It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A british man has been barred from exposing his son to Christianity because ex wife is Muslim

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I am certain that there are plenty of injustices in the family court circuit, this does not appear to be one of them. It is just a juiced up article to get Christians pissed about some perceived injustice on Easter.

It worked.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No I agree I apologise for the derailment. I just have seen it over and over with friends and relatives.

This is the law and it's not in anyway unusual. The mom could be a Scientologist. Same deal.

The injustice has nothing to do with religion. It's more the whole process.
edit on 27-3-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

It all comes down to a change in material circumstance.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
The mom could be a Scientologist. Same deal.


Yup. Xenu, flying Prophets, dead guys coming back to life. It is all the same to me.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your telling me you don't believe in Dick Cheney?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I am Dick Cheney.

Want to go hunting?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

How in the world can a judge ORDER what religion the child is exposed to. Even if the mom has custody and is God herself.

I thought the UK had separation of church and state. Did we not learn that from the common wealth?

The dad can teach him to worship the devil himself as long as it is not against the law to be a devil lover.

WTF is wrong with this judge. He is obvisouly a globalist sell out . Remember his name for the purge.

The dad should defy this and make a HUGE public stink about it like the world was on fire.

I meam a STINK....RAISE HELL SIR, SCORCHED EARTH HELL.


edit on 3 27 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Because it's the law. It's actually standard for all sole conservators.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: chuck258
Can you prove the child would be harmed if he went on an Easter egg hunt with Christian children?


If that is not what the parent wants then it is irrelevant whether they would be harmed doing pagan stuff on Easter.



Look, we get it, you're sooper smart. I know there is a difference between legal and custodial custody and visitation. The fact is though, the article doesn't give us that information. The only basis your point has is a US legal one that is not a universal standard. Stop quoting it like it's gospel (pun not originally Intended). You're also ignoring very valid points, ones that me and several other posters have brought to light. Custody battles are historically very bad for men, and often for extremely arbitrary reasons. Even if you were right in this case (that the mother has full legal custody and if English precedent says that legal custodians have the sole say on a minors religious exposure, neither of which we can confirm) doesn't necessarily make it right and brings to light another important issue altogether.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You guys can be ordered to worship a particular religion under ANY circumstance?

Your system of government seems inferior suddenly.

VERY.


edit on 3 27 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

A sole managing conservator can decide what their child/minor can do regarding religion, medical, and school.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258
The fact is though, the article doesn't give us that information.


Actually, it does give you the information by what it leaves out.

Regardless of the reason for her having custody, she has custody, therefore her call.

You want to argue about the injustices of the parental court system? Fine, there are plenty. This ain't one of them. This is just Christian butt-hurt over some non-existent issue.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Chances are it's the same where you are from. Their may be more scrutiny over judgement of the custody order but I would bet it is similar.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: chuck258
The fact is though, the article doesn't give us that information.


Actually, it does give you the information by what it leaves out.

Regardless of the reason for her having custody, she has custody, therefore her call.

You want to argue about the injustices of the parental court system? Fine, there are plenty. This ain't one of them. This is just Christian butt-hurt over some non-existent issue.


The sensationalism of the article maybe but I don't think we can say what injustice there was or wasn't in this case.

Could be she had a better lawyer, more money, and a better story.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I thought he was free to decide. My parents couldnt LEGALLY INSIST on what I worship. They could argue and I probably wouldnt like it or resist, but even as a minor, I was a citizen and alloted the freedom to choose as long as I had the capacity of thought.

Your system of government is inferior in this regard.

The state is now involved in what is everywhere else their own problem as private citizens.

What a crap democracy. Sorry. True

He is being ORDERED by a judge and another citizen (mother) as to what God he can worship.


edit on 3 27 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I don't disagree. However I don't think your anecdotal circumstance is the law. It also does change as the child ages from state to state in the US.

Anyhow. What country is this you are talking about.

If it's true that's pretty cool.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Could be she had a better lawyer, more money, and a better story.


Either way, still her call.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This is true. I agree the article is totally out of context. Furthermore the injustice happens everyday and it's has nothing to do with religion.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This is true. I agree the article is totally out of context. Furthermore the injustice happens everyday and it's has nothing to do with religion.


I would have to agree 100%

It's pure propaganda to sell papers and get website hits.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

The US. In NY if a child wishes to be anything PARENTS HAVE THE OBLIGATION to cater to his religious needs. If he wants to be atheist, and the parents resist, social services can take your kids.

No joke, you are free in the US to worship a rock if you like no matter who your legal guardian is. Or not....that is across the whole US since that is a constitutional right.

Some states would say otherwise, but they dont have the authority to negotiate things that are MANDATED in order to be part of the union.

No circumstance can lead you to being FORCED to worship or not.

Hell, you can sue your parents for violating your civil liberties. Has happened already.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join