God damn it, he has to defend himself explaining he never imposed his belief system (or lack of) on the children while they are being fucking brainwashed in some christian school. What a sick joke.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by chtierna.

I don't even know how the judge could have ruled that way seeing that the First Amendment has a separation clause, though I don't know if a custody case would or would not be applicable to that. If their parenting plan had 50/50 split, then the mother can not go back on that just because he isn't a Christian, and it needs over ruled. Now if their parenting plan didn't include a 50/50 split and she was doing that to be nice and custody is now going to back to the plan, then he may be screwed...
Of course fathers tend to get screwed anyhow...but that is a rant for another time...

I can stand people being religious, I can't stand when they let it effect things other than themselves, It's great to see that it is now a qualifier to see you kids. What's next?

Keep it classy America. Keep stomping on those constitutional rights, they don't mean shit anyway.

I'll say it again. The founding fathers would be up in arms to day.

In all fairness, the news story doesn't demonstrate that his visitations were altered because he is agnostic, only that it was mentioned in the ruling. It's possible there were other issues such as a lack of proper communication regarding visitation times and transportation. It could be more about a conflict between the father and mother than an issue the judge had with the father's belief. Perhaps the statements about his beliefs were just context for issues that weren't mentioned.

Of course, it's also possible that the judge simply doesn't like non-christians, but I feel that the news story could have established a stronger correlation if that were the case. It's hard to tell when they don't include the full sentences containing those passages.

Religion and intolerance are bestest buddies.

Let's just sink the Titanic that is america and rebuild it in a European vision... instill some democracy in that third world country.

>> ^Psychologic:

In all fairness, the news story doesn't demonstrate that his visitations were altered because he is agnostic, only that it was mentioned in the ruling. It's possible there were other issues such as a lack of proper communication regarding visitation times and transportation. It could be more about a conflict between the father and mother than an issue the judge had with the father's belief. Perhaps the statements about his beliefs were just context for issues that weren't mentioned.
Of course, it's also possible that the judge simply doesn't like non-christians, but I feel that the news story could have established as stronger correlation if that were the case. It's hard to tell when they don't include the full sentences containing those passages.


I'd up vote your post more if I could.

Obviously if the religion of the parents was a consideration in the judges result this would be outrageous and I would say quite plainly illegal. However, the news report only shows 3 sentence fragments, not even the full sentences, with no context. Even in that it states, at most, that religious differences have impacted the parents communication. I am pretty inclined to believe that if the judge really denied custody based on the father's religion or lack thereof that the sensationalist local news team could've pulled together something a little more specific.

As it stands, I'm pretty sure the real story here is not a judge deciding custody based on religious preferences.

*nochannel *kids *religion *news *controversy *equality *law

This video has been removed from all channels (Kids, Religion, Terrible, News, Controversy, Equality) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by xxovercastxx. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Equality, Kids, Law, News, Religion) - requested by xxovercastxx.

*promote

The religious right will fight for the first amendment nonstop, unless you're not christian that is...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, November 24th, 2010 2:27am PST - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

Hello, my name is blankfist, and I'm here today to say, "Haha, way to go statist idiots."

>> ^blankfist:

Hello, my name is blankfist, and I'm here today to say, "Haha, way to go statist idiots."


Statism is not the sole reason for this injustice.

Let's have a look at the complete document shall we?

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/11/21/did-father-lose-custody-of-children-because-of-his-agnosticism/


* They married in 2002, they separated in 2007
* May 2008 they got very specific as to arrangement with the kids
* They continued to fuck right through to February of 2010
* The mother left the kids alone at home sometimes, did not always give them breakfast and did not always buckle them in the car
* The Father DID involve himself in children's activities
* The Father swore and got angry around his kids sometimes


Um.

Um.

So... let's see... the Mother seems to neglect the kids (not buckling in, feeding them or leaving them alone is pretty terrible), while the Dad swore and got angry sometimes (I have certainly done that... ahem).

But the 'split' is not clean cut as they have continued to have sex.

Looking at the whole document though, most sane people would read that and think the wife was the worse party, and yet she gets custody.

Madness.

Hello, my name is gwiz665 and I'm here to say "Haha, way to go, religious idiots."

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^blankfist:
Hello, my name is blankfist, and I'm here today to say, "Haha, way to go statist idiots."

Statism is not the sole reason for this injustice.


But it's the sole reason his kids were able to be taken away.

>> ^blankfist:

But it's the sole reason his kids were able to be taken away.

If only we had allowed the free market to save them. =)

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^blankfist:
Hello, my name is blankfist, and I'm here today to say, "Haha, way to go statist idiots."

Statism is not the sole reason for this injustice.

But it's the sole reason his kids were able to be taken away.


As opposed to what? The guy having the right to kill/beat his wife since she's a bitch? That would certainly go towards the well-being of his kids. The state is the only impartial third party here that can legally act on behalf of children, so the problem is not "statism" but the judge that represents the state.

I hate seeing stuff like this, but I would have happily assumed it was in another state had I not heard the end and found out its local.

You are setting up a very poor straw man/false dichotomy fallacy. Blank is merely pointing out correctly that this is a private matter in which the law has no real place. If they had made an an arrangement/contract before hand, that is one thing. But for a judge to decide the fate of children is completely the realm of parents and not courts. That is me putting words in Blanks mouth, he may have other reservations.

Edit: I should add, that if parents wanted to go to court in the case of no contract being established to mediate an arrangement; there is a place for that imo (they would have to front all costs for that justice I think...but that is a different conversation). However, the way custody hearings work is the state handing down decisions that are legally binding against the will, at times, of a party. This isn't all cases, some cases are mutual, and easy. But this is one of those cases where the state is going one step past mediator and into "moral law"...akin to regulating marriage and drugs.

>> ^Bidouleroux:

As opposed to what? The guy having the right to kill/beat his wife since she's a bitch? That would certainly go towards the well-being of his kids. The state is the only impartial third party here that can legally act on behalf of children, so the problem is not "statism" but the judge that represents the state.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You are setting up a very poor straw man/false dichotomy fallacy. Blank is merely pointing out correctly that this is a private matter in which the law has no real place. If they had made an an arrangement/contract before hand, that is one thing. But for a judge to decide the fate of children is completely the realm of parents and not courts. That is me putting words in Blanks mouth, he may have other reservations.
Edit: I should add, that if parents wanted to go to court in the case of no contract being established to mediate an arrangement; there is a place for that imo (they would have to front all costs for that justice I think...but that is a different conversation). However, the way custody hearings work is the state handing down decisions that are legally binding against the will, at times, of a party. This isn't all cases, some cases are mutual, and easy. But this is one of those cases where the state is going one step past mediator and into "moral law"...akin to regulating marriage and drugs.
>> ^Bidouleroux:
As opposed to what? The guy having the right to kill/beat his wife since she's a bitch? That would certainly go towards the well-being of his kids. The state is the only impartial third party here that can legally act on behalf of children, so the problem is not "statism" but the judge that represents the state.


I agree that it should be a matter between individuals, in a perfect world. We are not in a perfect world, thus it is not a matter between individuals. There are plenty of reason why this is and why it should stay that way for the foreseeable future, but none of those reasons apply here. The problem here is that a guy was denied custody not based on facts scientifically proven to be related to his children's well being but on the irrelevant fact that he is agnostic. It would be the same if the mother herself, in an "individual" dispute, made the argument that she won't let him have the kids because he is agnostic. If the state could not intervene, there would be no recourse for him (except to challenge her in a duel I guess). In this case, you could say "the families on both sides will be the judge when they can't agree" or "their mutual friends/coworkers/attorneys/whatever will make the final decision", etc. but this all comes down to third party intervention. The only third party that (theoretically) has only the welfare of the children in mind is the state. It is the same reasoning that goes behind contractual laws: only the state has the moral authority and objectivity to legiferate and intervene when a contractual dispute arises between two citizens that they cannot resolve between themselves in a fair manner. You can argue all you want about what's "fair" or not, but unless you want to return to pre-social anarchy (the bad kind) then you'll need to at least tolerate the state for the time being and recognize the necessity of its intervention in the interpersonal affairs of men.

P.S. Marriage law necessarily needs to be regulated as marriage is a contract. Unregulated marriages (essentially, religious marriages) are rife with unfair clauses that give all power to men in exchange for basically nothing, not even physical security (the man can beat his wife whenever he pleases and can repudiate her while she can't divorce under any circumstances).

@blankfist what's the non-state method by which a divorced couple resolves disputes about visitation rights?

I'll also point out that as the child of divorced parents, saying "the parents should resolve it between each other" is patently ridiculous.

Mine would've resolved it by one parent or the other taking me and my brother, and disappearing.

Who's gonna stop that from happening? Not the police, that'd be statism.

Maybe privately hired goons? Custody would be settled by whichever parent's hired thugs managed to win a violent conflict over us?

Gosh, that kind of liberty and justice sounds awesome.

How about we just try not to vote for people who appoint religiously bigoted judges?

I don't know, @NetRunner. I simply don't know. But I think the market would offer the best systems through competition rather than the monolithic government that can and has appointed, as you say, religiously bigoted judges.

I'd imagine the parents in most cases could figure it out on their own if they didn't think there was a system set up to tip the playing field in favor of one vs the other? In those other cases, they could agree upon an arbitrator of BOTH of their choosing instead of a 'one size fits all' conflict resolution system like the family courts.

But mainly I think the children should decide who they want to stay with. We don't give kids credit for being smart enough to make important decisions.

Also, sorry to hear about your parents divorcing. I'm sure that wasn't easy.

I'd imagine the parents in most cases could figure it out on their own if they didn't think there was a system set up to tip the playing field in favor of one vs the other?

I'd argue that natural selection is an inescapable system that favors the bigger, stronger and more athletic fathers.

I don't know, @NetRunner. I simply don't know.

I think that is NetRunner's point. We know the state is imperfect and badly flawed, but is it better than anarchy? I say yes, it is. Arguing for a different or better state is altogether different from arguing for it's removal altogether and your suggestions have always sounded to me like advocating for the total absence of any state what so ever.

@bcglorf, I would like to see the state out of the matters of divorce. Currently the system is biased toward one sex based on archaic laws surrounding women as chattel. You may say we should revamp that system to fix it, but that hasn't happened in the fifty years or so its been an issue.

>> ^blankfist:

I simply don't know. But I think the market would offer the best systems through competition rather than the monolithic government that can and has appointed, as you say, religiously bigoted judges.

I'm having trouble thinking of a market solution that would handle a parent who takes the kids and refuses arbitration. Any situation I can come up with inevitably leads to the offending parent being subjected to some form of 3rd party intervention against their will, be it the government or a "business".

@blankfist I can't speak for every state (and BTW, this is almost entirely an issue left to the states to legislate on), but there's nothing legally stopping a divorce from being settled out of court in Ohio. You don't even need an arbitrator, if the parties can come to total agreement on the disposition of the custody of the children and all the relevant property disputes. In such cases, the state basically just acts as a witness to the agreement.

Almost no divorces happen that way, largely because the couple can't come to a full and wide-ranging agreement. Not only that, they usually can't even agree to binding arbitration. My parents couldn't, and instead went into the full legal food fight in civil court.

At no point in here do I see how taking civil court off the table helps.

As far as my own parents' divorce proceedings, my observation was that all the advantages went to my dad, largely because he was the sole income earner in our household. The only topic mom seemed to get preference on was with custody, and I think that was more a case of dad relenting than mom getting some sort of preferential treatment.

Even so, unfair laws aren't written in stone, and I'm sure you could cobble together a pretty potent PAC of pissed off rich men who're mad about how women get too much of a free ride when it comes to divorce. Bad judges can be impeached, and many state courts elect their judges anyways (we do here, and they even all have partisan affiliations -- the Ohio Supreme Court is 100% Republican again).

And as far as judges are concerned, I'm sure the voting blocs are driven more by abortion than anything else, and I guarantee you that the abortion-should-be-illegal crowd are a lot more likely to rule against agnostic parents over "proper" Christian ones in divorce proceedings.

In terms of actual statute, I suspect a lot of the stagnation of law in this area is because the law is set at the state level. Just about no one gets into the details of what their state legislature does unless it catches the attention of the national media (e.g. SB1070, Prop 8, Prop 19, Romneycare, etc.). Even a political junkie like me is hard pressed to say what issues my state legislature has even tried to address over its last session.

As far as some sort of anarchist state-free system, let me quote James Madison, who puts it far more eloquently than I do:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

@NetRunner, I don't know about it being that easy here in Ohio. My ex and I are on full agreement on everything and the magistrate still sent it into continuance for December. Largely as we were still living together in the same home, though separate rooms for cost reasons, and it keeps the kids close to me... apparently you can be roommates any time in your life except while getting a disillusion. The magistrate also wants us to get one of the $30 consultations with a lawyer to make sure the Shared Parenting Plan is saying what we want it to say. Of course we may have just had a jerk for a magistrate.


Things really depend on their parenting agreement. We really need to see that before we can jump to any conclusions. However, the judge shouldn't have signed the order with the religious references in it, even if he is just signing what the mother's lawyer handed in. It would be nice to get a better follow-up to this story once more details come out.

The Honorable judges Smith & Wesson>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist what's the non-state method by which a divorced couple resolves disputes about visitation rights?

>> ^RFlagg:

@NetRunner, I don't know about it being that easy here in Ohio.

Maybe it's not. I don't speak from adult experience in trying to go through it, I'm just recounting what my parents told me when I asked "why do you need to use courts to settle things?" Short version of the answer was "We wouldn't, if we could just get along".

Still, it sounds like all the court is doing in your case is saying "are you sure?" If you're trying to do this without any lawyers at all, I can't really blame them.

>> ^RFlagg:
It would be nice to get a better follow-up to this story once more details come out.


It would be nice if the media wouldn't present a scandalous narrative, and then only give us hearsay to support it. If they had any conclusive evidence supporting the idea that the ruling was some sort of religious bigotry, they sure didn't provide it in this report.

*length=1:26

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:26 - length declared by radx.