home

Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 07:47:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Parents -- not public schools, and certainly not judges -- should decide what, if any, religious beliefs should guide their children. Religious extremists may be disappointed with the Indiana Court of Appeals, but it made the right call in reversing a divorce court decree that ordered a custodial parent -- a practicing Wiccan -- to shelter his son from "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The boy's mother, also a Wiccan, joined the father in urging the appellate court to reverse this judicial interference with their choice of religion.

< Missing Documents | Screening of 'Legacy: I never left my village' >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed | 25 comments (25 topical)
    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#1)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Hard to believe it ever got to this point in the first place. Glad someone had the sense to put a stop to it.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#2)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    The point of this nation was to allow people a choice for or against religion and isn't that what god wants?..but watch out you never know who is doing what and why. remember our government and its courts, "are in the end nothing but prostitutes", when it comes to extremists.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    This is why we do a lot of carping about the radical christian right and keeping their power in check. They want to tell you how to raise your kids. Scary, I'm glad the Bill of Rights prevailed.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Kdog, exactly. This is why I oppose fun-duh-mentalism of any stripe. It has a nasty habit of getting in the way of things like Logic, Reason, and Equal Rights.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    I googled the original story, apparently some Indiana X-tians thought it was a good ruling. [If you follow the link out, it is about half way down.] - karl

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#6)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    "non-mainstream"? Go christians, go... And they wonder why we raise so much he!! about them determining policy. Nothing like a court ordered religious preference. Hellllooooooooooo Iran!

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    The Wiccan superstitions and "boogey men" are no more or less legitimate than the christian boogey man, the jewish boogey man, the muslim boogey man, the scientology boogey man, etc. Like jpaul said, it's amazing it ever got this far, and I find it's cause for alarm. I'm with my boy Bill Maher, religion is a mental defect.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Bill Maher is a COMEDIAN. Religion is a highly complex human social mystery with a great kaleidoscope of aspects. Attacking religion en masse is nothing but bigotry. Most bigots are IGNORANT. Comparing christianity, for instance, to scientology is an example of a bigoted inability to see beyond the purveyors of a recent mentalism cult, and a complex tradition that has interwoven with our culture and art for two thousand years. Futhermore, confusing church christianity for the teachings of Jesus is failing to grasp that a fruit may be sweet, but it is the SEED that grows the new tree. Complete Reported Words of Jesus Read those words in the context of their entire (nearly) extant scope, much of it suppressed by church elders. And keep in mind that quite a bit of it may be written after the fact, to build a basis church ideas like those of St. Paul (that may have had nothing to do with the actual teachings of Jesus). Also, don't forget the (Thomas) Jefferson Bible , which is the Black Book versions of Jesus' words, minus all miracles. Inform yourself, so you won't be a bigot.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Paul is saying that christianity would be better if everyone just did it the way it is in the book. All religions are what the followers make them. All of the "but it's" do not change that. By the book, christianity endorses slavery, rape, and murder. In practice, it does not. Wicca is an incredibly new religion based on incredibly old ideas. Older than the one invented around the cross ;) But it is no more or no less valid than any other religion. Just gotta have faith. And the government needs to keep it's hands out of my bedroom, my body, and most importantly, my mind. Jesus wasn't a bad man, and I think he would be disturbed at what has been done in and for his name. Which pretty much sums up the history of christianity. Like I said, spout off all you want about how it should be, but the religion is the behaviour of it's adherents.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    "Like I said, spout off all you want about how it should be, but the religion is the behaviour of it's adherents." Do you apply this same standard to Islam?

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Bill Maher is a COMEDIAN.
    So was Mark Twain. But who would you rather listen to about our democracy, him or Tom Delay? If it doesn't make you laugh, it isn't true.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#12)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Absolutley Sarc. and to Buddhism, Taoism, Scientology, etc etc etc. How can it be otherwise?

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Thanks Johnny, just checking.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Sarc, Johnny I have a question for you both. When you say "the religion is the behaviour of its adherents", do you mean the majority of its adherents or just the ones that get the most coverage?

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Steve, yes indeed, this could be a long discussion. To me, the "behavior" of a sub-group of adherents of a religion cannot be construed as indicative of what the religion "is," unless, of course, the rest of the religion's adherents, who, while they may not choose to exhibit the specific behavior in question of the sub-group, do in fact support that behavior of the sub-group. Johnny?

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#16)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    That's the reason we have about 8 zillion "denominations"... Sects... Cults... All professing christianity (or islam or hindu or zen), some with widely varying beliefs, dogma, etc etc... For example (and I only use Christianity because it is the major I am most familiar with), Roman Catholics preach that birth control is an evil, but I would bet a large number of it's followers practice birth control. Despite what they should be doing, they are in fact doing something entirely different. What should be is not matched by what is. My 3 cents.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    The idea that a religion is the behavior of the followers is a reductio ad absurdum. That's like saying that parents are their children's behavior. True in some cases -- obviously untrue in others. It's obviously too large of a category of human and social and individual experience for governments to dictate. That's the genius of the church/state wall. Nazis were Christian. *Christianity is the behavior of its followers. *Ergo, Christianity is Nazism.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#18)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Wrong Paul. Much like the democratic or republican party is defined by it's followers, so is the religion. A religion cannot exist except as an accepted set of beliefs shared by a group of people. The followers define the religion. Without getting into a chicken/egg debate... And yes Paul, that is the beauty of the church/state wall.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    No, religion is too large of a circumstance to be defined easily if at all. Though the rhetoric of church policies and catechisms gives the impression of a set of beliefs, consistently held, the truth is far less orderly, and the attempt to hold that idea together is at the least syncretistic. Gross generalizations with a negative purpose are otherwise known as BIGOTRY. Btw, the parties are not defined by their members -- WOULD THAT IT WERE SO! With the electronic vote-fraud still underway, we have even less say than usual.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#20)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Didn't realize I was being bigoted Paul. Take away the people, and the religion goes away. Poof. Just like that. The people ARE the religion, it cannot be any other way. Simple or complex, Paul, ANY organization made up of people who hold common beliefs exists only because the people say that it does. We are not talking about a concrete structure here. And yes Paul, the people define the parties as well. For the exact same reason. Without members, poof! Vanished into thin air. I am starting to think we are talking about two totally different things here, anyways....

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    If I understand, what you are saying Sarcastic, is if a small number of, say Buddists, decide that kidnapping people is OK but the majority either don't outright condemn the practice or, for whatever reason, don't get their message out to the public, Buddism supports kidnapping. Evan though only a small portion of those in the religion practice such behavior? I have a hard time condeming a religion based on the actions of the few.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    "I have a hard time condeming a religion based on the actions of the few." Me too, Steve, and, as I very plainly said above, "unless, of course, the rest of the religion's adherents, who, while they may not choose to exhibit the specific behavior in question of the sub-group, do in fact support that behavior of the sub-group." [my emphaisis] "If I understand, what you are saying Sarcastic" Oh, I'm pretty sure you understood exactly what I said, so why do you deliberately try to twist its meaning to: "the majority either don't outright condemn the practice or, for whatever reason, don't get their message out to the public." Sorry, Steve, no dice. My words were very clear.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Sarcastic. I'm sorry if you thought I was twisting your words. I did misread your comment. No need to get deffensive. This is one subject where I actually agree with you.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Fair enough, Steve, thanks for the temperate reply.

    Re: Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Posted by Johnny: "Didn't realize I was being bigoted Paul." That may be so. But you are, nonetheless. "Take away the people, and the religion goes away. Poof. Just like that. The people ARE the religion, it cannot be any other way." That's patently untrue, since the religions of the world are necessarily bound to TRADITIONS, which predate the living, and involved the ancestors, who are also revered for their acts of religion. It is true that if you wipe out a culture, no practitioners of its cultural property will remain -- total genocide. (don't let the shivers of pleasure over such thoughts take over your mind) But religion is like software. You take away people's computers, and the religion will seem to disappear. But load the software into another computer, and suddenly it continues in its mysterious path, functioning not on the basis of the people who view it on their computers, but on the basis of ITS SOFTWARE. The logic it represents is not personal to the practitioners, though they experience it that way. A religion like Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism or Islam encourages fasting. Fasting is practiced by people, but fasting is something in itself. The implications of fasting, of communal fasting especially, are in the realm of sociology and anthropology as well as in the particular religion. Since human practices exceed the boundaries of the religion that encourages them, the issue of religion is far larger than the practitioners in any era.

    Anti-Wiccan Ruling Reversed | 25 comments (25 topical)