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.
Therefore what? It didn't happen? I've done searches too and none of them have even given the WorldNetDaily.com article. By your "logic" the story doesn't exist.
Quote:
I am just so goddamn tired of the little closed universe of right-wing fury...
This is the left in a nutshell. By your own admission you've failed to come up with more information and yet you've decided this is nothing but a work of fiction. I'm getting pretty fed up with the little, closed universe of left-wing fury too.
Whether you agree with the mom or not (I completely disagree with her views on homosexuality), she shouldn't be told how to raise her child. At some point you get into things like preventing child abuse, but this case is far from that. It's a tough decision, because it's hard to know what's best for the child - should she be taught whatever her parents want to teach her without restrictions, even if they represent opposing viewpoints? Or should she be sheltered from one of her parents' belief systems? Either way, it's not right to be telling a parent what to teach their kids unless it's actually harmful to them or others.
If the child is exposed to opposing viewpoints throughout childhood, they'll eventually get old enough to make their own decision. Maybe they wise up and realize the crap their hateful mother has been spewing (heh, I just had to ), and maybe they embrace it. But that's not a judge's decision to make.
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.
How would marriage have changed this then? If anything what you imply is even more dangerous. I would hope that if my wife and I, for example divorced someday, that none of the people we date afterwards would have equal or more rights to our children then we ourselves have. That is what has happened in this decision.
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?
Its mostly all about selling books and getting higher ratings on the radio.
1) Start a subculture of that blames everything on the "liberal media"
2) Pick stories out of left field then pretend they are the norm.
3) Screech on about it in books and on radio shows.
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?
It is neither. Children throughout their lives will hear arguements contrary to what they are taught. Eventually they will become educated and able to make their own decision on the subject matter.
I realize there is a potential for bad but preserving as much of Free Speech as we can is important. I agree with Trump...Free Speech in this situation should not be left to the subjective whims of Judges.
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?
There are several issues raised in this thread, but I think this post crystallizes the main one. The issue is: can a parent teach whatever he/she wants to his/her child, even if it alienates the child from the other parent?
Suppose, for example, a divorced father says to his six year old daughter that ?Mommy is a drunk and a whore ? she sleeps around, and only cares for herself, not you. Oh, by the way, she?s coming to pick you up for the weekend?.
To my mind, if the mother can teach her beliefs without alienating the child from the other ?parent?, that is within the mother's (or father's) rights. If, however, the point is to alienate the child then idea of free speech to a child is trumped by the child's welfare, and the judge should place restrictions on the mother.
Now, why in the world this other "parent" (a sexual partner) has any visitation rights is beyond me...one supposes that the child's welfare is in the judges thinking...
I doubt the First Amendment issue applies, because you give up some rights when you enter a court-ordered agreement. The legal system can take away rights that people otherwise have. Judges can sentence people to prison, or fine them, or take away their children, or do other things that would otherwise violate someone's rights.
I'm sure there was debate in this court proceeding about the kind of rights both women would get. I'm sure they argued that the straight/Christian convert (who wants to bet it doesn't last?) was going to teach the child that the other woman was evil. It wouldn't surprise me if a typical condition of joint custody agreements is that you not train the child to hate the other. So the judge said "OK, you can't train your child to hate the other, so as long as there is no God-hates-fags stuff, you're both granted these rights."
More generally, I've noticed a trend lately - that if you're religious, you're not responsible for your beliefs. If you're religious, you're supposed to get a free pass on beliefs in a way that the non-religious wouldn't.
I've heard a number of Christian conservatives use this line in recent months/years. So if you're against anti-gay bigotry, you're actually the bigot because you're opposing someone's religion. Or if you oppose a judicial nominee because of the nominee's opinion about abortion, you're an anti-Catholic bigot. Or if you're against religious displays on gov't property, you're a bigot against religious people. Uh-huh. How far can you take this? Most White-supremacist groups are religious too. Some religions justify sex with children. Are you then a bigot if you're against sex with children?
And I also have to wonder why some Christians believe that being anti-gay is such a central part of their religion. Some of the biblical passages about it are pretty ambiguous, and if you do actually look at the central tenets of Christianity, they sure seem to me to contradict the anti-gay beliefs of some Christians.
I doubt the First Amendment issue applies, because you give up some rights when you enter a court-ordered agreement. The legal system can take away rights that people otherwise have. Judges can sentence people to prison, or fine them, or take away their children, or do other things that would otherwise violate someone's rights.
You make a good point. However usually people are denied their rights for committing a crime. You show the current thinking (not saying it is yours) which is why I often go off on so many custody issues nowadays. There are more and more facits of society where because it is "for the children" we are willing to take rights and treat adults like criminals.
Quote:
I'm sure there was debate in this court proceeding about the kind of rights both women would get. I'm sure they argued that the straight/Christian convert (who wants to bet it doesn't last?) was going to teach the child that the other woman was evil. It wouldn't surprise me if a typical condition of joint custody agreements is that you not train the child to hate the other. So the judge said "OK, you can't train your child to hate the other, so as long as there is no God-hates-fags stuff, you're both granted these rights."
The real debate is why the partner got any sort of custody at all. The adopted mother was given equal status to someone who had no claim to the child other than having lived with her mother. That strikes me as very odd. It would strike as so whether she was formerly or currently homosexual. (I mean she obviously must have adopted the child when she was homosexual)
As for the joint custody agreement, it appears to go well beyond personalizing a teaching. It bans teaching of certain dogmas/doctrines of the woman's faith.
I think this will be seen as just another attempt to use government to intrude into private religious matters from those who claim to desire seperation of church in state while actively seeking removal of religion. The Supreme Court case about the pledge will be very interesting and relates a bit to this issue. The father suing on behalf of his daughter is doing so without custody and without the consent of the daughter who has no problems with the pledge. This strikes me as another example of using kids and courts to promote an agenda.
Quote:
More generally, I've noticed a trend lately - that if you're religious, you're not responsible for your beliefs. If you're religious, you're supposed to get a free pass on beliefs in a way that the non-religious wouldn't.
I've heard a number of Christian conservatives use this line in recent months/years. So if you're against anti-gay bigotry, you're actually the bigot because you're opposing someone's religion. Or if you oppose a judicial nominee because of the nominee's opinion about abortion, you're an anti-Catholic bigot. Or if you're against religious displays on gov't property, you're a bigot against religious people. Uh-huh. How far can you take this? Most White-supremacist groups are religious too. Some religions justify sex with children. Are you then a bigot if you're against sex with children?
And I also have to wonder why some Christians believe that being anti-gay is such a central part of their religion. Some of the biblical passages about it are pretty ambiguous, and if you do actually look at the central tenets of Christianity, they sure seem to me to contradict the anti-gay beliefs of some Christians.
I would restate the claim above. It is because the battle ground has moved from public to private. It isn't that Christians or other religious folks aren't responsible for their beliefs. It is that you can't have those beliefs dictated to you by outsides and still have them called your beliefs.
Likewise it is clear that many don't want equality of religious expression or a lack of endorsement. They want unilateral freedom from religion not just in public forums, but in private matters as well. There have been for example, lawsuits relating to renting of public buildings and meeting places for religious meetings and gatherings. All religious groups are treated equally, but some people don't seek equal access, they seek NO access. They allow every private group to use the public facilities but the religious groups. That to me is a form of bigotry. You don't allow the local soccer club, tennis club, gay/lesbian student alliance, future business leaders of American, etc to use the high school campus and then so the Christian Youth group cannot.
Therefore what? It didn't happen? I've done searches too and none of them have even given the WorldNetDaily.com article. By your "logic" the story doesn't exist.
My "logic" consists of noting that a highly controversial case, full of up to the moment hot button issues, apparently drew no mention from the Denver Post, any other local news outlet, any gay rights watch-dog orginization, any christian rights watch-dog orginizations, or, indeed, the Liberty Council's own web site--where they do list another Denver church and state issue which they have weighed in on.
So, yeah, I'm saying that it didn't happen-- at least not in a way that can be verified from the particulars presented.
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
This is the left in a nutshell. By your own admission you've failed to come up with more information and yet you've decided this is nothing but a work of fiction. I'm getting pretty fed up with the little, closed universe of left-wing fury too.
Well, as devastating as "I know you are what am I" is to my point, until someone can show a corroborating citation, which if this is the story it is made out to be really ought to be there, I don't think there is any point in discussing the "issues" it purports to raise.
However usually people are denied their rights for committing a crime.
You can be denied rights in civil cases too. Whenever a court resolves a dispute, that resolution has to be enforceable in such a way that one party may feel that their rights are being denied.
Quote:
The real debate is why the partner got any sort of custody at all. The adopted mother was given equal status to someone who had no claim to the child other than having lived with her mother.
Well that is weird. I misread it the first time and thought that it was the Christian's natural daughter and the lesbian's adopted daughter. But just for the sake of argument, I might be able to see it. For example, a man and woman have been living together in a committed, unmarried relationship for 10 years, and the man has basically raised the woman's daughter. They break up, and the man seeks a custody arrangement with the child. In that case, it doesn't seem completely outrageous to allow it. I don't know the details of this case, but at least in theory, I see it as a possibility.
Quote:
It is because the battle ground has moved from public to private.
Moved to private? Religious groups get upset if you don't allow them to use government property to promote religion - see Alabama and judge Moore. Many of them want prayer back in public schools. They use students to get prayers into graduation ceremonies and football games at public schools. As far as I can tell it's totally about government involvement in religion. The separation of church and state is called a lie. The founding fathers are cited as having used public government ceremonies to endorse religion. The whole point of these arguments is to say that there should be more connections between government and religion. It's not about increasing private religious behavior.
Quote:
There have been for example, lawsuits relating to renting of public buildings and meeting places for religious meetings and gatherings.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. You say it's about private matters, but then the example you use involves religion on government property.
I hope you would agree that the constitutional issues that arise when a soccer club meets on school grounds are nowhere near that which would arise from a meeting of a religious group. For example, if the group were to use the school as a base from which they would try to convert other students at the school, that would be different than a soccer club trying to get other kids to play soccer, from a Constitutional perspective.
But I think the law is clear that student religious groups are allowed to meet on school property (e.g., Good News v. Milford Central School). Can you find cases in which they've been denied that and it has stood up to legal scrutiny?
You can be denied rights in civil cases too. Whenever a court resolves a dispute, that resolution has to be enforceable in such a way that one party may feel that their rights are being denied.
Yes but there is a difference between one party feeling their rights are denied and everyone actually having equal rights. Likewise it often involves public institutions instead of private. (though since private often interact with public they can use that relationship to enforce the same provisions)
In this case we do not have competing sets of civil rights. No one has the right to have their lifestyle validated. If, for example a heterosexual couple divorced and mommy said daddy was living in sin, with his girlfriend. The court might investigate if the mother is attempting to poison the relationship, but cannot dictate the mothers beliefs regarding that relationship. It appears, at least from the statements in the article, that the judge has moved beyond relationship guidelines and into belief systems.
Quote:
The definition of "homophobic," Staver noted, is "all across the board," from being fearful of homosexuals to disagreeing with their lifestyle.
Quote:
Well that is weird. I misread it the first time and thought that it was the Christian's natural daughter and the lesbian's adopted daughter. But just for the sake of argument, I might be able to see it. For example, a man and woman have been living together in a committed, unmarried relationship for 10 years, and the man has basically raised the woman's daughter. They break up, and the man seeks a custody arrangement with the child. In that case, it doesn't seem completely outrageous to allow it. I don't know the details of this case, but at least in theory, I see it as a possibility.
Indeed there have been courts that have awarded women support from the men who have raised those children. However what is the possibility of joint custody?
Quote:
Moved to private? Religious groups get upset if you don't allow them to use government property to promote religion - see Alabama and judge Moore. Many of them want prayer back in public schools. They use students to get prayers into graduation ceremonies and football games at public schools. As far as I can tell it's totally about government involvement in religion. The separation of church and state is called a lie. The founding fathers are cited as having used public government ceremonies to endorse religion. The whole point of these arguments is to say that there should be more connections between government and religion. It's not about increasing private religious behavior.
Well we will let the Supreme Court decide on Judge Moore there. However in a more generalize manner, promote is a much stronger word than I think most religious express actually merits. By the definition of most anti-religious folks a teenager wearing a cross around their neck is "promoting" their religion. It is obvious that quite a few folks and groups want to get their hands on the minds of young people since they are always our future.
The seperation of church and state is debated quite fiercely because of the timeframe in which the Constitution was created and how it applies today. It is no different than the gun control folks who say that, sure everyone owned fire arms to hunt and the "army" was a militia of the local townsfolk. However today we have a professional army and should consider the second amendment differently. The state and church were much more tangled during the formation of the country.
You were not considered a decent member of the community if you didn't belong to a proper church even if you thought there was no god or that he was asleep at the switch. And so the argument is still playing out and being discussed today.
However when you say more connections, again it is more like the civil rights issues. Actually for the folks being affected it is about fewer connections. The glare of cameras, the reach of the federal government, and the how small the world becomes via communication all have improved overtime.
The issues of prayer in school, at graduations, football games all existed before. It's just who would have filed the lawsuit to end them? Who would have heard the case? Where would it have gotten exposure? These things previously did happen and now do not. From the perspective of the folks pressing them, they are seeking what the already formerly had. There are, for example homosexual rights groups seeking to basically remove the legal statutes associated with marriage since homosexual marriage does not exist. Thus they are seeking to have us all seen as individuals before the law. However if the state declared marriage unconstitutional tomorrow, my wife and I would not change what we have. Additionally we would likely seek to have the "connections" reestablished for our children.
Quote:
This is an example of what I'm talking about. You say it's about private matters, but then the example you use involves religion on government property.
I hope you would agree that the constitutional issues that arise when a soccer club meets on school grounds are nowhere near that which would arise from a meeting of a religious group. For example, if the group were to use the school as a base from which they would try to convert other students at the school, that would be different than a soccer club trying to get other kids to play soccer, from a Constitutional perspective.
But I think the law is clear that student religious groups are allowed to meet on school property (e.g., Good News v. Milford Central School). Can you find cases in which they've been denied that and it has stood up to legal scrutiny?
Well as you said their ability to meet on those grounds has been upheld, but it had to be upheld because it was challenged. Likewise there are groups and schools that still seek to deny them their rights, much like there are groups that still seek to deny women, and minorities their rights.
As for the meeting, I don't see a difference in Constitutional issues, which is again what the court found to be true as well. The public institution has an obligation to NOT treat them differently. The public institution could not favor the church group over the soccer team because that would be endorsing religion. However they also cannot deny the church group since that is repression of religion.
You mention both groups soliciting members from the school. Again if they both use the same procedures and protocols, I see no issue with it. If for example there were a club solicitation day and all groups were allowed to pass out literature, set up tables and seek memebers then that is not government endorsement of that religion, especially when the students seek it and not staff members or administration.
Obviously BRussell you strike me as non-religious. If someone set up a table and handed you a brochure, do you consider that anything more than speech?
But more back on topic, should the adopted mother be expected to be somehow not disagree with homosexuality, still keep her religious beliefs, and not end up in contempt of court? It appears to me the court is dictating beliefs to her. It becomes troublesome when the definition of homophobic becomes so broad it includes mere disagreement.
To my mind, if the mother can teach her beliefs without alienating the child from the other ?parent?, that is within the mother's (or father's) rights. If, however, the point is to alienate the child then idea of free speech to a child is trumped by the child's welfare, and the judge should place restrictions on the mother.
That is not how our Constitution works. You don't get the right to "trump" Constitutional rights in this way. The only recourse would be for the other parent to sue for Slander if the statements were pointed at them. In other words a Judge cannot force you to refrain from teaching your child homophobic ideals but could punish you for slandering a particular homosexual. The Judge was wrong here and his/her judement will not stand if challenged in another court.
Quote:
I doubt the First Amendment issue applies, because you give up some rights when you enter a court-ordered agreement. The legal system can take away rights that people otherwise have. Judges can sentence people to prison, or fine them, or take away their children, or do other things that would otherwise violate someone's rights.
The 1st Amendment applies here indeed. We give up rights when we are found guilty of violating laws. A Mother teaching her daughter about homosexuality in negative ways violates no laws. This judgment is without merit.
Quote:
You can be denied rights in civil cases too. Whenever a court resolves a dispute, that resolution has to be enforceable in such a way that one party may feel that their rights are being denied.
Yes but violations of rights granted by Constitutional Amendments are much harder to get away with taking from an American and rightly so.
Although our intentions regarding this little girls upbringing may be noble..the fact is the Mother has the right to raise her daughter under the manners of Christianity without the Government telling her what she can and cannot say. This judgement won't last a microsecond in appeal.
How would marriage have changed this then? If anything what you imply is even more dangerous. I would hope that if my wife and I, for example divorced someday, that none of the people we date afterwards would have equal or more rights to our children then we ourselves have. That is what has happened in this decision.
Nick
I'm not saying it would change the decision. It would simply change the landscape of the arguments. Without the "no legal standing for custody" leg to stand on, this would simply be a free speech issue...a free speech issue mind you wherein I would disagree with the court's ruling.
That is not how our Constitution works. You don't get the right to "trump" Constitutional rights in this way. The only recourse would be for the other parent to sue for Slander if the statements were pointed at them. In other words a Judge cannot force you to refrain from teaching your child homophobic ideals but could punish you for slandering a particular homosexual. The Judge was wrong here and his/her judement will not stand if challenged in another court.
The 1st Amendment applies here indeed. We give up rights when we are found guilty of violating laws. A Mother teaching her daughter about homosexuality in negative ways violates no laws. This judgment is without merit.
Yes but violations of rights granted by Constitutional Amendments are much harder to get away with taking from an American and rightly so.
By your reasoning, if a judge awards the plaintiff $10,000 in a civil case, it would be thrown out "in a microsecond" because the judge took away the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights. Of course that's nonsense, and so is your reasoning. The question isn't whether judges in civil cases can "take away rights," of course they can. My guess is that religious disputes in custody cases are not uncommon at all, and that judges settle them all the time. I'm sure they're difficult decisions, and they're sometimes overturned. But they're not overturned because judges aren't allowed to take away rights. That's just silly.
That is not how our Constitution works. You don't get the right to "trump" Constitutional rights in this way. The only recourse would be for the other parent to sue for Slander if the statements were pointed at them. In other words a Judge cannot force you to refrain from teaching your child homophobic ideals but could punish you for slandering a particular homosexual. The Judge was wrong here and his/her judement will not stand if challenged in another court.
The 1st Amendment applies here indeed. We give up rights when we are found guilty of violating laws. A Mother teaching her daughter about homosexuality in negative ways violates no laws. This judgment is without merit.
Although our intentions regarding this little girls upbringing may be noble..the fact is the Mother has the right to raise her daughter under the manners of Christianity without the Government telling her what she can and cannot say. This judgement won't last a microsecond in appeal.
You?re taking an absolutist stand on the first amendment that is not recognized in law. Suppose, for example, the parent were a member of the ?Satanic Assembly?, and the child was subjected to the daily teachings and literature of child sex, homosexuality as a duty, the evil of males, and ministered to by supporting pornography - the other parent (a male) is vilified as a sinning unbeliever (a sick and evil Christian at that), who must be hated and avoided at all costs?
Perhaps you don?t appreciate that the moral and historical principle of the 1st amendment was rooted in the free expression of political and religious ideas with other citizens of the Republic ? and idea that is sorely tested in the posted legal case.
I doubt the ?right? of a parent to raise and socialize a child to their belief system is even a first amendment right, it is more likely rooted in common law or the ?unwritten? rights implied in the ninth and tenth amendments. As such, a large body of law and tradition exists that defines the duties, and the constraints, in regards to parents and children ? they are not property, nor are they fully matured and responsible adults, and the state (society) has undertaken co-responsibility for their safety and protection.
You?re taking an absolutist stand on the first amendment that is not recognized in law. Suppose, for example, the parent were a member of the ?Satanic Assembly?, and the child was subjected to the daily teachings and literature of child sex, homosexuality as a duty, the evil of males, and ministered to by supporting pornography - the other parent (a male) is vilified as a sinning unbeliever (a sick and evil Christian at that), who must be hated and avoided at all costs?
Our Constitutional Rights are supposed to be strict and non-liberal in application. As a American Citizen you have the right to teach your children about Satanic cults, homosexuality duty or whatever. Max it's really simple. As a Parent you can f*ck your child up mentally. How racism survives. Children are taught to hate...but the Gov cannot prevent you from doing so. They can only punish acts that are in violation of current laws. Hence teaching of child sex would be covered but the actual act itself would not.
Quote:
Perhaps you don?t appreciate that the moral and historical principle of the 1st amendment was rooted in the free expression of political and religious ideas with other citizens of the Republic ? and idea that is sorely tested in the posted legal case.
I fully appreciate the moral and historical principles of Law. My Mother is a Lawyer and History major. I have always realized that liberal interpretations of our Constitution are far more damaging than the minutiae of cases like this that seem borderline. Read your own post "rooted in the free expression of political and religious ideas with other citizens of the Republic"
What you are saying is our Gov has the right to usurp your Constitutional rights anytime they want with regards to certain issues. We as citizens are allowing this to happen with alarming frequency. From Hate Crimes to the view that the Constitution is a "Living Document" we are enabling the Gov to preside over issues they have no warrant to. Our Gov is for the good of the "People" not Individual.
Quote:
You may not like it, but that?s the way it is.
That's NOT the way it is and I know it. Your grasp of the ideology of our Constitution is fleeting at best.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This means the "unwritten" laws you allude to are not surrended because they are not listed in the Constitution. This amendment doesn't apply to this case as Freedom of Speech IS enumerated by Amendment I
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Merely states that issues not covered by the Federal Gov can now be addressed by the State governments. Again it does not apply here because the issue in explicitly covered by the I Amendment.
It doesn't really matter if you wish to wrap up your cause in a cloak of "child protection" the fact remains we all have a right to Free Speech and the Free practice of our Religion. Christianity DOES state that homosexuality is wrong. This makes the two violations created by this judgment.
Say, anybody come across that second citation yet?
Nope, and I assure you I have looked. It did go in late Friday though and perhaps there are stories waiting to speak to court officials and offices which won't be open until Monday again.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by addabox
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.
Therefore what? It didn't happen? I've done searches too and none of them have even given the WorldNetDaily.com article. By your "logic" the story doesn't exist.
I am just so goddamn tired of the little closed universe of right-wing fury...
This is the left in a nutshell. By your own admission you've failed to come up with more information and yet you've decided this is nothing but a work of fiction. I'm getting pretty fed up with the little, closed universe of left-wing fury too.
If the child is exposed to opposing viewpoints throughout childhood, they'll eventually get old enough to make their own decision. Maybe they wise up and realize the crap their hateful mother has been spewing (heh, I just had to
Originally posted by BR
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.
How would marriage have changed this then? If anything what you imply is even more dangerous. I would hope that if my wife and I, for example divorced someday, that none of the people we date afterwards would have equal or more rights to our children then we ourselves have. That is what has happened in this decision.
Nick
Originally posted by addabox
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?
Its mostly all about selling books and getting higher ratings on the radio.
1) Start a subculture of that blames everything on the "liberal media"
2) Pick stories out of left field then pretend they are the norm.
3) Screech on about it in books and on radio shows.
#
#
#
97) Profit!
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?
It is neither. Children throughout their lives will hear arguements contrary to what they are taught. Eventually they will become educated and able to make their own decision on the subject matter.
I realize there is a potential for bad but preserving as much of Free Speech as we can is important. I agree with Trump...Free Speech in this situation should not be left to the subjective whims of Judges.
Originally posted by Anders
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?
There are several issues raised in this thread, but I think this post crystallizes the main one. The issue is: can a parent teach whatever he/she wants to his/her child, even if it alienates the child from the other parent?
Suppose, for example, a divorced father says to his six year old daughter that ?Mommy is a drunk and a whore ? she sleeps around, and only cares for herself, not you. Oh, by the way, she?s coming to pick you up for the weekend?.
To my mind, if the mother can teach her beliefs without alienating the child from the other ?parent?, that is within the mother's (or father's) rights. If, however, the point is to alienate the child then idea of free speech to a child is trumped by the child's welfare, and the judge should place restrictions on the mother.
Now, why in the world this other "parent" (a sexual partner) has any visitation rights is beyond me...one supposes that the child's welfare is in the judges thinking...
I'm sure there was debate in this court proceeding about the kind of rights both women would get. I'm sure they argued that the straight/Christian convert (who wants to bet it doesn't last?) was going to teach the child that the other woman was evil. It wouldn't surprise me if a typical condition of joint custody agreements is that you not train the child to hate the other. So the judge said "OK, you can't train your child to hate the other, so as long as there is no God-hates-fags stuff, you're both granted these rights."
More generally, I've noticed a trend lately - that if you're religious, you're not responsible for your beliefs. If you're religious, you're supposed to get a free pass on beliefs in a way that the non-religious wouldn't.
I've heard a number of Christian conservatives use this line in recent months/years. So if you're against anti-gay bigotry, you're actually the bigot because you're opposing someone's religion. Or if you oppose a judicial nominee because of the nominee's opinion about abortion, you're an anti-Catholic bigot. Or if you're against religious displays on gov't property, you're a bigot against religious people. Uh-huh. How far can you take this? Most White-supremacist groups are religious too. Some religions justify sex with children. Are you then a bigot if you're against sex with children?
And I also have to wonder why some Christians believe that being anti-gay is such a central part of their religion. Some of the biblical passages about it are pretty ambiguous, and if you do actually look at the central tenets of Christianity, they sure seem to me to contradict the anti-gay beliefs of some Christians.
Originally posted by BRussell
I doubt the First Amendment issue applies, because you give up some rights when you enter a court-ordered agreement. The legal system can take away rights that people otherwise have. Judges can sentence people to prison, or fine them, or take away their children, or do other things that would otherwise violate someone's rights.
You make a good point. However usually people are denied their rights for committing a crime. You show the current thinking (not saying it is yours) which is why I often go off on so many custody issues nowadays. There are more and more facits of society where because it is "for the children" we are willing to take rights and treat adults like criminals.
I'm sure there was debate in this court proceeding about the kind of rights both women would get. I'm sure they argued that the straight/Christian convert (who wants to bet it doesn't last?) was going to teach the child that the other woman was evil. It wouldn't surprise me if a typical condition of joint custody agreements is that you not train the child to hate the other. So the judge said "OK, you can't train your child to hate the other, so as long as there is no God-hates-fags stuff, you're both granted these rights."
The real debate is why the partner got any sort of custody at all. The adopted mother was given equal status to someone who had no claim to the child other than having lived with her mother. That strikes me as very odd. It would strike as so whether she was formerly or currently homosexual. (I mean she obviously must have adopted the child when she was homosexual)
As for the joint custody agreement, it appears to go well beyond personalizing a teaching. It bans teaching of certain dogmas/doctrines of the woman's faith.
I think this will be seen as just another attempt to use government to intrude into private religious matters from those who claim to desire seperation of church in state while actively seeking removal of religion. The Supreme Court case about the pledge will be very interesting and relates a bit to this issue. The father suing on behalf of his daughter is doing so without custody and without the consent of the daughter who has no problems with the pledge. This strikes me as another example of using kids and courts to promote an agenda.
More generally, I've noticed a trend lately - that if you're religious, you're not responsible for your beliefs. If you're religious, you're supposed to get a free pass on beliefs in a way that the non-religious wouldn't.
I've heard a number of Christian conservatives use this line in recent months/years. So if you're against anti-gay bigotry, you're actually the bigot because you're opposing someone's religion. Or if you oppose a judicial nominee because of the nominee's opinion about abortion, you're an anti-Catholic bigot. Or if you're against religious displays on gov't property, you're a bigot against religious people. Uh-huh. How far can you take this? Most White-supremacist groups are religious too. Some religions justify sex with children. Are you then a bigot if you're against sex with children?
And I also have to wonder why some Christians believe that being anti-gay is such a central part of their religion. Some of the biblical passages about it are pretty ambiguous, and if you do actually look at the central tenets of Christianity, they sure seem to me to contradict the anti-gay beliefs of some Christians.
I would restate the claim above. It is because the battle ground has moved from public to private. It isn't that Christians or other religious folks aren't responsible for their beliefs. It is that you can't have those beliefs dictated to you by outsides and still have them called your beliefs.
Likewise it is clear that many don't want equality of religious expression or a lack of endorsement. They want unilateral freedom from religion not just in public forums, but in private matters as well. There have been for example, lawsuits relating to renting of public buildings and meeting places for religious meetings and gatherings. All religious groups are treated equally, but some people don't seek equal access, they seek NO access. They allow every private group to use the public facilities but the religious groups. That to me is a form of bigotry. You don't allow the local soccer club, tennis club, gay/lesbian student alliance, future business leaders of American, etc to use the high school campus and then so the Christian Youth group cannot.
Nick
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Therefore what? It didn't happen? I've done searches too and none of them have even given the WorldNetDaily.com article. By your "logic" the story doesn't exist.
My "logic" consists of noting that a highly controversial case, full of up to the moment hot button issues, apparently drew no mention from the Denver Post, any other local news outlet, any gay rights watch-dog orginization, any christian rights watch-dog orginizations, or, indeed, the Liberty Council's own web site--where they do list another Denver church and state issue which they have weighed in on.
So, yeah, I'm saying that it didn't happen-- at least not in a way that can be verified from the particulars presented.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
This is the left in a nutshell. By your own admission you've failed to come up with more information and yet you've decided this is nothing but a work of fiction. I'm getting pretty fed up with the little, closed universe of left-wing fury too.
Well, as devastating as "I know you are what am I" is to my point, until someone can show a corroborating citation, which if this is the story it is made out to be really ought to be there, I don't think there is any point in discussing the "issues" it purports to raise.
However usually people are denied their rights for committing a crime.
You can be denied rights in civil cases too. Whenever a court resolves a dispute, that resolution has to be enforceable in such a way that one party may feel that their rights are being denied.
The real debate is why the partner got any sort of custody at all. The adopted mother was given equal status to someone who had no claim to the child other than having lived with her mother.
Well that is weird. I misread it the first time and thought that it was the Christian's natural daughter and the lesbian's adopted daughter. But just for the sake of argument, I might be able to see it. For example, a man and woman have been living together in a committed, unmarried relationship for 10 years, and the man has basically raised the woman's daughter. They break up, and the man seeks a custody arrangement with the child. In that case, it doesn't seem completely outrageous to allow it. I don't know the details of this case, but at least in theory, I see it as a possibility.
It is because the battle ground has moved from public to private.
Moved to private? Religious groups get upset if you don't allow them to use government property to promote religion - see Alabama and judge Moore. Many of them want prayer back in public schools. They use students to get prayers into graduation ceremonies and football games at public schools. As far as I can tell it's totally about government involvement in religion. The separation of church and state is called a lie. The founding fathers are cited as having used public government ceremonies to endorse religion. The whole point of these arguments is to say that there should be more connections between government and religion. It's not about increasing private religious behavior.
There have been for example, lawsuits relating to renting of public buildings and meeting places for religious meetings and gatherings.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. You say it's about private matters, but then the example you use involves religion on government property.
I hope you would agree that the constitutional issues that arise when a soccer club meets on school grounds are nowhere near that which would arise from a meeting of a religious group. For example, if the group were to use the school as a base from which they would try to convert other students at the school, that would be different than a soccer club trying to get other kids to play soccer, from a Constitutional perspective.
But I think the law is clear that student religious groups are allowed to meet on school property (e.g., Good News v. Milford Central School). Can you find cases in which they've been denied that and it has stood up to legal scrutiny?
Originally posted by BRussell
You can be denied rights in civil cases too. Whenever a court resolves a dispute, that resolution has to be enforceable in such a way that one party may feel that their rights are being denied.
Yes but there is a difference between one party feeling their rights are denied and everyone actually having equal rights. Likewise it often involves public institutions instead of private. (though since private often interact with public they can use that relationship to enforce the same provisions)
In this case we do not have competing sets of civil rights. No one has the right to have their lifestyle validated. If, for example a heterosexual couple divorced and mommy said daddy was living in sin, with his girlfriend. The court might investigate if the mother is attempting to poison the relationship, but cannot dictate the mothers beliefs regarding that relationship. It appears, at least from the statements in the article, that the judge has moved beyond relationship guidelines and into belief systems.
Quote:
The definition of "homophobic," Staver noted, is "all across the board," from being fearful of homosexuals to disagreeing with their lifestyle.
Well that is weird. I misread it the first time and thought that it was the Christian's natural daughter and the lesbian's adopted daughter. But just for the sake of argument, I might be able to see it. For example, a man and woman have been living together in a committed, unmarried relationship for 10 years, and the man has basically raised the woman's daughter. They break up, and the man seeks a custody arrangement with the child. In that case, it doesn't seem completely outrageous to allow it. I don't know the details of this case, but at least in theory, I see it as a possibility.
Indeed there have been courts that have awarded women support from the men who have raised those children. However what is the possibility of joint custody?
Moved to private? Religious groups get upset if you don't allow them to use government property to promote religion - see Alabama and judge Moore. Many of them want prayer back in public schools. They use students to get prayers into graduation ceremonies and football games at public schools. As far as I can tell it's totally about government involvement in religion. The separation of church and state is called a lie. The founding fathers are cited as having used public government ceremonies to endorse religion. The whole point of these arguments is to say that there should be more connections between government and religion. It's not about increasing private religious behavior.
Well we will let the Supreme Court decide on Judge Moore there. However in a more generalize manner, promote is a much stronger word than I think most religious express actually merits. By the definition of most anti-religious folks a teenager wearing a cross around their neck is "promoting" their religion. It is obvious that quite a few folks and groups want to get their hands on the minds of young people since they are always our future.
The seperation of church and state is debated quite fiercely because of the timeframe in which the Constitution was created and how it applies today. It is no different than the gun control folks who say that, sure everyone owned fire arms to hunt and the "army" was a militia of the local townsfolk. However today we have a professional army and should consider the second amendment differently. The state and church were much more tangled during the formation of the country.
You were not considered a decent member of the community if you didn't belong to a proper church even if you thought there was no god or that he was asleep at the switch. And so the argument is still playing out and being discussed today.
However when you say more connections, again it is more like the civil rights issues. Actually for the folks being affected it is about fewer connections. The glare of cameras, the reach of the federal government, and the how small the world becomes via communication all have improved overtime.
The issues of prayer in school, at graduations, football games all existed before. It's just who would have filed the lawsuit to end them? Who would have heard the case? Where would it have gotten exposure? These things previously did happen and now do not. From the perspective of the folks pressing them, they are seeking what the already formerly had. There are, for example homosexual rights groups seeking to basically remove the legal statutes associated with marriage since homosexual marriage does not exist. Thus they are seeking to have us all seen as individuals before the law. However if the state declared marriage unconstitutional tomorrow, my wife and I would not change what we have. Additionally we would likely seek to have the "connections" reestablished for our children.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. You say it's about private matters, but then the example you use involves religion on government property.
I hope you would agree that the constitutional issues that arise when a soccer club meets on school grounds are nowhere near that which would arise from a meeting of a religious group. For example, if the group were to use the school as a base from which they would try to convert other students at the school, that would be different than a soccer club trying to get other kids to play soccer, from a Constitutional perspective.
But I think the law is clear that student religious groups are allowed to meet on school property (e.g., Good News v. Milford Central School). Can you find cases in which they've been denied that and it has stood up to legal scrutiny?
Well as you said their ability to meet on those grounds has been upheld, but it had to be upheld because it was challenged. Likewise there are groups and schools that still seek to deny them their rights, much like there are groups that still seek to deny women, and minorities their rights.
As for the meeting, I don't see a difference in Constitutional issues, which is again what the court found to be true as well. The public institution has an obligation to NOT treat them differently. The public institution could not favor the church group over the soccer team because that would be endorsing religion. However they also cannot deny the church group since that is repression of religion.
You mention both groups soliciting members from the school. Again if they both use the same procedures and protocols, I see no issue with it. If for example there were a club solicitation day and all groups were allowed to pass out literature, set up tables and seek memebers then that is not government endorsement of that religion, especially when the students seek it and not staff members or administration.
Obviously BRussell you strike me as non-religious. If someone set up a table and handed you a brochure, do you consider that anything more than speech?
But more back on topic, should the adopted mother be expected to be somehow not disagree with homosexuality, still keep her religious beliefs, and not end up in contempt of court? It appears to me the court is dictating beliefs to her. It becomes troublesome when the definition of homophobic becomes so broad it includes mere disagreement.
Nick
To my mind, if the mother can teach her beliefs without alienating the child from the other ?parent?, that is within the mother's (or father's) rights. If, however, the point is to alienate the child then idea of free speech to a child is trumped by the child's welfare, and the judge should place restrictions on the mother.
That is not how our Constitution works. You don't get the right to "trump" Constitutional rights in this way. The only recourse would be for the other parent to sue for Slander if the statements were pointed at them. In other words a Judge cannot force you to refrain from teaching your child homophobic ideals but could punish you for slandering a particular homosexual. The Judge was wrong here and his/her judement will not stand if challenged in another court.
I doubt the First Amendment issue applies, because you give up some rights when you enter a court-ordered agreement. The legal system can take away rights that people otherwise have. Judges can sentence people to prison, or fine them, or take away their children, or do other things that would otherwise violate someone's rights.
The 1st Amendment applies here indeed. We give up rights when we are found guilty of violating laws. A Mother teaching her daughter about homosexuality in negative ways violates no laws. This judgment is without merit.
You can be denied rights in civil cases too. Whenever a court resolves a dispute, that resolution has to be enforceable in such a way that one party may feel that their rights are being denied.
Yes but violations of rights granted by Constitutional Amendments are much harder to get away with taking from an American and rightly so.
Although our intentions regarding this little girls upbringing may be noble..the fact is the Mother has the right to raise her daughter under the manners of Christianity without the Government telling her what she can and cannot say. This judgement won't last a microsecond in appeal.
Originally posted by trumptman
How would marriage have changed this then? If anything what you imply is even more dangerous. I would hope that if my wife and I, for example divorced someday, that none of the people we date afterwards would have equal or more rights to our children then we ourselves have. That is what has happened in this decision.
Nick
I'm not saying it would change the decision. It would simply change the landscape of the arguments. Without the "no legal standing for custody" leg to stand on, this would simply be a free speech issue...a free speech issue mind you wherein I would disagree with the court's ruling.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That is not how our Constitution works. You don't get the right to "trump" Constitutional rights in this way. The only recourse would be for the other parent to sue for Slander if the statements were pointed at them. In other words a Judge cannot force you to refrain from teaching your child homophobic ideals but could punish you for slandering a particular homosexual. The Judge was wrong here and his/her judement will not stand if challenged in another court.
The 1st Amendment applies here indeed. We give up rights when we are found guilty of violating laws. A Mother teaching her daughter about homosexuality in negative ways violates no laws. This judgment is without merit.
Yes but violations of rights granted by Constitutional Amendments are much harder to get away with taking from an American and rightly so.
By your reasoning, if a judge awards the plaintiff $10,000 in a civil case, it would be thrown out "in a microsecond" because the judge took away the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights. Of course that's nonsense, and so is your reasoning. The question isn't whether judges in civil cases can "take away rights," of course they can. My guess is that religious disputes in custody cases are not uncommon at all, and that judges settle them all the time. I'm sure they're difficult decisions, and they're sometimes overturned. But they're not overturned because judges aren't allowed to take away rights. That's just silly.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That is not how our Constitution works. You don't get the right to "trump" Constitutional rights in this way. The only recourse would be for the other parent to sue for Slander if the statements were pointed at them. In other words a Judge cannot force you to refrain from teaching your child homophobic ideals but could punish you for slandering a particular homosexual. The Judge was wrong here and his/her judement will not stand if challenged in another court.
The 1st Amendment applies here indeed. We give up rights when we are found guilty of violating laws. A Mother teaching her daughter about homosexuality in negative ways violates no laws. This judgment is without merit.
Although our intentions regarding this little girls upbringing may be noble..the fact is the Mother has the right to raise her daughter under the manners of Christianity without the Government telling her what she can and cannot say. This judgement won't last a microsecond in appeal.
You?re taking an absolutist stand on the first amendment that is not recognized in law. Suppose, for example, the parent were a member of the ?Satanic Assembly?, and the child was subjected to the daily teachings and literature of child sex, homosexuality as a duty, the evil of males, and ministered to by supporting pornography - the other parent (a male) is vilified as a sinning unbeliever (a sick and evil Christian at that), who must be hated and avoided at all costs?
Perhaps you don?t appreciate that the moral and historical principle of the 1st amendment was rooted in the free expression of political and religious ideas with other citizens of the Republic ? and idea that is sorely tested in the posted legal case.
I doubt the ?right? of a parent to raise and socialize a child to their belief system is even a first amendment right, it is more likely rooted in common law or the ?unwritten? rights implied in the ninth and tenth amendments. As such, a large body of law and tradition exists that defines the duties, and the constraints, in regards to parents and children ? they are not property, nor are they fully matured and responsible adults, and the state (society) has undertaken co-responsibility for their safety and protection.
You may not like it, but that?s the way it is.
You?re taking an absolutist stand on the first amendment that is not recognized in law. Suppose, for example, the parent were a member of the ?Satanic Assembly?, and the child was subjected to the daily teachings and literature of child sex, homosexuality as a duty, the evil of males, and ministered to by supporting pornography - the other parent (a male) is vilified as a sinning unbeliever (a sick and evil Christian at that), who must be hated and avoided at all costs?
Our Constitutional Rights are supposed to be strict and non-liberal in application. As a American Citizen you have the right to teach your children about Satanic cults, homosexuality duty or whatever. Max it's really simple. As a Parent you can f*ck your child up mentally. How racism survives. Children are taught to hate...but the Gov cannot prevent you from doing so. They can only punish acts that are in violation of current laws. Hence teaching of child sex would be covered but the actual act itself would not.
Perhaps you don?t appreciate that the moral and historical principle of the 1st amendment was rooted in the free expression of political and religious ideas with other citizens of the Republic ? and idea that is sorely tested in the posted legal case.
I fully appreciate the moral and historical principles of Law. My Mother is a Lawyer and History major. I have always realized that liberal interpretations of our Constitution are far more damaging than the minutiae of cases like this that seem borderline. Read your own post "rooted in the free expression of political and religious ideas with other citizens of the Republic"
What you are saying is our Gov has the right to usurp your Constitutional rights anytime they want with regards to certain issues. We as citizens are allowing this to happen with alarming frequency. From Hate Crimes to the view that the Constitution is a "Living Document" we are enabling the Gov to preside over issues they have no warrant to. Our Gov is for the good of the "People" not Individual.
You may not like it, but that?s the way it is.
That's NOT the way it is and I know it. Your grasp of the ideology of our Constitution is fleeting at best.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This means the "unwritten" laws you allude to are not surrended because they are not listed in the Constitution. This amendment doesn't apply to this case as Freedom of Speech IS enumerated by Amendment I
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Merely states that issues not covered by the Federal Gov can now be addressed by the State governments. Again it does not apply here because the issue in explicitly covered by the I Amendment.
It doesn't really matter if you wish to wrap up your cause in a cloak of "child protection" the fact remains we all have a right to Free Speech and the Free practice of our Religion. Christianity DOES state that homosexuality is wrong. This makes the two violations created by this judgment.
1. Against her free practice of religion
2. Agains free speech.
and THAT is the way it is.
Originally posted by addabox
Say, anybody come across that second citation yet?
Nope, and I assure you I have looked. It did go in late Friday though and perhaps there are stories waiting to speak to court officials and offices which won't be open until Monday again.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Well we will let the Supreme Court decide on Judge Moore there
They decided today not to take the appeal, so the monument stays out.
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.