(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-18 08:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimpire.livejournal.com
Okay, here's the thing I don't get.


I would have understood if, say, a Wiccan and a Christian got divorced, that the one might request that the child not be exposed to the religion of the other. (It wouldn't be okay, but I'd at least understand why a court might even mention the subject).

But if both parents are Wiccan, who the hell asked the court to interfere in the first place?

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-18 10:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smoooom.livejournal.com
Read the original as well. Sounds like a judge with a problem of world veiw. Hopefully he\she gets something more than a slap on the writst for being such an ingoramus.

Kudos to the people who got it ove turned.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-18 12:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jhayman.livejournal.com
The original order happened in a country that _supposedly_ has religious freedoms? I'm stayin' here.

OTOH, thank goodness the Appeals Court actually does know the law.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-18 01:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shockwave77598.livejournal.com
And once again, freedom of (and from) religion in our society is saved from little two-bit tyrants at the local level. Hooray for freedom!

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-18 03:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] admnaismith.livejournal.com
Wait for a couple more Bush judges to be appointed, and see if appeals courts still overturn such rulings.

Heck, I won't be surprised if Bush promotes the Marion judge to the Federal bench because of this case.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-18 03:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sylverwolfe.livejournal.com
booyah! *does a little not-all-hope-is-lost dance*

March 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2 3 456 78
9101112131415
1617 1819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 20th, 2025 04:46 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios