| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
"Please, ma'am, don't beat your child.....
,,,,let me do it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Here's little Timmy. He's 5 and a classical liberal. Sally, the 4 year old over there disagrees with Timmy because she is an anarcho-syndicalist. |
The government cannot dictate the religion of its citizens, there conversion thereof, and the practices of that religion insofar as it respects the laws and the civil rights of its practitioners and the general public at large.
That is the typical interpretation of the First Amendment and the cultural notion of "separation of church and state" anyhow.
That a judge can prevent Baptizing a child is absurd. Baptizing is hardly indoctrination but an invitation. The child still retains free-will.
Although it is irrelevant under color of law, I would be curious to hear the little girl's take on all of this. My curiosity, though, certainly isn't worth invading her life anymore than it all ready has been.
The court and the media should leave these folks alone. They're adults, this is a family issue, they ought to sort it out like civilized human beings. Issuing culturally restrictive restraining orders is not only unconstitutional (according to some, anyhow) but an embarrassment to the establishment of justice. Let Jerry Springer run the man-child and woman-child circus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It sounds as if the court upheld an agreement the parents made before they ever had a child. I also get the feeling the father baptized the child purely out of spite for the child's mother. Courts don't tend to get involved in these matters when the parents are together, but when the child is caught in the middle of a dispute the court has a responsibility to prevent one parent from using the child as a weapon against the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| It sounds as if the court upheld an agreement the parents made before they ever had a child. |
Which religions a child will be exposed to is not something that should be subject to legally binding agreement.
| Bramble wrote: |
| I also get the feeling the father baptized the child purely out of spite for the child's mother. |
I don't find it particularly hard to believe that an individual who divorced his wife and converted back to Catholicism would want to expose his child to Catholicism for the same reason he himself wanted to be Catholic. What's so unbelievable about that, such that we should be doubting his motives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| I also get the feeling the father baptized the child purely out of spite for the child's mother. |
Men suck and so does religion. Happy now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
"This is, in her mind, more about control," Reyes said of his ex. Lawyers for Rebecca Reyes said, however, that Joseph's insistence on taking Ela to church is malicious:
"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion ... have the girl baptized," Stephen Lake, Rebecca Reyes' attorney told GMA. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl." |
The judge probably looked into the arguments/claims of both parents and found the mother's side of the story more believable. He was probably convinced that the mother was acting in the child's best interests and the father wasn't. He heard them talking and saw their facial expressions -- we didn't. All we have to go on is a media report. Yes, the judge may have been wrong, but without more information I don't see why this needs to be a big media circus or tried in the court of Dave Sperling. 
Also, the girl is 3 -- not 10 or 15. Older children and teenagers have more freedom to make up their minds about religion than a girl that age. At 3, it could be really harmful if the father or someone in the father's family makes disparaging remarks about the mother's religion and the child isn't old enough to understand. Maybe that informed the judge's decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| At 3, it could be really harmful if the father or someone in the father's family makes disparaging remarks about the mother's religion and the child isn't old enough to understand. |
But of course, it couldn't possibly be harmful if the mother or someone in the mother's family makes disparaging remarks about the father's religion and the child isn't old enough to understand, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| The athletic team from my general geographic region is better than the athletic team from your general geographic region. |
Needs to be on a t-shirt.
|
Would be a pretty big t shirt.
Most people believe what they were raised to believe, be that sports, politics or religion. You could make that plus sized t shirt apply to those also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| At 3, it could be really harmful if the father or someone in the father's family makes disparaging remarks about the mother's religion and the child isn't old enough to understand. |
But of course, it couldn't possibly be harmful if the mother or someone in the mother's family makes disparaging remarks about the father's religion and the child isn't old enough to understand, right? |
If the situation were reversed and the mother suddenly decided to change religions and turn her daughter Jewish after previously agreeing to raise the child Catholic and converting to Catholicism as an adult, that would raise a red flag too. I'd think the mother was using the child to hurt the father.
This guy didn't suddenly discover Catholicism after a life of just "going along" with whatever tradition he was raised in. He converted to Judaism. Isn't that a complicated process? Don't converts have to do a lot of reading and know exactly what they're getting into before they're allowed to convert? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| This guy didn't suddenly discover Catholicism after a life of just "going along" with whatever tradition he was raised in. He converted to Judaism. Isn't that a complicated process? Don't converts have to do a lot of reading and know exactly what they're getting into before they're allowed to convert? |
I thought it said he converted to Judaism specifically because of his marriage to her, and then rediscovered Catholicism -- his original faith -- after leaving her. I think the idea that his religious life currently revolves around spiting his ex-wife is pretty questionable. If anything, his conversion to Judaism is what I'd consider suspicious. None of that has any bearing on the completely insane concept of forbidding a child to be exposed to any religion other than Judaism, though. That's just not something a judge should be able to enforce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
