Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.
is what I found galling. And yes, the judge is playing 'god'.
"She has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view..." ???
What the heck is that about? Adam allowed Eve to 'seriously consider another point of view' back in the Garden a long time ago ... and that worked out wonderfully for all of us...
If the judge wants to play anti-Solomon and cut the baby in half due to the legal custody arguments - that's one thing. Interjecting that being raised in a Christian environment is inadequate because the person is not exposed to enough lies that might change their mind - is entirely something else...
Well, it looks like that is "about" the fact that the mother claimed that she wanted to homeschool the child in order to pass on her Christian values (I don't know how it's a Christian value to teach a child that her father does not love her because he has different religious beliefs - that looks like a mother who is using "Christian" teaching to turn her child against her father after a divorce). The father, on the other hand, wanted to expose the child to other views.
The judge didn't "interject that being raised in a Christian environment is inadequate because the person is not exposed to enough lies that might change their mind," the judge stated that being exposed solely to Christian teachings/worldviews is inadequate in this case because the girls father wanted her exposed to other worldviews.
Just because you believe & agree with the mother's Christian teachings does not mean that the father has no rights to make decisions regarding the education of his child. If the judge had decided otherwise, don't you think the father would be arguing that the judge forced the child to be homeschooled and taught only Christian beliefs, against the father's will? Why would that be OK if this is not?