Foster Parents Who Refused to Stop Attending Snake-Handling Services Sue After Losing License

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314128,00.html

LONDON, Ky. — A southeastern Kentucky couple who say they refused to agree not to attend snake-handling religious services have sued a foster-care agency after their license was revoked.

Melissa Dixon, a lawyer for Jason and Tammy Barrett of Laurel County, wouldn't say whether the Barretts have handled snakes before but said they have never taken their foster children to the services. They also promised not to take the children to such services, she said.

Dixon said the Barretts hope the public will focus on the religious freedom issues in the lawsuit rather than on snake-handling.

The Barretts allege that Lifeway for Youth Kentucky, a foster-care agency that contracts with the state, violated their constitutional rights. They say the agency revoked their license and took custody of the foster children in their care in November 2006 because they had formerly attended services where snakes were handled. snip

The Barretts are still licensed foster parents through another agency, Dixon said. They've been licensed since October 2005, and they are licensed to care for kids with special needs.

[Mojorabbit]

1. If the article is correct

I hope they win their suit. As a pagan I have read too many stories of people losing their custody because of their faith.

[Demeter]

2. My Skin Is Crawling

I can't support either argument.

I can't feel sorry for the religious of any stripe, and I think the agency has a lot of nerve trying to regulate a person's religious activities.

What does that make me? A Miltant Democratic Atheist?

[dmallind]

4. I feel no such dilemma.

As an outspoken atheist who thinks all religion is of suspect rationality, and pretty much knows that once it gets into snake handling there's no damn doubt any more, I'm on their side 100%.

Why? Because we need to support absolute freedom of religion so long as it harms no-one ELSE but a willing and informed participant. I am just fine and dandy with anyone's chosen religious expression to self-flagellate, self-mortify or herpetologically manipulate, so long as they do not force anyone else to do so, by action or legislation. How can an atheist in good conscience not support complete freedom to make unpopular and even widely despised religious choices? How can we either be so hypocritical or so short sighted as to make anyone's unpopular religious choice an issue to harm or restrict or marginalize them officially in any way? If such a scenario is legitimate then exactly who do you think will be the first target of that harm, restriction or official marginalization.

OK actually in all the frenzy right now it would probably be Muslims, but we'd be right next in line and if the silly jingoisitic war on terra crap ever subsides we'd be back in the #1 slot like a shot.

Taking the kids there? Yep - justifiable reason not to send kids into a situation where they are threatened by coerced risk of poisoning. Going there themselves? Your choice, your risk, your harm = your right.

Even, of course, if according to the majority AND me, you're very very wrong.

[TommyO]

3. A person's religious beliefs shouldn't come into play in situations like this

as long as the children are being cared for and not forced to participate. As much as I can't fathom their beliefs, I will defend their right to hold them and not suffer repercussions for holding them.

[Ezlivin]

5. Snake-Handling is a gateway activity to a promiscuous lifestyle

First the women handle the poisonous vipers, then they turn their attention to the dreaded Trouser Snake.