We read:
"A Tennessee Court of Appeals has held that a Shelby County mother must face criminal contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for violating a court order and baptizing her two children, ages 5 and 7, without the knowledge or consent of her ex-husband.
Both parents are Christian. Mom is Presbyterian. Dad is Methodist. They fought during their marriage about stupid stuff like how old the kids should be for baptizing. Dad thought the children should be baptized when they are older and better able to understand the significance of the baptismal ceremony.
A lower court had already found the mother in contempt of court for violating its order not to baptize the kids without dad’s permission. "Obviously she knew that the father did not want the children baptized at that age and she did that without telling him," huffed one attorney. "She violated the court order."
Now daddy wants mommy convicted of criminal contempt after discovering that she baptized the kids against his wishes. The Court of Appeals decision sides with daddy, holding that criminal contempt proceedings are more appropriate because the mother can't undo the baptisms.
If the judges in this case had simply read the First Amendment they would have discovered that the whole dispute about baptism was none of their goddamned business. One need not be a legal expert to know that a court of law in the United States of America can’t order a mother to refrain from baptizing her own kids. It’s inconceivable. Under the court’s reasoning she might be found in contempt for praying with her kids against daddy’s wishes.
It’s not exactly like she was starving them or withholding medical treatment. She simply allowed a minister at her church to sprinkle some holy water on them while waiving his hands and mumbling a harmless ritual. If daddy doesn’t like it, he can surely repeat the process at his own church when the kids are older. I’m sure God won’t mind.
Source
23 comments:
I agree with the court.
This was a bone of contention between the parents when they got divorced, and it was actually added as part of the divorce agreement that the children would not be baptized until both parents agreed. She then reneged on the deal.
Mythological delusions trump the court any day.
Screw the judge and screw her ex tell both of them to GO TO HELL
A court order either carries the full weight of the law or it is worthless. The details of the court order don't matter.
The court did the right thing. It doesn't matter WHAT was done, it matters that the father and mother agreed that it NOT be done. It could have been anything, such as buying a pair of sneakers. Also, the 1st Amendment is about individual rights, not the right to impose a religious act on another. The mother had no right to impose on her kids something that both parents agreed to.
Baptism is a purely religious ritual and irrelevant to what a child's name is on its birth certificate. I gather the mother usually has control over that, at least in the first instance.
Yes, keep Church and State separate for that and all other reasons.
Is their decision not a violation of the (albeit imaginary) separation of church and state clause?
I think Anon 2:07 hit on the key issue. An agreement to not baptize the children was part of the legal proceedings of the divorce. That gave the agreement the force of law, and puts mommy dearest in contempt of court.
On the other hand, if it had not been part of the legal agreement, then the court would not have had any legitimate authority to make any ruling on which religious belief was correct. This is the point that Thomas Jefferson was making to the Danbury Baptists when he wrote his famous "separate of church and state" letter.
IMHO, when to baptize is a far smaller issue in Christianity than building a stable marriage, something both parents failed at in a big way. This seems a bit like straining at a gnat but swallowing a came.
Anonymous 2:13,
There is no 'Separation of Church and state' clause. See Luke's explanation for the origin of the phrase.
As for the court's duty in this, IMO they are not going against religious expression. They are simply dealing with a woman who promised to abide by rules set down by her and her husband, then broke that promise, which was legally documented.
She is guilty, but the punishment? I'll leave that up to the judge and lawyers.
Frankly, they both sound like spiteful brats, not even worth the attention they're getting.
2:46 - 2:13 didn't say there was such a clause, but simply it was a good idea!
Baptism is the outward expression of an internal decision. If the children were too young, in the father's opinion, then it isn't actually baptism. Dad needs to get over it. If he divorced his wife over the age of baptism, then he is no Christ-follower.
Baptism is the outward expression of an internal decision.
There are two types of baptisms. The first is, as you say, an outward expression of an internal decision.
The other type of baptism takes its roots in the Old Testament and is a form of consecration - where the parents agree to raise the child in a religious manner. As we don't kill animals for sacrifices anymore, water for infant baptism suffices.
And in case you are wondering, Christ was consecrated by his earthly parents in accordance with Jewish law.
This doesn't appear to be a First Amendment / freedom of religion case.
According to the court's decision found here:
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/jarrelllaurenopn.pdf
Quoting the decision: As relevant to this appeal, the Parenting Plan provided that “major decisions”
regarding “religious upbringing” should be made jointly. However, “[i]n the event of a
dispute” concerning such decisions, the parties agreed to submit the dispute “to a mutually
agreed upon parenting mediator.” The parties’ MDA,(Marital Dissolution Agreement) which incorporated the Parenting Plan,
further provided for the recovery of “reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred
. . . in securing performance.”
.....
In October 2010, Mother
had the parties’ children baptized without Father’s knowledge or consent.
This is a clear violation of a court order (the MDA) and should be handled as such. It is not a religious issue.
Brian, that's why i said "albeit immaginary", meaning, i don't believe it exists.
And Anon 2:55, i didn't say it was a good idea.
the court is correct here. There was a contract, with power of a court order, signed as part of the divorce agreement.
The mother broke that contract, thereby violating a court order, which brings her in contempt.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or religion.
Christ was Baptised in water. There is no reason the kids should not have been. The courts need to keep out of this. The father was wrong.
Hey, it's just a bit of water and some magical incantations. No big deal.
2:13 There were two postings at exactly the same time of 2:13 AM, hence your confusion!
The court is a fool for even letting the parents include such a clause in the agreement in the first place.
It should have either refused to add the clause or preemptively noted that it would not be legally able to enforce that particular item.
"...hence your confusion!"
That seems to apply to everyone here. That is common in the Religion industry.
The court is a fool for even letting the parents include such a clause in the agreement in the first place.
The "clause" you speak of is a general clause that demands both parents be involved in "major parenting decisions."
How is such a clause inappropriate or "foolish?"
The greatists judge of them all lives way up there
Judge Judy?
Post a Comment