quote:

---

Dad sues to teach daughter about polygamy
Monday, December 8, 2003 Posted: 2:56 PM EST (1956 GMT)

HALLAM, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Tracey L. Roberts isn't trying to stop her ex-husband from voicing his support of polygamy, a belief that broke up their marriage.

But she doesn't want him teaching their 10-year-old daughter, Kaylynne, about the practice or exposing her to it in any way. She's won her point in a lower court but now her ex-husband, Stanley M. Shepp, has taken the case to the state Supreme Court.

"Religious discussion in the home between a parent and a child has got to be the most sacred freedom-of-speech issue ever," Shepp said.

Counters Roberts: "It's not an organized religion -- it's in his mind. Polygamy's illegal everyplace, and it's illegal for a whole lot of reasons."

A judge in May 2002 granted Roberts and Shepp joint custody, saying Kaylynne would continue being raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But Common Pleas Judge Stephen P. Linebaugh prohibited Shepp from "teaching (Kaylynne) about polygamy, plural marriages, or multiple wives," at least until she is 18

...

---

It's a long article but that is most of the juicy stuff.

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh jeez - poor mom.

I hate it when guys that are supposed to be good suck.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
btw, later on it does say that the father was excommunicated from the LDS church.

AJ
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Now wait a second, kat. I agree "poor mom." However, I strongly disagree with her tactics here.

She's trying to get the court to tell him what he can teach his daughter? His daughter of whom he has joint custody? That's not right either. The child is 10 -- old enough to hear both sides of an issue. Even one as personally painful to the mother as this one.

Where do you want her to learn about polygamy? In the streets? Or by reading newspaper stories about this case?

[ December 08, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*laugh*

*thinks about issue instead now that heart returns to proper place instead of stomach and abject fear of creepy guys who can't understand the point of the priesthood abates*

I don't agree with the courts interfering, but I don't know... Polygamy is illegal, and if someone wanted to teach the kid about how taking LSD is the beginning of Nirvana and the best that could be hoped for is to be eternally drugged out, I'd have a problem with that as well.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Jeez, that was a wussy stand. *picks a side*

It's currently illegal, and could very well be argued as being harmful to the child. This isn't like sex education in school - where the sex ed is not for the kids whose parents will handle it, but for those who don't. I am fully confident that the mother will teach the kid about it, since the brouhaha could not have escaped her attention, and in the case of direct conflict over parenting, I'm fine with not allowing education in illegal matters. Same for children of ex-wives of Mafia dons who want their kids kept away from Racketeering School.

quote:

---

Among other things, Shepp's brief contends that taking a second wife in an informal "spiritual marriage," lacking legal documentation, would not run afoul of the bigamy statute.

---

Yes, he's nuts. I'm fine with this ruling. I hope it sticks.

[ December 08, 2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Hmm. So if one parent were in favor of legalizing drugs, the child should never be taught about drugs at all?

Look, there are things that my ex teaches our kids that I disagree with (nothing even close to this degree of seriousness, thank God) and that he is unwilling/unable to stop. I try to give them a balanced perspective.

But the fact of the matter is, he's their dad, and he has a right to teach them his ideas too.

Doesn't mean I don't get seriously ticked at him about some of them. I absolutely do. But I also recognize the limits of what I can reasonably demand.

[ December 08, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
From the article, he sounds a bit more serious about it. There's so much potential for child abuse...

I have to say, in this case, it is a matter of judgement. I trust the mother's judgement and the judge's, since they have met him. From the article, it sounded not just that he had the beliefs, but that he planning on acting on them.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
If that is the case, why does he have joint custody? If he's trustworthy enough to have that, he ought to be able to actually have the rights and obligations that come with it.

quote:

---

I trust the mother's judgment

---

quote:

---

and the judge's, since they have met him.

---

quote:

---

If mormons only banned polygamy due to political reasons (the "Utah as a state" issue, as the text says), it means that, in truth, the church do not think it is morally wrong, and only excomunicates people (for this) because of temporal laws?

---

quote:

---

22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and aabominations of their bhusbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

---

quote:

---

Now I'll make a question and hope you won't be mad at me because of it.
I know many jatraqueros are LDS, so I'd like to know this:
If mormons only banned polygamy due to political reasons (the "Utah as a state" issue, as the text says), it means that, in truth, the church do not think it is morally wrong, and only excomunicates people (for this) because of temporal laws?

I'm just curious.

---

quote:

---

Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

---

quote:

---

I don't see it as conflict of religious beliefs, but of illegal behavior with incredible potential for abuse.

---

I'm not a legal expert, but is it really against the law to screw up your kids? I mean, certain specific ways of doing so are certainly illegal, but in general, I'm pretty sure it's not.
 

---

Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
 
If screwing up your kids was illegal, I know a lot of decent parents who would be in jail on accident.

--ApostleRadio
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Timing Rivka.

Judge A does the divorce and gives nice joint custody.

Daddy's lawyer is good, or he's friends with Judge A, or Daddy is on very good behavior.

Then Daddy starts misbehaving with this illegal poligamy plans.

Momma tries to get custody resettled, but that is held up in court.

Momma has better luck going to a different court and speaking with Judge B. Perhaps Judge B is more sympathetic, or not a good friend, or the lawyers is not as good, or Daddy is not on as good of behavior. Either way, Judge B makes his decision.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
[Edit: You people type too fast! I was replying to kat.]

Really? If they truly believe that he is a danger to his daughter in this one instance, I find it incredibly hard to believe that he might not be a danger in other areas.

Rather, I think this is a vindictive (and rightfully so, in some ways) mother who is legitimately concerned about what her ex is teaching their daughter, but dealing with it in a manner I strongly disagree with.


Dan, perhaps. But I disagree with legal dodges like that too.

[ December 08, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Jinx, Jacare.

---

D'oh! Now I look like a copy cat (or is it a copy Kat?)

At any rate, I don't think that it is the place of the courts to regulate what parents teach their children. Yeah, I can understand the wife getting angry and trying to stop him, but the court saying what the father can or can't teach is a very bad precedent to set. What is to stop this from spreading to the latest fads of the day? What if the court stops a parent from teaching (insert hot button issue here) as wrong?

We have seen this sort of thing before. Anyone read the Book of Daniel?

Once the government elbows open the door and starts setting home educational agendas things are liable to get very ugly.

[ December 08, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Even if said behavior is illegal and judged to be a subject of danger to the child?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
To me, it's pretty simple. Either the parent is deemed "fit" (not perfect, ain't nonna those ) and gets joint custody of some kind, including being allowed to teach the child their views, many of which are likely to contradict society's views, or the parent is NOT fit, and gets supervised visitations or no custody.

Letting courts decide what parents may teach their children is rather dangerous.
 

---

Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
 
I'm with Dan on this one. Custody cases can take months, and even years before a final verdict is given. The mother may just be trying to get it done through the fastest means possible. For all we know a custody hearing could be taking place as we speak. Besides if the idea isn't seen as bad for the child in the eyes of the law, as I believe it was found to be for this child in the afforementioned case, there would be no grounds for full-custidy to be given to the mother. This might have been a stepping stone to the mother getting full custidy.

But I'm not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong about this.
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
Jacare, if that's the mormon doctrine, I'm confused...why there is mormonlike cults claiming polygamy is the right thing to do? This text you showed me was written after the church changed the doctrine, or before?
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Parts of the Church broke off after Joseph Smith died and claimed that God never repealed the polygamy law. They either never joined the current Church or have been ex-communicated, but it's not like they can be stopped from claiming to be Latter-Day-Saints.

They can't be stopped from ticking me off either.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
Tell them to burn the road up.

"All polygamists out of the pool."

Burn the road UP
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

Roberts' lawyer, Richard K. Konkel, said learning about polygamy from her father could put Kaylynne at risk of "child abuse and sexual abuse and whatever else."

---

I found this quote interesting. I know that there are many instances of child abuse where polygamy is practised, but polygamy does not necessarily result in child abuse.

If it is practised only between consenting adults, then there is no reason that child abuse is an inevitable (or even likely) conclusion. I'm not being entirely clear here: what I'm trying to say is I know historically child abuse and polygamy have been linked. But this was more to do with the conditions in which polygamy was practiced. If polygamy was tp occur within socially accepted norms and boundaries then there is no reason to think it would result in child abuse.

So I wonder if that comment is because of something about the father that the article doesn't state - like he also believes in child marriages or even worse, has a history of abuse. Though given he has custody the latter would seem unlikely.

Or maybe its just a general prejudice against polygamy.

( I think I've just managed to confuse myself. Coffee. Coffee will help.)
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Is there irony in imogen's assumption that drinking coffee will help him understand what's being approached at least in part as an LDS issue? I'd certainly like to think so....
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
imogen, in the absence of any information supporting the lawyer's claim (and considering it's coming from the mother's lawyer), I tend to read that statement as deliberately inflaming anti-polygamist fears and prejudices.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Wait... I don't understand. Why are you guys saying "poor mom" and not "poor dad"? Why is the mother more entitled to teach her children her religious beliefs than the father is?
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Her.

Ironic or not, the coffee is going down a treat. (mmm, ironic coffee).

I'm presuming that coffee is banned by the LDS faith: does this extend to all caffeine, or just coffee? And how about cigarettes?

(I'm curious - I know Buddhism preaches against mind altering substances, but many practicing buddhists intepret this as alcohol and illegal drugs, and view caffeine as acceptable. So I was wondering how the LDS stance is different. Sorry if I'm prying too much.)

I also had a friend who was Buddhist and smoked: she argued that it was doctrinally ok, but her family didn't think so - they just thought she was addicted and trying to justify her smoking.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Tres, that's rather my point. I don't think she should be. I say "poor mom" because the same issue that destroyed her marriage is coming back in a way that she fears will harm her daughter -- must be very painful for her. Not because I think she should be dealing with it in the manner she is.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
I believe the instruction is to refrain from drinking "hot drinks," which has been interpreted to mean coffee and tea. To my understanding, some people extend it to caffeinated soft drinks, which is more than sufficient, and some people interpret it to mean that decaf is allowed, which is insufficient. Someone who is LDS could probably explain it better. Either way, I chuckled to myself, because that's just what I do.

--Pop

[Edit -- Upon re-read, I found the wording to be unclear. I hope it is now less unclear.]

[ December 08, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Papa Moose ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Thanks Pop.

I'll endeavour to provide you with more chuckling moments in future posts. Maybe even sometimes when I'm trying to be funny.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

I know that there are many instances of child abuse where polygamy is practised, but polygamy does not necessarily result in child abuse.

---

In the west, the polygamy cultists take wives, often nieces or cousins, as young as 11. The onset of menstruation is pretty much used as a fair gauge. This is not between consenting adults.

As far as the drug analogy goes, advocating the legalizing of drugs is different from advocating use of drugs while they remain illegal.

[ December 08, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
See, now if the father would just use the negative stereotypes and blanket statements we're using in this thread to teach his daughter, I bet the mother would be okay with it.

It's a shame God succumbed to peer pressure and changed his mind about the whole polygamy thing.
 

---

Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
 
After being married for 8 years, I am having trouble understanding why any man would WANT more than one wife. I for one am not that deep physically, emotionally, or spiritually to satisfy more than woman, let alone one woman in the first place.

Isn't this why man invented mistresses? Which makes me wonder:

If the husband in the above case wanted to teach his daughter history in general, citing kings with their various concubines and affairs, would the courts declare that illegal as well? Heck, JFK is almost (and I say almost LOUDLY) glamorized for having the numerous affairs in the media today. One could argue that JFK's affairs made him appear more complex and intriguing as a person and president... But:

As a community, our citizens and or religious groups should help this man prevent the error of his ways. It is sad to see something like this end up in the legal system, which can only make the situation for the child harder... After all this is an ethical dilemma that is ultimately defended by the legal system. I feel bad that the ex-wife had to play the court card in response to her ex-husband's persistence.

However, I personally offer to break the first big rock over Stanley's severely-lacking cranial cavity...
 

---

Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm presuming that coffee is banned by the LDS faith: does this extend to all caffeine, or just coffee?

---

quote:

---

I know that tea and coffee contain substances that are harmful to us, but what exactly do they do?

Dr. Clifford J. Stratton, associate professor of anatomy, University of Nevada School of Medical Sciences; high councilor, Reno Nevada North Stake.

The effects of tea and coffee come from the caffeine and theophylline they contain—two alkaloids, or natural compounds, that occur in plants throughout the world. Collectively, they are called the “xanthines” because they are so closely related chemically and because they have almost identical effects on the body. Aspirin (and many other common medicines) also contain xanthine compounds. 1 While xanthines do have value when used as medicine, they have harmful effects when used indiscriminately.

The xanthines stimulate the brain and spinal cord, increase heart action, constrict blood vessels feeding the brain (that’s why extra-strength aspirin compounds help a headache so dramatically), relieve respiratory distress by relaxing certain muscles, strengthen the contractions of arm and leg muscles, increase the production of urine, increase the amount of acid secreted into the stomach, and generally increase body metabolism. 2 Obviously, their carefully regulated medicinal uses are many and varied; just as obviously, abuse of them can cause serious side effects.

Some people may think that the tannins found in tea and coffee are the reason to avoid them. Again, tannic acid is medically useful for causing tissues to contract and thus controlling bleeding and also for treating diarrhea. But tannins are not xanthines.

A xanthine overdose can cause many harmful symptoms, including diarrhea, dizziness, anxiety, trembling, frequent urination, and insomnia. Xanthine withdrawal can cause painful headaches. What constitutes an overdose differs with different individuals. Some researchers report that between 50 and 200 mg. of caffeine will produce perceptible effects. 1 Two major pharmacology texts label doses exceeding 250 mg. as being large. 2 One six-ounce cup of coffee contains between 100-150 mg.; a cup of tea the same size contains 65-75 mg. 1

---

 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
*wonders why everyone is so terrified of polygamy*

It's a minor taboo at best...and it only remains that because of the reputation it's received in the last century because, being illegal, only religious zealots and shady characters have been examples of the practice.

I think that if it had not gotten such negative stereotypes, the tabboo would've faded away along with the homosexual and interracial marriage taboos.

I cringe every time I see it referred to as "immoral" or "dangerous". This is America, and Christian bias should not be used as a foundation for law.

Okay, I think I need to get away from this thread. Quickly. Before I start to abuse the Wall Bash smilie.

I'm still irritated from last month's polygamy debate.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
I see no reason why a court should be able to decide what a parent can or cannot teach their own child. I can understand that the mother was hurt by the concept of polygamy and is, therefore, wary about letting her daughter learn about it, but, since both parents do indeed have joint custody, I see no reason for her to be able to force her ex-husband to not teach their daughter about something he thinks is important. Supposedly the initial prohibition was made because of "his interest in pursuing that belief, which the testimony indicates he clearly would." However, Shepp says that "he is not currently seeking another wife or wives". Now, were he to engage in illegal activity, he would have to face the legal consequences (including losing custody of his daughter). But, we do not suspend someone's rights just because they might do something illegal.
 

---

Posted by Grasshopper (Member # 1055) on :
 
It seems to me that this case has important and dangerous implications. We shouldn't be looking at it simply as dispute resolution, IMO. Yes, in this case, the mother and father disagree about what their child should be taught. But if the court rules that the father cannot teach his daughter his religious beliefs, what will prevent a similar ruling in cases of families where both father and mother wish to teach the same (governmentally disapproved) religious beliefs to their children?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Aren't child custody cases much more dependent on the individual judge's judgement? I don't have experience with this, but it seems like the judges have considerable legal leeway to do what they think will be in the best interest of the child.

There are innumerable cases that seem like they would set a bad precedent - and maybe they do - but this isn't copyright infringement or a judge ordering elections in a church. It's a child custody case where the parents are opposed, and it sucks for absolutely everyone involved. We don't know the rest of the story, but I don't think these cases stand and fall solely on esoteric legal points.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
But this isn't about custody rights, kat. The custody case is over and done with - joint custody was awarded. This (appeal) is about a judge being able to prohibit people from teaching their religious beliefs to their children. To me it smacks of a governmental entity getting involved of endorsing/prohibiting certain religious beliefs.

[ December 09, 2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I would want to know more details of the case. In child custody (I know this isn't technically custody, but it's a case where the deciding factor will be "what's best for the child"), the judge has considerably more leeway to rely on, well, their own judgment.

It IS illegal, and the article hints at more going on than we know. I'll bet there's more to the story.

I freely admit my prejudice. In my experience, men who get stoked about marrying half a dozen 13-year-olds are the creepiest kind of losers.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
i havent noticed the homosexual marriage taboo fading away.

as i recall, the leader of the free world himself stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
That depends on the state, kat. And a judge who consistently ignores recommendations from professionals involved in the case (such as social workers, therapists (court appointed or otherwise), guardian ad litem, custody conciliators) rapidly becomes an ex-judge. Not to mention that judgments that ignore such evidence are (relatively) easy to overturn.

Judges really don't have nearly as much leeway as many people imagine.

I hope the court appoints a guardian ad litem for the girl if she doesn't already have one.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
and i agree with kat that marrying half a dozen thirteen year old does, in fact make a person a loser. and VERY VERY creepy.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
I agree that the idea of marrying off 13 year olds is repellent. But that also is not the issue here. There is no indication (from this article) that the father is apt to marry off his 10 year old daughter or himself start taking up young "spiritual" wives. One of the great things about this country has been that we do not curtail the freedoms of ordinary citizens just because they might, at some point in time, decide to do something gross and/or illegal (although that seems to have changed recently).
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It isn't that cut and dried. There was evidience given that it isn't matter of sharing some beliefs, but is likely act on them.

We don't know the whole story. I'll bet there's more.

Not that a lack of facts ever stopped Hatrack from making an opinion.
 

---

Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
 
i just realized "therapists" looks like "the rapists."

crap.

as much as polygamy grates on me, and as much as this guy sounds like a fruitcake, i do not agree with courts regulating what a parent can or cannot teach their child. again, as already stated, if it's a question of harm coming to the child, then maybe the mother needs to get another custody battle, not a battle about free speech rolling.

you know, i think it's something like half the peoples of the world actually practice polygamy, it's just not very apparent because half the peoples of the world are also very poor, and it takes money to keep that many broads.
 

---

Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
 
But...polygamy isn't illegal...in the State, only one marriage is reconized, the state just won't officially reconize any more than one, it doesn't mean it's illegal. Officially, it's because of tax laws are already incomprehensible, and so multiple marriages will make taxes for families more convivulated.
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
There's a fellow somewhere along the border of Utah and Colorado (I have this on good authority from a girl I taught in Sunday School) who has all his wives sign up for welfare because they have no husband but many children. That seemed really disingenuous to me. If it's true. I'm pretty sure there was a court case where they were being tried for welfare fraud.

The question is whether polygamy is a "religious practice". If the man were Muslim, I would be very upset about this ruling. But since he is described as a fundamentalist Mormon, and the President of the Church has disavowed all who use that label, I think he is just a whacko. To use the technical term. The Church has a written tenet of "honoring, upholding, and sustaining the law".

I guess it becomes a question of what constitutes an individual's religious life. If a man wants to use drugs and hears that some Native American religions incorporate that, and decides he is now a Native shaman and will get high as a form of worship, is his right to spread idea that protected?

And on the topic of caffeinated drinks, the current prophet apparently said caffeinated drinks were bad. I haven't ever drunk them so I didn't look it up. But it was an "over the pulpit conference" statement. For those of you who wonder, if the prophet is just shooting the breeze and is overheard, his utterances are not sacrosanct. And even "over the pulpit" he sometimes prefaces things to be his own opinion and not prophecy. Such as his loyalty to the U.S. Government.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 

quote:

---

It isn't that cut and dried. There was evidience given that it isn't matter of sharing some beliefs, but is likely act on them.

We don't know the whole story. I'll bet there's more.

Not that a lack of facts ever stopped Hatrack from making an opinion.

---