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

Well, obviously under Sharia law of the UK....

The Father should be executed by Simitar, because he left the faith.

The mother should be buried up to her neck and surrounded by scorpions, after 1000 lashes.....then executed by Simitar for committing adultery and divorcing her husband (whether she did or not).

And the child, now it is an orphan, should be sent to Isis and become a suicide bomber, preferably in London, to punish the infidels who have not fought for their country and given up their country and culture like the dogs they are...Allah al hominid.

See...easy fixed, once you use the correct law, coming to a British county near you.

a reply to: gort51

Yawn.

Already posted a couple pages back.

originally posted by: tadaman
The US. In NY if a child wishes to be anything PARENTS HAVE THE OBLIGATION to cater to his religious needs.

I am not seeing any law on the books that supports this. Please link one.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You tired Popet?

Yeah, as you could tell, I didnt bother reading all 4 pages of tripe.

I just thought I would add my own tripe anyway....glad you liked it.

a reply to: tadaman

Nope. I live in the US. This is not true.

A sole custody situation the sole conservator (parent) has the right to choose the religion.

There may be an age in your state where the minor can over ride the parent but it's the general custody terms. You can look it up.

This article does not indicate what the child wants.

Take for instance a 3 year old.

originally posted by: gort51
Well, obviously under Sharia law of the UK....

The Father should be executed by Simitar, because he left the faith.

The mother should be buried up to her neck and surrounded by scorpions, after 1000 lashes.....then executed by Simitar for committing adultery and divorcing her husband (whether she did or not).

And the child, now it is an orphan, should be sent to Isis and become a suicide bomber, preferably in London, to punish the infidels who have not fought for their country and given up their country and culture like the dogs they are...Allah al hominid.

See...easy fixed, once you use the correct law, coming to a British county near you.

You know, there are lots of right wing forums you can join. You would fit RIGHT in. Pun intended

a reply to: tadaman

Nothing in the article mentions what the kid wants. This is a legal issue on who has parental rights.

If she forbids the father from exposing the child to horror movies it is her call same goes for forbidding him from exposing the child to other religions.

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.

Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults. The government has no place in matters such as these.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

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.

Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults.

It's their child, but she has full parental rights as she has sole custody.

He has no parental rights whatsoever.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

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.

Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults. The government has no place in matters such as these.

Ideally, people would be able to do that, but people have emotions and can act irrationally and stupidly. If the father is a violent deadbeat (for example) then why should have any say in the child's upbringing?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

This may be true ethically speaking but legally speaking it isn't. If you don't comply it's punishable by jail time and is considered contempt of court.

I don't agree with it and probably the others commenting don't agree with it universally. It is the law however. The law doesn't care if you agree with itbor not.

Worst part there is no jury or due process at all.

family.findlaw.com...

Here is a quick read.

Basically you can only DISQUALIFY the religion of the other parent by arguing to protect the childs mental or physical well being.

And this

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans freedom of religion. This right is not limited to adults. Children and teenagers enjoy the same right, which is balanced with the fundamental rights of parents to raise their children without government interference.

www.askthejudge.info...

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults. The government has no place in matters such as these.

Apparently they could not work it out so they let the courts handle it which they did. He is just upset that the kid does not have enough Vitamin J is his diet.

originally posted by: tadaman
family.findlaw.com...

Here is a quick read.

Basically you can only DISQUALIFY the religion of the othet parent by arguing to protect the childs mental or physical well being.

Which she fulfilled by saying it would confuse said child.

Don't get me wrong, it's a stupid law that should use a jury instead of a single person, who can be very biased, but it is still the law

a reply to: tadaman

Which does not mean a child can dictate to their parent(s) what religion they want to be. Parents can force them to be Hare Freakin Krishnas if they want to.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: tadaman

Nothing in the article mentions what the kid wants. This is a legal issue on who has parental rights.

If she forbids the father from exposing the child to horror movies it is her call same goes for forbidding him from exposing the child to other religions.

The article is entirely from the father's point of view. We don't know what the kid wants. We don't know what the mother is thinking. We don't know why the court made the decision. Very little background, very little context, all in all very little more than an extended anecdote which suits the Daily Mail's agenda.

Still, anything to avoid paying UK tax, eh?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I added more.

I forget the exact cases I am remembering badly, but you have no right to dictate ANY AMERICANS spiritual life. If it goes to court, you may first lose custody, THEN they will be free to practice.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
We don't know what the kid wants.

Well, the father is quoted as saying his son thinks he has a black heart for being an apostate to Islam so it seems he has been safely indoctrinated into organized religion and enjoys the s*** that his Mosque is shoveling.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Problem is it goes both ways. Mom has a guideline of things to make sure her man has no rights. She can make false family violence claims then it leads to a protective order. At that point it's very difficult to fight a protective order (judges don't want blood on their hands if it is true). Then the dad is digging himself out. This is actually extremely common. Protective order does not need any evidence at all.
On top of that family violence means free legal and the dad or mom I suppose in reverse has to pay their own lawyer 250-500 an hour to fight for their basic rights and to clear their name.

Family court in the US is very much broken. Their are thousands of articles about it. Nobody wants to speak out in danger of losing their own kids. By the time you do get your rights (if) your exhausted and have ptsd(its your kids)

But I suppose their are lots of scum that require court intervention as well. Unfortunately the system is abused to punish your ex.

originally posted by: tadaman
I added more.

What you added covers the government imposing their will on children. The parents can do what they want. Let a judge explain it to you:

Can my parents force me to follow their religion?

What this means for you is that the government and the courts won′t get involved if you and your parents disagree about religious beliefs or practices. As long as you′re safe and your basic needs are provided (food, shelter, clothing, and medical care), the state can′t interfere with your family. Your parents are free to decide what church to attend, how often, and what practices will be honored in the home. Source