May 30, 2005
Judge Tells Parents what Religion to Teach
Ok, now I may be in disagreement with everyone who reads this blog on this issue. But that's never stopped me from shooting off my mouth before.
A judge in Indianapolis has decreed that a set of divorced parents can't teach their kid their religion. Because that religion is Wicca.
I disagree with pretty much everything Wicca teaches. I think they are totally wrong, and deceived, concerning the nature of the supernatural world. I sometimes wish that Christians had as much of an appreciation for the spiritual forces that are out there, though -- we tend to separate things into "God did it" and "Not real at all" and reject the whole "Satan did it" category out of hand. But I don't believe that everything supernatural is essentially good, or should be harnessed.
BUT -- last time I checked, the Constitution prohibited government interference in religion, including the religious instruction of children by their parents. As far as I can tell, the parents are in agreement about the religious training that their kids should have -- it may be the only thing they agree on, I don't know. The judge has prohibited the teaching of "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." No definition of what "mainstream religious beliefs and rituals" actually ARE.
THAT'S a problem area. Evangelicalism is often considered non-mainstream. So the parents can't teach their kids evangelical Christianity? Never says that specifically, but it could be interpreted that way.
I hate to use the phrase "slippery slope" here, but it seems to fit. A dangerous precident has been established if this decision holds up. The government, or at least a representative of the government, is dictating to parents what type of religious training and education that their child can have. That is simply wrong.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
10:53 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I agree with you, Warren. The parents are wrong, dead wrong, in my opinion, but the judge's ruling is unconstitutional. I would support those parents' legal battle in the same way as I support free speech for all points of view. No matter how wrong I think they are, when the government starts judging what you can and can't say (or teach your children) based on what THEY think is acceptable speech or religious beliefs, that's when Christians need to start worrying. Because it will only be a matter of time - and not long at all based on what I've seen - before OUR beliefs are judged to be intolerant and unacceptable.
Posted by: songstress7 at May 30, 2005 12:13 PM (ie93s)
2
I think that's what worries me the most about a lot of things that Cristians are trying to get passed into law -- there is a LOT of stuff that could come back to haunt us, in the not-too-distant future.
Posted by: Warren at May 30, 2005 02:15 PM (a64K1)
3
Wow. I can't believe the nerve of that judge!
I agree that Wicca is not a good religion to teach children, but that is their right as parents and no judge should ever be allowed to interfere in that decision. I hope that judge faces disciplinary action.
Who's to say that children can't be "rescued" from such religions anyway? I know people who've been saved from atheism, Catholicism, and Judaism. Why can't God save the child from Wiccanism?
You know, some people could make the same argument against Catholicism being harmful or Islam being harmful, if they really wanted to stretch the limits of truth.
This is so wrong. I sure hope this judge is not allowed to continue this way. I'm simply appalled.
Posted by: Kelly Miller at May 30, 2005 04:10 PM (weNac)
4
As a Pagan and a former Wiccan, I have to agree here. I don't like all of the things that Wicca teaches, but then I don't like a lot of the things that Satanism, many occult orders like the Golden Dawn, Buddhism, (to be perfectly honest) Christianity, Islam and even Hinduism teach, either. That's beside the point.
What's PERFECTLY on-topic is that *no one* in the government has the right to interfere with the teaching and dissemination of *any* religion. You can worship the Megalomaniacal Star Goat, whatever. The government should have nothing to do with it. While I may not believe that Jesus is the one true way, I will stand up and openly declare that it is your right - given by your God, my Gods and everyone else's too - to believe, teach and practice that, and to worship as you so choose.
End of rant.
~May you never thirst,
Anja
Posted by: Anja Flower at November 04, 2005 09:57 PM (jhSHN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 20, 2005
May 18, 2005
Good Question!
The
New York Sun has asked a question that I think we should all be asking ourselves in light of Newsweek's article about Qur'an desecrations
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
09:01 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I hear your frustration and to an extent, I agree with you. However, when I look at the greatest injustice ever, the crucifixion of Jesus and all the events surrounding it, I am reminded of how Jesus himself reacted. In Matt 26:50, he rebules Peter for his anger and gives a stern warning about living and dying by the sword. In Matt 27:12,13, Jesus remains silent while being accused. What was He trying to teach us here?
When you say the "bible is abused", are you talking about someone's written copy? Can't only believers abuse Scripture through our acts of disobedience? Does not true desecration happens at the hands of the very people for whom the Word of God was written?
I do agree with you about our apathy but IÂ’m not sure I agree with you as to what our reaction should be. On the political and social side, yes we should continue to safeguard our constitutional freedoms. On the spiritual side, we need to realize that the Word of God lives in us, Psalm 119:11. We need to pray for those who do not know what we know, who do not have what we have and who will not be where weÂ’ll be someday unless they find the Hope that springs eternal.
Posted by: Terry McCann at May 18, 2005 10:19 AM (3HZMI)
2
I think the true desecration is when we who claim to be Christians ignore it's precepts and live more according to the dictates of a modern philosophy than Biblical teachings.
I think that the biggest problem I have with Bible desecration is not that we don't riot and protest, but that we aren't even offended. And we are expected to be offended when similar things happen to other faiths (and we should be).
Posted by: Warren at May 18, 2005 03:47 PM (a64K1)
3
I look at it this way. Regardless of your religious beliefs the words printed in a book are just words printed in ink, no matter if they come from a divine source. An action against the book it's self does nothing to alter the words or their meaning. So even if you totally destroy the book, drag it through mud, urinate on it burn it or flush it, the words and meaning contained in the book live on. I do believe we should be respectful of other peoples beliefs and make an effort to not trample on them, but the actions of a few people in desecrating the Koran does not amount to an endorsement by the US Government against Islam. The widespread desecration of the Bible by the Saudi Government and most of the Followers of Islam is an official endorsement against Christianity. Should I be offended and speak out or protest? No because no matter what they do, the truths contained in the Bible will stand, they can do nothing to alter that.
Posted by: JIm at June 04, 2005 01:25 PM (n+UM/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 16, 2005
From the "DUH!" File
Newsflash!!
Sunday Schools Teach Children Creationism
Seriously, is this really news? Next thing you know, Mr. Baker will be leading off with a story that many evangelical churches pray, and at most the church leader (called the "pastor" by the congregation) ends the service with a half-hour speach based on a selected Biblical text. Some parishoners call this speach a "sermon," and it is often followed by an "altar call" or a "benediction" in some churches.
This would be in the running for a Clewie award, but I'm not sure this guy can get a clue. He sure shouldn't be covering religion news if he thinks that teaching creation in Sunday School is news.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
05:03 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This is where creationism should be taught, not in science classes.
Posted by: MC Lodahl at May 16, 2005 05:25 PM (Al7oN)
2
Well, that really wasn't in dispute. But I DO disagree that there are different kinds of truth. If something is true, then it's just as true in the classroom as it is in the church building. And there is plenty of presupposition going on in evolutionary circles -- it's not totally objective, unbiased information.
Posted by: Warren at May 16, 2005 08:40 PM (a64K1)
3
Truth may be told in different ways and on different levels and languages.
Th language of science depends on empirical evidence, that of religion does not.
So, creationism does not belong in science classes since it is not based on empirical evidence.
Posted by: MC Lodahl at May 17, 2005 10:38 AM (Al7oN)
4
There is enough empirical evidence that backs design that it should be offered as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory. Not exclusively, but along with. Evolution is FAR from a scientific fact, and should not be advocated exclusively when there are other viable options.
Language itself depends on meaning, which I've been told is not absolute. (Don't believe that myself, though). Language is language. Words mean things. Truth is truth, no matter where it's taught -- unless you're a Greek philosopher or a dualist.
Darwin based most of his theories on conjecture -- he 'knew' that he would eventually be proven correct. We're still waiting, and most evolutionary theories at this point reject a good bit of what Darwin taught.
I'd be happy if science classes actually taught science -- experimentation, development of hypotheses, etc. rather than conjectural studies regarding the origin of the universe. And Darwinism should be relegated to the history class.
Posted by: Warren at May 17, 2005 04:27 PM (a64K1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Newsweek and the Qur'an
I admit that I was outraged when I first heard
the story about intentional desecrations of the Qur'an at Guantanamo Bay. I'm not 100% sure why I didn't blog about it, though. Maybe I had a gut instinct that we weren't getting the whole story, maybe I was nervous because I hadn't heard much about the story from other outlets (and it gets a small mention in the Newsweek article. If you blink, you might miss it). But I held off, and I'm glad I did.
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
04:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.
29kb generated in CPU 0.0116, elapsed 0.0933 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.0857 seconds, 165 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
