Spin Dry

Update: Masson's Blog, which is based in Indiana, was kind enough to comment here, and they have some background on the judge, as well as promise to follow the case.


As pointed out over at Eschaton, where I found the link to this story, this is exactly the kind of judge that W wants to pack the bench with; exactly the filibuster is so important. Read the story, then think of the implications.

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."

Okay, I'm stealing the same pull quote, but it is the money shot. As pointed out at Eschaton, this wasn't a case of mother and father practicing two different religions and the judge sided with one of them. Nope. What is absolutely outrageous, what should get this judge permanently disbarred, is that neither parent made this request, and both of them practice the same religion. The judge just decided, unilaterally, that their religion wasn't right for their own child.

Read that very carefully. A judge, with no other reason to do so, declared a couple's religion inferior, and told them they could not raise their own child that way.

Read that very carefully. A judge has committed an act of religious intolerance and bigotry, has committed a hate crime, using his courtroom to do it.

Ah, family values and non-intrusive government for you. But what do you want to bet that this dipshit judge is one of those fundie born-again types, who thinks he's doing god's work from the bench. He needs a good re-education in the Constitution; someone needs to make him write out the First Amendment ten thousand times until he understands exactly what it means.

Let me reiterate why this case pisses me off so much: A judge, with neither reason nor request, told a couple of parents how they can and cannot raise their own child when it comes to religion. It so happens that the parents are Wiccans, which is probably what gave judge Cale J. Bradford the balls to try to pull this trick in the first place.

But imagine for a second. What if the couple had been Jewish, and their son is twelve. And suddenly a judge says, "Sorry. No Hebrew School, no Bar Mitzvah." You'd hear the outrage all the way to the moon. Likewise, if they were Catholic just before first communion, or just christian in general.

Personally, this is the kind of bullshit order that I would defy, and in spades. Or maybe follow it to the letter -- only expose my child to "mainstream" religion, but by way of educating them about every negative thing those religions have brought to the world -- the Crusades, jihads, inquisitions, fatwas, ignorance, violence, hatred, pogroms, genocide. Yes, technically, Judaism is mainstream, but that's really only because of its grandfather relationship to the other two. And, well, no "good" American really thinks Islam is a religion, right? Right...? [Note to Imams reading: that was sarcasm.] When an asshat like Bradford says "mainstream", he really just means Christian, and chances are, he isn't talking about Catholics or Lutherans. Or he might be; the Catholic church certainly has its own crazed loony division. But, ultimately, no judge in this country, under our Constitution has any right whatsoever to tell anyone for any reason what religion they can or cannot follow.

Luckily, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union is pretty sure that they can get this ruling drop-kicked damn fast. I just wish they'd kick Bradford's sorry ass off the bench right after. Luckily, he's an elected judge, and I'd urge everyone in Indiana in his district to start working to get him out.

But... his philosophy is not that different from wingnuts that W has been trying to push into court appointments for life. We need to give the Senate the ability to stop the whackiest of the whack-jobs, like Bradford.

Some points to remember here:

1. Sure, there are places where judges make their rulings based strictly on religion. Like... Iran.


2. You may have no problem with christianity being given the advantage in our system, but giving this kind of power to any judge would give it to all of them -- Muslim judges, Jewish judges, Wiccan judges, Atheist judges... sooner or later, you'll have trouble because what you believe (or don't) is different than what the judge believes (or doesn't).


3. This ruling should outrage conservatives as well. Talk about the ultimate intrusion of government into family affairs. Not to mention the parents being forced to expose their child to something against their will. Where are all the fundies who complain every time a school tries to include a(n entirely optional) mention of homosexuality in a sex ed class? Well, this little legal motion is exactly the same thing, but worse. The Joneses, after all, aren't being given the choice, unlike parents whose children might be exposed to Heather Has Two Mommies. (Between that book and the bible, I know which one I'd rather have my kids read...)

Imagine the outrage if an Atheist judge had told a Catholic couple they couldn't expose their child to that religion?

Or the outrage if a Theistic government told people they couldn't be Jews anymore. Or, rather, told Jews they couldn't be anymore.

Oops, right. We have seen that last one before -- but I don't have to invoke Godwin and mention any names, do I? Cale J. Bradford, judge from Indiana, is behaving like a good little jackbooted foot soldier for hatred christianity, a brownshirt under a black robe.

"When they read the order to me, I said, 'You've got to be kidding,'" said Alisa G. Cohen, an Indianapolis attorney representing Jones. "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"

That's the memo we have all got to send if we want to save this country from insanity.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

—First Amendment to the Constitution