Unfortunately, this does not surprise me at the least and what I feared.

 

I think someone said when this is finally decided in the courts, the young man will be an alum of St. X.

 

Of course, I think someone else posted that he will experience four years of watching Trinity win state football championships.:sssh::lol::jump::banana:

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

On a serious note, I'm sincerely, utterly thankful that this was the decision. The ramifications of the opposite where entirely too horrible for me to consider.

I'm glad you were right, Hearsay. But I still don't understand why he couldn't have ruled this way when Mr. Ryan wanted to pursue his "rights" while his son was in grade school. That would have saved a whole passel of trouble, IMO.

 

In grade school, the child doesn't necessarily know what his best interests are. Therefore, the weight accorded his opinion in grade school would have been much less substantial than in high school, when the child's opinion, as was the case here, is given more weight. Again, it is not about Mr. Ryan or Ms. Bisig's rights, its about the child's best interest and the statutory factors to be taken into account.

 

Do not read too much into this, this was NOT a decision in favor of religion or against atheism. This was a purely best interests case.

In grade school, the child doesn't necessarily know what his best interests are. Therefore, the weight accorded his opinion in grade school would have been much less substantial than in high school, when the child's opinion, as was the case here, is given more weight. Again, it is not about Mr. Ryan or Ms. Bisig's rights, its about the child's best interest and the statutory factors to be taken into account.

 

Do not read too much into this, this was NOT a decision in favor of religion or against atheism. This was a purely best interests case.

 

I read it to be a father that is angry about something and used his son to get his way and or get back at his ex-wife.

The right call was made.....this is a good thing. Kudos.

I read it to be a father that is angry about something and used his son to get his way and or get back at his ex-wife.

 

Possibly, but he may very well believe that a parochial education is not good for his son, or his relationship with his son. I don't think he should be chastised if those are his beliefs. We don't always let our children do what they want to do just because they want to. He argued and he lost, fair enough.

Possibly, but he may very well believe that a parochial education is not good for his son, or his relationship with his son. I don't think he should be chastised if those are his beliefs. We don't always let our children do what they want to do just because they want to. He argued and he lost, fair enough.

 

And he came to this conclusion after approx 8 years of his kid attending a catholic school. Sorry...but I am not buying it!!

In grade school, the child doesn't necessarily know what his best interests are. Therefore, the weight accorded his opinion in grade school would have been much less substantial than in high school, when the child's opinion, as was the case here, is given more weight. Again, it is not about Mr. Ryan or Ms. Bisig's rights, its about the child's best interest and the statutory factors to be taken into account.

 

Do not read too much into this, this was NOT a decision in favor of religion or against atheism. This was a purely best interests case.

 

 

I don't assume as much. However, had the decision gone the other way, I think the ramifications to the contrary would have been every group committed to devaluing religiously based education would have been putting together suits all over the country.

I don't assume as much. However, had the decision gone the other way, I think the ramifications to the contrary would have been every group committed to devaluing religiously based education would have been putting together suits all over the country.

 

Not necessarily. Feeley was very careful, on the religious question, to state that he could not rule in favor of religion, nor could he inhibit religion, and that the decision was cast principally on the statute and the child's wishes in this particular case. If the kid had said he wanted to go to Bullitt East, I think he'd be going to Bullitt East even if Susan Bisig had him set up at St. X. I don't think a negative ruling would have given atheist groups anything more than a n argument based strictly on the child best interest stattue.