Most Obvious Violation of Free Exercise Rights Ever?
Here’s a story for you aspiring Indiana attorneys about a judge you may someday argue before. I can’t imagine what on earth he’s thinking, but Cale Bradford, Chief Judge of the Marion Superior Court in Indiana, has issued the most blatantly unconstitutional opinion I’ve ever heard of. In a divorce in which both of the parents are Wiccan, the judge placed a provision in the divorce decree forbidding them from exposing their son to “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.” The parents have filed an appeal to have this provision struck from the decree, and I cannot imagine they could possibly lose that appeal. I had the same reaction upon reading this as their attorney did:
“When they read the order to me, I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding,’” said Alisa G. Cohen, an Indianapolis attorney representing Jones. “Didn’t the judge get the memo that it’s not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?”
Apparently not. One wonders where the judge got his law degree, from Billy Bob’s Law School and Bait Shop?
57 Responses to “Most Obvious Violation of Free Exercise Rights Ever?”
What facts pay do you think are not in hand?
Let me know, and I will fill in the blanks if I can.
Wick Deer
LotharBot at May 28, 2005 02:54 AM |
Raj, perhaps you should read more carefully. The point David has made perhaps 4 or 5 times so far is that when virtually every Christian would say “group X is not Christian”, that’s significant.
Perhaps you should read more carefully. What I said was that nobody owns the Christian (R) trademark. Anyone can call himself a Christian. Anyone The fact that other people who call themselves Christian do not wish to recognize the “anyone” as being a Christian is totally irrelevant.
I hate to tell you, but it is almost as though the term “Christian” has become virtually meaningless, other than as a marketing tool. I’ve expounded on the subject elsewhere.
You both make points here.
It wasn’t so long ago that Protestants would have considered Catholics non-Christian (and vice versa), and you can still find people who are convinced that Catholics are going to hell. This isn’t much the case nowadays, though.
And then, regardardless of anything else, a significant portion of Catholics and Protestants would agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is quite un-Christian, regardless of their belief in Christ.
Who gets to decide? Good question.
“One wonders where the judge got his law degree”
To answer the rhetorical question, he got his JD from the same place Josh is getting his: Indiana University – Indianapolis School of Law.
Wick Deer, if you could, a link to his written opinion. This is a well regarded, experienced judge. We have a lot of little miniature schnauzer’s who think they know some law posting here.
Hi Loren:
The judge did not issue awritten opinion. There was only a one sentence order denying the Motion to Correct Error.
The commissioner’s ruling being appealed contained a order, which was not supported by any findings of fact regarding potential harm to the child.
As I was informed (I was not present at the hearing, and there was no record.), the issue of wicca was not expected by the parties to be an issue in the divorce. (Custody was the primary issue, but both parents were Wiccan, so there was no issue anticipated.) The commissioner raised the question issue based upon her review of the DRCB report.
After the hearing, she issued the order. There was no factual basis or legal citation to support the analysis. (To be fair, detailed factual findings and legal citations are rarely present in divorce decrees.)
Wick Deer
Couple of clarifications:
I just realized I was not responding to Loren’s post. My bad.
Also, I can’t link to the decision. The docket is online, but only accessable through subscription. I don’t practice in Marion County anymore, so I don’t have a subscription. In any case, I don’t think the text of orders is available online.