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

I will put the link on the bottom after my spiel.

The jist of the story is this: A British man has been ordered by a District Judge to: Not bring his son to any church, or any building run by a church. To feed his son ONLY Halal food. To consistently tell the child he "is an ordinary Muslim boy following Muslim rules". All of this, despite the fact that the father himself doesn't follow Islam (though he was born to Muslim parents, he strayed from the faith).

Why all of these demands?

Because the mother is a devout Muslim and, believes the child will "become confused" if he is exposed to religion and culture that is not Islamic.

If this ruling stands (and today, it is scarily not out of the realm of possibility) it will set a dangerous precedence. How long before Muslims start demanding that all children they have, even if it's with Christian partners, be allowed only to experience the Muslim faith? This judge is CLEARLY showing a deference to Islam over Christianity, and that is why it is apalling. Can anyone here honestly and truly say they can see a judge making the reverse ruling? (I guess this is rhetoric, all the Progressives on this board probably think stuff like this happens all the time) And demanding that the child be served only Halal food? What about the many people who dislike Halal food because of the barbarity of the slaughter of the animals involved in it's making?

Dangerous precedence, and only highlighting England's downward spiral that is seeing the slow erasure of Christianity in the West by Progressives.

I also find it mind boggling that stuff like this can happen (among many other things), and Progressives can sit there with a straight face and claim that Islam is being oppressed or that Christianity is being shoved down the West's collective throat. I've said this before, but the mental gymnastics required to consistently condemn Christians as oppressors and Muslims as always the oppressed, peace loving minority are just astounding.

www.dailymail.co.uk...


Discuss. As always, keep it civil. I wonder if the devout Social Justice Warriors are going to be leaping to this man's defense. I don't know, for some reason, something tells me that if the reverse were true, this judge would be facing the music, there would be protests calling it "Islamaphobia" and the whole nine yards. If not, the silence speaks volumes all on it's own.

a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.

Just because she has primary custody does not mean the fathers wishes in raising his child are dismissed. If he had no custody, or was banned from seeing the kid, you might have a valid point.

a reply to: chuck258

Utterly disgusting, cases like this should be immediately thrown out of court, it's essentially ordering a parent how to parent which is not what the state should be interfering with.

The only type of thing that falls in these boundaries that I'd actually support would be a law that denies parents from indoctrinating their kids with any religion at all until they're at the age of 16, or a law where kids are required to experience all forms of faith so they can make an educated choice on what religion they want to follow.

I really don't understand how this case was even allowed to proceed though and it doesn't stem to faith it can essentially block a father from teaching their kid anything from religion to certain sports if the mother deems it dangerous to the child.

Such a dangerous precedent

By Islamic rules, the father determines the faith of the child, so the child should be Christian, not Muslim, and the mother should be in trouble for having a child with someone not of the faith if she is all that devout.

originally posted by: chuck258
Just because she has primary custody does not mean the fathers wishes in raising his child are dismissed.

Yeah, it does. That is what custody enables you to do.

The only time the courts intercede is when the child is in danger of harm.

typical daily mail hate.
how different that paper would be if their princess had have married that muslim.

christians should be eating meat killed by kosher methods (deuteronomy 12:21), funny they don't mention that.

originally posted by: ketsuko
By Islamic rules, the father determines the faith of the child, so the child should be Christian, not Muslim, and the mother should be in trouble for having a child with someone not of the faith if she is all that devout.

Guess you did not read the short article. He began attending church after the divorce, he was Muslim prior to this.

a reply to: chuck258

By the law it comes down to parental rights. He has none as she has sole custody.

Sure if it was the other way round this wouldn't have even made the news.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chuck258

By the law it comes down to parental rights. He has none as she has sole custody.

Sure if it was the other way round this wouldn't have even made the news.

You're kidding right? Then she would have been the oppressed Muslim mother denied the right to teach her son about her wonderful and peaceful faith.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chuck258

By the law it comes down to parental rights. He has none as she has sole custody.

Sure if it was the other way round this wouldn't have even made the news.

You're kidding right? Then she would have been the oppressed Muslim mother denied the right to teach her son about her wonderful and peaceful faith.

You might have a point there.

But my point is still that she has parental rights and he doesn't.

Stories like this piss me off.

Just more of our media trying to demonise Muslims.

She has custody of the child and a court has ruled as such where there is a conflict over what faith the child will be raised with the decision has been in her favour.

Its the right thing to do.

What really annoys me though about this is it where say a conflict over a Catholic vs Church of England case it would be a footnote in the press if it even made the papers. Stories like this are not about anything other than pushing a agenda some in this country have that is anti-Islamic.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: chuck258
Just because she has primary custody does not mean the fathers wishes in raising his child are dismissed.

Yeah, it does. That is what custody enables you to do.

The only time the courts intercede is when the child is in danger of harm.

Well, I'm not usually one to argue about semantics, but you are citing US case law and this was a British case. Even still though, the standard that you are talking about isn't necessarily uniform, as there is no national standard. I'm to lazy to look up how many states are "No Harm Standard", but with how secular the US and the West have become, I don't see it being to popular.

That all being said, I think I'm with most people (Progressive and non Progressive alike) that if parents have to fight about which religion to expose their child to that, unless one parent has no custody whatsoever, both parents should have an equal say.

This man doesn't even want to indoctrinate his son, at least not on the level his mother does (an improvement most would agree on I think). He's not asking for his son to be baptised or go to Sunday school, he just does a lot of things with church groups and wants to involve his son and expose him to alternate views. Who can argue that is bad thing? Hell, it's what Progressives always CLAIM they want (even though most people with a brain stem can see otherwise).


Edit: Auto correct on cell phone. Come on Android, "Hell" isn't even a bad word!