Mom may face jail for kids' baptisms

[William33 110]

I was kidding Williams. Not the least concerned.

Not concerned? You should reconsider your approach to other members, as outlined in post 16. This is borderline....FYI.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Not concerned? You should reconsider your approach to other members, as outlined in post 16. This is borderline....FYI.

Nothing in that post comes close to be TOS. I was responding to the post where I was asked why I was talking about their religion. If I was close please ban me and I would like other mods to comment so we can get clarity on ridiculous statement like you just made here.

[William33 110]

This quote, is borderline TOS, because you insulted "dismissed" another VJ member with your opinion. This is not a respectful way to argue a point.

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.

Edited April 1, 2012 by William33

[luckytxn 2,264]

This quote, is borderline TOS, because you insulted "dismissed" another VJ member with your opinion. This is not a respectful way to argue a point.

If you had bothered to read what that particular post was responding to then maybe you would see why I posted it. The poster falsely said I had mentioned their religion. I had not at all and let them know that and also said how it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There was no insult in the least. You are wrong here on this. Again if I violated a TOS then ban me. I am no better than anyone else here.

Is this a new ruling from VJ site itself? Or is it your own opinion?

[SMOKE 1,426]

This quote, is borderline TOS, because you insulted "dismissed" another VJ member with your opinion. This is not a respectful way to argue a point.

hi william. welcome to VJ P&R forum.

[William33 110]

If you had bothered to read what that particular post was responding to then maybe you would see why I posted it. The poster falsely said I had mentioned their religion. I had not at all and let them know that and also said how it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There was no insult in the least. You are wrong here on this. Again if I violated a TOS then ban me. I am no better than anyone else here.

Is this a new ruling from VJ site itself? Or is it your own opinion?

If your intent was different than it appeared to the readers, then there is no foul. We all write our opinions and theories in a different way and I believe you have explained your position adequately. Thanks for the clarification.

[luckytxn 2,264]

If your intent was different than it appeared to the readers, then there is no foul. We all write our opinions and theories in a different way and I believe you have explained your position adequately. Thanks for the clarification.

I hope you are a better moderator wherever you usually are then shown here. Thanks for allowing me to needlessly explain my position.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

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

[William33 110]

I hope you are a better moderator wherever you usually are then shown here. Thanks for allowing me to needlessly explain my position.

Moderators must deal with all levels of skill, in writing in the English language. Sometimes a point made in a post is not clearly delineated. Cheers.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

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

To whom is this being directed?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

This quote, is borderline TOS, because you insulted "dismissed" another VJ member with your opinion. This is not a respectful way to argue a point.

Yet, the language that gave rise to the response was clearly a TOS in as much as it was an ad hominem attack. The vagaries of language aside, there can be no mistake as to its nature or intent.

[natty bumppo 297]

I hope you are a better moderator wherever you usually are then shown here. Thanks for allowing me to needlessly explain my position.

Moderators must deal with all levels of skill, in writing in the English language. Sometimes a point made in a post is not clearly delineated. Cheers.

nice to see you two finally got a room ....

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I'm not religious and don't believe that baptism means anything in the grand scheme so if my spouse were religious and I prevented the baptism it would be out of spite.

In this case though both are religious. It's obvious that during mediation or even in some other agreement they mentioned this baptism issue and it was a point of contention that they wanted written down which is why the court had it put in the Order. It's also obvious given the OP that they had agreed to wait but just couldn't agree on how long and had sought a ministers advice. Given they had agreed to wait some period (yet didn't know how long) it looks like the mother baptised out of spite. That certainly sounds like the way this "special" ceremony should have been conducted.

Someone makes an argument about her being methodist and how her religion states baptism by a certain age and how waiting is against it or something. Well then why was she previously okay with waiting and suddenly during the divorce not okay? Because she wanted to get back at her ex.

The simple truth is she violated a court order. We haven't seen the court order, we weren't involved in how the court order came about, but it was there and she broke the law and needs to be punished for it. It just sucks that people are turning this into a religious debate. Again it's not about religion, it would be just like she moved out of state when the court order said she couldn't (another civil liberty right? Able to live wherever you want to or whatever). She broke the law, she pays the price. That simple. If she's willing to violate this what else will she violate? The father did the right thing reporting her.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Ok, another day another view.

So I could see how both parties could have volunteered to entered the religious co-upbringing into the court order. However, I'm still thinking that the state/district court should have refused to enter that that particular item into the agreement and here's why.

The court found her in criminal contempt instead of civil contempt because they say that the baptism cannot be undone. Therefore they, a secular court, have made a religious interpretation that they are not equipped to make. How do they know that a Baptism cannot be undone?

As a Christian protestant, I am aware of both views of baptism. The infant baptism view is that baptism is a vehicle for the Holy Spirit to grow faith in the child, where as Believer baptism is the view that faith must be demonstrated prior to Baptism. Generally, those who support Believer baptism view Infant baptism as invalid. Therefore in the case of the two children their baptisms are viewed as invalid rather than something that cannot be undone - ie. they may be baptized at later date when they show faith.

So, the court, without the proper theological background, decided to turn what should have been a civil contempt into a criminal one. That's reason enough that any and all religious practices should remain outside of a secular court. If the parents were arguing over the religious upbringing they should have volunteered to go before a religious court. That is the reason they exist, be it Christian, Jewish, Sharia etc.

[Dan and Judy 614]

It is well accepted in our society that courts have authority in divorce to decide who gets custody of the kids.

That custody determines the rights or lack of rights of each parent.

Courts are making the decision of which parent has the right to make religious decisions for the kids everyday.