Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have a hard time believing the guy. If he had gotten his daughter baptized and kept his mouth shut it would have fulfilled his belief that she'd go to hell if she weren't baptized. But that isn't what he did. He baptized her as a big fuck you to the mother. He is far from being on the up and up.From this link:
Catholic Father, Jewish Mother Battle Over Daughter's Faith | Christianpost.com
Check out the bolded parts. The more I see, the more I think the judge was out of order IMO...
When the couple married in 2004 Reyes agreed to convert to Judaism to make his in-laws who would only accept him if he was Jewish happy, as reported by ABC News. But he never stopped practicing Catholicism, he said.
In a petition for a temporary restraining order against Joseph taking their child to church, Rebecca claims they always agreed to raise Ela in the Jewish faith and "have done nothing other than to raise her in the Jewish faith." Joseph has denied the claims. He has also said that they did not attend Jewish services regularly only on High Holy Days.
In December, Judge Edward R. Jordan issued a court order, without hearing testimony, temporarily restraining the father from "exposing Ela Reyes to any other religion other than the Jewish religion" during his visitation.
In an appeal, Joseph's attorney, Joel Brodsky, argued that the order is not a preliminary injunction because there was no evidentiary hearing.
Thank God he is not living in a Islamic country. Both him and the daughter would of had their heads chopped off. If all goes as planned this will happen here soon!!! Sooner in Europe!!
Sez you!He's prolly one of those Cafeteria Catholics. He uses religion to reach his goals while only paying lip service to Jesus.
No one is perfect.
Immie
From this link:
Catholic Father, Jewish Mother Battle Over Daughter's Faith | Christianpost.com
Check out the bolded parts. The more I see, the more I think the judge was out of order IMO...
When the couple married in 2004 Reyes agreed to convert to Judaism to make his in-laws – who would only accept him if he was Jewish – happy, as reported by ABC News. But he never stopped practicing Catholicism, he said.
In a petition for a temporary restraining order against Joseph taking their child to church, Rebecca claims they always agreed to raise Ela in the Jewish faith and "have done nothing other than to raise her in the Jewish faith." Joseph has denied the claims. He has also said that they did not attend Jewish services regularly – only on High Holy Days.
In December, Judge Edward R. Jordan issued a court order, without hearing testimony, temporarily restraining the father from "exposing Ela Reyes to any other religion other than the Jewish religion" during his visitation.
In an appeal, Joseph's attorney, Joel Brodsky, argued that the order is not a preliminary injunction because there was no evidentiary hearing.
thank you for the factual clarification....
that should make you realize judge was absolutely on target.... it was TEMPORARY, pending a hearing. standard operating procedure. i could tell you the process, but that's not really relevant.
and i'll also point out that I only go to temple on high holy days and i don't keep kosher.
you don't want to tell me i'm not a jew, do you?
oh and the dear man who was "always catholic in his heart" but changed religions to bonk mom, you really believe that garbage?
thank you for the factual clarification....
that should make you realize judge was absolutely on target.... it was TEMPORARY, pending a hearing. standard operating procedure. i could tell you the process, but that's not really relevant.
and i'll also point out that I only go to temple on high holy days and i don't keep kosher.
you don't want to tell me i'm not a jew, do you?
oh and the dear man who was "always catholic in his heart" but changed religions to bonk mom, you really believe that garbage?
Oh, so you're OK with a judge deciding that for 30 days one parent can indoctrine the child in their religion, but the other can't? Even though the judge has heard no evidence? Cool, I think I'll ask for a temporary injunction against my neighbour parking his car in his driveway...it's ok though, it's only for 30 days until we can get before a jury. No hassle for him. After that, I might ask a judge - without a hearing - to put a 30 day injunction on my neighbour saying he can't walk his dog, but I can walk mine. I'm sure my neighbour doesn't mind being put out.
The judge is a douchebag...he shouldn't make ANY ruling on the whim of an individual. Remember J, he said the kid should only be exposed to the one religion - that is taking sides any way you put it. If indeed he did want it to be temporary, and he was being totally objective, he'd say "The kid stays free from ALL religion until this mess is sorted out and we hear both sides of the story."
Yes, I do believe that 'garbage'. People do all sorts of strange things in life....
am i ok with the judge maintaining the status quo prior to a hearing?
uh...yes. absent some emergency, that's what judges do. why would they change anything without all the facts.
sorry, that's what they do in family court. the "douchebag" is the piece of garbage who lied to get her to marry him and then is using the kid against her.
i don't believe him for a second.
sorry. we usually agree. but i can't see for one reason why you'd find this loser compelling.
thank you for the factual clarification....
that should make you realize judge was absolutely on target.... it was TEMPORARY, pending a hearing. standard operating procedure. i could tell you the process, but that's not really relevant.
and i'll also point out that I only go to temple on high holy days and i don't keep kosher.
you don't want to tell me i'm not a jew, do you?
oh and the dear man who was "always catholic in his heart" but changed religions to bonk mom, you really believe that garbage?
Oh, so you're OK with a judge deciding that for 30 days one parent can indoctrine the child in their religion, but the other can't? Even though the judge has heard no evidence? Cool, I think I'll ask for a temporary injunction against my neighbour parking his car in his driveway...it's ok though, it's only for 30 days until we can get before a jury. No hassle for him. After that, I might ask a judge - without a hearing - to put a 30 day injunction on my neighbour saying he can't walk his dog, but I can walk mine. I'm sure my neighbour doesn't mind being put out.
The judge is a douchebag...he shouldn't make ANY ruling on the whim of an individual. Remember J, he said the kid should only be exposed to the one religion - that is taking sides any way you put it. If indeed he did want it to be temporary, and he was being totally objective, he'd say "The kid stays free from ALL religion until this mess is sorted out and we hear both sides of the story."
Yes, I do believe that 'garbage'. People do all sorts of strange things in life....
am i ok with the judge maintaining the status quo prior to a hearing?
uh...yes. absent some emergency, that's what judges do. why would they change anything without all the facts.
sorry, that's what they do in family court. the "douchebag" is the piece of garbage who lied to get her to marry him and then is using the kid against her.
i don't believe him for a second.
sorry. we usually agree. but i can't see for one reason why you'd find this loser compelling.
Oh, so you're OK with a judge deciding that for 30 days one parent can indoctrine the child in their religion, but the other can't? Even though the judge has heard no evidence? Cool, I think I'll ask for a temporary injunction against my neighbour parking his car in his driveway...it's ok though, it's only for 30 days until we can get before a jury. No hassle for him. After that, I might ask a judge - without a hearing - to put a 30 day injunction on my neighbour saying he can't walk his dog, but I can walk mine. I'm sure my neighbour doesn't mind being put out.
The judge is a douchebag...he shouldn't make ANY ruling on the whim of an individual. Remember J, he said the kid should only be exposed to the one religion - that is taking sides any way you put it. If indeed he did want it to be temporary, and he was being totally objective, he'd say "The kid stays free from ALL religion until this mess is sorted out and we hear both sides of the story."
Yes, I do believe that 'garbage'. People do all sorts of strange things in life....
am i ok with the judge maintaining the status quo prior to a hearing?
uh...yes. absent some emergency, that's what judges do. why would they change anything without all the facts.
sorry, that's what they do in family court. the "douchebag" is the piece of garbage who lied to get her to marry him and then is using the kid against her.
i don't believe him for a second.
sorry. we usually agree. but i can't see for one reason why you'd find this loser compelling.
Your obvious prejudice is showing.
am i ok with the judge maintaining the status quo prior to a hearing?
uh...yes. absent some emergency, that's what judges do. why would they change anything without all the facts.
sorry, that's what they do in family court. the "douchebag" is the piece of garbage who lied to get her to marry him and then is using the kid against her.
i don't believe him for a second.
sorry. we usually agree. but i can't see for one reason why you'd find this loser compelling.
Your obvious prejudice is showing.
How? because she speaking the truth?
Tell me how the guy is not a douche bag? I mean he used his child to get media attention, he went back on agreement he had with wife, and baptized his child without even asking her mother first. I think it is more like you are showing prejudices.
This made me think about whether children are ever truely Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever religion, if they are that religion simply because their parents chose it for them? Are children actually capable of consent to religion? Do children in this country have freedom of choice when it comes to religion? Is this a choice we allow them to make for themselves?The child is no less "Jewish" because it was baptized , unless you think Christian baptisms are valid.No. What is happening is that the father is trying to make sure that the child is not jewish in order to use religion to hurt the mother --- when he agreed on the child's religion when it was born -- probably before.
let me ask you something... i could marry someone non-jewish, no problem, right?
do you think for a single, solitary, second I would allow my child to be raised christian? And how badly would someone have to want to hurt me to do that? Not because I'm opposed to christianity. But because passing on my religion is important to me... it's important to many of us, particularly given how many family lines were destroyed.
seriously.... i know EXACTLY where this case comes from.In which case I would question just how Jewish you are.
Family is family regardless of religion. My own embraces several and we are no less family just because many of us disagree on religious matters.
If your child chose to be a Christian would you deny him/her that choice?
Many try to force their own religion on their kids, only to destroy it for their kids.
I have to spread some rep around so I could not rep this.
You are right the child is no less Jewish because she was baptized and I do believe that Christian baptisms are valid. Simply because one is Baptized does not mean that they are saved. The father cannot simply baptize his daughter and then walk away from her expecting her faith to grow without any help.
Jillian, I would ask a question. Passing on your faith is important to you as it should be. Why can you not see that it might also be important to me as a Christian to pass my faith on to my children and extending that to the father in this case?
I agree that in this case, it appears that the father is using his daughter to get back at the mother and that is wrong, but he should have the right to expose his daughter to his faith and thus to his own upbringing. Don't you agree?
Immie
Your obvious prejudice is showing.
How? because she speaking the truth?
Tell me how the guy is not a douche bag? I mean he used his child to get media attention, he went back on agreement he had with wife, and baptized his child without even asking her mother first. I think it is more like you are showing prejudices.
The guy's a douchebag, but only because he's an attention whore. He was absolutely justified in defying the judge's order; it is not a secular government's place to tell parents that they may only expose their children to certain religions. This is particularly true when the only "approved" religion happens to be the religion espoused by the judge.
Your well known bias against Jews pretty much excludes you from the discussion.Uh huh...if that were true he would never have converted.
riiiight.. because no one has ever made choices to compromise personal standards for the sake of a relationship... I'm pretty sure that if this case had the woman bending her faith in order to acclimate to HIS family you wouldn't even be able to climb out of screaming bloody fucking murder to address the religious exposure to the child.
However, a devout Catholic would never convert to another religion for any reason whatsoever. Ditto with any devout believer. Jesus freaks don't turn their backs on Jesus and claim he isn't the Lord.
Your obvious prejudice is showing.
How? because she speaking the truth?
Tell me how the guy is not a douche bag? I mean he used his child to get media attention, he went back on agreement he had with wife, and baptized his child without even asking her mother first. I think it is more like you are showing prejudices.
The guy's a douchebag, but only because he's an attention whore. He was absolutely justified in defying the judge's order; it is not a secular government's place to tell parents that they may only expose their children to certain religions. This is particularly true when the only "approved" religion happens to be the religion espoused by the judge.
The guy is most likely a douchebagand/or very fickle concerning his religious beliefs and having the kid baptised was probably aimed more at pissing off her mother than at saving the kid's soul, but how does his taking her to mass harm her, the child, anymore than her mother taking her to temple is?am i ok with the judge maintaining the status quo prior to a hearing?
uh...yes. absent some emergency, that's what judges do. why would they change anything without all the facts.
sorry, that's what they do in family court. the "douchebag" is the piece of garbage who lied to get her to marry him and then is using the kid against her.
i don't believe him for a second.
sorry. we usually agree. but i can't see for one reason why you'd find this loser compelling.
Your obvious prejudice is showing.
How? because she speaking the truth?
Tell me how the guy is not a douche bag? I mean he used his child to get media attention, he went back on agreement he had with wife, and baptized his child without even asking her mother first. I think it is more like you are showing prejudices.
I totally agree with that!If indeed he did want it to be temporary, and he was being totally objective, he'd say "The kid stays free from ALL religion until this mess is sorted out and we hear both sides of the story."
You could also make the argument that the judge is using the child as a tool to punish the father.You ever think the judge put the order in place so he wouldn't use his child as a tool to get back at her mother?
I just tossed it out there to add to the controversy 
Why? He applied a temporary fix to a situation that has not yet been worked out through divorce court.He baptized her as a big fuck you to the mother.
I agree.
But I'm not aware of any laws that make it illegal to be douchebag.
And if Grump's link is accurate, and there wasn't even a hearing, then the judge is just as big a doucher, if not moreso.
