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

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Maybe I missed it, but it seems the father is only prohibited from taking his child into a church building. Is he prohibited from talking about the Christian religion to his son, or reading passages from the Bible to him in his home, or telling his son why he himself left the Muslim religion?

That's how I understood it as well.
The mother has legal parental responsibility so the court had to run with her wishes.
I'm on the fence with it to be honest, I don't believe in any gods, but as others have said, if the mother didn't want him to take the child to a football game then he would have to abide by her wishes.

The real tragedy is that their parental relationship has broken down so badly that they need the courts to make their decisions for them.
My ex-wife is my best friend, and we raised our son from the age of two to adulthood as a cohesive partnership. 3 or 4 nights a week with either me or his mam, both watching him at school sports days, both attending parents evening, even a 'family' meal every couple of weeks.
We got divorced for £50, just got the forms from the court and filled them in ourselves, even played 'best of three' at poker to decide who had to petition for the divorce...that's another story though.

It's a pity both parents deem their religion as more important than just working together and raising a young life the best way they can as a parental team.
They should both be ashamed as far as I see it.

Nailed it. They should have been responsible and adult enough to sit down and talk it out without involving a court.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yeeeees, and if the rural people of India, Taiwan, African tribes and all the other countries were moving to the UK, we'd probably be seeing it from them as well.

Child brides has been an age-old tradition in many cultures and many countries and different religions. Rural people in most of the poorer countries still practice it. Not specifically an Islamic problem. It is specifically a rural, backwards cultural problem.

I'm not crazy about any religion, and if I were a judge, I'd be sorely tempted to not allow the parents of this kid to indoctrinate him in either Christianity or Islam. But let's not pretend that Islam is the one and only boogey man.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yeeeees, and if the rural people of India, Taiwan, African tribes and all the other countries were moving to the UK, we'd probably be seeing it from them as well.

Child brides has been an age-old tradition in many cultures and many countries and different religions. Rural people in most of the poorer countries still practice it. Not specifically an Islamic problem. It is specifically a rural, backwards cultural problem.

I'm not crazy about any religion, and if I were a judge, I'd be sorely tempted to not allow the parents of this kid to indoctrinate him in either Christianity or Islam. But let's not pretend that Islam is the one and only boogey man.

It's not the one and only boogey man, but let's not pretend it's not the worse one either.

India has some of the worse forced child marriage, but that's only because it has a large Islamic population:

The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 was passed during the tenure of British rule on Colonial India. It forbade the marriage of a male younger than 21 or a female younger than 18 for Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and most people of India. However, this law did not and currently does not apply to India's 165 million Muslim population, and only applies to India's Hindu, Christian, Jain, Sikh and other religious minorities. This link of law and religion was formalized by the British colonial rule with the Muslim personal laws codified in the Indian Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. The age at which India's Muslim girls can legally marry, according to this Muslim Personal Law, is 9, and can be lower if her guardian (wali) decides she is sexually mature.[114][115]

Or Bangladesh, where the religious are 90% Muslim.

Child marriage rates in Bangladesh are amongst the highest in the world.[16] Every 2 out of 3 marriages involve child marriages. According to statistics from 2005, 49% of women then between 25 and 29 were married by the age of 15 in Bangladesh.[83] According to the "State of the World's Children-2009" report, 63% of all women aged 20–24 were married before they were 18.[citation needed] According to a 2008 study, for each additional year a girl in rural Bangladesh is not married she will attend school an additional 0.22 years on average.[132] The later girls were married, the more likely they were to utilize preventative health care.[132] Married girls in the region were found to have less influence on family planning, higher rates of maternal mortality, and lower status in their husband's family than girls who married later.[132]

Or Yemen:

Over half of Yemeni girls are married before 18, some by the age eight.[139][140] Yemen government's Sharia Legislative Committee has blocked attempts to raise marriage age to either 15 or 18, on grounds that any law setting minimum age for girls is un-Islamic. Yemeni Muslim activists argue that some girls are ready for marriage at age 9.[141][142] According to HRW, in 1999 the minimum marriage age 15 for women was abolished; the onset of puberty, interpreted by conservatives to be at age nine, was set as a requirement for consummation of marriage.[143] In practice "Yemeni law allows girls of any age to wed, but it forbids sex with them until the indefinite time they're 'suitable for sexual intercourse"[139] As with Africa, the marriage incidence data for Yemen in HRW report is from surveys between 1990 and 2000. Current data is difficult to obtain, given regional violence.

So yes, child marriage isn't restricted to Islam, but they are by far the worse offenders.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
No one should have to put up with a country telling someone who they can and cant worship.

Except the courts are not telling anyone what to worship. They are telling the father it is the child's mother's choice.

Only because of Affirmative Action. There are studies online that refute the mother being the safest choice, because of post pardum depression, and the fact that more women have killed their own children than men have. 70.8% for women, and 29.2 for men. 60% of the babies that are murdered by women,...are boys. SOunds to me like the man would be the better candidate.

DHHS Child Maltreatment Report

The world/men and their "laws" will always side with evil. I'm not surprised by this at all.
That's why god said not to marry them. Man and his "law" don't make right or wrong... That's why, they call justice "blind", so they don't have to be "justice". ..and actually, put out an effort to be. "How you (they) judge, you/they shall be judged". .. "Laws" serve the state. This poor sap is learning it the hard way. I implore him to be patient. Justice does eventually prevail...but not at the hands of men... Even lawyers don't escape "justice". It's all worth a big smile.

a reply to: chuck258

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...........


A DIVORCED muslim woman??!?!?!? And how is she not nailed to a tree, set on fire and paraded around the town to be shown for the demon possessed monster she is?!?!?

Oh wait, that's right because she lives in BRITAIN.

Funny how they use liberal braindeaded-ness to manipulate UK law against actual BRITISH values like oh, freedom of religion, speech etc etc etc

Stories like this just suck, and the daily fail turns it into a race issue...meh....this is a human rights issue and it happens like this herein the court system the male of the species has no rights, he is a second class citizen....

There really needs to be an overhaul in how courts deal with broken relationships that involve children the way it stands now is disgraceful

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

'Affirmative Action'? That has nothing to do with parental rights and deals with workplace/higher education. It does not force people to teach their children a certain religion.

What a total non sequitur.

originally posted by: chuck258

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.

It's a a very fine line. While I agree that this wrong I have to wonder what of it was the mother that that was the Christian and the father the Muslim and the court ordered dad not to expose the child to Islam? I have a feeling that some members here may have no problem with that.

I personally agree with you that the father should have a say in how his child is raised and that includes exposing him to his own faith, even if he were the muslim and she the Christian. As you've rightly pointed if he lost his parental rights it would be a different story.

A mix of PC liberalism and a force-fed religion... Just add a lack of empathy and we may finally have the antichrist!!!!

a reply to: chuck258

If she has full legal custody of the child, she makes all decisions regarding healthcare, education and religion. If the father wants a say in any of those matters, he has to apply for joint legal custody. The article doesn't mention why he hasn't. In fact, I'm curious as to why not?

I'm sure there are millions of children being raised according to the custodial parents religious beliefs, against the non custodial parents wishes but they dont make the news. This article is pure anti muslim fear mongering..........

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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.

And even then , that certaintly does not make it right that a judge forbids you to let him near anything christian. Have you ever heard of something like this in the other way around?

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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.

And even then , that certaintly does not make it right that a judge forbids you to let him near anything christian. Have you ever heard of something like this in the other way around?

Again, if it's against her wishes as sole custodian then the judge would have to uphold it. It obviously went to court because the ex husband disagreed, but, by law, the judge HAS to rule in her favor (as long as there is no potential harm to the child).

a reply to: chuck258

It's now a Muslim country. What is the problem? That is what the British and I dare say the UK wants. All of Europe want to be dominated by the Muslims from what I see happening.

originally posted by: RepealTheLaw
a reply to: chuck258

It's now a Muslim country. What is the problem? That is what the British and I dare say the UK wants. All of Europe want to be dominated by the Muslims from what I see happening.

You're funny and very misinformed.

The Muslim population takes up less than 5% of the total population of the UK. Not exactly what I would call a Muslim country.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I spoke in jest.. I will say the political powers that be seem to want that. I think they know a global meltdown is coming and they want as much cultural destruction as they can muster before the melt down. Then we will have factions fighting factions for scraps and the PTB sitting back with their drones attacking us all..

My crazy 2 cents..

a reply to: RepealTheLaw

Ah ok. Can I recommend putting something like /sarcasm at the end of a post if it's in jest? Just makes it a bit clearer

a reply to: TerryDon79

I thought based on the content it represented clear sarcasm but ok, I will use the qualifier next time..

originally posted by: RepealTheLaw
a reply to: TerryDon79

I thought based on the content it represented clear sarcasm but ok, I will use the qualifier next time..

It's sometimes difficult to instantly recognize sarcasm through text. Meant no disrespect to you

i thought america had the dumbest laws. i stand corrected.