Recently an Indianapolis court ordered some Wiccans to protect their 9-year-old son from their "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."
The parents enlisted the help of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. They are appealing on the grounds that the court's order is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define "mainstream" religion.
As long as the First Amendment retains its historic meaning, the court order should be ruled unconstitutional. Whenever a court assumes the responsibility to define "mainstream" religion and its definition is ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, then we will have a form of religion that has been established by the courts and all others will lose the full right to freely exercise their religion.
When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, Baptists were clearly out of the "mainstream." That is why Baptists were the strongest proponents for separating church and state in the colonies.
Now that Baptists have acquired the numbers to be considered "mainstream," they are prepared to deny others the constitutional rights that they were granted.
Southern Baptists and Independent Baptists are now leading the movement to stack the courts with judges who will establish Christianity and thereby deny others the full right to freely and openly exercise a different religion. All Baptists should be ashamed.
Some of us are ashamed, but shame is not enough. More Baptists need to stand up, speak out against, and actively oppose the religious tyranny into which Southern Baptists and Independent Baptists are trying to lead this country.
5 comments:
I would tend to disagree here on two points:
1. Don't children have the right to abstain from the parent's religion if they wish? I have a friend who once attended an independent Baptist church where a child in his early teens was literally baptised against his will at the urging of the parents (kicking, screaming, etc.). I'm told this wasn't uncommon in this particular church. I wish in that situation (and perhaps in the situation to which you refer) that a grandparent or someone else could intervene on behalf of the child's rights and religious freedoms.
2. Aren't there situations where the courts SHOULD intervene on behalf of a child when dangerous religious rituals are involved? There are a number of churches, cults, and belief groups that can expose children to all types of physical harm, sexual exploitation, or psychological trauma in the name of religion. I'm talking about rattlesnake-handling churches, vampire cults, sexual commune cults, violent witchcraft rituals, etc. Shouldn't the child's welfare be considered here?
Not all Baptists handle rattlesnakes or force teenage children to be baptised, just as not all Wiccans are engaged in dangerous acts. However, I disagree with you in that I think a child's physical and psychological well-being cannot be tossed aside in the name of religion, whether it be Christian or pagan.
Family court has stepped on a lot of toes lately because of the standard of what is best for the child. It was a Mass. judge that ordered a father, who happened to be evangelical christian, not to take his children to church as their mother was raising them jewish. I really felt here that this is an area the courts should stay out of, even if the children get confused by the mixed messages, that is part of growing up and sorting things our for yourself.
rk,
point one, social services could possibly bring child endangerment charges on parents and preacher if their force baptism could be perceived as a drowning threat, but that would be a real stretch.
point two, most of the examples cited would again fall under child endangerment, some fall under criminal prosecution. Remember no right in the constitution is absolute. Human Sacrifice, and in some cases animal sacrifice is prohibited by law, plural marriages as well which restricts some of their religious practises.
In the case of the judge concerning parents who are wiccan, did he elaborate or specify which of the practises would be dangerous to the children, or is this a case of ignorance and bigotry on the part of the judge? On appeal the judge will have a lot of defending concerning his ruling for this not to be overturned.
rk/Greek Shadow,
You don't know your Wicca. There is *nothing* dangerous about standard Wiccan practices, and I should know...my wife is Wiccan.
This is a matter of a court putting it's nose in a family matter...with no good reason but the judges moral/religious views. The parents didn't disagree on this issue in the divorce...and the judge's reasoning was along the lines of "kid goes to Catholic school, I don't want him all confused and such..."
Rob, "standard" practices is exactly the point I was trying to make, that I suppose you didn't grasp. "Standard" Baptist, Jewish, Islamic, or pagan faiths pose scant risk of danger or harm. However, what some of you do not realize is that with almost all faiths can count a few extremists who stretch or pervert their religious practices into dangerous behaviors or activities.
I'm talking about Islamic extremists, Baptist snake-handlers, pagan vampires, sexually-exploiting cults, etc. The question I raised is whether or not child welfare should be disregarded in the name of religious freedom. I think not.
Case in point: a couple of years ago in Kentucky, a Wiccan group was busted for cooking, distributing, and using methamphetimines as part of their "activities". Certainly, this had to be fringe group, but would you want your child to be part of that, Rob? In the case of such fringe activities, the courts MUST step in, in my view.
If there is proof of danger, I think the courts have an obligation to step in. I'm surprised that so many would disagree.
You're right, and I fully agree...but if you read up on this article, that was clearly not the case in this divorce. The judge didn't rule based on protecting the child from unsafe/illegal practices (i.e., crystal meth production or poisonous snake handling), he ruled to "protect" the child from "confusion" in Catholic school/Wiccan home. Which has only served to confuse people as to his motives.
Post a Comment