N.Y. Court to Mom: Remove Rock Painted With Confederate Flag Or It Will Be Considered In Custody Hearing

[Angra Mainyu]

Racism is not a religion, so your point is not relevant. And that assumes your point is valid.

First, the mother would not be teaching racism period, but at most some racist ideology.

Second, how would that matter? Your rationale was based on harm to the child, not on whether the ideology is classified as a religion or not.

Third, fine, then, teaching the child that some ideology not usually classified as a religion - say, Marxism - is true would also be harmful.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You miss the essential point here. The mechanism by which the child is harmed is not the rock in this case, but the potential racism of the mother.

My understanding is the mother is allowed to believe whatever she wants. It is the expression of that belief as it impacts the child that matters.

It seems it's also what she teaches the child. But then again, why doesn't the same apply to Catholicism? If it is because of the church/state separation, then why count that limitation, but not free speech? At any rate, how about Marxism then?

 

[laughing dog]

First, the mother would not be teaching racism period, but at most some racist ideology.

You don't know what the mother may or may not be imparting.

Second, how would that matter? Your rationale was based on harm to the child, not on whether the ideology is classified as a religion or not.

In the USA, religion has a special status as an ideology due to US constitution.

 

[Gospel]

It's an epitaph, your honor! I intended to at some point add the phrase "Those who try to forget history are doomed to repeat it".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You don't know what the mother may or may not be imparting.

Of course I don't know the details, but of course I do know some things; racism is taught in the sense that a racist ideology, religion, etc., is taught. What would it be to teach 'racism' isolated from that?

In the USA, religion has a special status as an ideology due to US constitution.

I am aware. There is another thing also with a special status: freedom of speech. But you did not consider that special status, and further you gave an argument that encompassed any rituals, whether usually called 'religion' or not.

But leave that aside. So, fine, then, teaching the child that some ideology not usually classified as a religion - say, Marxism - is true would also be harmful.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course I don't know the details, but of course I do know some things; racism is taught in the sense that a racist ideology, religion, etc., is taught. What would it be to teach 'racism' isolated from that?

I see. You are engaging in pointless hairsplitting. As an aside, racism is not necessarily taught in the same sense of religion.

I am aware.

But yet here you are arguing. Wow.

There is another thing also with a special status: freedom of speech. But you did not consider that special status,

Freedom of speech has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue of what is in the best interests of the child. The mother has every right to say whatever she wants. But she does not have every right to potentially harm her child.

and further you gave an argument that encompassed any rituals, whether usually called 'religion' or not.

My argument is in the context of this thread and the USA.

But leave that aside. So, fine, then, teaching the child that some ideology not usually classified as a religion - say, Marxism - is true would also be harmful.

It is possible. It would depend on the specifics of the case in question.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You miss the essential point here. The mechanism by which the child is harmed is not the rock in this case, but the potential racism of the mother.

My understanding is the mother is allowed to believe whatever she wants. It is the expression of that belief as it impacts the child that matters.

It seems it's also what she teaches the child. But then again, why doesn't the same apply to Catholicism? If it is because of the church/state separation, then why count that limitation, but not free speech? At any rate, how about Marxism then?

Is this seriously going to become a thing? Fine tuned scrutiny over a small issue... extrapolate it to be the condemnation of a religion?

And I already answered this, which you didn't bother to read, in the US, no court will agree that merely teaching a religion is harming a child.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I see. You are engaging in pointless hairsplitting. As an aside, racism is not necessarily taught in the same sense of religion.

No, I'm being precise enough. And again, not racism, but racist ideologies are taught.

Freedom of speech has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue of what is in the best interests of the child. The mother has every right to say whatever she wants. But she does not have every right to potentially harm her child.

One might as well mirror that and say:

Freedom of religion has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue of what is in the best interests of the child. The mother has every right to believe whatever she wants. But she does not have every right to potentially harm her child.
​

You make an exception for one constitutionally protected right but not the other, but give no reason for that.

My argument is in the context of this thread and the USA.

Your 'argument' is a reply to my point - well, an attack, but whatever. You do not get to say what I mean by 'ritual'; further, in the context of the US, you still do not have given any reason for protecting religion but not speech. Note that she wasn't ordered not to teach her racist views. Rather, she was ordered to remove the flag - i.e., refrain from speech - as long as the girl might see it. But then, why not the same for religious rituals. Speech is also protected.

 

[bilby]

US law (like any system of laws) is fucking stupid. Particularly because it holds a set of writings (in this case the US Constitution) to be sacred, and puts these writings above all other considerations. In this regard, it's indistinguishable from a religion or cult.

In This Thread:

People who like to self-identify as freethinkers arguing that this is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs, and treating as axiomatic that those writings are infallibly and universally true (despite to obvious fact that they are specifically local in scope, and are not given any respect by most people, particularly those outside the USA).

Humanity doesn't deserve nice things when it allows principles to stand in the way of doing what is obviously morally correct. Rules are helpful, but when they become absolute (overriding any possibility that exceptions exist), what you have is a cult.

Freedom of speech is important. But if you genuinely believe that it's so important that actual harm to people is preferable to infringing anybody's right to freedom of speech, then you are a monster.

The entire purpose of courts is to introduce a human judgement that can overrule, where appropriate, a strict and literal reading of the scriptures. Courts doing this are not rogue; They are working as designed.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It seems it's also what she teaches the child. But then again, why doesn't the same apply to Catholicism? If it is because of the church/state separation, then why count that limitation, but not free speech? At any rate, how about Marxism then?

Is this seriously going to become a thing? Fine tuned scrutiny over a small issue... extrapolate it to be the condemnation of a religion?

And I already answered this, which you didn't bother to read, in the US, no court will agree that merely teaching a religion is harming a child.

I know they will not agree with that. The point was that the reason is similar in a relevant manner, not that the result will be the same in practice; the courts will do what they will.

And quite frankly, there is no good reason to think that just seeing a flag (even a Confederate flag) will cause as much damage as being indoctrinated in a way that results in her living in a world of fantasy, of angels and demons and the perfect (but monstrous by the biblical descriptions) Yahweh. And that's without counting the possibility of her being terrified and seriously messed up if she figures that mortal thought sins happen much faster than can be confessed, so she'd likely be hell bound regardless of priesty assurances to the contrary.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

US law (like any system of laws) is fucking stupid. Particularly because it holds a set of writings (in this case the US Constitution) to be sacred, and puts these writings above all other considerations. In this regard, it's indistinguishable from a religion or cult.

In This Thread:

People who like to self-identify as freethinkers arguing that this is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs, and treating as axiomatic that those writings are infallibly and universally true (despite to obvious fact that they are specifically local in scope, and are not given any respect by most people, particularly those outside the USA).

Humanity doesn't deserve nice things when it allows principles to stand in the way of doing what is obviously morally correct. Rules are helpful, but when they become absolute (overriding any possibility that exceptions exist), what you have is a cult.

Freedom of speech is important. But if you genuinely believe that it's so important that actual harm to people is preferable to infringing anybody's right to freedom of speech, then you are a monster.

Perhaps you could identify the people you are accusing and challenge specific points, so that they can reply more precisely.

 

[bilby]

It seems it's also what she teaches the child. But then again, why doesn't the same apply to Catholicism? If it is because of the church/state separation, then why count that limitation, but not free speech? At any rate, how about Marxism then?

Is this seriously going to become a thing? Fine tuned scrutiny over a small issue... extrapolate it to be the condemnation of a religion?

And I already answered this, which you didn't bother to read, in the US, no court will agree that merely teaching a religion is harming a child.

This is true. But they are very badly mistaken, and that's worth pointing out.

 

[Jarhyn]

It seems it's also what she teaches the child. But then again, why doesn't the same apply to Catholicism? If it is because of the church/state separation, then why count that limitation, but not free speech? At any rate, how about Marxism then?

Is this seriously going to become a thing? Fine tuned scrutiny over a small issue... extrapolate it to be the condemnation of a religion?

And I already answered this, which you didn't bother to read, in the US, no court will agree that merely teaching a religion is harming a child.

This is true. But they are very badly mistaken, and that's worth pointing out.

There is no "merely teaching a child a religion". The error is in the inclusion of "merely", as if the religion and teaching itself had no bearing. "Merely" seems... Well, inappropriate to the context.

This equivocates various forms where "merely" teaching some specific religion WOULD ABSOLUTELY count as child abuse with forms where "merely" teaching the religion is no different than telling a child the tooth fairy exists.

A lot depends "merely" on the religion itself. Because "merely" teaching a white child that Black People are the chosen of god and that all White People are all methed out pedophiles is abusive, even if that is "merely their religion".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The court is legally bound what is in the best interest of the child within certain legal (including constitutional) limits. It's not anything in the interest of the child, no matter what. That goes without saying. A question here is whether the court may legally count a parent's ideological rituals when it comes to assessing the best interest of the child.

It isn't a ritual, it is an "expression" of her belief. Whether it bothers the child is entirely unknown. Based on how long this has lasted, it appears to be parents arguing and bickering. Otherwise, the woman would have gotten rid of the darn thing. I think she is doing it just to piss off the father. If she was doing it to harm the child, I'd imagine the child's legal rep would have raised the issue.

Why James Madison would choose a NY Post article about an appellate case of two parents squabbling over a child's custody, when the appellate justices note the clear right for the mother to believe what she wants to believe and only indicate that the expression of the belief (as its direct effect on the child) should be taken into account when determining the suitability of her as providing a home for the child, is really a mystery. JM isn't usually tabloid driven.

I doubt it is bickering. If she's not a KKKer why would she even want the rock there, let alone put up a fight about it??

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems it's also what she teaches the child. But then again, why doesn't the same apply to Catholicism? If it is because of the church/state separation, then why count that limitation, but not free speech? At any rate, how about Marxism then?

Is this seriously going to become a thing? Fine tuned scrutiny over a small issue... extrapolate it to be the condemnation of a religion?

And I already answered this, which you didn't bother to read, in the US, no court will agree that merely teaching a religion is harming a child.

I know they will not agree with that. The point was that the reason is similar in a relevant manner, not that the result will be the same in practice; the courts will do what they will.

It isn't relevant in any manner. One deals with whether someone else thinks religion is offensive and this case deals with how something actually impacts (or doesn't) the child. Not as in hypothetical, but does it bother the child. You keep making this about something other than the child.

And quite frankly, there is no good reason to think that just seeing a flag (even a Confederate flag) will cause as much damage as being indoctrinated in a way that results in her living in a world of fantasy, of angels and demons and the perfect (but monstrous by the biblical descriptions) Yahweh. And that's without counting the possibility of her being terrified and seriously messed up if she figures that mortal thought sins happen much faster than can be confessed, so she'd likely be hell bound regardless of priesty assurances to the contrary.

And that is your opinion, which is great. I would only care what the legal representative of child, who was appointed by the court thinks. Your opinion on a rock and religion as it applies to this child's well being and custody is irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The court is legally bound what is in the best interest of the child within certain legal (including constitutional) limits. It's not anything in the interest of the child, no matter what. That goes without saying. A question here is whether the court may legally count a parent's ideological rituals when it comes to assessing the best interest of the child.

It isn't a ritual, it is an "expression" of her belief. Whether it bothers the child is entirely unknown. Based on how long this has lasted, it appears to be parents arguing and bickering. Otherwise, the woman would have gotten rid of the darn thing. I think she is doing it just to piss off the father. If she was doing it to harm the child, I'd imagine the child's legal rep would have raised the issue.

Why James Madison would choose a NY Post article about an appellate case of two parents squabbling over a child's custody, when the appellate justices note the clear right for the mother to believe what she wants to believe and only indicate that the expression of the belief (as its direct effect on the child) should be taken into account when determining the suitability of her as providing a home for the child, is really a mystery. JM isn't usually tabloid driven.

I doubt it is bickering. If she's not a KKKer why would she even want the rock there, let alone put up a fight about it??

To piss off an estranged lover. Some people are just like that. If she were KKK, I'd expect a bit more than a rock.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is true. But they are very badly mistaken, and that's worth pointing out.

There is no "merely teaching a child a religion". The error is in the inclusion of "merely", as if the religion and teaching itself had no bearing. "Merely" seems... Well, inappropriate to the context.

This equivocates various forms where "merely" teaching some specific religion WOULD ABSOLUTELY count as child abuse with forms where "merely" teaching the religion is no different than telling a child the tooth fairy exists.

A lot depends "merely" on the religion itself. Because "merely" teaching a white child that Black People are the chosen of god and that all White People are all methed out pedophiles is abusive, even if that is "merely their religion".

Okay, you take it up with the court and let me know how it comes out.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I'm being precise enough. And again, not racism, but racist ideologies are taught.

While you believe you are being precise, you are in fact being imprecise because racism can be taught and so can racist ideologies. The two are not identical.

One might as well mirror that and say:

Freedom of religion has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue of what is in the best interests of the child. The mother has every right to believe whatever she wants. But she does not have every right to potentially harm her child.
​

You make an exception for one constitutionally protected right but not the other, but give no reason for that.

The US courts make the exception, not me. If it were up to me, there would no exception.

Your 'argument' is a reply to my point

I made the mistake of thinking you had something relevant to contribute to the discussion about this specific case. I was wrong, so I apologize.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is true. But they are very badly mistaken, and that's worth pointing out.

There is no "merely teaching a child a religion". The error is in the inclusion of "merely", as if the religion and teaching itself had no bearing. "Merely" seems... Well, inappropriate to the context.

This equivocates various forms where "merely" teaching some specific religion WOULD ABSOLUTELY count as child abuse with forms where "merely" teaching the religion is no different than telling a child the tooth fairy exists.

A lot depends "merely" on the religion itself. Because "merely" teaching a white child that Black People are the chosen of god and that all White People are all methed out pedophiles is abusive, even if that is "merely their religion".

Okay, you take it up with the court and let me know how it comes out.

I won't ever have to. Because I will merely decline to indoctrinate my children with religion, and further decline to abuse them in any way whatever to the best of my abilities.

Now, k see someone doing that to a child, I'm recording it and sending it right to social services.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So could this be how the court proceeding went down?

"So, why exactly do you have a white supremacist terrorist rock in your yard?"

"What? I've never used racial slurs in front of my daughter." As an afterthought, " or any other time."