Judge bars mother from child based on religion


I think the judge is out of line, but I am willing to pay if you can prove me wrong.
As I have said before, there are reasons why those of us who practice non-traditional faiths get nervous when religion is used as an excuse to curtail freedom. While the U.S. religious diversity is one of the nation's major strengths, there are some who see that as weakness and morally wrong. They want to use the power of the law to prevent religious choice.

Especially the "bad" ones.

And that brings us to this case.

I'm willing to bet $1000 that that this particular judge would object strongly if someone told him that those who practiced Catholicism were "mentally ill" or "perverted." I might even be willing to bet more that this judge would fight having his children removed from his custody because of his religion.

I think that Rachel Bevilacqua made a good compromise not involving her child in certain celebrations.

This certainly appears to have started as a child custody dispute.

Now I am not a parent, and I will freely admit that my views on sexuality and sexual practices are not going to make me any friends among conservative monotheists.

But I will put my money where my mouth is. Let's take this particular situation as a basis.

Assuming that the child is not exposed to harmful practices or sexual practices of any sort and the parent is not violating a marriage contract, is there a NON-RELIGIOUS reason why the parent's sexual activities with consenting adults should in any way influence their custody rights?

I'm willing to pay $500 USD to any reader who can provide one that I can't disprove. And being "against the law" isn't enough, there has to be a reason for the law or the law itself threatens freedom.

Assuming that the child is not exposed to harmful practices, is there a NON-RELIGIOUS reason why the parent's religious activities with consenting adults should in any way influence their custody rights?

I'm willing to to pay $1000 USD to any reader who can provide one that I can't disprove. As before, being against the law isn't enough.

Since I am putting up the cash and paying for the webspace, I'm the one who gets to choose who won. And it the offer expires, oh, lets say, April 30, 2006.

(Yes, that is an inside joke for my Neopagan readers.)

All entries must be made in the comments section of this post. I reserve the right to delete any that are offensive or that attack myself, Rachel Bevilacqua, or any person expressing their faith.

There you have it, the first official Pagan Vigil challenge.

Hat tip to The Wild Hunt Blog.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Wed - February 22, 2006 at 04:51 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved