Good heavens! That is a rather strong statement based on no evidence whatsoever. Why would you say such a thing?
Is it not possible that Clark (recognizing the correction you made in the next post) actually cares deeply about McLeod but simply wants to teach her daughter the truth about her deviant lifestyle?
Shalom.
Because we have no reason to disbelieve the judge when he says that this is a very acrimonious situation, and that the so-called "Christian teachings" are damaging the relationship between the little girl and McLeod. Call me a cynic -- but I think that this is basically your typical ugly divorce with a twist, and there is little niceness to be found on either side.
Is it not possible that Clark (recognizing the correction you made in the next post) actually cares deeply about McLeod but simply wants to teach her daughter the truth about her deviant lifestyle?
Possible, but highly unlikely.
BTW, a large part of my contrarian position on this story is due the fact that Clark's lawyers are a) advocacy lawyers, a species whose public statements I never trust at face value; and b)the fact that they're shrieking about the judge wanting to suppress religious freedom, when it seems quite clear that the judge's ruling is based on something quite different: the damage Clark is causing to the relationship between the child and McLeod.
IMHO this thing is a publicity gimmick by Clark's lawyers to raise a public hue and cry -- which it seems to be doing.
And all involved (with the possible exception of the judge) seem to have lost sight of the fact that there's an innocent little girl who has to witness this ugliness, and whose opinion of what Christianity means is probably being hideously warped -- by Ms. Clark, above all.