With respect, yosande, there is a difference between hope and delusion. Would it be alright if I tell the children to watch the street every day, because someday soon their mother is going to drive up in a Rolls Royce and take them to Disneyland? Of course, not. Not even if for some reason I had faith that it would happen.
I also think you misunderstand how our laws on separation of church and state work. They tend to defer to parents (over grandparents) when it comes to teaching religion to children. In this case, nobody can stop the grandmother from having faith in her daughter's recovery, but the court can--and has--prevented the grandmother from contradicting what the father tells his children.
ETA "False hope is an oxymoron"? Then pardon me while I sit on my a$$ and hope to win the lottery. Surely you can see there are hopes that are reasonable and there are hopes that are, in fact, hopeless. The latter are called delusions and they generally end in heartache (if not the insane asylum).
Hope and despair aren't the only possibility options. There's also honesty and it isn't always a bad thing. Upon surrendering false hope, one may be left with more reasonable expectations and even new hopes that are more likely to be realized.
The
First Amendment (
Amendment I) to the
United States Constitution is part of the
Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "
respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the
free exercise of religion, infringing on the
freedom of speech,
Nova, I respect your opinion, your views, however, a judge is compelled to make judgments that agree with the US Constitution. This judge took the father's information, and used it to prohibit the grandmothers freedom of faith, and speech, in her own home.
The father was allowed to come into the home, and overpower the rights of the homeowners and the mother.
If Abbe had faith in a healing God before she became unable to say so, then her views should be allowed to be spoken by her caregiver, who is her representative.
The mother not only has the right to see and touch her children, she also has the right to tell them about her hopes, dreams, and faith in her God.
Since she is unable to speak, her mother speaks for her on her behalf.
The man chose to give up that right, as it was his, by divorcing her.
However, he still wants many of the rights that he gave/threw away.
Being as she married a devout orthodox belever, one can assume that that doctrine is/was her beliefs. Therefore, if Judaism believes in miracles, the grandmother has every right to say so, even if that is unrealistic to an unbeliever.
Honesty is always a good thing, not just sometimes.
The judge simply didn't take the mother's rights completely into account.
No surprise there. MOO
The judge has to be able to see through the exaggerations of the circumstances to see the full picture.
The mother would be allowed to see her children, even if her opinions did not agree with the father without being supervised by him.
Some exaggerations imo;
Her life expectancy is short.
Gm took child to the bathroom, and didn't allow daddy to come in, b/c she was indoctrinating the child against the father's will.
Waiting until the children are older before seeing their mom is in their best interest.
Gm speaking about a recovery is cruel to the children.
moo
) has been going on all this time.
