Joseph Reyes: stalwart hero or just fucking with his ex?

[Chronos]

But if the actual baptism was performed by a priest or deacon, as woulld normally be the case at a Catholic baptism, then this theory doesn’t work.

Hm, true, that. I hope that the church hierarchy at least issues some sort of statement, though, and possibly disciplines the clergy involved. Who performs a baptism without even checking with the custodial parent?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I wonder what that does to the little girl’s soul, if she received baptism because of a lie her father told? Does that condemn her to eternal torment, in Christian theology? Does Mr. Reyes get ex-communicated and have to live the rest of his life as a Methodist or <gasp!> a Baptist or something? :eek::eek:

[Chronos]

(answering from a perspective of Catholic theology)
To the extent that there can be any stain on her soul from this, it would be an aspect of Original Sin, which is precisely what baptism is intended to remove (actually, baptism removes all sin, not just original, but it’s assumed that an infant or toddler probably hasn’t had much chance to commit non-original sin yet). So assuming that her baptism was valid, she’s a clean slate now, and will only be accountable for what she herself does.

For the dad, I don’t know if there’s any set policy, but if he receives any punishment at all from the Church, it’ll be far short of excommunication.

[The_Second_Stone]

This sort of crap is why I hate family law. If I get sent to hell for my many sins, it will be to serve eternity as a referee to sort out crap like this while the department head demon plays Family Division Presiding Judge. Both of these religions have beautiful traditions and wisdom to offer families from a hundred generations of trial and error. But these assholes, and especially Mr. Reyes, seem to think that the upbringing of the child is a football for unresolved relationship punishment.

This kind of crap is potentially incredibly damaging to the child in the formation of her relationships with people.

I also don’t see what right-wing talking points has to do with any of this. These kinds of bullshit talking points are not limited to the right wing, but are common among idiots of all stripes. Douche-baggery is a bipartisan sentiment.

[Northern_Piper]

@Malthus

Don’t agree, on the facts as stated. Seems a straight-up case of the non-custodial parent messing with the custodial parent, for shits and giggles. How does that make the custodial parent an idiot?

I agree with this. The thing about family law is that it takes two to make nice. Even if one of the spouses wants to resolve things civilly, if the other spouse is a jerk intent on scoring points, the whole thing can become very unpleasant. I didn’t see anything in the article that suggests the ex-wife is doing anything jerkish.

[Malthus]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Apparently this is the law, but I don’t think it should be. The religious upbringing should be based on the upbringing that the kid had during the marriage, unless both parents agree to the change.

That may well be a better methodology, but it would result in exactly the same situation in this case - both parents were allegedly Jews when they were married.

[Shodan]

@Laudenum

It seems weird to me that a judge would make an order forbidding a child from being baptised.

I think the court order was to stop him from taking his daughter to church. Which is a bit different from a non-custodial parent baptizing a child, IM Non-legalO.

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.”

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.”

This news article suffers from the usual flaws, which are those of a transvestite in a bikini - it reveals enough to get one excited but not enough to find out if that is appropriate.

My usual assumption is that, if people could behave like adults, they wouldn’t need to get divorced in the first place. Usually this applies to both sides.

Regards,
Shodan

[Jack_Batty]

@Shodan

I think the court order was to stop him from taking his daughter to church. Which is a bit different from a non-custodial parent baptizing a child, IM Non-legalO.

He didn’t take her down to the creek for a dunking. I’m pretty sure he took her to church for that.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Jack_Batty

He didn’t take her down to the creek for a dunking. I’m pretty sure he took her to church for that.

If you read the article again, you’ll see that Mr. Reyes first visit to a church with his daughter was when he had her baptised.

Then he emailed pictures and an account of the baptising to his estranged wife.

She then sought and received a restraining order forbidding Mr. Reyes from taking their daughter to church.

After the restraining order was in place, Mr. Reyes called the media and again took his daughter to church.

It was this last visit that engendered the article and to the video coverage linked to in the OP.

[Jack_Batty]

Oh. So Shodan was talking about a timing issue.

[Shodan]

@Jack_Batty

Oh. So Shodan was talking about a timing issue.

No, I was talking about how the court order was to prevent him from taking his daughter to church, not to prevent him from having her baptized, which had already happened. The reason this is important is presented in the parts I quoted.

:shrugs:

If they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either.

Regards,
Shodan

[Jack_Batty]

@Shodan

No, I was talking about how the court order was to prevent him from taking his daughter to church, not to prevent him from having her baptized, which had already happened.

Yeah. A timing issue.

I misunderstood what you were talking about, but that’s basic gist. The only reason that there’s no restraining order against having her baptized, per se, is because that horse has already left the barn. I’m sure re-baptism (if that’s even anything that anybody does) isn’t spelled out in the restaining order, but that wouldn’t fly either.

[Skammer]

@Bricker

As a devout Catholic, I must side with Mr. Reyes.

Nah, just kidding.

The custodial parent gets to decide things like religious upbringing. And baptism is a sacrament, not a weapon to be used against your soon-to-be-ex-wife. If I had to guess, I’d say Reyes’ embrace of Catholicism is self-serving and completely bogus, but even if it’s genuine and heartfelt, he has no right to force his non-custodial daughter to participate in his religious tradition.

Exactly my reaction, except for the part about being Catholic (Anglican here).