Those Wacky Activist Judges

Billy, to answer your questions;

1. Absolutely no problem, assuming that they will provide a safe, loving home for the child. And there's no reason why they wouldn't.

While it's true that I don't agree with unbridled selfishness as a core religious belief, (as it is for Satanists,) I also don't agree with mindless, blind obedience as a core religious belief (as it is for Plymouth Brethren, the Christian denomination I was raised in.)

Kids have been rejecting their early training, and the religion of their parents, for millennia. Just because you are raised in a certain religious context doesn't mean that you will agree with it when you are an adult. For example, I'm Wiccan now.

Religion should never, ever, under any circumstances, be used to determine the fitness of a prospective adoptive parent. (There is one caveat; see below.) As Colette said, there are secular laws to stop abuse and neglect.

2. Religious beliefs are pretty much individualized, and open to interpretation in all religions. For example, the Pope lays down the law for all Roman Catholics; but there are many who disagree with what he says, and refuse to follow his edicts. You can't tell how someone will treat children under their care by asking what their religion is. You need to ask things like, "If the child disobeys you, how do you plan to handle it?"

3. IMHO, the only time that religion should be considered at all in the adoptive process is when a parent, or a child who is old enough to voice his or her own opinion, asks for placement in a home with specific kinds of beliefs.

As a parent, if I cannot provide for my infant, and wish to place her up for adoption, but only to a home that will raise her in my own faith (or lack of one,) that should be my right.

Children, even quite young children, may also have deeply held religious beliefs; and, if so, they should be placed in a home that shares those beliefs.

This isn't because other homes or parents are "unfit," but simply to make the child as comfortable as possible, and to honor the wishes of a parent.

4. Of course they do! That's why there is a fairly intense screening process for most adoptions. Children shouldn't be placed in an environment where they will be abused, neglected, or otherwise mistreated. All children deserve loving, supportive homes. It's a pity that so many don't get them, even when they are being raised by the people who brought them into the world.

But religion, sexual orientation, physical disability, social class, race, marital status, and other such things shouldn't be used as criteria; simply because they aren't good indicators of individual behavior.

All of which being said; this case wasn't about adoption. It's about the child's biological parents, both of whom share the same religion, being allowed to teach that religion to their own child.

And, if you read the article, they don't belong to one of the traditions that practice nudity. Most don't, you know. That was Gardner's thing, because he was a Naturist (nudist.)

First Yes my wife and I do allot (not all) of our stuff Skyclad (naked). I don’t see why being Naked in my religion is bad. I also don’t see why our kids being part of our religion and also naked as bad. People take there kids to Nudist Camps all the time and no one is making rules like this when both parents agree with the life style. As for sex, I do 2 forms of the Great Rite, 1) using the Athama and Challis and having a representation binding of the two. 2) Sex between the High Priest and Priestess, this form children are not around for.

OK you have a problem with Sex and Kids, I think any sane person should. Kids should not see it or be part of it. The question is what is the problem with the nudity?


Edited from "for" to "from"

How can you say that when the Federal Government has recognized wicca as a religion?

You did not read my post.

Briana Dawson

Just for fun… and to continue the discussion… I decided to answer this post.Ahem… no reason ay? Last I checked… devil worship wasn’t founded on love and providing a “loving home” would be unrealistic for a true follower of satin.


There are lots of selfish people out there. A religion that promotes “unbridled selfishness” has no comparison whatsoever to one Christianity which promotes “love”. (Note: This does not mean that there aren’t people who “say” that they are Christians who have used Christianity in a totally unintended way which is opposed to God’s will but that is true of ANY religion. The basis for Christianity is unbridled love, the basis for devil worship is unbridled sin. I also have to point out here that the Bible, the basis for Christianity, in no way teaches “blind obedience”. I am sorry that you obviously feel that it does but the fact that you believe that doesn’t make it true.)

Agreed.

You contradict yourself. Not a very good argument there. You can’t have it both ways. Either it “should never, ever, under any circumstances, be used to determine the fitness of a prospective adoptive parent” or it should.

TY for completely ignoring my question.

As for your premise, religious beliefs are very personal and may vary within religious sects but this does not mean that the religious sects themselves are individualized.

Example: If some religion says to properly worship you have to sex with animals then that is not some individualized thing. It is a core belief of that religion. If an individual goes against that core religious belief that is another issue but you certainly can make reasonable moral judgments about that religion itself and that judgment would also be reasonable for the followers of that religion.

I couldn’t disagree with you more. If a religion has core beliefs such as children witnessing or participating in sexual acts, and yes, some do, those people should NOT be allowed to adopt children based upon the inherent danger to those children.

Agreed


Bottom line that you seem to be missing here… Unfit parents SHOULD NOT be allowed to adopt children under ANY circumstances whether the reason for their unfitness is a religious belief or not.

Agreed.

I beg to differ. Here is my opinion about whether the following should be considered when picking adoptive parents:
Religion – Yes. As stated above, if religious beliefs place a child at a much greater risk of harm then by all means it should be considered. To cast a blind eye to the issue is irresponsible.
Sexual orientation – No
Physical disability – Yes, when that disability would impede the parents ability to care for the child… of course you should consider it. You would allow a quadriplegic to adopt children under your blanket statement and again that is irresponsible.
Social class – Yes, if a person can’t provide financially for the child them I am sorry, the child should not be placed with the prospective parent. People who live in poverty, a social class, should get their financial lives in order to a point that they can adequately feed and cloth a child before being allowed to adopt.
Race – No
Marital status - No

lol…. Yes… this was a divorce hearing and has nothing to do with adoption at all. That does not mean that this discussion about adoption isn’t at least a related and interesting issue. If you didn’t agree you wouldn’t have bothered with such a detailed response to my questions. TY for the interesting discussion Robin.

Provided that they do not expose their children to illegal/harmful activities, nope, I don't. Some Satanists I have spoken with are very peaceful people, when it comes right down to it, and adopt the term Satanist because of what, to them, Satan represents. They are devoted to the worldly pleasures, to serving their own interests, but this does not as such make them bad people, or abusive ones. Satanism may not be founded on love, but it does not mean that Satanists are incapable of feeling said emotion. Just as there are all different types of Christianity, there are all different types of Satanism.



This is a tough question. I suppose it would completely depend, to me, on a case-by-case basis. If there were some religion out there that required you to go... say, skydiving as a rite of passage at a certain age, sure- many people do this for fun, and provided that safety precautions were followed, why the hell not. If a religion required that you drink some sort of poison that may or may not kill you at a certain age, then hell NO! (Extremely simplistic examples, I know.)



What I believe is right, and what you believe is right, are two very different things. There are some in common, I am sure. Overall big morality issues. Like murder, for instance. Abuse - sexual, physical, or mental. But, let's say I believe that NOT having sex before marriage (safely) and with many potentials is a sin worthy of damnation. You may disagree (or you may not, lol, I'm just giving an example), but does that mean I am less capable of raising a child than you are?



If the agency knows that the child will be harmed because of the potential parents' beliefs, yes. If the agency knows that the child will be exposed to things they should not under any circumstances (abuse of any kind), yes. If the agency simply feels that the potential parents' religion is "weird" or "different" and they don't agree with some of the parents' beliefs, no.

Billy, how many Satanists do you know? People are people. Some Satanists are quite loving, and some Christians are anything but.

I was referring to the denomination of Christianity that I was raised in, and specifically to the home that I was raised in. And yes, I assure you, we were taught that God wants our obedience more than anything else. The Bible most certainly says to be Obedient to the Lord; and the thing about Christian denominations, and individual Christians, is that they tend to view different passages as the single most important thing.

You weren't raised by my parents, so you really have no way of knowing what they believe, and taught my sisters and me to believe. I doubt that you know any Plymouth Brethren, either; it's not a very large denomination. So you are arguing from ignorance, which is bound to get you into trouble. I advise you not to do it.

I realize that claiming your interpretation as correct, and all others as wrong, is a long-standing Christian tradition. But I know a lot of Christians, all of whom do that, and as a non-Christian I'm free from any and all interpretations. From my point of view, your interpretation is no more valid than that of any other Christian. In other words, I will readily believe that you think Love is the most important thing. But that's your view, not the Christian view. Other Christians sincerely and deeply believe otherwise.

My point, which you entirely overlooked, is that I don't have to agree with a religion to support the right of the people who observe that religion to be treated equally under the law.

Furthermore, I didn't contradict myself. Read carefully. I am talking about two different things;

1. The fitness of an adult to be an adoptive parent
2. A desirable home for a particular child.

Adoption agencies try to match the race of parent and child, without saying that one race isn't fit to adopt. It's the same thing.

Matching prospective parents and children, so that they are all as comfortable as possible, is fine.

Refusing one class of adults the opportunity to adopt, without even looking at them as individuals, isn't.

As far as your argument that a religion that has bestiality as a core belief isn't good for children, I call Straw Man on you. For shame.

Name a religion that requires children to witness sexual acts, and support your claim with documented proof. Straw Man again. (And don't pretend that the fact that it has happened, in one religion or another, makes it a core belief. Kids aren't safe around some Catholic priests, but that doesn't make sexual abuse of children a core belief of Catholicism.)

If you read my post - and I think that you didn't, you just picked the parts that you wanted to argue with - you would have noticed that I did say that there should be a screening process, and that some people should be declared unfit to be adoptive parents. I just don't agree that any religion should be an automatic disqualification.

You are clearly a Christian. I suggest, before you declare that certain religions should be blocked from adoption because they place the child at greater risk, that you do a little research, and find out the religion that most people who have been arrested for abusing children claim as their own. Hint; it's not Satanism.

I'm guessing that you don't know many quadriplegics, either. None of them live alone, you know; and there is a lot more to raising a child than being able to pick it up. There are plenty of quadriplegics who have children, and are excellent parents.

Come on. People who live in poverty aren't trying to adopt children. For one thing, the process takes hundreds or thousands of dollars in most cases. Straw Man yet again!

I answered your questions because you said that you were interested in seeing what people think about these things. I now see that you weren't being entirely truthful. You don't care what I think; you want to tell me why I'm wrong, and your thinking is better.

I gave a detailed response because I always do. It's a real strain for me to write a post that's less than three pages long. I'm a writer, in RL, as well as an artist and a teacher, and I like to explain things.

So now I have. Twice. Which should be enough for anyone.

Rock on

I once brought up the topic with my circle. The men were unanimously in favor, for all the wrong reasons (and to give them credit, they were very honest about those reasons). The female majority demurred. The priestess, strongly attuned to Earth, figures that going barefoot is good enough.

Most of Europe seems to accept public nudity in various contexts without much fuss. Maybe someday the New World will be mature enough to do the same.

Um, ok… Satin as all about love and forgiveness… right? Get a grip!


Fine then… how about a lil ole linky that says “blind obedience” is a core value of the Plymoth Bretheren. Your parents may have taught you that but I am quite sure that “blind obedience” is not a core belief of the denomination. It is irrelevant what “your parents” taught you when discussing the fundamental religious doctrine of a denomination. That has nothing to do with anything but the interpretations of individual paritioners which may or may not have anything to do with what the denomination teaches.


I can see that you just make stuff up as you go to support your argument. Exactly where did I claim that my “interpretation was correct and that ALL OTHERS” were wrong? I am giving MY opinion, if you do not like or agree with my opinion I have no problem whatsoever with that.


Nice generalization. A common bigoted tactic… to lump “all” of a certain group together and make wild generalizations.

If it looks like you know what and smells like you know what… it must be you know what. Free from ALL INTERPRETATIONS ay? What a crock. You have your own interpretations and have learned what you believe to be correct from either someone else or drawn conclusions on your own. Only a completely ignorant person would claim to be “free from all interpretations” and mean it. You do not seem ignorant to me so I will assume that you simply were not thinking about what you said and leave it as that.

I make no other claim.

That is where we differ. The words of Jesus Christ make your argument, which I see no evidence, very weak. Again and again Jesus spoke of Love and forgiveness as the most important things. I think that you are taking the actions of some misguided Christians and confusing those actions with religious doctrine and the teachings of the Bible. That is conjecture on my part but I do not see how you come to your conclusions otherwise. I am sorry that you have obviously had bad experiences with so called “religious” people in your past but as a teacher how about doing some research into the fundamental beliefs of Christianity before making such a claim.

I never disagreed with that assertion. The same standards should be applied to everyone.


Come on… you are a teacher aren’t you? You made an absolute, blanket statement then in the parentheses you give an exception. Your quote” Religion should never, ever, under any circumstances, be used to determine the fitness of a prospective adoptive parent.” But waaaait… there is this one exception, to quote you again, “(There is one caveat; see below.)” This is a clear contradiction. How can it not be?


Utter bullox… I would be deeply disturbed if no effort whatsoever was made to match races when considering adoptive parents. This is best for the child and that is what is important here. Does this mean that mixed racial adoptions should not be allowed? Absolutely not! But given adoption candidates with everything else equal the child should go to the parents of the same race. Surely you do not disagree with that.

To draw the conclusion that by trying to make the best fit for the child including racial differences that one race isn’t fit to adopt is irresponsible. As a teacher you should know better than to draw such illogical conclusions. Shame on you.

Again, you contradict yourself. Is it fine or is it not?

Who does that? lol

Did I say that there was one out there? NOOOOOO. I was using an example that was to the extreme to prove a point… which I did. Don’t like it, too bad. It was my example, not yours.

Again, this is an example to support my claims. If there was a religion that openly claimed to involve children with sexual acts, they would be arrested and thrown in jail so of course there aren’t any who openly promote that view. That does not mean that they do not exist. To claim that they do not exist is to cast a blind eye on the truth and a dangerous stance to take. Here is a link to a short article about devil worshipers and some of the things they are capable of.
http://webminister.com/growth01/p0501c.shtml


If breaking down your post and responding to each element leads you to believe that I didn’t read it then I am amazed… lol.


Then you have no problem whatsoever with any “religious” practice whether it places the child at greater risk of harm. Secular reasons are just fine but ooooh noooo… religious practices are off limits. That is ludicrous. All should be held to the same standard.


Clearly


Again, the bigoted tactics of projecting the actions of a few on a religion as a whole. That is very irresponsible of you. You should know better than this being a teacher… and a writer.


That is what you get for guessing. You are wrong. Once upon a time I worked at a Stroke and Spinal cord Rehabilitation Hospital and dealt mainly with Spinal Cord patients. My wife is a CRN (certified rehab nurse) in the same field and has been one for 20 years. I probably know more about stroke and spinal cord patients then you will ever know.


To not consider this in the adoption process would simply be irresponsable.

Straw man indeed… rofl… it was YOUR assertion that I responded to. Shine that critical light of yours on yourself.

You are free to draw your own conclusions but are in NO position to tell me what I was thinking. Only I know that and what I said stands.


We have that in common it appears.


I am not sure what that has to do with but… um… ok.


Ditto!

Sigh

Billy;

[Plymouth Brethren] Doctrine and Practices

The Brethren seek to assemble in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to maintain the apostolic pattern and simplicity which marked the churches of the days of the apostles (Romans 12:4-. We honor the Lord Jesus and worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). The Church began with the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and is composed of all true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. These believers are united to Him and to one another by the indwelling Spirit. This means that the Church, as a whole, is not an organization, but a living organism, known as the body of Christ. Every true child of God possesses eternal life, and being justified, sanctified, and sealed with the Holy Spirit, is safe and secure for all eternity. However, a Christian can, through sin, lose his fellowship, joy, power, testimony, and reward, thus incurring the Father’s chastisement. Relationship is eternal, being established by new birth; fellowship, however, is dependent upon obedience.

Emphasis mine, from this page

The rest of your post isn't worth replying to, so I won't.

You know, I would have had much more respect for you if you'd simply said, "I think that Wiccans are Devil Worshippers, and I agree with the judge."

Pretending you want to know the opinions of others, when all you really want to do is argue with them, is disingenuous at best.

I also find it odd that I'm the only one you want to pick a fight with. But that's your choice.

However, I don't play those games.

I have, as I said, explained my position twice. You obviously disagree with me. Which doesn't bother me in the least. You are entitled to your opinion. I could wish you extended the same courtesy to me, but you aren't required to.

Have a nice day.

HAHAHAH! "Devil Worship -- A Growing Menace In The 90's"

Thanks Billy for that well sourced opinion piece!

Any article that begins with a statement like "There was a time when the only public reference to devil worship would be the overactive imagination of a writer wanting to find a new way to scare people. "No one in their right mind would worship Satan," we thought. Anyone who reads the papers and watches TV these days knows that times have certainly changed." has got to be good and accurate. Luckily there are nine things we can all look out for if you've ever found yourself asking "How do I know if a teen is involved with Satanism?", including but not limited to wearing black clothing, playing Ouiji/Dungeons and Dragons, and/or listening to heavy metal music.

You just made my day.

This is all reminding me of that great book, Good Omens.



Er ... carry on then.

That article on satanism is obviously a Fundamentalist Christain piece. And of course many of its assertions are biased generalizations.

heres why Satanism, or Gonzo the Chickenism isnt relevant.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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


"no law shall exist prohibiting the free exercise of Religeon."

Taking or even the threat of taking someone kids away is of course violating that. Period.

OF course if someone is violating the the child's rights then you remove them from the home on that reason alone.

Example - Denial of lifesaving medical treatment. Such as is done by some of the more radical Christain groups.

If Satanists or some other religeon's adherents are violating the law , then arrest the people doing so.


Numerically of course far more children are returned to Dangerous home situations with "Traditional Mainstream" Christain parents - then are ever placed in harm's way becuase of any Religeous beleifs.

I still don’t see the words “BLIND obedience” anywhere in that missy. Obedience and blind obedience are two different things.

As if.

I didn’t say that because I do not know enough about Wiccans to say I agree with the judge. To have done so would have been as foolish as making some of the blanket statements and assertions that you are so fond of.

I see… agree with me or all you are doing is being disingenuous and argumentative. As a teacher you should appreciate a good debate where each side states their case and discusses their differences. Looks to me like you don’t care what anyone thinks that disagrees with you so you attempt to tear them down with personal attacks. Nice going there. I hope this isn’t what you teach those kids of yours.

I wasn’t picking a fight. Your post was the most complete and what I thought most intelligent so I thought I would respond. I could have been wrong in those assertions though.


All you are doing here is playing games… that is laughable. You are the one turning this into a personal thing here.

You can explain your position a million times and I will still disagree with you. I am sorry that makes you so uncomfortable, perhaps you should just leave it alone then.


Guess I missed that one… exactly what courtesy have you extended to me again? LOL

Have a nice day too.

HAHA... You are right Deklax... it wasn't the best reference was it... rofl. I am glad that at least someone is light hearted about this!

I am cureous though... do you think that these things don't still happen?

Here is a link of articles written by a police Detective who has given my talks about Occult crimes. He is also a Wiccan High Priest. He goes over many of the type of rital crimes you think happen. I would say there is less of them then Catholic priest raping little boys and I don’t believe that Catholic priest rape that many of the boys (I am talking percapita not pure numbers). Does it happen? Yes.
http://www.witchvox.com/va/list_articles.html?a=cabc&id=230739

Billy Grace I would sugest you go read up on Wicca before you open your mouth one way or the other. You hay not have said you agree with the judge and that wiccans were devil worshipers but you come close. You are walking the line.

Billy, love....

I can tell from your writing that you don't know anything about the beliefs of those who term themselves Satanists, as opposed to sort of a pseudo-Hollywood, bible belt, creation. They are not my cup of tea, but I do know their doctrines. I'd be happy to discuss it with you some evening in game.. (give you something to think about besides trying to lure me into the sack).

Or for that matter the beliefs of almost any pagan sect... modern or ancient as I have an extensive education in that field. Or, if you want to discuss modern cults.. let's talk the Mormons.

Red satin or black satin? Because black satin is slinky, but red satin is just plain wicked.

Does Satan wear satin? Oooooo, devil with the blue dress on!

Anyway... most Satanists (as I understand it) don't believe in the literal existance of God or Satan. They use Satan as a metaphor. They're atheists with an attitude. It's all just a little too twisty for me.

lol... but getting you in the sack is such a yummier topic baby!!!

Sounds interesting and I would love to take you up on that. Can't even know too much about the enemy... can you? winks

I agree with you about the Mormans btw.

*Kisses*

HAHA... as Gilda Radner used to say...

sa sa satan... ummmm... oooohhhh... that's different... sorry... nevermind... hehe

I worship both. The clingier the better!