Comment from the NY Times article

Below are some of the comments that were expressed by readers of the NY Times article. I'm adding comments after a couple of them. Btw, these are the comments we thought were accurate and appropriate in light of the law and circumstances we've faced.


Was Ms. Snider prohibited from teaching her daughter about religion or Christianity? Aren't such actions by judges prevented by our Constitution? Is there any recourse for the victims of such judicial rulings?

— HD, Home

Using religion as a litmus test or a positive in any court proceeding is ridiculous. When it's involving young malleable minds it's heinous. Is our constitution no longer the law of the land?

— Tsewyek, Gainesville, Fl

If the Snider case is as you report, it seems a clear case of religious discrimination. Would the judge have ruled similarly if the religion in question were orthodox Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, all of which have constraints on behavior, especially in the area of female modesty?

I doubt it. This seems a clear instance of anti-Christian bias.

That said, all factors need to be evaluated in deciding custody cases, and the effect on the child of religious practice cannot be ignored. However, I think that most lawyers, judges, psychologists, child social workers, and others involved in these evaluations are woefully ignorant of philosophy and religion. They are mere pragmatists.

When faced with this ignorance, rather than admit it and bring in other professionals, such as religious scholars, to assist them, they fall back on their biases.

Not only do bad cases make bad law, ignorant judges make bad law. In a case involving religion, people with experience of religious life should be consulted.

— Charles, Slough UK

Christian or not, they're trying to raise a little girl who doesn't drink, smoke, swear, or dress like Paris Hilton. How damaging.

— Liz, NM

As the article rightly points out, there indeed has been an increase in custody disputes over the last 30 years. In my unvarnished opinion, this increased arc in court battles exactly coincides with the effort (and the subsequent harsher consequences) to enforce child support.

This is really the bottom line in most or all of these disputes - even the ones outlined in this article. Because the non-custodial parents (usually men) are now forced to pay, they're more inclined to fight with their exes over stuff that they normally probably could care less about. I would be willing to bet that the real issue behind this gentleman getting custody of this man's daughter really has less to with her mother's religion than the bald fact that if he has primary custody, then he doesn't have to pay child support.

So I think the daughter nailed it: he doesn't like the mother and he's using her religion as an excuse and a tool to gain custody - but the daughter obviously sees right through it. As all children of divorce do.

Therefore, I always caution my women friends with this caveat: If you take a man's money, then you have to put up with him and his resentment.

Unfortunately, in many of these cases, I think the kid is better off with one solid household than two at war. And most of the time, nobody wins.

— Sandra Wentworth, Montgomery, AL

If parties are fighting, then the question is who actually has legal custody of the child, meaning the right to make legal decisions for the child. If only one parent has custody, then the court should allow only the parent with the sole custody to determine the child's religion. If it is joint custody, then let the child practice one religion when with the first parent and the other relgion when with the second parent. If the child is old enough to object and state his or her preference, then the court should give weight to this and decide what is in the Best Interest of the Child. If the child's interest is clear and compelling, then the court should grant the parent with the preferred religion full and sole legal custody on religious matters, but joint custody for all other legal decisions.

— Zofia Rawner, Arizona

I don't think that a child's religious circumstance should be changed by custody. A child was born into a religious environment, either unitary, pluralistic or none. I think that maintenance of that environment should be a goal in the awarding of custody. If one parent refuses to maintain the enviroment or otherwise obstructs it, the judge should consider that factor in assessing the best interests of the child. Surely, there are situations where a parent promoting the most fundamentalist of faiths is preferable to one who is a drug addict living on the street. As parental qualifications converge, the presevation of the childs religious circumstance becomes more significant.

— Chet, Pt Reyes Ca

It's a bit simplistic to say that religion should have no part in this case - its a fundamental part of some people's lives; likewise the lack there of its a part of other's lives. In the Snider case, I don't see how any of her upbringing was hurting the child. You look at popular culture these days and you see every kind of drug abused, greed, corruption, racism, teenagers getting pregnant and you really want to expose your children to more of this? She'll find out about it anyway, but why have that level of acceptance for this mediocre lives we all seem to be living in? Yes, religion has done bad things to people, but it has also helped millions of others. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, shelters, food banks have all been built in the name of religion and no one seems to remember. Ironically, those that preach about how those of religious backgrounds can be intolerant of many, are themselves intolerant of faith-based people. It's ridiculous to say that Christian, Buddhist, Muslim philosophy is useless or untrue when in fact, no one has any idea of what is going on in the world. Teaching your children one religion is pretty much the same as teaching them your own version of godless reality; you're still forcing your own beliefs on your children, regardless of what they are. At the basis of all these, including atheism, may be good intentions but they can all be equally skewed to purport selfish ambition. Don't kid yourselves into believing that whether you have religion or not, you're pure (or more than others) in your spreading of your beliefs.

— Lena, NJ

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

For those of you who want nothing to do with religion, the Constitution gives you that right. You can choose to raise your child free of religion. But for those who choose to exercise their religion, the government has no right to prohibit that freedom. They can raise their children in the religion of their choice. According to the article, the Sniders had that freedom taken from them. They were raising their child in the religion of their choosing, until the government stepped in and violated that right.

— TP, AL

I must comment on #19, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? A mother who strongly believes in her GOD, gives of herself through mission work, teaches her daughter morals and self-respect is considered an unfit mother. WOW!! That opinion is pretty sad and disturbing. I am a high school teacher. I work with many students that come from very dysfunctional families. It has been researched that a child that has a caring adult in their life, a safe place to live, a healthy start, an effective education, and opportunities to help others are more likely to avoid violence, contribute to their communities and achieve high grades in school. This mother is raising her child with morals and values that will enable the child to succeed academically, socially and civically. How can you possibly consider her to be unfit? It is really disturbing that the legal system has stooped down so low. Every day I work with children whose parents are addicted to drugs weather they be illegal or prescription. Because of their addictions they neglect their children. The children are raising themselves and have been since they were young. Yet, these parents, especially the ones that are addicted to prescription drugs, are granted the rights to their children. However, a mother who believes in God and is raising her child to be a Christian is viewed as abusing and mentally harming to her child. I am saddened and disturbed by how distorted our thinking has become.

— Heather, Lititz, PA

Back off. It's just as wrong for you to say I can't raise my child in my religious faith as it would be for me to demand that you raise your child in my religious faith.

— Carol, Alabama

(Now, for a comment which expresses the feelings of a large number of those who wrote in. It expresses the dangerous attitude we find all around us; an attitude which seems to have a stranglehold on our political institutions.)

Thank God someone is getting these kids away from these psychotic fundamentalists. Brainwashing children is a form of child abuse, and more needs to be done to stop these people who abuse their children and hide behind religion.

— Joe, Fredericksburg, Va

Joe, what we believe is what the vast majority of people in this country believed not all that long ago. It never hurt anyone. In fact, since people have left this 'way' our country has fallen down.