 |
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Forgive my absence, but I have been quite ill and had a serious relapse on top of it. However, I am now awake, laying on the couch and doing some surfing as I cannot sleep - they have taken me off of certain drugs. I found this fascinating article (I checked out Apolyton first to make sure nothing had been posted on it previously). Note, the judge in question is elected, from what I can determine, and is in a barely blue county - corrected, I ended up scrambling state searches and got the wrong Marion county.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.d...EWS01/505260481
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.d...EWS01/505270510
Secondly, this is far from unknown in the US. We had a Sufi friend, who converted after her marraige (she was Roman Catholic) who was granted custody, but had a Christian judge who, at the behest of her Jewish husband - soon to be ex-husband, ban her from exposing her children to her cultish beliefs. The judge compared Sufism to a cult, which I find fascinating because it has a history over twice as old as any Protestant faith. The ACLU tried to help but could get no traction due to the laws in our state.
Those cases do not make the news, but consistantly family courts have been heavily biased towards the Christian, and secondarily Jewish, sides of a divorce. It has been a major problem in the Native American community. Also understand, unlike the Criminal and Civil courts, Family Courts in many if not most states have a very different structure with limited appeals and the broadest judicial latitude anywhere in our system. A murderer has more rights than the parent who the judge decides they don't like.
There are per se minimal to no standards of proof (again, in many states), and solely on the unverified claim of your soon-to-be ex-spouse you can have a permanent, non-expungable restraining order made against you that can seriously affect your job prospects in many fields (context on how powerful these judges are). Note the father's concern in the articles. If he defies the judge's order, even if it is found unconstitutional, the judge can take away his custody permanently if the father defies the judge prior to the successful appeal. So he is bound by this ruling, even though it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Last edited by shawnmmcc on 08-06-2005 at 14:39
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Secondly, this is far from unknown in the US. |
I definately see your point, but this isn't entirely true. In this case BOTH parents were Wiccan. There was no dispute among the parents about which religion they wanted their child raised in, the judge just arbitrarily butted into the issue. I really have not heard about a case like this one before.
By the way, the local paper in the area wrote an editorial that ripped the judge for his decision.
quote:
Conservatives like to complain about so-called activist judges - judges who overstep their authority to become one-person legislatures. Liberals are their favorite targets.
But, apparently, conservatives can be just as guilty.
Marion County Superior Court Judge Cale Bradford isn't going to let the First Amendment stand in his way because he seems to think he knows what religions should be off-limits for parents...
Bradshaw was wrong to substitute his religious judgment for that of Archer's parents.
"Give me that old-time religion," might be a fine sentiment for Bradshaw, but his missionary work should not be done from the court's bench |
http://www.chronicle-tribune.com/ap...301/1014/NEWS01
Last edited by Mordoch on 08-06-2005 at 15:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Thanks Oerdin - I wish they would post something in the title to make a search just a touch more obvious - I was scanning for Wiccan and Pagan, we have just a few judge threads.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
The judge is elected. He is actually the senior judge in Marion County (Indianapolis).
And it is a joke around here what he did (I work in the same building, under a different judge)
it will be overturned, but it will take a few months.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
asleepatthewheel - you are not addressing two issues I brought up. First, only because the judge was so blatant are we getting this attention. As long as one spouse is part of an "established, main-line religion" then the other one can get screwed and it doesn't get much attention, except in things like the Native American press. Look at my example which is from the lady involved (the Sufi).
Secondly, he can do this due in part to it being in family court. I don't know your system in Indiana, but in most states a judge in a family situation is more powerful than any judge anywhere else - even in SCOTUS they need to get the agreement of four other judges! Review of family law is minimal, and those judges are allowed to make findings of fact that would not be permitted in any criminal trial. As I've said, a murderer has more rights than a spouse the judge decides to piss on. (For the record, I've never been through family court, thank God. But I have many friends who have.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Lord of the Mark - no argument on the cases are bad. But if there is consistant, uncorrected bias against smaller religions, in favor of "mainstream religions", then that is indicative of a much larger problem in the common culture. I presented anecdotal evidence, but this indicates tbat the first amendment mostly works. That qualifier is a very dangerous one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Lord of the Mark - no argument on the cases are bad. But if there is consistant, uncorrected bias against smaller religions, in favor of "mainstream religions", then that is indicative of a much larger problem in the common culture. I presented anecdotal evidence, but this indicates tbat the first amendment mostly works. That qualifier is a very dangerous one. |
Its hardly surprising that folks in a culture favor the religion (or non-religion) thats dominant in the culture. Its a problem when the govt is not neutral. And AFAICT, thats an issue only in custody cases. And AFAICT SOME family law judges in custody cases are way behind the times on lots of things. Including things more directly relevant to lots more custody cases.
I know a guy, who has a 14 yo daughter, and is divorced. The wife apparently suffers from some degree of serious mental illness, and is highly abusive. He has custody, but she has used the family courts to harrass him, challenging every conceivable disputed issue. On at least some of the moms weekends, the daughter has run away back to her dad. Yet every time the custody issues is relitigated, the dad has to worry, cause theres one judge around here who believes mothers should have custody period. I suspect that if he gets this judge and loses custody, he and his daughter will head across the state line. Its a mess. Just a mess.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
LOM, you are cutting to the second issue I've cited. Family courts and the lack of judicial review. The cases I know about make that one look normal, at least on the abuse side. It is utterly frightening when I see people screwed over by the family court system. I have seen cases where there are denied due process, the judge ignores the statute, etc. I don't know the solution, that would be for another thread with some of our legal types, because I know just enough about the law to be dangerous, versus knowledgable when it comes to complex solutions to that kind of problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Elok, here you are wrong, and I know this from our Sufi friend - and it matches what the father says in the article. If you are in family court and the judge gets even a hint you have disobeyed his injunction, you are f**ked. Royally, if he chooses to. You can lose you visitation or your custody, you can end up with an order severing all contact with your children, it can get really ugly. There is very little review, and appeals are highly limited, so the ruling is VERY enforcable. You can gamble on getting away with it, and some parents do. Some of those same parent lose custody, forever. It's a very bad gamble.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
LOM - I repeat, it is not that rare. I am in a Baptist state, and had initially assumed things like our Sufi friends ban were because we were south of the Mason-Dixon line. I was wrong.
Go to some of the Native American sites, and various foster and custody cases, and the history involved. While it has improved, there are still numerous cases on exactly this issue. Look at SCOTUS treatment of the Native American Church in I believe it was 1992. Look at the zoning case in Florida and the Santeria worshippers, which was thankfully overturned. Look at the fights the Sikhs have had in numerous juristictions in the US.
This is hardly a single judge. It is inevitable when there is a heavy bias in our histories that glosses over the history of religious discrimination in our country. The Puritans did not come over for religious freedom, they came over so they could found a community excluding any who were not Puritans. As I've commented, the founders found a need to put the clause in the constitution that there would be no religious test for office, as well as the first amendment. Is the US better than many countries? Yes. Are there countries more tolerant than the US? At this point in time, yes. We are no longer the cutting edge of religious tolernce in the world.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-06-2005 13:22
|