Posted on 08/02/2012 3:28:17 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
A 10-year-old Jewish girl may become a Christian after a judge rejected claims by her mother that she had been “brainwashed” and was too young to change faith.
Judge John Platt said: “My job is to decide simply what is best for you and I have decided that the best thing for you is that you are allowed to start your baptism classes as soon as they can be arranged and that you are baptised as a Christian as soon as your minister feels you are ready.” But the judge stressed that it did not mean the girl would lose her Jewish heritage.
The girl was born in 2001 to Jewish parents. Her mother and father divorced in 2010 and she, and her younger brother, live for a week at a time with each.
Her father converted to Christianity after the breakdown of his marriage.
In November the girl’s mother, without telling anyone, sought a court order forbidding the father from baptising or confirming her into the Christian faith.
The father said his daughter told him after an evangelical Christian festival that she had “experienced an encounter with God”. He was initially sceptical and thought she was just “on a high”. The father also said he was “unhappy” when the girl went behind his back to talk to a Sunday school teacher about being baptised.
The girl’s grandparents accused her father of forcing her to give up her Jewish heritage, while a rabbi told the court it would be “unnatural to their soul” to make a child change religion. The judge was scathing about these claims, saying that neither the mother nor the grandparents had made “any real effort” to consider what was best for the girl while the rabbi’s letter was made in “inflammatory terms without any supporting evidence”.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What? Before her Bat Mitzvah?
The horrying attitude of most judges and politicians.
Time to make a clean sweep.
“The horrying attitude of most judges and politicians.”
Naa. They’re just clearing the decks to allow mass conversion to Islam - as the Brits will find out when Muslims hit the 30% mark, with 55% of the younger adults being Muslim, and the non-Muslims being too few and too old to fight.
It’s over.
What’s the big deal? Those monotheists are all alike anyway.
If she tried that from Islam she would be killed.
let’s see here...give up Judaism and convert to an erroneous version of Christianity....how good is that? I guess, because she will be baptized, she will at least be absolved of original sin. Christ, however, laid out a plan for salvation and the protestant church wasn’t mentioned anywhere....in fact it didn’t exist for 1,600 years after He laid out the plan.
>>The horrying attitude of most judges and politicians.<<
Before we knee-jerk, reread the article. It appears Dad is an evangelical Christian and Mom is Jewish.
This is REALLY Mom v. Dad - the judge is using the kid’s wishes as a tie-breaker IMHO.
I didn't see anywhere in the article mentioning she wants to convert to a protestant denomination. In fact, the article talks about the dad who converted before her and mentions "The judge said it was “wholly wrong” for the mother to go to court without discussing it with the father or his priest." If the father's pastor is a priest, then he's probably Catholic, or possibly (though unlikely) Orthodox.
Which version would that be?
“If the father’s pastor is a priest, then he’s probably Catholic, or possibly (though unlikely) Orthodox. ‘
________
Or Episcopalean (sp?).
She can believe in her heart whatever she wants. As for outward signs of a religion (church attendance, baptism, or in other cases wearing a hajib, mosque attendance, or in other cases circumcision, wearing a special hat, attending temple) are up to her parents until she is independent.
In this case, dad’s ok with it, mom’s not, I say let the child split the difference and so as she wills.
That’s the way I see it.
“. Christ, however, laid out a plan for salvation and the protestant church wasn’t mentioned anywhere”
Terycarl, he didn’t mention Roman Catholics, either. He just mentions the church, which RC’s think means them, and Protestants thinks means them.
FYI Bible believing Protestants believe they are the true church, maintained since apostolic times, just like the RC’s do. Where RCs say Protestants left to go with bad doctrine, Protestants say RCs left to go with bad doctrine.
I thought the judge handled it pretty well. He didn’t ask for the case, the parents brought it to him.
He ruled that the girl could continue to study the religion that drew her, that she would still have her jewish roots, and that her parents would continue to love her whatever happened.
I thought he handled it correctly and sensitively. A judge should not be deciding what your religion should be and he didn’t try to. He just refused to deny the girl her right to believe what she already believed which was her father’s religion. Had she been from a Christian mother attracted to her father’s jewish faith the correct answer would still be the same.
Except one of those holds that the Scriptures are the authority for believers, the other clings to a single guy in a bathrobe, with a pointy hat.
Hm there are several incorrect things in your statement, but let's start with the idea that Jesus laid out a plan for salvation. Jesus said "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." therefore, if we are honest it is not Jesus's plan of salvation, but the Father's. {Jesus is merely the executor of it. (If "merely" can be applied to Jesus, that is.)}
Secondly, where can you find the doctrine that baptism washes away sin, original or otherwise? 1 John 1:7 states clearly that it is Jesus's own blood that washes away all sin. {Then there's Paul and James to consider.}
This is REALLY Mom v. Dad - the judge is using the kid’s wishes as a tie-breaker IMHO.
EXACTLY.
I must admit I get tired of FReepers who immediately blame "big government" without knowing the facts.
Courts have had to, for hundreds of years, parse between religious convictions of divorced couples' kids. Nothing new, nor "big government"-like about this case. Just rather sad.
Similarly, libertarian-minded folks think if only government "got out of the marriage business," the homosexual-marriage debate would go away.
Such individuals know nothing about the complexities of English law involving marriage--complexities going back hundreds of years.
Baptismal regeneration isn’t as easy to dismiss as many want to assume:
“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...” (1 Peter 3:21, in the New American Standard Bible (widely considered the most literal of English translations))
Whoops, I meant to send the below to OneWingedShark, not freedumb2003.
Baptismal regeneration isn’t as easy to dismiss as many want to assume:
“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...” (1 Peter 3:21, in the New American Standard Bible (widely considered the most literal of English translations))
I’m not really here to argue about baptism though... My main point is like freedumb2003—this is a parental custody issue, NOT a Judge-determining-religion/big government issue.
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.