Truth Bomb 5 Part 1

While freedom of speech, thought, and belief  are protected in their own right under the   First Amendment, religious freedom holds a  special place in our constitutional scheme.   Government must stay out of religious matters.  Oh really, well apparently not in family court.   I know parents that are told they can't even share  their religion with their children, and the judge   chooses one of the religions of the parents  when the two parents have differing religions.   They cannot dictate to any individual how they  may believe or worship. Families have a particular   right to share religious thoughts, beliefs, and  practices with one another. The state cannot   decide what religion may be taught by a parent,  whether directly or indirectly. And that part's  

important. You need to know that it's not just  a judge in a courtroom saying I don't like your   religious beliefs so I'm going to give the child  to the other parent. The simple fact that you get   less time than the other parent necessarily  dictates a religious violation. You see   when a judge picks and winner and loser parent  with differing religious views -- even slightly   differing religious views -- the state makes  religious choices by default. The state is   then deciding which of the two parents have a  greater voice in their child's religious future.   This is religious censorship. It's pure and  simple. This is a strong constitutional argument   against the current family law system. And one  that the state's seek to avoid. They're trying to  

ignore this and make this go away. And if you're  quiet about it, they are able to ignore it and let   it go away. You must be loud and even obnoxious  about your religious rights. So put these   questions in their faces, by putting them in your  pleadings, in your motions, and raising objections   every chance you get in every hearing; any time  they even mention less than equal time with your   child, or less than equal rights with your child.  -- raise First Amendment objections. Raise all of   them individually. Raise the religious objection  specifically. Put it in their faces. Don't   let them get away with hiding and ignoring what  they're doing. Make them face the reality that  

they're violating your First Amendment rights.  And they're violating your child's First Amendment   rights. Because your child has the same First  Amendment rights that you have to be free from   the government violating those rights. Not from  their parent telling what they can and can't do,   but from a judge violating their First Amendment  rights, the child is protected. When we're talking   about the First Amendment and the freedom  of association, we are talking about the two   specific kinds of associations: You have intimate  associations and you have expressive associations.   Intimate associations are those close friends,  close family, your parents, your child, close   family associations that are unique and special  and limited to a very small number of people.  

And at the core of which is an intimacy that you  don't have with other people. Now every intimate   association is also an expressive association.  So don't let any attorney or any judge tell you   that your intimate association is protected  in less or differently than your expressive   association. Because you cannot have an intimate  association without expressing that intimacy,   and without the other person receiving that  intimacy. They are absolutely expressive   associations, expressive relationships; but they  also happen to be a special kind of expressive   association; which is an intimate association. So,  the idea of this intimate association is that you   share ideas and beliefs and life experiences with  these people to a greater degree than you do with  

other people. And they are more meaningful to  you than what you may share with other people.   And whether or not a child continues in their  parents' religious beliefs into their adult lives   has a lot to do with how much they witnessed  their parent expressing their views;   whether they're expressing religious  views in speaking about religion,   or just in living their daily lives  and going about their daily lives,   and the child seeing how they interact with other  people; and how they express their religious   viewpoints through the way they deal with other  people. So this is the reason why when a judge   alters your time with your child and gives you  less time with your child than they give to the  

other parent. That is why it violates your First  Amendment right and your religious rights and your   child's religious rights. Because it deprives you  of the ability to convey to your child through the   intimacies of daily living all of those values  that you not only believe but that you practice.   And it deprives the child of receiving that  education. That can only come from you and no   one else in the world. You are absolutely unique  in this regard in that you are the only person in   the world for whom this child can get this unique  education and knowledge. And because you are a   natural and biological parent that knowledge  comes through in ways that are far deeper and  

more meaningful than it would be otherwise. So the  sharing of religious ideas and beliefs is a core   element of the First Amendment protected right  to develop intimacy in close family associations.   The Supreme Court has spoken about this and  has said very specifically that the intimacy,   the bonds that you share with family members  come from the details of daily living,   from the mundane activities of living together  as a family as parent and child and going through   all the mundane, routine exercises of daily  living. All of these things build a bond and   the strength of that intimate association. And any  time a judge deprives you and your child of that   they are weakening those bonds.  It's not good enough for you to have  

your rights and your time on a weekend, and not  overnights, or only on holidays. You need that   daily time. You need to wake your child up and  get them ready for school. You need to pick them   up in the afternoon after school. You need to  do homework with them. All of those things that   parents do with children. You need to experience  in your child and your child needs to experience   from you as an individual. Not just from one of  the parents but from both of you, particularly   if you're divorced or not living together, or  not married and not living together. Because   then you have different beliefs and different  values. That's why you're living together.  

That's why you're divorced or never married.  So it's important for your child to get both   sides -- your values, their values -- both of you.  So the reason we're telling you to make such a   big point of this religious freedom and they're  violation of your religious freedom is because   it is a very powerful and compelling argument  in support of the idea that you're intimate   association requires that you live together as  a family through the intimacies of daily life.   And it requires that you do so equally  with the other parent because otherwise   the judge is censoring you. It's enhancing  the speech of the other parent and   diminishing your speech. That is censorship pure  and simple. There's no way around that and the  

First Amendment prohibits censorship particularly  on religious views and religious ideas. So,   you need to make these arguments. I mean  I don't know how to stress this enough.   Don't just go to the judge and say I need equal  time because it's the right thing to do. You   go to the judge and you say judge you're  violating the First Amendment. We have a   right to religious freedom. My child has a right  to religious freedom. And you cannot be acting   in my child's best interest if you violate my  child's First Amendment rights. It's as simple   as that. It is not in my child's best interest for  you judge to violate their First Amendment rights.   In fact, the United States Supreme Court has  said that when you do so you injure the child.  

If you're injuring my child you're not acting in  my child's best interest judge, it's that simple.