51 replies to this topic

[Hibblette]

Actually stuff like this happens quite often.

It's all a matter of remembering Judges are human.

What we as Americans have to do is be aware of such things and voice our opinion about it-ie The freedom of speech.  In other words do not let the absurdity and insanity get out of hand, well maybe even get started.

I remember back in like 1991 (I think) there was the whole issue of unwed mother's-Quayle had opened his big mouth about the LA riots being caused by Murphy Brown and poor unwed mother's of LA.

There was a young woman (18) in the Midwest who had a child out of wed lock but the father was an active part of the childs life.  Then when she decided to go to College and put the child in a daycare the young man and his mother (who had been keeping the child) took her to court and won custody of the child.  The infuriating thing was that the judge cited it was because of her not being able to provide for the child a home the way the young man could with his mothers help.  Here's this young woman trying to better her life and subsequently her child's life and because of placing the child in a daycare meant she would lose the child.  

I believe this was overturned also and she got the kid back but another case of a Judge making a decision that proved how very human he was.

Anyways it got attention-people voiced their opinions and I believe that actually does have a say in what the final outcome is.  Just my opinion of course.

But there is something happening right now in the good ol' USA that is scary and that's why we have to voice our opinion, outrage, fears etc.

[Ogami]

Waterpanther wrote:

You just might want to read the article before commenting, Ogami.


I am perfectly capable of reading articles without your permission or your interpretation of said article. It is not a crime to have a different opinion than Waterpanther. Surprise!

-Ogami

[waterpanther]

Touchy, touchy.

My sincere apologies.  I do tend to forget that, by their own admission, Bush and his most ardent admirers don't inhabit the same "reality-based" universe as the rest of us.

[G1223]

Yeah a reality where they cannot figure out why they are out of pwoer. A reality where they are the guardians of free speech but seem unable to understand that responsibility comes with that free speech.

Now I am a Rupublican and a Hoosier. Yes it's going to get overturned. The Judge made a boob out of himself a lot of people here are jumping on him. That is from both parties.

[eloisel]

Ogami, on May 29 2005, 06:11 PM, said:

Eloisel asked:

Where did you find what was presented to the judge about Wicca? Or about the "unfitness for parenting"?

Read the Thread title. The issue is not an "Activist judge", but what the judge was shown to result in this ruling. That's what I'd like to know, just the facts of what actually happened in the case.

-Ogami

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I need a definition of what an "Activist Judge" is.  If it means that a judge rules contrary to law then this particular judge is definitely an Activist Judge.  

I still didn't see the text of the report the Judge received from the Domestic Relations Bureau, only that the Judge, based on the report from the Bureau, had concerns over the conflicting viewpoints between where the child was educated during the schoolweek and the rest of his life in the pagan community.  I can see where that would be a conflict without making a judgment call on either belief system.  I can also see where this year old issue would have come to the forefront immediately had the Judge ruled that the child be removed from the Catholic school and educated in a non-religious environment so as not to be in conflict with his parents' pagan beliefs.  I would like to see the report the Bureau presented to the Judge.  The practice of Wicca does vary from adherent to adherent and there may be factors the general public is not privy to that may explain this Judge's ruling which is contrary to law.  If the Judge had said these parents are not to expose their child to their practice of sex magic, skyclad services, or the like, his ruling might be more understandable.

[eloisel]

Are we really such a narrow society that the only reason why any person does anything is because they are either Republican or Democrat?

If so, please let me know how human beings are to style their hair this year.  I need a haircut and don't want to start a furor.

[G1223]

Well my experences with most Wiccans is they are very careful about such exposing children to the faith. In particular Skycladding or the like. Now that is not to say all Wiccans do this but those that do not are very rare as they do not want to cause trouble for themselves.

[waterpanther]

Exactly.  I know Gardnerian Wiccans who do practice skyclad, but their group does not include minors.  In fact, I think the youngest member of their circle is thirty-something.  Even they practice the Great Rite in private, not in the circle.

Wiccans and other Pagans I know who are raising their children in the faith not only remain clothed but tend toward long robes for both sexes.  The article explicitly states that this couple's group--or ex-couple's group, I should say--does not go skyclad.

[Nonny]

*sigh*  I was looking for information about the US Army's Wiccan chaplain, planning to make a humorous comment about DeLay, since I'm quite sure said chaplain is or was stationed somewhere in Texas.  Can't find the link I want, but did get this amusing message:

Quote

Great, now you've gone and done it.
You've broken the Internet.,
Way to go!
Actually, the server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please check the Menu.

  

I'll keep looking.  

Nonny

[waterpanther]

Well, thank goodness you've only broken one of the internets.  

[eloisel]

Maybe it was the one Al Gore invented.

[Nonny]

waterpanther, on May 29 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

Well, thank goodness you've only broken one of the internets.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give me time.    

Nonny

[Elara]

offworlder, on May 28 2005, 03:06 PM, said:

why on earth did they get their divorce there instead of Reno, or even St Thomas? how do they figure wicca is viewed or thought of in Indiana? I'm not talking for this one moment of justice, but of common sense!

~.~ How it is viewed has no bearing. That pesky right to freedom of religion takes care of that.
~shoot~ I would still be married if I had go to Reno to hide my pagan ways, I have no money for such a trip.  

Quote

second- the divorce is done now, the judge is out of it now, the custody is not being contested so there's no caseworker monitoring... so just teach him what you want. But tell him don't go spouting it to all his friends~snip~

~.~ Tell me you are kidding.  

Quote

third- the judge doing it: because he can-

~.~ No, he can't, he did, but he can't.

Quote

so beyond that it's a (or practically) moot point - teach him your wicca, keep it on the downlow, and go on about your merry way

~.~ ah, so hide it, be ashamed, more kidding, right?  

Quote

When judges reach inside the home, other than protecting abused or neglected family, they must just be pushed back or avoided. Too bad that confidential family eval report even had that info in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

~.~ Exactly. This kind of info had no bearing on the fitness of the parents or the stability of the home, this was a personal agenda by the judge.

HubcapDave, on May 28 2005, 05:57 PM, said:

All that being said, I agree that this was a bone-headed move on the judge's part, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that this judge is in the habit of making stupid rulings and he may have just had a bad day on this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

~.~ hi Dave, If you were the parent, would you be thinking that this was simply a bad day on the judge's part or would you be angry about your parental rights being infringed upon?
I know I wouldn't give a flying fig if this was a bad day for him, I'd just know I was gonna make his day worse.

[HubcapDave]

Quote

~.~ hi Dave, If you were the parent, would you be thinking that this was simply a bad day on the judge's part or would you be angry about your parental rights being infringed upon?
I know I wouldn't give a flying fig if this was a bad day for him, I'd just know I was gonna make his day worse.

Were I the parent, I would certainly be pissed.

Mind you, I am not saying that this decision was improper. The was a bad move on the judge's part. What I object to is some people's (like the originator of this thread) use of this story to try and make it a broader based issue so that he can call members of the Ruplublican party hypocrites.

[G1223]

Oh and do not forget Dave that when confronted the "Creative Truth" used to hide the generalization about Republicans.And that so the mods will not take action, Rather than the feelings of other people.

[Hibblette]

So...let me get this straight...

Back in 1999 when Clinton was in and things were coming out in the press about him and certain people were posting on boards about all this and making comments about how he was such a bad man for having oral sex and then lying about it-that was okay?

But for those of us who are interested in reading about how The Republicans who have this Religious Right agenda and let's Stick with the Constitution statements being made we can't come back and say-Wait a minute!  What about this or what about that?

  

Oh and by the way most Democrats came out and stated that Clinton was wrong for what he did.

[G1223]

It makes him a bad man when he LIES under oath.  In fact it's called purjury and is a felony which is what is meant by high crimes.

[Chakotay]

you know, the trouble with threads like this is that you just get quotes from some persons report of events, not necessarily the original. Heresay is not valid evidence in court.

Having said that, this one is bound to be reversed on appeal. There is no way this foolish judgment will be allowed to stand in such blatent contradiction to the first.

I wonder where the writer of the DRCB report got their information about what the child was being taught - some hysterical anti-everything-but-my-faith website? Obviously not a practising wiccan, it sounds like.

[Hibblette]

G1223, on Jun 1 2005, 06:13 AM, said:

It makes him a bad man when he LIES under oath.  In fact it's called purjury and is a felony which is what is meant by high crimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes and so many people died because of it.

And he's also the first to lie under oath.

[Bad Wolf]

First of all, a person who does a bad thing is not necessarily a bad person unless someone around here is arguing that any human being is capable of absolute perfection and/or that anything less than absolute perfection makes one a "bad person".  Second of all, it's not Clinton's fault that the stupid lawyers asking the questions failed to properly follow up.   Was Bill "slick"?  Yes.  Did he lie to his colleagues in statements not given under oath?  Yes.  Did he lie *in the deposition*?  I question whether he did.  But even if he did, he didn't lie to justify a war that has resulted in thousands of deaths.  I think there is a huge difference between lying about ones sex life and lying in order to get the country one has been entrusted with the leadership of into a war.   But that's just me.

Lil