Atheist sues to keep son out of St. X

I got the newspaper today as I left work. Got home, opened it up, and on the front page is this article about a father suing his ex-wife to keep their son out of St. X. Interesting article (if the fact that the author picked a biased lawyer, because he also has a degree in theology and taught at a university that espoused religion, doesn't drive you mad) to read if you have access to it. Basically, the son has gone to St. Aloysius for all his pre-high school life in which the father objected then but was told to take up his case when he reached high school. Now he has, but it is too late and the damage has been done. The boy wants to go to St. X and most likely because all his friends will be going there. I'm sure the indoctrination has already brainwashed him. The mother, who is now very close to her son, claims the boy is excited about St. X and toured "several schools" (quotations b/c the nature of the schools are not discussed--bias much?) but he picked that one. Again, the father points out it is because the boy has only "the Catholic school system as a frame of reference." Now here's the kicker: the winner must pay the tuition of the school the boy goes to. Why isn't it about the money? They are both pilots for commercial airlines. So there you have it, she's a practicing Catholic trying to indoctrinate her son against the father's wishes.

But, you may ask, how does the father have legal standing when Michael Newdow did not? The answer is that the father, David Ryan, has something that Newdow didn't: joint custody. He has invoked section 5 of the constitution which states that "...nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school that he is conscientiously opposed to." He also has Kentucky's very own Edwin Kagin representing him. The ACLU is not involved with this one.

*Note the "man" reference. Not sure how that works legally but it appears to the laity that the mother has no grounds here! lol We really need to update our constitution to remove bigoted language.

Stenger, the biased lawyer consulted on this article, is a professor at UofL, has a Theology degree from Catholic University of America, and has taught in the school of religion at the University of Iowa. His worst comment is that the constitutional argument for Ryan also applies to the mother, Susan Bisig, and that she has the right for the state not to rule against her because that would make the state against religion, which the constitution forbids. Why is this? His response is that "it could be called establishing Atheism." WTF? I'm not exactly sure what that even means! Perhaps every Atheist writer should end their books and columns with, "and no, there is no book that establishes a set code of conduct, ethics, or thought for Atheists and is therefore not a social state but a frame of reference: that person (or persons) rejects the supernatural." Back on track, I think he meant secularism. Again, not a religion and secularism is the official stance of our government. Our government just can't promote one religion over another or deny someone's religious rights (as long as the religion does not violate law). So, by that statement from Stengel, either judgment violates constitutional law. I expect more from our law professors at UofL but perhaps the looming budget issue is to blame for hiring this boob. It is obvious that the conservative choice would be to allow the child to go to a secular school, appeasing the father, which will still allow the son quality education (if it exists in Oldham County Public Schools) and allowing the mother to indoctrinate the son at church on whichever night she wishes. It is obvious that many churches have Bible indoctrination--er, studies--almost every night of the week. She can force him--er, enroll--him in any one or number of those.

And the son? What about his decisions? State law gives power to the parents in this matter. Oops. During that time, divorce wasn't heard of and all Christians of a location belonged to the same branch (my guess). He still has a constitutional right to be indoctrinate or NOT indoctrinated. What, if he doesn't go to St. X will they ban him from every other Catholic church in a 50 mile radius? He can get equal education from the public school system. He can get equal indoctrination from any church. His rights aren't being violated. I do believe he has a voice in the matter but I don't know the circumstances. I'm sure neither parent likes the other much and the mother may be forcing her beliefs on a son who really doesn't want them, or she may be trying to indoctrinate a religion into her son that will teach him that his father is evil and will result in a poor father-son relationship so she has the boy. I don't think anyone has even considered the boy's far-reaching emotional and mental damage that could result. Suppose the boy is a closet Atheist and fearful of his mother abandoning him if he refuses to go? He will have a hard 4 years and if he's found out those kids at St. X could really do some harm to him. Suppose he really loves his dad as well but what happens if St. X starts telling him his dad is a horrible person despite all the love and attention his father may be giving him? He will suffer immense emotional turmoil and dissonance to the extent that it begins to damage him to where he thinks kind people are evil in disguise.

I'm no therapist, or lawyer, or friend of the family so I have no clue here. I do see that the boy gets a voice, his parents get one, and the state should stay out by stating that he can receive equal education at a public school and equal religious instruction at any church the family enjoys. I also see the issue as indoctrination, the possibility of child abuse (as Dawkins claims all indoctrination is), the possibility of child abuse (where a parent is using the child as a vehicle to harm the other parent), and as an issue of child custody.

I think we should all write in to the C-J about this case. I'm supporting the father, obviously, and will try to follow this case. The ruling is in 2 weeks by an Oldham judge. The author of the article is Andrew Wolfson and is employed by the C-J. The article claims it has appeared on AA's website and nogodblog.com. If I can find a link to the online article I'll post it (just edited with link in the beginning up top, I don't know how long the link will exist). I'm interested in what others have to say. I still have my copy of the article.

While I can certainly sympathize with the dad not wanting his son to go to a Catholic school, I can't help but feel that he's going about this the wrong way. (But, considering his lawyer is with American Atheists, I'm not surprised.) It would make sense if his son didn't want to go to St. X and his mother was not giving him an option. But if his son really wants to go to St. X, he's not going to do much for their relationship by forcing him to go to a public school.

The dad should have been talking with his son about his beliefs all along and helping him to develop a rational, critical thinking mind. If he has done that, he's given his son enough of an alternative perspective to be able to think for himself. Just going to St. X is not necessarily going to convince him that his mother's views are correct. Rationalism is hard to shake. Both of my parents were Catholic and I went to Catholic schools for K-12, but that didn't prevent me from becoming an atheist. If anything, the Church History and Scripture classes in high school helped push me along that path. My rational, analytical mind saw the outrageous history of the church and read the Bible and realized the absurdity of it all. Just like Ruth Green, "reading the Bible made me an atheist."

I raised my two older sons by myself after winning custody of them in a divorce case. They were 3 and 1 at the time, and are now 22 and 20.

As children get older, judges listen more to what they want to do. Since the son wants to go to St. X and he has attended Catholic schools for years after the divorce, their is no reason to change.

What if the child wanted to go to a secular school and the mother was suing to force him to go to Catholic school? The arguments made for the father in the current case could be made by the mother in this case.

This case should NOT be a case about religious freedom. It is a family affair and should stay that way.

I recently dug up some older articles and found a nice little extra tidbit. When the parents divorced, the son, Michael, was in Catholic school and the father asked that Michael be removed from it. The judge told the father to wait until Michael was going to high school. Obviously, that was an attempt to get the son indoctrinated just for this event. Tragic. Didn't they make public schools just for this very reason and so that every child can get a quality education?

In any event, the son probably does want to go to St. X but I don't think it's because of the education or the religion but more to do with his friends going there.

I'd like to know why they got divorced because if it was that he didn't want his son being indoctrinated, then it would be a good case to show that Atheists need to get that thing sorted out before having children with a theist. It also may have a lot to do with this case because very few details surrounding it were reported and very few details have been reported in the past. What schools did they visit? Who originally was paying for tuition? How much time does he spend with each parent and how close is each parent? Are most of his friends going to St. X? What is Michael's position on religion? What does he want to do with his high school education? Why does the mom keep pushing St. X on her son? Et al.

Right now, my biggest concern are the ridiculous comments made by Stenger in the article because of SAFE. That part about establishing Atheism yet doesn't say that if the judge decides for the wife, it's establishing Catholicism. Actually, if the judge says Michael decides, then the state has actually remained neutral. Oh, wait, that's a third option! Stenger says there's only two.... guess he slept through his logic classes. And, not to mention, a decision for the father is actually a decision NOT to force religion on a person which is inline with the establishment clause. Theologists make terrible lawyers.

As much as my atheist tendencies ask me not to do this, I have to side with the boy in this.

As a product of both Catholic and public schools in the Louisville area, I have to say that public schools are far, far, far inferior. My experience tells me the boy will not get an equal education at a public school (at least not in or around Louisville).

I know the angst an atheist can feel in the face of christian America, but we need to fix our public schools before we start claiming that they will give an equal education to what the whacko catholics offer. Once you get around all the church and preaching, they do a fairly good job at teaching people how to learn, without slowing things down by catering to the lowest common denominator.