From Indy Star



Admittedly this case is probably not that polarizing of a debate topic. But in talking with a friend of mine it did seem like a fair question as to whether religious practices or teachings can play a factor or decision points within a divorce settlement.

With that in mind, here's the questions for debate:

1) Do the courts have any compelling state interest in stipulating religious teachings and/or practices in a divorce settlement? If yes, what circumstances would justify it?

2) Does this decree violate the 1st amendment? Why or why not?

Please bear in mind the focus of these questions is not on *a* religion, but on the construct of whether religious practices can be legitimately considered as part of a divorce decree.

Doc

I'm curious where the judge found the authority to determine what religion (if any) the parents could teach their son.

In my own divorce agreement, my ex and I agreed to raise our children Catholic, and we stipulated that in the papers. The point is that it was us that brought it up, not some judge.

1) Do the courts have any compelling state interest in stipulating religious teachings and/or practices in a divorce settlement? If yes, what circumstances would justify it?

They can do so if one or both of the parties wishes it. In this case, both parents seem surprised by the judge's order, which makes it very, very strange. I'm sure that since neither party will defend the clause, it will be tossed upon review.

2) Does this decree violate the 1st amendment? Why or why not?

I think it blatantly does, if neither parent wanted religion in the divorce agreement. Something seems fishy here, though. Perhaps the divorce is really over religion and the wife wanted this clause put in? It seems strange to me, since it seems so blatantly un-Constitutional.

Odd that the bureau would take an interest. I can't imagine the number of red flags that come up between Jewish and Christian households. Is the judge and someone in the bureau exercising their constitutional right to refuse to assist in sending a tender young soul to hell? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Do the courts have any compelling state interest in stipulating religious teachings and/or practices in a divorce settlement? If yes, what circumstances would justify it?
The court does if the child is of an age or has the maturity level to indicate a strong preference for a religion and his or her parents refuse to acknowledge it. You don't suddenly have the right to worship at 18. In this scenario a judge may rule against one or both parents. A parent's religious preference shouldn't trump their child's right to worship.

On the other hand (I'm saying that a lot these days) it's not as clear if the child declares him/herself agnostic or atheist. Do parents still have the right to convert their kids? I would defer this question to parents and leave the courts out. The kid may just be trying to dodge Sunday school.

The Jones child is 9 years-old. That's a little tender to develop a religious identity and the basis for the judge's order places an unconstitutional undue burden on the parents. Anyone know a good Wiccan school in Indianapolis? Is it secular schools or bust now if you want the state to stay out of it? When did attending a religious school become a token declaration of faith?

Does this decree violate the 1st amendment? Why or why not?
Yes. Probably the parents' for reasons cited above.

1) Do the courts have any compelling state interest in stipulating religious teachings and/or practices in a divorce settlement? If yes, what circumstances would justify it?

This is a very strange story and I don't think we are getting the whole picture from what is written in the article. Normally, a court will not order particular religious instructions in a divorce settlement. It is left up to the parents to decide in their settlement how the child will be raised with respect to religious education. In this case, the judge, for whatever reason, ordered that the child not be exposed to religions that are outside the mainstream. A judge cannot make an order like this unless he is justified in his belief that it is in the child's best interest. Apparently, this judge thought that some of the "practices" of Wiccans may be harmful to children.


2) Does this decree violate the 1st amendment? Why or why not?

Because of how broad the decree is, I suspect it is unconstitutional. How does one define a non mainstream religion. If it can be demonstrated that certain practices are potentially harmful to the child, it may pass muster, but this decree is not drafted narrowly in that way.