Hell, this should have been overturned within 24 hours of it being ruled. I can’t see any way to uphold this unless they practice open nudity, ritual drug use or sacrifices (both of which are emphatically not part of Wicca).
Exactly. It seems to me the judge was relying on what some social workers said:
“There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages,” the bureau said in its report."
What the judge seems to fail to realize is that at least some Catholic schools aren’t particularly concerned about the beliefs of the family/child. The kid just sit out the religion classes. I’ve personally known of several cases where non-Catholic parents had a kid going to a Catholic school. Amongst the reasons:
#1) As mentioned in a previous post, the parents thought the public school district was abysmal.
#2) Convenience. In this case the kid was going to a Catholic elementary school right next to where the parents lived. Had the kid gone to public school, they would have been bused to and from it many miles away. Money wasn’t an issue for the parents, so convenience was the determining factor.
#3) All the kid’s friends went to the local Catholic school. Had the parents sent their kid to the public school, they would have had no friends there. Thus it was thought best for the kid to go to the Catholic school.
#4) The kid had got involved with a “bad crowd” in the public school. By sending the kid to the Catholic school, the kid was separated from the bad crowd.
#5) And in the most unusual case, it was a matter of a relative of the family who was quite financially well off who offered to send the kid (whose parents were quite poor) to the Catholic school their kids went to. According to this kid, her take was it was a matter of:
a) The financially well off relative strongly thought it was in her best interest to go to the Catholic school, and:
b) The parents were indifferent either way.
Her impression was that it was mostly her parents didn’t want to look a gift horse that was a financially well off relative in the mouth. This relative also was generous financially with this girl in other ways, and thus being cooperative made practical sense. And as I mentioned, the parents were indifferent either way. Unless her parents thought this Catholic school was somehow harmful to her interests, why not let this relative pay for her own education out of their pocket? I also know that later this relative greatly financially helped pay her way to go to college, so in fact it did make financial sense for this family. (For the record, this girl herself didn’t mind going to Catholic school.)
This judge apparently didn’t realize there is no reason to think that Wiccans sending their kid to a Catholic school wouldn’t necessarily cause confusion and problems for the kid. As if the public school was chock full of Wiccan kids such that it would be much less confusing for the child in question? I can’t see this being a problem unless the Wiccan parents were somehow rabidly anti-Catholic. And if they were, surely they’d never have sent their kid to a Catholic school in the first place.
Ritual drug use, okay (assuming we’re not talking cappucino here), but why would the practice of open nudity or legal sacrifices be an issue?
Daniel
I can actually see it being more an issue if was a matter of the parents being Jewish or Muslim. At least some Jews and Muslims see Chrsitianity as problematic, if not blasphemous. Wiccans, at least AFAIK, have no centralized belief system. As in it isn’t a sin according to a “Book of Wicca” to get academic education in a Catholic school.
I haven’t read the order, but the news report doesn’t mention the judge said “however, if you send the kid to public school you can then teach him Wiccan beliefs.” And at least of the Catholic schools I have know, there always have been at least some non-Catholic kids attending. (And to the extent that such Catholic schools may exist, as this one obviously had no problem with this Wiccan kid attending, I presume this isn’t a Catholic school that requires the kid and the family to be Catholic.)
That was my boss’s understanding of what the order actually said, but I don’t know where he got that from. It would be nice to see the actual order, because right now, everyone in this thread is working off a brief newspaper article and Indyellen’s personal knowledge of the case, which is biased by her friendship with the people involved.
Actually, I stated that I knew the people involved, not that I’m friends with them. I had somewhat of a falling out with them back before the divorce, and haven’t spoken to the parents personally for probably close to a year. I am friends with one of the lawyers.
I’ve been keeping my personal opinions about the judge, etc. over in the Pit thread on this subject, not here. However, this has hit the AP wire (AP story here) and has caused a response from the family here.
I wish I had a copy of the order, too, Captain Amazing, but I don’t.
Divorce records are generally public domain info, available at the courthouse to any interested parties. Any idea if these were sealed or why?
Enjoy,
Steven
The parents voluntarily filed for divorce, and made Custody an issue. Once they do so, they give up many of their rights. This seems a bit extreme, yes. BUT it’s not at all the same as parents who aren’t in a custody battle having had a Judge issue a ruling like this. Judges in Family Court can & will do things which would seem extra-legal to those outside.
This may well be overturned, but even if it isn’t, it won’t prevent Parents from teaching their children how they wish.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050817/BREAK/508170493
PARENTS AND FIRST AMENDMENT WIN UNANIMOUS COURT DECISION!
Let me just point out that the appelate court didn’t overturn the decision because of the first amendment (and that this was never a first amendment issue), so your capitalized statement is misleading. It overturned the decision because it disagreed that the child would suffer sufficient physical or emotional harm from the practice of the religion.
But still, the initial ruling was an restriction on freedom of religion without a compelling reason, so the finding that no compelling reason existed is still a
victory for that freedom & said amendment.
It’s a pity the Appelate Court wasn’t allowed to respond, “This decision is overturned because it is utterly loopy.” 