RE: More Discrimination Against Wiccans

[Conkle, Daniel O.]

Title: Message

Aren't these cases rather different?  The Indiana case involves a judicial intrusion into the private religious decisionmaking of parents (in the absence of any dispute between them).  The 4th Cir. and the 10 commandments cases raise the very different issue of governmental speech relating to religion.  I think one can support the permissibility of generalized governmental statements about religion, and even "Judeo-Christian" prayers in the Marsh tradition, without accepting the Indiana decision trumping private religious/parental rights.  (Needless to say, one also can reject the permissibility of generalized governmental statements about religion or argue more specifically against the 4th Circuit ruling or against the posting of the 10 commandments, etc., but I do think that those cases raise different questions.)   Dan Conkle ************************************** Daniel O. Conkle Professor of Law Indiana University School of Law Bloomington, Indiana  47405 (812) 855-4331 fax (812) 855-0555 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] **************************************       -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:33 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: More Discrimination Against Wiccans Isn't it fairly obvious what this judge and the domestic relations person were thinking?  They were thinking that this is a "Christian" country, just as the 4th Cir was when it approved legislative prayers that include monotheism and exclude Wiccans.  The "system" requires faiths that are consistent with Christianity, and those that are not, can be excluded, on this reasoning.    This is a direct result of the current, though misguided, cultural pressure to "reclaim" the country for Christians, is it not?  If there were two states, other than Alabama, where we were going to see this play out, it would be Virginia and Indiana.    My question is if this case were to go up, which side would the DOJ take, given its position in the Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance cases?      Marci      In a message dated 5/26/2005 10:54:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marty Lederman wrote: According to this article (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481), an Indiana judge has prohibited a pair of divorced parents from exposing their 9-year-old son to Wiccan beliefs and rituals.  Both parents practice Wicca, and both strongly oppose the court's restriction.  The court's order apparently was based on the recommendation of a domestic relations bureau, which was concerned about the "discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school [that the child attends]. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report. I just wrote about this on my blog. It's the most obvious and blatant free exercise violation I can ever recall seeing. What on earth was this judge thinking? Ed Brayton

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.