Posted on 02/16/2010 9:26:07 AM PST by OldDeckHand
Joseph Reyes Baptized Daughter Without Informing Estranged Wife
A veteran of the war in Afghanistan could find out today if he'll get jail time for taking his daughter to church in defiance of a Chicago family court order obtained by his estranged wife.
The two are in a bitter divorce battle, and the question of what faith their child should be raised in is pushing the boundaries of child custody arrangements.
Reyes' decision to baptize his daughter without his wife's permission resulted in what some are calling an extraordinary court order: The Hon. Edward R. Jordan in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., imposed a 30-day restraining order forbidding Joseph Reyes from, according to the document, "exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion. …"
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
It’s why we don’t do family law anymore at my firm: just too much bitterness, hate and anger between people who at one time professed to love each other. Some of them will use anything and anybody, children foremost, to hurt the other.
Pitiful.
Colonel, USAFR
I went to the article to see if they stated the age of the child.
The child in question is 3 years old.
In the Roman Catholic Faith, babies are baptized, but are not “Confirmed” in the Faith until they are about 12 or 13. It is beleived that, by that time, they are old enough to make a decision to be a true “Soldier of Christ”, even receiving a little slap on the cheek as part of the ceremony to indicate that they might even have to suffer for this decision.
In The Jewish Faith, there is a similar approach, when a child becomes Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah, a Son (or Daughter) of the Law. This also occurs around age 13.
So both parents are just being snippy.
In the Roman Catholic Faith, babies are baptized, but are not “Confirmed” in the Faith until they are about 12 or 13. It is beleived that, by that time, they are old enough to make a decision to be a true “Soldier of Christ”
Ditto the United Methodist Church: at ours, they go through confirmation class, usually in 8th grade, and are then full members of the church. My gripe has always been that the church leadership gives lip service to “full membership”, but won’t include confirmed youth in leadership or voting unless somebody (read “me”) makes an issue of it.
Colonel, USAFR
Once a Youth is Bar Mitzvah, they have full rights and responsibilities in the temple, including doing readings from the Torah and being part of a Minyan (ten adults need for a service!
A children's political affiliation is not important as a child can't vote, and exposing the child to different political views different from one parent does not cause any major problems. However, most religions are mutually exclusive.
All the judge is trying to do is to keep as much peace and normalcy in the life of the child while the issues get worked out. If it was your way, every week would be going back and forth converting to Christianity, then back to judaism, then back to Christianity, then back to Judaism, etc. That is obviously not in the child's interest. The comparable issue for politics doesn't matter as the kid can't register to vote until he is 18. Your way is pure chaos and damaging to the child.
Without knowing anything else about your story, I'd wager any sum of money that the wife was never prosecuted for filing a false police report.
Ditto the United Methodist Church: at ours, they go through confirmation class, usually in 8th grade, and are then full members of the church.
Interestingly, ALL examples of baptism in the Bible occur with adults who make a conscious decision to make a life-changing decision.
Yep, you keep glossing over it. This isn't a question about whether a child can fully participate in the political process, or a religious belief. As several have pointed out, both Catholics and Jews have specific ceremonies where a child - of his/her own free will - joins or is recognized in their respective religions. AFAIK, there is nothing that will keep this young girl from performing a Bat Mitzvah ritual in her teenage years, if she was baptized in her adolescence. Also, there's nothing to keep the girl form making her first communion, or confirmation if she attends Temple every Saturday during her adolescence.
Moreover, the judge didn't order the father to not baptize the child, the judge ordered the father to not take the child to church. As Catholics, we have "Mass for shut-ins". Could the judge order the father to NOT invite his local parish priest to his own home and perform Mass there?
"A children's political affiliation is not important as a child can't vote, and exposing the child to different political views different from one parent does not cause any major problems."
Says you. I would argue that exposing a child to multiple religions - as hundred of thousands of children in the country are, every day - won't cause "any major problems" either. But, we get back to the 1st Amendment. What if the mother didn't want any competing political philosophy (like she doesn't want any competing religious philosophy) exposed to her child? Is it within the judges constitutional purview to order it so?
It is the judge's purview to look after the best interests of the child during the divorce. Those are complicated issues, so basically the judge's keep everything the same until the issues can be heard. So, for example, who is going to get what car? Who is going to pay the loan on it? That issue gets worked out, but until then the judge says "whatever was going on before the separation stays the same".
The judge is simply doing the same thing here.
Now, I am not religious, so I don't particularly care and I think its fine if the kid is exposed to many religions, but unfortunetly the long history of divorce in this country shows that the religion of the child is something that is bitterly fought over so I have no problem with the judge saying "hey, just keep it the way it was until we work it out".
That is assuming of course that the kids was being raised as jewish at the time of separation, which I am not sure about but I would be willing to bet is the case.
No, but there was a period when Cousin had to be supervised on every visit with his son.
The real loser here is the son. Thanks to the parents’ bickering, he now has some “issues.” To this day, the relationship between father and son is strained...thanks to the greedy, vindictive mother. It’s really heartbreaking.
Therein lies the problem with the state of America's family court system. This concept of "best interest of the child" has become so over-broad, that parents are in court litigating every aspect of the custody arrangement.
The court has absolutely NO BUSINESS interjecting itself into matter of religious worship or religious & political education. As I said, divorce is a family divided. When the child is with the father on his days of visitation/custody, then the child will be exposed to the things that are important to the father. And, the opposite is true on days where the mother has visitation/custody. If the mother wants to keep a kosher home, that's fine. But the mother, nor the court, has any place or right to tell the estranged father what kind of food he keeps in his home, or that the child has access to while there.
"So, for example, who is going to get what car? Who is going to pay the loan on it? That issue gets worked out, but until then the judge says "
That's absolutely right because those are questions that need to be answered in the dissolution of the marriage contract. The court certainly has a role or a mandate to intervene when a marriage, or any contract is severed. But, the court has (or shouldn't have) no role with respect to how the individual parents actually parent.
Like many things in life, the state (vis-a-vis the court) needs to restrain itself from interjecting its authority in the daily lives of people, to include how estranged parents raise their children.
OK fair enough, I can accept that the judge shouldn’t get involved. I will stand by my view however that he is not doing it out of some evil view to micromanage the kids religion, but rather the long history of family courts that has led them to try to preserve normalcy during a separation.
Interestingly, ALL examples of baptism in the Bible occur with adults who make a conscious decision to make a life-changing decision
wrong again....there are numerous examples where entire households were baptized.....confirmation establishes your willingness to accept the religion, Baptism frees you from the penalties of original sin
Courts have no jurisdiction in matters of religion. Regardless of which way they might rule, it would violate a first ammendment right.
The judge needs to be punished for ruling in an area where he had no authority or venue. Religion cannot be ruled by any branch of government.
The judge should have simply explained to the parents that he could not interfere.
Nonsense! - Christ paid the price of sin on the cross, and being free form the penalty thereof requires belief in Jesus Christ. Baptism is a symbol of that awakening of belief, and by itself does nothing.
Just ask Edgardo Mortara: the Catholics (and I was raised one) are famous for this.
Nonsense! - Christ paid the price of sin on the cross, and being free form the penalty thereof requires belief in Jesus Christ. Baptism is a symbol of that awakening of belief, and by itself does nothing
sorry, but you don’t get to make up the rules as you go along.....Baptism is for the release of the penalty of original sin.....for 2000 years, the church that Jesus founded has proclaimed that as dogma.....now you want to change it....well O.K. I guess, but I don’t think you are smarter than Thomas Aquinas, Boneventure, Teresa, and dozens of other doctors of the church who believed and taught exactly what I have posted . Why is it that Protestants refuse to accept 2,000 years of Catholocity and decide to make their own rules....simply amazing and pathetic
That is totally contrary to God’s word!
God’s word is the authority, not fallible men.
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.