6
   

FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR ALL AMERICANS

 
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:16 pm
FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR ALL AMERICANS
SHUD NOT BE JUDICIALLY SUBVERTED.


In a divorce case wherein the father of a child is a Catholic
and the mother is a Jew, the court enjoined the father
from taking child to a Catholic Church.

It seems to me, that every American shoud choose his OWN
religion and can only be INVITED not coerced nor extorted by anyone,
including any parent, to join a designated religion.

A child is not property (13th Amendment)
like a dog nor a goldfish. Human beings cannot be property.



Comments ?





David

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 3,154 • Replies: 53
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:22 pm
It's not the father's religious right that's in question here, but the child's. To deprive the child of knowledge of the mother's religion while ensuring he gets raised up being exposed to the father's is discriminatory. You as a lawyer ought to already know this.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
To deprive the child of knowledge of the mother's religion while ensuring he gets raised up being exposed to the father's is discriminatory.
What about knowledge of non-religion, or evolutionary science ? Why do parents have the right to brainwash their children with one religion or another whilst other parents brainwash their children with science ?
As you said :
Quote:
It's not the father's (or mother's) religious right that's in question here, but the child's.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:39 pm
@Ionus,
What about it? What's that got to do with this child and his parents?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:43 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
It's not the father's religious right that's in question here, but the child's.
YES! Excellent point, Ed.


edgarblythe wrote:
To deprive the child of knowledge of the mother's religion while ensuring
he gets raised up being exposed to the father's is discriminatory.
You as a lawyer ought to already know this.
Freedom of religion has no age limits on it.
Each citizen is the sovereign autonomous lord between his ears.
The child shoud render all discriminations qua his own choice of beliefs.





David
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:44 pm
@edgarblythe,
Arent all children raised with bias and prejudice ? If it is a right of the child to choose religions, there are many more than two possibilities.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:48 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
To deprive the child of knowledge of the mother's religion
while ensuring he gets raised up being exposed to the father's is discriminatory.
Ionus wrote:
What about knowledge of non-religion, or evolutionary science ? Why do parents have the right to brainwash their children with one religion or another whilst other parents brainwash their children with science ?
Any person, including any parent, has freedom of speech to offer his vu to the kid.
He can study evolution in school.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:01 pm
@Ionus,
If you have ever raised a child, you know that both parents are or ought to be involved in what the child is taught. Considerations of the bias and predjudice, of which you write, should be actually secondary here.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

It's not the father's religious right that's in question here, but the child's. To deprive the child of knowledge of the mother's religion while ensuring he gets raised up being exposed to the father's is discriminatory. You as a lawyer ought to already know this.


From the bare facts presented, we don't, at all, know that the father intended to shield the child from Jewish teachings. Do you know something more about this story than David provided?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I know only what David's story said and implied. If it is otherwise, why is there a problem at all?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:50 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
To deprive the child of knowledge of the mother's religion while ensuring he gets raised up being exposed to the father's is discriminatory.
What about knowledge of non-religion, or evolutionary science ? Why do parents have the right to brainwash their children with one religion or another whilst other parents brainwash their children with science ?
As you said :
Quote:
It's not the father's (or mother's) religious right that's in question here, but the child's.



Of course, parents have the natural right to share and teach their values to their children.

What is the alternative?

We turn the job of imprinting values on children to the State?

Some actually believe this is the prefered method. Do you?

Obviously by restricting parental rights in only the most specific and severe instances we run the risk that some children will have their heads filled with nonsense.

So what?

In only the most extremely isolated family structures are children prevented from testing what they have been taught by their parents against what the world at large can tell them.

Furthermore, who is to decide what is and is not nonsense?

Since no one (yet) can either prove or disprove the existence of God, why should the State take sides on the issue?

The repetitive flaw in Liberal thinking involves the notion that the minority should always drive our actions.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:51 pm
All that I heard was that the father was judicially enjoined
from taking his child into a Catholic Church.
The mother remained free to take child to Jewish worship.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:58 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I know only what David's story said and implied. If it is otherwise, why is there a problem at all?


More like what you inferred from the story.

Clearly the problem that David perceives is that the court will not allow the father to teach the child his Catholic faith.

This is precisely the issue that you manufactured on behalf of the mother --- the inability of one parent to expose the child to his or her beliefs.

It's interesting that you jumped to the conclusion that by taking his child to a Catholic church, the father was intent upon depriving his son of the religious teachings of his mother.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

All that I heard was that the father was judicially enjoined
from taking his child into a Catholic Church.
The mother remained free to take child to Jewish worship.


Exactly.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 11:02 pm
Presumably, the father remained legally free
to tell his child anything, as long as it was not inside a Catholic Church.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 11:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
So if the parents have the same bias, then we dont have a problem. Is it only where there are conflicting bias between parents that there is a problem ? If it is about the rights of the child, then what about the example of Evolution versus Creation ? What are the rights of the child to be raised free of prejudice, the better to enable fulfillment of its rights ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 11:29 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Any person, including any parent, has freedom of speech to offer his vu to the kid.
You know the child's rights are at the mercy of the parents. There is no freedom of religion for a child.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 11:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It seems you are saying the child's rights exist only in theory and who cares ?
Quote:
In only the most extremely isolated family structures are children prevented from testing what they have been taught by their parents against what the world at large can tell them.
This is patently wrong. Children are not exposed to the world, nor do they want to or should be exposed to the world. They want to learn what is right from their parents. Conflict between parents as to what is right, is harmful.
Quote:
The repetitive flaw in Liberal thinking involves the notion that the minority should always drive our actions.
Kindly leave advertisements out. They weaken your argument anyway.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 04:06 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Any person, including any parent, has freedom of speech to offer his vu to the kid.
You know the child's rights are at the mercy of the parents. There is no freedom of religion for a child.
That depends on the child. He can stand up for what he believes or fail to do so. It s his choice.
He is supreme qua what he opts to believe.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 04:13 am
@Ionus,
It seems you are saying the child's rights exist only in theory and who cares ?
Quote:
In only the most extremely isolated family structures are children prevented from testing
what they have been taught by their parents against what the world at large can tell them.
Ionus wrote:
This is patently wrong. Children are not exposed to the world,
nor do they want to or should be exposed to the world.
They want to learn what is right from their parents.
That depends on the kid. My parents were Roosevelt liberals. I rejected that,
and subsequently convinced them to vote conservative.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR ALL AMERICANS
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 12:14:33