You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« End the Publicity Stunt: W, Meet With Cindy | Main | Hot Times in Bloomington » August 18, 2005Judge in Wiccan Divorce Case OverturnedI reported a few months ago about Judge Cale Bradford, of the Marion Superior Court in Indiana, placing a restriction in a divorce decree that said that neither parent could expose a child to their Wiccan beliefs. Both parents were Wiccan, but they send their son to a private Catholic school. The judge decided that because there are potential conflicts between what the parents teach him at home about Wicca and what he is learning in school about Catholicism, the parents should be prevented from speaking to the child about their beliefs. At the time, I called this one of the most disturbing and blatant violations of the free exercise clause I'd ever seen. The Indiana Appeals Court, it seems, has agreed with me and overturned the decision, saying that the judge overstepped his authority. Bravo to the appeals court. Posted by at August 18, 2005 10:38 AM CommentsI'm not sure if you intended any such meaning, but just for clarity, the Court of Appeals didn't address the free exercise issue. The opinion (pdf document) is here. While recognizing it's probably good jurisprudence, I was a little disappointed that the Court of Appeals didn't editorialize a bit. They just said that the statue requires a finding that such a provision is necessary to protect the child. The judge didn't express such a finding so the provision was void. Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2005 02:05 PM | permalink Yes, the court simply ruled that he overstepped his authority, and they are right. While they didn't touch explicitly upon the free exercise issue, the two are tied together to some degree. The reason why the law requires that there be solid evidence that the child will be damaged is because it takes something that strong to overcome the parents' free exercise rights. The fact that the judge didn't even attempt to build a case for his conclusion other than the flimsy "this might confuse the child" excuse suggests that he has very little interest in the free exercise rights of Wiccans. Posted by: Ed Brayton at August 18, 2005 02:32 PM | permalink High five to the Indiana Appeals court. I was hoping the Judiciary would come it it's senses on this one. Posted by: Phil Aldridge at August 18, 2005 02:48 PM | permalink Post a comment |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|