Mom may face jail for kids' baptisms

[luckytxn 2,264]

First of all if you don't want courts involved solve the problem with amicable understanding among yourselves. Because that didn't happen the father was robbed (and contacted law officials) and the mother felt a robbery was in progress so she did what she thought was necessary.

Second it's selfish to perform ones religious duties when it conflicts with a another party that has equal rights as you.

Third where in my response did I ever reflect my religious beliefs?

You are right, religion is something to be discussed before marriage and kids but I guess people think once both are of the same religion everything will work itself out.

Solution: baptize the kids at about 10-12 or earlier if the children want to but its too late now.

There is no amicable understandings because a court can't make these decisions.....period. Father was not robbed in the least. He knew what her religion was. He didn't care when he married and had kids with her so why is he concerned now? He is because he is trying to control her and her actions/ Too bad. Hopefully he has learned a lesson and in the future will know to be more careful who he marries.

Never selfish to perform ones religious obligations. Not to do so is negligent. The other party has rights and can when he has the kids perform his religious duties as he sees fit. He has that right and she can't do anything about that.

I never asked about your religious beliefs and never responded that you had beliefs and personally don't care what religious beliefs you have. They are irrelevant anyway.

The solution would conflict with her religious duties that you say. She has no choice but to perform her religious duties and I am glad to see that she is doing what is required of her. The only solution is to have this settled before marrying and having kids.

[Danno 1,228]

It's rather hard to believe that these are the types of things clogging up family court.

The judge gave a clear ruling.

The mother broke the Judges order,

SOme times your conscience compels you to break the law but when that happens you must be prepared to pay the price for it.

If these people couldn't find agreement on such a thing as this....... they never had a chance.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

First of all if you don't want courts involved solve the problem with amicable understanding among yourselves. Because that didn't happen the father was robbed (and contacted law officials) and the mother felt a robbery was in progress so she did what she thought was necessary.

Second it's selfish to perform ones religious duties when it conflicts with a another party that has equal rights as you.

Third where in my response did I ever reflect my religious beliefs?

You are right, religion is something to be discussed before marriage and kids but I guess people think once both are of the same religion everything will work itself out.

Solution: baptize the kids at about 10-12 or earlier if the children want to but its too late now.

What utter nonsense. Robbery in progress? Propagation of faith is a parental responsibility and the state cannot and should not interfere. In fact the state has no business in the matter, not sure where in the Constitution is says that you can regulate religion, perhaps you can show me. Third where in my response did I ever reflect my religious beliefs?

This is religion your (sic) talking about and not something to be taken lightly as under Christianity there is no 'batize (sic) them again later'. :

There is no amicable understandings because a court can't make these decisions.....period. Father was not robbed in the least. He knew what her religion was. He didn't care when he married and had kids with her so why is he concerned now? He is because he is trying to control her and her actions/ Too bad. Hopefully he has learned a lesson and in the future will know to be more careful who he marries.

Never selfish to perform ones religious obligations. Not to do so is negligent. The other party has rights and can when he has the kids perform his religious duties as he sees fit. He has that right and she can't do anything about that.

I never asked about your religious beliefs and never responded that you had beliefs and personally don't care what religious beliefs you have. They are irrelevant anyway.

The solution would conflict with her religious duties that you say. She has no choice but to perform her religious duties and I am glad to see that she is doing what is required of her. The only solution is to have this settled before marrying and having kids.

QFT

[aaydrian 479]

What utter nonsense. Robbery in progress? Propagation of faith is a parental responsibility and the state cannot and should not interfere. In fact the state has no business in the matter, not sure where in the Constitution is says that you can regulate religion, perhaps you can show me. Third where in my response did I ever reflect my religious beliefs?

This is religion your (sic) talking about and not something to be taken lightly as under Christianity there is no 'batize (sic) them again later'. :

QFT

I said if you (the mother & the father) can't settle this yourselves, the court will get involved. If you don't want a judge in you business fix your $hit on your own.

And I fail to see how you quoting me about 'my beliefs' have proven your point.

P.S. - Thanks for highlighting my grammatical errors. Feel free to do so in the future.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I said if you (the mother & the father) can't settle this yourselves, the court will get involved. If you don't want a judge in you business fix your $hit on your own.

And I fail to see how you quoting me about 'my beliefs' have proven your point.

P.S. - Thanks for highlighting my grammatical errors. Feel free to do so in the future.

Why should the court be involved? It does not affect the health or well being of the child?

[Dakine10 5,452]

I personally wonder whether the first court order was constitutional. For instance, what if a religion dictates that the mother is responsible for religious upbringing. That court order would have interfered with that.

I doubt the court acually decided that part. This kind of thing is something the parents most likely proposed and agreed to this themselves. The only way the court would have come up with this is if the parents couldn't agree. Then it became part of the court order.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I said if you (the mother & the father) can't settle this yourselves, themselves (redundant, who else is going to settle this?), the court will get involved. If you don't want a judge in your business fix your $hit (that would require Kaopectate) on your own.

And I fail to see how you quoting me about 'my beliefs' have proven your point.

P.S. - Thanks for highlighting my grammatical errors. Feel free to do so in the future.

As you wish.

[luckytxn 2,264]

As you wish.

QFT

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I doubt the court acually decided that part. This kind of thing is something the parents most likely proposed and agreed to this themselves. The only way the court would have come up with this is if the parents couldn't agree. Then it became part of the court order.

This makes sense, but why would it be connected with the state? It seems more like a breach of contract than a criminal act.

[james&olya 1,121]

It's rather hard to believe that these are the types of things clogging up family court.

The judge gave a clear ruling.

The mother broke the Judges order,

SOme times your conscience compels you to break the law but when that happens you must be prepared to pay the price for it.

If these people couldn't find agreement on such a thing as this....... they never had a chance.

Now I know the world must be coming to an end! I agree with Danno!

[William33 110]

One TOS violation (and one quoting it) posts deleted. Any further infractions will result in increased administrative action on your account. Insults against other VJ members will not be tolerated. Make your point without insults.

VJ Moderation Team

Edited April 1, 2012 by William33

[luckytxn 2,264]

One TOS violation (and one quoting it) posts deleted. Any further infractions will result in increased administrative action on your account. Insults against other VJ members will not be tolerated. Make your point without insults.

VJ Moderation Team

Somehow I am going to get blamed....again.

[Dakine10 5,452]

This makes sense, but why would it be connected with the state? It seems more like a breach of contract than a criminal act.

Basically whatever the divorcing couple comes up with - a parenting plan or mediated agreement - gets added to the court order as exibit A. So in many ways it is more or less like a contract, but it's also one that is enforcable by the courts.

[William33 110]

Somehow I am going to get blamed....again.

You only quoted the infraction. Relax.

[luckytxn 2,264]

You only quoted the infraction. Relax.

I was kidding Williams. Not the least concerned.