About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow! This is truly horrible. (I am assuming that the Wiccan religion does not advocate physical harm to the child; I don't know much about it.) What happened to religious freedom? Do you know if this decision will be appealed? I hope so.

And I agree with your title. Next, it could very well be atheists they come for, and on the identical grounds: that atheism is "non mainstream." The specter of the requirement that every child's upbringing reflect the mainstream -- first with regard to religion, and who knows what next -- is chilling. Must we
begin to teach our children to be Post Modernists? Or liberals?

Barbara

Post 1

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 2:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The parents' Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford's attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights."

This is simply another example of the arrogance of a government agency and a judge who as individuals use the power of their office to impose their personal prejudices as best they can upon others. The rights "guaranteed" by the constitution that these "other" individuals have doesn't even cross their feeble minds. Most judgements like this I would guess don't even get appealed because of the cost of hiring lawyers and the immense amount of time it takes to get through the system. And the judge and the employees of the government agency are immune from any legal consequences if their "rulings" get reversed. You can't even get the names of the people involved. They are "protected" by civil service laws that are enforced much more stringently than our constitutional rights are. If this isn't a "ruling class" privilege, I don't know what is.

Post 2

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 4:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

You wrote:

"(I am assuming that the Wiccan religion does not advocate physical harm to the child; I don't know much about it.)"

Most practitioners of Wicca, and most groups claiming to represent Wicca, subscribe to the "Rede," which holds that there is only one religious "commandment" --

Eight words the Witches' Rede fulfill:
If it Harms none, Do what Thou Will!


Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 3

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 5:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Getting the judge's religious restriction lifted should be a slam-dunk, said David Orentlicher, an Indiana University law professor and Democratic state representative from Indianapolis.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

A very slow "slam dunk." Half a year and running is a long time in a child's development.

Post 5

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, thanks for posting this.

Not just due to its pivotal importance--but because it confirms what I had just said about you in the other thread (that you are a tremendous sentinel, and that your findings are often of tremendous value).

Ed

Post 6

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 2:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is truly truly sad. How can the courts possibly uphold this. It seems unconstitutional to me. The parents are both practicing the same religion and it was not an issue in the divorce so how can the court prohibit the family from practicing it. What is this... the Salem witch hunt?

I've known pagans and they have always seemed to be good people. I've had very close friends who were pagan or wiccan.  So they may be a bit misguided philosophically, but they are definitely not Evil.  And they certainly do find all kinds of excuses to party.  They basically worship nature (lifeforce) not satan, and are generally naturalist new-age types.

A pagan friend of mine was actually the person who told me to read Atlas Shrugged, even though she said she didn't subscribe to that philosophy. She thought it was in line with what I believed.  She was right. It changed my life. 

Galt bless those damned pagans!


Post 7

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 3:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Katdaddy said:  “This is truly truly sad. How can the courts possibly uphold this. It seems unconstitutional to me.”

 

Of course it is.  But, what is even more sad is that those of you who know about it don’t intend to do a thing about it (other than potentially talk).  (katdaddy, I mean no personal attack.)  Where are all the heroes and heroines?

 

- B.

 

Action presupposes a goal which is worth achieving.  -- Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

 

Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without action.  -- Benjamin Disraeli

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Post 8

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 5:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I comment at Daily Pundit.


Post 9

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 5:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Well, I'm certainly not going to go out and protest or battle in court for any religion, but I can forward the article to Karen Jackson, who heads the local group that a friend of mine used to belong to. They can do as they wish with the information. 

It's not my cause, but I do care about the underlying issues here.



Post 10

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 12:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth katdaddy:

"A pagan friend of mine was actually the person who told me to read Atlas Shrugged, even though she said she didn't subscribe to that philosophy."

Oddly enough, at least one enduring pagan sect emerged out of a discussion group whose members became fascinated with Ayn Rand's work -- the Church of All Worlds. They pretty quickly followed up Rand with Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, and I don't think anyone, least of all themselves, would classify them as Objectivists in any way, shape, manner or form, but I always found it fascinating that they were able to get from where they started to where they have ended up.

Tom Knapp

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 9:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"But, what is even more sad is that those of you who know about it don’t intend to do a thing about it (other than potentially talk).  (katdaddy, I mean no personal attack.)  Where are all the heroes and heroines?"
 
It's persons who are the subjects of such attacks, which makes them personal. 
 
Getting the word out is one of the things one wants to do about such assaults. What else is the daily news digest FMN sends out? Just pointless chatter? Communication is a large part of the bulwark of liberty, else that First Amendment thingie wouldn't be so important. Censorship is always at the top of the totalitarian to-do list. I suspect Tibor Machan doesn't spend a lot of time in rallies or on commando missions, or even putting together mailing lists. Is he wasting his time "just talking"?
 
The reductio here is that we're supposed to go out and Do Something Concrete about each of the many, many injustices per day that arrive in the IN box, and are morally remiss if we do not. But actually, advocates of liberty are pretty active in many venues, including politics and activism. Others write. Others publish those who write. So I think the pessimism is unwarranted, even if we all don't regularly send around updates about what we're up to. No, not everybody is an activist. But let's not cash in our chips therefore just yet.
 
As long as we're talking about defending heroes and heroines, though, let's hear more support from Rational Review of the soldiers fighting terrorists out in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq, dodging bullets and sometimes getting hit by them. These guys and gals are risking their very lives to Do Something and could use the moral support. Instead what we too often hear anarcho-nonsense wing of libertarianism is blind disparagement, and, from Knapp, even that Bin Laden is the moral superior of George Bush, a claim he has actually made in this space.
 
"I don't regard the differences between Bush and bin Laden as irrelevant, either morally or otherwise. As a matter of fact, I consider Bush the moral inferior of bin Laden. At least bin Laden is up-front about his desire to enslave or kill me."
 
The idea that invading Iraq was a strategic mistake--fair enough to argue (though such arguments as I've seen too often leave out a whole bunch of relevant facts)--is a very far cry from such declarations as the above. And no, I'm not making it up. Click here.
 
I suspect the Islamo-fascist thugs would gladly fax a copy of this characterization to all American soldiers if only they thought it might impair morale. But the soldiers would know just what to do with such a transmission. And since they're not allowed to bring along bird cages....


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 11:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David,

You're wasting your time on the first case. That guy is a pompous sanctimonious treasonous wacko shithead who thinks flying the USA flag upside-down on his own website is profound and clever. He sometimes posts here on Solo to explain to us all what bad people we all are and what sad and pathetic self-esteem issues we all have. God only knows why he even bothers. I guess that is his way of "doing something about it."

I do know that it is nice and safe for him to call everyone names from behind a computer. I just did it - and wow, what a lot of fun! It's so easy to be a coward that way and pretend you're a badass! Step up folks, here's the number on cure-all for poor self-esteem and shooting off your trap without having to eat a knuckle sandwich. Makes you want to bottle it like snake oil and sell it on the open market.

(btw - Expect your post now to be sliced up and commented on - in its entirety - in a completely nonessential manner sprinkled with Ayn Rand's name and allusions to passages in her works to make it sound good.)
 
Thomas Knapp is a thornier issue. I don't think he will admit it, but I sincerely believe he regrets that horrible quote of his. It was a hotheaded excess that popped out in the middle of an argument. But now it's out and he's from Missouri - i.e. one hardheaded old cuss, so he's going to stand by it when called on it. (I don't think that this will become a battle cry for some reason, though.)

Also, he normally backs up his positions (except that particular abomination) with well researched facts - and he has served honorably in the USA armed forces. I have seen him many times respond to very harsh personal insults with a cool head and thus keep the discussion alive and focused on the issues. Also, despite the many fundamental disagreements I have with him, I have observed a love of country in him that is missing, say, in lesser life forms like Justin Raimondo, who is another animal altogether - of the vermin variety.
 
This is just some context for you from my perspective. But don't let me stop you or anything. Go git 'em! The kind of horseshit you mentioned deserves to be trounced.
 
Michael


Post 13

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 12:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

You wrote:

"I sincerely believe he regrets that horrible quote of his. It was a hotheaded excess that popped out in the middle of an argument."

You are incorrect on both counts. I do not regret it, nor did I make it in the "heat of the moment."

And, although I disagree with Justin Raimondo on a number of issues, I consider him a fine American and a sterling example of the better side of patriotism.

What this has to do with paganism, however, I have yet to figure out.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
(Edited by Thomas L. Knapp
on 5/30, 12:26am)


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 10:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would like to go back to my initial point in post #1 of this thread. There is a principle involved in this case. What it is involves a judge and a government agency substituting their personal prejudice into a case without due regard to the constitutional rights of the people involved. WHY DO THEY THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS? My reply is simply because they do not have to pay for their mistakes. Someone else pays, the individuals themselves or the ACLU or some other group donates the time and money to reverse these decisions. When all is said and done, the agencies and errant judges are not censured in the least for their arrogant disregard of the constitution. They are in fact protected from any consequence of their arrogant behaviour. On reflection I see very much the rational for supporting the ACLU that Adam has propounded in several of his posts. But the underlying problem, how do we create consequences for disregarding peoples rights by members of the judicial system and government agencies? They can ignore the constitution at other people's expense at will. Is there no alternative to this system?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 10:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,
And, although I disagree with Justin Raimondo on a number of issues, I consider him a fine American and a sterling example of the better side of patriotism.

What this has to do with paganism, however, I have yet to figure out.

LOLOL... Well, as they say in Brazil, you can't teach taste, you can only refine it...

Sorry about the paganism thing. I guess the Spirit of Tangential Contention descended on me for a minute.

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 10:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,
WHY DO THEY THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS?
They can't - not in the long run. That is the genius of the checks-and-balances system.

Little bitty power-mongers like the honorable Cale J. Bradford and the good folks at the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau will always be around so long as mankind exists. You can't pass any kind of law against them cropping up. Science is woefully limited here too.

So you make an enforceable political structure based on principles and rights - and even doing that in itself requires checks-and-balances.

It's a shame that the damage these people do to innocents is so costly at times, but the only viable alternative I see in the world is gangs, tribes and dictatorships.

Human beings can be glorious creatures but they can sure cut up at times. That is why government (if liberty is really the value) is best based on taking the whole nature of humans into account, not just abstract principles.

Michael


Post 17

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 1:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael K:

"They can't - not in the long run."

But I think they do, more often than not. Most people who receive these unfair rulings are fairly unsophisticated and not wealthy. If they don't fight it, at great expense, there is no "checks and balances".

Policeman if they are involved in a shooting and kill someone are immediately placed on suspension and the incident is investigated. There are asked hard questions about the circumstances and reasoning behind their actions. Government agents can effectively end someones life, or at least the value of living that life to them, through the rulings "under the force of law" [monopoly of force privilege] they hand down. When they are sworn in they give lip service to the constitution. Is it too much to ask that they answer to some hard questions, as a policeman is sometimes asked to do, when they violate the constitutional rights of someone? And possibly risk their jobs when this happens? That would be truly be a "check and balance". Simply overruling them at someone else's expense a small percentage of the time is not an effective check.

Post 18

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

David M. Brown said:  “Communication is a large part of the bulwark of liberty, else that First Amendment thingie wouldn't be so important. Censorship is always at the top of the totalitarian to-do list. I suspect Tibor Machan doesn't spe nd a lot of time in rallies or on commando missions, or even putting together mailing lists. Is he wasting his time "just talking"?”

 

Uhm… in case you haven’t heard, the First Amendment is dead.  D-E-A-D.  Want to prove it to yourself?  Look no further than McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold), Irwin Schiff, and Larken Rose (though not directly related to the First Amendment, as the states each have their own version of the First Amendment, you can also look here).  The First Amendment is completely useless unless you protect it.  You don’t protect it by “just talking.”  You protect it by ATTACKING those who destroyed it (based on your comments below, you’re obviously a war monger, so I would expect you to get this).  So, yes, to a certain extent, anyone who is not taking DIRECT ACTION to protect their freedoms is uhm… “wasting his time.”

 

David M. Brown said:  “The reductio here is that we're supposed to go out and Do Something Concrete about each of the many, many injustices per day that arrive in the IN box, and are morally remiss if we do not.”

 

To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.  – Confucius

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.  -- Thomas Paine

 

David M. Brown said:  “So I think the pessimism is unwarranted, even if we all don't regularly send around updates about what we're up to. No, not everybody is an activist. But let's not cash in our chips therefore just yet.”

 

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.  -- Thomas Jefferson

We are apt to close our eyes against a painful truth.  -- Patrick Henry

 

David M. Brown said:  “As long as we're talking about defending heroes and heroines, though, let's hear more support from Rational Review of the soldiers fighting terrorists out in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq, dodging bullets and sometimes getting hit by them. These guys and gals are risking their very lives to Do Something and could use the moral support.”

 

You’re (not we’re) talking about defending so-called heroes and heroines; I’m talking about FINDING them.  REAL ones.  I don’t consider those “soldiers” fighting so-called “terrorists out in the field” as heroes and heroines.  The WAR is back HERE… the terrorists are HERE – not halfway across the world.  They should be HERE fighting the ONLY REAL terrorists that exist – “our” fascist government stooges.  Here they’d be “risking their very lives to Do Something” that benefits their families, supports their children’s futures, and making a real difference in the quality of life for themselves.  There they are just putting themselves in harm’s way for no morally proper reason (and, no, it’s not even altruism, not that altruism would be a morally proper reason anyway).

 

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics, philosophy, geography, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture...  -- John Adams

 

- B.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey, I just had a great idea. Let's fly the American flag upside-down.

Now that will show these bastards a thing or two. That is what the Founding Fathers all wanted anyway.

Nobody's gonna take no shit here.

Michael



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.