Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Chicago man who defied a court order and took his toddler to a Catholic Church service was arraigned today on a charge of indirect criminal contempt in a custody battle that is threatening to put him in jail and draw new boundaries in divorce cases.
This father is using religion to make a name for himself in the media---calling the media to witness him taking his daughter to church. He converted to Judaism and raised the daughter Jewish until the marriage ended. Now he is creating a media circus. As a former Catholic, I know that the church doesn't even consider him a Catholic in good standing because he denounced his religion.
He didn't just take her to church-- he intended to have her baptized. If he's really a believer, that's a pretty significant step, and way more than just an hour sitting in a pew watching a pretty ritual (and at three, that's all she's likely to get out of it). And if he's not, then he's just a confrontational jerk.
While I don't think he should go to jail, I'm all about granting only limited, and heavily supervised, visitation, along with some community service.
This father is using religion to make a name for himself in the media---calling the media to witness him taking his daughter to church. He converted to Judaism and raised the daughter Jewish until the marriage ended. Now he is creating a media circus. As a former Catholic, I know that the church doesn't even consider him a Catholic in good standing because he denounced his religion.
The article said he continued to practice Catholicism after the couple married.
He should not violate the court order. We live in a nation of laws. We nee to abide by those laws and the order of our courts.
The article said he continued to practice Catholicism after the couple married.
He should not violate the court order. We live in a nation of laws. We nee to abide by those laws and the order of our courts.
True- but does the court have a right to decide the child's faith? I am not saying the father should have taken her to church to be baptized at the time of a divorce battle.... but if they can decide the FAITH of a child I think our government has gotten a bit out of hand..... The mother knew going into the relationship the father was Catholic..... and since he continued to prictice- sorry that is part of that child's family faith..... she should have known going into it that there might be a struggle of differences..... I think it is sad a court can decide then if a child can or cannot attend a church service though..... Where is the seperation of Church and State here? He should not have done it at the time he did.... be if it were a different situation- he would have done nothing wrong taking her to church.
The article said he continued to practice Catholicism after the couple married.
He should not violate the court order. We live in a nation of laws. We nee to abide by those laws and the order of our courts.
What Momma said.
From the article:
Reyes' decision to baptize his daughter without his wife's permission resulted in what some are calling an extraordinary court order: Jordan in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., imposed a 30-day restraining order forbidding Joseph Reyes from, according to the document, "exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion. …"
I do not agree with this,,, but I would respect it. You can bet I would have the best lawyer I could afford fighting to get it thrown out.
I see it as 2 wrongs. First the ruling of the judge,,, then the Dad openly defying the court order while being filmed by the media.
The article said he continued to practice Catholicism after the couple married.
He should not violate the court order. We live in a nation of laws. We nee to abide by those laws and the order of our courts.
I disagree. Stupid laws and edicts need to be broken, loudly, and often.
The best, fastest, most reliable way of changing a law is to break it and demonstrate how harmful the law was and how much better the activity the law prohibited actually is.
He didn't just take her to church-- he intended to have her baptized. If he's really a believer, that's a pretty significant step, and way more than just an hour sitting in a pew watching a pretty ritual (and at three, that's all she's likely to get out of it).
He actually HAD her baptised earlier. THAT'S how he ended up with a court order. He baptized her without consulting the wife and then sent per pictures of the baptism---sort of IN YOUR FACE type response considering he asked the media to NOW witness him taking her to church AFTER the court ordered him to not take her to church since he baptised her without consulting the wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
The article said he continued to practice Catholicism after the couple married.
He CLAIMS he contiued to practice. His wife CLAIMS he was never devote.
One thing is for certain, he converted to Judiasm. And the Catholic Church doesn't easily forgive anyone who does that. He will never be permitted to be a Godfather. People of other Christian religions have a higher standing in the eyes of the Catholic Church for being Godparents than a Catholic who denounced Catholicism for another faith at any point in their past regardless of if they return to the Catholic Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
He should not violate the court order. We live in a nation of laws. We nee to abide by those laws and the order of our courts.
Agreed. This is a fight for him to have in courts, not the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skbs
True- but does the court have a right to decide the child's faith? I am not saying the father should have taken her to church to be baptized at the time of a divorce battle.... but if they can decide the FAITH of a child I think our government has gotten a bit out of hand.....
Someone has to decide these things when a marriage disolves---especially when the parents can't agree. The court based the decision on the agreement during marriage to raise the child Jewish. A divorce shouldn't change that agreement. And that's where the courts step in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skbs
The mother knew going into the relationship the father was Catholic..... and since he continued to prictice- sorry that is part of that child's family faith..... she should have known going into it that there might be a struggle of differences.....
The mother knew that her husband converted to Judaism. And the child wasn't raised Catholic. He didn't have her baptised Catholic while they were married. The father only claims HE continued to practice. The father doesn't claim that he took his daughter to Catholic Church during the marriage. He didn't raise the child Catholic during the marriage. There is no indication that there was a religious struggle during the marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skbs
I think it is sad a court can decide then if a child can or cannot attend a church service though.....
The father could have taken this child to church if he hadn't had her baptized against the mother's wishes. That's why the court ordered him to not take her to church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skbs
Where is the seperation of Church and State here?
The courts are the only resolution to this problem since neither spouses' religion has jurisdiction over both parties. Anyone wanting separation of church and state during a divorce should darn well come to an agreement about religion with the ex. Otherwise, the courts are forced to decide the case if parents bring the matter to court. It's not like the courts sought out this case. The PARENT took the matter to court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skbs
He should not have done it at the time he did.... be if it were a different situation- he would have done nothing wrong taking her to church.
THAT'S the point. He did do something wrong. And now he is playing this game in the media.
The courts are the only resolution to this problem since neither spouses' religion has jurisdiction over both parties. Anyone wanting separation of church and state during a divorce should darn well come to an agreement about religion with the ex. Otherwise, the courts are forced to decide the case if parents bring the matter to court. It's not like the courts sought out this case. The PARENT took the matter to court.
The courts have no business getting in the middle of a religious battle, no matter what the circumstances.
The mother should grow up and act like an adult. Seems odd that she is so threatened that her daughter might grow up having a diverse mind instead of narrow like her own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
