An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to 'non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.'You know, I'm broadly sympathetic to what is usually called "the Religious Right." For example, even though all modern jurisprudence is against displays of the Ten Commandments in an official capacity, I recognize that there is an honorable alternative view of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that is as old as the view that holds sway.
The alternative view is that it is perfectly fine for government officials to practice their faith and display their symbols, and even to perform their duties in line with their religious principles. As uncomfortable as it might make some to be judged by someone with a framed copy of the Ten Commandments behind his head, so long as it's a personal rather than a goverment-owned display, I personally have no problem with it. I see no reason the judge can't hang his own copy in the courtroom he uses, just as you might hang a cross in your office if you were a Catholic. The judge's felt principles are the same whether they're on display or not -- at least if he hangs the sign, you know up front who you're dealing with, and if you don't feel he's been fair with you, you'll have an easier time making the case on appeal because you can clearly point to a reason for your belief.
So, I'm not especially hostile to "the Religious Right" on these questions. All the same, the Establishment Clause means something. If it shouldn't mean that you can't display the signs and speak in the terms of your faith, it certainly does mean that you can't establish a state religion. If you can't establish one, I see no reason why you can establish twelve, or fifty, or whatever range it takes to make up whatever the judge considers "mainstream."
The actual religion in question is Wicca, which is interesting in two ways. In the first case, it's interesting for reasons laid out in this sympathetic article, which boil down to this: the two founding historic claims of Wicca have both been proven false. It is neither an ancient religion that survived in misty folk traditions; nor were "witches" executed in the Middile Ages and Renaissance (who did not, per the first point, practice Wicca anyway) executed to the tune of nine million persons.
This last claim some Wiccans used to suggest that they had suffered from European predation as much as, or more than, the Jews. In fact, it appears that Wiccans actually originated among upper-class Britons in the 19th century. As the article notes, it drew from "connections to Masonic ritual, Aleister Crowley, Yeats and Kipling, the Golden Dawn, Theosophy, spiritualism, and much more."
That is the first interesting thing. The judge, either out of ignorance or because it was not his purpose, did not use this angle -- admitted even by many leading Wiccans -- to attack the faith. There is no reason to think the First Amendment would let him succeed if he had singled out Wicca on these grounds, but surely it would have been a stronger position for attempting a ban on a faith.
I don't raise this to damn Wicca, but only to point out something about the judge's tactics. He would have had documentary evidence that some variants still persist in attempting to falsify history, though he would have had to have admitted that other variants are working hard to correct the record and set the faith on a new course. Still, that is an angle that would have had a much stronger chance to survive appeal.
That is not what he chose to do. What he chose to do was not to attack Wicca due to any alleged deficiency within Wicca, but to attack all small faiths. This is not, therefore, an attack on a single faith -- it is an attempt to establish what is an acceptable "range" of religion.
The proof of this lies in the second interesting fact: the various traditions calling themselves Wicca are, collectively, the largest neo-pagan faith in the United States.
As a consequence, a declaration that Wicca is "non-mainstream" serves to delegitimize a host of other, smaller faiths as well. If a faith is allowed to be banned by the state merely because it is rarely practiced, a lot of faiths don't measure up. This chart puts Wiccans with "Pagan/Druid"s as well, but it does tend to show what else would be tossed "out of the mainstream" and thus forbidden to troubled children: Native American faiths, Sikhism, Taoists, Deism, and other faiths as well.
Apparently, the good judge took it upon himself to do this, having been asked by neither parent -- both are Wiccans. His reasoning is that it might be 'confusing' for their children, who are being educated in a Catholic school, to be exposed to Wicca as well. Yet, surely the parents have the right to have their children educated where they wish -- can they not choose to send, or not to send, their children to this school? And if they can choose that, why then should the school and not they get to choose the faith in which their children are primarily rasied?
Would he dare tell a Shinto family from Japan the same thing? A Navajo family?
It is astonishing that this ruling could have been issued in any court. I assume it will not long survive.
Hat tip: Sovay.
No comments:
Post a Comment