if you go before a judge and he rules on your case, you would be a very wise man to do what the judge says. if you do not do what the judge says, you probably will piss him off. if you piss him off, he will make life unpleasant for you. if you dont like what the judge says, there is a thing called an appeal. if you cant play by the rules, better think about moving. these folks can hurt you if you act like an idiot

#1 drunk
The father did the right thing. The next step, and the appeal you speak of is before the judicial ethics board. This judge needs a vacation from public service.

Do not reproduce with people who you don't and can't get along with. Every bit of this is his own fault.

Friggin nuts---all of you.............

Cryin won't help ya..............

.................Pryin won't do you no good.........

Wouldn't it be nice if there actually was a god who could step in and clear up silly little matters like this?

Wouldn't it be nice if people could solve their own stupidity, instead of waiting for God to magically do it, then blaming him when it doesn't happen?

FTA: Adding to Reyes' disgust at the situation, is the fact that the money being used to prosecute him for taking his daughter to church comes from his father-in-law's work for Playboy. Howard Shapiro, is the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the company.

"How Howard Shapiro can make his living from pornography and then object to me taking my daughter to church is beyond my understanding.".

Spud imagines the list of things that go beyond Reyes' understanding to be pretty farking huge.

Both parents seem to be meshugena by Spud's lights.

Using a three year old girl as a pawn in their nasty divorce makes both parents look bad.

Hopefully this guy gets a court mandate after this stunt that limit his access to his kid to supervised visitation only until he proves his ability to act responsibly.

dethspud....how is the father acting irresponsibly by taking his daughter to church?

IMO it was the Jewish grandfather (who apparently makes enough from Playboy Ent as the Exec VP to file frivolous lawsuits) has overstepped his bounds, as well as the judge, and used the three year old as a pawn.

This case needs to be negotiated by the father and mother. Both the grandfather and the obviously biased judge need to be excluded from the process.

"Wouldn't it be nice if people could solve their own stupidity...."

Religious stupidity?

Don't count on it.

Spud likes controversy and stupid people. He will side with error before he sides with truth.

Supposedly each human being has the freedom of religion, not this man, if he is with his daughter he cannot exercise that freedom? That doesn't sound right.

This CBS video is enlightening:

dethspud....how is the father acting irresponsibly by taking his daughter to church?

Because at three years old she's not learning anything from the process and because he has been expressly forbidden from proselytizing since his baptism stunt.

Just before Christmas, a judge issued a temporary restraining order specifically barring Reyes from exposing his daughter to any religion other than Judaism after Reyes had his daughter Baptized without the knowledge of his estranged Jewish wife.

He's now pressing the issue deliberately in order to make himself out to be a modern Xian martyr replete with a legal defense fund that makes him appear so.

IMO it was the Jewish grandfather (who apparently makes enough from Playboy Ent as the Exec VP to file frivolous lawsuits) has overstepped his bounds, as well as the judge, and used the three year old as a pawn.

The Jewish grandfather may be footing the bills here but the suit was filed by the mother's lawyer.

Now the lawyer representing Rebecca Reyes (formerly Rebecca Shapiro) has filed a Motion for Criminal Contempt, asking that Joseph Reyes face criminal charges for defying the judge's order.

See?

This case needs to be negotiated by the father and mother. Both the grandfather and the obviously biased judge need to be excluded from the process.

If the mother and father were capable of coming to a mature, mutually agreed upon resolution to this matter they would have and this story would never have made it to the papers.

Ergo cooler and calmer heads need to prevail here and fer that the law has to become involved.

Spud imagines this little girl will grow up to become a Buddhist or an atheist just to piss both her parents off after all this nonsense.

Deciding wot religion to bring the kids up is optimally something that people need to discuss and agree upon before any wedding vows are made.

Be Well.

This is absurd. I am an atheist and think the church is a bad influence on people, but the government has no right to intefere with someone raising their kid as long as nothing illegal takes place. And taking a kid to church is not illegal. This won't stand in the appeal which is sure to follow

Based on the comments the dad is making about his father-in-law working for Playboy and the fact he baptized the child without his estranged wife's permission, it sounds to me like he's doing all of this for personal animus, not religious freedom.

The Supreme Court has never heard a case regarding religious upbringing and custody, according to this link on the issue:

To get the TRO you need to show that without it, the child will suffer "irreparable harm." I don't see how you can prove "irreparable harm" based on what fairytale a parent decides to teach the child.

Then I found something that likely explains it all: "Judge Edward Jordan is the former head of the Decalogue Society, the Jewish Bar."

"This is absurd. I am an atheist and think the church is a bad influence on people, but the government has no right to intefere with someone raising their kid as long as nothing illegal takes place."

YEAH!

And do you Know whats even More Absurd?

Internet(s) busy-bodies feeling compelled to spew their own judicial pontifications as valid --- with only the limited facts provided by the MSM!

For people who don't think highly of the MSM as much ------- you sure rely on the word of the MSM, much!

Oh well - I guess we can close down the website then, since commenting on the "limited information" in news articles is now stupid per Redneckville.

Go shoot yourself.

The WingDings are So Desperate to Disparage the non-religious --- they willingly Flock to the Aid of an Obvious Dick using his Child as a Weapon in a domestic dispute.

It's really quite sad -------- and telling of their religious sincerity!

"Then I found something that likely explains it all: "Judge Edward Jordan is the former head of the Decalogue Society, the Jewish Bar.""

Do you similarly fear when, say, five Catholics make up the majority of nine justices?

And do you Know whats even More Absurd?
Internet(s) busy-bodies feeling compelled to spew their own judicial pontifications as valid --- with only the limited facts provided by the MSM!

What would you suggest that we do -- hold back our thoughts until we can personally gather information on a current event, form judicious opinions and only then speak up long after anyone cares?

If we wanted to do that, we'd be in academia.

Do you similarly fear when, say, five Catholics make up the majority of nine justices?

I don't "fear" this judge or your scenario, and I said nothing that would indicate that to be the case.

I find it a lot easier to explain why a judge would find a parent's fear that their daughter would be raised a non-jew to constitute "irreparable harm" for purposes of a TRO when the judge is a prominent jew. That's all I said, and anything you feel like twisting it into is your own problem.

Do you similarly fear when, say, five Catholics make up the majority of nine justices?

more paranioa.

So was Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi...all Catholics?

"Oh well - I guess we can close down the website then, since commenting, bla, bla, bla."

No one said commenting (i.e., like "this guy is a dick") was inappropriate on this thread.

What I called out were the obvious Loons who were injecting the "government" as the villain in all this.
What I called out where the people who see the word "Christian" and immediately defend, no matter how unsavory, and or seize this event as political fodder --- no matter how damaging this is for the child who is obviously already suffering enough.

Not Catholics, but CINOs.

I don't think it has to be paranoid to make an issue of the fact that Catholics have a majority on our Supreme Court. I was raised Catholic and think that's an unfortunate situation. I hope Obama and the next president take note of it in making their nominations. There should be diversity on the court.

You know, I think everyone's opinion would be significantly different if he was taking her to Buddhist services, Ba'hai services, or satanic services. Sorry. Dad doesn't magically get to decide what religion the child grows up in. This is how a divorce works. Get over it.

And as far as the ethics complaint; that would be tossed out faster than it was even raised. This is an incredibly common ruling.

What's wrong with Catholics?

Sorry. Dad doesn't magically get to decide what religion the child grows up in. This is how a divorce works. Get over it.

Why does the other parent get to decide?

You know, I think everyone's opinion would be significantly different if he was taking her to Buddhist services, Ba'hai services, or satanic services.

good point. imagine it being some sort of satanic service and the mother staunchly against it. we would expect the judge to listen to that concern.

The state should butt out of the matter entirely.

In general, yes. But the couple invited the State into their lives when they filed for divorce.

It's fairly well understood that, when parents are of differing religions, the child inherits the religion of the mother. And the father converted to Judaism when his daughter was born, and there's a "he said/she said" regarding an agreement to raise the child in the Jewish faith.

Now, I do agree that "irreparable harm" does not occur when a father takes a child to a church other than the mother's, per se. That being said, from what I gleaned from the article, I get the feeling that allowing the father to spend any time with the daughter whatsoever will result in harm.

It's fairly well understood that, when parents are of differing religions, the child inherits the religion of the mother.

I've never heard of that. And it's certainly not a standard that has been or should be adopted by a court of law.

Funny how children have no say whatsoever in the decision. We hear the fallacy "free will" thrown around all the time by theists. In what way has this little girl expressed her free will? Whose free will is granted in the mutilation of an infant boy's genitalia, surly not the child's? How can a three year old even make an informed decision on baptism or understand what-the-hell baptism is? How can a new-born?

The fight between the parents is an important one, and all the theists on this board know why. If the judge were to say, "bring her back when she is able to read and reason on her own and has been given sufficient education to make a proper decision on which religion she wants to support", they're both fucked. The only way religion can continue is to prey on the ignorant and VERY young. If children were intentionally kept away from religious practice until, say, 15 years old (or older) all religious orders would be confined to the irrational, lonely, and afraid-of-death-deal-makers.

Children are the mother's milk of religion. They spend much of their time and money recruiting children. That's why every church has vacation bible "school", sports programs, "fall festivals" (b/ halloween is the devil), lock-ins, and youth retreats. They MUST get them emotionally invested BEFORE they learn anything about the world or non-parent humans. If they don't, if they wait until the kid reads about Socrates, Spinoza, Einstein, or Horner, or study gene sequencing, or glance at the Hubble images....they will have no interest in the ramblings of ignorant, semi-literate, genocidal, Bronze Age plagiarists and bullshitters who for obvious selfish reasons pretend humans can just load up their responsibilities on a hapless goat and banish the creature to the desert.

Once you've seen the Andromeda Galaxy hurling towards us at 120 kps a burning bush becomes much, much less fascinating.

It's fairly well understood that, when parents are of differing religions, the child inherits the religion of the mother.

I've never heard of that.

You've really never heard that? I thought it was common knowledge. I suppose I should have been more clear and mentioned "when the mother is Jewish."

I would think this falls outside the realm of a court personally.

As to "is it the mother or the father that determines a child's faith," it really depends and there is no concrete ruling on it. Most believe you are what the mother is, but some believe it is what the father is and still others feel it is up to the child to decide which they are.

Snoof,
Even your link shows it is far from "cut and dry"

In the Hellenistic period of the 4th Century BCE1st Century CE some evidence indicates that the offspring of intermarriages between Jewish men and non-Jewish women were considered Jewish[2]; as is usual in prerabbinic texts, there is no mention of conversion on the part of the Gentile spouse. On the other hand, Philo of Alexandria calls the child of a Jew and a non-Jew a nothos (bastard), regardless of whether the non-Jewish parent is the father or the mother [3].

With the emergence of Jewish denominations and the modern rise in Jewish intermarriage in the 20th century, questions about the law of matrilineal descent have assumed greater importance to the Jewish community at large. The heterogeneous Jewish community is divided on the issue of "Who is a Jew?" via descent; matrilineal descent still is the rule within Orthodox Judaism, which also holds that anyone with a Jewish mother has an irrevocable Jewish status, and matrilineal descent is the norm in the Conservative movement. Since 1983, Reform Judaism in the United States of America officially adopted a bilineal policy: one is a Jew if either of one's parents is Jewish, provided that either (a) one is raised as a Jew, by Reform standards, or (b) one engages in an appropriate act of public identification, formalizing a practice that had been common in Reform synagogues for at least a generation.

Even so, those links refer to customs and are not in any way based on an equitable standard of fairness.

mother/father/religion: I was raised a Catholic like my mom, but when I got older and wiser, I became an atheist like my dad although he had zero influence on me. I didn't even know he was one until long after I figured out god was a myth. It was something he never talked about.

But the couple invited the State into their lives when they filed for divorce.

There ought to be reasonable limits on how far the state gets into a family's life after a divorce. Here, the right of a parent to practice religious faith -- and bring a child to those services -- is a strong expression of the First Amendment. I don't see how one parent should be able to compel the state to make the other follow the same religion with the child.

You've really never heard that? I thought it was common knowledge. I suppose I should have been more clear and mentioned "when the mother is Jewish."

That's an practice of Jewish people, not a practice of the court system. Why should it take precedence over the desires of a non-Jewish parent after a divorce?

That's an practice of Jewish people

Not all Jews either Rcade, but the Orthodox.

I don't see how one parent should be able to compel the state to make the other follow the same religion with the child.

I don't either. And I think there's a strong likelihood that the judge sided with the jewish parent because he is also jewish.

There is not enough information in the story to come to any conclusions one way or the other. The judge was the head of the Jewish Bar, so that looks bad. She claims he agreed to raise the child Jewish, he says he never did, but he did convert to Judaism. He says he was forced. No one knows the truth and the story is very vague.

I still feel this is outside the realm of the court to decide. EVEN if the father did convert, he can choose to convert back and should be able to expose his daughter to his faith as well has to her mother's.

Where is the court mediator for this??

The father can do anything legal with his child on his visitation days.

He could be a atheist--and not take the child to any church or synagogue on his days with the child.

People who marry interfaith should be more tolerant of the other spouse's religious practices. I can understand people changing their mind later and deciding that their child should practice their own faith, but when you divorce somebody all bets are off.

That's an practice of Jewish people, not a practice of the court system. Why should it take precedence over the desires of a non-Jewish parent after a divorce?

The father agreed to raise the child in the Jewish tradition, and even converted to Judaism himself when the child was born. He denies the part about raising the child Jewish -- but his conversion is compelling evidence to the contrary.

Had those things not happened, I doubt the judicial order would have been issued.

There is not enough information in the story to come to any conclusions one way or the other.

I tend to agree.

The judge was the head of the Jewish Bar, so that looks bad.

I sort of agree, but judges are usually pretty good at differentiating between their role as a person and their duties as a judge. This is why Sotomayor's off-the-bench "wise latina" comment wasn't an indication of judicial prejudice.

My guess is that ultimately the reason for the order is simply the mother has a much better lawyer than the father.

A 35-year-old Chicago man faces contempt of court charges after defying a court order by taking his three-year-old daughter to a Republican convention Jan. 17. "I have been ordered by a judge not to expose my daughter to anything Republican," Reyes told a reporter. "But I am taking her to hear the teachings of perhaps the most prominent Republican politicians in the history of this great planet of ours.

The mother is a Democrat. The judge was the head of the DNC in the past.

I can't imagine that a judge can declare that the Republican Party is dangerous to the upbringing of a child.

Having a better or lousy lawyer is not supposed to sway what the law says about visitation of the parent and the child.

And it doesn't matter what they did during the marriage.

The court mediator is to be the facilitator on these kinds of issues.

The judge oiverstepped and the father is going to win.

"The father can do anything legal with his child on his visitation days."

See what I Mean!? You people will rush to his aid even though it's obvious this incident isn't about religious teachings.
If this guy was really concerned about the religious teachings of his kid --- he wouldn't be making a Media Circus Out of it.
This is simply an angry man using his kid as a weapon in what is already a very traumatic event in this Childs life!
And im sure the WingDings will be Eager to Make Political Hay at the Expense of this child (see above)!
You people are Truly Disgusting!

"I think there's a strong likelihood that the judge sided with the jewish parent because he is also jewish."

So do you think Scalia sides with the Catholic views on abortion because he is also Catholic?

"The father agreed to raise the child in the Jewish tradition, and even converted to Judaism himself when the child was born."

This is -- to me -- the trump card. Everything else now reeks of defiance and revenge.

"The judge overstepped and the father is going to win."

Tried and Convicted by the Jurors of the MSM!
You have no idea what kind of guy this is (i.e. perhaps why the judge ruled against him) yet you revel in the idea he is the victor?

Why?

Because he used his Kid to Get on TV!

Go Fucking Figure! For all you fake ass Christians know, he's the biggest deadbeat there is ---------- yet you cheer him on simply because he chose a Church as his Vehicle into the Spotlight!
You people deserve all the fleecing you get!

Red--

I am saying the parent is legally entitled to do anything that is legal with their child on their days of visitation.

Most court ordered mediation on child issues are decided in mediation and signed by the parents and the judge gives his approval.

Even if the parent was an atheist--that parent does not have to take the child to church or the synagogue on their weekend of visitation.

That bonehead Michael Newdow gets his rights for his days of visitation with his child as well. And the mother can't do anything about it.

So do you think Scalia sides with the Catholic views on abortion because he is also Catholic?

No. If Scalia entered an order forbidding a non-catholic from bringing their child to a non-catholic church, I would think that he likely did so because he is a catholic. He hasn't, and any bullshit analogies you want to attempt aren't going to fly.

Murphy,

The one thing we don't know and the article does not speak of is the divorce agreement. IF this was brought up at separation, then he violated the terms. I do not know if it is was, neither does anyone else. It appears the Judge over-reached here. We need more information.

Since when does a grandfather have more rights than a father? This is typical. Fathears have no rights in femaly courts.

femaly courts.

Interesting. Female Ally Courts. I like it!

Femaly courts are what Rudov calls "family" courts. Not my creation. I am not that creative.

"If Scalia entered an order forbidding a non-catholic from bringing their child to a non-catholic church, I would think that he likely did so because he is a catholic."

So all the other rulings where he agreed with Catholic doctrine are suddenly moot, and not an indication he's deciding because of his faith, but this Jewish judge is different? Got it.

The visitation schedule is normally done thru the court ordered mediation.

And people can go back to mediation and change things too.

They decide which days, which weekends, who gets Christmas or Hannakah or Easter or Spring Break or MLK day or summer break or whatever.

It is specific to the hour the child is visiting the parent. If there is a drop off location--that is specified.

They have to specify Mother's Day and Father's Day!

#56 | Posted by member2586

But you are honest. And you introduced me to the term, so you get credit for finding it.

This is absurd. I am an atheist and think the church is a bad influence on people, but the government has no right to intefere with someone raising their kid as long as nothing illegal takes place. And taking a kid to church is not illegal. This won't stand in the appeal which is sure to follow

#13 | Posted by goatman at 2010-02-09 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

While I agree with you on the fact that the gov't has no place deciding on what church a child goes to...... the reality is this: the parents couldn't decide so they are ultimately the ones who placed it in the hands of the courts.

They should agree to let the child make up her own mind when she's old enough.

That's what we've done with our kids. they can go where ever they want (within reason) and make up their own minds. If they ask me, I give them my "opinion".

Bottom line:
Play nice.

Parents should also be able to decide on visitation rights and child support without the courts.... in most cases it won't happen.

vacation from public service.

#2 | Posted by L_RContrarian

Drunk is right. Defying a judge, no matter how ridiulous, is not a smart thing to do. However, this is the quickest way to make a Federal Case out of it. Something I probably would have done.

This case isn't about whether the child will ever be exposed to both religions. It's about what is happening to her NOW as both parents fight over custody. One parent, it appears from the story, has a history of doing things arbitrarily and, now, against the orders of the court. He's not exercising his rights, he's just trying to up the ante.

On a side note, if he were in fact a good, observant Catholic, he would have gotten a written, prenuptial promise from his wife-to-be that the child would be raised Catholic. That is (or at least was, last time I checked) a prerequisite for Catholics who choose to marry outside the faith.

Looks to me like he recently "found religion" and found it to be a great tool in the divorce skirmishes.

The father agreed to raise the child in the Jewish tradition, and even converted to Judaism himself when the child was born. He denies the part about raising the child Jewish -- but his conversion is compelling evidence to the contrary.

Even if he did, he has the right to change his mind at any time. If he wakes up tomorrow and decides he's a Scientologist, his ex-wife should have no say in whether he practices that faith with his child during their time together. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Parents should also be able to decide on visitation rights and child support without the courts.... in most cases it won't happen.

#61 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The default status custoday should be joint-custody as opposed to giving the mother sole custody and then having the father "pay rent" as Rudov puts it.

Divorcees, especially if they have children, are some of the most vile people arond in the childish way they behave.

Internet(s) busy-bodies feeling compelled to spew their own judicial pontifications as valid --- with only the limited facts provided by the MSM!

For people who don't think highly of the MSM as much ------- you sure rely on the word of the MSM, much!

#16 | Posted by Redneckville

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Redneckville, aren't you the one who said that the Idahoian Aid Workers in Haiti should be beheaded, drawn and quartered because Jesus told them to take the children to safety?

Have you learned something new since then?

On a side note, if he were in fact a good, observant Catholic, he would have gotten a written, prenuptial promise from his wife-to-be that the child would be raised Catholic. That is (or at least was, last time I checked) a prerequisite for Catholics who choose to marry outside the faith.

#63 | Posted by BobSF_94117

I can't remember the exact terminology but our marriage had to be approved by the region's Bishop because it was interfaith (Catholic and non-believer). Among a laundry list of requirements, the stipulations were that any children would have to be Baptized and raised Catholic and we would have to attend a Pre Cana "retreat" prior to the wedding.

We were interviewed by our priest and Monsignor, filled out an application packet for an interfaith marriage, and it was all submitted to the Bishop with our proof that we attended Pre Cana. It would be interesting to know if such agreements are legally binding and can act as a prenup at a time of divorce. I'm assuming such agreements are pretty common.

I would stick to Judaism. I'm not sure how it works but they all seem to have money.

Children shouldn't be exposed to organized religion until they're old enough to make up their own minds. Even then, they should be given lots of choices, including the choice to abstain.

"It would be interesting to know if such agreements are legally binding and can act as a prenup at a time of divorce. I'm assuming such agreements are pretty common."

I would doubt it. You went through all that and made the agreement for the sole purpopse of being married in a Catholic church (and in the eyes of The Church). I suppose if you fail to live up to it and they deem your husband was complicite, they could excommunicate your husband. Doubtful anyone would bother to do that either. You could have easily skipped all this by just getting married somewhere else by someone other than a Catholic priest.

As for this judge, I hope he is removed for this nonsense. He's clearly overstepped his bounds in such an obvious way that he must know that he's doing it.

The law varies from state to state and I'm not sure the case in Illinois, but there are only a few states where one parent can overrule the other's religion in terms of what the child is exposed to. It's come before state courts a few times, and the decision has consistently been that both parents have the right to teach the kids their respective belief systems.

Which is, of course, as it should be.

Blusky piped in with this gem:

Funny how children have no say whatsoever in the decision.

Generally, it's not wise to let 3-year olds make decisions about their own upbringing.

Whose free will is granted in the mutilation of an infant boy's genitalia, surly not the child's?

Why are you so interested in infant boys' genitalia?

If you're talking about circumcision, it's a routine practice at many/most hospitals these days.

How can a three year old even make an informed decision on baptism or understand what-the-hell baptism is? How can a new-born?

They can't. They also can't make decisions on which clothes to wear, what to eat, or when bed-time will be.

This is why children have parents.

Got it.

No, you don't.

There is no doubt the father is being a douche - even if he found religion. Douche no doubt. No matter what he said or did before the marriage or in the marriage the fact is that now he is Catholic. It sounds like the in-laws and wife have a hate relationship with him to take this crap so far. It obviously is not a neat pretty divorce. Sounds like both sides deserve to lose custody. It's a pity that is so easy to buy "justice" in this country.

If the parents agree, the child should be raised a specific religion but the other parent should still be free to exercise their own religion in the presence of the child(ren). If they agree to disagree, they should be fine with both sides speaking their minds in a fair manner and equal religious exposure. If they can't come to an agreement the child should be raised with neither religion and being allowed to make their own choice at some point. 3 is a little bit early. But then again it is so fun to see kids manipulate divorced parents.

Personally, I think all the religions out there are just like this case - people grabbing for power. No matter what there beginnings or teachings. And when it comes to Judaism, Christianity or Islam - there should be common ground because there is. They are all forms of the same religion. It is just that hate can be so blinding.

"To get the TRO you need to show that without it, the child will suffer "irreparable harm." I don't see how you can prove "irreparable harm" based on what fairytale a parent decides to teach the child.

Then I found something that likely explains it all: "Judge Edward Jordan is the former head of the Decalogue Society, the Jewish Bar."

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2010-02-09 10:33 AM"
------------------------------
-

We need a justice system that is totally blind and objective to such frivolities as ethnicity, race and religion.

Just how the hell can we allow biased judges such as this Edward Jordan who is a member of a special ethnic based society (WTF is the Jewish Bar btw) calling the shots between Jews (his obvious favorite) and Gentiles? If special racist organizations are good for the Jews, then bring in the KKK as judges or the Arian Nation and Nazis to make the same decisions. There is no difference.

This decision has at its core disgusting racism by Jewish judges towards a gentile and such injustice cuts at the heart of our justice system.

""But I am taking her to hear the teachings of perhaps the most prominent Jewish Rabbi in the history of this great planet of ours. I can't think of anything more Jewish than that."

Well said.
This is disgusting. The judge has no business deciding what sort of worship service is appropriate. Regardless of who said what, who converted to what, who's Jewish and who's not. There's going to be some serious backlash to this.

The religious indoctrination of youth is tragic, especially when it is used as a way for divorcees to fuck with eachother... but this judge deserves to be disbarred.

The grandfather should have no say in how a father wants to raise his child.

There is no doubt that if the kid was raised Catholic and the mother decided to take him to Temple the judge would not tell the mother not to bring the kid to Temple. Once again a judge listens to special interests

Looking fer precedent here. Found an interesting NYT article on the subject.

This judge needs a vacation from public service.

#2 | Posted by L_RContraria

Or, simply hunt him down and kick his ass.

This is all so verklempt!

Femaly courts are what Rudov calls "family" courts. Not my creation. I am not that creative.

#56 | Posted by member2586 at 2010-02-09 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Wonders why folks call him Misogynist2586

Marc Rudov?

That's the guy who wants to eliminate child support fer women who get pregnant while single and alimony altogether, right?

The self declared "anti-feminist"?

Neil Cavuto's BFF?

Tom Lykis' clone?

THAT guy?

LOL.

Be Well.

Bigotted court

How would you like this headline:
"Father denies court and teaches evolutionary lies to daughter at home"

Same thing
looks bad to you now though.

Court system has failed us, getting involved inthings that are up to the parents, need to remove these judges.

"There is no doubt the father is being a douche - even if he found religion."

Standing up to a prejudiced judge who is clearly overstepping the boundaries of the law in his proclomations is douchey?

What do you consider cool - listening to any authority figure explicitely and without question?