[r9etb]

This ruling strikes to the heart of First Amendment protections and enters the realm of thought control.

I disagree. The primary issue here is the judge's ruling that joint custody should continue, and his recognition that there is a great deal of acrimony between the two women.

I suspect McLeod is being a first-class vindictive bitch, trying to get back at Clark through the little girl, who is an innocent pawn. To do that, she's using all means available, including Christian teaching, to poison the child against someone whom she no doubt loves as a parent.

My sympathies are with the child. She should not be treated like a piece of meat. If that means keeping McLeod's from acting like a Pharisee, so be it.

[r9etb]

Ooops -- switch names between McLeod and Clark -- but my opinion remains the same.

[Modernman]

My sympathies are with the child. She should not be treated like a piece of meat. If that means keeping McLeod's from acting like a Pharisee, so be it.

This is a tough case. As the article mentioned, orders by judges to parents not to bad-mouth each other in front of their children after a divorce are not uncommon. The only thing that is different here is the religious component. Not sure where I stand on this.

[agrace]

You don't think it sets a dangerous precedent?

[Only1choice____Freedom]

This ruling DOES strike to the heart of First Amendment protections and enters the realm of thought control.

What is the difference between this case and another case of a hetro family going through the same situation? This case can be used, if successful, as a templete for others and can restrict what you can say and do in your own home. Do you see any demands on the lesbian to restrict her speach in her home about Christians? NO! That's why it so one-sided and obiously pro-gay. The ruling can effect even families that are not going through a divorce if another court see fit. This can effect you and your family. If you can't raise your family the way you see fit, you have no free speach. All it takes is just one judge with an agenda to mandate how you raise your children.

[ibheath]

I suspect McLeod is being a first-class vindictive bitch, trying to get back at Clark through the little girl, who is an innocent pawn. To do that, she's using all means available, including Christian teaching, to poison the child against someone whom she no doubt loves as a parent. My sympathies are with the child. She should not be treated like a piece of meat. If that means keeping McLeod's from acting like a Pharisee, so be it.

ON what basis do you state this?? Other than a hostility towards Christians? Dr. Clark converted to Christianity, and SHE is the adoptive parent, not Mcleod. This is a direct attack on freedom of religion and the right of a parent to raise her child as she sees fit.

[ArGee]

I suspect McLeod is being a first-class vindictive bitch,

Good heavens! That is a rather strong statement based on no evidence whatsoever. Why would you say such a thing?

Is it not possible that Clark (recognizing the correction you made in the next post) actually cares deeply about McLeod but simply wants to teach her daughter the truth about her deviant lifestyle?

Shalom.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I think that having a parent bad mouth their former spouse in the name of their faith is a great idea. Protestant parents can refer to Catholic exes as hellbound, while the Catholic ex can talk about how the Protestant ex is a heretic. And everybody can pick on Jewish exes, while the Jewish ex can refer to a Christian former spouse as an idolator.

Yep, this would be a great for business - we could tie stuff up in courts for years and make zillions of dollars dragging the courts into theological disputes.....