Judge orders mom not to teach daughter religious beliefs

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Seperation of church and state?



I know those who question sources rather than stories won't like the source. So to set the record straight early, I did a Google search in the news and regular section under the mother's name and turned up no other instances of this story to cite in addition to the first one. If you happen to do so, you are welcome to post it.



The basic points of this story boil down to this. There is a mother of an adopted daughter who was formerly in an lesbian relationship. She converted to Christianity and ended the relationship because she declared the Bible had taught her that homosexuality is wrong. Her parther filed for custody of the adopted daughter even while she had no legal standing with the daughter.



The courts decision awarded joint custody to the adoptive mother and the former partner. The court ordered the woman not to speak of her religious beliefs regarding homosexuality to the daughter nor is she allowed to teach or pass on those religious beliefs.



I believe the decision a bad one, even if it happens to harm the rights of the former partner. Courts cannot go around telling people what to believe or how to practice it in their own homes regarding matters of no more than speech. (I understand for example the court wouldn't allow say human sacrifice for example...speech you strawmen baiters...speech)



Secondly they gave custody to a person that had no previous legal relationship with the child. That in my view is especially troubling for it has some seriously nasty possibilities when tried out in other scenarios. Could you imagine for example living with someone for a while and then they would be able to sue you for custody of your own child when they are not the natural or adoptive parent?



You may not have to like the politics of the mother, but this decision sounds like a bad one to me. What do you think?



Nick
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    We go from:



    Cheryl Clark has been ordered to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic"



    to



    "Must the mother rip out pages of the Bible that say homosexuality is against nature, or must she cover her child's ears if her pastor preaches about sexual purity?"



    ... and they call liberals shrill.



    The latter has NOTHING to do with the former. Why is preventing homophobic (hate-speech) teaching a bad thing?
  • Reply 2 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    We go from:



    Cheryl Clark has been ordered to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic"



    to



    "Must the mother rip out pages of the Bible that say homosexuality is against nature, or must she cover her child's ears if her pastor preaches about sexual purity?"



    ... and they call liberals shrill.



    The latter has NOTHING to do with the former. Why is preventing homophobic (hate-speech) teaching a bad thing?




    Hate speech is classified as speech spoken during a hate act. So if I assaulted you while calling you hurtful names, that would make an already bad crime a hate crime.



    However there is no law against protesting against a group, lifestyle or belief system. There is also no law against believing what you wish and passing that belief on to your children.



    Likewise you make the classic confusion of speech and actions. We have protections on speech because they are not actions. Being exposed to the mother's beliefs does not insure the daughter will become "homophobic." Likewise since when do individual judges get to go around and determine which speech is acceptable which is not? One judge might consider the teachings to be homophobic, but another might not. Do we really want to leave free speech and freedom of private religion, both guaranteed rights in the first amendment, up to judicial discretion?



    The courts have no right to prevent speech that they disagree with it. That is what is wrong with preventing the religious teachings from being transmitted from mother to daughter.



    Nick
  • Reply 3 of 49
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Since when do individual judges get to go around and determine which speech is acceptable which is not?



    Oh, I don't know; about every single day?



    Racist speech is illegal; you can't burn the US flag; libel is a no-no ... and about a thousand other things too.
  • Reply 4 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Oh, I don't know; about every single day?



    Racist speech is illegal; you can't burn the US flag; libel is a no-no ... and about a thousand other things too.




    Racist speech is not illegal. Burning the flag isn't illegal. You must be confusing Europe with the United States.



    Nick
  • Reply 5 of 49
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Practically speaking, there's no real way to enforce this beyond taking the child out of her custody.



    I mean, neo-nazis and other awful beliefs and hate groups have protected free speech under the constitution for better or worse. (Actions are another matter of course.) I don't see how a judge can tell this woman what to tell/teach her child, even if it is despicable.
  • Reply 6 of 49
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    I know those who question sources rather than stories won't like the source. So to set the record straight early, I did a Google search in the news and regular section under the mother's name and turned up no other instances of this story to cite in addition to the first one.




    Seeing how the same source twisted facts to meet a political agenda (in the "artificial womb" thread) I am surprised anyone here would make a decision on whether the judge was right or wrong. I'd bet an old G3 that the facts are not as presented here, it just smells like bullshit.



    But if you go on a crying frenzy about the evil state ripping children to carry out a liberal agenda, I won't stop you .
  • Reply 7 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    Seeing how the same source twisted facts to meet a political agenda (in the "artificial womb" thread) I am surprised anyone here would make a decision on whether the judge was right or wrong. I'd bet an old G3 that the facts are not as presented here, it just smells like bullshit.



    But if you go on a crying frenzy about the evil state ripping children to carry out a liberal agenda, I won't stop you .




    Folks like you are the funniest lot. You claim a conspiratorial air in a medium where all are equal.



    Yeah, I control Google, and Enron. Me and my buddies are ordering your death right now via some Anthrax being sent to your house with our DC sniper/courier.



    Or... heaven forbid, the reality is you can do searches yourself, post links yourself and discredit it yourself...



    But of course that doesn't work on issues where the truth of the matter just doesn't mesh with your political dogma. So instead it's a c-o-n-....spiracy.



    Nick
  • Reply 8 of 49
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Racist speech is not illegal. Burning the flag isn't illegal. You must be confusing Europe with the United States.



    Nick




    Racist speech is illegal in Europe (may I comment you sound fairly chuffed that's not the case in the US). Burning flags is legal in the UK (I understood it was illegal in the US, this seems to be wrong).



    Now then: libel.



    Tap tap tap.
  • Reply 9 of 49
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    Or... heaven forbid, the reality is you can do searches yourself, post links yourself and discredit it yourself...




    There are sources of value and sources that plain suck. As I have some background on the biology of procreation, it was in-my-face apparent their article about artificial wombs as hmm lacking.

    Now the same "source" post an article with all the ingrediants to get the self-righteous going: evil judge rips baby from christian mommy (or close to it: interferes with her custody rights). Unfortunately, nowhere in the rest of the WWW is there any trace of the case, no newspaper, no christian support group, no nothing.

    As I wrote, if you chose to stick to such a shitty source and go all partisan about it, your choice. I'd rather have a second account before I make my mind.
  • Reply 10 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Racist speech is illegal in Europe (may I comment you sound fairly chuffed that's not the case in the US)...



    You don't like trumptman's politics so he's in favor of racist speech? Don't be a jerk.
    Quote:

    Now then: libel.



    Tap tap tap.




    Now then: the First Amendment. Successful libel prosecutions are rather rare.
  • Reply 11 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Racist speech is illegal in Europe (may I comment you sound fairly chuffed that's not the case in the US). Burning flags is legal in the UK (I understood it was illegal in the US, this seems to be wrong).



    Now then: libel.



    Tap tap tap.




    Are you claiming that religious speech somehow equates to libel? Are you claiming the mother and her religion are somehow lying about the partner being homosexual?



    I don't get your point. Lying/slander/libel/defamation are not protected forms of speech. Are you attempting some slipperly slope whereby since we prevent libel, we no longer have free speech in the United States?



    If you have a point, please get to it.



    Nick
  • Reply 12 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Racist speech is illegal in Europe (may I comment you sound fairly chuffed that's not the case in the US). Burning flags is legal in the UK (I understood it was illegal in the US, this seems to be wrong).



    Now then: libel.



    Tap tap tap.




    The freedom of speech is an important freedom here. It's one of the reasons the colonials revolted.



    On topic, If it's actually true I'm somewhat upset that a judge deemed a religion to be contraband, since that's also supposed to be an important part of our construct: that is, the freedom to practice any religion.
  • Reply 13 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    There are sources of value and sources that plain suck. As I have some background on the biology of procreation, it was in-my-face apparent their article about artificial wombs as hmm lacking.

    Now the same "source" post an article with all the ingrediants to get the self-righteous going: evil judge rips baby from christian mommy (or close to it: interferes with her custody rights). Unfortunately, nowhere in the rest of the WWW is there any trace of the case, no newspaper, no christian support group, no nothing.

    As I wrote, if you chose to stick to such a shitty source and go all partisan about it, your choice. I'd rather have a second account before I make my mind.




    Lalalalala, if you don't like the thread you'll derail, it. For you its the same old song.



    The thread you are mentioning had multiple sources in the first post. It invited more. Make a point or shut up. If the decision is mischaracterized then you can obviously change the conclusion you've drawn from it later. In the meantime either comment or the case or stop derailing the thread.



    Nick
  • Reply 14 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    You don't like trumptman's politics so he's in favor of racist speech?



    Don't be a jerk.Now then: the First Amendment. Successful libel prosecutions are rather rare.




    I don't favor racism, nor does the ACLU. Free speech means protecting it even for those for whom we disagree. I support a Neo-Nazi's right to speech. I don't support Nazism for example nor do I support racism.



    Nick
  • Reply 15 of 49
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Gee, if gay marriage was allowed in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem now.
  • Reply 16 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I don't favor racism, nor does the ACLU. Free speech means protecting it even for those for whom we disagree. I support a Neo-Nazi's right to speech. I don't support Nazism for example nor do I support racism.



    I wasn't suggesting you did.



    Sorry for the misunderstanding. My fault. I got Harald's inference exactly backwards. (You were still being a jerk, Harald. You drew a conclusion from insufficient data.)
  • Reply 17 of 49
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    Quote:

    Gee, if gay marriage was allowed in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem now.



    why not? you'd still have one woman saying that homosexuality is wrong based on her religion. married or not.
  • Reply 18 of 49
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    A fictional history: A black man and a white woman gets a child. They get divorsed a year later when the woman finds out she is gay. They get shared custody, one week at the fathers, one week at the mother aso.



    When at the fathers house the child is taught that being gay is very wrong. WHen at the mothers house it is taught that all black men are scum of the earth.



    Is this good or very bad for the child?
  • Reply 19 of 49
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    why not? you'd still have one woman saying that homosexuality is wrong based on her religion. married or not.



    If you read the article, you would notice that most of the arguments used refer to the unprecedented granting of parental rights to someone with no legal standing.
  • Reply 20 of 49
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    This is the talk radio universe in a nutshell. Indignation inspiring anecdote, questions of authenticity quickly dispensed with as being a distraction, just another grain in the smoldering heap called "why the liberal elites hate us and our values".



    Except... about that authenticity thing. Does it make any sense to anyone here that such a combustible mix of judicial activism, homosexuality, parent's rights and christianity would fail to leave a single additional reference anywhere on the web? I've done multiple searches with various combinations of keywords: nada.



    I am just so goddamn tired of the little closed universe of right-wing fury, telling each other hair-raising tails of Hillary's sex toy Christmas tree ornaments, and Clinton's lengthy string of murders, and how the liberal teachers urinated on the bible while forcing their students to praise satan....



    I mean, if liberalism is such a beast, why not stick to reality?
Sign In or Register to comment.