Forums | MacLife

This wouldn't even be an issue if the government didn't have the right to come into your house and legally abduct your children.  3 cheers for big government! 

Don't get me wrong, I think teaching homophobia is wrong, but I think that falls well under this woman's first amendment rights.

So I guess home school is the next to fall.  Apparently people are raising terrorists at home and we need to monitor our children and their learning in a sterile, public, and monitored environment.

joy. 

First I thought this was about teaching in schools, but that just doesn't make any sense.

Kinda Orwellian.

I think that falls well under this woman's first amendment rights.

Not to mention the fact that the US constitution specifically says that government will not infringe on religion...

Right, the first amendment.

Heh. Whenever I hear "first amendment" my mind always does a substitution "freedom of speech"

but you are right.

I got the impression that this was a lesbian family 'divorce' squabble from the article. That does make it a bit more complicated.

I agree.  This is a custody issue.  There are two people sharing custody of this kid.  One of the guardians is teaching the kid to hate the other.  The fact that the bigoted parent claims it's a "religious" teaching is irrelevant.  Anyway, since there's no other recourse in our society except a good old-fashioned ass kicking, the second guardian asked the court to tell the bigot-parent to stop.  What's the big deal?

This is not a case of the court simply telling a parent she can't do something because it's bigotry.  It's happening because there's another parent in the dispute who wants the discriminatory teachings stopped.

The scarey part of this article is that the courts gave a third party joint custody of the kid.  But who knows what relationship existed there?

I got the impression that this was a lesbian family 'divorce' squabble from the article. That does make it a bit more complicated.

To elaborate on that, in the course of a normal custody hearing, it would not be without precedent for the parent without custody to get certain impositions against the other parent called.  To me the real story here is:

The Denver court gave McLeod joint custody of Clark's adopted daughter, Emma, even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl.

That seems to be a surprising precedent for the court to establish.

The question posed was, would the court have banned the woman from teaching homophobic teachings of Islam?

I think not because that would be seen as "intolerant".

Islam?  Shouldn't you use quotes from the Qu'ran to support an argument about Islam and not a Colorado custody suit?  I mean, that's your call and all, but I think you may have found better supporting quotes than this. 

Islam.  pfft.  All I get from the story is "Jesus hates gay people," and it's not coming from an Islam source. 

The question posed was, would the court have banned the woman from teaching homophobic teachings of Islam?

I think not because that would be seen as "intolerant".

Given the apparent basis for the ban had little to do with the religion and everything to do with this woman trying to undercut the court's custody ruling, I think they would rule against it regardless of religion.

The question posed was, would the court have banned the woman from teaching homophobic teachings of Islam?

Oh... In a case like this, yes.  I say that because this case is about a dispute between guardians, not "religion."  The judge didn't make a decision about religion.  It was about the rights of both parents.  Sure, the article makes it a religious story, but we shouldn't fall for that crap every time.  I'm guessing that whatever the bigot-parent's reason for teaching anti-homosexual stuff is irrelelvant because the other parent is harmed by it.  Even when it's the Bible.

What he is implying(which most choose to ignore, as usual) that if the family were Islamic, the US court wouldn't interfere with their "culture" as readily as the Anglo-Christian culture.
Islamic culture is hateful towards gays too.

That's just peachy.  Have any reasons to make that claim?  Have any reasons that "one idiot judge in Colorado" means "all liberals love homophobic Muslims" ?

What he is implying(which most choose to ignore, as usual) that if the family were Islamic, the US court wouldn't interfere with their "culture" as readily as the Anglo-Christian culture.
Islamic culture is hateful towards gays too.

How do you intend to convince anyone else of that?

Silly boy, it's all part of a liberal plan to destroy Christianity. Liberals hate Christianity; "Muslems" hate Christianity; the enemy of my enemy is my friend; therefore, Coulter-style, liberals are terrorist-loving monsters, and being a Christian in America today is the way it was in Rome under Nero -- endless, savage persecution. All thanks to those evil, evil liberals.