A judge in Indiana, during a routine, non-contested divorce between two Pagan parents with joint custody, ruled during their divorce that they were not allowed to teach their religion to their child.
The parents didn’t ask for the restriction. They are both pagan.
The judge refused to listen to their objections at the time he made the ruling.
The order does not define “mainstream religion.”
I was mostly wondering if anyone here could see any way that this was a constitutional ruling. I can’t, but I was looking for a discussion on if this could even be constitutional.
From a personal opinion standpoint, if Jewish or Muslim was substituted for Wiccan, there wouldn’t even be a debate. However, it seems our society is migrating to a state where if it’s not “mainstream” (religion, politics, etc.) then it either needs to BECOME “mainstream” or is WRONG. Have we really come to this?
If this shouldn’t be in GD but rather in MPSIMS, please moderator feel free to move it. Since it was religous in nature, I thought this was a better location.
I cannot imagine how this would not be unconstitutional. The parents share the same belief system. Neither one objects to the child being taught the same. The judge is obviously not a constitutional scholar. :wally (is that allowed in Great Debates?)
I talked to my boss, who’s an attorney, if not a Constitutional one, and he says that the order is, as far as he knows, constitutional. He points out:
Family court judges have a great deal of power when it comes to making rulings regarding a child’s best interest.
The judge didn’t order that the parents couldn’t teach pagan beliefs. He said that they couldn’t teach pagan beliefs while at the same time sending the kid to a Catholic school. By doing so, they’re teaching the kid contrary things, and also opening him up to be teased and ostricized at school for his beliefs, harming his well being. But, they’re free to take him out of the school.
So, while it’s possibly true that the real reason the judge is doing this is discrimination against pagans, in order to appeal it, the parents would have to prove that, and that’s hard to prove.
But why would this be OK in a divorce case, but not in a non-divorce case. If the parents reconciled, would they then be able to teach pagan beliefs to their kid?
I don’t see how this could stand up to an appeal at the federal level.
Actually the order is simply against teaching “non-mainstream religions”.
The judge used a report from a caseworker which mentioned that the caseworker felt it would be too confusing for the child; however, the order doesn’t specify that as the reason.
Had the judge said, “You can teach your kid about your pagan beliefs if you disenroll him from Catholic school” that would be one thing, but he didn’t. He said they may not teach their kid their “non-mainstream” religion. Period.
That’s why they can prove the discrimination in the appeal.
That sounds tenuous to me. What if the parents want to teach their kids contradictory beliefs, to let them learn how to choose on his own the “right” answer? If the Catholic school wants to bar students who aren’t Catholic, that’s their right as a private institution – but that’s not a decision for the judge to make.
This case smacks of an “activist judge” at work. Can’t wait to see who’s going to rush to the family’s defense…
From what little we know of the case, I can’t see this possibly standing up to scrutiny on appeal. Parents have a fundamental right to direct their children’s religious education under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and there doesn’t appear to be any compelling state interest being protected here such that the order would survive a strict scrutiny analysis. Courts are very, very hesitant to interfere with the relationship between children and parents as regards religious instruction.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Unfortunately, I don’t. However, as I stated, I do know the parties involved, and have my information regarding the order from the father’s attorney. (No confidentiality issue - it’s public record. I just happen to know them.)
Except, again, if the Constitution has been violated or not is not a settled question. I seem to recall cases in the past, for example, where courts have ruled that ill children of Christian Scientists (who don’t generally believe in medical care) be treated medically, even though such treatment goes against the parents’ beliefs.
We’ll know whether or not this is a Constitutional violation for sure once it goes through the appeals process.
On an interesting, if not entirely related side-note:
According to an attorney friend, in Oregon it is a common practice to take very ill children away from parents that will not allow them to be treated for religious reasons. The children are treated while in state custody and then returned to the parents.
Comparing a life or death medical emergency to the highly suspect claim of damage to the child due to religious confusions is a huge stretch. In the first case, there are competing rights: the right to life and the right to relgious freedom. In the second case, there are no competing rights.
Agreed. This’ll be overturned.
And as other have pointed out in companion threads, it’s common in some areas for non-Catholic parents to send their kids to Catholic schools for academic reasons. Usually, the kids sit out the religion class.