A blog raising awareness about a woman who lost custody of her child because of her performance art.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

FAQ on Rachel's Religion

Q: What exactly is Rachel Bevilaqua's religion?

A: Rachel believes that organized religion is not right for her. She believes that each individual has the ability to directly commune with the divine in their own way, and that organized religions often become mere social clubs where no actual spiritual instruction goes on. Therefore she chooses to pursue spirituality privately through meditation and prayer.

Q: Rachel testified that she was a member of Grace Church of the Redeemer, a chartered Anglican congregation in Columbus, GA. Was that true?

A: Rachel, Steve, and Kohl became members of that congregation (Pastor Richard Davis, Bishop Manning, SEC) after seeing a true dedication in the congregation's pastor to the creation of a group that would do needed charity and civil rights work in the community, as well as spread the Anglican message of tolerance and openness to all seekers, which Rachel and Steve find admirable in an organized religion, especially in a small city in the south.

Grace Church of the Redeemer disbanded as a chartered congregation after the death of its pastor, Richard Davis, whose death certificate shows that he died of a heart attack despite his relatively young age.

Father Richard was self-conscious about his weight and often tried to lose weight by doing vigorous exercise while taking "stackers" energy supplements, and many of his friends feel these over-the-counter supplements may have contributed to Father Richard's death. The sad story is detailed on a public Columbus, GA Google Group.

Father Richard's Angican congregation is the only organized congregation Rachel Bevilacqua has ever been a member of, and it ceased to exist in Fall 2005.

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's really pitiful that you feel that you need to refer to yourself in the third person to get sympathy!

1:33 AM

 
Blogger Hypatia's Father said...

It's doubly pitiful that YOU feel the need to refer to yourself as 'anonymous' in order to troll someone's blog.

11:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Questions regarding document 4-11 pg2 item #6 . The handwritten entry here states that 11/05 Rachel and Kohl had been kicked out of the georgia residence by her husband. It also goes on to state she is residing in Alabama.

I am confused here.

There is mention of the wonderful home being provided by Rachel and her current husband.. But he kicked her out?

8:15 PM

 
Blogger Hypatia's Father said...

The affadavits seem to clear these questions up. The relocation to temporary residence was temporary. Marital problems, while unfortunate for all involved, do not necessarily imply a failure to meet a child's needs. It seems that Rachel and her husband were handling the situation with maturity, and that Rachel can easily document that Kohl's needs were, in fact, being met during the temporary relocation.

The decision to nullify her custody rights seems to be based largely on her affiliation with a religion and/or art movement, her participation in which produced publicly available pictures of a semi-nude Rachel. The photos apparently confused the judge. He seemed preoccupied by a papier machet goat's head that appeared with Rachel in one of the pictures. Perhaps in his confused state he mistakenly attributed malevolent or degenerate qualities to Rachel that were based more upon his own religious affiliation and personal biases than upon objective fact.

In any case, it is of no matter. Why should Rachel, or any plaintif in similar circumstances, bear the responsibility of educating the judge on the contextual differences between Judeo-Christian symbolism and the Church of the Subgenius? If he had been a muslim judge and if she had been wearing strips of bacon, should she have been forced to respond to inane lines of questioning as, "But why bacon?! Why?"

It seems that, legally speaking, the judge simply allowed his own "demons" to get the best of him. This is what happens when we elect persons to office based on subjective "faith-based" measures of character.

Ethically and morally speaking, it seems that the burden should lie squarely on Rachel's accusors to provide REAL objective evidence of neglect and an insufficiency to meet parental obligations. Perhaps I am naive to expect our laws to demand as much, or moreover expect our judges to be familiar with the law. What I do know is that much as it may irritate or even confuse any paricular culture, taking one's clothes off and acting "whacky" falls way short in demonstrating parental neglect. It's all about context.

Temporary marital problems notwithstanding, in Rachel's and Kohl's case it is exactly this kind of REAL evidence that is lacking,

Hope that helps, anonymous, with yr. confusion.

10:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ethically and morally speaking, it seems that the burden should lie squarely on Rachel's accusors to provide REAL objective evidence of neglect and an insufficiency to meet parental obligations


It does work that way. Rachel's Ex must prove not only that conditions at Rachel's were unfit for a child, or that conditions as his will be better than other conditions to such an extent that it is worth it to go through this whole mess. That is part of what the Guardian ad Litem is for: to determine which of the parties is telling the truth, and if the plaintiff has made a good enough case.

I've been there/done that. From the Ex's perspective, though. It was up to us to prove that we would be more fit parents than our Ex.

8:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ethically and morally speaking, it seems that the burden should lie squarely on Rachel's accusors to provide REAL objective evidence of neglect and an insufficiency to meet parental obligations


It does work that way. It is up to her ex to prove that either conditions at Rachel's were not condusive to a healthy child, or that conditions at his place are much, much better than Rachel's, and worth putting the child through the entire ordeal.

Been there, done that.

8:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop trolling, asshat.

Quote:

Anonymous said...

Ethically and morally speaking, it seems that the burden should lie squarely on Rachel's accusors to provide REAL objective evidence of neglect and an insufficiency to meet parental obligations


It does work that way. It is up to her ex to prove that either conditions at Rachel's were not condusive to a healthy child, or that conditions at his place are much, much better than Rachel's, and worth putting the child through the entire ordeal.

Been there, done that.

8:28 PM


Hey moron, learn how to use the blogger interface, you double posted!

2:41 PM

 
Blogger Anonymous said...

Stop trolling, asshat.

Quote:

Anonymous said...

Ethically and morally speaking, it seems that the burden should lie squarely on Rachel's accusors to provide REAL objective evidence of neglect and an insufficiency to meet parental obligations


It does work that way. It is up to her ex to prove that either conditions at Rachel's were not condusive to a healthy child, or that conditions at his place are much, much better than Rachel's, and worth putting the child through the entire ordeal.

Been there, done that.

8:28 PM


Hey moron, learn how to use the blogger interface, you double posted!

2:41 PM

 
Blogger Hypatia's Father said...

M'kay. You've "been there and done that", so you can obviously walk a neophyte like me through the evidence. Er, now where did you say this evidence is hiding? Oh, I forgot, you didn't. And how did you say her ex "proved" anything? Oh, that's right, you didn't mention that, either.

Surely, it's not the mere statement on behalf of that tool-nob of a dad, where he "claims" that his son "told" him that he was suicidal.

1:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I fail to understand what this woman could possibly be being charged with.

11:37 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home