They decided today not to take the appeal, so the monument stays out.
Well the Liberty Council has their press release up about it now. Another search turned up more articles, but they are mostly commentary on the World Daily News article so I wouldn't consider that a second source.
in real life, i avoid homo/heterophobics and racists. i just walk away.
quit teaching kids the religion at all. they dont have the emotional tools to cope with it. in the worst case they believe what you say as a truth, and will never re-consider why YOUR religion is the right one.
my mum decided i was statistically cath.. christian. so, i suffered in the school learning all the blabla untill i was 18. the day after my 18th birthday, i walked to the church registry to sign me off the church registries. and only then was i free from any religious, biased crap i was teached in schools and high school as the ultimate truth.
Gia,
I don't know if I can convey the subtlety of this in a forum post. Though I will try. The ACLU obviously doesn't support Nazism, but will sue to insure their right to gather and speak because they believe the right of free speech is more important than any harm the Nazi's may do.
In this case we are discussing, two pretty fundimental issues. One is freedom of religion. The other is the right to parent. I'm willing to risk the harm to insure the rights.
I thought it was you who made mention of the fact that the Liberty Council had not even put a press release about this matter on their website while being quoted in the article.
It could have been addabox instead. If I confused the two of you on that matter, I'm sorry.
In this case we are discussing, two pretty fundimental issues. One is freedom of religion. The other is the right to parent. I'm willing to risk the harm to insure the rights.
The right of the parent to decide in what his/her child believes in, untill the kid is 18 and can sign her/himself the papers where he/she is not a member anymore of whatever religion.
Freedom or religion = freedom of parents decision of religion. In europe at least there is no freedom of religion for kids.
For me is uncomprensible that anyone under 18 (as in europe) is not allowed to decide him/herself whether he/she is a member of a church or not. So, at least there, under-18s freedom of religion is a pure oxymoron.
The right of the parent to decide in what his/her child believes in, untill the kid is 18 and can sign her/himself the papers where he/she is not a member anymore of whatever religion.
Freedom or religion = freedom of parents decision of religion. In europe at least there is no freedom of religion for kids.
For me is uncomprensible that anyone under 18 (as in europe) is not allowed to decide him/herself whether he/she is a member of a church or not. So, at least there, under-18s freedom of religion is a pure oxymoron.
Gia,
The parent can decide what to teach, but ultimately the child decides themselves what to believe. You are proof of this yourself. Yes children have fewer rights than adults. This is true in many instances of life.
Now as an interesting twist, how about if the parent wants freedom from religion and the child wishes to pursue religious learning. I don't know if you are a parent, but suppose your daughter some day really wanted to attend church while you refuse to go. Are you going to give her the freedom to attend?
I am not familiar with the joining and renouncing aspects of the Catholic church. Do you have to be 18 to sign yourself out of membership in all countries? Are there aspects of membership that would somehow encumber you besides a piece of paper declaring you belong to a church you really don't?
The right of the parent to decide in what his/her child believes in, untill the kid is 18 and can sign her/himself the papers where he/she is not a member anymore of whatever religion.
Freedom or religion = freedom of parents decision of religion. In europe at least there is no freedom of religion for kids.
For me is uncomprensible that anyone under 18 (as in europe) is not allowed to decide him/herself whether he/she is a member of a church or not. So, at least there, under-18s freedom of religion is a pure oxymoron.
Then again, if you want those freedoms under 18 then you need totake full responsibility for your actions and no more of this tried as a inor nonsense.
In this country you have the freedom of religion, allowing you to choose your religion and pass it along to your children (as most religions have you do...) As it is HER child, she should have every right to bring her child up as she sees fit. There is no reason, or constitionality in NOT allowingher to teach her religion. Honestly, I wouldn't know how to raise a child WITHOUT my relgion coming into it, as my family gathers on the holidays. That and my religion is a culture, in and of itself unlike many others. Besides, if you feel that you're right, and you want to teach your children the right things, don't you?
On the other side of this is the homophobis nature of most religions. Let's put it this way... Christians feel that homosexuality is bad. But they also preach "hate the sin, not the sinner". If the mother was a true Christian, would she really be this spiteful and hateful towards her ex-lesbian lover? If one can find "redemption", shouldn't she be trying to show her the error of her ways and help her find the light and not bashing her every chance she gets?
BR is right, none of this would happen if there were gay marriages. This is a very fine tightrope being crossed here. While you can't allow the state to raise children instead of parents, and they definately SHOULD NOT outlaw someone from teaching their religion, what other options are left? There is no correct way to end this argument unless gay marriages are legalized.
Critics say the order has the potential to prevent Dr. Clark from attending a particular church or following certain religious traditions to avoid being found in contempt of court. The decision fails to explain the meaning of "homophobic," leaving the door open for the state to substitute its own definition.
This is a bit interesting...
Quote:
Most of Dr. Clark's appeal is devoted to the argument that Miss McLeod has no parental rights to the child. Now 8 years old, the girl was adopted from China by Dr. Clark after she became involved with Miss McLeod.
Judge Coughlin ruled that Miss McLeod should be considered a "psychological parent" because of her longtime relationship with the child. He said the girl recognizes both women as her parents and that Dr. Clark encouraged this by changing the child's name by adding "McLeod" as a middle name.
In her appeal, however, Dr. Clark's attorneys note that Miss McLeod never sought to adopt the child and thus has no legal standing as a parent. In previous cases, the court has granted "psychological parent" status when the legal parent has been absent or negligent, neither of which applies in this case.
Which is why I said previously legalizing homosexual marriage would clear up a lot of the issues in this case boiling it down to a simple first amendment free speech free religion issue and the court could have then made the correct ruling. Instead, all this psychological parent bullshit is brought up obfuscating the real free speech free religion issue.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
They decided today not to take the appeal, so the monument stays out.
Well the Liberty Council has their press release up about it now. Another search turned up more articles, but they are mostly commentary on the World Daily News article so I wouldn't consider that a second source.
Press Release
Nick
Originally posted by Giaguara
nick, why do you care so much about this topic?
in real life, i avoid homo/heterophobics and racists. i just walk away.
quit teaching kids the religion at all. they dont have the emotional tools to cope with it. in the worst case they believe what you say as a truth, and will never re-consider why YOUR religion is the right one.
my mum decided i was statistically cath.. christian. so, i suffered in the school learning all the blabla untill i was 18. the day after my 18th birthday, i walked to the church registry to sign me off the church registries. and only then was i free from any religious, biased crap i was teached in schools and high school as the ultimate truth.
Gia,
I don't know if I can convey the subtlety of this in a forum post. Though I will try. The ACLU obviously doesn't support Nazism, but will sue to insure their right to gather and speak because they believe the right of free speech is more important than any harm the Nazi's may do.
In this case we are discussing, two pretty fundimental issues. One is freedom of religion. The other is the right to parent. I'm willing to risk the harm to insure the rights.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
I was talking about the Alabama-Moore case.
I thought it was you who made mention of the fact that the Liberty Council had not even put a press release about this matter on their website while being quoted in the article.
It could have been addabox instead. If I confused the two of you on that matter, I'm sorry.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
In this case we are discussing, two pretty fundimental issues. One is freedom of religion. The other is the right to parent. I'm willing to risk the harm to insure the rights.
The right of the parent to decide in what his/her child believes in, untill the kid is 18 and can sign her/himself the papers where he/she is not a member anymore of whatever religion.
Freedom or religion = freedom of parents decision of religion. In europe at least there is no freedom of religion for kids.
For me is uncomprensible that anyone under 18 (as in europe) is not allowed to decide him/herself whether he/she is a member of a church or not. So, at least there, under-18s freedom of religion is a pure oxymoron.
Originally posted by Giaguara
The right of the parent to decide in what his/her child believes in, untill the kid is 18 and can sign her/himself the papers where he/she is not a member anymore of whatever religion.
Freedom or religion = freedom of parents decision of religion. In europe at least there is no freedom of religion for kids.
For me is uncomprensible that anyone under 18 (as in europe) is not allowed to decide him/herself whether he/she is a member of a church or not. So, at least there, under-18s freedom of religion is a pure oxymoron.
Gia,
The parent can decide what to teach, but ultimately the child decides themselves what to believe. You are proof of this yourself. Yes children have fewer rights than adults. This is true in many instances of life.
Now as an interesting twist, how about if the parent wants freedom from religion and the child wishes to pursue religious learning. I don't know if you are a parent, but suppose your daughter some day really wanted to attend church while you refuse to go. Are you going to give her the freedom to attend?
I am not familiar with the joining and renouncing aspects of the Catholic church. Do you have to be 18 to sign yourself out of membership in all countries? Are there aspects of membership that would somehow encumber you besides a piece of paper declaring you belong to a church you really don't?
Nick
Originally posted by Giaguara
The right of the parent to decide in what his/her child believes in, untill the kid is 18 and can sign her/himself the papers where he/she is not a member anymore of whatever religion.
Freedom or religion = freedom of parents decision of religion. In europe at least there is no freedom of religion for kids.
For me is uncomprensible that anyone under 18 (as in europe) is not allowed to decide him/herself whether he/she is a member of a church or not. So, at least there, under-18s freedom of religion is a pure oxymoron.
Then again, if you want those freedoms under 18 then you need totake full responsibility for your actions and no more of this tried as a inor nonsense.
In this country you have the freedom of religion, allowing you to choose your religion and pass it along to your children (as most religions have you do...) As it is HER child, she should have every right to bring her child up as she sees fit. There is no reason, or constitionality in NOT allowingher to teach her religion. Honestly, I wouldn't know how to raise a child WITHOUT my relgion coming into it, as my family gathers on the holidays. That and my religion is a culture, in and of itself unlike many others. Besides, if you feel that you're right, and you want to teach your children the right things, don't you?
On the other side of this is the homophobis nature of most religions. Let's put it this way... Christians feel that homosexuality is bad. But they also preach "hate the sin, not the sinner". If the mother was a true Christian, would she really be this spiteful and hateful towards her ex-lesbian lover? If one can find "redemption", shouldn't she be trying to show her the error of her ways and help her find the light and not bashing her every chance she gets?
BR is right, none of this would happen if there were gay marriages. This is a very fine tightrope being crossed here. While you can't allow the state to raise children instead of parents, and they definately SHOULD NOT outlaw someone from teaching their religion, what other options are left? There is no correct way to end this argument unless gay marriages are legalized.
Custody on appeal
Some interesting aspects...
Critics say the order has the potential to prevent Dr. Clark from attending a particular church or following certain religious traditions to avoid being found in contempt of court. The decision fails to explain the meaning of "homophobic," leaving the door open for the state to substitute its own definition.
This is a bit interesting...
Most of Dr. Clark's appeal is devoted to the argument that Miss McLeod has no parental rights to the child. Now 8 years old, the girl was adopted from China by Dr. Clark after she became involved with Miss McLeod.
Judge Coughlin ruled that Miss McLeod should be considered a "psychological parent" because of her longtime relationship with the child. He said the girl recognizes both women as her parents and that Dr. Clark encouraged this by changing the child's name by adding "McLeod" as a middle name.
In her appeal, however, Dr. Clark's attorneys note that Miss McLeod never sought to adopt the child and thus has no legal standing as a parent. In previous cases, the court has granted "psychological parent" status when the legal parent has been absent or negligent, neither of which applies in this case.
Nick