[Cerek]

Originally posted by Mouse: @ Cerek - I can live with that.....

Thanks, Mouse.

But a thought struck me early this morning in regards to the locked JW thread...while the religious beliefs of the girl were a central issue of the topic, there were side issues that could have been discussed. Issues such as:

Can a parent overrule the wishes of a 16 yr old child in Canada? In America, the teenager is considered an adult at 18, and thus the father would have had no say in her treatment if she didn't want him to. But at the age of 16, it would be a much more complex issue.

What actions should the courts take when parents have conflicting wishes regarding a teenager's treatment - and does the teenager get to cast the "deciding vote" in such a case, even though they may not be of "legal age"?

These are just a couple of issues that could have been explored if the topic had been allowed with a strict warning from the Mods to avoid attacking the validity of the teenagers beliefs themself.

The reason these thoughts ocurred to me is because the JW incident draws some very interesting parallels to a similar topic here in America that HAS been allowed on the board before - the case of Newdow vs California regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. I know the primary argument is that the Pledge violates separation of church and state - but if THAT discussion is allowed, then we ARE allowing the father's "religious beliefs" to be the central issue of the topic.

Just like the case in Canada, the father is sueing "on behalf" of his daughter. But the reality is that he is just using her as a pawn for his own motives, because her own beliefs are in conflict with his.

Well, the bottom line is that - in BOTH cases - the religious beliefs of the people involved are the CENTRAL issue, but the conflict creates several side issues that COULD be discussed within the parameters of the moratorium - at least in my opinion.