Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.
As you have repeatedly been told, there isn't a single element of the law that Ms. Louderback-Wood's article attempts to CHANGE.
The reason the courts refused to hear argument of a religious nature in the Molko case is because of the focus established at the outset. The court allowed a trial within parameters that equally negated argumentation from either side on religious issues. Having narrowed the focus and the argumentation presented to secular issues only, the trial proceeded and was successful in providing the claimant relief.
This theory requests similarly narrowed focus at the outset. If it EVER sees the inside of a courtroom for trial, the court will have negated the possibility of religious argument prior to the commencement of the proceedings. Therefore, the only arguments which would be deemed admissable in argumentation are those pertinent to secular issues.
You have missed the significance, Eduardo (bless his heart) missed the significance, and even steve2 (a psychologist) missed the significance of NARROW FOCUS, and the effect it has of restricting argumentation to ONLY secular issues.
If an attempt is made to shift the focus to religious doctrine by either side the court will step in and smack the offender. If narrow focus is allowed, there CAN'T be discussion of religion, at all. That is the application of Molko to this theory, Eduardo missed the mark big time in his analysis.