Meet Craig Scarberry. Craig is from the great state (my state!) of Indiana and a U.S. Navy veteran. Craig is a divorced dad who used to share 50/50 custody of his children. That was until a court said that his time with his children would be cut down to just 4 hours a week and every other weekend. But why would this happen?
Was Craig beating his kids?
Was he taking them to wild sex parties?
Was he a drunkard and a meth dealer?
Nope. None of those things. Not even close. Craig wanted to find out why his time was cut down and it turns out the court commissioner who presided over his case, George C. Pancol, wrote that it was because he was Agnostic and because his ex-wife was a Christian he and his wife could no longer communicate effectively (Craig used to be a Christian as well). To be exact, the Judge wrote:
- "...The father did not participate in the same religious training as the mother...father was agnostic."
- "...When the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate effectively."
What a bunch of bullshit.
Right off the bat, alarms should be going off when you see a Judge, a representative of the State, make any mentions of religion in regards to his decision over a case. Why would Craig's time with his kids be cut short? Why not his ex-wife's time? One could assume that because the Judge cut Craig's time and not his ex-wife's that the State favors the Christian religion. That it sees one as "better" than the other. That it prefers that particular religion. Wouldn't that be a violation of an amendment? Hmm, which amendment is that...oh yes. The First Amendment. That whole separation of church state thing. That no establishment of religion jibber jabber. It's obvious that there's a bias here in the case that skewed the ruling towards Craig's ex-wife.
But what's odd to me at this point is how little coverage this story has received. This story came out a little over a week ago, yet there are hardly any news outlets that want to pay any attention to it (MSNBC was one that did). And so I have to ask (although I'm not a fan of when news shows set up these hypotheticals): What if it was a Christian woman being denied custody rights?
The media would have an abosolute field day with this. But you have an Agnostic man being denied custody, and nobody really cares. They just kind of shuffle off to the side and hope for the best. This story makes it clear to me once again that here in the United States it's still okay to discriminate against Agnostics (and even Atheists). If anything it's encouraged. Nobody really sees anything wrong with it because the majority of society views them as "Godless heathens" (their words, not mine).
What makes this story even more sad is that Craig never tried to push his beliefs onto his children. He actually was submissive to the demands of the court and his wife and took his kids to church, church-related activities (like church camp) and even to a Christian daycare. Craig gave in to these demands yet he is still reprimanded for having a different set of beliefs. There is absolutely no basis for the Judge's decision that Craig shouldn't be allowed with his children because of his Agnosticism. For a Judge to make the inference that Craig and his ex-wife can no longer communicate because of his beliefs and because of that Craig's time should be reduced and not his ex-wife's is ridiculous and appalling. Fortunately Craig is appealing the Judge's decision and hopefully he will be able to get back his time with his kids. As for the Judge, he clearly violated the First Amendment and should be punished with a suspension at the very least, although I'd call for his removal based on this example of his sound reasoning.
What do you think about this? Was the Judge correct in his ruling? Should Craig be allowed full custody of his kids because he looks like a cool dad? Let me know in the comments section!
