Dad is charged with criminal contempt for taking his daughter to a Catholic Church service.

@regjoeschmo thanks for posting these two video links. The telling part for me was her saying that she thought he should go to jail and then saying she wants him in her life. She is using the broken system to hurt his parenting ability. She tries to say that something he is doing is some how dangerous to the child. She is just playing to the cameras. The judge had no right to rule in favor of any religion or against any religion.

it almost looked like she was trying not to laugh when she was displaying her corcodile tears in the end of part 1 lol....... most definately just using the system's own corruption and bias to further manipulate the situation.......

20/20 was great. The mother was over reactive. She stated that she needs to protect her baby... The child is not harmed. This story proves the father cares about his child very much and mother confirmed s that. I also believe that her family did pressure him to convert to Judaism and he did it to please her and her family.
I applaud abc for airing this story. It’s time family court rulings are exposed.

Should we all question bad law or bad ruling?
"When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs. When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent. When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun. Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all." (Tim Freeman)

give that man a "haruph!"

It seems as though that order was only granted after the father baptized the child and sent pics to the wife...according to the article, she filed for a temp restraining order and it was only for 30 days; honestly I think he should have fought it in court instead of simply violating it; he only made his situation worse and he admits in the article that none of his actions have helped to resolve the situation. Since the wife is barely mentioned, that's probably why the comments lean that way. The truth is none of us know what's really going on in their relationship, but it will be interesting to see how this effects future court decisions.

I agree with you. Mark down the date! (just kidding, I think I tend to agree with you more often than not)
The facts are:
1) The man converted to judaism so the family would accept him. But he claims he never really believed in the faith or stoped practicing Catholicism. And the family never accepted the goyam anyway. (Maybe he needed to do a Bris too?!)
2) She knew he was a catholic, and knew he was not really a practicing Jew.
3) For whatever reason, they separated.
4) He baptized his little girl.
5) She put a restraining order on him (30 days).
6) He flipped off the court and took his daughter to to church anyway.

So, yeah, you're right. But that doesn't change the fact that her family essentially forced him to convert, but then treated him badly anyway. And then they wigged out when Catholic dad took his daughter to be Baptised.

It's still his right to do so. And I still don't think ANYONE has the right to tell him he can't take his daughter to church.

So, no, I think the reason most of the comments have pretty much slandered the father and denegrated into anti-Christian hate-speech is because anti-Christian sentiment is encouraged in the Liberal mindset.

In the same mindset there is a little schizophrenic issue...political correctness prohibits being an anti-Semite, and Jews were victims of the Holocaust, so they get a little benefit of the doubt due to Victim-Status, but doggon it, there's that whole Israel issue, and hey, when you get down to it, Judaism IS a religion, and atheists try to be equal opportunity haters, so you can see that the poor atheist libs on this forum must really be in a conundrum.

Easiest solution? Bash the friggin Christian BASTARD for exposing his child to Catholicism. (sarcasm alert)

I really don't know too much about religious regulations when it comes to marriage and children. I don't know if it's within his parental rights to have the child baptized without any forewarning or agreement or whatnot. I can say that I'd be annoyed if my significant other just did that out of no where but I agree that somewhere along the line it has to be within his religious rights to go to church and bring his child to church and follow rituals ...

As for the anti-christian mentality, don't get it twisted- us atheists ARE equal opportunity haters on all religions :) but we get extra angsty about Christianity in America because of it's grip on society and government.

Delia, you know, I like you. You are very forthright. I like that in a person.

I'm an agnostic. I was raised by a Christian mother, and Dad...I don't know. He NEVER talks about religion. But he got mad at me once and challenged me because I'd said he was an atheist. "What the F makes you think I'm an atheist?"

I went through some tough times, since as a kid I was an atheist. The Baptists in my school found out and started giving me a hard time. For a long time I was bitter.

But three things happened. First, I realized that proving the inextistence of God is as impossible as proving his/her/its existence. It is equally as arrogant to say "there is NO God at all" as it is to say "there is one God and it's MY God". So I backtracked to agnosticism because I just don't know. And no Atheist does either. It is your matter of faith, or anti-faith, as it may be.

Secondly, I realized that I am inthe tiny minority. Who the hell am I to tell 85% or 90% of the country they are wrong? and probably 95% of the world believes in God. so who the hell are we, as agnostics/atheists to try to "sanitize" the world of any relgious values?

Finally, I also realized that the whole propaganda about how evil religions are is wrong. There is NOTHING in the world that is purely good. Capitalism, Socialism, Commjnism, and Religion. They all might have some good, and some evil. But I realized that religion provides far more good for the believers than bad.

And the notion that religion has caused so many wars and deaths is false. The majority of wars have been waged for secular reasons, such as envy, greed, hatred and power lust. Very few wars have ever been waged strictly because "they don't believe in our God."

What's more, the great wars of the XXth century killed FAR more people than all the religious wars of the past and they had NOTHING to do with religions. The Nazis were NOT relgious nuts, they were ANTI-RELIGION. Their hatred of Jews was more a resentment based upon ethnic hatred and historical facts regarding the accumulated wealth by the Jewry and was just an excuse to create "an enemy". But Hitler's expansionist policies would have happened with or without Jews as a scapegoat.

My point is, that "hating" religion is unwise and unproductive. You may as well hate "the sun", it makes no sense.

"First, I realized that proving the inextistence of God is as impossible as proving his/her/its existence. It is equally as arrogant to say "there is NO God at all" as it is to say "there is one God and it's MY God". So I backtracked to agnosticism because I just don't know. And no Atheist does either. It is your matter of faith, or anti-faith, as it may be."

This is totally valid, but for me, the "I don't know" doesn't translate into "i believe" - I happily leave the door open for the possibility of god, but that doesn't mean I think it's a probability. Atheism implies one thing: you don't believe in supernatural stuff. There may be some rock solid fundie atheists out there claiming "there is definately no god and I can prove it" but I think most atheists are less strict in their belief (or non-belief) system than most people think. Many atheists come from (or like to think that they come from) a logical, scientific point of view -- and those of us that fancy ourselves like that should remember that ultimately science reminds us that we know very little about life, the universe and reality itself.

I agree that "hating religion" is pointless, I hope you know I was being somewhat facetious when I said that. The real problem is not the average believer, whatever their belief may be, it's the fringe loonies, the never ending parade of "that guy" ruining it for everyone.

Nazis were occultist Catholics. Yes they were very religious. The true Communists were anti-religion.

Great comments CurtisReed

what you just described is almost exactly the plot of Les Miserable.

That or spin the bottle. Either way you are getting a delusional mess.

hotdam!! your on fire!!

Now there is something that you posted that I can wrap my mind around. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that one is held up higher than the other.

Yes, I agree.

It occured to me that the father in this situation may have needed to prove that he had been discriminated against for his religion and that he had also suffered under the decision before being able to file a legal case.

It may very well be that his lawyer suggested that he take the child to church and have her baptized, and the photos are evidence of his religious practice. Punishment after the fact is essentially a violation of his rights.

Your citation of Rosa Parks is right on. Equally valid would be the protest by a gentleman named Henry David Thoreau, who was essentially the father of the Civil Disobedience movement and penned a treatise by that same name.

Wikipedia describes it thusly: "It argues that people should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that people have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice."

My favorite quote from that essay is the following:

"The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right."

According to Thoreau then, the citizen has an OBLIGATION to do what is right at all times. And if that means that to do right puts him in conflict with an unjust law, then so be it.

I therefore conclude that the protagonist of this story, if we can believe his words and explanations, is living up to his system of values and is disobeying an unjust decision by a judge.

Why that notion is suddenly incomprehensible to some of the Lefties on this site is bizarre, since it is an obligation they feel entitled to keep when protesting wars and the like.

wow, it's "like amazing" that you can know so much about this case to come to such an abrupt conclusion. it's no where near that clear in my opinion, and it treads dreadfully close to violating the first amendment in my opinion.

but we can't all be gifted with the omniscience with which you apparently claim to be blessed!

Voted up!

"-this is a total BS post from this same poster that is designed to just stir crap up and feed some kind of personal need this poster has to point out how in their mind the justice system is biased against men and suddenly embraced a radical form of feminism"

EXACTLY! Thank you for recognizing this as well. I have thought this for a long time, but never mentioned it because i did not want to be rude.

Yeah I don't normally like to be rude either which is why I ignored this post for awhile before finally hoping that maybe it would actually have some value but alas--it's just one more post that goes for the "pop culture light" feel and tries to make the statement that gender bias within the judicial system is wrong while presenting an biased example to make their point. And just like every other post by this person all it does is bring out the "trolls" and piss everybody off or sends them into a frenzy of defending their particular view or position while continuing to miss the overall point that gender bias in the judicial system and when used by judges to determine sentencing is wrong--regardless of whether the woman or the man gets the short end of the stick from the ruling so to speak.

your post contains not one iota of the common sense that your screen name suggests you posess. how you connect this man's problem with his wife to the conclusion that everyone should engage in "birth control" is mysterious. So are you saying that no one should have children?

or that he's clearly an "asshole"...for tkaing his child to church? but apparently she's NOT one for taking her daught to synagogue?

Can you possibly explain that illogical conclusion?

oh please, don't even try to be so damn sanctimonious. you've never hesitated to be rude, why would I believe that was your motivation now?

this "poster" has an agenda, I believe that is right. what he has habitually done is to promote articles that reveal the incredible double-standard that is applied AGAINST men to the benefit of women, AGAINST certain religions to the benefit of others.

the problem is that the evidence he promotes runs contrary to your own atheist, anti-male beliefs, so you'd rather engage in ad-hominem attacks than consider that perhaps he's right.

Thank you for your support and you are correct that is my agenda. I will not support double-standard. So many posters decided I am a man because I speak up against man-hating "sisterhood".

To those “polite” posters who “noticed” but did not want to be “rude”, yes unimatrix0 and common_sense_please. I hear you loud and clear you disagree with my point of view. Why do you follow me and keep on arguing? I believe I still have a first amendment right and I will speak.

I've never seen "common_sense_please" before, but unimatrix I've seen around and he or she is like a fly drawn to feces: she gravitates to any argument in which there is the opportunity to slam ANY Christian, or men, and if you can combine the two, well so much the better.

How is this sexist? Both parents are wrong. And obviously the court got involved because NEITHER parent was willing give ground and allow the child to be raised with a foot in each of her religious heritages.

Also at this point how would it be a bad thing if the judge actually did slap both parents and say neither of you can take the child to church--that way the child is no longer being used as a pawn in their religious ideological battle?

your conclusions are based upon too little information, but as usual, you don't let that stop you.

as a point of fact, both parents MIGHT BE RIGHT, AND WRONG, as most opinions tend to be based upon some point of fact but miss others.

For instance, it may very well be that when he married his Jewish wife, he had considered converting, until he learned more about it and then changed his mind. She may hold that against him and say he is not keeping his word or has violated her trust or his promises, but that doesn't mean that he's 'wrong' for having a change of heart.

I read that she claimed he "was not very religious". Perhaps he wasn't but has come to appreciate his religion after seeing what Judaism was all about. Or perhaps he ISN'T very religious but has come to understand how his relgious formation helped make him a good person and wants her to have access to those values, the rituals etc.

You are jumping to the conclusion that he really doesn't care about Catholicism but is doing this out of vindictiveness. That could be true, but how in the hell do you pretend to know that from this distance? You don't know that. Your conclusion is simply a supposition based upon your bias.

Great comment!

that's your belief according to whatever sect you follow, but the Catholics have a very different belief about the importance of baptism washing away original sin for infants.

The mother was open about her religion and how she wanted to raise her child.
That's actually the exact opposite of going behind someone's back...

Obviously, the father does not respect the mother's rights or the law, seeing as how he violated a court order. Doesn't look good for him.

i respectfully disagree in this sense: she is NOT going behind his back, from what we've read, the father always knew and approved of her taking the child to synagogue (Jews attend synagogues, or Temple, not "churches"). He has never said she can't do that.

Again, you really don't know the man's heart, so you are presuming to know his reasons.

This is precisely the kind of judging we were admonished not to make in Church, and althouh I'm not religious, I see how correct the lesson was. Which is why I allow and encourage my Catholic wife to take my children there. But I also insist that they be allowed to choose for themselves.

you draw too many conclusions about the man's intentions, sir.

how do you figure? he's never told her she can't take the child to synagogue, from what I've read. How is it the mother's "right" to keep her child from being exposed to Christianity? How is it that SHE has a greater right to introducing the child to a religious belief than he has?
THAT is the heart of the sexist discrimination in this case.

Well, he's getting a new judge for the next ruling, so we'll see what happens.
Doesn't look good for him though.

I did not even think of that. Good point.

Ah, if what you say is true, then the plot thickens, my dear Watson.

and the irony is thick. In a private exchange with Jubal, who investigated the meaning of the name Jordan, it refers to the River Jordan, and means "River of Judgment".

Isn't that absolutely amazing? You couldn't make this stuff up.

You are right on the money here. It doesn't matter one iota if you have full custody. CPS can override your parental authority on a lark.

If you are the authority over your child, what power do you have when a judge or a CPS worker can override that authority?

You are correct in USA parents have no rights in Family court or when investigated by CPS.

Why should the Jewish Mom have more rights than the Catholic father?

Shouldn't. Why, did it say she could take her to synagogue, but he couldn't take her to church? And if so, did he EVER take the kid before they got divorced? Cause that reeks of revenge pissing, to me.

How do you know it was God and not the devil?

Are you for real?
The father baptized the child without consulting the mother, who is Jewish and has full custody.
And then he sent the mother pictures of the event.
Like, "look what I did to your daughter!"
What other reason could he have than just to screw with her?

So if you have custody that makes you God over your children? I don't think so. The mother is just as guilty as the dad in using religion to beat the other parent.

I am so tired of reading about parents who think they own their children mind and soul.

You really don't have an argument.

Forget about religion.
The fact is the father, who does not have full custody, violating a court order, took the child to do something the mother, who has full custody, did not want.
There's no way a judge would rule in his favor after what he did.

Baptism in the catholic faith is to overcome original sin. It is believed that Christ died to overcome original sin and baptism makes the connection.

It doesn't matter if it's Baptism or fun night at Chucky Cheese.
The dad went behind the mother's back.
The courts don't like that. They tend to rule against parents who do that.
It's as simple as that.

Flyingkick if you are religious you would know that Gods law trumps mans law. As a catholic it was his responsibility to have his daughter baptized. You can't get to heaven unless you are baptized. Just saying. You are most likely correct that he was just being a prick.

He should have consulted with the mother first.
She would have said no, but he would be being cooperative.
Then he could have taken the mother to court and had a more legitimate case.
Now he's screwed.

tell me where it is stated any aspect of custody......

"Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, said a parent who has visitation rights "usually has the right to expose the child to his religious beliefs, teach the child his religion, to take the child to religious services, unless there seems to be likely psychological or physical harm stemming from that exposure." "

Try again.....

Actually, FK, I don't see any indication she got "full custody". The father must have at least partial custody or he would not have had her to take her to church. Duh? :)

Now, we don't know much about the situation, so we don't know if Dad did anything to deserve NOT having the child. What is indisputable is that in this society, in the case of a divorce, the children are ALMOST ALWAYS given to the mother for a majority custody (M-F) with Dad getting them on weekends, or sometimes they alternate weeks. It really depends on whether or not Dad has done anything wrong (he's a drug addict, habitual gambler, violent, etc for example), or if there are needs that must be accomodated (the father has a job requiring him to travel), that sort of thing.

From our knowledge which is by its very nature limited to what is in this article and others on the internet, the father apparently had at least partial custody.

It may appear that sending photos was an "in your face" affront, but it may have also been a parent sharing the event with the other. What would have happened had he baptized the girl and NOT sent the photos and she found out later and then claimed "he didn't even tell me and didn't send me photos like he sent his parents"? Then many, like you, would be proclaiming that he had "obviously" been trying to hide it.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

We DO know that he invited the press to film him when he took his kid to Church. I think that is a clear indication that, as he said, "I have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and this is where I choose to draw it." In other words, he is clearly looking to fight for his rights, and WANTS public attention like we're doing right now in order to start discussion and publicize his problem.

What's wrong with that?

You have a very good point. The intention behind sending the pictures might not have been spiteful in the least.

See my above post.

no, that's not a bigoted and biased opinion, not at all.

"PINHEAD" alert

So he's more of a man than you will ever be.

did it ever occur to you that maybe his deployment played a role in the divorce? And that in his absence the wife may have decided the kid was HERS and only SHE could decide how to raise her?

your ignorant posts against religion and the service of our troops has been noted.

So uh, you missed the point. Delia, the court forbade him to take the child to CHURCH. It took sides between a Jewish and Christian upbringing, siding with the mother for her faith, against the father and his. So the location is everything. He didnt' get charged for taking her to Baskin Robbins.

All I'm really trying to say is that the headline is misleading ... plus there is obviously more to this story than just a religious battle ... as I said to someone else, honestly it sounds like both parents are acting selfishly and their child is suffering as a result. I don't think any religion teaches that. From the article:

"Her father decided to baptize his daughter without consulting his wife.

Joseph Reyes sent his wife pictures and an e-mail documenting the occasion. Rebecca Reyes responded by filing for the temporary restraining order, which the judge granted.

Stephen Lake, Rebecca Reyes' attorney, said his client was shocked at her estranged husband's actions.

"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion … have the girl baptized," Lake said. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl."

Also from the article:

"Family court law expert Lynne Gold-Bikin said Reyes should have followed the court order, but also said, "If this couple made an agreement about what religion to raise their child, then it's an inappropriate order."

It sounds like they need to do a lot more communicating and a lot less hiding behind religion as a way to mess with each other and their child.

Exactly, why should taking her to temple be better or more important than taking her to church?

That's where you are mixed up.
It has nothing to do with Temple or Church or which one is better.

It's about the dad going behind the mom's back.
Doesn't matter if it's Baptism or River Rafting.

good lord, how thick can you get?

Try reading the article:
"Joseph Reyes pleaded not guilty for allegedly violating a court order issued by Chicago family law Judge Edward R. Jordan who had barred Reyes from taking his 3-year-old daughter to church "

The judge didn't say "You are banned from doing anything with the child without the mother's consent."

The order was "you can't take the child to church". "Church" being CHRISTIAN. Jews go Synagogue, so if he'd taken her to synagogue, that would have been OK.

Get it now?

then that would be infringing on the parent's rights to oversee the care and upbringing of their own child... bottom line is that the courts (should) have no say in these matters

In an ideal world yes, but parents think they own their children.

yeah, that must suck for most kids, i was raised to make my own decisions, after weighing the options. guess i was lucky.

i fail to see how letting the kid make up her own mind infringes upon the rights of the parents.

at this point the child is unable to make a cognizant choice either way...... it is the courts who are making that decision for her and her parents, and they really have no right to even do so regardless of the custody/divorce situation.

my point exactly. until the child can choose on her own, religion should not be a factor in her life.

said by someone who obviously doesn't understand or respect religions.

most of a child's values and proper behavior are inculcated in their youth. if they are not exposed to a value system early on, they may turn out to be like...YOU

to some degree that may be OK, but there are decisions that children are too young, inexperienced, and unwise to make, and that's what PARENTING is all about.

you sound like a product of the Love and Logic school of thought. Just let them make their own mistakes and hope they learn about the consequences