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.

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.

I don't think my constitution could take a year of that sort of campaign/soap opera.

My checkbook could. I'd finally be able to afford that penis enlargement I've had on layaway.

I'm talking about the linked piece, KBM. You are welcome to join us at any time.

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?

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?

How nice of him to release some of them. Keeping the rest until he gets the Alabama form of the Cornhusker kickback is lousy politics.

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.

Anyone who thinks their own side in politics has a monopoly on intelligence and reason doesn't spend enough time listening to what their own side is saying.

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.

This whole piece is written from the premise that conservatives are reasonable, circumspect in their opinions and approach all issues rationally, while liberals are not.

He calls out liberals for believing that conservatives win elections with sinister campaign tactics instead of the power of their ideas, with Karl Rove as a particular bogeyman. He neglects to note how many conservatives believe Obama won with sinister tactics from groups like ACORN, with Saul Alinsky as a particular bogeyman.

He calls out liberals for believing that Citizens United will open the floodgates to corporate manipulation of elections through unlimited spending, but neglects to note that the issue was a particular focus of Republican Sen. John McCain for decades.

He calls out liberals for believing that they have logic, reason and science on their side, but neglects to mention that conservatives in great number disbelieve evolution, expect their religious faith to be reflected in governance of the country and demonize educated people. Just this weekend, conservative standard bearer Sarah Palin sneered that Obama is a "professor of law," not a commander in chief.

Ultimately, Alexander could have written the same piece about condescending and smug conservatives. And when he puts liberals in one group and "the rest of us" in the other, this American Enterprise Institute visiting scholar and National Review Online contributor is deliberately masking the fact that he's a conservative.

Nice.

No. Not at all. Thanks for asking, President Bush. Please check again in 20 years.

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:

If you didn't know the Tim Tebow shoulda been aborted story, you could just as rightfully speculate that the story was about prayer and how that saved him from being in the dumpster.

You didn't read what I said. The ad was innocuous. But the Focus on the Family site they direct viewers to is about abortion, and the purpose of the group's campaign is to criminalize abortion. The Tebows want to criminalize abortion.

That's why the other side is opposed to the campaign. It's not just about the Super Bowl ad. They believe the state should not force women to carry all pregnancies to term.

It's supposed to, but that ad was, while civil, a part of the effort to take away that choice from a woman.

Yup. They don't just want to persuade women not to choose abortion; they want to take the choice away entirely. It's disingenuous for people to claim otherwise.

Also, as innocuous as the ad was, the Super Bowl network would never allow a similarly mild ad from Planned Parenthood. It's not a fair game.

I'm just "tact challenged" sometimes. Forgive me?

'Salright. Just trying to keep this train on the tracks before we all go careening into the ravine.

If Dr. Tiller was dispatching of already dead babies, why'd he have to scramble the brains first?

Any chance we can discuss this without resorting to shock-value junk like that comment? The horror stories you want to tell are matched by the horror stories of the pregnancies that kept Tiller from getting out of late-term abortion services.

Please oh please oh please oh please oh please.

I agree, but why can't we all agree at what time in the pregnacy it's an abortion and when it's murder?

The emerging standard appears to be fetal viability outside the womb. But that also forces women to carry stillborn, unable-to-survive or catastrophically ill fetuses to term if they're not terminated before that point, which is why Dr. Tiller in Kansas continued to provide late-term abortions.

Now, I'm not against all abortions ...

Then you are in the gray area with most everybody else, including me. I think when something is highly personal and morally difficult, that's a good reason for the state to get out of the way and let people make their own decision.

Murtha was the first Vietnam vet to serve in Congress and a 37-year Marine. His choice to speak out against the Iraq War in 2005 was a turning point in the conflict that forced a major reassessment of strategy and helped put the Democrats back in charge of the House and Senate. R.I.P.

So which absolute position has the moral high ground?

The pro-choice position is that abortion is a difficult and personal issue guided by each individual's own morality, so the state has no business making the decision.

The anti-abortion position is that it's so clearly immoral that the state should make the decision for all people.

I think the high ground on the issue isn't hard to find, given those two positions.

It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from conception to birth. Within the confines of Roe v. Wade.

So you're pro-abortion, then?

Repeat after me: "It's OK to vacuum the brains out of an infant."

Repeat after me: It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from conception to birth.

At least be a man and own your beliefs.

Yay -- let's engage in a pointless argument over the words people use to describe others.