NEWS: Reverend Magdalen and the Right to Fake Faith

So you're saying there's no downside? Awesome!

This is the part of this that I don't understand. If you read the Reverend's blog, she states:

Not only was her child not there, but she has made the decision that the material in question is not age appropriate and has taken steps to keep it from him. Maybe this is your finding of facts in the above post (I'm not a lawyer).

A separate question [possibly a red herring]: Does the Judge's outburst violate the establishment clause? In his official capacity became so upset he needed a recess, and when he returned called her a pervert (not to my knowledge a legally defined term) and mentally ill (not to my knowledge a judgement he is qualified to make) before barring contact between Bevilacqua and her son. It seems to me that he is applying a moral judgement based on his personal beliefs rather than a legal judgement based on the written law. Does the establshment clause not apply to the judiciary (or am I making an attempt to misapply it in this case)?

Just a question, no bunched undies here.

Well, the score is now Internet: 1, Sarcasm: 0.

Her free speech is absolutely being restricted. She's banned from having any Subgenius materials in her home or she loses her child. She's committing no crime by participating in these activities nor has she even brought her child to a Subgenius Devival. Christ, whatever happened to, "I don't agree with your opinion but i'll fight to the death for your right to have it".

I think I get it. The judge's outburst amounts to either inappropriate behavior behind the bench or an incorrect finding of fact (if we assume the judge is not an expert in mental health, perversion or the taxonomy of perverts and that pervert is not a legally defined term).

In order to violate the establishment clause he would have to rule that Bevilacqua is an incompetant mother because her behavior away from her child conflicts with what his church teaches him is appropriate behavior for a mother. He would have to specifically establish the teachings of his church as having the force of law in the name of the state. In this case, he is more likely ruling that her behavior falls outside of some ill defined social norm and that she is thus, unfit to have contact with the child.

I can't say that I find this comforting. Let's hope the appellate court gets it right. Thanks [still no bunched undies].

I don't understand how you can see a material difference between "you lose your kids if you express yourself in this way" and "you can't express yourself in this way." It's pretty clear that her freedom to express herself with respect to the Church of SubGenius has been taken away. That the situation isn't apparently constitutionally protected is a separate issue.

Hail Eris. Fnord.

But what if the speech the judge found harmful was "the Lord, Jesus Christ, is your Savior" or "Vote Democrat when you grow up"?

Ah, if I were not king, I should lose my temper. This judge should be thrown into the oubliette for lifetime.

You may be surprised to hear such harsh words from the king who revoked the Edict of Nantes, which granted a degree of religious freedom to the Huguenots, and who instituted the "dragonnades" in order to intimidate Huguenot families. So let me explain myself.

First of all, we're not living in the same century. My time, 1707, does not know religious freedom, it is believed that the religion of the king (or other ruler) would be the religion of the people ("Cuius regio, eius religio"). So one of my goals is a religiously unified nation - hence the persecution of the Huguenots. Your time, however, claims to grant religious freedom - at least in Europe and North America. I understand there are laws, more precisely the first amendment quoted by Mylady Flux, guaranteeing free exercise of religion. So, if a judge restricts the exercise of a religion, his decision is against the law.

Secondly, the "Church of the SubGenius" isn't even a real religion, it's mockery of religion. It reminds me on "Tartuffe", a comedy of my friend Molière, which attacks religious hypocrisy. Even in my time, no judge would dare to forbid a mother from keeping Tartuffe materials in her home, nor would he call her "pervert" or "mentally ill". Declaring those who critic or disagree as "mentally ill" is a common practice of despots and tyrants.

Thirdly, the judge obviously does not have any sense of humour. Which alone should be enough to throw him into the oubliette.

AGREED

Flux Cult.



I'm right on this.