• 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
Ela is such a pretty name. In Hebrew, Ela is a variant of Eliana/Elyanah (אליאנה) and means “God has answered”
 
lizzie said:
That seems to be the theme of much of our society these days. :(
Click to expand...
the only thing that keeps me going, is I know we can, and will do better. It just takes us a spell for it to sink in good and proper. We are after all, still a young Nation. Once we get the basics down pat, it will be clear sailing. :mrgreen:
 
Redress said:
If you had taken the time to read the full article you linked, you would have realized it was old, and that the case has already been ruled on. A simple 30 second google search yields this: Joseph Reyes Can Take Jewish Daughter To Catholic Church, Judge Rules In Dad's Favor
Click to expand...

My dear, I read the entire article, and I brought up the issue as a poll to see what the readership here thinks of the issue. The fact that this issue has been settled, no I did not know that, and it's irrelevant to the general ethical and legal question that this article brings up.

If you have an opinion on this type of issue, by all means vote, my dear. If you merely want to score points in your little grudge, that is sad, and I wish you well...
 
Both parents should be allowed to expose the child to their respective religions.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
As long as the church isn't harming the child or considered by a law a cult(defined as a church that goes out of it's way to harm other people) The 1st amendment says no.
Click to expand...
And what about the synogogue or jewish pre-school?
 
Neither parent should be allowed to abuse a child in this way, it's development should not be stunted by superstition.
 
Always at least one intolerant mastermind in every thread :yes:
 
lizzie said:
I think that each parent should be able to take the child to his/her church when the child is in the care of said parent.
Click to expand...

I agree, and on a side note - I find it overwhelmingly sad that 'parents' aren't more adult than this when dealing with their children. And we wonder why we have the problems with kids today that we do... take a look at the parents and the answer is right in front of us.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
I agree, and on a side note - I find it overwhelmingly sad that 'parents' aren't more adult than this when dealing with their children. And we wonder why we have the problems with kids today that we do... take a look at the parents and the answer is right in front of us.
Click to expand...

Very very true. My parents used me as a weapon in their divorce. It's a big drag for the kids to be caught in these immature antics.

Basically, when you marry someone who converts just to please you and your parents, so he can marry you and get in your panties regularly, then you get divorced, there's a good chance he'll fall away from his new found faith. Don't be surprised if he rediscovers his/her own religious roots.

Incidentally, most Catholic priests will not baptize under the circumstances described in the article. The whole process is highly bureaucratic and regulated by canon law, which, if I'm not mistaken does not baptize a baby against the will of one of the parents.
 
lizzie said:
I think that each parent should be able to take the child to his/her church when the child is in the care of said parent.
Click to expand...


MyOwnDrum said:
I totally agree. Both parents knew they were marrying, having sexual relations, and having a child with someone from a different faith tradition. Being adults, they have the responsibility to realize that a person, if not now devout, could easily return to their original faith.

The Jewish religion says that a child born of a Jewish woman is a Jew. The Catholic religion demands that a child of a mixed marriage should be raised Catholic.

The State should butt out, and each parent, during their time with their child, should be free to include their child in their worship activities.
Click to expand...


That pretty much covers it. They should have thought about this before they had a child, and figured out how they were going to handle it. Now that they're divorced, each has as much right to teach the child about their own faith as the other.

State, butt out.
 
From the article:
The couple married in 2004. Joseph Reyes was Catholic, but he converted to Judaism to please his in-laws. He has said the decision wasn't "voluntary."
Click to expand...
He can claim conversion to Judaism by force all day long. It's not going to get him out of the trouble that he has made for himself. The restraining order was in effect at the time, barring him from bringing the child to a Catholic Church.

It's a a no-brainer from a legal standpoint. Was the court right in issuing the restraining order?


YES.
 
Mickey Shane said:
From the article:
He can claim conversion to Judaism by force all day long. It's not going to get him out of the trouble that he has made for himself. The restraining order was in effect at the time, barring him from bringing the child to a Catholic Church.

It's a a no-brainer from a legal standpoint. Was the court right in issuing the restraining order?


YES.
Click to expand...

No. The court was not in the right.

They never should put a restraining order on the father for such a stupid reason.
 
Last edited:
For the most part, the court should butt out. However, if the Judge finds that one parent is attempting to undermine the other parent (by making fun of or otherwise disparaging the faith of the other parent, for example) that parent should be held in contempt of court.

I agree with the people who've said this child is being used as a weapon, and that is what the Judge should be trying to put a stop to.

The parents should evaluate whether they sincerely hold their own beliefs, and if so then move forward with exposing the child to those beliefs with the aim of allowing the child to choose its own path when it is able. What horrible parents they both are, and they should be ashamed.
 
Mickey Shane said:
From the article:
He can claim conversion to Judaism by force all day long. It's not going to get him out of the trouble that he has made for himself. The restraining order was in effect at the time, barring him from bringing the child to a Catholic Church.

It's a a no-brainer from a legal standpoint. Was the court right in issuing the restraining order?


YES.
Click to expand...

All of this is irrelevant. Suppose he converts to Lutheranism, now. He has every right to expose his child to that new faith, just as she has the right to expose the child to a faith the father no longer agrees with. There is NO guarantee that your spouse is going to remain the faith you started your marriage with, nor should there be.

All of the legal mistakes in this case seem to stem from that misguided and untrue assumption.
 
The man is Jewish. He became Jewish when they were married. He was Jewish when they divorced. He's just trying to cause trouble for his ex = bad man, not sincere, etc.

Why am I the only one that can see this?
 
I'm trying to figure out how this ruling is even legal, considering freedom of religion under the first pretty much invalidates it. While it sucks that the child is not only facing the realities of a divorce and what comes with that, now a holy war has been added. The court however has no legal authority to rule that the father has no right to take his child to a christian church unless he doesn't have custody during that period. In my opinion that judge needs to either be censured and the ruling invalidated or outright removal and the judgement invalidated.
 
Mickey Shane said:
The man is Jewish. He became Jewish when they were married. He was Jewish when they divorced. He's just trying to cause trouble for his ex = bad man, not sincere, etc.

Why am I the only one that can see this?
Click to expand...

Well, you, and the Jewish Judge who ruled in his favor...and everyone else who've already been around this story a few times...
 
megaprogman said:
:shrug:

He is an opinionated child who feels strongly about everything, whether he understands it or not. That is just his personality.
Click to expand...

Wow man. You have my deepest sympathies for the next few years. Get to thinking positively.;)
 
Mickey Shane said:
The man is Jewish. He became Jewish when they were married. He was Jewish when they divorced. He's just trying to cause trouble for his ex = bad man, not sincere, etc.

Why am I the only one that can see this?
Click to expand...

Maybe he is Jewish, maybe not. It is irrelevant. Even if he is Jewish and wants to expose his child to Hinduism, it is his right to attend Hindu services and take his children. The fact that it is supposedly 'causing trouble for his ex' is not his problem. Maybe it upsets her. Maybe he knows it upsets her. Maybe not, on all counts. One thing is certain though: IT SHOULDN'T UPSET HER AND IF IT DOES IT IS HER PROBLEM TO WORK THROUGH. Once she does that, and even if he is doing it to upset her, it won't, and there won't be a problem.

Suppose for the moment that his conversion back to Catholicism is sincere. You are proposing to make the Judge, well, the judge of that. Think about that: The Judge gets to decide whether his profession of religion is sincere, so that he can judge whether the guy can expose his kids to the faith he professes. I have a problem with a Judge judging whether someone's profession of faith is sincere, because a Judge is incapable of doing so.

Really, this is one of the reasons we have separation of Church and State, after all.
 
lizzie said:
Wow man. You have my deepest sympathies for the next few years. Get to thinking positively.;)
Click to expand...

He gets it from his mom. Her strong will is one of the things that attracts me to her.
 
Last edited:
MyOwnDrum said:
The State should butt out, and each parent, during their time with their child, should be free to include their child in their worship activities.
Click to expand...

But the state can't butt out. The state has been asked to settle this dispute. If they didn't want the court involved, they shouldn't have gone to court for a divorce.
 
Mickey Shane said:
The man is Jewish. He became Jewish when they were married. He was Jewish when they divorced. He's just trying to cause trouble for his ex = bad man, not sincere, etc.

Why am I the only one that can see this?
Click to expand...

Jewish is not a legal status, dude. Only he can decide if he's Jewish or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom