An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Archive for 31 March 2012
Media Silent as Left Attacks Kids of WI Lt. Gov. – Big Government
CNN babes fail – Don Surber
Progressive Monetary Policy: Hate the Rich Mentality Leads To Downplaying Lottery? – Political Pistachio
The Obligatory Treyvon Martin Post – Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
How Black Leaders Exploit Their People for Political and Financial Gain – Godfather Politics
Snakes Are Flexible Too – Be Sure You’re RIGHT, Then Go Ahead
All the Pravda – Sultan Knish
Six shot, one dead in Bobby “Hoodie” Rush’s district tonight – Marathon Pundit
Obama, the Democrats, and The Society for the Preservation of Racism – Roger L. Simon (PJ Media)
What is different now? – American and Proud
Prior Week’s Jobless Claims Were Up By 9K – The Daily Gator
The United Sluts Of America, Everyone…. – Chicks on the Right
Abolish The EPA – Faultline USA
Six Men Who Could Be Obama’s Sons Arrested For Pummeling White Man – Jammie Wearing Fools
Liberals Love the Hoodie – The Black Sphere
Bad News For The Hippie Regiment – Support Your Local Gunfighter
Where we have to go for the truth. *SIGH* – Cmblake6′s
Shame: The Left’s Exploitation of the Trayvon Martin Shooting – Punching the Left
Vandy’s Assault on Religious Freedom Makes National News – Blue Color Muse
Krugman – still in a tinfoil hat – Nonsensible Shoes
Want to know why you can’t find HST on the shelf – Hillbilly White Trash
Obamanation: $4 gas, $1 Abortions – Contagious Transformation
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…
You, who worry about Democrats versus Republicans — relax, here is our real problem.
In a Purdue University classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple. The candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.
However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.
The class was taking it in and letting her rant, and not many jaws hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, “What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?”
Yep, these are the same kinds of 18-year-olds that are now voting in our elections! They breed, and they walk among US…
Lord — we need more help than we thought we did!
The Mr sent me this yesterday, and in Ol’ Broad fashion, I got behind on my emails, and just now got a gander. All I can do is shake my head. God help us all!
A Shelby County mother faces contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her two children without the knowledge or consent of her ex-husband.
This week the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Lauren Jarrell must face a criminal contempt hearing for violating a court order that said major decisions regarding the religious upbringing of her two children should be made jointly with the children’s father.
Both parents are Christian. Emmett Blake Jarrell, the father, is a member of the United Methodist Church, and she’s a Presbyterian.
Are these people serious? Baptism IS a big deal, but honestly, I don’t see the difference between the Methodists and Presbyterians. I’ve been to both, and they are quite similar in ‘rituals’ and teachings. Depending on the church, they’re both pretty left in my opinion. But that’s not the issue.
The father, according to court records, thought the children should be baptized when they are older and better able to understand the significance of the baptismal ceremony. The couple, according to court records, had even consulted a minister when they were married because they couldn’t agree what age was best for the kids to be baptized. Records show the children will be 5 and 7 next month.
I was about a year the first time I was baptized. My dad was Lutheran, my mom was Presbyterian, and I was baptized in the Lutheran church. My understanding was that it didn’t matter where, it just mattered if anything happened to me begore I was old enough to understand the whole process, you know, like DIE, or some such, that I would have a slot in heaven. It made my parents feel better. Then, I was raised in the Presbyterian church. It started changing back when, and that pretty much put a stop to my church attendance. Of course, I was also going through “that stage”. I don’t suppose the father has considered that the mom was concerned about her kids souls? Yes, it’s a decision that the kids can make when they are older, but no one ever said you can’t be baptized more than once. I’ve done it 3 times.
“Obviously she knew that the father did not want the children baptized at that age and she did that without telling him,” Memphis attorney Any Amundsen, who is not involved in the case, said of the mother. “She violated the court order.”
Where’s all the hoopla about ‘separation of church and state’, which doesn’t exist, but it’s always dragged out when anyone has the audacity to go against someone’s ‘wishes’. And let me ask this….if they are both REALLY Christians, why are they divorced? I know that sometimes, things happen and that 2 people can no longer live together as man and wife, but usually, it’s because at least one of them are NOT really Christian, and they are not following the teachings of Christ. Just sayin’.
The Court of Appeals decision sides with the father, who had asked that his ex-wife be convicted of criminal contempt after discovering that she baptized the kids against his wishes.
A lower court has already found the mother in contempt of court. The appellate court decision overturned that decision and said criminal contempt proceedings are more appropriate because the mother can’t undo the baptisms.
Yeah…ok…so they were suppose to discuss the important issues, and yes, baptism is a very important issue, but honestly, it seems to me that the father is being petty. It doesn’t sound like his concern is for his kids, but getting back at his ex-wife for making a decision, I would assume, in the hopes that her children will be saved? It’s not the water that is the most important part of baptism, although, yes, it is meant to ‘wash away sin’, but it is symbolic. What is important is the cleansing of the soul, and that is a decision the kids will make as they get older.
Court records show that the mother argued that it was wrong for the lower court to find her in contempt it was tantamount to preferring the father’s religious views on baptism over hers.
But the Court of Appeals disagreed.
Why are the courts even involved? Does daddy have ties with the legal system? Just askin’.
“Mother is correct that courts `must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents’ and they may not `prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent’s religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child,” Judge Alan E. Highers wrote. “However, simply put, this is not a religious dispute.” Highers said the court is only being asked to determine whether the mother can be found in contempt for failing to follow the court order.
Well yeah…actually, it is a religious dispute. Obviously, I don’t know all the facts…just what I’m reading here, but it actually sounds like a power play. Mom is concerned for the kids’ salvation and dad got his knickers in a twist because he was left out. There’s a reason why he is the EX, meaning former, husband. I’m rather curious as to whether or not he’s a control freak. Just speculation on my part. And I do not understand why this was part of the divorce agreement to begin with. This is a very personal matter, and not one for the courts to decide.
Nashville attorney Helen Rogers says the courts ought to stay away from these kinds of decisions.
“How would a court decide between baptizing a Presbyterian and a Methodist or a Catholic,” Rogers asked. She wondered whether a court could step in and order the child of a Muslim and a Jew to attend a synagogue or a mosque. The problem, she said, is that the standard parenting plan in Tennessee orders many parents to mediation if they can’t jointly decide on major decisions involving religious upbringing. If they can’t agree even after mediation, she said, it ultimately means that a court has to decide.
Why does the state have ANY say on how or where a child should be brought up, or baptized? To me, that is a complete violation of personal liberty.. personal RELIGIOUS liberty!
“The bigger kind of global look at this is should religious decision-making be a private matter or should it be something that a court orders to begin with,” Rogers asked.
That would be a ‘definitely NOT!”
However, Amundsen said the courts are only following state law, which says the courts have to consider religious upbringing when it comes to parental decision making.
Both attorneys said it’s not unusual for parents to disagree on religious upbringing.
Why are the courts involved, at all, in ‘parental decision making’? Someone got their head screwed on wrong, and forgot that the parents have the final say in their kids’ upbringing?
If the mother is convicted, she could face up to 20 days in jail and a $100 fine.
She can’t undo the baptism, and daddy should pull his head out of his hinder, and let it drop. The kids are more important than him and his desires. Yeah, I understand he wanted to be involved, but shouldn’t the salvation of his children come before his wants? Seems to me, that’s what mom’s concern was when she took this action. Unless, of course, it was to get back at him for some reason, which has been known to happen on a regular basis. Women can be quite vindictive. Then again, so can men. There is no mention of whether or not the kids wanted to be baptized, and really, shouldn’t THAT be the first consideration, of both the parents, and (*gritting teeth*) the courts? Seems to me that neither the court or the dad are considering what would happen to the kids if mom spends 20 days in jail. As for the fine? Well, I’d be happy to take up a collection if it comes to that!