Parents Right To Teach Children As They Choose?

[JLHPROF]

A fascinating article making the rounds in Utah speaks right to the heart of our parental right to teach our children.

Here are 2 links to the story.

 

http://fox13now.com/2014/12/09/judge-wont-let-fundamentalist-woman-talk-religion-in-front-of-her-kids/

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1928839-155/religion-polygamy-at-heart-of-utah

 

So, first, let me say that there is clearly something else to the custody portion of the story.  But that's not the topic at hand.

 

What do we think?  If your spouse were to leave you for ANY other religion would they have the right to teach your children about their beliefs?  Does the fact that one spouse is LDS and the other is investigating a fundamentalist group make any difference, especially if fundamentalist style polygamy (not legal bigamy) is no longer illegal/prosecuted in the state?

 

Would you allow an ex-spouse to teach your children a religious belief you fundamentally disagreed with?

Does the court have any right whatsoever to hand down an order on parental religious teachings?

Should it be illegal to discuss polygamy with a minor child?  With an LDS child?  Against the other spouse's wishes?

Is this simply a double-standard in practice?  Would we feel the same way if an ex-fundamentalist objected to a spouse joining the church and teaching their children about it?

 

Thought this might be an interesting topic.

Edited December 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[strappinglad]

Be not afraid. Kids are taught all kinds of things when they are young that they reject when they are older. Witness quite a few of the posters on this board. The key is to maintain a good relationship with the child.

[Coreyb]

Sad situation. Is the allegation that she does not have custody because of her beliefs? If she joined the AUB would the kids be allowed to attend with her? It does seem strange that only she was ordered not to talk about religion and not the father as well, but that may just be to keep continuity in the kids lives until the mother makes a formal change. Just not enough info to know, but interesting story.

[JAHS]

Apparently when they started out the children were being raised in an exclusively LDS home and church. It is the mother who decided to change. And since the father has sole custody and the children live with him, with only visitation from the mother, it seems to me that the children should continue along the path they started and not confuse them with another belief. 

[stemelbow]

A fascinating article making the rounds in Utah speaks right to the heart of our parental right to teach our children.

Here are 2 links to the story.

 

http://fox13now.com/2014/12/09/judge-wont-let-fundamentalist-woman-talk-religion-in-front-of-her-kids/

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1928839-155/religion-polygamy-at-heart-of-utah

 

So, first, let me say that there is clearly something else to the custody portion of the story.  But that's not the topic at hand.

 

What do we think?  If your spouse were to leave you for ANY other religion would they have the right to teach your children about their beliefs?  Does the fact that one spouse is LDS and the other is investigating a fundamentalist group make any difference, especially if fundamentalist style polygamy (not legal bigamy) is no longer illegal/prosecuted in the state?

 

Would you allow an ex-spouse to teach your children a religious belief you fundamentally disagreed with?

Does the court have any right whatsoever to hand down an order on parental religious teachings?

Should it be illegal to discuss polygamy with a minor child?  With an LDS child?  Against the other spouse's wishes?

Is this simply a double-standard in practice?  Would we feel the same way if an ex-fundamentalist objected to a spouse joining the church and teaching their children about it?

 

Thought this might be an interesting topic.

Among the order’s conditions: The children are to be allowed to continue attending LDS Church services. It also says the prohibition on the mother’s discussion of other churches, including the AUB, can be lifted if she "decides to join another religious group."

is the condition lifted if she joins the AUB? this is a bit confusing.

"This court order is about religion," the woman told The Tribune. "And it’s in place to prohibit me from discussing any religion with my children and it’s anti-constitutional."

further up it says:

It was concern for his children’s well being that prompted the father last month to seek a temporary restraining order against his wife, claiming she had violated the conditions of the court’s order, not by talking about religion, but through statements about the divorce that have upset the children and by seeking unsupervised time with them.

"She would say things about the court case in front of the children," the man testified on Tuesday. "She would talk about what was going on with the court case, as far as her version of the truth."

Sounds to me like they're being petty, using the kids to battle each other.

I don't see how you can get away from the notion that its a parent's right to explore religion with their kids.

[Calm]

Studies show that kids do better in the long run if they are given one set of beliefs to live by until they are old enough to live with nuances and exploring differences themselves. The decision is likely appropriate because confusion and lack of stability is not a pleasant condition for the children and if it canbe avoided for significant issues such as faith it should be, IMO. Once the mother makes up her mind and is committed to something, even then it may be doubtful it is healthy for the kids tobe presented with ambiguity until they are older though that would include the father restraining himself from talking about the mother's faith at that point.

In much the same way kids should be protected from being forced to become involved with their divorced parents' new relationships until it is certain there is a long term commitment there. They have already been suffering by the separation of the parents, if they develop closeness to another adult and then there is another breakup, they completely lose another loved adult...it is IMO cruel to ask kids to endure this (I've seen it happen in some families I am close to, I've seen responses where eventually the kids push everyone away rather than having to endure the loss and this continues into adulthood even with relationships they had with other family members...they've lost their ability to trust the loved one will always be there).

Edited December 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

Without having been in the courtroom it is impossible to understand why this decision was made. Generally judges do not limit what parents can talk to their children about unless it is abusive or they believe one (or both) parents to be unstable.

[JLHPROF]

I want to clarify - I am less interested in the judges decision, and more interested in people opinions on whether an ex-spouse should be able to teach children a differing, or even opposed religion.

 

Legal custody issues in this story are case specific.  The husband seeking to prevent his ex (or soon to be)-wife from teaching her children her religious beliefs seems a step too far for any parent.

 

If you are married and LDS and your spouse left you and joined the Catholic church (for the sake of argument) would you seek to stop them from teaching your child the trinitarian belief?  Would you go so far as to ask for legal restraint against it?  Assuming no-fault, equal custody right, no other legal issues etc, shouldn't BOTH parents have the right to teach their children what they believe?

Is the confusion so harmful that you would rather your child be raised believing a doctrine you consider false rather than express an opinion different to your ex-spouse?

[The Nehor]

I want to clarify - I am less interested in the judges decision, and more interested in people opinions on whether an ex-spouse should be able to teach children a differing, or even opposed religion.

 

Legal custody issues in this story are case specific.  The husband seeking to prevent his ex (or soon to be)-wife from teaching her children her religious beliefs seems a step too far for any parent.

 

If you are married and LDS and your spouse left you and joined the Catholic church (for the sake of argument) would you seek to stop them from teaching your child the trinitarian belief?  Would you go so far as to ask for legal restraint against it?  Assuming no-fault, equal custody right, no other legal issues etc, shouldn't BOTH parents have the right to teach their children what they believe?

Is the confusion so harmful that you would rather your child be raised believing a doctrine you consider false rather than express an opinion different to your ex-spouse?

 

Normally probably not. However if my former spouse was unbalanced or insane I would probably seek such legal restraint.

[JLHPROF]

Normally probably not. However if my former spouse was unbalanced or insane I would probably seek such legal restraint.

 

Well, I get the impression that that is what the LDS husband is claiming about his wife who is investigating Fundamentalists.  Apparently just because she has that interest she isn't a fit parent.  At least, that's the impression I get.

[The Nehor]

Well, I get the impression that that is what the LDS husband is claiming about his wife who is investigating Fundamentalists.  Apparently just because she has that interest she isn't a fit parent.  At least, that's the impression I get.

 

I would be willing to place a substantial bet that his concerns for her stability are probably a little more grounded then her just showing an interest in another faith.

 

Then again he might be insane too. Who knows?

[Bernard Gui]

If you say the parents do not have a right to teach their children moral and spiritual values,

what is left for the parents to do? The state can feed, clothe, and educate them.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

If you say the parents do not have a right to teach their children moral and spiritual values,

what is left for the parents to do? The state can feed, clothe, and educate them.

 

Who said that?

[Calm]

If you say the parents do not have a right to teach their children moral and spiritual values,

what is left for the parents to do? The state can feed, clothe, and educate them.

What if the parents want to teach them to .diiferent things? Things that conflict with each other.

What if one parent wants the child to learn how to be a concert pianist while the other wishes the child to have almost completely unstructured time outside of school except where the kid is self motivated enough to work on his own? They cannot do both due to the high conflict in goals.

[Sleeper Cell]

I want to clarify - I am less interested in the judges decision, and more interested in people opinions on whether an ex-spouse should be able to teach children a differing, or even opposed religion.

 

Legal custody issues in this story are case specific.  The husband seeking to prevent his ex (or soon to be)-wife from teaching her children her religious beliefs seems a step too far for any parent.

 

If you are married and LDS and your spouse left you and joined the Catholic church (for the sake of argument) would you seek to stop them from teaching your child the trinitarian belief?  Would you go so far as to ask for legal restraint against it?  Assuming no-fault, equal custody right, no other legal issues etc, shouldn't BOTH parents have the right to teach their children what they believe?

Is the confusion so harmful that you would rather your child be raised believing a doctrine you consider false rather than express an opinion different to your ex-spouse?

 

The age and maturity of the child would be a major factor, as would be the child’s primary residence, what religious teaching the child has had so far, and the degree of antagonism between the parents.  My primary concern is that one or both parents will use their child as a way to get back at their ex. 

 

We have had some posters who have raised children in a “duel faith household.”  The impression I get is that doing so can be very difficult, even when there is a great deal of love and mutual respect between the parents -- something generally in short supply in the aftermath of a divorce. 

 

“Express an opinion” is one thing.  But at some point, “express an opinion” can become  “attempt to proselytize”  or “attempt to undermine my ex’s religion in the eyes of my child.”  IIRC,  LDS church policy is that missionaries should not teach children without the consent of their custodial parent.  In the case of joint custody, I vaguely recall that the consent of the parent with physical custody is required (if this isn’t the case, it ought to be).  Absent contrary language in the joint custody agreement, I would use this as a general guideline, even if my ex had physical custody.  

 

From a purely self-serving prospective, it seems that behaving like a good Christian would be a more effective way to influence my child to choose my religion  than fighting with his mother over religion.

[BCSpace]

What do we think?  If your spouse were to leave you for ANY other religion would they have the right to teach your children about their beliefs?  Does the fact that one spouse is LDS and the other is investigating a fundamentalist group make any difference, especially if fundamentalist style polygamy (not legal bigamy) is no longer illegal/prosecuted in the state?

 

Would you allow an ex-spouse to teach your children a religious belief you fundamentally disagreed with?

Does the court have any right whatsoever to hand down an order on parental religious teachings?

Should it be illegal to discuss polygamy with a minor child?  With an LDS child?  Against the other spouse's wishes?

Is this simply a double-standard in practice?  Would we feel the same way if an ex-fundamentalist objected to a spouse joining the church and teaching their children about it?

 

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:14

 

I think the scripture speaks to importance of doing all you can to prevent your children from being brought up in another (non-LDS) religion.

Edited December 12, 2014 by BCSpace

[rpn]

I think both parents get to live their own faith authentically (or lack thereof).   But I don't think doing that entails saying "mommy believes things that are harmful and bad, and you mustn't do what she says because she is following Satan".   And living authentically doesn't require saying, "I left the [church we used to both believe in] because it was wrong and harmful and emotionally abusive and I dont' want you to endure any of that."

 

In most cases living authentically requires no preaching of one's faith to others at all --- the best teachings come from actions.   And if one is LDS those actions might say, "We interpret that scripture to say "......", your mom's faith thinks it says "...."    When you want to know how to interpret it for yourself, you will study and pray about it and, hopefully, you will get an answer from God and then follow it  to the best of your ability.

 

The problems typically arise when one parent or the other is really opposed to the other's faith and believes they must rescue their children and even ex from its tentacles.

[CA Steve]

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[JLHPROF]

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

but don't let them breathe a word of any beliefs different to my own in front of MY children else they shall be taken to court.

[tonie]

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

[Stone holm]

A fascinating article making the rounds in Utah speaks right to the heart of our parental right to teach our children.

Here are 2 links to the story.

 

http://fox13now.com/2014/12/09/judge-wont-let-fundamentalist-woman-talk-religion-in-front-of-her-kids/

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1928839-155/religion-polygamy-at-heart-of-utah

 

So, first, let me say that there is clearly something else to the custody portion of the story.  But that's not the topic at hand.

 

What do we think?  If your spouse were to leave you for ANY other religion would they have the right to teach your children about their beliefs?  Does the fact that one spouse is LDS and the other is investigating a fundamentalist group make any difference, especially if fundamentalist style polygamy (not legal bigamy) is no longer illegal/prosecuted in the state?

 

Would you allow an ex-spouse to teach your children a religious belief you fundamentally disagreed with?

Does the court have any right whatsoever to hand down an order on parental religious teachings?

Should it be illegal to discuss polygamy with a minor child?  With an LDS child?  Against the other spouse's wishes?

Is this simply a double-standard in practice?  Would we feel the same way if an ex-fundamentalist objected to a spouse joining the church and teaching their children about it?

 

Thought this might be an interesting topic.

What is interesting is you distinguish Mormonism from fundamentalism.

[JLHPROF]

What is interesting is you distinguish Mormonism from fundamentalism.

 

I distinguish the Church from the Fundamentalist groups, even if they are all Mormons...

But that's not really relevant to the topic of parents with opposing religious teachings and their right to teach their children opposing views.

[Stone holm]

I distinguish the Church from the Fundamentalist groups, even if they are all Mormons...

But that's not really relevant to the topic of parents with opposing religious teachings and their right to teach their children opposing views.

The problem becomes choosing which parents views get precedence, or do we just let the parents turn their children into religious sectarian battlegrounds?

[JLHPROF]

Follow up interview with mother:

http://libertasutah.org/interview/utah-judge-orders-mother-not-to-teach-her-children-about-religion-or-politics/

 

AB: What’s troubling is that I didn’t have a chance to respond to (and rebut) the affidavits he filed against me, because he filed them at the last minute thus denying me an opportunity to fight them.

LI: And the affidavits generally say what?

AB: They all had to do with religion, and one of them wasn’t even about me—it was entirely about the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB; a sect I am considering joining). Another one was so religious that it had scripture in it. They basically argued that I was attempting to change religion and that of my children.

LF (attorney): There are no allegations of physical or sexual abuse against my client. At that time, nobody was using the term “emotional abuse” but that is what the commissioner has decided to call it, saying that exposure to this other religion, and how upsetting it is to the children, is emotional abuse perpetrated by my client.

LI: What is the most concerning portion of the order?

LF (attorney):

10. The parties are mutual restrained from discussing other religions and politics with the children as these issues are inappropriate for young children.

11. The parties are mutual restrained from discussing other religions and politics at any family gathering during the holidays.

12. The parties are to permit the children to continue attending the LDS church.

13. Respondent is restrained from discussing other religions, including the AUB, with the parties’ children until such time as Respondent decides to join another religious group.

 

I have to admit after reading these restrictions, despite their religious nature, they do seem to be in the best interest of the children.  The mother is permitted to discuss differing religions IF she decides to join another religious group.  I guess I can see how confusing the children about religion while investigating serves no purpose.

I don't see why the husbands family etc felt the need to gather a ton of affidavits to stop her mentioning a differing religion to her kids.

[cinepro]

What do we think?  If your spouse were to leave you for ANY other religion would they have the right to teach your children about their beliefs?  Does the fact that one spouse is LDS and the other is investigating a fundamentalist group make any difference, especially if fundamentalist style polygamy (not legal bigamy) is no longer illegal/prosecuted in the state?

 

Would you allow an ex-spouse to teach your children a religious belief you fundamentally disagreed with?

Does the court have any right whatsoever to hand down an order on parental religious teachings?

Should it be illegal to discuss polygamy with a minor child?  With an LDS child?  Against the other spouse's wishes?

Is this simply a double-standard in practice?  Would we feel the same way if an ex-fundamentalist objected to a spouse joining the church and teaching their children about it?

 

 

 

What odd questions.  Other than the specific reasons Nehor pointed out, how could any parent not have the "right" to talk to their child about whatever they like?  I've even heard of divorce situations where parents were telling their children malicious lies about the other spouse (a much worse offense), and there wasn't anything that could be done to stop them.