Activist Judges...

A judge in Indiana has ruled that a divorced couple, both of them Wiccans, cannot teach their beliefs to their child. Despite both parents' protests, the judge attached a provision to their divorce decree that they could not expose the child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The order does not explain which religions are mainstream.

Okay, I suppose that such an order could be in the child's interest if the parents believed in something like drinking strychnine, or the sacrifice of first-born to Baal, but where's the harm in Wicca?

I'm not sure which is more troubling: the idea that only certain religions are legally "acceptable," or that the child cannot be counted on to grow up and decide for himself?

Update:

I've been trying to find out more about this ruling. Simply put, there isn't. Indiana law allows a court to make such provisions if there is potential emotional or physical harm to the child. In such cases, the court usually appoints a guardian while the claims are investigated. In this case, the court made no such attempt. In other words, the judge agreed to the provison even though no reason or support was given.

Most legal commentators agree that the decision will be overturned.