Has anyone else heard of the case of Rachel Bevilacqua?

[kiahzero]

I was screwing around on Wikipedia to kill time when I came across this.

Mrs. Bevilacqua is a member of the Church of the Sub-Genius, which is probably best described as a "satirical post-modern religion." Because of this, her child was taken from her. The transcript of the hearing can be found at: http://www.filelodge.com/files/room18/475826/02-03-06_FullHearingTranscript.PDF and updates regarding the case can be found at: http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Reverend_Magdalen
The hearing centered, not on the quality of the home she and her new husband were providing for her child, but on her religious beliefs and activities.

Given that a significant number of people here apparently believe that teaching your child your religious beliefs constitutes abuse, I'm curious what people think about a case where a woman's child has been taken from her on the basis of her religion.

[Atman]

1. I had a bad case of Bevilacqua, but the doctor gave me a cream for it.

*ba doom*

:hi:

[Warpy]

2. Unless the religion has codified child abuse into its

tenets, like some of the viler pseudo Christian sects out there, I really can't see the reason. In other words, if the kid's having Satan physically beaten out of him/her, that crosses a very obvious line.

Nothing looks sillier than somebody else's religion, but we do have the freedom to practice it within our families and churches, and that includes teaching children about it.

After all, it doesn't always take. I'm proof of that.

[kiahzero]

3. The strange thing was that she wasn't even teaching her kid about it

From what I know of the group, it's not something you would indoctrinate your kid into, because it's all about "freedom, independence, and original thinking."

[cosmik debris]

4. I've read a lot about this and I don't understand it all

But a couple of things became clear rather quickly. First she violated a court order (or at least the judge was convinced that she did) and second she needs a better lawyer.

Child custody cases are seldom about justice, the law, or the child, they are about who has the best lawyer.

[kiahzero]

5. What court order did she violate?

I skimmed the judge's decision that I posted and all of the updates, and I didn't see anything about her violating a court order. I know the judge required her to stop posting about the case on the Internet, but she did after that date.

[cosmik debris]

7. She was accused of moving out of state

without the court's permision. Most custody agreements have a provision for where the custodial parent can live and what is required in order to move from that city or state.

[KnaveRupe]

6. Atheist Baiting.

"A significant number"?

"...apparently believe"?

C'mon. 'Fess up. You're trying to pick fights - aren't ya? I'll confess, I don't spend as much time in the religious forums as I'd like (I barely have time to read everything of interest on the Greatest page), but are there throngs of DU'ers advocating for the removal of children from their parents because of the parents' religious beliefs?

C'mon now.

[beam me up scottie]

9. No kidding.

With all the hyperbole and the vilification of atheists, I was afraid I had stumbled onto O'Reilly's website by mistake.

[bananas]

11. 38% of poll respondents

The first three choices add up to 38%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=101722&mesg_id=101722

Poll question: Is Teaching your Children Religion Child Abuse?

<snip>

do you agree with Dawkins when he says teaching that there is one God is child abuse?

Poll result (55 votes)
Totally Agree (12 votes, 22%) Vote
Agree (4 votes, 7%) Vote
Somewhat agree (5 votes, 9%) Vote
Indifferent / Unsure (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Somewhat Disagree (1 votes, 2%) Vote
Disagree (5 votes, 9%) Vote
Totally Disagree (25 votes, 45%) Vote
This poll is biased and/or ambiguous! (0 votes, 0%) Vote
I like to vote! (1 votes, 2%) Vote
Keep Digging! (2 votes, 4%) Vote

[KnaveRupe]

16. 38% of 55 respondents is not significant.

Computer says "Noooooo"

[kiahzero]

18. There aren't a whole lot of people who post around here

I can think of about 10 people who post on a consistent basis. 55 is a large sample of the population in question - note that I was specifically discussing the people "here," referring to this forum of DU.

[beam me up scottie]

23. And nobody on DU would EVER think of skewing a poll, right?

:rofl:

[kiahzero]

24. I hope that poll is skewed

However, it was reasonable to believe that with 35% of voters claiming to agree, at least somewhat, with the proposition that teaching religion to one's children is child abuse, a significant number of people here agree with that proposition.

If no one actually agrees with it, then fine. It's no skin off my back.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Teaching a child that he will go to hell if he sins IS child abuse.

This is an issue that could be debated and discussed for weeks.

Unless people are as simplistic as the poll designer and see the world in black and white, that is.

All that idiotic poll was good for was giving the resident atheist bashers an opportunity to do their stuff.

Thank you for giving them another thread to the same.

[kiahzero]

34. I agree with your title, and said as much in the relevant thread.

I haven't seen a whole lot of atheist bashing in this thread, so it's a good thing that I wasn't trying to give them a thread to operate, because if I were, I'd be a miserable failure.

As an aside, how long do I have to be posting here before the bad-faith assumption goes away?

[beam me up scottie]

37. It has nothing to do with how long you've been posting here.

And none of us are ever given that kind of deference in this forum.

In your op, you inferred that a large percentage of DU atheists regard teaching children religion as a form of child abuse.

That's at best misleading, at worse a completely unfounded and unfair accusation.

Not to mention a written invitation for everyone else to piss on us for the same bogus reasons.

[kiahzero]

39. I said nothing about atheists.

I'm not asking for deference, I'm asking for everything I post here not be read to be as offensive to atheists as possible (hence the term "bad-faith assumption" - the assumption that whatever I'm posting is somehow a snide attempt to "get" atheists).

[beam me up scottie]

52. ROFL! Right...you were inferring it's the BELIEVERS who think religion is a form of child abuse.

How could I have thought you were referring to atheists? :eyes:

Not buying what you're selling, sorry, this thread is exactly what it looks like.

[kiahzero]

53. Well...

Given the argument I just had with someone, here on DU, who insisted everyone who doesn't ascribe to their particular brand of Christianity is going to Hell, I wouldn't put it past some to believe that all forms of religion other than theirs are abusive.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Ah, so you've met our resident fundamentalist.

Isn't he fun?

Even though Zeb thinks we're going to burn in Hell for all eternity, he really doesn't want us to take it personally. :D

[kiahzero]

55. That just makes it all the more absurd.

A little wrath-inspired posting is good for burning off stress, though. :D

[beam me up scottie]

56. It just bounces off his bullet proof Jesus Jacket, so it's not harmful either.

:evilgrin:

[kiahzero]

57. .

:rofl:

[trotsky]

15. Bingo. n/t

[charlie]

8. Yes, I heard about it

This was the first time I've perused the transcripts, though. They're quite interesting.

Actually, this is sort of the inverse of the religious teaching / child abuse discussion. Ms Bevilacqua is a church-going Christian. Her testimony was that her son was never exposed to Subgenius activities or material, in fact, she'd had filtering software that locked out the Subgenius site on the PC he used for the previous 5 years. The judge, who was clearly aware of the "church" as a parody before the depositions began, decided before the end that its status as a joke was subterfuge to disguise a weird cult/religion. She's not being penalized for religious teaching, she's losing her son because of her association with a group the judge thinks is a distasteful "underground" something-or-other that's more sinister than just a bunch of pranksters.

The judge's assitude in the transcripts is a revelation. Judges are often autocrats in their courtrooms, but usually to keep proceedings strictly germane to the case. This guy is bizarrely petulant and vindictive. At one point, when the judge is once again interjecting himself into the questioning and promising to do more, the defending lawyer wishes aloud that he could object. The judge says, go ahead and object, I'll sustain it. In fact, I'll butt out, you run this hearing the way you want and I'll be over here in my quietness. Having second thoughts, the lawyer says perhaps it's best that the judge be allowed to have his questions answered to his satisfaction, but the judge is pissy, NONONO, you carry on, I'll be quiet as a mouse. Of course, his promise doesn't last long. Like I said, bizarre.

[kiahzero]

14. Yeah, the judge is an embarassment to the legal profession

I saw that part you're talking about too. It reminded me of a conversation you might have with an exceedingly petulant five year old. It almost seems like the judge was getting upset that the Church exists to make fun of religion.

[beam me up scottie]

10. What do I think? I think you're confused about the facts and trying to bait us.

But that's not what you wanted to hear, is it?

[kiahzero]

13. What facts am I confused about?

My primary purpose in posting this was pointing out a gross miscarriage of justice to a group of people who've expressed an interest in religious discrimination. My secondary purpose was perhaps making people rethink the "Religion = child abuse" rhetoric.

As I said previously, I've skimmed the court transcript and I've read the updates regarding the case. What facts am I confused about?

[cosmik debris]

17. You implied that this has something to do with teaching a child

about religion. But the court records show that the child was insulated from the "religious" activities of the mother. Your false linkage of the child and the "religion" is what makes this flame bait.

Now either you are confused about the facts, or you are trying to confuse others about the facts, but the fact remains that this has nothing to do with teaching your child about religion. Essentially it is a soap opera story about a spiteful father with a good lawyer and a careless mother with a bad lawyer. (and a bad judge) Reading more into it than that is just propaganda.

[kiahzero]

19. I can assure you that this was not posted to be flame bait.

As I stated elsewhere, my primary purpose was drawing attention to the case. I'm a law student myself, and I was drawn into the profession by my idealism and my underlying belief that the courts were supposed to be a refuge of reason amongst the demagoguery and mob "reasoning" that underlies so many other portions of the democratic system. Thus, it's extremely upsetting to me to hear about obscenely absurd cases such as this, where the judge's decision has no basis in reason or fact. The "argument" for his ruling was that, despite having his access to the website blocked, the child in question might come across his mother's so-called "mentally ill" or "perverted" acts on the Internet and be "extremely damaging" towards the child.

Given that this case had significant elements of religious discrimination in it, I thought that the posters on this branch of DU would be interested in the case. I suppose I thought wrongly. I apologize for any offense posting this thread may have created.

[cosmik debris]

20. It was the implication that it related to the other thread

On teaching religion to kids that I found disturbing. If it was not meant to relate to that, I have no problem with it.

Speaking as a divorced father, my lawyer warned me several times that if I wanted to preserve my rights I had to behave myself and be seen to behave myself. The woman in question did not get or did not heed that same advice.

I don't know the law in New York, but in Texas, when you get a divorce, your children become a wards of the county in which the decree is issued. And if you piss off the people who have the ultimate responsibility for your children, you can expect a trip through "the system".

Another truism of the law is that any trip through the system only has one class of winners: the lawyers. Everyone else loses. In this case the mother will lose the most and the child and father will contend for second greatest loser. And it all could have been prevented if she had understood and honored her obligations to the system that controlled her child's life.

Most divorced parents don't realize that their children don't belong to them, and they are required to perform their parental duties in accordance with the wishes of a disinterested third party. (the state) It is in their best interest to keep the state disinterested.

[kiahzero]

22. I find your perspective of the law to be abhorrent.

The evidence I've seen so far indicates that Bevilacqua did nothing wrong. To claim that she did not "honor her obligations to <the state>" is absurd. You seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with the judge's decision here, when it seems to have been predicated on the judge's anger towards her for participating in activities which mocked his religion.

Furthermore, I'd like to see any sort of citation for the claim that "your children become wards of State" in Texas or any other jurisdiction in the United States. While courts are given a wide latitude in determining which parent will be granted custody, I can find no reference to a divorce leading to both parents losing custody and the child or children being made wards of the State. Granted, I haven't done exhaustive research yet, but I am looking at American Jurisprudence right now and I'm not seeing so much as a footnote to indicate something like that. It seems like it's a big enough point that it would have been noted.

[cosmik debris]

25. Of course she did nothing wrong and she will probably prevail

But it will still cost her $50,000 to get her kid back. And maybe if she had done some thing differently she could have saved that $50,000 for something better than paying lawyers. And I am not saying that the first judge has clean hands. He clearly is an idiot. But if she had a decent lawyer to start with that would not have been allowed to become an issue.

Marriage involves three parties. One of those parties is the state. In the dissolution of a marriage the state gets the final say in ALL the affairs of the marriage. The state has absolute authority over the children and where they live until they reach the age of majority. The courts usually grant custody to one parent and other rights to the non-custodial parent, but the operative word is GRANT. It is the court's decision. That is why you don't want to piss off the court, and that is why you don't want your ex-spouse to drag you back into court. As I said, and trip through the system results in a loss for everyone but the lawyers.

You may not like my perspective of the law, but I have experienced it from the respondent's point of view. That is what I am relating to you. And that is what you will learn if you complete law school. Your notion that "the courts were supposed to be a refuge of reason amongst the demagoguery and mob "reasoning"" may be true , but they are also tools for ex-spouses to get revenge. The way I see it, she gave her ex-spouse ammunition to use against her. He used it to get revenge. It is not justice, but the law allows him to do that. If she had been prudent, wise, and cognizant of her best interest in not pissing off the Judge, the State, or her ex, this could have been prevented.

[kiahzero]

26. I'm sorry, I think I understand where you're coming from, now

It seems like you're not discussing what should have happened, but rather what did happen. Certainly she did lose custody of her kid for engaging in certain activities, and it seems clear that if she had not engaged in those activities, it would not have happened.

But legal discussion is inherently normative. In discussing a case, it is important to not only identify what happened, but also what should have happened. And, in this case, as you say, "the first judge <does not> have clean hands." In my view, he's an embarrassment to the profession. Thus, while it is the case that judges have an inordinate amount of power in divorce proceedings and custody battles, it is not only appropriate but necessary to criticize him for exceeding his authority and allowing his personal biases to get in the way of his legal reasoning.

Many times, injustice can be avoided if the victim of the injustice simply "went along to get along." That does not change the fact that it is injustice.

[cosmik debris]

27. Even injustice is subjective

You haven't heard from the ex-husband in this case. All I have found with a google search is the mother's point of view. Evidence presented by the father at the latest custody hearing may yet influence the new judge to grant custody to the father (or to a grandparent or even to foster care).

Trial by media is always a bad idea. Nobody gets justice there.

[kiahzero]

28. I'm speaking strictly of the judge's decision

If the mother loses custody for a good reason, so be it. I've got no dog in that particular hunt. However, the first judge's opinion was absurd.

[cosmik debris]

29. So was Plessy v. Ferguson

But that's justice.

[kiahzero]

30. No, that's injustice. (n/t)

[cosmik debris]

31. And that's subjective

"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
--Associate Justice Henry Brown

The epitome of subjective.

[kiahzero]

33. Actually, that's the epitome of crappy legal reasoning.

The so-called "fallacy" is anything but. "Separate but equal" didn't magically become wrong in the 1950s... it's always been wrong. People have simply failed to recognize it.

[cosmik debris]

35. Not necessarily

The key phrase in the quote I referenced is: "...it is not by reason of anything found in the act"

Judges don't make justice, they interpret law.

[kiahzero]

36. Law without justice is tyranny. (n/t)

[cosmik debris]

38. And life is not fair. n/t

[kiahzero]

40. And?

That unfairness exists is no excuse for perpetuating it.

[cosmik debris]

43. I think you said it best when you said

It seems like you're not discussing what should have happened, but rather what did happen.

I live in the reality based community. The "pie in the sky" world doesn't have much impact where I live.

[Meshuga]

12. The first judge is a fucking nut job

This is some scary stuff.

[cmkramer]

21. "Bob Dobbs is God!"

My college roommate's boyfriend was a member of the Church of the Subgenius.

The whole thing sounds a little strange to me.

[BurtWorm]

41. She says clearly that the "religion" she was judged unfit to teach her child

is not her religion. It's her art. She was penalized for being a performance artist. This is a separate issue from Dawkins' assertions about religious beliefs and child abuse.

[kiahzero]

42. She said that, yes.

The judge felt differently.

[BurtWorm]

44. And was wrong.

So if someone feels this woman was wronged, do you think they'd be hypocrites for believing that some religious indoctrination can be considered child abuse?

[kiahzero]

45. Absolutely not.

I'd have to believe myself to be a hypocrite to believe that (well... actually, I wouldn't, because one of the advantages of hypocrisy is not having to believe you're a hypocrite when it's logically entailed), as I believe that teaching a child that they will be punished for all eternity if they do something wrong is at least in some sense abusive to that child.

[BurtWorm]

46. You mean you've been able to answer your own question all along?

:crazy:

[kiahzero]

47. What question?

I said I was curious what others thought about it.

[BurtWorm]

48. Your statement of curiosity implied there is a connection where there is none.

In other words, what people think of this case has no bearing on what they believe about cases in which religious indoctrination is child abuse. This case is about the prejudice and prudishness--even the religious beliefs--of the JUDGE, not the mother in question. You may as well have said "Given that so many here believe religious indoctrination is child abuse, I'm curious what people here think of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto" or even "I'm curious what people here think of mayonnaise as a condiment on hamburgers." I mean, there's no connection between what people think of the statement in clause A and what they think of the statement in clause B.

[kiahzero]

49. There is a connection, though.

It depends on how extreme one is in that proposition. The judge believed that the woman's membership in what he termed a "cult" would be harmful to the child, and removed custody because of that. I was hoping that no one here would be that extreme, and it seems that I am vindicated in that hope.

[BurtWorm]

50. Let's all raise our glasses to reason.

:toast:

[kiahzero]

51. Yay reason!

:toast: