Note: this article contains
dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!
This is an on First Amendment rights no matter how you look at it (via Boing Boing & :
On February 3, 2006, Judge Punch heard testimony in the case. Jeff entered into evidence 16 exhibits taken from the Internet, 12 of which are photographs of the SubGenius event, X-Day. Kohl has never attended X-Day and is not in any of the pictures. Rachel is depicted in many of these photos, often wearing skimpy costumes or completely nude, while participating in X-Day and Detroit Devival events.
The judge, allegedly a very strict Catholic, became outraged at the photos of the X-Day parody of Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ — especially the photo where Jesus [Steve Bevilacqua] is wearing clown makeup and carrying a crucifix with a pool-noodle dollar sign on it while being beaten by a crowd of SubGenii, including a topless woman with a “dildo”.
Judge Punch lost his temper completely, and began to shout abuse at Rachel, calling her a “pervert, “mentally ill,” “lying,” and a participant in “sex orgies.” The judge ordered that Rachel is to have absolutely no contact with her son, not even in writing, because he felt the pictures of X-Day performance art were evidence enough to suspect “severe mental illness”
Mock Christianity, lose your kid… yeesh.
Here’s a pop-quiz question for all the Christian apologists who are bound to flood into this discussion: If this had taken place before an Islamic judge in the Middle East and the photos had been an art performance mocking the prophet Muhammed; and the judge took custody away from the mother based on that alone… would you also defend that judge?
Update: MeFi’s first comment has a bunch of updates, most importantly links to some of the photos that apparently angered the judge so much. Am I the only one who thinks this is relatively tame considering the reaction of the judge?