This sounds like a straight speech issue so it’s hard to see how the court can make an order of the form “you can’t speak to your daughter about X” stick. Dad could even cite Reynolds in his favor, as this is plainly belief, not practice.

Incidentally, if Dad can’t talk about it, then neither can Mom, so she would appear to be proscribed from reading certain LDS scriptures (D&C 132, Jacob 2) to the daughter, as well as a fair amount of 19th century LDS history. And if that applies to those two parents, I suppose it should apply to every parent in Pennsylvania, divorced or not. Hmmm.

Aren’t we glad this is a Pennsylvania case, not a Utah case?

Why do you compare polygamy to racism and hate mongering? Polygamy is an accepted practice in Islam — should the government tell Muslims which parts of their religion they can teach to their children?

Should the state prohibit parents from teaching their children that homosexual behavior is sinful? that homosexuality is normal and acceptable?

You asked the right question — where will this stop?!

On The Case: If both parents have a right to teach their daughter, why doesn’t the mother have a legitimate interest in controlling what is said to her child?

I’ve briefly met Stan and listened to him speak at Sunstone. I’ve sort of watched a metamorphosis in him over the past few years. I believe he is hoping to be a test case for more than just this. I believe he’d be willing to be a test case for polygamy in general. The advantage Stan has over Tom Green in making the attempt is a cleaner background. He has even condemned marrying young girls or step-daughters as Tom Green did. Still, he is part of Tom Green’s spiritual family.

(Strangely, philosophy and fundamentalist groups intrigue me.)

I’ve never dealt with custody issues, but my legal intuition is that courts would be reluctant to enforce a provision that said what a parent could or couldn’t say to his children.

The parent would have a very strong case that the contractual custody arrangements were made under duress. There aren’t many forms of duress more palpable than the threat of not seeing your kids again if you don’t say what the court wants.

Hi Nate,
If polygamy is permitted, doesn’t that mean they accept it? Or did you mean that even though Moslems permit polygamy, given that their stance is indifference, it’s not something parents teach their children?

I don’t think that there is any similar theological emphasis on polygamy in Islam. It is something that people can do if they want. I think that some interpretations of Shar’ia even put it in the discouraged camp, kind of like drinking Diet Coke, perhaps. Anyway, my understanding is that isn’t conceptualized as a divine commandment, a mark of special faithfulness, or anything like that.

Of course, I could be wrong on this. I am speaking on the basis of my vast experience of one class on Islamic Law at HLS. Someone correct me if they have good authority that I am mistaken.

I agree with the dissent in the PA Superior Court — the trial court found that the teachings didn’t harm the child — and therefore weren’t against the “best interests” of the child. I think the important distinction here is between teaching it and practicing it. Polygamy in theory is arguably still part of the LDS church – not just the “fundamentalist” church — and it’s for sure part of our history. I’m sure many families in the church teach about polygamy — including the current prohibition, legal and religious, against it. Does this case draw the line sufficiently between teaching/advocating and just teaching? It doesn’t. The custody order prohibited Shepp from even talking about polygamy.

We can’t have personal accusations and allegations relating to ongoing litigation being posted here. Such comments have been removed.