You have been pinged because this may be of interest
to the Sabbatarian/Messianic community. Freepmail
DouglasKC if you want on or off this list.
Posted on 10/11/2007 7:35:53 AM PDT by JesusBmyGod
A Maryville woman who went to court on Aug. 14 for a child custody hearing says she was persecuted because of her religious beliefs at the hands of the Blount County judicial system.
According to Jo Anne White, what was supposed to be a standard child custody hearing turned into an almost hourlong “Bible study” in the courtroom in spite of the repeated protests of her attorney, Kevin W. Shepherd.
After a detailed discussion of her religious beliefs — documented in court reporter transcripts obtained by The Daily Times — and a brief recess to chambers, Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young awarded temporary custody of White’s two children to her ex-husband. The custody will be reviewed again in Circuit Court on Dec. 11.
While Young questioned White about one specific aspect of her religion, attorney Craig Garrett, who represented White’s ex-husband, asked numerous probing questions about her faith. Of the 65 pages of court transcripts reviewed by The Daily Times, 41 pages deal directly with White’s religious beliefs.
“We were discussing specific Scriptures and the details of end-times prophesy,” White said. “My attorney kept protesting, but the judge kept it going for almost an hour.
“At one point, I told the judge, ‘I didn’t write the Bible — so why are we discussing this?’
“He just wouldn’t stop, and I thought I would go to jail if I didn’t respond to his questions — so I went along with it even though I knew they were inappropriate questions.
White is a Seventh-day Adventist who married her now ex-husband 17 years ago in a Seventh-day Adventist Church. With the exception of its observance of Saturday, the “seventh day” of the week, as the Sabbath, Seventh-day Adventists also have beliefs that are similar to most mainstream Protestant churches.
The description “adventist” is based on the belief that a second coming of Christ is near. Seventh-day derives from the contention that the Bible requires observing the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, Saturday. The denomination is traceable to the preaching of William Miller, a Baptist layman who said the Book of Daniel revealed that the end of the world would occur in the mid-1840s.
According to the church’s Web site, there are currently 14.3 million Seventh-day Adventists who attend more than 60,200 Adventist churches worldwide. The denomination operates 22 churches within 50 miles of Maryville.
While judges in most states are allowed to investigate religion in custody cases, they are not allowed to base decisions on religious beliefs unless there is proof that the children are endangered by the religious practices.
Garrett said, “I did get on her about her religion because she’s so over the top.
“My purpose was to show her fanatical characteristics — but the judge’s decision about custody was not based on religion.”
When asked if White’s children were ever endangered because of her religious beliefs, Garrett said, “No, they were never endangered because of it — just aggravated and harassed.”
Calls from The Daily Times to Young’s office and home were not returned.
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) and expert on both child custody and religion in the courtroom, said, “A judge can’t say ‘this religion isn’t good for the children’ — you must have evidence.
“You have to be able to demonstrate that it isn’t in the best interest of the child. “I think it’s inadvisable to investigate someone’s religion in depth in the courtroom. “This is not the kind of behavior we want to see from judges, but it doesn’t necessarily constitute grounds for reversal.”
While transcripts of the court proceedings do not state why the judge awarded temporary custody to White’s ex-husband, they do show that religion was the primary topic of discussion in the courtroom that day.
Two letters written by Jo Anne White were submitted to the court as exhibits and were the subject of the initial discussion about religion. In one letter, submitted to The Daily Times as a letter to the editor in 2006, White offered $1,000 to anyone who “can prove that the Bible says God changed the Sabbath to Sunday.”
Mark of the beast
At one point during the hearing, after Garrett asked White what the Bible says about the “mark of the beast,” Shepherd voiced his objection to the questioning.
“If it’s something said to the child or involving the child, then I think it’s fair game,” Shepherd says in the transcripts. “But to just tell me what she believes the Bible teaches about salvation, the mark of the beast and hell — I don’t think it’s appropriate.”
Young told Shepherd that “she was volunteering” the information.
Then Shepherd said, “Well, I still don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss doctrine in churches in the courtroom unless we’re talking about things that she may have said or may have done that affected the children.”
Young replied, “Well, straighten me out. What is this mark of the beast stuff? I don’t understand it.”
At that point, the courtroom discussion turned to worship, the Ten Commandments, biblical history and an in-depth conversation about the mark of the beast and end-time prophesy (continuing for more than 20 pages in the transcripts, some of which are available by clicking the link in the box next to this story). Later, White was questioned by Garrett and the judge about the Roman Catholic Church.
Judge Young asked, “And so the pope then was the beast?”
White said, “No, the pope — the pope is ...”
Shepherd interrupted again and said, “Your honor, I’m going to object. I feel like the court is attacking my client’s religious beliefs.”
Young said, “I’m not attacking anybody. I just want to understand what she’s talking about.”
Shepherd said, “As far as what she believes, I mean, we can bring a witness today to talk about what the church teaches and believes.”
Young replied, “I don’t care what the church teaches and believes. I want to know what she is talking about when she says ‘the mark of the beast,’ and I have yet to have it explained to me. I don’t understand it.”
Shepherd then said, “But, I mean, I see that as appropriate to discuss among individuals, but to make it part of the court record for a custody hearing, I don’t see the relevance.”
“Well, I would like to understand it, I really would,” Young said, “and I’m not trying to harp on you or put you in a box. But you’ve got to tell me — you’ve got to explain that to me.”
After additional discussion about the mark of the beast, the Book of Daniel and Babylon, Young said, “Let’s stop right here. When somebody says ‘beast’ to me, I’m thinking lion, tiger, gorilla — some sort of monster. Is that what you’re talking about?”
Again Shepherd protested, saying, “But, Your Honor, church doctrine is not the place to be in a courtroom for the court to decide what does the Bible say about the mark of the beast or hell. This is not the place to be litigating whose faith is right or wrong.”
Eventually, the judge abandoned the line of questioning and said he didn’t want to know what the beast is.
“I have never in my life felt so humiliated, mocked and degraded,” White said. “They were enjoying themselves at my expense.
“Judge Young decided he wanted to have a biblical study in the courtroom, and I ended up having to pay for it.
“These people had nothing bad they could say about me — so they decided to make the whole hearing about my religion.
“Craig Garrett tried to make me look like a religious nut. Nobody should be discriminated against or religiously persecuted like that in a courtroom. “I feel like the decision had been made before I ever set foot in that courtroom.”
Otherwise I can't imagine what the point was.
Boy, if you read the partial transcript there that judge is a monster. He should be kicked off the bench.
http://ww2.thedailytimes.com/news/courtdoc.pdf
Either way, it was totally inappropriate questioning regarding the custody hearing.
I know very little about Seventh Day Adventists. I just don’t understand this line of questioning or the relevance it has on the children.
I didn’t get the impression of sincerity. I got the impression he was mocking her. If he was sincerely interested, he is a terrible judge to do his seeking in his own courtroom in a child custody case. Either way the man should not sit in judgment of others.
If this woman were an atheist or an agnostic, I doubt very much that the judge would have permitted her beliefs to be grounds for denying her custody of her children.
That is inexcusable behavior from a judge. If he is curious about a denomination’s doctrine then he needs to do his own research. What was so special about the mark of the beast that it needed to be explained in depth in the courtroom? I am surprised he has never heard of the mark of the beast. It isn’t a doctrine exclusive to Seventh Day Adventists.
If there was concern of her religion with respect to the children, they should state the concern, and then call in an expert witness (like her pastor)! Good Grief!
Many SDA folks adhere to rigorous diets ~ including, for example, a 100% nut diet. One study indicated that no SDA members on that diet had any cardiovascular problems or disease.
There are SDAs who eat only beans, and so on.
Although the SDA diets are not far outside the norm in this diet conscious world, they may not be valid for growing children (which I think just about any SDA member would agree). Still, to the extent such diets are based on the readings of scripture, and the intent of the parent to force the children in his/her care to adhere to that diet, I think the family court judge was well advised to do some intensive questioning.
Without reading through the transcript I would just guess she intended to have the children eat the exact same diet she uses and there may be some problem there. Maybe the EX HUSBAND knows.
Someone should interview him, and find out what kind of diet he intends for the children.
These disputes arise in Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, Nation of Islam and other communities.
**Seventh Day Adventists aren’t much different than any other main stream Protestant group EXCEPT FOR THE DIETS.**
Have you checked out your blanket statement?
There are many differences.
I'll be praying for the kids. They are the ones that will have the legacy of these events overshadowing them as they grow.
Not from my perspective ~ maybe from yours, and maybe from the viewpoint of an SDA member, but not mine.
I agree with you concerning the diet aspect. If she is trying to impose a restrictive diet that does not provide the nutrients children need to be healthy, growing children, then that is a valid reason to take away her custody.
However, the snippet of the transcript available to us doesn’t even question her diet or that of the children. The judge concentrates on irrelevant points of church doctrine that White doesn’t even really know inside and out. She was not rock solid in her statements and really wasn’t sure what to say. I really don’t know what a judges’ motivation for doing that to her would have been, but it’s completely inappropriate. He made her appear unstable with the line of questioning, when she was probably just terrified she would lose her children if she said something he might think was wrong.
She needs a new lawyer, and a new judge. She also needs to follow the advice of her lawyer.
I dont agree with SDA teachings. Ellen G. White was a nutjob IMO. Having said that, this Judge was out of line and an ethics complaint should be filed with the state bar association. If she was a Muslim and was question this way, it would be a national story about bigotry.
I'm not a 7th day adventist, but I do worship on God's sabbath and keep God's holy days. That being said, I love this challenge.
The judge really was way out of line. If he were personally interested in doctrine there are other options to get information.
Like I said, without reading the entire transcript it's not possible to figure it all out, but concern for the dietary standard this woman intended for the kids would almost always play a part in an SDA dispute.
I'm wondering why they are divorcing anyway.
You know, some of these things were much simpler back in the days when, for example, you could differentiate between Methodist and Nazarene church members by the way they dressed. Now you have to ask them.
Well, maybe, but the diet thing is personal ~ can you get the entire transcript for us ~ this snippet is too brief.
You have been pinged because this may be of interest
to the Sabbatarian/Messianic community. Freepmail
DouglasKC if you want on or off this list.
I'd be interested to know if judges during custody hearings ask how often people eat out at fast food places, or eat ice cream, sweets or anything else that might be deemed "bad".
Or asks muslims if they eat bacon or sausage on their McMuffin. That would be a huge story abour poor muslims in a post 911 world.
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.