, the parents got a new lawyer, Alisa Cohen. They filed a motion for correction. When they entered the courtroom of Judge Cale Bradford on Nov. 17, 2004, the judge’s demeanor took them aback. They say that like Oldham he seemed to be ill versed on the specifics and realities of their religion. Jones recalls that he was “not very open-minded,” and Burch is more direct.

“The way that Judge Bradford said your religion like he had just said something nasty ... I get the feeling that he thinks we’re all doing drugs and having orgies ... that there’s a lot of stuff going on that makes our religion a whole lot more fantastic than it is.”

Burch and Jones were considerably less enthusiastic about their prospects as they left the courtroom, and their fears were confirmed the next day. On Nov. 18, Bradford announced that Oldham’s ruling would stand — their son couldn’t follow their religion.

The court has released a statement through its spokeswoman, Beverly Philips. “The Judge and Commissioner involved in this case cannot comment about why certain decisions were made as it is pending appeal,” she said.

“As the case sorts itself out over time, it will become clear why certain decisions were made. This is not an attack on Wicca or the First Amendment. The Judge and Commissioner support the constitutional guarantee concerning freedom of religion, but this case is not just about freedom of religion. It’s about the court’s obligation to protect minor children from certain rituals that might be harmful to their well-being, whether or not those things are affiliated with a religion.”

Although it’s unusual for the court to issue a statement on cases, Jones criticizes this one, saying it’s an example of the court’s general attitude towards him and his former wife. He says, “We are still trying to make sense out of the statement ... it indicates that they’re unwilling to educate themselves about Wicca.”

For the sake of the child
The legal saga is far from over. Forest’s parents have appealed the case to the Indiana Court of Appeals with the help of the ICLU, and they are fairly confident of their chances. Deciding where to draw the line between parental liberties and child well-being is the difficult job of the court, but the parents contend Bradford overstepped the boundary.

Andrew Koppelman, a professor at Northwestern University who specializes in constitutional law and the enforcement of morals, says that the paragraph forbidding Forest from learning about Wicca “cannot be saved” because “the basic intention is unconstitutional.”

Those who work more directly with the courts say that more guidance would have been necessary if the judges wanted to curtail specific rituals they thought were harmful.

Anne Applegate, a law professor at Indiana University and the director of the family and children mediation clinic there, is sympathetic with the general difficulty of making decisions in the best interest of the child, but says, “There’s no specific practices or rituals that are being mentioned.”

Bruce Pennamped, an Indianapolis divorce attorney, says that the appeals court will need to look closely at Bradford’s reasons for the paragraph limiting their religious freedom. “If you’re going to impose restrictions on parents which you perceive to be in the best interests of the child, you’ve got to show some evidence.”

For now, no one can be sure what the court’s motivations were. The first attorney for the parents would have had to ask for a special explanation of the ruling before the court appearances under what’s known as Trial Rule 52, and it is now too late to do that.

Jones and Burch are so fearful of the possible repercussions of the decree that they say they have taken their son out of Unitarian Universalist Sunday school — they are afraid that it might count as “non-mainstream” because the state of Texas recently revoked Unitarianism’s tax-exempt religious status.

Committed to religious freedom
And what about Forest? Jones and Burch have been adamant about sheltering him from the involvement and observation of reporters and photographers. But the picture they’ve painted is of a boy both confused and determined. For Jones, his inability to teach his child his system of ethics and morals has been “crippling.”

The case was kept under wraps until Jones’ story was told on the front page of The Star. Burch was at first reluctant to talk to the media, knowing that her family would not react well to the news that she was Wiccan. But now that she’s “out of the broom closet,” another unexpected effect of Bradford’s ruling, she’s more than willing. “It’s about our son, so if we have to go all the way, we go all the way.”

“He knows what’s going on, he’s very conscious of everything,” Jones says.

Burch says Wicca is “a part of his life as much as it is ours.” The parents are particularly upset about the court’s order because they believe that its language may even obligate them to stop their child from independently pursuing Wicca.

“Here’s the judge’s accomplishment,” Jones says, “to create a child or a future adult that’s going to be very committed to religious freedom.”

Jones says that response to the case has been overwhelming. He says he’s repeatedly had to ask petitioners and demonstrators not to take action without his knowledge, pointing out that his child is still under the supervision of the court system until he is 18.

In January, two months after Bradford’s decision, Forest’s great-grandfather died. Forest was allowed to attend the Christian funeral, but Jones says it was a tough blow for his son, who enjoyed learning from the man.

When Forest’s great-grandfather died, Jones was under court order to protect him from Wicca. Wiccans customarily observe a ritual on Halloween, called Samhain, a remembrance of the dead. The parents are hoping that Forest will be able to participate.

Jones, wiping back tears, tells of his sadness at not being able to involve his son in the ritual. “I want my son to be with me when I say goodbye.”

Sometimes you get an ignorant idiot of a judge . give thanks for the appeals proccess and ...dare I say it...the ACLU . " A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members " .

Depends..If you're a Chaos Mage (Which I believe is what you're saying), then most likely you could/would be classified as Pagan/Neopagan. I could be wrong.

What the heck is a Chaos Mage? :eek:

It's not much of a stretch to say people who are more flexible, aren't as invested in the fundementalists. The fact that they put less energy into it should be self-evident.

Actually, that is patently and completely untrue. Fundamentalism is characterized by people who haven't researched their religion, and in fact simply rail against whatever perceived threat they see, without thinking about it much.

*Note: This is using "fundamentalist" in the sociological frame. There are those who are self-proclaimed "fundamentalists" and do not fit into this description.

Those who are more flexible are much more likely to actually have faith and beliefs that they can defend.

Having someone declare one's own closely held beliefs stupid is generally pretty offensive, but didn't Eutrusca at most say that he thought they were stupid? And wouldn't that cast your argument as a demand that he personally endorse any uncommon religion?

I don't think he has to endorse any religion, but he certainly shouldn't call a religion "stupid" without justification. I asked him to provide any reason that these religions were more "stupid" than his own spiritual and religious beliefs, and he refused to give any explanation.

By virtue of its numbers it might well be an extreme religion; I certainly would guess that it's numbers are probably no more than Judaism at best (and I think that's somewhere around 2 million in the US; less than 1%)

How do numbers make something extremist?

Who cares why he thinks they're stupid? Or how stupid he thinks they are? If anything, that he disagrees with them and strongly supports the principle of religious tolerance is a credit.

Yeah, just like saying, "I think all white people are stupid, but I think they should have equal rights anyways."

It's not much of a stretch to say people who are more flexible, aren't as invested in the fundementalists. The fact that they put less energy into it should be self-evident. In absence of thought police it's going to be the everyday users who have their life impacted. Having someone declare one's own closely held beliefs stupid is generally pretty offensive, but didn't Eutrusca at most say that he thought they were stupid? And wouldn't that cast your argument as a demand that he personally endorse any uncommon religion?

I certainly would not be considered a fundamentalist and would be considered more flexible. In addition to the old and new testament, I've read a translated version of the Q'uran, the Book of Mormon, books on Buddhism, paganism, various philosophies and I spent about six months discussing theology and project management (we worked together) with a Jehovah's witness. I live my life according to the teachings of Jesus Christ as much as can humanly manage. How am I less invested in my faith? How can you possibly make that assessment. I challenge you to show a better understanding the Bible than Grave_n_Idle, let alone the some of the 'flexible' Christians. That was an amazing attempt to suggest that people who disagree with you are somehow less valid than you. Let's here about your credentials that are so strong that none of us 'flexible' Christians could hope to meet?

Jesus had a lot to say about people who think themselves above others based on the amount of time the can be seen practicing their faith.

Matthew 6:1-6 1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Tell you what, you keep on praying in the synagogues and the street corners and being very impressive to your fellow man. I'll be here in the closet interacting with my savior. Let me know how it works out for you.

(Originally Posted by Lord-General Drache
Depends..If you're a Chaos Mage (Which I believe is what you're saying), then most likely you could/would be classified as Pagan/Neopagan. I could be wrong.)

What the heck is a Chaos Mage? :eek:

It's a freeform occultism current that has as premise the idea of using whatever you like for the rituals. In itself it has no ethos for good or bad, but most chaotes have a personal ethics code. Drache, yes, I am a chaos mage. ;)

It's a freeform occultism current that has as premise the idea of using whatever you like for the rituals. In itself it has no ethos for good or bad, but most chaotes have a personal ethics code. Drache, yes, I am a chaos mage. ;)

Warrigal, they're the odd ones of the bunch. ;) And I had a feeling you were. /end probable threadjack.

Warrigal, they're the odd ones of the bunch. ;) And I had a feeling you were. /end probable threadjack.

Me? Odd? Not at all! *Does an invocation of a comic book character while riding a kangaroo and singing the Ugandan National Anthem.*

Actually, that is patently and completely untrue. Fundamentalism is characterized by people who haven't researched their religion, and in fact simply rail against whatever perceived threat they see, without thinking about it much.Well.... I suppose I could disagree in all manner of ways with that, throwing out Madras and little kids memorizing and reciting the Koran from memory. I would say fundamentalism is where religion breaks away from the modern world prefering, generally failed, but more familiar archaic concepts. I might agree that it's a misnomer of sorts. Fundementalist Christians frequently obsess over the Old Testiment as opposed to the new covenant with man created by Christ, and fetishize his death as oppose to meditating on his lessons, for example are forsaking the fundementals of their religion for the anachronisms which are perhaps more dramatic. That they rail against threats so vehemently and frequently is due to their perciving an approaching horizion for their lifestyle, and they're quite correct. They know their making their last stand against change that might not be so inexorable, and it's only that last part they're wrong about.Those who are more flexible are much more likely to actually have faith and beliefs that they can defend.Again, I can't disagree with that, and that's also why they should be excluded from Eutrusca's list. Their beliefs are easily integrated into the modern world, people don't even need a description, simply a name is enough to understand. And popular things don't need people who disagree to defend them.I don't think he has to endorse any religion, but he certainly shouldn't call a religion "stupid" without justification. I asked him to provide any reason that these religions were more "stupid" than his own spiritual and religious beliefs, and he refused to give any explanation.Well part of freedom of religion is people are free to ridicule yours. And they might not have a good reason. It's all in the same bag. I get to make fun Mormons and their magic underwear, tough. Who knows if he even genuinly thinks that about Wicca, I suspect it was just a rhetorical device to make his argument more compelling. Clearly he didn't think it was important enough to pursue, which says something about how I feel about the value of my time I suppose. How do numbers make something extremist?Not necessarily, but they are pretty much what determines whether something is at an extreme. Maybe he could have used fringe instead of fundementalist, maybe I could have used it in place of extreme, but something tells me it wasn't so much what he said, but that you were looking for something to pick at. Which isn't bad, it's pretty much what web forums, perhaps even the internet (after porn) exist for.Yeah, just like saying, "I think all white people are stupid, but I think they should have equal rights anyways."And you've discovered the secret to Jeff Foxworthy's success. Shhh, don't tell anyone.

As part of owning up, clearly I haven't been any more adept than Eutrusca, look at Jocabia's reply. I can't disagree with much of it, I don't even know what to make of it. I suppose we Atheists might consider our temples the laboratory (don't have one anymore) or the observatory (The internet is the most powerful telescope ever created).

Quite simply if you put less energy in and lets define that in terms of Calories (or Joules, or BTUs), you're less invested. That you get something out, or perhaps even a lot more out says something about the judiciousness of your investment, but little about the investment you put in.

Also, flexibility would be a virtue in my book, Sun Tzu's too. But some poor bastards just can't take a compliment I guess.

Religious intollerance abounds in the states (which pisses me off, to no small degree).

When my wife started attending Church with me; she was hounded and belittled by her sister (a UUA minister) [I'm Presbyterian BTW]... So, I really do think most religious groups are guilty of being intollerant of other beliefs (even as far as the self-labled "Tollerant" Unitarians....).

Religious intollerance abounds in the states (which pisses me off, to no small degree).

When my wife started attending Church with me; she was hounded and belittled by her sister (a UUA minister) [I'm Presbyterian BTW]... So, I really do think most religious groups are guilty of being intollerant of other beliefs (even as far as the self-labled "Tollerant" Unitarians....).

'Hounded and belittled' by her sister does not mean Unitarian Universalism is intolerant. One does not necessarily follow the other, Tekania. I'd need to see something far more substantial to be persuaded that UUism is anything other than what it claims to be.

You mention her sister is UU. What is your wife's religious background?

Well.... I suppose I could disagree in all manner of ways with that, throwing out Madras and little kids memorizing and reciting the Koran from memory.

Memorization doesn't take much energy. In fact, it is the basest form of learning, if you can call it that at all. Understanding, on the other hand does take quite a bit of energy and investment..

They know their making their last stand against change that might not be so inexorable, and it's only that last part they're wrong about.Again, I can't disagree with that, and that's also why they should be excluded from Eutrusca's list.

Again, this assumes that anyone with Pagan or Wiccan beliefs must be akin to fundamentalists - something that cannot be backed up. If Eutrusca wanted to rail against fundamentalism - fine - but he had no reason whatsoever to automatically include all of Paganism and Wicca in that list.

Well part of freedom of religion is people are free to ridicule yours. And they might not have a good reason. It's all in the same bag. I get to make fun Mormons and their magic underwear, tough.

And part of freedom of speech is that I can ask for an explanation. If you make fun of Mormons' magic underwear, I, or a Mormon, can ask why you find it so funny.

Not necessarily, but they are pretty much what determines whether something is at an extreme.

I would disagree. Take, for instance, current political trends in the US. The numbers are leaning towards the extremes. Most people are at one extreme end or the other - or at least have been convinced that they should be. Moderates, who are obviously not on the "extremes" are the minority. This isn't determined by numbers, but by actual political ideology.

Quite simply if you put less energy in and lets define that in terms of Calories (or Joules, or BTUs), you're less invested. That you get something out, or perhaps even a lot more out says something about the judiciousness of your investment, but little about the investment you put in.

True. But assuming that, because a fundamentalist has a more extreme viewpoint, they have invested more into their beliefs is absolutely ludicrous. In truth, it takes much more time, energy, and investment to examine all the options and come to a set of beliefs than to take what is given to you at face value. It takes more time, energy, and investment to be open-minded in your beliefs and constantly examine them instead of shutting your mind the minute they are formed so that no one can challenge them.

Also, flexibility would be a virtue in my book, Sun Tzu's too. But some poor bastards just can't take a compliment I guess.

I agree that flexibility is a virtue. I simply disagree that it equates to less investment. I would argue, in fact, that it is exactly the opposite.

'Hounded and belittled' by her sister does not mean Unitarian Universalism is intolerant. One does not necessarily follow the other, Tekania. I'd need to see something far more substantial to be persuaded that UUism is anything other than what it claims to be.

You mention her sister is UU. What is your wife's religious background?

My point is, intollerance exists regardless, even in organizations which claim structure around tollerance. And it is not limited to this alone; the newly formed AUA would not exist; if it were not an issue. (Mostly confined to NOVA now).

My wife had an a-religious background. While three of her older siblings were raised very devout Catholic, in Pennsylvania, by their Polish father. When they moved, the two younger siblings (my wife, and her sister Amy) were not given such upbringing, at the lapse of their father's religious beliefs.

Presently two of the older sisters (Jenny and Joanie) and the single brother (John) are still catholic.

Amy has become an ordained UUA minister in a church in (NOVA) Northern Virginia.

And besides a smattering of understanding of Catholicism from her elder sisters; this is the first time my wife has regularly attended services of any sort (which she has, as she frequently has stated, quite enjoyed).

I'm sure these decissions will get overturned. These are bad judges making bad rulings. This is not the consensus to the public.

Plus I dare the state & that judge to even attempt to enforce that ruling. It's ludicrous.

As a pagan myself I am offended that a Indiana judge would do such a thing but on the other hand have no fear that this will happen to me.

I generally don't wear my religion on my sleeve. I find it to be a deeply personal thing. My beliefs are mine & the rest of you can believe what you want.

That is some seriously fucked up shit. (with regards to the news article in the first post)

I believe that freedom of religion is great, up to a point, but there is a question of when that protection goes too far. For example, polygamist Fundamentalist Mormon enclaves have been characterized by encouraging male domination of the family, to the point of tolerating and even protecting abusive fathers and husbands. I dont think its the governments job to judge the things that fundamentalist mormons are trying to do, but in a custody battle, I (and i think most here) could see how a judge might take side against a father who wanted to raise his children in such an environment. At present though, I think this constitues a gross overraction on the part of the judge, which only can be brought about by prejudice. This ruling will be overturned, and justifiably so.

BTW, I'll have you know that the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians (including me) believe in freedom of religion for everyone, and very few would actually agree with this decision. The fact is, there has been a lot of prejudice and unjustified fear on both the part of the left and the right, and very little effort for social liberals and conservatives to find common ground, which is really quite broad.

I believe that freedom of religion is great, up to a point, but there is a question of when that protection goes too far. For example, polygamist Fundamentalist Mormon enclaves have been characterized by encouraging male domination of the family, to the point of tolerating and even protecting abusive fathers and husbands. I dont think its the governments job to judge the things that fundamentalist mormons are trying to do, but in a custody battle, I (and i think most here) could see how a judge might take side against a father who wanted to raise his children in such an environment. At present though, I think this constitues a gross overraction on the part of the judge, which only can be brought about by prejudice. This ruling will be overturned, and justifiably so.

BTW, I'll have you know that the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians (including me) believe in freedom of religion for everyone, and very few would actually agree with this decision. The fact is, there has been a lot of prejudice and unjustified fear on both the part of the left and the right, and very little effort for social liberals and conservatives to find common ground, which is really quite broad.

Agreed, in your above case the judge can site specfic criteria for his position. And can recommend, or bar, specific acts and indoctrination....

In the Wiccan case here, the judge most definitely presented his views in bias, with no foundational reasoning from the bench.

One wonders how such a justice manages to keep his job; being so inconsistent with, and in violation of, his oath.

If i was not doped up on my medical drugs, i would go kill alot of people right now, because story has pissed me off so much. i realize that there really arent alot of religious freedom in this country, but now the government has gone too damn far.

So, back to the original article. I believe it mentioned at one point that the judge's ruling mentioned that not only were the parents prohibited from teaching their son Wicca, but the son was not allowed to follow its teachings?

So what should happen if "Forest" decides at some later date to convert to Wicca? The Religion Police will thwap him on the hands with a ruler and say "Oh, no. I'm sorry, son, but you can't convert to this 'non-mainstream religion'. It's uncouth."?

How silly...and frightening.

(Of course, I could have misread it.)

It seems to me that, unfortunately, the US is becoming everything it fights against.

Bush claims to be fighting against terror, but his whole idea behind the war in Iraq (barring financial interests) is to scare people into submission. If inspiring terror into people at the end of a gun isn't terrorism, then I don't know what is.

At the same time you politically oppose certain countries for limiting people's freedom of religion, such as Iran, Iraq, Egypt and several other theocracies. The problem is that the US isn't a model of religious tolerance itself. The American dollar bill says "In God we trust", and on top of everything we have stories like the one posted by the OP.

At the same time that many people claim that the US is owned and run as a Christian theocracy, the classical sin of Pride is encouraged as a virtue on a large scale. While I don't remember Jesus ever encouraging that, I do remember him encouraging people to be humble - a value that is not only missing from the American media almost entirely, but is in fact often portrayed as weakness or insecurity.

I wish I could help, I really do, but it seems like the US is hell bent on becoming everything it claims to oppose. The national pride marathon on national TV here in the US is just adding fuel to the fire. And I'd wager that most of the people abroad who supported the war against Iraq probably won't like you any better for being arrogant about it. Worst of all is the fact that the US actually seems to take pride in the fears you have and the things that said fear drives you to do.

This is all just my opinion of course, and everyone is free to disagree with me... For now.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. Sometimes, when you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss stares back into you." -- Nietzsche

well now, i believe they said something about the religion possibly "harming" Forest. well now, i believe that when chrisitians do communions, they give them wine. that includes children. so doesnt that mean that they are technically harming thier children? sure, its only a sip, but it is still giving them alchohal. so i believe that because Wicca might possibly "harm" forest because of rituals, shouldnt he not be allowed to be catholic, because he will drink wine, which will harm him? just asking.

also, whats wrong with worshiping Satan? its thier choice to worship who they want!

Actually, alter wine (the stuff they serve at communions) is often - if not usually - free of alcohol. I still say that, historically, christianity and all it's flawed interpretations has caused more harm than satanism. After all, Satanism is a small religion, whereas Christianity was the basis for the Crusades, not to mention the Children's Crusade. I don't like christianity much, but at least I respect their right to believe what they want to. It's only fair, right?

well now, i believe they said something about the religion possibly "harming" Forest. well now, i believe that when chrisitians do communions, they give them wine. that includes children. so doesnt that mean that they are technically harming thier children? sure, its only a sip, but it is still giving them alchohal. so i believe that because Wicca might possibly "harm" forest because of rituals, shouldnt he not be allowed to be catholic, because he will drink wine, which will harm him? just asking.

also, whats wrong with worshiping Satan? its thier choice to worship who they want!

Way too general.

There are different theological ideas related to communion.

Some organizations do use wine. Some use grapejuice, some use both.

Some have open communions (open to anyone); others have closed (only open to communing members of that congregation); and still others are partial (only allowing those in good standing before any Church).

Since we're dealing with the catholic aspects alone; we will have to deal with Catholic ideology in this respect.

Firstly, the Roman Catholic Church only practices closed Communion (the Eucharist), with wine as the motive substance of blood (according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation as accepted in the Roman Catholic faith).

Thus administration is limited to persons before that church, baptised and confirmed. The host (bread) is dipped in the wine prior to administration by the priest.

While the child is undergoing education before a Roman Catholic school; said child would not be subject to being a participant in the Catholic rendition of the Eucharist; having not been confirmed by such church, and thus inapplicable for communion.

Thus, in this regard, even had the judge been operating properly before (which he did not); such would not be an applicable, or would have presented much effect.