Judge forbids parents from exposing child to their religion

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Woodwork:
“I do not think you can accuse Clark of bigotry or some other moral failing. She has obviously lived under both circumstances and for her own reasons decided that one of the two is not only not for her, but morally wrong.”
Willow_41Z:
“So how is it that the judge can tell Dr. Clark that her religion is not acceptable to teach her child? The cases seem very similar…”</p>

<p>The pernicious thing about mainstream bigotry is that because it is mainstream it is not recognized as bigotry. If this case involved a bi-racial couple who divorced, and the white custodial parent joined a church which taught that non-whites are “mud people” on a par with animals, would you be so quick to argue that a court, given the always-difficult ask of refereeing the disputes between divorced parents as to how to raise their children, should not rule that the mother was not to indoctrinate her daughter with the belief that her father was a “mud person”? Or that that is “very similar” to a court ordering that divorced parents cannot continue to raise their children in the religion they both share?</p>

<p>Fortunately, I think that mainstream beliefs have come at least far enough in the past 40 years that that a ruling barring parental denigration based on race would not be considered acceptable simply because one parent has decided that miscegination is “morally wrong.”</p>

42

<p>Thanks SBMom. You were saying it well, just from a different perspective.</p>

43

<p>kluge,
I’m not sure that your example with the “mud people” is applicable in this case. I can’t answer for Dr. Clark’s church, but the only Christian attitude towards homosexuality that I’ve ever encountered is ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’. In that case, Dr. Clark would be teaching her daughter that Ms. McLeod made a sinful life choice, not that she is an evil animal and should be hated.</p>

<p>I’m just questioning how judicial involvement in religious practices can be deemed such a bad thing in the first case and such a good thing in the second. After all, in both, the judge is taking essentially the same action. </p>

<p>I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it’s not right for a judge to get involved in almost any dispute of this nature. You can’t justify judicial involvement by the end result of the case- whether it turns out well or not, it’s still a government intrusion into private life.</p>

44

<p>but willow, the daughter’s whole life experience has been based on the “sinful life choice” of the two women that raised her. Do you not see how it would destabilize the child to suggest that her 2 mommy home & 2 mommy family-- the only home/family she has-- is now deemed wrong, sinful, etc? This judge is basically saying to Clark: You made your bed-- now lie in it. Believe what you want, but do not pull the rug out from under your child by now repudiating the lifestyle that YOU chose to offer her as a “family”.</p>

<p>Whereas in the first case the parents agree on the religious teachings and the judge is imposing his/her views on both of them.</p>

45

<p>SBmom,
If a child had been conceived in adultery, would it be wrong to tell that child that adultery is considered a sin?</p>

46

<p>I admit that I havent read the Christian Bible for a while- but it always puzzles me how insistent people are about picking and choosing what parts to take as “gospel” and which to ignore.
Of course the bible has been interpreted through the ages to suit mans own purposes, but it was hardly written in stone.
However I worry when judges are deciding what is “mainstream” religion- as in both these court cases.
for more information
<a href=“http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm[/url]”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm[/url]”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.religioustolerance.org/sal_over.htm[/url]”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/sal_over.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

47

<p>Unfortunately, Willow, “government intrusion into private life” is necessary in divorce cases - in fact, it’s exactly what family court is all about. And a big part of family law is preventing the stronger members of the family from abusing the rights of the weaker ones. </p>

<p>The white power religions don’t all teach that “mud people” are to be hated or are evil - just inferior. You can love a mud person just like you can love a horse, I guess. “Love the mud person, hate the mud”?</p>

<p>Bigotry is bigotry. Sanctimonious justifications, rationalizations, and clever phrases notwithstanding, the basic teaching of many mainstream Christian churches is that homosexuals are “sinners” - i.e. inferior, destined for hell, etc. This leads to convoluted theories about how being gay is just a “choice” or “lifestyle” instead of an innate characteristic of a small percentage (but large number) of people.</p>

<p>In fact, it’s just an elaborate excuse for bigotry - classifying one group of people as inferior, bad, wrong, etc. - and thus less deserving of the rights, privileges and opportunities that people who are 'like us" are entittled to receive.</p>

48

<p>Yes, two people who submit a case to family court agree to some intrusion into their private lives. However, there is a limit as to how much intrusion is acceptable. Could a court one day dictate that a divorced parent cannot move from his or her home, because it would destroy the stability of the child’s surroundings? Could a court one day dictate that a divorced parent is not allowed to remarry, because it would ‘pull the rug out from under’ the child? </p>

<p>Regarding the function of family law, is it not the child’s right to have both sides of the story presented to her? Notice that the judge did not bar Ms. McLeod from criticizing Christianity; however, since that religion does not condone Ms. McLeod’s lifestyle, I can very easily see her condemning Christians as intolerant. Is this any different from Dr. Clark condemning Ms. McLeod’s lifestyle?</p>

<p>The main problem with the ‘mud person’ analogy is that people are born with their skin color. Engaging in a homosexual lifestyle is a choice (please note that I did not say being homosexual is a choice; I have no desire to open that can of worms!) just as smoking is a choice, just as engaging in a heterosexual lifestyle is a choice. </p>

<p>Yes, most mainstream churches preach that homosexuals are sinners. Most mainstream churches preach that everyone is a sinner- if not, there would be no need for Jesus and hence, no religion!</p>

49

<p>Actually, family law courts deal with the issue of the child’s place of residence all the time. Non-custodial parents are ordered to allow the custodial parent to stay in the family home as long as the children are minors, even if there aren’t enough assets available to reimburse the non-custodial parent for his or her interest in the house until they move out. Orders granting or denying the custodial parent the right to move to a different state (effectively cutting off contact with the non-custodial parent) are a big issue right now. Those are exactly the kinds of things that family courts have to adjudicate, or else, “might makes right.”</p>

<p>As to your complaint that the ruling was “one-sided”, note: </p>

<p>Judge Coughlin, who issued his ruling April 28, did award Dr. Clark sole responsibility for the girl in the area of religion, although with the caveat about exposing the child to anything “homophobic.”</p>

<p>So your preferred, Christian Mom gets to raise the girl in her church, with the sole restriction against exposing her to “homophobia”. There is no suggestion that the other Mom was threatening to expose the girl to anti-Christian dogma; absent a controversy over it there’s no basis for a court order.</p>

<p>And you feel that’s unfair.</p>

50

<p>Wow; that’s even more scary than I had thought. Based on what you told me, I can see a time in the not-so-distant future when a judge in family court will forbid a divorced parent from remarrying, at least until the child(ren) is/are 18, if they want to retain custody. Then will someone realize that government intrusion has gone too far?</p>

<p>Was there any suggestion that Dr. Clark was going to expose the child to so-called homophobic dogma? As for the “preferred, Christian mom” raising the girl, the women were awarded joint custody, were they not? Saying, by the way, that Dr. Clark is my “preferred” choice of guardian is slightly extreme; I don’t know enough about the case to determine with whom the child is better off. My complaint is regarding the involvement of the government in making this determination.</p>

<p>I read varying accounts of whether or not Dr. Clark’s conversion was the cause of the separation; if it was, how is Dr. Clark supposed to explain to her daughter why the two separated without bringing up ‘homophobic’ ideas?</p>

<p>I did find this follow-up article in the Washington Times:
<a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031117-104249-1352r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031117-104249-1352r.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The order was sent back to lower court last summer.</p>

51

<p>“Then will someone realize that government intrusion has gone too far?”
I think we already realize that</p>

<p>Sex education programs at Lake Washington high school ( where I attended) are not open to parents to view and teach that condoms are worthless-that abortions will kill or sterilze a woman and that birth control pills endanger a womans reproductive health.</p>

<p>While their intent may be to scare teens away from having premarital sex, I suggest that it will backfire the way “reefer madness” turned into a cult film. By preaching inaccuracies it makes adults look like idiots and teens are likely to discredit them as a source of reliable information.</p>

<p>“How is Dr. Clark supposed to explain to her daughter why the two separated without bringing up ‘homophobic’ ideas?”</p>

<p>People I know that divorce simply explain that they no longer want to live together as a couple, that they no longer love each other in that way, however they still care about each other. I don’t think there is any point into going into detail, it is an adult issue, not a childs.</p>

52

<p>“Wow; that’s even more scary than I had thought. Based on what you told me, I can see a time in the not-so-distant future when a judge in family court will forbid a divorced parent from remarrying, at least until the child(ren) is/are 18, if they want to retain custody.”</p>

<p>I can see absolutely no reason to “see” such a time. It’s got no connection to current events, and lacks any trace of logic or reason. This is typical of the “parade of horribles” approach to argument. It was a staple of the anti-civil rights arguments of the 60’s, as I recall. </p>

<p>As to “government intrusion” - who do you nominate to cast the deciding vote between two parents of a child or children when one of the parents decides that he or she wants to leave the state and take the kids (and cut off all contact the kids have with the other parent?) Whichever parent grabs the kids first? Who has the most “muscle”? It’s a tough, ugly, no-glamor job. That’s why we give it to our favorite whipping boys - the courts.</p>

53

<p>

</p>

<p>I was hypothesizing that as courts gain more control over family life, the courts could dictate where the custodial parents live, or if the parent could remarry. You told me that the family courts already can specify if the custodial parent can move, so now it seems even more likely that one day, a family court judge will bar a custodial parent from remarrying for x number of years. It has nothing to do specifically with the McLeod v. Clark debate, but I was using it as an example of misuse of court authority.</p>

<p>I’m sorry, I made overly broad statements. In general, family courts are a good thing to prevent the scenarios that you mentioned. However, I believe in absolutes, and somewhere there is a line dividing justifiable court intervention from nonjustifiable court intervention. My above examples of the housing and marriage I would consider, in most cases, nonjustifiable court intervention. I also consider the religion aspect of this case nonjustifiable, or at the least, one-sided court intervention. Either both guardians should be prevented from discussing the issue, or neither should.</p>

54

<p>Addressed to Woodwork and Willow:</p>

<p>“If this case involved a bi-racial couple who divorced, and the white custodial parent joined a church which taught that non-whites are “mud people” on a par with animals, would you be so quick to argue that a court, given the always-difficult ask of refereeing the disputes between divorced parents as to how to raise their children, should not rule that the mother was not to indoctrinate her daughter with the belief that her father was a “mud person”?”</p>

<p>Although to many, do deny any sexual act is to deny someone’s humanity as such and thus distinguish them from other human beings as a sub-class of human being (particularly ‘progressive’ people), I am able to distinguish private acts from metaphysical being; even if I find that act to be morally wrong…stealing, adultery, even murder: they are acts committed by humans who, upon committing these acts, remain human and worthy of love and respect universally, as all humans do. </p>

<p>I do not believe Dr Clark was referring to her former sexual partner as sub-human, but rather that the acts she had previously engaged in with her, to her view of the universe, were ‘wrong’ as a physical/metaphysical act; moreover, there are probably other acts that she herself has committed and currently commits that she also considers ‘wrong;’ acts that her daughter commits that she considers ‘wrong’ etc., but I hardly think that she now considers herself, her ex-sexual partner, or her daughter as less of a human being for committing a wrong act, but rather they are specifically wrong when committing a specific act she considers wrong; we all do, according to our view of the act: polygamy, for instance, even when love is involved, is only wrong in its sexual/reproductive act, not in its cohabitation/shared-intimacy, in the eyes of most.</p>

<p>Considered from the opposite perspective, I would not be surprised to find out that Dr MacLeod finds Dr Clark’s religion to be wrong (and specifically its view of homosexuality, perhaps amongst other things), and I would suspect that she says so to Dr Clark’s daughter amongst others who find Dr Clark’s religion to be ‘wrong’ or simply not ‘progressive’ enough or, simply put, for stupid people: she thus demeans it (if she speaks about it at all).</p>

<p>Moral and ethical choices are not as malleable as fast food choices, or deciding which news service you prefer, or deciding whether or not it is “hate speech’ to demean other people’s religious-cultural views. Beliefs are based on something that touches our sense of the universe, our sense of being: you cannot make yourself believe what you don’t believe (try it); belief is not opinion and it is never ‘wrong’ to the believer. You love something/someone or you don’t; you belief in something/someone or you don’t…you do not choose to believe or love, you do however choose to ‘do’ or ‘act’ upon desires, drives and wants. Married people often ‘love’ people they are not married to, as do single people, without sexually acting out that love: to many people, sex is not a necessary condition of love.</p>

<p>I myself have no strong view on other people’s sexual choices; however, as most people do, I have beliefs on sexuality that I share with my family and we discuss those beliefs (by the way, my marriage is bi-racial)…I assume all do, as does Dr Clark.</p>

<p>This is a tragic case. Hopefully the daughter will end up wiser for it; very often it is a negative example or experience that offers the greatest opportunity for philosophical/spiritual growth and reflection…if love is involved. If it is not, well, we know the results…</p>

55

<p>Willow: I do disagree with the doomsday scenario. Courts are very much against restrictions on deeply personal rights and believe that they should be used rarely and narrowly tailored for that case. Here, there is no restriction on the parent’s practice of religion - that parent is free to attend church, to worship as she pleases, and to do things like hang up Christmas wreaths. The narrow, limited restriction is on teaching her young child that homosexuality (i.e. her partner’s lifestyle) is sinful in the name of religion. That has very little to do with faith and belief in God and everything to do with bashing the parent to the child. Courts could, without much stir, prevent parents from using the child to get revenge on the other parent, such as by preventing them from withholding visitation (when you tell divorcing parents when they are allowed to visit the child, you are restricting their travel and demanding that they be in a certain place at a certain time - but that is what is required for joint custody). The requirements against moving out of state are simply requirements which allow the parents to have joint custody - sure, a restriction on freedom, but one which allows the other parent the fundamental right to see his children. There is no rational reason why that would be extended to living in a certain district or home - because those restrictions are not in place to protect the rights of another parent.</p>

56

<p>I don’t believe it is moral or ethical to decide who another adult is permitted to love or live with , or raise a child with.
I beleive that sexual orientation is not a choice, that married couples who commit adultery is not an accurate comparision because they are still permitted in our society to divorce and marry.
But couples who are homosexual are not permitted to do so legally.
I think love is the strongest bond we have and for homosexuals to be denied the status of marriage and to be denied the recognition of their commitment to each other is wrong.
What is everybody so worried about? Do you think the heterosexual divorce rate is going to go up if gays are allowed to be married?</p>

57

<p>Ariesathena,
We never questioned whether the parent was free to practice her religion. My concern rises from the fact that all decisions made in family court are ostensibly based on what is best for the family, and in custody cases, what is best for the child. Were a judge to determine that a parent’s remarriage would “destabilize” the child, it would be within the realm of reason for a judge to order the parent not to remarry if he or she wanted to retain custody. As for my example with the home, I was thinking along the lines that departure from a childhood home is traumatic and, therefore, to be avoided.</p>

58

<p>EK, I agree with you. See my comment in the “I don’t get” thread. </p>

<p>I have had many gay friends and none of them would “choose” to be discriminated against, to disappoint their parents & become estranged from them, to not have children, to live double lives for years until gaining the courage to come out, etc. Many tried a series of unsuccessful heterosexual relationships in a vain attempt to force themselves onto that track.</p>

<p>I know a couple of very serious evangelical Christians whom, I believe, are genetically gay (growing up in SF = “gadar”) but they live hetero lifestyles. I find it very sad because one can see there is a great deal of strain in their lives. Yet, perhaps they find it spiritually rigorous and thus uplifting; that is their choice of course. It seems pretty close to a hair shirt to me.</p>

59

<p>willow, </p>

<p>I think there are cases like this, for example, a custodial parent wants to mary someone in another state; or Mary Kay Le Tourneau wants to marry a teenager… Both would result in loss of custody. I have a friend whose ex-wife lost custody when for no apparent reason (no spouse, no job) she wanted to move five states away.</p>

<p>I believe one could always delay a marraige or move until the damage on the child would be less severe; anyhow I believe we give up lots of personal freedoms when we bring a child into the world.</p>

60

<p>Re-marriage is often found to be very favourable, as the child will have two parents at home. I know this from personal experience. I really cannot see the connection between imagined “trauma” of moving (which happens to children whose parents are married) and the abuse of custody to ruin the child’s relationship with the other parent. Moving five states away, as I stated earlier, infringes on the right of the non-custodial parent to see his child. It is often said that we can exercise our rights until they interfere with the rights of another. The “right” to move five states away would interfere with the non-custodial parent’s fundamental right to see his or her child. The right to see one’s child is held in very high regard in the courts, while the right to move isn’t considered to be that great. Moving across town or to a different, nearby town could hardly merit the same reaction, as the basis for the original objection (effective deprivation of joint custody) is not there. If you examine the underlying reasons for such rulings, you begin to understand that there is no slipperly slope. It is overly simplistic to say that the “child’s welfare” is the sole, underlying reason for this. To me, the decision to not allow one parent to tell the kid that the other parent is a sinner and damned to hell has less to do with religion or touchy-feeliness and everything to do with psychological domination and revenge on the other parent.</p>