And how do those points line up w/ the Tennessee State Constitution:
TN Constitution, Article 1
Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Section 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
Does the judge, perhaps, think that he is not a "human authority"?
Does the judge presume that the boy's decisions [and right to make that decision] to "worship Almighty God according to the dictates of [his] own conscience" may be nullified? (i.e. that it is not indefeasible.)
I was referring specifically to the list of points to consider when determining the best interests of the children.
He is really over the top, though.
I was referring specifically to the list of points to consider when determining the best interests of the children.
He is really over the top, though.
The courts think they are a special case, re this nonresistance stuff...
They may need as much of a correction as the executive, though they will never accept it.