It's hard to believe
Every so often I come across something in my online perusings that really gets my spleen roiling. This is one of those times. Feel free to skip by this entry if you aren't interested in what's got my anger on; I'm writing this more for me than anyone else.
We Americans consider ourselves privileged, enlightened, civilized. Yet every day I see things that challenge at least one of those presumptions, and make me think that the United States is regressing into an insular theocracy driven by greed for power and money.
Today's case in point...an Indiana couple challenged a judge's order contained within their divorce decree which required them to shield their ten-year-old son from "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals [sic]". Specifically, the father was prohibited, by the terms of the decree, from educating his son about Wicca. Both parents (who, under the divorce, gained joint custody of the child) challenged that provision in the decree before the appeals court, which struck that provision from the decree (for the legal-minded, the appeals court's decision appears here, verbatim).
It disturbs me greatly that the trial court judge so fervently went after the parents, going so far in disparaging their beliefs as to order them, in short, not to let their son see or hear anything about those beliefs. Apparently this judge, who IMO is cut from the same cloth as "Judge" Roy Moore of Alabama (the one who defied a court order and refused to remove a monument bearing the Decalogue from his courthouse). When it comes to matters of religion and faith, such "judges" as these immediately turn their backs on the law and the Constitution...which they swear an oath to uphold... and instead reach for the nearest available Bible (of the correct version). I don't think such as these should be sitting on the bench, and if discovered to be so, should be removed based on simple inability to maintain an impartial view. But that's just me and my bile talking...your mileage will most probably vary greatly.
I also, as a divorcee, find it interesting that both the father and mother, although divorced, challenged in unison the section of the decree in question. I know how nasty divorces can get, firsthand. To get the newly-divorced couple to agree on much of anything usually requires an act of Deity, two acts of Congress and a note from someone's mother. This speaks loudly not only of the strength and conviction they both hold in their "non-mainstream" beliefs (which I happen to share, btw), but their outrage at such a flagrant defiance of the First Amendment and the case law derived from it (which is now commonly referred to as the doctrine of separation of church and state). To become a judge, at least here, one must first work as a licensed attorney for a minimum of five years, and to gain a license to practice law, one must study very hard and pass a very comprehensive examination on all things legal. Putting a fine point on it, to be a judge, one must be knowledgeable of the law, including the authority from which all US law is derived, the Constitution. Apparently the parents were of sterner stuff than the judge expected, since they didn't take the open violation of their Constitutional rights as parents and quietly walk away. The judge, on the other hand, apparently feels that he (I'm presuming it's a he; the name could refer to a female, but I'm doubting it) knows better how to properly raise a child than the parents, else he would not have included such a preposterous clause in the divorce decree.
I'm finding the appellate decision curiously fascinating reading. I don't know if anyone else reading this will or not, but...well, it's out there and available, as are almost all court decisions - a matter of public record. I invite you to read it, consider it, and even challenge it if you wish. But don't challenge it without a solid foundation to support your argument.
'Nuff said on this matter...for now.
*poof*
We Americans consider ourselves privileged, enlightened, civilized. Yet every day I see things that challenge at least one of those presumptions, and make me think that the United States is regressing into an insular theocracy driven by greed for power and money.
Today's case in point...an Indiana couple challenged a judge's order contained within their divorce decree which required them to shield their ten-year-old son from "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals [sic]". Specifically, the father was prohibited, by the terms of the decree, from educating his son about Wicca. Both parents (who, under the divorce, gained joint custody of the child) challenged that provision in the decree before the appeals court, which struck that provision from the decree (for the legal-minded, the appeals court's decision appears here, verbatim).
It disturbs me greatly that the trial court judge so fervently went after the parents, going so far in disparaging their beliefs as to order them, in short, not to let their son see or hear anything about those beliefs. Apparently this judge, who IMO is cut from the same cloth as "Judge" Roy Moore of Alabama (the one who defied a court order and refused to remove a monument bearing the Decalogue from his courthouse). When it comes to matters of religion and faith, such "judges" as these immediately turn their backs on the law and the Constitution...which they swear an oath to uphold... and instead reach for the nearest available Bible (of the correct version). I don't think such as these should be sitting on the bench, and if discovered to be so, should be removed based on simple inability to maintain an impartial view. But that's just me and my bile talking...your mileage will most probably vary greatly.
I also, as a divorcee, find it interesting that both the father and mother, although divorced, challenged in unison the section of the decree in question. I know how nasty divorces can get, firsthand. To get the newly-divorced couple to agree on much of anything usually requires an act of Deity, two acts of Congress and a note from someone's mother. This speaks loudly not only of the strength and conviction they both hold in their "non-mainstream" beliefs (which I happen to share, btw), but their outrage at such a flagrant defiance of the First Amendment and the case law derived from it (which is now commonly referred to as the doctrine of separation of church and state). To become a judge, at least here, one must first work as a licensed attorney for a minimum of five years, and to gain a license to practice law, one must study very hard and pass a very comprehensive examination on all things legal. Putting a fine point on it, to be a judge, one must be knowledgeable of the law, including the authority from which all US law is derived, the Constitution. Apparently the parents were of sterner stuff than the judge expected, since they didn't take the open violation of their Constitutional rights as parents and quietly walk away. The judge, on the other hand, apparently feels that he (I'm presuming it's a he; the name could refer to a female, but I'm doubting it) knows better how to properly raise a child than the parents, else he would not have included such a preposterous clause in the divorce decree.
I'm finding the appellate decision curiously fascinating reading. I don't know if anyone else reading this will or not, but...well, it's out there and available, as are almost all court decisions - a matter of public record. I invite you to read it, consider it, and even challenge it if you wish. But don't challenge it without a solid foundation to support your argument.
'Nuff said on this matter...for now.
*poof*