To: kingattax
“concluded that the girl “appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith” and that the girl's interests “would be best served by exposure to a public school setting.”
I can only assume in English terms that this means she believes in God and the court system thinks she needs to be exposed to atheists, homosexuals, transgenders, cross dressers, teachers that sexual assault their students and all other kind of immorality.
Well, hell, that's a good enough reason for me to ship her to an NEA union substandard school.
2 posted on
08/27/2009 11:26:29 PM PDT by
antiunion person
(PALIN for PRESIDENT 2012)
To: antiunion person
Imagine Christians being one-minded about their faith
Why, it simply won’t do
Next, the Amish?
9 posted on
08/27/2009 11:46:32 PM PDT by
silverleaf
(If we are astroturf, why are the democrats trying to mow us?)
To: antiunion person
the girl “appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith” and that the girl's interests “would be best served by exposure to a public school setting.” This appears to be a pretty open and blatant statement that the purpose of the order is to alter the religious viewpoints of the child. As such, it is completely unconstitutional.
196 posted on
08/29/2009 12:08:56 PM PDT by
PapaBear3625
(Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson