I went to Catholic school and we had a few non-Catholics attending. Their parents put them there for other reasons, (mainly child abuse) like believing the education will be better or the school will be less dangerous.
Or maybe they got a voucher to go there.
Don’t worry about it. 
Prediction, however: At least three more people will, upon reading my first post, go ahead and rip me a new one without reading the rest of the thred and seeing my correction.
Any takers?
Look’s like Bradfords aimin’ for the federal bench…
What the hell?
There are plenty of kids in the Catholic schools who aren’t Catholic.
For some, it is the best choice, if the public schools are not that good.
If the parents are on the same page, and the school doesn’t have a problem–what the hell is up with the judge?
THIS is, indeed, judicial activism.
I have a thought: why dont’ these very interesting people (the judge and his ilk) go start their own theocracy? And leave the rest of us alone.
Meanwhile, the ironic thing is that I was writing my apology even as you were writing to tell me to check out your second post. That is sorta funny… I need a nap.
Went on the website, thanks, whynot -I have been intrigued by Wicca for some time now. It’s good to have a source of info.
This quote from the FAQ of the site just kills me–I do so wish that ALL Christians would memorize it–it is so apt, for all religions. Very well said.
Query: what does the judge consider mainstream religion? Lutheran vs Methodist?
Sounds to me like he needs to go beyond his state line and see the world.
WTF?
I almost got sent to a Catholic school and there is no way in hell my parents would have ever considered raising me Catholic! The article’s title made me see red. They have no right to be “upset” over whatever my parents teach me at home as long as I don’t try to preach anti-Catholic.
And I also reacted knee-jerk. Apologies.
Looks like a sucker bet to me!
Ok, sorry for the triple-post, but ME! ME!
A thousand apologies, Maureen.
Ok, it’s crazy, but this isn’t the Federal goverment, this is just a judge in Indiana. It’ll be overturned by the state supreme court.
Hee!!! Don’t worry about it, really. I should have been paying attention to my posting, and I was trying to multi task (silly work). It’ll teach me to get my priorities straight.
Ya think?
They’re not even sure what time it is in Indiana.
(token offensive Hoosier joke–I live in IL).
Anaamika makes one. Two to go.
No, now there won’t be any, since we made such a big fuss about it.
I hope.
Work?? You tell that boss of yours no work is allowed, posting is more important.
Thanks, BTW/
I cannot imagine it withstanding an appeal, unless there’s more to the story.
And I can’t even imagine what that “more” might be.
No. This goes well beyond activism, which at least PRETENDS to have a basis for their decisions, and into outright error.
I wonder how zealous the judge would have been about this if the parents were, say, Zoroastrian.
I agree that it is an error, but I will be interested in seeing the response from the RR about this.
It seems to be a moving target–one man’s judicial activism is another’s upholding of “American ideals and values” (or insert talking point of the week/politico-babble here).
I agree the term is used wihtout rigor among many commentators.
However, there is a reasonably rigorous definition of ‘activism’ - more rigorous, anyway, than “a decision I don’t like.”