Judge ordered mother not to take child to church or read her scripture

[Saltwater60]

Oh this one could get interesting to see what happens. I’m not sure how they can chose the wishes of one parent over the other on something that causes the child no harm. I mean anything can be determined to cause psychological harm. Many say disciplining your kids does that these days.

Mom battles judge’s order banning her taking daughter to church

A Maine mom challenges a judge’s sweeping order that barred her from taking her daughter to church or teaching the Bible.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Defilade]

Mother says "Who the fuck are you? I'm not your property! and neither is my daughter. My daughter is my property!"

 

[Celt]

The court is overstepping here from the little bit ive read.

 

[Grimscale]

something that causes the child no harm.

That's the part of the equation that is not being told.

Supposedly the specific church the father fought to prevent the mother from exposing the child to is one of those fire & brimstone types. And exposure to it was harming the relationship the child had with the father.

I mean anything can be determined to cause psychological harm. Many say disciplining your kids does that these days.

I am not disputing these statements. However, IF there really is a cause for alarm, a temporary hold against taking the child to that specific church until the truth can be discovered harms no one.

 

[Saltwater60]

That's the part of the equation that is not being told.

Supposedly the specific church the father fought to prevent the mother from exposing the child to is one of those fire & brimstone types. And exposure to it was harming the relationship the child had with the father.


I am not disputing these statements. However, IF there really is a cause for alarm, a temporary hold against taking the child to that specific church until the truth can be discovered harms no one.

While I’ll be the first to say there are good and bad churches and I completely agree that is probably not good for the kid if it’s that intense. The mother could say not taking her there and saving her soul is harming her as well. She is 12 so she could probably impart some of her own wisdom into this at that age and I hope that was considered.
Remember she was also told no Bible reading as well.

 

[Parzival]

Their website looks like a typical modern non-denominational church.

Sadly, this is probably just two adults who can’t act like adults and the kid is caught in the middle.

 

[fresch]

Just so long as the child won't be late to the homosexual drag shows.
Fire the judge now.
Looks like they want to play survival of the fittest; they don't look that fit to me.
Would the judge be ok if it was islame?

 

[Saltwater60]

I know a guy who got divorced and his wife is in the medical field. She is nuts. One of the unparenting types who let their kids make all their own choices. As in if you want snickers and Cheetos for dinner for a week no problem. The kids have horrible diet, hygiene, mental health, changing genders, disabled son reverts to diapers while there and not changed regularly and the judge sides with her. She make 4-5x’s what he makes and is in the medical field so she knows best. Sad thing is the kid with disabilities she could care less about and the kid he can have. The ex keeps the two girls and essentially ignores the disabled one except when it suits her needs. The courts do not do what is right. It’s all because he wanted to be a parent and not a friend. It is sad to see how unhealthy his kids look now under her care.

 

[Zerex]

Unusual..................Dad may be porking the child and grooming her as a substitute wife.

Topic: Child abuse in the United States

Find the most up-to-date statistics and facts on child abuse in the U.S.

www.statista.com

Half a million cases of sex abuse of children in 2023.................many dads getting it on.

 

[spat]

That's the part of the equation that is not being told.

Supposedly the specific church the father fought to prevent the mother from exposing the child to is one of those fire & brimstone types. And exposure to it was harming the relationship the child had with the father.


I am not disputing these statements. However, IF there really is a cause for alarm, a temporary hold against taking the child to that specific church until the truth can be discovered harms no one.

If the church is really a danger to kids, just telling one mother she can't take her one kid there is *not* the answer.

So, either this is bullshit, or the Judge is OK endangering dozens of other kids.

This needs to be either nothing, or a full blown criminal investigation. There is no acceptable middle ground here.

 

[Saltwater60]

If the church is really a danger to kids, just telling one mother she can't take her one kid there is *not* the answer.

So, either this is bullshit, or the Judge is OK endangering dozens of other kids.

This needs to be either nothing, or a full blown criminal investigation. There is no acceptable middle ground here.

As usual good thoughts.

 

[tirwin1]

The court is overstepping here from the little bit ive read.

There is alot of that going around these days.

 

[Grimscale]

If the church is really a danger to kids, just telling one mother she can't take her one kid there is *not* the answer.

So, either this is bullshit, or the Judge is OK endangering dozens of other kids.

This needs to be either nothing, or a full blown criminal investigation. There is no acceptable middle ground here.

There is only one mother and father in front of the judge. NOT the entire country. It would be a stretch for him to say "no one can go to this church".
What they may (or may not) be doing might not rise to a criminal act, but could impact a relationship between a parent and their child.

The mother could say not taking her there and saving her soul is harming her as well.

Subjective.

 

[Saltwater60]

There is only one mother and father in front of the judge. NOT the entire country. It would be a stretch for him to say "no one can go to this church".
What they may (or may not) be doing might not rise to a criminal act, but could impact a relationship between a parent and their child.


Subjective.

Are t most things subjective and a matter of circumstance.

 

[spat]

There is only one mother and father in front of the judge. NOT the entire country. It would be a stretch for him to say "no one can go to this church".
What they may (or may not) be doing might not rise to a criminal act, but could impact a relationship between a parent and their child.


Subjective.

If it's not criminally endangering the kid, then the judge has no business interfering.

Let's say it's a real fire and brimstone church, and they're preaching that some aspect of the father's life is sinful and he's headed for eternal damnation. Is that really something the government should get involved in ?

I get "alienation of affection", but that's no excuse for the government to start micromanageing what is ultimately a private disagreement.

1st ammendment and all, the court should *really* not be able to order people to be silent about a subject except in very extreme circumstances (if even then).

If it would be unconstitutional for the legislature to pass a law, it should be unconstitutional for a judge to order it too.

 

[Grimscale]

Let's say it's a real fire and brimstone church, and they're preaching that some aspect of the father's life is sinful and he's headed for eternal damnation. Is that really something the government should get involved in ?

And you don't think that this is, essentially, brainwashing?
Convincing a kid that their father is some kind of evil person because he may not follow all of the religion's rules and, ultimately, be subject to some unspecific and vague "punishment" after he dies?
It sounds sick to me.
I see it as no different than one parent trying to convince a kid they are trans and the other trying to save them.

Why is it that everyone wants to force everyone else into their own psychotic fantasy?

 

[Saltwater60]

And you don't think that this is, essentially, brainwashing?
Convincing a kid that their father is some kind of evil person because he may not follow all of the religion's rules and, ultimately, be subject to some unspecific and vague "punishment" after he dies?
It sounds sick to me.
I see it as no different than one parent trying to convince a kid they are trans and the other trying to save them.

Why is it that everyone wants to force everyone else into their own psychotic fantasy?

Parents do it all the time religion related or not.
The guy I know his ex has convinced his two daughters that he hates them because he didn’t want them on male hormones at a young age and wants them to have a balanced meal. He doesn’t care what the food is just not Cheetos and Swedish fish for dinner regularly is all he asks. Judge sides with her because she’s a doctor.
I think the question here is about the church and not reading the Bible at home. Does the mother’s freedom of religion end when she has the kid and does her practicing her religion end if and when she has her kid.
I’ve never been to a huge fire and brimstone style church so I can’t say what they are like. I could see where it might make the girl a bit uncomfortable but I can’t imagine they preach this all the time but I don’t know.

 

[spat]

And you don't think that this is, essentially, brainwashing?
Convincing a kid that their father is some kind of evil person because he may not follow all of the religion's rules and, ultimately, be subject to some unspecific and vague "punishment" after he dies?
It sounds sick to me.
I see it as no different than one parent trying to convince a kid they are trans and the other trying to save them.

Why is it that everyone wants to force everyone else into their own psychotic fantasy?

I don't disagree.

But do we really want the government deciding what topics are dangerous brainwashing ?

What if it's the father who is trying to trans the kid here and the "dangerous brainwashing" from the church is just that there are only 2 genders, and you don't get to pick yours ?

There are 2 sides (or more) to every conflict, and I certainly don't trust the government to pick the correct one on an ideological difference.

I'm certainly no religious zealot, but lately I think they're right about more topics than the left wing secular zealots who seem to include half the judiciary.