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

Dezaad · Apr 26, 2010

misterman said:
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.

The state is being asked to facilitate the divorce. When one party to the divorce said "I want you to bar my husband from taking the children to religious services of his choice", the state should have said "We're not butting in to that matter of your divorce. Work that out amongst yourselves." And, now that they have mistakenly butted in, they should butt back out.

I would go so far as to say that the Judge should dismiss any charges of contempt, on the basis of the first amendment.

misterman · Apr 26, 2010

Mellie said:
Not to mention he might be hearing that at school or on television. Thinking that a 5 year old can make that decision on his own is beyond ridiculous. They're not little adults. They're KIDS.

No, many kids are firmly committed to their belief in Santa Claus.

misterman · Apr 26, 2010

Dezaad said:
The state is being asked to facilitate the divorce. When one party to the divorce said "I want you to bar my husband from taking the children to religious services of his choice", the state should have said "We're not butting in to that matter of your divorce. Work that out amongst yourselves."

But that apparently didn't work. They can't work it out. That's why they got divorced in the first place.

You're assuming that the right answer to this question is that each parent has the right to raise the child by his/her religion. That's what we're debating in the first place.

aps · Apr 26, 2010

MyOwnDrum said:
What's your opinion? Here's the story:

Divorce Battle: Joseph Reyes Pleads Not Guilty For Taking Daughter to Church - ABC News

The parents are getting divorced and the wife is Jewish, the husband Catholic. The mother wants the child raised Jewish, the husband, not previously devout, got the little girl baptized, the mother got a restraining order, yada yada...

This is very interesting. I do think this is over the top. You can't leave a 3-year-old home alone. So he's expected to stay home from church or get a babysitter, or put his daughter in some kind of day care the church offers (assuming it offers one) when he has custody of his child that weekend? That seems to be a problem, if you ask me.

My husband is Jewish. I was a practicing Catholic when we got engaged. We read several books about interfaith marriages. The books we read provided that kids didn't like being exposed to two religions. They worried that one parent would be mad at them if they chose the religion of the other parent. Some kids complained that they were so busy going to Temple on Friday's and Church on Sundays that they felt they had no time to hang out with friends and play sports. So we decided to raise any children we had Jewish, and that was a tough decision for me. (I'm atheist now.) So I sort of see the perspective of the mother in this case. If they agreed to raise their child a certain religion, I would feel betrayed if my separated husband changed his mind almost to spite me. I dunno.

misterman · Apr 26, 2010

aps said:
My husband is Jewish. I was a practicing Catholic when we got engaged. We read several books about interfaith marriages. The books we read provided that kids didn't like being exposed to two religions. They worried that one parent would be mad at them if they chose the religion of the other parent.

Really? That's weird. I think lots of kids do just fine with two faiths. I imagine that would only happen if both parents are really intense about their religions - and those kind of people probably don't marry outside their faith much anyway.

Dezaad · Apr 26, 2010

misterman said:
But that apparently didn't work. They can't work it out. That's why they got divorced in the first place.

You're assuming that the right answer to this question is that each parent has the right to raise the child by his/her religion. That's what we're debating in the first place.

What we're debating is whether the state should be involved in the matter at all whether or not the parents seem to be able to work it out and whether or not one parent or the other is right or wrong.

Just because they can't work it out or one parent may be 'wrong' doesn't mean that the state should step in to settle the matter. It may just have to remain unresolved until the clock runs out (on the childhood of the children).

aps · Apr 26, 2010

misterman said:
Really? That's weird. I think lots of kids do just fine with two faiths. I imagine that would only happen if both parents are really intense about their religions - and those kind of people probably don't marry outside their faith much anyway.

That's what we got out of the books. I just remembered something else we found in reading these books. That children who were brought up in two religions had a hard time truly associating/connecting with one religion.

It turns out that our decision was the right one since I am no longer a Catholic by any means and refused to have my son baptized (my mother really wanted him to be bapitzed). If couples tell me they are raising their children under more than one religion, I make no judgments. That's their decision.

misterman · Apr 26, 2010

Dezaad said:
What we're debating is whether the state should be involved in the matter at all whether or not the parents seem to be able to work it out and whether or not one parent or the other is right or wrong.

If the parents can't work it out, the state has to settle it. Nobody else will

Just because they can't work it out or one parent may be 'wrong' doesn't mean that the state should step in to settle the matter. It may just have to remain unresolved until the clock runs out (on the childhood of the children).

How does it "remain unresolved"? By choosing not to resolve it, the court is deciding to resolve it anyway - by letting each parent take the kid to their church or temple. But that's what the parents are fighting about in the first place.

misterman · Apr 26, 2010

aps said:
That's what we got out of the books. I just remembered something else we found in reading these books. That children who were brought up in two religions had a hard time truly associating/connecting with one religion.

Yeah, I just find that hard to believe.

It turns out that our decision was the right one since I am no longer a Catholic by any means and refused to have my son baptized (my mother really wanted him to be bapitzed). If couples tell me they are raising their children under more than one religion, I make no judgments. That's their decision.

Not questioning your decision, but how do you know it's the right one if you didn't try it another way?

Dezaad · Apr 26, 2010

aps said:
This is very interesting. I do think this is over the top. You can't leave a 3-year-old home alone. So he's expected to stay home from church or get a babysitter, or put his daughter in some kind of day care the church offers (assuming it offers one) when he has custody of his child that weekend? That seems to be a problem, if you ask me.

My husband is Jewish. I was a practicing Catholic when we got engaged. We read several books about interfaith marriages. The books we read provided that kids didn't like being exposed to two religions. They worried that one parent would be mad at them if they chose the religion of the other parent. Some kids complained that they were so busy going to Temple on Friday's and Church on Sundays that they felt they had no time to hang out with friends and play sports. So we decided to raise any children we had Jewish, and that was a tough decision for me. (I'm atheist now.) So I sort of see the perspective of the mother in this case. If they agreed to raise their child a certain religion, I would feel betrayed if my separated husband changed his mind almost to spite me. I dunno.

I am of the mind that married couples shouldn't make such agreements about these matters. If one or both parents feel that such an agreement is necessary before deciding to have children, maybe they should forgo children. What you are saying is that one parent agrees not to share their faith with their children in any truly meaningful way: a truly atrocious notion that places a wall between the parent and their child in a deep manner.

aps said:
That's what we got out of the books. I just remembered something else we found in reading these books. That children who were brought up in two religions had a hard time truly associating/connecting with one religion.

It turns out that our decision was the right one since I am no longer a Catholic by any means and refused to have my son baptized (my mother really wanted him to be bapitzed). If couples tell me they are raising their children under more than one religion, I make no judgments. That's their decision.

Maybe its ok that children don't connect with either religion. The main goal in my book is that the parents and children share their lives, not that the child become one religion or another. Parents who want to control what their religion their children become are egregiously controlling. Remember people, you are GUIDING an individual PERSON, not CONTROLLING a PET or TOY.

Which is really what the state SHOULD be trying to curb in the matter of the OP: The "controllingness" of one or both parents. Not where the children attend religious services. In my view, this case is arising because at least one parent is under the misguided notion that they are the sole person who gets to share their religion with their children. A very controlling view.

Dezaad · Apr 26, 2010

misterman said:
If the parents can't work it out, the state has to settle it. Nobody else will

Then it won't get settled. That is ok.

How does it "remain unresolved"? By choosing not to resolve it, the court is deciding to resolve it anyway - by letting each parent take the kid to their church or temple. But that's what the parents are fighting about in the first place.

And that is also the court butting out. Sometimes one side "wins", if you want to call it that, when authorities butt out. It doesn't mean that authorities agree with one side or another.

aps · Apr 26, 2010

misterman said:
Yeah, I just find that hard to believe.

Not questioning your decision, but how do you know it's the right one if you didn't try it another way?

Because I am an atheist now (and was when my son was born). I don't believe that any higher power exists. There is no way I could have taught my son about Catholicism when I left that religion and don't remotely respect it anymore. That's how I know.

I think if I was still going to church and my son asked if he could go, I would be shocked if my husband said, "No." That's not the way he is. For my husband, it's the cultural aspect of Judiasm that he wanted our son exposed to--not the religious aspect. He's an atheist too, now. See why we get along so well?

misterman · Apr 26, 2010

Dezaad said:
Then it won't get settled. That is ok.

Not with the parents. They will either petition the court or get in a fight or whatever. The job of the court is to resolve conflicts, not ignore them.

And that is also the court butting out. Sometimes one side "wins", if you want to call it that, when authorities butt out. It doesn't mean that authorities agree with one side or another.

But only if the court decides that is the preferable way to handle things. Which means it is the court's resolution anyway.

In any event, I know what you mean.

misterman · Apr 26, 2010

aps said:
Because I am an atheist now (and was when my son was born). I don't believe that any higher power exists. There is no way I could have taught my son about Catholicism when I left that religion and don't remotely respect it anymore. That's how I know.

Okay.

I think if I was still going to church and my son asked if he could go, I would be shocked if my husband said, "No." That's not the way he is. For my husband, it's the cultural aspect of Judiasm that he wanted our son exposed to--not the religious aspect. He's an atheist too, now. See why we get along so well?

So a Jew and a Catholic get married, and you end up with two (and possibly three) atheists. That works!

aps · Apr 26, 2010

Dezaad said:
I am of the mind that married couples shouldn't make such agreements about these matters. If one or both parents feel that such an agreement is necessary before deciding to have children, maybe they should forgo children. What you are saying is that one parent agrees not to share their faith with their children in any truly meaningful way: a truly atrocious notion that places a wall between the parent and their child in a deep manner.

I see where you're coming from, although I disagree that if we felt that such agreement was necessary we shouldn't have children. I really enjoyed the alone time I had when I would go to church. I didn't like going to church with others. I liked going by myself where I could be alone with my thoughts. No distractions. Had I pushed raising any child under both religions, I think my husband would have been okay with it. But I saw this as an opportunity to have something to myself. If I can only truly connect with my child through religion, something is terribly wrong.

Maybe its ok that children don't connect with either religion. The main goal in my book is that the parents and children share their lives, not that the child become one religion or another. Parents who want to control what their religion their children become are egregiously controlling. Remember people, you are GUIDING an individual PERSON, not CONTROLLING a PET or TOY.

Which is really what the state SHOULD be trying to curb in the matter of the OP: The "controllingness" of one or both parents. Not where the children attend religious services. In my view, this case is arising because at least one parent is under the misguided notion that they are the sole person who gets to share their religion with their children. A very controlling view.

Did I miss something? Did you write a book?

I agree with your assessment in this case. It seems completely nutty.

aps · Apr 26, 2010

misterman said:
Okay.

So a Jew and a Catholic get married, and you end up with two (and possibly three) atheists. That works!

LOL Right now, my son is at pre-school at our Jewish Community Center. He is going to go to a Christian school next year (which is much closer to our house). I will not discourage him from believing in God or any higher power. Although I have no idea how that would impact him if he knew I was an atheist. :shock: I will need to use my words wisely should he ask me that question (Mommy, do you believe in God?"). I won't lie to him, though.

Dezaad · Apr 26, 2010

misterman said:
Not with the parents. They will either petition the court or get in a fight or whatever. The job of the court is to resolve conflicts, not ignore them.

Not always.

But only if the court decides that is the preferable way to handle things. Which means it is the court's resolution anyway.

In any event, I know what you mean.

ok

misterman · Apr 26, 2010

aps said:
LOL Right now, my son is at pre-school at our Jewish Community Center. He is going to go to a Christian school next year (which is much closer to our house). I will not discourage him from believing in God or any higher power. Although I have no idea how that would impact him if he knew I was an atheist. :shock: I will need to use my words wisely should he ask me that question. I won't lie to him, though.

Just don't get divorced!

Dezaad · Apr 26, 2010

aps said:
I see where you're coming from, although I disagree that if we felt that such agreement was necessary we shouldn't have children. I really enjoyed the alone time I had when I would go to church. I didn't like going to church with others. I liked going by myself where I could be alone with my thoughts. No distractions. Had I pushed raising any child under both religions, I think my husband would have been okay with it. But I saw this as an opportunity to have something to myself. If I can only truly connect with my child through religion, something is terribly wrong.

Oh dear, no, I don't mean to say that religion is the only way to connect with a child. In fact, I am not at all sure that I am saying that 'connecting' is the main point. What I am saying is that religion may be or can become a major part of a person's life. If you can't share your religion with your loved ones, it is a wedge. Even if you're not religious now, you might become so in the future. Such an agreement forecloses on a part of your relationship with your children.

Did I miss something? Did you write a book?

LOL.

Yes, but only in my mind

d0gbreath · Apr 26, 2010

So I got explained to me, by a few folks, that raising the daughter in the Jewish religion, because the Father was Jewish when they were married and had the child, is incorrect. That the girl should be raised in both religions, or that the court system should butt-out.

I have been once divorced. Trust me, the courts never butt-out until your youngest child turns 18.

They should have had 2 children IMO. One for each religion.

If the Father had converted to the Muslim faith, would I be hearing the same diatribe for the courts staying out of their affairs?

Vader · Apr 28, 2010

MyOwnDrum said:
What's your opinion? Here's the story:

Divorce Battle: Joseph Reyes Pleads Not Guilty For Taking Daughter to Church - ABC News

The parents are getting divorced and the wife is Jewish, the husband Catholic. The mother wants the child raised Jewish, the husband, not previously devout, got the little girl baptized, the mother got a restraining order, yada yada...

This court order is illegal because it violates the 1st Amendment of the United States Consitution. The judge who signed that order needs to be disbarred.

Aunt Spiker · Apr 28, 2010

yeah - see - I'm all for the parent's option to grow the hell up and stop expecting the courts to act as a therapist, mediator and nanny to their child.

misterman · Apr 28, 2010

Vader said:
This court order is illegal because it violates the 1st Amendment of the United States Consitution. The judge who signed that order needs to be disbarred.

That's an interesting argument, but hardly a slam dunk.

And let's not get all excited - faulty decisions end up getting overturned on appeal, not disbarred judges.

Vader · Apr 29, 2010

Tashah said:
Irony! Settled by a Jewish judge :2razz:

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.

Vader · Apr 29, 2010

misterman said:
That's an interesting argument, but hardly a slam dunk.

And let's not get all excited - faulty decisions end up getting overturned on appeal, not disbarred judges.

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.

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

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

The court should butt out of disputes of a religious nature

The parents should have thought of this ahead of time.

Other, please explain

More options

Dezaad

misterman

misterman

aps

Passionate

misterman

Dezaad

aps

Passionate

misterman

misterman

Dezaad

Dezaad

aps

Passionate

misterman

misterman

aps

Passionate

aps

Passionate

Dezaad

misterman

Dezaad

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat

Vader

Aunt Spiker

Cheese

misterman

Vader

Vader