Seems a judge in Marion County, Indiana by the name of Cale J. Bradford issued a ruling in a divorce settlement that effectively bars either parent from teaching their son about their Wiccan beliefs, specifically it states that they cannot teach their child “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.” The parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and Tammie U. Bristol, are outraged and Mr. Jones has filed suit to try and get the ruling removed.
Jones has brought the case before the Indiana Court of Appeals, with help from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. They filed their request for the appeals court to strike the one-paragraph clause in January.
“This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge’s whim,” said Jones, who has organized Pagan Pride Day events in Indianapolis. “It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox.”
The ICLU and Jones assert the judge’s order tramples on the parents’ constitutional right to expose their son to a religion of their choice. Both say the court failed to explain how exposing the boy to Wicca’s beliefs and practices would harm him.
...
“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?”
So here we have what is clearly an activist judge going above and beyond his authority without even being asked and yet I can’t think of a single Republican Congressman who’s shitting bricks over this issue. Where are the angry calls for reigning in this obviously out of control judge from the Religious Right? Can you imagine the shit-storm we’d been in the middle of if this idiot had made that ruling and the religion in question happened to be Christianity? Someone needs to slap that judge upside the head with a rolled up copy of the Bill of Rights.
Posted on 05/31/2005 at 03:27 AM 
Bummer.
Just off the top of my head, (so it obviously means I could be mistaken) let me give you some possible background on the issue of religion. I have not seen the transcripts of this case but there are a few other cases that could be relevant in this discussion.
In the late 1980s, there was a case against the Unification Church (aka Moonies) in the Supreme Court of California (Molko v Holy Spirit Association) where the courts (to a certain extent) declined to extend the protection of the establishment clause to the Unification Church.
The main thrust of the decision was that while there is an establishment clause it does not protect all actions taken in name of the religion. It went on to talk about “New Age” religions and the theory of “brainwashing.” Although some claim that the Unification Church is a Christian organisation as opposed to “New Age”. And thus as a result the people are “compelled” to join the religion as a result of “brainwashing.”
Whether one sees all religious proseltiing as “brainwashing” or not, the establishment clause is not omnipotent. However, it should be noted that the term “brainwashing” is quite a technical term and is found more often in US than in other countries. Although the EU Court of Human Rights in 1993 Kokkinakis v. Greece talked about brainwashing it does not seem to be using the term in its technical sense.
Part II of the story came a few years later with the enaction of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 which supposedly overturned the California decision. But the courts have not acted on it and have in some instances declared it to be unconstitutional.
Finally, I did recall reading about a “list” of official religions but cannot remember it specifically. Or rather a list of religions and the rights, specifically on the issue of raising a child. Perhaps later on.