Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mudslag, Sep 15, 2015.
That is completely nuts, there should be massive fines and jail when the government violates peoples rights.
The problem is the state abusing taxes to pay for counseling, not the counselor praying.
If it is offered as one of several counciling options, no problem, but if it is dictated, the ruling should be overturned, and the judge should be reprimanded or disbarred.
The court's job is to help facilitate a resolution to this issue and it just so happens the courts are funded by our tax dollars. What would you recommend instead?
From that video it looks like there was no option, that specific councillors name was on the judgement/order. I can't believe they would take your kids away because you refuse religious indoctrination.
You don't know if this woman sprinkled in religion on her own. Who ever approved the course could have done so without knowing the soon to be "counselor" would offer up her own twist. Before we fry the state of New Mexico, more facts would be needed.
Agree, but if my understanding is correct, the mother told the court about the religious content from the beginning and they did nothing. It was only after a few sessions that she refused to go back. If the courts were never made aware, then this is a non issue.
Yes, calling it "court-ordered religious classes" is just plain hyperbole. There is nothing wrong with the counselor suggesting that the woman should seek help from God. At the point, if the counselor persisted even though the woman objected then that would be crossing the line. But characterizing the class as religious is absolutely ridiculous.
You know how many complaints courts and law enforcement receive? They don't move at the knee jerk, public outcry, receive 10k likes on facebook pace.
Again, I agree, but the court did knee jerk take her children away and she did not get them back until she finished the classes. At the very least the judge should have ordered her to find a counsellor of her choice or wait for an investigation to be completed before taking the children away.
It's not knee jerk when the court says "Do A or else B will occur". There are avenues to file a compliant and they will investigate it. It is the same process that occurs when someone makes claims about someones rights being violated. Choke down the 10 classes, vomit afterward if you have to, get your kids back. Then raise awareness and fight like hell to end that class. If my kids are on the line I'll listen to her preach about the Sermon on the mount until I'm really to have a stroke. Afterwards she'd gonna regret ever meeting me.
When do A is clearly against the law, it is an unlawful. If a judge orders you to beat your kids or I send you to jail, that would also be unlawful. The other benefit of a judge not being retarded is, that it will save tax payers money. I really hope she sues and gets a settlement. Even if she does not win the tax payers pay with time wasted in the court system, this case should have been pretty easy to deal with. She brings up her concerns and they get her a new counsellor.
Did the judge send her to court ordered religious education or court ordered counselling to which some knucklehead decided on her own accord to put a religious spin on it without his/her knowledge? Someone could cry religious indoctrination if the word "god" is even mentioned in such class. We live in a society now where everyone seems to have some pretty fragile sensibilities, so you don't know who has a legitimate beef or is simply looking to get out of it. Hence there wasn't a knee jerk reaction to suspend her requirement of counseling, burn the counselor at the stake, and get that mother into therapy right away for the mental anguish she was subjected to.
I agree, but asking how is your life different from when you had god in your life is not as simple as mentioning God.
And I agree it's different, but do you know how many BS complaints they get for every man or woman doing court appointed counseling/community service? They can't move as fast as the social media culture wants them to move.
The courts didn't pay for the counselling. Also if the counselor wants to pray that's fine but if the rest of the story holds up, then the counselor's actions regarding the rest of the sessions are not. Add that the counselor herself is acting shady with her business dealings.
I just used the article title.
Yes, my comments weren't directed at you.
The Court mandating counseling is fine. The Court mandating a specific counselor, without an option of selection, that is (as the ACLU alluded) problematic. It is problematic for any number of reasons, not the least of which being a pedantic counselor finding it necessary to impose her methodology (audible prayer to begin a session) upon the client.
which is one hell of a mealymouthed headline.
Let me guess.
People are concerned that the state won't be able to pay for those classes.
People are concerned about the noise from these classes.
People are concerned that they won't be able to attend.
People are concerned about petty theft from the class's petty cash bin.
People are concerned about the textbooks.
People are concerned about the meaning of life.
Get to the point.
Just wait patiently while she's praying. It will be over soon enough.
I have no problem with her beginning the session with a prayer, so long as she would have no problem with me not taking part in it.
I'd probably make a point of wearing the Pastafarian's prescribed colander headgear to class, and perhaps ending every sentence with "by his great noodly appendage".
It's both. The ordering her to see a particular counselor isn't good either
That does seem odd, although, again, we don't know what all led up to this. Perhaps the couple couldn't agree on a counselor on their own, so, the court picked one for them. That seems quite possible in this case.
And then added, "Ve haf vays of making you pray."