The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
In a divorce case that’s drawn national attention, a Chicago man who claims he has returned to his Catholic roots will be allowed to take his 3-year-old daughter to church, despite the objections of the girl’s Jewish mother, a Cook County judge [Renee Goldfarb] ruled this afternoon….The judge said she found “no evidence … that taking 3-year-old Ela to church during Joseph’s visitation time is or would be harmful to Ela. She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles. This court found that testimony credible.” …
The original order, from Judge Edward Jordan, is here (p. 5); I have read Judge Goldfarb’s opinion, and was quite impressed by the reasoning explaining the decision against interfering with the parents’ religious practices absent “proof of harm or potential harm” to the daughter. The judge had to juggle three not entirely consistent state appellate decisions, and I think did a very good job of coming to the conclusion that as consistent as possible with those decisions and with First Amendment caselaw.
UPDATE: Judge Goldfarb’s opinion is now online here.
Chris Travers says:
Great news. Any chance we can read Goldfarb’s ruling?
April 13, 2010, 7:22 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
WWJD?
April 13, 2010, 7:42 pmSara says:
He does sound like a cad. Why can’t people keep their commitments?
April 13, 2010, 8:50 pmloki13 says:
It’s funny. I have the one rule in life, and then 1a.
1. When they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.
1a. Except in family court. When they say it’s about the money, or the kids, or anything else… it’s not. It’s about either a) hurting the other spouse or b) being “vindicated” (even though that doesn’t really happen).
I feel bad for the kid. When it comes time for divorce, just let go- do what’s right, act like an adult, take less if you need to. There’s always more money, more stuff, more everything. The longer you stay wrapped up fighting stupid battles, the longer before you move on, and the worse it is for the kids (you know, the little things that look like carnies that you’re using as weapons in the battle with your ex?).
/preach
April 13, 2010, 8:56 pmDangerMouse says:
Interesting. A judge that doesn’t hate Catholics. I thought Scalia was the only one.
April 13, 2010, 9:06 pmJohn Herbison says:
The newspaper article suggests that this judge may not have thought too highly of the father here, who seems to be a bit of a jerk.
April 13, 2010, 9:17 pmreadery says:
Another reason to insist on arbitration with the relevant religious tribunal as arbitrator when making agreements involving such matters, or at least agreements that one wants to be genuinely binding.
April 13, 2010, 9:32 pmAnonny says:
readery-
April 13, 2010, 9:45 pmWhich would be illegal under that proposed Arizona law EV blogged about a couple of months back.
OrenWithAnE says:
DangerMouse, not only that a Jewish judge that doesn’t hate Catholics (County judge Renee Goldfarb).
April 13, 2010, 10:04 pmDave N. says:
Probably Jewish. Remember, though, last names can be deceiving. After all, Bill Cohen is a Unitarian.
April 13, 2010, 10:20 pmAnonsters says:
C’mon, you heartless commenters.
That was adorable.
April 13, 2010, 10:40 pmDave N. says:
I agree. While the mother is traumatized, the child isn’t.
April 13, 2010, 11:27 pmDangerMouse says:
I don’t think he is. He probably knows that family/divorce court is highly misandrist, and had to do the media spectacle in order to garner sympathy.
April 13, 2010, 11:54 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
The handwaving, etc., is cute.
My thoughts:
1 – If that’s all that’s going on for the little girl, is it worthwhile to irritate her mother that way? The argument seems to be that she’s not getting anything out of church. So why do it?
2 – She’s three. Is this still going to be going on when she’s four, five, six – the waving and socializing, and nothing more? I can tell you that that will not be the case if the church is worth anything at all. Will the same argument be made then?
April 14, 2010, 12:10 amGeorge says:
This is just a judge who is running from adverse publicity. He criticizes the dad for the publicity, but the dad was being shut out of his daughter’s life and he had to do that to get some time with her.
The judge also attacked the dad for sometimes acting in his own interest. Who doesn’t?
This judge’s reasoning is almost as bad as the last one’s.
April 14, 2010, 12:57 amSteve says:
If that’s all that’s going on for the little girl, is it worthwhile to irritate her mother that way? The argument seems to be that she’s not getting anything out of church. So why do it?
Irritating the mother seems to be the entire point of the exercise, from my perspective. Typical petty divorce behavior. The courts would go broke if they ever seriously tried to police this stuff.
Btw, could we maybe designate one person to grind the men’s rights axe in all the family-law threads, on behalf of all the aggrieved males of society?
April 14, 2010, 2:30 amASlyJD says:
It’s worth pointing out that even if the girl never develops any religious beliefs from her time in church, she is learning very important things: how to sit quietly for a hour, how to interact in a mixed age environment, the stories that are fundamental to Western Civilization and are part of cultural literacy, and even the development of a non-school related peer group. While not necessarily a defense trotted out by the religious, the non-religious benefits of attending a service (not limited to a Christian service, BTW) are real and valuable. Church — it ain’t just for the religion.
April 14, 2010, 3:47 amNickM says:
Many do. Newspapers seldom write about families that are getting along and not doing anything abnormal.
Nick
April 14, 2010, 4:59 amRuss says:
Which seems rather to miss the point. What if she does learn something in the church, something that undermines the religious lessons that her mother is trying to teach? There is a value to be raised in a particular religious tradition and with a clear religious identity — and one that is lost when parents attempt to give a child a mix of religions.
April 14, 2010, 5:21 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Russ:
April 14, 2010, 8:12 amwhat “value” is that exactly?; and, how is it imperilled by exposing the child to another mainstream religious culture?
thirdeblue says:
If a Jew wants to raise their kids exclusively Jewish…don’t marry a Catholic. Catholics…do likewise. If you don’t care one way or the other…carry on.
My ex-wife doesn’t understand when I actively undermine her teachings of the children that the world was created in 7 days. That’s what I get for breeding with a fundamentalist.
April 14, 2010, 8:51 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Thirdeblue, read the original order. Joseph went through an elaborate conversion to Judaism. Rebecca reasonably thought they had that covered.
A parent taking a very young child to church is not “exposing” the child to religion in the same way as, say, taking a “Religions of the World” course in high school.
JD, I’m with you about learning to sit still and developing a peer group outside school. Those are not the primary reasons why we go to church, of course.
April 14, 2010, 9:26 amBob from Ohio says:
What a horrible decision.
Jewish mother with sole custody. Jewish daughter. Father who went through what seems like a sham conversion to Judiasm secretly has the child baptized as a Catholic, against the will of the custodial parent. Mainly so as to screw his Jewish ex-wife in a low, mean way.
Apparently, in Chicago, sole custody is meaningless.
Its not even remotely in the best interest of the child either.
As the child grows up, her mother will take her to synagogue where she will learn that the Messiah has not yet come.
Then, the non-custodial parent, already established as a liar and sneak, will take her to Mass where she will learn that Jesus is the Messiah.
The judge apparently thinks the 3 year old will never get older and will never be confused by this 180 degree difference.
The mother, the one with useless custody, can’t object because the father has a court order. The power of the state used to convert a Jew to Catholic. Not really so much different than the Mortara Case in Italy in 1858, just a matter of degree. Only a Jewish judge is doing it.
April 14, 2010, 10:41 amCB says:
Unbelievable that someone could face criminal charges and up to six months in jail for taking their child to church.
April 14, 2010, 12:15 pmShelbyC says:
It never ceases to amaze me that family courts think they’re allowed to intervene in parents’ religious upbringing of their children.
April 14, 2010, 12:17 pmGuy says:
I think it’s safe to say that application of the law would be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
April 14, 2010, 12:20 pmGuy says:
Except it doesn’t evidence interstate commerce, hmm… maybe a forum selection clause for a liberal jurisdiction.
April 14, 2010, 12:36 pmUrso says:
a, the state is not taking anyone to Mass. If you have a beef, it’s with the dad.
b, I guess in your opinion it would be a much better use of state power to convert a Catholic to a Jew, by entering a court order forbidding the child from going to Mass?
April 14, 2010, 12:44 pmGeorge says:
Yes, this Jewish mom control freak reasonably thought that she had her husband under total control, and then that she had manipulated the court to give her sole authority over the kid. She almost got away with it, but she pushed too hard.
April 14, 2010, 1:18 pmDilan Esper says:
Personally, I think the Solomonic solution (perfectly appropriate, given the parents’ competing religions) would be to tell the parents that if they can’t agree on this, BOTH parents will be barred from taking the kid to any religious services.
April 14, 2010, 1:29 pmVlad Konings says:
It strikes me as a classic example of parents creating a situation no court can fix.
Makes me glad I don’t practice family law.
April 14, 2010, 1:48 pmBob from Ohio says:
Jewish mother and (at the time) a Jewish by conversion father. Child is Jewish. [See footnote on page 7 of the order].
April 14, 2010, 2:03 pmBob from Ohio says:
Read the facts in the opinion.
They had agreed to raise her as a Jew. She was being raised as a Jew.
Then, he, and only he, started this campaign to humiliate the mother.
Solomon would have cut the father in half.
April 14, 2010, 2:09 pmDavid V. says:
What protection does the 3 year old have from being forced to go to either? Is there any case law about freedom of choice for infants?
April 14, 2010, 2:09 pmGeorge says:
No court should ever try to “fix” a family’s religious preferences. The error was that the court ever intervened in the first place.
Even if that were true, do you really think that American courts should force people to adhere to once-stated beliefs? This isn’t Sharia law, and we are supposed to have religious freedom.
April 14, 2010, 2:30 pmCB says:
I totally agree with you. People change during life, people convert in an out of religions all the time, or become agnostic or atheist. The freedom to do that is one of the things that makes the west special. The initial ruling sounds like Saudi Arabia to me…and that makes me cringe.
April 14, 2010, 2:51 pmCJColucci says:
It never ceases to amaze me that family courts think they’re allowed to intervene in parents’ religious upbringing of their children.
No sane judge would want this mess dumped in his or her lap. Left to his own devices, this judge wouldn’t come within a country mile of getting involved in the religious upbringing of the child. But the parents disagreed. They can’t both have their way, and the non-judicial methods available, mainly force, fraud, and kidnapping, have real disadvantages. Somebody has to decide this and have the power to make a solution stick. What else would you have the judge do? And if judges don’t get to resolve this, who does?
April 14, 2010, 2:55 pmDavid V. says:
Psychiatrists.
April 14, 2010, 3:00 pmCB says:
What is the problem with having the child do what the parent is doing when he is at that household? I don’t see the problem with a child thinking that this is what her dad believes, and this is what her mom believes. At some point, the child can make her own decision and I think that is a good thing. Should the child stay at home while the dad goes to church on Sunday when she’s in his care? The whole thing is silly in my mind. Sounds like a bunch of control freaks in that family.
April 14, 2010, 3:03 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Being male and having been through the system/ringer, I would probably qualify for this job. However, I have come to a somewhat less strident conclusion: I think the system, though undoubtedly laden with prejudices against men as parents and child-rearers, is primariy stacked against whichever spouse earns the money.
In many, but emphatically not all, cases, that’s the guy– but I’ve seen women who were the primary earners get hosed down just as badly as guys do, and for reasons that were equally specious.
April 14, 2010, 3:08 pmGeorge says:
No, no one has to decide this, and no one should have the power to force the parents to make a particular religious preference.
The kinds of people who become family court judges are those who get some sort of thrill out of micro-managing the lives of others. It is bizarre that some commenters here don’t seem to understand that it is possible to let parents have to autonomy to run their own lives, and to teach their kids as they see fit.
April 14, 2010, 3:13 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Wow, read Goldfarb’s opinion. Joseph is really quite something.
CB, you are assuming that Joseph goes to church when his daughter is not with him. Is this established?
April 14, 2010, 3:13 pmDavid V. says:
Essentially where my ‘psychiatrists’ comment comes from. It’s sad but true. If the parents are just going to continue down the road of putting the child in the middle of their incomprehensible-to-a-child power plays, the child is going to suffer the effects of this negative parental behavior they cannot contextualize.
April 14, 2010, 3:21 pmGeorge says:
500 years ago the Spanish Inquisition put citizens on trial for the sincerity of their religious beliefs, and I thought that we now had a consensus that such trials are wrong.
To the extent that this judge conducted such an inquiry, it was wrong, harmful, unproductive, and ought to be unconstitutional. I don’t care how often the dad went to church, and I don’t think that this dictatorial Chicago court should either.
April 14, 2010, 3:24 pmCB says:
I really thought Goldfarb’s opinion was quite something. Her tone was so condescending it just dripped. Fortunately, she arrived at the correct conclusion.
Whether or not Joseph goes to church when his daughter is not with him is irrelevant. Lots of parents take their children to church as a good role model for them when they wouldn’t regularly go themselves.
You can read this interview for background. Neither parent was very religious. And apparently, Joseph only converted to Judaism from pressure from her parents after the baby was born. It doesn’t matter though, because we are all guaranteed freedom of religion in this country…at any time.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/father-face-months-jail-taking-daughter-church/story?id=9845952
April 14, 2010, 3:27 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
From Goldfarb’s opinion:
(Cue George, or somebody, telling me that Joseph’s actions here were reasonable and were his only way of expressing his frustration.)
CB, that interview is Joseph’s version only. He has been shown to have no problem telling untruths.
April 14, 2010, 3:40 pmCB says:
I am well aware that was an interview with Joseph only. And I understand that in divorces people can get tremendously angry and feel screwed over and family court judges should know and understand that. The answer is to not get divorced, but apparently lots of people do it anyway. It doesn’t change the fact that we are thankfully allowed freedom of religion in this country…to date anyway.
April 14, 2010, 3:51 pmCJColucci says:
What is the problem with having the child do what the parent is doing when he is at that household?
If you’re asking me, I’m fine with that. If the parents agree with that, there is, by definition, no problem. The problem is that the parents don’t agree. Therefore, they can’t come to this resolution — or any of several other perfectly reasonable resolutions — on their own. Somebody has to resolve the dispute. We’ve given the job to judges. Maybe we could give the job to shrinks, though it’s hard to see how they make whatever they decide stick. But — a few of our resident anarchists aside — the dispute has to be resolved somehow, by someone who can make the fighting stop. I’m not committed to keeping that the job of judges, but that’s the system we have, and I can’t fault a judge in that system for doing her job.
April 14, 2010, 3:53 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Also from Goldfarb’s opinion:
See, I don’t know why this is even in discussion.
April 14, 2010, 3:55 pmCB says:
It’s in discussion because Joseph is allowed freedom of religion…I know it’s a hard concept to understand. And he can take his daughter with him to whatever church he wants to (as long as they’re not performing virgin sacrifices, for instance, that may be harmful to her :-) ) . Yes, the ex-wife can decide to send her daughter to Jewish day school and Jewish services, while the daughter is under her direct care, but the ex-husband also has rights.
What happens if the mother decides to convert to Buddhism in the next few years? Does Joseph now have a say in that? I think not. And neither does she have control over his religious affiliations while the daughter is in his care.
April 14, 2010, 4:03 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
“What happens if the mother decides to convert to Buddhism in the next few years? Does Joseph now have a say in that? I think not.”
I think so.
I know it’s a hard concept to understand.
April 14, 2010, 4:05 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Further, Joseph’s freedom of religion is not in play here. You understand that, right? He is not prevented from going to church, although he admits that he hadn’t been and “would have liked to”.
April 14, 2010, 4:06 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
…Whoops, misread you, I thought you wrote “does Joseph not have a say”.
April 14, 2010, 4:11 pmanonymous says:
I was going to say that I wondered whether George’s view would remain the same if the mother were Catholic (or Protestant) and the father, say, Muslim, and had agreed that the daughter would be raised Catholic (or Protestant) or whether it’s one of those issues where one’s view of what’s in the best interest of the child is colored by one’s subjective views about the participant’s religion and culture. (Would George have referred to the mother, if she were Catholic, as a “Catholic control freak” who “manipulated the court” as she and her family had her former husband?)
In this particular case, it’s difficult not to suspect that the father hopes to hold over his ex-wife’s head the prospect that he will be telling their daughter as she gets older that mommy won’t be able to get into heaven (but that she, the daughter, will be able to do so by accepting the Catholic faith), that mommy’s side of the family is responsible for killing the son of God . . . .
April 14, 2010, 4:18 pmGeorge says:
I am not the one who is passing judgments on his beliefs. Maybe he made some mistakes. Maybe he has some character defects. It doesn’t matter to me. Sinners are allowed to attend church in our society. If he has committed sins, then maybe it is all the more important that he should be able to take his daughter to church.
April 14, 2010, 4:22 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
How is taking his daughter to church, where she giggles and waves, doing anything for Joseph’s sins?
Interesting how Joseph’s character defects don’t matter to you, but you assume character defects in Rebecca (that she is a control freak) and those do.
April 14, 2010, 4:27 pmJohn M. Perkins says:
We’ve had a string of these cases on VC. They follow a pattern. Parent without primary custody wants to change religious upbringing of the child.
April 14, 2010, 4:32 pmEV and the forum swallows the bait that religion is the primary factor in the judge’s opinion. That’s a problem with single issue politics/lawyering/blogging, and the sinker weakens the argument.
Reading the cases, 80ish% of the time, “best interest” of the child is the primary factor for the judge, and religion is only an incidental issue in the power struggle. In many of these cases, the losing “religious” parent barely surpass the standard to be allowed unsupervised visitation. In some of the cases, the losing “religious” parent of the higher quality, are using religion to increase visitation. Somehow if a parent can cry “freedom of religion,” the parent can violate divorce decrees and visitation agreements.
In this case, Joseph was lucky ever to have visitation at the beginning. Because Joseph was already on shaky ground before the religious issue, the judge was justified in the TRO till evidence could be compiled. IMO, its borderline that the order should have been lifted, and IMO, Joseph should be limited to supervised visitation. Had this not been a divorce case, state family services would have a legitimate concern to consider whether Joseph should continue as a custodian.
With a better Joseph, I’m all for Joseph taking his kid to any church he wants.
George says:
My opinion of the mom is based on an interview I saw of her on ABC TV 20/20. When asked why she wanted the daughter raised Jewish, her main argument was that she was the custodial mom and that her ex-husband should have no say in the matter.
As for what possible opinion the dad might express ten years from now, I certain do not think that the family court should attempt to control that. The court needs to stop trying to run their lives.
April 14, 2010, 4:35 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
And that is, in fact, the law.
April 14, 2010, 4:39 pmanonymous says:
Would you at least grant that it was not a coincidence that the husband, in purporting to respond to a request by the mother for photographs, happened to send her pictures of the daughter “on the day of her Baptism”? Or do you think that photographs of the daughter’s baptism just happened to be “the most recent” he had?
April 14, 2010, 4:45 pmCB says:
I can understand why you wish to remain anonymous by stating such a calumny. I can guarantee you that the girl would never hear such a thing by attending Sunday or Christmas and Easter services. If the courts are concerned about such things, perhaps it would be better to put the child up for adoption than to be destroyed by two such vengeful people.
April 14, 2010, 4:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
anonymous, don’t forget that the photograph was intended to go on the wall at the Jewish preschool Ela attends.
April 14, 2010, 4:47 pmGeorge says:
Perhaps our First Amendment should have guaranteed the free exercise of religion, provided that some local family court judge decides that you have sufficient moral character. As it is, all free citizens have the right.
I certainly do not think that the family court judge should pass judgment on how the dad’s chose to comply with the mom’s request for pictures. If the mom didn’t want the pictures, then maybe she should not have asked for them. The judge should not be micro-managing their lives to this level of detail. Don’t they have any real substantive problems in Chicago?
April 14, 2010, 5:06 pmShelbyC says:
AFAIK 1st amendment rights aren’t subject to restriction on the grounds that you’re exercising them for the purpose of being an ass.
April 14, 2010, 5:17 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
George, the mom asked for pictures of Joseph and Ela, to put on the wall at preschool, like the other kids had. A very straightforward reading of this indicates that she was making a good-faith effort to acknowledge their relationship and to help Ela feel good about her daddy. His response – knowing that it was a Jewish preschool – was to send a picture of Ela being baptized.
And you say that she should just have not asked for the picture. If she’d only supplied pictures of herself and Ela to put on the wall at preschool, I can just imagine what you’d say.
April 14, 2010, 5:29 pmDilan Esper says:
I don’t think either parent comes off very well, frankly. If your kid doesn’t get raised in your religion, that simply isn’t a big deal. The kid will still get the chance, when he is older, to choose your faith if he finds its tenets plausible.
It does zero harm whatsoever to her if the kid isn’t raised Jewish, and it does zero harm whatsoever to him if the kid doesn’t go to mass. This is a human person we are talking about, not a little doll that the parents get to decorate in precisely the way they want to.
April 14, 2010, 5:33 pmanonymous says:
Excuse me — I wasn’t trying to imply that this was what she’d be hearing during church services but about dad’s explanation to the growing child about how daddy’s and mommy’s faiths are different. I am confident that the explanation is markedly different when the parent or parents in question are mature, responsible adults than it is when the parent is a spiteful jerk who is using his (or her) own parental rights and claim to free exercise of religion to get back against an ex-spouse, to drive a wedge between the child and the ex-spouse and the ex-spouse’s family, etc.
April 14, 2010, 5:38 pmanonymous says:
And your view of how the dad chose to comply with the mom’s request for pictures? . . . .
April 14, 2010, 5:41 pmGeorge says:
Laura, if you want to dictate whether anyone ever sends anyone a preschool picture with a possibly inappropriate indication of religious affiliation, then I suggest that you lobby for such laws. I do not think that our courts should waste time scrutinizing such matters. Whenever the court intervenes in such matters, it nearly always causes far more harm than the original behavior.
April 14, 2010, 5:50 pmanonymous says:
Okay, putting aside the question of whether it’s the courts’ place to do anything about it, what do you think of “the original behavior?”
April 14, 2010, 5:57 pmyankev says:
Are you seriously asking how the messages of Roman Catholicism and of Judaism are in fundamental conflict? Even after Vatican II, that’s an amazing question. Just for starters (btw, Israel for purposes of this post means not the State of Israel, but rather the People of Israel, i.e. the Jewish people, viewed as a historic nation):
Eternal selection of Israel vs. replacement of Israel by the Church.
Whether in fact the Church was selected at all.
The entire nature of what it means to be so selected (Jewish notion of special obligation vs. idea of special favor)
Role of Israel in history.
Nature of the messiah generally, identity of the messiah and whether or not the messiah has come.
G-d’s innate Oneness (both in the sense of unique and the sense of unified) versus the concept of the Trinity.
Prohibition of praying to or through anyone but G-d vs. prayers addressed to saints, Mary and that certain man.
Direct prayer to G-d vs. necessity of priesthood, mass, communion.
Emunas Chachomim (difficult to translate this, Faith in the Sages is literal but misleading) vs. Papal Infallibiltiy.
Role of the rabbis in interpreting and applying G-d’s law.
Continuing vitality of the Law today.
Nature of man, nature of sin, nature of the afterlife and man’s purpose in this world.
When and how there is a duty to use force in one’s defense and defense of others.
That’s just a few off the top of my head.
April 14, 2010, 6:03 pmyankev says:
Read the facts. The daughter already WAS a Jew. She was born to a Jewish mother with a Jewish husband who agreed the daughter would be raised as a Jew. Later the father changed his mind and for whatever reason (before the divorce? after?) decided he wanted to be Catholic again. Status quo ante is that the daughter is Jewish.
April 14, 2010, 6:07 pmyankev says:
No one’s saying the kid can’t convert when she’s old enough to make a decision. This is about letting the father welch on an agreement and then saying that “freedom or religion” is a reason to let him out of a promise he regrets having made, even though that promise did not conflict with his religion when made. If I convert to another religion, can I refuse to pay interest that I previously contracted to pay? Can I get my synagogue dues and building fund contributions back, and cancel my outstanding pledges?
April 14, 2010, 6:11 pmyankev says:
Which means Mrs. Jospeh should have anticipated this. But even so.
April 14, 2010, 6:14 pmBob from Ohio says:
To you.
But to many, many people, it matters quite a bit.
In fact, your view is a distinct minority view in the US.
[Joseph here doesn't agree with you either. He choose this particular attack on this wife for its value. (Not that I believe he is religious at all, its just a tactic, one now approved by this judge.)]
You are just projecting your lack of religion onto others and pretending its universal.
April 14, 2010, 6:17 pmyankev says:
Heck, my baby sitter (Baptist, I think — whatever Moody Bible College is) drummed that into me pretty constantly from about age 5 to about age 8 when my mother found out about it. And she had nothing against my parents.
April 14, 2010, 6:18 pmAnonAnon says:
Dilan-
April 14, 2010, 6:20 pmI don’t think that’s true, especially for an ethnic religion like Judaism. A lapsed Protestant myself, I won’t presume to speak with authority on the issue, but I’m sympathetic to the argument that a large part of being Jewish is being raised Jewish. You know, cultural history and all that.
yankev says:
Not the “responsible for killing ” part, I should add.
April 14, 2010, 6:21 pmShelbyC says:
Well, they also agreed to spend the rest of their lives together. People change their minds. There’s no evidence that he contracted to raise her as Jewish, is there?
April 14, 2010, 6:27 pmShelbyC says:
In fact, the founders felt it mattered so much that they prevented the government from intervening in how children were raised.
April 14, 2010, 6:29 pmDilan Esper says:
But to many, many people, it matters quite a bit.
It may MATTER, but that’s not the same thing as an injury.
It matters to me whether the Los Angeles Kings win the Stanley Cup. I am not, however, injured in any way when they don’t do so.
You can argue that the kid is injured. That depends on what religious truth, if any, you accept. But the parents aren’t injured at all. Because they aren’t the kid, and it doesn’t do any harm to ANYONE ELSE when someone engages or doesn’t engage in religious practice.
April 14, 2010, 6:43 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
yankev, when you think about a Jewish child being baptized against her mother’s wishes, do you think it’s kind of ironic that the Spanish Inquisition was invoked the way it was?
April 14, 2010, 6:44 pmShelbyC says:
I’m not sure about that. I’d imagine government-imposed mandatory Sunday school would violate the rights of both parents and children, no?
April 14, 2010, 6:59 pmDilan Esper says:
I’d imagine government-imposed mandatory Sunday school would violate the rights of both parents and children, no?
It may violate both their rights (because we construe the free exercise clause as extending to the right to teach your kids your religious beliefs). But it doesn’t really injure the parents, no. The only person who actually suffers the harm is the kid.
April 14, 2010, 7:17 pmanonymous says:
Laura, that was an excellent observation. I’m embarrassed it hadn’t occurred to me. I hadn’t expected it. (No one expects the Spanish Inquisition . . . .)
April 14, 2010, 8:01 pmCB says:
Ah, I see. But that wouldn’t be any different if somehow the court could force Joseph to not attend church with the girl. I think it would have been beneficial to have treated Joseph better and included him in the custody arrangements so he didn’t get backed into a corner and left with no other options. Sometimes you squeeze too hard and people bite back.
Anyhow, who has the better situation? Obviously the mother who can have the child enrolled in full-time Jewish culture. I’m sure the schools and synagogues she goes to will be able to ably answer any questions she would have.
If both parents aren’t careful, she may end up hating both religions and perhaps the parents too.
April 14, 2010, 8:40 pmCB says:
I would think this kind of agreement should be included with the unenforceable agreements such as contracting yourself into slave labor. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right and should be recognized by the courts as such.
April 14, 2010, 8:43 pmCB says:
Really, I think this case has more to do with one party squeezing the other too hard and receiving the inevitable blowback.
April 14, 2010, 8:44 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
What evidence do you have that Joseph wanted to be included in the custody arrangements?
April 14, 2010, 8:57 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
As far as this goes:
yeah, when Joseph responded to Rebecca’s innocent request for a picture of him and Ela with the picture of Ela being baptized, which he knew would shock and upset her, he got some blowback. I will agree with you there.
April 14, 2010, 9:11 pmShelbyC says:
The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t notorious because fathers were baptising their own children. Here people are advocating that a father be punished for taking his child to mass.
April 14, 2010, 9:54 pmBob from Ohio says:
So, I shoot and kill the kid. Only the child is injured, no injury to the parent?
April 14, 2010, 10:44 pmDilan Esper says:
So, I shoot and kill the kid. Only the child is injured, no injury to the parent?
No, but that’s because (1) death is a lot more traumatic and simply a much bigger deal than someone attending a religious service, and (2) your expectation that your child stay alive is extremely important and understandable, whereas your expectation that your child never be exposed to someone else’s religion is pretty low on the totem pole.
April 15, 2010, 12:15 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Shelby, his Jewish child. Against her Jewish mother’s wishes. You just completely skip over that part, don’t you?
Dilan, are you capable of understanding that what is a trivial matter to you may be a very big deal to someone else? You are very comfortable applying your own standards to other people, and assuming that they should adopt your priorities, aren’t you?
April 15, 2010, 9:11 amShelbyC says:
Fine. Was the Spanish inquisition notorious for fathers voluntarily baptising their Jewish children against their Jewish mother’s wishes?
Why should the father’s wishes be irrellavent?
AFAIK parents don’t typically control what happens during the other parents visitation, right? And courts, with good reason, are more reluctant to issue orders wrt religous services than with other things, but it sounds like people are arguing that courts should execise more control over religious activities at visitation, which doesn’t make sense to me. IMO courts don’t have the power to issue such orders, although the court here disagreed.
April 15, 2010, 9:38 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Because the law gives the custodial parent the right to determine the child’s religious training. It’s stupid for this to even have had to go to court, because the law already spelled it out.
April 15, 2010, 9:55 amThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Judge Vacates TRO Barring … | Divorce Information says:
[...] here to read the rest: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Judge Vacates TRO Barring …SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Judge Vacates TRO Barring [...]
April 15, 2010, 1:26 pmDilan Esper says:
Dilan, are you capable of understanding that what is a trivial matter to you may be a very big deal to someone else?
I think you are missing a subjective / objective distinction here. As I said, the Los Angeles Kings winning the Stanley Cup is really important to me. That’s a subjective desire. It is not, however, objectively, an extremely important interest. Certainly not on the same level as a close relative dying (Bob’s example).
Well, similarly, no matter how important it is subjectively to someone that their kid never be exposed to the services of another religion, that doesn’t mean that the person is really injured when it happens, just as I will not be really injured when the Kings are once again knocked out of the playoffs this year.
April 15, 2010, 2:07 pmyankev says:
As to the rest of their lives, depends on the type of ceremony. If it was a Jewish ceremony, he told her that she was consecrated to him according to the laws of Moses and Israel (no, not the present day state of Israel, of course). Those laws provide for divorce, and also require that the children be raised Jewish. But given that he was not Jewish when they married (contrary to what I first assumed), who knows? The first agreement to raise her Jewish may have been in the divorce proceeding. Maybe someone who read the decision can tell us.
April 15, 2010, 6:09 pmyankev says:
Yes, but no more ironic (and a lot less disgusting) than when someone accuses the Jews of perpetrating or planning a Holocaust against the Arabs or any subset thereof. Or when an RC Bishop in Poland accuses Jews of plotting to murder Catholics, as was leveled a few years ago against a group protesting a cross being set up at Auschwitz.
April 15, 2010, 6:13 pmA lot of us get kind of used to ironies like that.
yankev says:
You may want to reread Pierce v. Soc. of Sisters. Also the SCOTUS case affirming parents’ right to educate their children in schools where a language other than English (in this case, German). Or for that matter Yoder v. Wisconsin. All of those cases were based on the right of the parent to educate their children, not on the rights of the children.
April 15, 2010, 6:16 pmyankev says:
Yes, and people have fled their native lands and lived elsewhere rather than switch hockey teams. Nations have fought wars over it. People have formed their own states for the right to root for a hockey team. Heck, we commemorate the fact that the Pilgrims left England, as did the Quakers and the Catholics, for the right to root for whatever hockey team they like. And many teams commemorate the many fans who gladly allowed themselves to be tortured, exiled or put to death for refusing to root for another hockey team.
Some feel otherwise, of course. A Duke once justified surrendering his Red Wing season tickets in order to gain throne of France, observing “Paris is well worth a Maple Leafs vs. Blackhawks game.”
Or maybe, just maybe, the role of religious conscience in US and Western Eurpoean culture and history is much more than you give it credit for, and these silly examples show just how silly your analogy is.
April 15, 2010, 6:25 pmDilan Esper says:
You may want to reread Pierce v. Soc. of Sisters. Also the SCOTUS case affirming parents’ right to educate their children in schools where a language other than English (in this case, German). Or for that matter Yoder v. Wisconsin. All of those cases were based on the right of the parent to educate their children, not on the rights of the children.
You might want to re-read my post, where I conceded that parents have an enforceable legal right. That’s not the same thing as saying they will suffer the injury if the right is violated.
Look, again, objectively, not an ounce of harm is going to befall anyone because their child is exposed to someone else’s religion. No physical harm, no monetary harm, no serious emotional distress. Nothing. The fact that they have an enforceable free exercise right doesn’t mean that if it is violated they will suffer any harm. They are two different concepts.
April 15, 2010, 6:32 pmDilan Esper says:
Or maybe, just maybe, the role of religious conscience in US and Western Eurpoean culture and history is much more than you give it credit for, and these silly examples show just how silly your analogy is.
Yankev, I am talking about harm, not history.
The people who fought wars over religions were idiots. Seriously. Anyone who kills people over the principle that “my god is better than your god” is dumb and immoral.
So saying “you see, being able to impose one’s religious beliefs on other people is so important to people that they fought wars over it” isn’t really a justification for it. Rather, it’s just an illustration of how dumb people can be.
There’s no INJURY. There may be a right, there may be a history, but there’s no injury. The only injury, in theory, is to the kid, if one believes that one invisible man in the sky is better than another. But to the parents– no injury at all.
April 15, 2010, 6:35 pmyankev says:
Under your standard, then, there is no injury if a right is invaded or abrogated? What a curious definition of right. The same could be said, then, if the court forced her to allow the husband to feed the kid ham. Or even if the court ordered the mother to eat ham. After all, it’s all in her mind, so where’s the injury?
Glory! said Humpty Dumpty.
April 15, 2010, 6:49 pmyankev says:
I was not advocating war to impose one’s religion on another; I do defend the concept of war to prevent someone from imposing their religion on you (or on me). Under your standard, if that religion imposes no inconvenience on you, there is no harm. Whether or not you accord it importance, Western culture does. Your standard of rights, injury and religious freedom is as sophisticated and intellectually defensible as your description of G-d as an invisible man in the sky.
April 15, 2010, 6:53 pmDilan Esper says:
Under your standard, then, there is no injury if a right is invaded or abrogated? What a curious definition of right.
It’s not a strange concept at all. If you have a jury trial right, the judge denies that right to you, and then acquits you in a bench trial, were you injured? If you have an equal protection right with respect to college admissions, and you are denied admission under a standard that contains an impermissible racial preference, but you wouldn’t have gotten in anyway even if the proper standard had been used, were you injured?
Right and injury are two separate concepts.
April 16, 2010, 2:22 pmDilan Esper says:
Your standard of rights, injury and religious freedom is as sophisticated and intellectually defensible as your description of G-d as an invisible man in the sky.
My description of God as “invisible man in the sky” happens to be a lot more intellectually defensible than your apparent belief that some horrible thing will befall you if you spell God with an “o”.
Really, have you ever thought of how vain and shallow the God you supposedly worship is? That She is actually concerned with whether someone puts a vowel in Her name? Beings who create universes have a little more intellectual depth to them than that, you know.
April 16, 2010, 2:25 pmMark E. Horning says:
Absent a binding prenuptial agreement stating that any children from the union will be raised solely Jewish, or a binding agreement as part of a divorce settlement, I realy don’t see the problem here.
It doesn’t mater legally if the guy is just doing this to be a jerk or not, if it was that important to her, the woman involved should have insisted on it as part of the divorce settlement.
April 17, 2010, 1:46 am