In Theory: Can a court restrict speaking about religion to kids?
As part of a custody dispute, a woman in Utah is fighting a court order that prohibits her from talking to her children about her fundamentalist Mormon beliefs, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
The woman, who was raised Mormon, has been attending the fundamentalist Apostolic United Brethren church, which practices polygamy.
The court order bars the woman from talking to her three children — ages 7, 5 and 18 months — about politics or faith other than the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints. A divorce commissioner, Kim Luhn, somewhat eased the restrictions recently, allowing the mother to have age-appropriate discussions on faith with her children.
Although the fathers’ attorney told the Tribune that religion is not central to the divorce, it “has certainly played into why the parties are separating.”
Meanwhile, the woman’s attorney has argued that the order violates her client’s 1st Amendment right.
Luhn said, “I don’t care if her conduct is a result of her belief in the UAB … I care that her conduct is creating chaos for the children and in essence rising to the level of emotional abuse.”
Q: Is the court overstepping its bounds or can the law restrict the mother from talking to her children about faith, if such discussions are deemed inappropriate or emotionally jarring? What, if any, solution do you see in this situation?
--
This is what happens when parents have different religions. The kids wind up being proselytized by both beloved authority figures and it leaves them in a quandary. It seems here, however, that mom and dad met in the LDS church and that the Mrs. did some research. As a result, she moved away theologically from its current incarnation. Since the religious views of both parents are nearly identical, one would think that they could boil down the significant differences and help the kids understand just those, rather than dragging them into all the crazy arguments and antagonism.
In our view, the LDS (Mormon) church is a major cult, and the AUB (also Mormon) is a sub-cult of that. Who has the greatest error is questionable at best, and I hardly think that the issue of polygamy would be the thing to quibble about since both practiced polygamy at one time, yet they both currently believe that God was once a man, and that their members similarly turn into gods at death. That’s the real and damnable sin, biblically speaking. So I see this as but one powerful Goliath sect quashing its recalcitrant daughter sect, with the divorced parents representing either side.
I do feel terribly bad for the children, but how the government can forbid the mother from sharing her denomination of Mormonism with her kids while favoring only the father’s sounds very much like the LDS church and the Utah courts are in their own polygamous relationship. The U.S. government has no right to suppress religious views or their dissemination, neither does it have the right to muzzle a mother’s religious instruction to her children. As far as the government goes, both religions are equally protected, right? Or, does the Utah court have a “stake?”
Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose
--
Boy, is this ever a hard issue! The concept of freedom of religion and freedom of speech would seem to indicate that the woman does have a right to talk to her children. But the “emotional abuse” argument has merit, too.
Also, doesn’t the state have an interest in seeing to it that children get to grow up “well-balanced,” whatever that means? I’m not sure I can give a definitive response, but I’ll try.
Parents should have the freedom to speak to their children about whatever they want, unless the parents are purposely trying to raise racial bigots. I think it’s in society’s best interests that children are raised with the idea that only one spouse at a time is appropriate.
Some Mormon sects think polygamy is OK, but I don’t. Also, neither did the early church think polygamy was OK. So both historical Christianity and U.S. practices agree that individuals should be married to only one person at a time (A footnote: Utah was allowed to become a state if members of the territory agreed to have only one wife at a time. So to go against the concept of “one man, one wife” is not only un-Christian but also un-American!)
There may be other issues involved here, too, but I have said enough, except for the fact that the woman comes off so different from society’s norms that a case could be made that she is freakin’ crazy! And no children should have to endure a crazy mama!
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
It’s unacceptable for a court to deny a parent the right to teach their child the principles of their faith. From the news reports about this case, it seems that the parents have contradicting religious opinions that may be causing the children some confusion. But that doesn’t warrant taking away the parents’ rights.
It’s not stated, but possibly there are some issues regarding the age-appropriateness of what the mother is teaching, but if that’s the case, I would think it would be a matter of child endangerment or abuse and would be addressed using those kinds of laws.
Passing our faith on to our children is one of our most fundamental responsibilities in life. Moses reminded Israel of God’s commands when he first gave his law to Israel: “Let them hear my words so they may learn to fear me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.” (Deuteronomy 4:10).
God reiterated this command to pass on his words to the next generation in Deuteronomy 6:7: “You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
Differences in religious beliefs may be a matter of some controversy, but the right to teach them to our children should remain sacred and uncontested.
Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank
--
Having the court be allowed to censor what or how a parent instructs their child in faith matters seems to go against their 1st Amendment rights. However, there are cases where beliefs have been deemed detrimental to a child’s health, such as the parent’s refusal to allow blood transfusions for the child or deny proper medical care.
“The law is now clear: Parents cannot sacrifice the lives of their children in the name of religious freedom,” said Robert Gittens, speaking for the Massachusetts prosecutors’ office in Commonwealth vs. Twitchell, 1993.
Therefore, the issue is one of “harm to the child,” which is the purview of a child psychologist or pediatrician, not a constitutional lawyer or a Supreme Court justice. We must remember all of our citizens are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; thus so, none of our citizens are to be denied those rights. A child is a fertile ground for learning. That fertility should not be contaminated due to a parent’s religious views if they violate the child’s rights to grow up healthy.
As for a solution that has the child’s interests in heart, more information is necessary. In this case, is the mother the custodial or noncustodial parent? If she is the custodial parent, there is no way to monitor or ascertain the extent of her “emotional abuse,” through her trying to bring her children to her beliefs. But, if she is the noncustodial parent, the court could demand supervised visitation and therefore be privy to what is being talked about or “preached.” The supervisor could then report to the court. The court could then render a verdict. God willing, it will be the one that is good for the children.
Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank
--
Because the case is sealed, we don’t know exactly what the mother said to prompt the court order limiting what she can say to her children. This makes the question difficult to answer.
The mother’s attorney contends that religious speech is at the center of the controversy. The divorce commissioner said the issue isn’t religion per se, but the fact that the mother’s words amounted to emotional abuse. But this still leaves us to guess what was actually said.
What we do know is that the mother appears to have embraced beliefs that include the practice of polygamy, which is illegal. If the mother is trying to lead the children into an unlawful lifestyle, then it is not unreasonable for the divorce commissioner to intervene.
Personally, I could not support a court order forbidding a parent generally from discussing religion with his or her children. However, the 1st Amendment protects free speech only up to a certain point. The Supreme Court has found that there are certain circumstances, and perhaps this is one, in which restrictions are justified.
As to a solution, again, it is difficult to say without knowing the details of the case. I think, though, that in the emotionally volatile situations that divorce can create, parents should take extra care not to use their children as a means of striking at one another. This requires the mother and father to restrain their feelings, at least in the presence of the children, to avoid inflicting emotional wounds that may take a lifetime to heal.
Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta
--
Easier said than done, of course, but the couple in this divorce mess should have made a commitment to each other about the rearing of their children, including religious upbringing, and then both stuck to it no matter what happened in their relationship. It would also be good if all prospective parents had to submit to a home-study before procreating, like my husband and I had to do before adopting.
With the judge’s amendment loosening the restrictions of her original order, I do not think this woman’s free speech rights are being violated.
The soon-to-be ex-wife states that she has been a good parent based on never having abused or neglected her children. I would want the parenting bar set quite a bit higher and in a more positive vein.
She supposedly has home-schooled the older kids, so the need to impart information in an age-appropriate way should be well-known to her.
Unfortunately “home-schooling” is too often a cover for indoctrination and wanting to keep the real world at bay, and I suspect that may have been the case here.
My advice to this mom is to bear in mind that in the blink of an eye her children will be grown and forming their own opinions about everything, including about herself and her parenting. Don’t give them ammunition for ridicule and recrimination — there will be plenty despite your best efforts!
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose