• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a divorce court be able to forbid one parent to take a child to church?

Should a divorce court be able to forbid one parent to take a child to church?

  • Yes they should be able to favor one religion in a divorce dispute

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • Each parent should be allowed to expose the child to their respective faiths

    Votes: 23 50.0%

  • The court should butt out of disputes of a religious nature

    Votes: 17 37.0%

  • The parents should have thought of this ahead of time.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 4 8.7%
  • Total voters
    46
Children should not be made to go to church when they are too young to make the decision for themselves, but no I don't want a court to give preferential treatment to one parents religion over another.
 
Last edited:
LiveUninhibited said:
Children should not be made to go to church when they are too young to make the decision for themselves, but no I don't want a court to give preferential treatment to one parents religion over another.
Click to expand...
Children should not be made to go to school when they are too young to make the decision for themselves. :roll:
 
Vader said:
The fact that the judge is jewish says alot. The fact that the judge set an order that is completely illegal per the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says even more.

This is beyond normal incompetence. That judge has proven his judgement is skewed. At the very least he needs to be removed from the bench.
Click to expand...

The judge being Jewish doesn't say anything to me. Would you be inclined to say the same if the judge was female? Judges are impartial.

The Mother must have requested the restraining order. The judge signed the order. The restraining order was only in effect for 30 days. He could have waited.

Should this be turned around into his favor, then that's how it should be, however, his lawyer should have petitioned the court to drop the order. The Father should not have defiantly dis-obeyed the order. That usually doesn't work out very well.
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
The fact that the judge is jewish says alot.
Click to expand...

That fact that you said that says alot.

The fact that the judge set an order that is completely illegal per the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says even more.
Click to expand...

Yes, it says the judge knows alot more about the law than you do.
 
Vader said:
And that is a serious conflict of interest. The judge issued an order that violates the United States Constitution; as such, that judge needs to be disbarred.
Click to expand...

I think she meant that later a Jewish judge gave the father his right to take the child to Church. So, she was, indeed, impartial.
 
In general, no. Each parent has the right to expose the child to whatever religious upbringing they want to expose them to. The only exception I would argue would be when the health of the child is at risk. If one parent belonged to a fundamentalist sect that believed in handling venomous snakes, for example, or which refused medical treatment, then certainly, the court, divorce or not, ought to restrict any minor to be raised in such a surrounding.

Otherwise, the difference between Jewish and Catholic beliefs, neither is physically harmful to the child (mentally is another matter), so no, let the kid realize both are a load of hooey on their own.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Re: Should a divorce court be able to forbid one parent to take a child to church?

What's your opinion? Here's the story:
Click to expand...

Problem one: a legal system that still encourages many parents to treat the children as prizes and weapons by which to get revenge over the other.

Problem two: judges who fail to act "in the best interests of the children" they are supposed to represent.

Problem three: the legal system supposed to protect children's rights is a gravy train for lawyers and judges to keep hostilities going.

Why is it that this type of thing happens in the US and UK where divorce is about custody and the parent's "rights" to do things or prevent the other parent doing things - in comparison to the Scandinavian countries where divorce still happens but you only go to court to prevent contact and few divorces end up in court process?

What I think and would like is more cases such as in the Scandinavian countries where the expectation is not "who owns the child" but how do we arrange contact and child care in a mutually beneficial way for the child's sake. Divorcing parents there are culturally inclined to think about making beneficial agreements without any court involvement than they are here in the UK or US where court is the first and last step.

With regards to the story - both parents are using the poor child and they are not helped by judges and child law in the US which is less about the child's benefits that keeping judges and lawyers in gainful employment.
 
misterman said:
That fact that you said that says alot.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... it says I do not like a biased jewish judge making illegal decisions.

misterman said:
Yes, it says the judge knows alot more about the law than you do.
Click to expand...

Apparently not ... because his order violates the US Constitution. I can see this ... I am shocked that he was unable to. Why? Because he failed to prevent his religious bias from making his decisions.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I think she meant that later a Jewish judge gave the father his right to take the child to Church. So, she was, indeed, impartial.
Click to expand...

If that is what she meant, maybe so; however, I do not believe that is what occurred. I believe a dishonest judge entered an order that violated the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Given the fact that the party seeking the restraining order is jewish, the judge is jewish and the fact that the judge issued a restraining order that prevented the child from going to a non-jewish church is EXTREMELY unethical and an ABSOLUTE violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

The issuing judge needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred. We cannot allow religiously biased judges to make decisions which are ABSOLUTELY in violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
The judge being Jewish doesn't say anything to me. Would you be inclined to say the same if the judge was female? Judges are impartial.
Click to expand...

The judge is jewish and he issued an illegal restaining order that prevented the child from being exposed to any religious education other than Jewish. This is a SERIOUS ethical violation and it is a HUGE and INEXCUSABLE violation of the 1st Amendment.

In the legal arena ... even the APPEARENCE of impropriaty is very very bad. When a jewish judge issues an order in favor a a jewish litigant that restrains the 1st Amendment rights of ANYBODY that judge is corrupt and needs to be removed from the bench and the practice of law.

If you cannot see the issue here, I suggest you take the blinders off.

misterman said:
Should this be turned around into his favor, then that's how it should be, however, his lawyer should have petitioned the court to drop the order. The Father should not have defiantly dis-obeyed the order. That usually doesn't work out very well.
Click to expand...

The order should have been denied on constitutional grounds. The court must remain neutral AT ALL TIMES. When the court does what this one did it is NOT neutral.

When the court does not remain neutral justice is unfairly denied.

The behavior of the judge in question is inexcusable and his career needs to end.
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
If that is what she meant, maybe so; however, I do not believe that is what occurred. I believe a dishonest judge entered an order that violated the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Given the fact that the party seeking the restraining order is jewish, the judge is jewish and the fact that the judge issued a restraining order that prevented the child from going to a non-jewish church is EXTREMELY biased.

The issuing judge needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred. We cannot allow religiously biased judges to make decisions which are ABSOLUTELY in violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

I think how it works it that a judge from a higher court overturns the ruling. Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the article was a couple of months old and that, indeed, a higher court judge (who was Jewish) overturned the ruling.
 
Tashah said:
According to the article...


Seems to me that the Catholic father acknowledged his daughter as Jewish and fully acquiesced in regards to her religious upbringing. It doesn’t reflect very well on him that his daughter’s religion became contentious only after he lost parental custody.

Although the article does not specifically mention a time-frame, it would seem to me that the husband converted to Judaism in order to marry Rebecca. I would imagine that Rebecca (and her family) insisted on this in order to validate and solidify a preference for traditional Jewish law in regards to marriage and family matters. In other words, dad tacitly acknowledged that any offspring would be considered Jewish in all matters regarding faith.

Although I believe he has the legal right to introduce his daughter to Catholicism, I also think his motive is perhaps underhanded and born of spite. Rebecca should also probably have insisted on a pre-nuptial legal contract with heavy breachment penalties.
Click to expand...

I think they shouldn't have married. As I have said earlier, I cannot countenance someone agreeing not to share their faith with the child. Perhaps he realized this after the divorce. Perhaps his only shortcoming was not having the foresight to see how your convictions can change and how that might affect how you want to raise your child. You can't forgo believing whatever it is that you think is correct. You shouldn't agree in advance not to meaningfully share such matters with your child.

She had the same lack of foresight, really, about people, and faith.

Added to this is the problem of her rigidity. I have a tendency not to have sympathy for rigid people. I think they create their own 'hell', and they just get to live with the mental turmoil they invite upon themselves.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I think how it works it that a judge from a higher court overturns the ruling. Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the article was a couple of months old and that, indeed, a higher court judge (who was Jewish) overturned the ruling.
Click to expand...

Good. I am glad to hear that. I still think the lower court judge needs to be removed from the bench.
 
Vader said:
Good. I am glad to hear that. I still think the lower court judge needs to be removed from the bench.
Click to expand...

If every judge who issued a decision that a higher court overturned, the whole distict court bar would be empty.
 
misterman said:
If every judge who issued a decision that a higher court overturned, the whole distict court bar would be empty.
Click to expand...

This decision was based on religious bias and that creates a special circumstance. The lower court judge crossed a line and that MUST be addressed.
 
How about banning children from church completely?

I hate it when people say their children are [insert arbitrary religion here]. Or when you see children being paraded around with political signs and epiphets written all over them at rallys

A *child* can't be Christian/Jewish any more than they can be Republican/Democrat/Independent. The whole notion is absurd. Maybe the judge should order that the child can't be taken to any church until they are 16?

They can go when they are old enough to understand what the hell is going on

;-)
 
misterman said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...

Do the math, misterman!

The judge was jewish, the party requesting the order was jewish, and the order issued barred the child from being exposed to any religion other than jewish.

This is a CLEAR bias.

The judge who signed that order needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred.
 
Vader said:
Do the math, misterman!

The judge was jewish, the party requesting the order was jewish, and the order issued barred the child from being exposed to any religion other than jewish.

This is a CLEAR bias.

The judge who signed that order needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred.
Click to expand...

This is why you're just a guy on the internet and not a judge, thank God.
 
Vader said:
No, it's not. I am correct and you are covering for a biased judge. Shame on you.
Click to expand...

This is a joke. It's such a joke that I don't even need to explain why. Everyone else can see, and you never will.
 
American said:
Children should not be made to go to school when they are too young to make the decision for themselves. :roll:
Click to expand...

Not comparable. While schools may arbitrarily indoctrinate children to some extent just like a church, this is a latent rather than a primary function. School teaches you the basic skills needed to thrive in the modern world.
 
Last edited:
Joseph Reyes pleaded not guilty for allegedly violating a court order issued by Chicago family law Judge Edward R. Jordan who had barred Reyes from taking his 3-year-old daughter to church following a dispute over religion with his estranged wife. Reyes' wife, Rebecca Reyes, is Jewish.

Reyes, a veteran of the Afghan war, made a motion to have his contempt charges heard by a different judge, a motion that was granted. He was arraigned before Judge Elizabeth Loredo-Rivera.

If found guilty of indirect criminal contempt, Reyes could be sentenced to up to six months in jail.
Click to expand...
Update...

Judge won't toss contempt charge against dad who took daughter to Mass
May 7, 2010

A Cook County judge has ruled that a father must stand trial for contempt after taking his daughter to Mass at a Roman Catholic church, defying a court order that barred him from exposing the 3-year-old to any "non-Jewish" religious activity.

His lawyer, Joel Brodsky, filed a motion to dismiss the contempt charge arguing the order was "too vague to determine what constitutes exposing Ela Reyes to any religion other than the Jewish religion," and that "the court cannot decide what constitutes the Jewish religion."

Associate Judge Elizabeth Loredo-Rivera said courts in Illinois can "adjudicate religious disputes, in the best interest of the child."

"That's a scary sentence," Brodsky said. "This decision from a religious perspective is a direct assault on the First Amendment."

The restrictions on Reyes' church attendance with his daughter ended when the divorce was ruled upon last month. That ruling permitting Reyes to take his daughter to church services during his visitation time and granting visitation on Christmas and Easter.
Click to expand...
Source: Chicago Breaking News

Although a Divorce Court decree allows Joseph Reyes a religious relationship with his daughter, a judge has now ruled that Reyes must stand trial for contempt of court (violating the original court injunction).
 
Tashah said:
Update...


Source: Chicago Breaking News

Although a Divorce Court decree allows Joseph Reyes a religious relationship with his daughter, a judge has now ruled that Reyes must stand trial for contempt of court (violating the original court injunction).
Click to expand...

And he will never be convicted because such a ruling is a clear and obvious violation of the 1st Amendment. It's time for the judge who refused to toss out that bogus contempt charge to be tossed off the bench.
 
A Cook County judge has ruled that a father must stand trial for contempt after taking his daughter to Mass at a Roman Catholic church, defying a court order that barred him from exposing the 3-year-old to any "non-Jewish" religious activity.
Click to expand...

Now that is truly, truly stupid. Talk about wasting tax-payer money on a ridiculous case.

There may well be a "contempt of court" case here to answer but how would it (as this is a child law case after all) be in the child's interests for the father to serve any sentence from this case and thus the child lose contact with her father?

Not that I'm saying fathers shouldn't go to prison if they are guilty of a serious crime but this case is supposedly about a child's best interests...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom