- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/29/25 at 6:16 pm to L.A.
Unless the father has sole custody and just allows her time with the daughter , I don’t see how this isn’t blatantly unconstitutional.
I’m not familiar with this church, are they Westboro crazy or something?
I’m not familiar with this church, are they Westboro crazy or something?
Posted on 11/29/25 at 6:26 pm to Champagne
quote:
There aren't many charismatic speakers in the Catholic Church.
I would say even non denominational churches have their fair share of duds, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:15 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
direct the child’s religious education in failed mixed marriages for far longer than 15 years. More like 150 or more.
"Directing a child's religious education" is one thing.
Using the force of the state to prohibit a 12 year old from reading a specific book in the privacy of her own home is quite another. I don't care if that has been going on for 1500 years, that's a bridge too far.
Especially when the same court thinks it's appropriate for public schools to give that same 12 year old all manner of explicit, graphic pornographic material in school.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:16 pm to uziyourillusion
quote:
I’m not familiar with this church, are they Westboro crazy or something?
So what if they are?
How does that justify the state prohibiting a child from reading a specific book in the privacy of her home?
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:21 pm to wackatimesthree
That should be fast tracked to the SCOTUS to overrule.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:27 pm to L.A.
quote:
The order also "allows prohibiting the daughter from reading the Bible," according to a Nov. 12 release from Liberty Counsel, a legal advocacy group assisting Bickford in court.
LINK to the Order
What the order ACTUALLY says
quote:
As to Ava's participation in any other church or religious organization, or Ava's exposure to the teachings of any religious philosophy or of the Bible in general - the parties shall continue to share parental rights and responsibilities and are required to jointly research the church, organization, or teachings and discuss whether Ava's participation and exposure is in her best interests.
Dishonest news release is dishonest
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:28 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
How does that justify the state prohibiting a child from reading a specific book in the privacy of her home?
I know I'm coming in late, but the Order doesn't do this
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:42 pm to L.A.
The USSC will say otherwise.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:45 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
This thread just shows the power of targeted dishonesty
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Here is the operative language, in its entirety:
What the order ACTUALLY says
quote:Absolutely NOTHING in that language prohibits either (a) the child from reading the Bible OR (c) the Mother from reading the Bible to the child.
Mr. Bradeen (the Father) is allocated the right and responsibility to make decisions regarding whether [Minor Child] attends any services, gatherings, or events associated with Calvary Chapel; whether and what material, literature, video, or other messaging associated with, or created or published by, Calvary Chapel she reviews; and whether she associates or communicates with any member of Calvary Chapel other than Ms. Bickford. As to [Minor Child’s] participation in any other church or religious organization, or [Minor Child’s] exposure to the teachings of any religious philosophy or of the Bible in general - the parties shall continue to share parental rights and responsibilities and are required to jointly research the church, organization, or teachings and discuss whether [Minor Child’s] participation and exposure is in her best interests. However, given Ms. Bickford’s history of relinquishing her independent decision making to Calvary Chapel, Mr. Bradeen is awarded the right to make final decisions regarding [Minor Child’s] participation in other churches and religious organizations in the event of a dispute between the parties.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:58 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Your argument faces a minor problem. The Order does not remotely do this.
state prohibiting a child from reading a specific book in the privacy of her home?
Posted on 11/29/25 at 7:59 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
The power of dishonesty was shown with this thread.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 8:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I would never accuse user L.A. of dishonesty. I think that he was just misled by the (questionable?) reporting of the esteemed Western Journal.
The power of dishonesty was shown with this thread.
The WJ article conspicuously did NOT quote the Order itself in asserting that the Order prohibits the daughter from reading the Bible. Instead, this paragon of objective reporting relied upon a press release issued by the mother's attorneys at "Liberty Counsel." (From their website: "Liberty Counsel is a 501 Christian ministry that engages in strategic litigation to promote evangelical Christian values.")
The same article refers to the child's father as the "biological father," in a transparent attempt to make it seem that he has played no role in the child's life beyond that of a sperm donor.
In fact, the entire WJ reads more like a press release on behalf of the mother than like any sort of objective reporting, because it contains more than a dozen quotes provided by her counsel. Conspicuously, the WJ article does not quote the FATHER's counsel at all ... not once.
It is easy to see how user L.A. might have been misled.
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 11/29/25 at 8:14 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I would never accuse user L.A. of dishonesty.
I didn't. He was just a pawn showing the power of dishonesty
The dishonesty began with the press release, which the Western Journal amplified and did not analyze with any objective rationality
Posted on 11/29/25 at 8:19 pm to retired_tiger
Did you say the same about every mosque?
Posted on 11/29/25 at 8:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:In all seriousness, is it any surprise that the villagers react the way they do to the average clickbait OP, when the average OP intentionally tells only one side of the story, usually in the most-inflammatory language possible?
The dishonesty began with the press release, which the Western Journal amplified and did not analyze with any objective rationality
What percent of threads on this forum are started in a good faith effort to engage in a reasoned discussion? Maybe three or four percent?
Posted on 11/29/25 at 8:27 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Relentless alter a new guy.
Good faith from an alter.
Good faith from an alter.
Posted on 11/29/25 at 8:31 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Your argument faces a minor problem. The Order does not remotely do this.
O.k., but it doesn't say what you claimed was happening either.
You claimed that it was merely the latest case in 150 years of the court awarding one parent basically sole control of a child's religious influence.
I didn't read the order but you obviously didn't either, because it doesn't do that either.
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 11/29/25 at 8:37 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:"Dad has the ultimate final say" versus "try to agree, but if you cannot agree, then Dad will have the final say."
(Father) is awarded the right to make final decisions regarding [Minor Child’s] participation in other churches and religious organizations in the event of a dispute between the parties.
That is a distinction without a difference.
This post was edited on 11/29/25 at 9:04 pm
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News