posted
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.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
I don't doubt that there is more to the story. In spite of other extenuating factors, I don't think it somehow makes it ok for a judge to rule that a parent cannot teach their child about something. Why did the judge decide to grant him partial custody if the issue is simply that he was likely to act on his polygamous beliefs? Why the stipulation to not mention or teach this particular belief? The big problem seems to be him having and sharing this particular belief.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
