First off, note that is an issue of a non-custodial parent vs. parent with custody. Parallels can be drawn to the non-custodial parent who was an atheist and didn't want his daughter exposed to the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. In that case the non-custodial parent had never had custody of the child, whom, like the mother who had raised her, were practicing Christians. That case had nothing to do with the kid. It was all about the parent using the kid to push his views on others. Child Custody cases can get ugly fast. A common tactic is to charge the custodial parent with abusing the child. It doesn't have to be true, it's just to get the kid out their hands, so you can apply for custody. It's bad for the kid, but at that point, it's about the parents scoring points on each other.
Putting all that aside, the relivant part of the 1st Amendment is pretty damn clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This is a clear cut case of prohibiting free exercise. If you want to get picky about it, it's not Congress, but a Judge writing legislation from the bench, but I don't thing that argument will hold. :-)
First off, note that is an issue of a non-custodial parent vs. parent with custody.
Nope. Re-read the article. *Both* parents are Wiccan! The judge wrote that in on the advice of a third-party. And thus denbied *both* parents the right to teach the kid their *shared* religion.
It's not parent vs parent. It's parents versus judge.
I also expect the outfit that made the recommendation to the judge to draw a lot of flack. The judge may have been an idiot for following the recommendation, but to have actually *made* it shows some severe problems
Alas, they are probably something like the "Family Services" department here in Oregon.
While it is a load of religious BS to limit the teachings of any faith to thier own child I do think I would have to state that Wicca is not "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." Considering that Army Chaplains have to be versed in it's practices.... And if I remember it has been recognized as a world religion.. and a growing one at that.
:shrug: so I don't think they are disobeying the court order to teach thier child their beliefs.
Doesn't matter whaty we believe. As long as the divorce decree contains that section, the *judge* can revoke custody or even throw them in jail for doing anything *he* thinks violates it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
The appeals judge is drooling already to reverse this...
Date: 2005-05-27 02:41 am (UTC)Parallels can be drawn to the non-custodial parent who was an atheist and didn't want his daughter exposed to the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
In that case the non-custodial parent had never had custody of the child, whom, like the mother who had raised her, were practicing Christians.
That case had nothing to do with the kid. It was all about the parent using the kid to push his views on others.
Child Custody cases can get ugly fast. A common tactic is to charge the custodial parent with abusing the child. It doesn't have to be true, it's just to get the kid out their hands, so you can apply for custody. It's bad for the kid, but at that point, it's about the parents scoring points on each other.
Putting all that aside, the relivant part of the 1st Amendment is pretty damn clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This is a clear cut case of prohibiting free exercise.
If you want to get picky about it, it's not Congress, but a Judge writing legislation from the bench, but I don't thing that argument will hold. :-)
Re: The appeals judge is drooling already to reverse this...
Date: 2005-05-27 04:06 am (UTC)Nope. Re-read the article. *Both* parents are Wiccan! The judge wrote that in on the advice of a third-party. And thus denbied *both* parents the right to teach the kid their *shared* religion.
It's not parent vs parent. It's parents versus judge.
Re: The appeals judge is drooling already to reverse this...
Date: 2005-05-27 04:14 am (UTC)Ya...stupid ass judge.
Re: The appeals judge is drooling already to reverse this...
Date: 2005-05-27 05:32 am (UTC)Alas, they are probably something like the "Family Services" department here in Oregon.
Re: The appeals judge is drooling already to reverse this...
Date: 2005-05-27 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-27 09:07 am (UTC):shrug: so I don't think they are disobeying the court order to teach thier child their beliefs.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-27 07:34 pm (UTC)And he can't be sued for doing so either.