Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: longtermmemmory
This is a divorce case NOT a religion case.

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.

28 posted on 05/14/2012 8:50:27 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: OneWingedShark

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.


30 posted on 05/14/2012 9:00:19 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: OneWingedShark

Perhaps; but the disturbing thing in this case is the court’s readiness and willingness to violate the State Constitution so flagrantly.


Right, if not for that it would have come out with out any hand cuffs, chains, dehumanization, and a whole lot less hate.

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.


38 posted on 05/15/2012 9:22:30 AM PDT by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson