Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[Ravi]

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....

That would only be valid if you had an agreement with your neighbor before hand that he would not park his vehicle in his driveway.

As to keeping the child from any religion...again, they had an agreement she would be raised as a Jew. If they had an agreement that she be raised as an atheist the guy would also be in the wrong...ditto an agreement that she'd be raised a Christian or a Muslim or a Rastafarian and he broke that agreement.

I don't understand why this is so hard for all y'all to understand.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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....

That would only be valid if you had an agreement with your neighbor before hand that he would not park his vehicle in his driveway.

As to keeping the child from any religion...again, they had an agreement she would be raised as a Jew. If they had an agreement that she be raised as an atheist the guy would also be in the wrong...ditto an agreement that she'd be raised a Christian or a Muslim or a Rastafarian and he broke that agreement.

I don't understand why this is so hard for all y'all to understand.

And once again they did NOT have an agreement. But even if they did it became null and void the minute they divorced.

 

[Ravi]

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....

That would only be valid if you had an agreement with your neighbor before hand that he would not park his vehicle in his driveway.

As to keeping the child from any religion...again, they had an agreement she would be raised as a Jew. If they had an agreement that she be raised as an atheist the guy would also be in the wrong...ditto an agreement that she'd be raised a Christian or a Muslim or a Rastafarian and he broke that agreement.

I don't understand why this is so hard for all y'all to understand.

And once again they did NOT have an agreement. But even if they did it became null and void the minute they divorced.

I do understand why this is hard for you to understand...because you're retarded.

They are not divorced.
His conversion would not have happened if he didn't agree to raise his children as Jews.

Idiot!

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow Ravi, that's quite a stretch, even for you. You're assuming.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow Ravi, that's quite a stretch, even for you. You're assuming.

She is after all mentally challenged. She only has one brain cell. I love the " they are not divorced" claim, seeing as the Court gave her custody the divorce is over, He went back to Court for his child.

 

[Ravi]

Wow Ravi, that's quite a stretch, even for you. You're assuming.

She is after all mentally challenged. She only has one brain cell. I love the " they are not divorced" claim, seeing as the Court gave her custody the divorce is over, He went back to Court for his child.

This is why it was wrong for Babble to claim that I assumed you were retarded.

They. Are. Not. Divorced.

They are going through divorce proceedings but they are not divorced.

You really are stupid, RGS, you form your beliefs on rainbows and lollipops and never actually pay attention to anything but the stupidity in your own mind.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow Ravi, that's quite a stretch, even for you. You're assuming.

She is after all mentally challenged. She only has one brain cell. I love the " they are not divorced" claim, seeing as the Court gave her custody the divorce is over, He went back to Court for his child.

This is why it was wrong for Babble to claim that I assumed you were retarded.

They. Are. Not. Divorced.

They are going through divorce proceedings but they are not divorced.

You really are stupid, RGS, you form your beliefs on rainbows and lollipops and never actually pay attention to anything but the stupidity in your own mind.

Here we go.

CBS 2’s Mike Puccinelli reports that a Chicago father faced a judge on contempt charges in a case stemming from a bitter dispute with his ex-wife over religious faith.

Well wait, I guess you are right, the rest of the story says estranged and divorce case.

 

[Ravi]

She is after all mentally challenged. She only has one brain cell. I love the " they are not divorced" claim, seeing as the Court gave her custody the divorce is over, He went back to Court for his child.

This is why it was wrong for Babble to claim that I assumed you were retarded.

They. Are. Not. Divorced.

They are going through divorce proceedings but they are not divorced.

You really are stupid, RGS, you form your beliefs on rainbows and lollipops and never actually pay attention to anything but the stupidity in your own mind.

Here we go.

CBS 2’s Mike Puccinelli reports that a Chicago father faced a judge on contempt charges in a case stemming from a bitter dispute with his ex-wife over religious faith.

Well wait, I guess you are right, the rest of the story says estranged and divorce case.

Good for you for admitting for once that you were wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is why it was wrong for Babble to claim that I assumed you were retarded.

They. Are. Not. Divorced.

They are going through divorce proceedings but they are not divorced.

You really are stupid, RGS, you form your beliefs on rainbows and lollipops and never actually pay attention to anything but the stupidity in your own mind.

Here we go.

CBS 2’s Mike Puccinelli reports that a Chicago father faced a judge on contempt charges in a case stemming from a bitter dispute with his ex-wife over religious faith.

Well wait, I guess you are right, the rest of the story says estranged and divorce case.

Good for you for admitting for once that you were wrong.

Where is my pos rep? )

 

[Immanuel]

The child is no less "Jewish" because it was baptized , unless you think Christian baptisms are valid. 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

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?

Sprinkling water on the child in this case does not make her a Catholic. But come to think of it, is she any more a Jew than a Catholic because her mother has raised her as one? The mother claims the child for her religion, the father wants to claim her for his, but isn't it up to the child herself to decide? And if she only choses one or the other to please this parent or the other, how is she being religious at all?

I'd have to go into the doctrines of my faith to answer this and this may not be the right place to answer it.

But, anyway, trying to keep this short, my faith (Lutheran) teaches that Baptism is a Sacrament and that the child is instilled with the Holy Spirit at baptism. It does not mean that the child is saved. It means that the child has been introduced so to speak to the faith. It is then the responsibility of the family to raise their child in the faith. If the child leaves the Baptismal Font and never hears the word of God again... well, then, that child's fate is in God's hands... as is all of our fate (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist etc.) anyway.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Your well known bias against Jews pretty much excludes you from the discussion.

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.

For the sake of argument, supposing that he did have a "well known bias against Jews", why would that exclude him from the discussion?

You have a well known hatred of pit bulls, does that mean you must be excluded from all discussions about dogs?

And you have a well known hatred of smokers... therefore, should you be excluded from discussions about smokers?

Immie

 

[manifold]

Since when do parents have a right to use their children as pawns?

Since the beginning of time.

It might not be "right," but that's sort of irrelevant.

Bottom line is it's not sufficient justification on it's own for restricting visitations rights. Unless you can prove the child is being put in harm's way, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[Ravi]

Since when do parents have a right to use their children as pawns?

Since the beginning of time.

It might not be "right," but that's sort of irrelevant.

Bottom line is it's not sufficient justification on it's own for restricting visitations rights. Unless you can prove the child is being put in harm's way, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Yeah, right. Tell it to the judge.

 

[jillian]

And once again they did NOT have an agreement. But even if they did it became null and void the minute they divorced.

since when?

 

[Anguille]

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....

That would only be valid if you had an agreement with your neighbor before hand that he would not park his vehicle in his driveway.

As to keeping the child from any religion...again, they had an agreement she would be raised as a Jew. If they had an agreement that she be raised as an atheist the guy would also be in the wrong...ditto an agreement that she'd be raised a Christian or a Muslim or a Rastafarian and he broke that agreement.

I don't understand why this is so hard for all y'all to understand.

Whatever agreement they may have had it would not legally binding. I also think a person has the right to change their mind about what they think is best for their child.

 

[manifold]

Since when do we have a constitutional right to indoctrinate others?

One man's indoctrination is another man's education.

If you are suggesting that a parent doesn't have a right to educate his child then I would have to disagree.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since when do we have a constitutional right to indoctrinate others?

One man's indoctrination is another man's education.

If you are suggesting that a parent doesn't have a right to educate his child then I would have to disagree.

He has a Constitutional right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION, which INCLUDES his child when he has care of said child. Already addressed by legal experts in the video. It is established case law that a non custodial parent has a legal right to take their child to THEIR religious services when they are caring for said child. The only power the court has in that regard is if the action will cause HARM to the child and that is why the Judge had no legal right to restrict the Father.

 

[manifold]

Since when do we have a constitutional right to indoctrinate others?

One man's indoctrination is another man's education.

If you are suggesting that a parent doesn't have a right to educate his child then I would have to disagree.

He has a Constitutional right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION, which INCLUDES his child when he has care of said child. Already addressed by legal experts in the video. It is established case law that a non custodial parent has a legal right to take their child to THEIR religious services when they are caring for said child. The only power the court has in that regard is if the action will cause HARM to the child and that is why the Judge had no legal right to restrict the Father.

I know.

But thanks for the recap.

 

[Ravi]

IMO, teaching a child that she and/or her mother are damned to hell for not practicing Catholicism is harmful.

Jews make no such claims in reverse.

 

[California Girl]

IMO, teaching a child that she and/or her mother are damned to hell for not practicing Catholicism is harmful.

Jews make no such claims in reverse.

Catholicism doesn't either but don't let that stop your bullshit.