Father Loses Custody of His Children for Being Agnostic

[DeSwiss]

Run time: 01:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ww1AilSJ3U   Posted on YouTube: November 23, 2010 By YouTube Member: AtheistMediaBlog Views on YouTube: 2759   Posted on DU: November 23, 2010 By DU Member: DeSwiss Views on DU: 5086

 
- This is what a Christian America looks like.......

[Lucian]

1. He's only an agnostic.

I'm an atheist! I wonder what'll ever happen with me? :o

But it's a sad situation. I really hate Christian America.

[DeSwiss]

2. The judge needs to be thrown off the bench and dis-fucking-barred!!! n/t

[Lucian]

5. I agree.

[sallyseven]

22. Those who claim to be so Christian

are the worse kind of people. Petty and judgmental.

[herbm]

62. I am christian and this is so wrong on so many levels. I was a single custodial parent and if I did

not have more than four hours a week with my kids, I'd have never survived. This sounds like a vindictive ex-spouse. And a hand picked judge. It certainly has nothing to do with Christ and G*d.

[damntexdem]

27. Oh, they wouldn't take away your children -- they'd execute you instead.

Separation of church and state was instituted by founders who were largely Christian themselves (with notable agnostic, atheist, and deist exceptions), and they'd seen the havoc created in Europe (and colonial America) by state-sanctioned religions intolerance and religious war.

[Celtic Merlin]

48. I . . . . . am an ATHEIST ! . Fear me!

Agnostics aren't atheists. They simply claim that they don't know, can't know, nor can anybody else know if there really is or is not a supreme being and what the nature of that being may be.

What's the big effin' deal with this theocratic judge? The guy isn't DENYING the judge's beliefs. He's merely of the opinion that we mere mortals are incapable of knowing what we claim to know about Zeus or Odin or Jupiter or whatever name people use for it these days. The judge takes offense at this and denies this guy access to his own flesh and blood? He'd likely run screaming from the courtroom if he met ME! LOL!

Tarring and feathering would be too good for that judge. Removal from the bench at a minimum THEN the tar and feathers - THAT would be altogether fitting and proper.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[ejpoeta]

3. that's bullshit. the religion or non religion should have no

bearing on his ability to be a parent. religion has no place in judicial procedings and what is best for the kids which is access to BOTH parents.

[DeSwiss]

7. Welcome to theocracy. n/t

[PSzymeczek]

46. Welcome to

The Handmaid's Tale.

[LiberalLovinLug]

58. That's the book that popped into my head as well

There were some who were scoffing at others in the thread about the Pakistani woman sentenced to death for "insulting" Mohammad, for suggesting that some day something like that might come to America. It's all baby steps. Who would have thought 30 years ago that today the Democrats would be acting more like the Republicans of that day? And the Republicans catering to those who would fit very nicely into The Handmaid's Tale. Since then The Fairness Act abolished. The tax proportion dramatically reduced on the rich and loaded on the middle class. Abortion rights taken away. The de-regulation of Wall Street. The rise of millionaire mega-church evangelical "stars" like Rick Warren. States making laws to outlaw gay marriage. Major broadcasters like Beck openly calling for a God fearing nation. on and on and on.

And today, don't even think about running for office without layering on the Jesus icing, whether D or R.

[abelenkpe]

4. What the hell?

I can't imagine that ruling will be allowed to stand. My officemate is going through a similar situation. Wife is very Christian and he simply is not. He tried but he just doesn't believe and so she divorced him. He's the best Dad, really caring and there for the kids.

This is just nuts! HOpe this guy wins his appeal.

[DeSwiss]

8. I can imagine it. Unfortunately. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Sounds like that judge is a traitor.

[DeSwiss]

9. The judge is an asshole. And an idiot. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

21. And he rejects the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

[DeSwiss]

23. ....

Today we use paper proclamations to denote a person's so-called 'rights.' And just like laws, they are culturally biased, artificial concoctions which attempt to solve recurring problems by simply declaring something with words on paper. Rights, in fact, have been invented to protect ourselves from the negative byproducts of the social system itself. And once again instead of seeking a true solution to a problem, we invent these patches by way of paper proclamations in an attempt to resolve them. This does not work. It has never worked. There is really no such thing as an inalienable right outside of the culture in which it is assumed. We are making this up. Therefore liberties need to be inherent in a social system by design not alluded to ambiguously on paper.

In the Bill of Rights of the United States, there is an attempt to secure certain freedoms and protections by way of mere text on paper. Now while I understand the value of this document and the temporal brilliance of it in the context of the period of its creation, that does not excuse the fact that it is a product of social inefficiency and nothing more. In other words, declarations of laws and rights are actually an acknowledgment of the failures of the social design. ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPmHaTirnCc">Peter Joseph

[FiveGoodMen]

28. What social design would eliminate the need for "mere text on paper" stating what are our rights?

[DeSwiss]

33. I'm not sure.....

...but I doubt that I'll ever see it.

[MrModerate]

54. Don't know who Peter Joseph is (maybe I'll google him later), but . . .

On the evidence of this quote, he's a fool.

"We invent these paper proclamatioms in an attempt to resolve" . . . "negative byproducts of the social system itself."

No shit, Sherlock. Because as reasonable beings, those who attempt to create governing systems have realized that social norms inevitably need to be specified to be administered and upheld. The "paper patches" he derides are some of the most powerful tools in civilzed society to prevent, mitigate, and correct injustice and error.

How would he repair the "failures of the social design"? By repairing human nature and making humans omnipotent? Good luck with that.

[tomg]

56. You have it. That ruling willl

be overturned so fast, it won't be funny.

[mrmpa]

10. where was this? Indiana?

[DeSwiss]

12. Yep.

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-father-claims-he-lost-children-112210,0,5638516.story">link

[Althaia]

11. stuff like this is why I think religion is a force for evil.

It is frequently used to take away the rights of innocent people. It can go as far as killing them, in theocracies.

[DeSwiss]

13. I KNOW that it is a force OF evil. And stupidity. n/t

[redirish28]

14. This is Bull Crap. This country is really going down hill fast.

I'm not saying no one should have a religious belief but no one should be treated like this in this country for not having a religious belief.

[DeSwiss]

16. In the end, this is what religious belief is all about.

It doesn't want to stay contained within an individual's personal belief system. No, that is not enough. It wants total and absolute control of everyone's lives because it KNOWS what is best for everyone. God told them so.

- And anyone who doesn't recognize this is just fooling themselves.

Although I'm an atheist and a secularist, and just about as anti-religion as it is possible be. I have no problem with anyone believing in god, if that's how they want to live their lives. In fact, I think for some people believing in a false god, (and this one is false, because they all are), can be quite therapeutic in much the same way that artificial daylight can help with the winter blues.

But personal faith and public religion are two completely different things.

When religion goes public it stops being spiritual and it becomes political. Usually running on the "Moral-hypocrisy Ticket." And because it claims divine authority, demanding unconditional submission and obedience from outside the bounds of reason, it despises democracy as much as it despises women and homosexuals. So quite a lot then.

And therefore it is always working toward theocracy. Toward strengthening the power and status of clergy. Public religion exists for the sole benefit of the clergy. And clergy exists for the sole benefit of clergy. And this is a pivotal point to understand.

Personal faith, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, doesn’t need to be administered and policed by a privileged class of clerical fascists. Whereas public religion not only depends upon clergy, they depend upon it. Neither can exist without the other. And neither is "actually" necessary.

And they know this of course. Which is why their proxy-religion is all about guilt and submission and obedience. Not enlightenment. Are you kidding? That's the last thing they want. Because "enlightened people" don't need clergy.

Why do you think the Pope tells Catholics obedience to the doctrine of The Church is the foundation of your faith? Not the "Sermon On The Mount," not "loving your neighbor," obedience is your foundation.

Of course it is. It has to be. Because the alternative is for you to look into your own heart, and that's the last place these parasites want you looking. Because that's where the bullshit detector is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STlYN5KCiWg">Pat Condell - From ''The arrogance of clergy''

[no_hypocrisy]

15. He should appeal the judgment and get his kids back.

[Frisbee]

17. In the meantime, Mommy is probably busy teaching them..

that Daddy is a bad person because he doesn't blindly follow whatever religious teachings she follows. I completely agree with whoever said the judge should be disbarred.

[DeSwiss]

19. The ICLU has told him they don't do "custody cases" n/t

[PSzymeczek]

47. He should contact

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
www.au.org

[Lost-in-FL]

18. I am here wondering how apologists are going to justify this.

:mad:

[DeSwiss]

20. ....

[Lost-in-FL]

50. I should of asked not how... but when I suppose.

:eyes:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. We're not...

We're just sitting back and smiling. lol.

[DeSwiss]

25. That's sick. n/t

[TalkingDog]

26. Why?

seriously, why?

[girl gone mad]

34. Which is why your children will grow up to hate you.

I've seen it happen repeatedly.

[Lost-in-FL]

51. I am not smiling. I think it is sad.

:(

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Well, gee, what would he expect? He said his highest priority was his

relationship with his kids. His highest priority is supposed to be his relationship with god. Nobody puts god in the corner.

[DeSwiss]

31. Exactly.

I mean Christians in particular don't like to have their little pipsqueak of a god disparaged because he so goddamned puny and weak he can't ever seem to defend himself. Throughout the entirety of the bible we've seen 'ol Yahweh kicking ass and taking names left and right. But these days? Nada, zip, zero.

Thus the judge must step in and put this young man in his place. On behalf of his all-powerful god.

[AsahinaKimi]

30. It all makes me wonder how

People of other Religions will be handled, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. A fundy Christian America will not look kindly on those of us, who have different faiths. We will be in for a rough ride.

[DeSwiss]

32. You know what Christians do to heretics, don't you???

Torquemada

[AsahinaKimi]

35. They tried that in Japan...

It didn't work out so well for them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimabara_Rebellion

[DeSwiss]

38. Word.

[AsahinaKimi]

36. dupe

[herbm]

63. I've never killed anybody in my life, I am against the death penalty and your

generalization is generaly wrong.

[WolverineDG]

37. Funny how he doesn't mention the protective order against him

Yet everyone here is sure the only reason he lost joint custody was his being agnostic.

Apparently there is much more going on, other evidence against him (while mom doesn't smell like a rose either), but hey, don't let that get in your way of bashing those who believe in God.

http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody

dg

[DeSwiss]

39. A protective order from the same religiously biased judge???

And that's your justification? Please.

Nor do you mention about the 23-year old live boyfriend with anger issue problems.

Earlier, Percaro had obtained a protective order against Scarberry, which he objected to. She alleged that Scarberry “attempts to harrass and intimidate me at my place of employment with abusive language and profanity” and accused him of “randomly and unexpectedly stopping by my house at different hours of the day and night.”

A protective order against Scarberry was issued in April, and Scarberry said evidence was presented later in court to refute the allegations. A month later, both parties renewed an agreement that extended joint custody.

Pancol’s order also included evidence that the mother “had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast and did not at time(s) buckle them in their car seats.”

The order severing joint custody was issued by Pancol on Nov. 1 and affirmed by Newman on Nov. 8. It said that when Scarberry had been a Christian, “the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.”



Violent encounter

Less than a week after Newman affirmed the custody order, Scarberry was meeting Porcaro to transfer custody of the children to her when communication broke down violently, according to Anderson police.

Scarberry said he was saying goodbye to the children when Porcaro’s boyfriend, Brandon Galbraith, 23, told Scarberry that he didn’t need to get so close to their minivan. Scarberry said he told Galbraith that he was just saying goodbye. He said Galbraith got out of the vehicle and shoved him. Scarberry shoved back and a fight ensued.

A witness separated the men as they wrestled on the ground. Galbraith got in the minivan and left as Scarberry called Anderson police shortly after 8 p.m. on Nov. 11. An APD case report says that as Scarberry talked to an officer, Porcaro sent a text message to Scarberry saying she and Galbraith were going to the police station to file a report against Scarberry.

[WolverineDG]

40. There's more going on here than just your pet issue

I know you want to make it so, but it's not. It says he refuted the evidence in the protective order, but there's still an order against him. All that means is that there was a hearing on that & he lost. As for the boyfriend, he needs to stay out of it too.

And I did say that mom didn't smell like a rose either. But, there is a lot more evidence that was presented to the judge & his ruling is based on all of them, not just the one you want it to be based on.


dg

[DeSwiss]

42. I have a pet. No pet issues. Bye-bye. n/t

[tomg]

59. While I respect your position

and, an agnostic myself I am no basher of religion ( save institutional Catholicism in which I had 13 years of training and 33 years a member - so it is cradle-Catholic stuff for me), the real issue is not the respective merits of either parent as a parent. The fact that the judge allowed the father's agnosticism to enter in as a factor on any level
is what constitutes the real problem.


there might be 10 legitimate reasons for the decision, but one is clearlty illegitimate and as a result, the entire decision should be thrown out and everyone sent back to start. The judge is a moron. The parents might be too but for entirely unrelated issues.

[herbm]

64. So this stuff is OK? Has he been harrassing her at work and showing up unexpectedly? Sounds like sta

lking. There's a lot more going on here than agnostisim vs Christianity. Sounds like two adults using kids to bash each other. I worry about the kids seeing their folks in fights and the cops being around regularly. Theere needs to be a sorting out here. And he needs to have his kids in an equitable situation. Not just for him, but for the kids. And he and she need to be court ordered not to bad mouth the other to the kids. Adults screw things up. Not G#d

[Althaia]

43. thank you for providing that link with more info.

it looks like a typically nasty custody battle, where both dysfunctional parents will say and do anything to keep the other parent away from the kids.

It's still true that religion is being used as an excuse to dump crap on other people. Is the text of the judge's order available? If THAT says he is being denied custody because of his change of faith, then his claim is undeniably true.

Edit: after reading the article and watching the video again, apparently his agnosticism IS the main reason he's being denied custody. Both parents are aggressive, so that's a wash..and profanity in front of the kids is a BS excuse. So is the texting. Porcaro can block him or turn off her phone.

[WolverineDG]

44. I think there's a lot more to this story

but what the fuck do I know? I've only handled family law cases for over 10 years. :eyes: There is no evidence that the mom is violent. She's no "mother of the year" winner, either, but I'm just betting it was the violence that tipped the scale, not his agnosticism. Profanity in front of the kids is not a BS excuse & neither is excessive texting or showing up at someone's work or home at all hours unannounced. That's stalking & part of the violence cycle.

dg

[Althaia]

49. the stalking and the violence are legitimate reasons to deny custody.

The change of religion is NOT.

Yet his agnosticism is cited as the primary reason.

[WolverineDG]

53. It's the only thing focused on in the article & by him

Why? Because "man denied joint custody of kids because of domestic violence" isn't a story, that's why.


dg

[FiveGoodMen]

45. Well, if we're going to read the whole article...

Snip...

Craig Scarberry, 29, this month was stripped of joint custody of his three children, Kaelyn, 7; William, 6, and Ayvah, 4, because he changed his religion from Christian to agnostic.

Hmmm: Says BECAUSE he changed his religion.

Snip...

Pancol’s order included other evidence presented in court. It said there was evidence that Scarberry had used profanity in front of the children and at times “failed to control or manage his anger. ... In addition, (Scarberry) was sending a great number of text messages to (Porcaro).”

The order does not say that Scarberry was abusive or negligent toward the children.

A protective order against Scarberry was issued in April, and Scarberry said evidence was presented later in court to refute the allegations. A month later, both parties renewed an agreement that extended joint custody.

OMG! He SWORE in front of them. Didn't hurt them. The order was later removed ... but ... but ... he SWORE in front of them! :scared:

Snip...

The order severing joint custody was issued by Pancol on Nov. 1 and affirmed by Newman on Nov. 8. It said that when Scarberry had been a Christian, “the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.”

Again, BECAUSE of his religious views.

[WolverineDG]

52. There's more to it than what you & Scarberry are claiming

but again, what the fuck do I know? I've only handled custody cases for over 10 years. :eyes:

dg

[FiveGoodMen]

55. Does having handled other cases make you privy to the inner workings of this one?

[herbm]

68. The first clause "because he changed his religion from Christian to agnostic" is an unattributed con

clusion free of any evidence.

The second set of clauses "Pancol’s order included other evidence presented in court. It said there was evidence that Scarberry had used profanity in front of the children and at times “failed to control or manage his anger. ... In addition, (Scarberry) was sending a great number of text messages to (Porcaro).”

The order does not say that Scarberry was abusive or negligent toward the children.

A protective order against Scarberry was issued in April, and Scarberry said evidence was presented later in court to refute the allegations. A month later, both parties renewed an agreement that extended joint custody." mention quoted statements of fact that can cause concern regarding a parent's behavior with kids. Maybe it doesn't concern you but as the custodial parent of my children it does me. (What do I know, right?) Curiously nowhere does it make mention of religion in any way shaoe or inference.

The third set of clauses:The order severing joint custody was issued by Pancol on Nov. 1 and affirmed by Newman on Nov. 8. It said that when Scarberry had been a Christian, “the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” This is another unatributed conclusion though finished with a quote from the order tha nowhere mentions religion in any degree whatsoever.

If the judge said from the bench or in the order specificaly "christian" or "agnostic" then why isn't there a quote or cited ruling? How do you assume religion and deny a restraining order????

[herbm]

67. I agree there sure seems like there is something other than religion going on.

[The Wizard]

41. Jesus was a good magician

and a bad politician.

[herbm]

65. Coming from a wizard, this is a compliment?

[valerief]

57. America, Home of the Free From Justice.

America, Home of the Free-for-All

America, Home of the Freedom Fries

America, Home of the Freeper

We're getting more like Pakistan every day.

[bowens43]

60. it should be illegal to expose children to religion. nt

[herbm]

61. I am christian and this is so wrong on so many levels. I was a single custodial parent and if I didn

't have more than four hours a week with my kids, I'd have never survived. This sounds like a vindictive ex-spouse. And a hand picked judge.

[earth mom]

66. This is totally unconstitutional. I hope a big dog lawyer steps up to kick some legal a$$!

:grr:

[struggle4progress]

69. ... The mother, Christine Porcaro .. did not return telephone messages seeking comment ...

Pancol’s order .. said there was evidence that Scarberry .. at times “failed to control or manage his anger. ... In addition, (Scarberry) was sending a great number of text messages to (Porcaro)” ... Percaro had obtained a protective order against Scarberry, which .. alleged .. “attempts to harrass and intimidate me at my place of employment with abusive language and profanity” and accused him of “randomly and unexpectedly stopping by my house at different hours of the day and night” ...
November 19, 2010
Father says his faith cost his custody
By Dave Stafford The Herald Bulletin
http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody

[herbm]

72. And religion gets no mention at all. Curious, that. Dad needs anger management.

[struggle4progress]

70. Is this the same Craig Scarberry from Indiana who was suing Chicago for the right

to hand out Bible tracts for Repent America?

... Plaintiffs intend to return to Chicago on a number of future occasions to engage in constitutionally protected religious and political activities in public settings ... Plaintiff, CRAIG SCARBERRY, is and was at all times relevant to this cause, an individual and resident of Indiana. Plaintiffs are volunteers for Repent America, a volunteer-based ministry in Philadelphia, PA, which is composed of approximately 10,000 Christians who live across the United States. The goal of Repent America is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the public square ... Plaintiffs are Christians who regard the Bible as God’s literal authority ... Plaintiffs accomplish this purpose primarily through the public distribution of free religious literature (“Gospel tracts”) and one-on-one discussion in the public square ...
pdf: http://www.repentamerica.com/images/ChicagoComplaint.pdf

[herbm]

71. Interesting question.