Posted on 02/12/2007 2:59:18 PM PST by presidio9
Meet Daniel P. and Allison B. and their children, Mujahid Daniel and Mujahid David, ages 13 and 11. Not your typical American family, but their situation may affect your right to speak to your children.
During their marriage, according to court documents, Daniel and Allison followed a "quasi-Muslim philosophy." They also "amassed a large quantity of weapons," and Daniel was imprisoned for illegal weapons possession and making threats.
The couple divorced in 1997, when Daniel was in prison.
Daniel, now out on parole and living in Hawaii, wants to see his children, who live with their mother in New York. Allison objects, based on Daniel's "violent felony conviction record ... domestic violence ... extremist views regarding religion, including ... jihad; and the letters written to the children while he was incarcerated, lecturing about religion and reminding the children that their names are Mujahid."
In December, a New York appellate court held that Daniel should be allowed supervised visitation after his parole expires. But, in "the best interests of the children," it upheld the trial court's order that Daniel not discuss with the children "any issues pertaining to his religion."
It is surely in the children's best interests not to be taught militant jihad. But the trial court didn't apply a jihadists-only rule, or a"convicted felons lose their parent-child speech rights" rule. Rather, it applied the broad and subjective "best interests of the child" standard. Many parents might wonder
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
A dangerous road allowing a Judge to restrict what a parent wishes to say to their child. In some countries, teaching the Bible is considered 'hate speech' or homophobic.
Terrorists raise little terrorists. We should not be allowing terrorists any contact with their offspring. We are at war, both abroad and, unfortunately, at home.
Terrorists raise little terrorists. We should not be allowing terrorists any contact with their offspring. We are at war, both abroad and, unfortunately, at home.
The real tragedy is that today, in a time of war, with fanatrics just as dedicated to our demise as were the Nazis and Imperialist Japanese, that an equal measure of justice is not meted out for such traitorous behavior.
How long before the homo lobby calls Christians terrorists and then uses the same rule to prevent the passing of religion from one parent to the child?
The homo lobby isn't as strong as you think, and Christians are no flying planes into skyscrapers very often these days.
If our government came out and made out and out war on its own Christian citizens who by far and away support and defend the constitution and see this land as a God-bequeathed place of freedom and base from which to spread Christ's message, then that would be a different matter and each would have their decisions to make. Most would, I believe, follow the paths of their forefathers and declare to that totalitarian government what was declared to the King of England..."No King but King Jesus", and liberty would once again be defended against tyranny here.
But that is not the situation and comparing this Jihadist to such a non-existant situation is a straw man for this arguement IMHO. I believe this guy should be executed for his actions and therefore requiring him not to make statements about his treasonous beliefs is not a problem to me...other than it is far to light a consequence for his actions.
I think you missed the point of your article. The court didn't apply a jihadists-only rule.
Folks here were apoplectic about that one.
L
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411517/posts
My problem is this. If a religion teaches that its adherants should go out and blow up and kill members of other faiths just because they believe differently, that they, themselves, should take over the political leadership of a country AND replace it with their religious dogma, that morally based liberty and freedom should be overthrown and replaced with their totalitarianism, etc., etc. then, IMHO, it is no longer a religion, it becomes a political ideology that stand in opposition to everything our liberty is based upon and at that point does not deserve any protection at all and should be treated for the enemy that it is.
Each of has has to look at these cases and decide where they stand in relationship to those types of principles and not decide, either just because they say it is a "religion" that it deserves protection, or that just because it is different than our own it should be subdued. If has to cross that type of line that I mention above IMHO.
Anyow, that's just as I see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.