This story almost sounds like a hypothetical that someone would throw at you in a heated argument...
A couple marries and practices a "quasi Muslim" philosophy (I take this to mean they were the equivalent of C&E Catholics). They also have a passion for collecting weapons and eventually the husband, "Daniel P", is incarcerated for "illegal weapon possession and making threats". The couple, that divorced while Daniel was serving his time, have two children: Mujahid Daniel (13) and Mujahid David (11). (Yes, they did name both children the same thing...?)
"...Daniel, now out on parole and living in Hawaii, wants to see his children, who live with their mother in New York. Allison objects, based on Daniel's "violent felony conviction record ... domestic violence ... extremist views regarding religion, including ... jihad; and the letters written to the children while he was incarcerated, lecturing about religion and reminding the children that their names are Mujahid."
In December, a New York appellate court held that Daniel should be allowed supervised visitation after his parole expires. But, in "the best interests of the children," it upheld the trial court's order that Daniel not discuss with the children "any issues pertaining to his religion." (Read the entire story)
Initial reaction: good for the courts for once. But, this isn't the first time courts have restricted what parents can say to their own children. As much as I abhor the thought of any young child being indoctrinated with terrorist views...I think I like the idea of the court dictating parental discussions even less.
As much as it pains me, I think I have to side with the jihad weapons freak that named his sons the same thing. Ugh.
(Read this article about a federal "hate crimes" legislation that could end "Free Speech" as we know it.)