Posted on 05/31/2005 8:13:58 AM PDT by murphE
INDIANAPOLIS — A Wiccan activist and his ex-wife are challenging a court order that they must protect their 9-year-old son from what the divorce decree terms their "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."
Thomas E. Jones and Tammy Bristol of Indianapolis are fighting a Marion Superior Court stipulation that they shelter the boy from their religion. The Indiana Civil Liberties Union has taken on the case, appealing the December decree to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Jones, a Wiccan activist who has coordinated Pagan Pride Day in Indianapolis for the past six years, said he and his ex-wife were stunned when they saw the language in the judge's dissolution decree.
"We both had an instant resolve to challenge it. We could not accept it," Jones said.
Neither parent has taken their son to any Wiccan rituals since the decree was issued, he said.
"I'm afraid I'll lose my son if I let him around when I practice my religion," he said.
Religious-freedom experts contacted for this article said they could not recall any similar steps by a court to protect a child from parents' religious beliefs. They said the First Amendment and court rulings are clear that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children in any religion they choose as long as it causes no harm.
A court commissioner wrote the unusual order into the couple's dissolution decree after a routine report by the court's Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau noted that both Jones and his ex-wife are pagans who send their son, Archer, to a Catholic elementary school.
"Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon Archer as he ages," the report said.
The dissolution decree said "the parents are directed to take such steps as are needed to shelter Archer from involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."
The splitting parents challenged that section of the decree, but Judge Cale Bradford, who reviewed the commissioner's work, let it stand.
Bradford said judicial ethics prevent him from discussing the case while it is pending.
The appeal challenges the decree on grounds including that it is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define mainstream religion. It cites estimates that showed an estimated 1 million pagans worldwide in 2002 outnumbered Unitarians and, in the United States, had larger numbers than those who practice Sikhism, Taoism and other established religions.
Judges cannot substitute their religious judgment for that of parents in regard to the upbringing of children, said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonsectarian, nonpartisan organization based in Washington, D.C.
"This is an absurd result, because in the eyes of the law being a pagan should be no different from being a Presbyterian," Lynn said.
Although Wiccans are diverse and do not adhere to a single set of beliefs, a core tenet is to harm no one and live in harmony with all people and nature, said the Rev. Elena Fox, high priestess and senior minister of Circle Sanctuary, a Wiccan church and pagan resource center near Madison, Wis.
Wicca also is becoming more mainstream, according to Fox, who says she has presided at religious rituals with ministers of other faiths, serves on a religious-practices advisory committee for the Wisconsin state prison system and serves as president of the Greater Madison Religious Association.
"There continues to be misunderstanding and prejudice and discrimination, not only against Wicca but against any religion that is not centered on monotheism," she said.
The head of a conservative Christian group in Indianapolis also sided with the Wiccans.
"The parents have the right to raise their child in that faith, just as I have the right to raise my child in the Christian faith," said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana.
Wicca has all the combined dignity of Scientology, EST and the Kabbalah Centre.
ping
As a jew I find the christian religion a bunch of "hooey". What's your point?
I'm waiting for the first person to call hooey on this Wiccan "religion" - it's a trendy thing invented in the 1960s, not an ancient faith like Sikhism, Taoism or the other minority religions mentioned here.
But it's still a bad precident.
BTW, see Witchcraft Goes Mainstream for a recent history of Wicca. Executive summary: No connection bettween Wicca, mideavel witchcraft, the practices the Old Testament prophets spoke against, and their imaginary paleolithic goddess cult. Modern Wicca got rolling in the 1940s.
That only proves that you're a poor historian or a bad Jew.
What's your point?
My point is that religions that are fads which have only recently emerged and which may just as quickly evaporate are poor candidates for permanent standing in law or for being made grounds for major social disjunctions.
Religions which have existed for centuries are probably more important entities for public policymakers to engage with.
I'm neither a "bad jew" nor a "poor historian." The simple point is that the parents are allowed to maintain what they see as a viable belief. Simply because you have or the judge has different beliefs don't mean they are wrong. Perhaps you are wrong on your religious theories.
Why exactly should it matter how old the religion is? Do we really want the Govt granting or denying certain religious rights based on how how long it's been in existence? If so, who draws the line? And how many years?
After all, in the grand scheme of humankind & religions, Christianity is fairly new.
I pointed out that Wicca is hooey because its practitioners make unsupportable claims about its ancient heritage.
So if you are contesting Christianity validity as an historical religion, you're obviously unaware of the history of the world in the past two thousand years.
Alternatively, if you are arguing that Christianity is, doctrinally, hooey then you're characterizing the Hebrew Scriptures as hooey as well - something a good Jew wouldn't do.
The simple point is that the parents are allowed to maintain what they see as a viable belief.
There are parents who have maintained the right to physically damage their children because they claim Jehovah's Witness status or religious Veganism.
They were wrong.
Simply because you have or the judge has different beliefs don't mean they are wrong.
The question is not whether their beliefs are different - the question is whether the child is going to get harmed.
Perhaps you are wrong on your religious theories.
My theory is that Wiccanism, unlike other minority religions like Judaism, Taoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. is not an ancient religion but a recent fad.
I don't think that's even a question.
"The parents have the right to raise their child in that faith, just as I have the right to raise my child in the Christian faith," said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana.
because social standards shouldn't be organized around passing fads.
Do we really want the Govt granting or denying certain religious rights based on how how long it's been in existence?
What "certain" religious rights are we talking about?
If so, who draws the line? And how many years?
Recentness should be an evaluative factor along with other issues.
For example, many municipalities restrict people from parking in front of the churches of established denominations. This has prompted many people to found their own religion and claim their own residence as a place of worship so they can have a free parking space in front of their house.
This stuff can get pretty silly without contextualization.
After all, in the grand scheme of humankind & religions, Christianity is fairly new.
Not really. There are probably a thousand separate religions, including Islam, that postdate Christianity.
I'm not saying that this isn't a very tricky case.
this ruling sets a terrible precedent and I can't imagine how it would be remotely constitutional either. While I believe Wicca is a spiritually dangerous, occult religion, it's not the govt's job to keep people from practicing it. Freedom of religion means just that. The argument that Wicca isn't a religion because it's so young and is probably just a fad doesn't hold water. There are many independent Christian movements that are younger than Wicca and may also end up being passing fads. The evangelical mega-churches come to mind. How would we all feel if some judge told parents they were forbidden to take their children to a megachurch? And I don't doubt there are many liberal judges out there salivating over the precedent this Wicca ruling could set. How many judges would love to rule that conservative Christians could not homeschool their children, or traditionalist Catholics could not raise their children in a Latin Mass only environment because such practices would "isolate" these kids from their peers?
Terrible analogy. Wicca is not a new movement within an preexisting ancient tradition but a de novo phenomenon.
because social standards shouldn't be organized around passing fads.
Your contention that Wiccanism is a passing fad is nothing more than speculation. In truth, you have no idea & neither do I.
>>>Do we really want the Govt granting or denying certain religious rights based on how how long it's been in existence?<<<
What "certain" religious rights are we talking about?
For example, the right to raise children according to certain beliefs. The right of people to wear religion-specific clothing in public (think headscarfs in France). And so on.
Heck, it may even be a case of the Govt shutting the church down entirely.
>>>If so, who draws the line? And how many years?<<<
Recentness should be an evaluative factor along with other issues.
Exactly what other issues? And please define where you would draw the line on "recentness".
For example, many municipalities restrict people from parking in front of the churches of established denominations. This has prompted many people to found their own religion and claim their own residence as a place of worship so they can have a free parking space in front of their house.
I'm not sure where this would be an issue. I can park in front of my house with no problems, religion or not.
>>>After all, in the grand scheme of humankind & religions, Christianity is fairly new.<<<
Not really. There are probably a thousand separate religions, including Islam, that postdate Christianity.
And many that pre-date Christianity, as well. Would you be comfortable with making the line of demarcation 2,500 years ago?
Or maybe exempting just all the religions founded in the 20th century (Nation of Islam, Church of Scientology, Hare Krishna, etc)?
I'm not saying that this isn't a very tricky case.
All the better reason for Govt involvment to be minimal.
Wicca has all the combined dignity of Scientology, EST and the Kabbalah Centre
Should I take these two statements as proof you agree with the judge's ruling? If so, I hope you don't get put in charge of religious liberty in this country anytime soon.
This is just what Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry want.
Not necessarily.
It really depends on the circumstances of what his parents consider legitimate religious practice.
For example, many Wiccans claim that rites on specific holidays should be participated in "skyclad", i.e. naked.
If a rite requires that a minor child be present in front of his own naked mother and father along with other naked adults for an hour of ritual, it may be time to intervene.
If so, I hope you don't get put in charge of religious liberty in this country anytime soon.
No one is "in charge" of religious liberty in America for obvious reasons.
Perhaps you're confused about our federalist model?
No other religions make unsupported claims?
All religions are about unsupported claims. That's why they are called faiths.
For arguement sake: I believe christianity was made up in the year 300 by a rich roman family. Prove I'm wrong. All claims about christianity prior to about the year 300 are historically unsupported.
By your historic standard I could raise a kid worshiping Odin, but not wicca. You don't see a problem with this?
Bottom line the judge is an a$$, he will be reversed.
BTW a Jew can consider Chrisitian thought hooey without addressing the old testament, which is largely ignored by Christians anyhow.
That's not what Wiccans will tell you.
Do you want to reasonably justify all your religous beliefs.
Why should they?
no, it's a good analogy. Wicca claims to be a revival of ancient pagan beliefs. Many new Christian movements claim to be a restoration of sorts of the early Church. One could very well argue that the beliefs and practices of modern Wiccans bare little resemblance to ancient paganism. But one could also argue that the beliefs and practices of, for example, modern mega-churches bare little resemblance to early Christianity. Both claim to be new movements within ancient traditions, but both can also be seen as totally de novo phenomena using ancient traditions as a "cloak" of respectability. Because sadly, the occult, paganism, and outright devil worship are all as ancient, even more so, than Christianity. I've often heard folks remark that there is nothing new about "new age" movements - the errors espoused by these groups date back to the beginning of human history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.