Replies

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.

Apparently you aren't familiar with activist judges. If I grant you the possiblity that the advocacy lawyers could be twisting their side, will you grant me the possibility that the judge actually has a problem with the Christian teaching that homosexuality is an abomination?

With that in mind, the actual statement that the woman may not provide "Christian" teaching that is "homophobic" goes beyond an attempt to protect an "innocent" child. If that's what the judge wanted to do, he could easily have used language like yours. It is certainly possible to use Christian teaching that homosexuality is wrong to have a child lovingly pray for a homosexual, provide support and healing comfort when necessary, but not learn to accept homosexual behavior. The judge could have easily required such without mentioning religion or the politically charged term "homophobic" at all.

Since we can not prove your assumptions or mine based on the article at hand, I think we must at least criticize the judge for politicizing and "Christianizing" his ruling.

But judges don't get punished for that, unless they are trying to display a monument to the Ten Commandments. Then they can kiss the bench goodbye.

Shalom.

Apparently you aren't familiar with activist judges.

I'm aware of activist judges. And I'm also aware of ugly divorces. And I'm further aware of the all-too-common tactic of taking the trial to the media. And I'm aware of the tendency of advocacy lawyers to make inflammatory claims, especially when they're taking the trial to the media. And (this happened to my brother), I've learned that "Christian" divorce lawyers can be worse than the normal lot.

Beyond that, rather than fall for the spin put out by lady's hired gun lawyers, I actually paid attention to, and tried to understand, what little has been reported of what the judge actually said.

Now, it's possible that the judge is a persecutor -- but I really, really doubt it. It's highly unlikely that he would have invented such a ruling out of whole cloth.

Since we can not prove your assumptions or mine based on the article at hand, I think we must at least criticize the judge for politicizing and "Christianizing" his ruling.

The judge didn't politicize it, nor did he take it to the media. That little job was done by Ms. Clark's lawyers -- which (as noted above) is a big reason why I do not trust anything they say about this case.