Non-religious woman who refused judge's order to meet with Christian counselor loses her sons


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Guess she missed the bit about not lying. It’s ok, it’s easy to miss. It’s just in THE BIBLE,


#3

Or that whole thing about rendering unto Caesar…


#4

Damn. Given the choices, I think a pair of earplugs would have been her best option.


#5

How in the hell can the judge even do that? He has to know this ‘counselor’ isn’t even qualified to clean a toilet much less help someone with an issue like this.

Or maybe he does know and thinks ‘Jebus!’ will take care of it.


#6

Why the fuck is this demented Jeebus freak on the court’s payroll/contact list/whatever? As if I need to ask, considering all the people who’ve died because the Steppers have all the rehab work from the courts and cheerfully chuck young, vulnerable addicts in the same room as predators. Cults are cheap, and they speak that authoritarian jive juuuuuussst fine…


#7

That cannot possibly be legal. It’s a clear violation of Salzman’s 1st Amendment rights. The judge needs to be censured or removed, and I suspect that Salzman has a very good basis for a lawsuit.


#8

Nope. Offering La Pepper a coffee with six tabs of acid and a packet of ex lax in it.


#9

Watch for news about people killed in a murderous rage shortly…


#10

Tell that to all the DUIs sentenced to court mandated AA meetings. Don’t care if you’re an atheist, you still gotta attend meetings where the second step is to admit and give over to an “higher power”.


#11

Technically I suppose the court which issued the order would count as a “higher power.”


#12

It does sound dubious, but if you’re given a court order to do something, you don’t just stop going, you take your own legal action.

I also am curious if this was the only counselor the person had to choose from. I’m not defending the government mandating anything religion-based, but the lack of information in this article makes me extremely skeptic.


#13

I know this is going to get a lot of jeers, but in the wake of everyone I know on FB yelling “do your damn job!” at some woman because she refused to do something she was morally against, is this that much different? This person had some domestic issues, the state had to intervene, and it resolved the issue by ordering her to get counseling and she refused to follow the law. Why does she get to ignore the law based on her own, individual beliefs, but not Kim Davis?

I mean, yes, I disagree with Davis’ assessment of homosexuality, and I totally agree with this woman’s analysis of the crackpot counselor, but obviously that’s my subjective point of view. Either we allow folks to think for themselves, or we don’t. “Do your damn job” is the stupidest phrase I’ve heard being yelled in years, and the fact that it’s being yelled by mostly liberal intellectuals does not speak well of liberal intellectuals as a whole.


#14

Watch the video. It shows the actual court order that names Mary Pepper specifically as the person she had to contact for her counseling.


#15

Embedded flash player? C’mon BB, I thought you were more modern than that.


#16

Are the cases really comparable? The story here is about a woman forced by a judge to get Christian counseling, while Davis enforced her religion as an official state actor.


:game_die: Would You LIKE to Play a Game? :video_game:
#17

What about separation of Church and State? An official appointed by the State should not be allowed to bring religion into it.


#18

I watched the video, it said that court ordered counseling was required, it never said with whom specifically. Even the part where the “ACLU does not have all the facts in the case” makes this sound a bit sensationalist.

If I’m mistaken and there’s a point where it specifically says “she was ordered to specifically take counseling from Mary Pepper” I’d like to know where.


#19

Couldn’t she have played along, for her kids you know?


#20

Admittedly, it’s under a ‘Recommended’ heading.