NationStates Jolt Archive

Friend sent me this link (not certain where he found it): http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/11/20/News/349127.html

Court won't rehear appeal by mother accused of practicing Wicca
Thursday, Nov 20, 2008

Arkansas News Bureau

LITTLE ROCK - The state Court of Appeals on Wednesday declined to reconsider its decision in a child custody case in which the child's father claimed the child's mother practiced Wicca.

Two judges dissented, accusing the majority of embarking on "a grand inquisition."

In a per curiam order, the appeals court denied without explanation a petition for rehearing filed by the child's mother, who claimed a Chicot County circuit judge's decision granting custody of her child to the child's father was based in large part on the judge's finding that the mother was involved in a "cult."

Wicca, also known as witchcraft, is a religion that "draws its strength from the diversity of nature itself," according to the Web site of the Church and School of Wicca. It should not be confused with Satanism, according to the organization.

The Court of Appeals upheld the circuit judge's decision in a 4-2 ruling last month. Judges Sarah Heffley and Josephine Linker Hart, who voted in the minority, said Wednesday they would have granted the petition for rehearing.

In a dissenting opinion Wednesday, Hart said Circuit Judge Robert Vittitow interrogated the mother about the practice of Wicca and made an explicit finding that she was practicing Wicca in his written order.

Even if the mother did practice Wicca, "there is absolutely no evidence that practicing Wicca was in an way harmful to the child," Hart wrote.

Hart also accused the child's father of making "vile and slanderous" statements in his response to the petition for rehearing, including comments that "Mormons practice incest and child marriages," and that "this court is committing a grievous error if it allows cult activities to be protected."

"I lament that this court has accepted the appellee's invitation to embark on a grand inquisition," Hart wrote.

Now certainly cults are a big issue and can cause immense damage to the child but there is no way, by any definition, that wicca can be considered a cult. In fact, it's about as far from a cult as you can get.

So I ask you, is the judges ruling here actually legal?

I wonder if this will end up in the Supreme Court.

Hell no it's not. Unfortunately however, there are a lot of places in the US that are still very close-minded about different religions. Especially those like Wicca that to this day have ridiculous dark-ages 'bad juju witchcraft cult' still hanging on to it.

One of my good friends from the military - he and his wife are Wiccan and to be honest, although I consider myself a Christian, I can't find a single solitary thing they practice as being hurtful, harmful, or malicious in any way. If anything Wicca is a bit more on the 'watch what you do because it will come right back to you' side than Christianity as far as I can tell.

I admit that since I don't practice it, I can't authoritatively speak for it. But they have shared a lot about it with me since I try to be open minded - and I do think I know enough about it to say that this is a bunch of complete BS if she is truthfully nothing more than a practicing Wiccan.

She needs to lawyer up and keep on them if at all possible. That's a bunch of crapola.

If the decision to remove the child was based on the fact that the mother is a wiccan, then I can't see it being legal.

Arkansas the land of Clinton.

there is no way, by any definition, that wicca can be considered a cult.Really? Let's test that hypothesis.

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.1 fits, 4 fits if she worships in a group, 5 fits, 6 fits from the perspective of non-wiccans, 7 fits, possibly 8 fits.
That's 75% of definition that fit to greater or lesser extent.

So I ask you, is the judges ruling here actually legal?They're judges; doesn't that by definition make it legal? Which isn't to say it can't be overruled.

The bigotry of the father seems like something that makes it worth reconsidering the case, since that's not a healthy environment for a child. However, we're not told anything about the further circumstances of the case. It is not without question that custody was granted to the father because the mother is a wiccan.

Really? Let's test that hypothesis.

1 fits, 4 fits if she worships in a group, 5 fits, 6 fits from the perspective of non-wiccans, 7 fits, possibly 8 fits.
That's 75% of definition that fit to greater or lesser extent.
Every religion is therefore a cult.

Religion based discrimination strikes me as violating the first amendment.

Here's the statement of one of the judges on the case. From http://courts.state.ar.us/
WENDELL GRIFFEN, Judge

I join the majority because I agree that the trial judge did not err in awarding custody of Joshua to appellee. I write separately to emphasize that the change of custody in this case does not turn on appellant’s religion, be it Baptist, Methodist, Wiccan, or no religion at all. The issue is whether the trial judge’s change of custody is clearly erroneous where he found that appellant failed to provide a safe and sanitary home environment for the child, where he cited concerns regarding appellant’s mental health, and where he mentioned appellant’s involvement in Wicca, expressed disbelief in appellant's testimony that she was joking concerning her involvement with Wicca, and expressed concern about appellant's truthfulness
regarding the extent of her interest or involvement with Wicca.

First, there is no basis for us to hold that the trial court resolved the change-of-custody dispute on appellant's interest in or involvement with Wicca, despite the substantial emphasis devoted to that subject by both parties on appeal. The parties argue as if they tried the matter of appellant’s involvement in Wicca to the trial judge, and argue as if the trial judge decided the custody issue on that basis. However, neither party below objected to the trial judge considering appellant’s involvement in Wicca. As appellant did not object to any questions about Wicca, and as the trial judge made no disparaging or otherwise unfavorable comments about Wicca during the trial or in the letter opinion, her contention that she lost custody of her child due to judicial religious bigotry is bottomed on conjecture and surmise. Second, even if one considers the trial judge’s mention of Wicca to represent an expression of prejudice, the prejudice was not against Wicca but was against what the judge considered appellant's lack of truthfulness concerning her interest or involvement in Wicca. The trial judge clearly did not believe appellant's testimony that she was merely joking about her interest in Wicca. We routinely defer to a trial judge’s determination regarding witness credibility. That this trial judge expressed concern about the truthfulness of appellant's testimony concerning Wicca does not warrant reversal.

Ultimately, the trial judge changed custody because he found that appellant failed to provide a safe and sanitary home environment for the child, and due to his concerns about appellant’s mental health. Those reasons, supported by the record before us, constitute sufficient grounds for changing custody, no matter what the trial judge concluded regarding appellant’s truthfulness as to her involvement with Wicca.

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

wow... I guess Christianity, Mormons, Jews, heck about all religions are cults if it only takes 50 to 75% of these to make it so.

1,4,5,7,8 apply to many different religions and their various branches. That's 62.5%

Agreed we obviously don't know everything about the case, but if it *is* in fact being based soley on this Mother's religious beliefs, and for all intensive purposes she is otherwise a competent and good parent, then I reiterate my belief that this is bogus.

Every religion is therefore a cult.Under some of those definitions, most certainly.

Religion based discrimination strikes me as violating the first amendment.Looks like it to me as well; but I have my doubts as to whether that's what the judges' rulings are based on.

wow... I guess Christianity, Mormons, Jews, heck about all religions are cults if it only takes 50 to 75% of these to make it so.It only takes one to "be a cult by any definition". (And perhaps the world would be better off if they realized it themselves. But that's a discussion for another thread ;))
I'll admit it may be a bit pedantic of me to fall over a careless phrasing, though.

Agreed we obviously don't know everything about the case, but if it *is* in fact being based soley on this Mother's religious beliefs, and for all intensive purposes she is otherwise a competent and good parent, then I reiterate my belief that this is bogus.Yes, I agree it would be bogus to base a custody ruling on religion (barring ones which subscribe to child sacrifice, but I don't think there's any of those left in the world; since they tend to die out in due time).
From the statement by judge Wendell Griffen (posted a few messages back), however, I'd have to say it's not the case here. On the other hand I haven't read the statement by the dissenting judges yet.

of course her and her lawyer are going to play up the religion issue. lets hear the other side now.

Actually:

cult   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhlt] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective 9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.


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

Origin:
1610–20; < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equiv. to cul-, var. s. of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. action
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.

So, yes, any religion may be defined as a cult.

Really? Let's test that hypothesis.

1 fits, 4 fits if she worships in a group, 5 fits, 6 fits from the perspective of non-wiccans, 7 fits, possibly 8 fits.
That's 75% of definition that fit to greater or lesser extent.

They're judges; doesn't that by definition make it legal? Which isn't to say it can't be overruled.

Ok, maybe I should have said "by any definition that would not see all religions including mainstream Christianity defined as one" if you will be pedantic :p.

Though 6 only fits thought if you take out the "living outside of mainstream society" which is very very rarely the case (and if they do, it's not because of the religion). I'd disagree with 8 fitting though, wicca tends to emphasise looking at a problem from multiple angles and does not promote sole insight or even absolute truth.


The bigotry of the father seems like something that makes it worth reconsidering the case, since that's not a healthy environment for a child. However, we're not told anything about the further circumstances of the case. It is not without question that custody was granted to the father because the mother is a wiccan.

I'm just going off what I say in the article. I admit, it could be quite far from the truth. It was more to try and stimulate question as to how far are non-mainstream (but not harmful) religions actually protected in practice legally (even if they should be under the 1st amendment). I admit being a brit I'm not up to speed on how far the amendment actually goes.

We have not seen the record of the trial nor the motions and documents filed by the mother nor transcripts of her testimony to tell whether the judges who decided that her mental health and honesty were an issue were saying that solely because they are prejudiced against Wicca and think that anyone who professes it is necessarily crazy or lying, or whether they had reason to believe she was a crazy liar who also, incidentally, professed to be a Wiccan. In other words, whether they thought her religious claims would be just as bogus if she had been claiming to be Catholic.

The opinion posted earlier indicates that they were deciding that she was providing an unfit environment for the child, irregardless of her religion, but such claims have been made, broadly and bogusly, about people in minority religions, or about ethnic minorities, or about single parents, etc., for many, many years, always based on bigoted assumptions such as "Wiccans/minorities/etc are dirty/slutty/etc."

Without more information, we cannot judge whether the courts decision is fair or not, but if, as the dissenting opinion claims, the father in the case was making slanderous and clearly bigoted accusations about all and sundry in his motions to the court, that suggests the court's opinion may not have been fair. We need more info.

However, in general, no, the courts don't get to discriminate on the basis of religion, and a decision that is so discriminatory could be open to appeal to a higher court.

lolsalem.

Friend sent me this link (not certain where he found it): http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/11/20/News/349127.html



Now certainly cults are a big issue and can cause immense damage to the child but there is no way, by any definition, that wicca can be considered a cult. In fact, it's about as far from a cult as you can get.

So I ask you, is the judges ruling here actually legal?

Thats an interesting question. This falls under freedom of expression/religion more so than free speech (which is the right to speak out against the government without fear of retribution). I'd love to hear the facts of the case, as this is an exceptionally interesting constitutional law case, though I'm inclined to believe that there is more to the story. This would not result in the revocation of parental rights unless they felt that this was to the detriment of the Child in question, similar events have occured by ultra-zealous parents in very Christian families. Taken from JUST WHAT I'VE READ: No, it isn't legal. However I am SURE that there is more to the story than just what is in the article, and I am very curious to know what that may be.

I don't think that it'll go to the Supreme Court, because the Appealette Courts did not approve their request. There can be additional requests, which MAY be accepted, but otherwise no it won't see a Supreme Court review, much less actually go to hearing. If it DID though, I would follow it closely as I feel that some very important Common Law ordinances would be brought to light in the defense unless the Prosecution has some dead pan evidence that there is some semblance of neglect, abuse, or psychological trauma induced by the Wiccans.

I disagree with many of the teachings of Wicca. However it is no where near harmful to the child. If anything Christianity is more dangerous by far.

As for the "cult" argument. A cult is nothing more than a religion that is considered socially or politically unacceptable. In other words. Religion=Cult.

If it had been Kansas, my flippant reply would have been "It's Kansas. The home of the Phelps Family and the Kansas Board of Education. Is anyone surprised?"

But it's Arkansas, so I can't figure out what the religious climate there is like. Someone fill me in?

The surest proof that Wicca is not a cult is that they haven't bought the local authorities as this case clearly illustrates.

But it's Arkansas, so I can't figure out what the religious climate there is like. Someone fill me in?

Arkansas is more like West-Virginia meets Panhandle Florida than it is like Kansas. So... Worse.

As for this case: if indeed the judge's rulings were due to the plaintiff's religion this is outrageous and offensive. I'm not sure that the judge actually ruled based on the plaintiff's religion, though.

Regardless, her religion is immaterial to her fitness as a parent. Wicca and Neopaganism are not cults. They are religions, and their practitioners are by and large good, hard-working, loving people who revere their Gods and strive to do good. Contrary to public belief, we don't sacrifice animals (I have 3 kitties of my own, thank you very much) or small children (no matter how annoying they may be), and we don't even believe in Satan, so we can hardly worship him.