Posted on 05/13/2012 9:39:27 AM PDT by SmithL
Last December, a 12-year-old boy was baptized in a Karns Baptist church.
Four months later, his mother went to jail as a result.
"I was in complete shock," Stephanie "Stacy" Miller recalled of the day in April when Knox County Fourth Circuit Court Judge Bill Swann ordered her jailed. "The guy had to drag me down the hallway. I was like, 'I just had my son baptized.' I laid my head (on the arresting deputy's) shoulder and just cried, 'Please, help me.'"
Swann's controversial decision is raising questions about the use of the state's criminal contempt law to punish parents in divorce disputes, the inclusion of religion in parenting plan agreements, the influence of parents on a child's religious choices and the age at which a child should be allowed to make decisions of faith.
That Stacy Miller's son was baptized at Grace Baptist Church in Karns in a Dec. 18 ceremony attended by his father, Stephen Miller, is not in dispute. That Stacy Miller went to jail in late April at her ex-husband's behest is also not a matter of debate.
Almost everything else about the case is, however, hotly contested.
The controversy began when 12-year-old Caleb Miller, a regular attendee at Grace's Wednesday night youth services, announced a decision to be baptized.
The boy would later testify at a deposition that he "made a profession of faith" in Jesus Christ as savior — the overriding tenet of Christianity — while his parents were still married.
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
In July 2010, his parents finalized their divorce. Stacy Miller was represented at the time by attorney Keith Pope, who would later admit he was addicted to cocaine. She signed a parenting agreement at the behest of Pope that gave both her and her ex-husband "joint decision making" on matters including "religious upbringing."
Considering that he's an Episcopalian and she's a Baptist, that's going to be a major conflict.
I sympathize with Stacy Miller and Holland. Bad counsel can do a number on one's life.
This story is not about:
religion or freedom there of
the rights of the boy
parental issues
parents not agreeing on a religion
This story is about one thing and one thing only:
REVENGE
Daddy wanted revenge on mommy and he got it using religion, his child, the courts, jails, and lawyers.
Well daddy I hope it was worth it. You hurt your ex wife but also you child.
“When you embark on the journey of revenge dig two graves” -Confucius
“The father says the boy was crying that he “had” to be baptized. Children are very, very, very manipulative re their divorced parents. “
Now wait just a second. The boy said he “had” to be baptized.
He may have said that but in what context?
as in....
“Dad I have to be baptized” ie mom, grandparents and church are forcing this upon me.
or
“Dad I have to be baptized” ie Dad I have found God, accepted Jesus as my savior and I feel the urgent need to be baptized as soon as possible.
See my point?
Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Section 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
IMO, sounds like the judge should be punched in the face, and then laughed out of the courtroom.
And how do those points line up w/ the Tennessee State Constitution:
TN Constitution, Article 1
Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Section 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
Does the judge, perhaps, think that he is not a "human authority"?
Does the judge presume that the boy's decisions [and right to make that decision] to "worship Almighty God according to the dictates of [his] own conscience" may be nullified? (i.e. that it is not indefeasible.)
This is a divorce case NOT a religion case.
They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.
She reaped what she sowed.
>>She signed a parenting agreement at the behest of Pope that gave both her and her ex-husband “joint decision making” on matters including “religious upbringing.”
>
>Considering that he’s an Episcopalian and she’s a Baptist, that’s going to be a major conflict.
Not really; the TM Constitution makes such agreement null and void: Art 1, Sec 3.
{Hint: because such agreement denied the right of the son to worship God “according to the dictates of his conscience;” and also because the enforcement of it would be reliant on a “human authority.”}
That's right; it is a constitutional case. I'll get to that addressing your next point.
They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.
Utterly irrelevant. Why? Because of the wording of the TN Constitution:
Art 1, Section 3.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
To assert that this agreement has any binding force is to reject the above portion of the State's Constitution.
It violates the underlined portion in that it prevents the boy from worshiping according to his own conscience; i.e. that he is prevented from, say, being a Catholic [or trained thereby] if the parents are against it.
It violates the italicized portion in that he is being compelled to support [by his presence] the religious institutions in the agreement.
It violates the bolded part in that the enforcement thereof is reliant upon human authority to control and interfere with those rights of conscience.
She reaped what she sowed.
Perhaps; but the disturbing thing in this case is the court's readiness and willingness to violate the State Constitution so flagrantly.
The mother AGREED not to do exactly what she did. She signed the agreement. She was represented by counsel or had the right to counsel.
She AGREED to the jurisdiction and the court enforcing the agreement. She got EXACTLY what she agreed to recieve if she violated the agreement.
The father’s religious rights are in that agreement too.
He had a different religious view and they AGREED to abide by it. She had to respect his rights and that was the written, signed, and court ratified agreement.
This is nothing about the constitution. There are two equally important religious rights here. Father and Mother. The Mother contumaciously chose to ignore the court ratified agreement she signed and the father’s constitutional right, in that order.
>This is nothing about the constitution.
It is; but the court will likely not mention that detail.
>There are two equally important religious rights here. Father and Mother.
They may be equally important, but what of the SON’S?
Or do you mean to assert that o “contract” involving HIS mode of worship is binding upon him?
>The Mother contumaciously chose to ignore the court ratified agreement she signed and the father’s constitutional right, in that order.
Ah, so if a parent signed their children into slavery then “tough-shit kid, there’s a contract. Suck it up!”?
No, the agreement CANNOT be construed to do so without violating the State’s Constitution; if my assertion is incorrect, then prove it.
I have had experience with judges, personal basis and professional basis. Most of them are wanna-be kings. It boggles a persons conception of individual integrity/equality as to having many of these judges, at all levels, having the power they have over other people.
“The mother AGREED not to do exactly what she did.”
With out reading all the court papers I can’t say if what she did was right or wrong.
However several FReepers have brought up an excellent point. There are 12 year olds who can have sex and get free condoms from the guberment without parental knowledge so then why can’t a 12 year old boy make a choice on his own to be baptized?
Judges, especially federal ones, must be brought under political control.
He seems to have created a martyr out of Stacy. He’s also a jerk.
They think of them selves as Gods, i think some of them are Gods alright GDSOBs. In the first place the justice system
should refuse to be involved in those sort of things.
Does it make sense that this same justice system is trying to take away parental rights when it comes to under age girls getting abortions, but in order to get a bath it must be agreed upon by both parents?
And yes, at that age a bath with out soap and a wash rag is really all it amounts to.
Oh, c’mon. 98% of judges are jerks, or they wouldn’t be where they are.
This is a divorce case NOT a religion case.
They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.
She reaped what she sowed.
Perhaps; but the disturbing thing in this case is the court’s readiness and willingness to violate the State Constitution so flagrantly.
But like in a lot of cases the hate will not come from the one that got abused, it will come from people like myself although i am not a hater by nature i am getting fed up with too much Government.
Well, yeah! But I was in a generous mood when I posted.
The mother AGREED not to do exactly what she did. She signed the agreement. She was represented by counsel or had the right to counsel.
She AGREED to the jurisdiction and the court enforcing the agreement. She got EXACTLY what she agreed to recieve if she violated the agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.