Profile
Elf Sternberg
Active Entries
- 1: Surge Pricing for Grocery Stores is a Disaster Only Psychopath MBAs Could Love
- 2: Antarctica Day 7: Swimming In the Antaractic Seas
- 3: Restarted my yoga classes, and I discovered I'm a total wreck
- 4: Antarctica: Getting To the Boat and the Disaster That Awaited
- 5: The Enshittification of All That Lives
- 6: How the green energy discourse resembles queer theory
- 7: Tori's Sake & Grill (restaurant, review)
- 8: I'm Not Always Sure I Trust My ADHD Diagonosis
- 9: You can't call it "Moral Injury" when your "morals" are monstrous
- 10: Ebay vs Newmark: You're all just cogs. Accept it. There is no joy in it, but you have no choice.
Style Credit
- Base style: ColorSide by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot - Theme: NNWM 2010 Fresh by timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2005-06-28 02:05 pm (UTC)The way I took his comments were "Hey, *any* religion can look strange if you really want to see it that way." If you're going to apply this standard to one religion - its odd to the judge, so it has to be restricted - that sets a very dangerous precedent for parental guidance with regard to any religion.
The court representative said this was not about a particular religion, but about protecting children from "certain rituals." OK, then the court needs to specify what rituals are being talked about, then explain why they are harmful for children to be exposed to.
In fairness, every religion has its extremes where followers do some fairly nasty stuff in the name of their beliefs. I'm not familiar enough with the case to say whether what the defendants were doing fell into this category or not, but again, in that circumstance the relevant part of the law would be under child endangerment/child abuse, which I believe is usually fairly specific as to what constitutes an actionable violation.