Be a good little atheist...

bokonon said:
Are any parents denied joint custody because they are atheists? The examples I found by googling were cases like "the judge took away Sunday visitation from me permanently (I have my son every other week rather than every other weekend, so the change could have been much worse), so that the child “could get the religious instruction he needs” via my ex-wife."

"Discrimination" in this case seems to be getting visitation 5 days out of every 14 rather than 2 days out of every 14. Or am I misreading this?
Click to expand...

My mistake, they can sit in the middle-back of the bus too, so it's not really discrimination.
 
I'm sure there are worse incidents than this, so I didn't mean to imply this was the worst. Actually, it was the first that came up in my search, and the others didn't have details, and I didn't feel like spending a lot of time on it.

My question is sincere, though. If anyone was actually denied visitation because of being an atheist, I think that's unconscionable. If it's "I got less than I wanted" or "I got other than what I wanted," I think (though I've never been through it myself) that's probably not too different than what happens in your standard "Kramer vs Kramer" custody case. I'd hesitate to conclude that courts are systematically discriminating against atheists without knowing a lot more details of a lot more anecdotes.
 
Irony said:
My mistake, they can sit in the middle-back of the bus too, so it's not really discrimination.
Click to expand...
How is the case I cited even legitimately considered discrimination? He went from two days to five days every two weeks. "Help, I'm being forced to spend more time with my kid, because they discriminate against atheists."

You guys and your "back of the bus" persecution complex are really a hoot.
 
bokonon said:
I'm sure there are worse incidents than this, so I didn't mean to imply this was the worst. Actually, it was the first that came up in my search, and the others didn't have details, and I didn't feel like spending a lot of time on it.

My question is sincere, though. If anyone was actually denied visitation because of being an atheist, I think that's unconscionable. If it's "I got less than I wanted" or "I got other than what I wanted," I think (though I've never been through it myself) that's probably not too different than what happens in your standard "Kramer vs Kramer" custody case. I'd hesitate to conclude that courts are systematically discriminating against atheists without knowing a lot more details of a lot more anecdotes.
Click to expand...

Another case:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/12/09/dad-loses-custody-of-kids-because-hes-agnostic.htm

"Discrimination" in this case seems to be getting visitation 5 days out of every 14 rather than 2 days out of every 14. Or am I misreading this?
Click to expand...

In the case you cited the father and mother shared custody 50/50. the judge changed that so that the mother could take the child to church and be indoctrinated.

He didn't get an improved custody order. He went from 7 out of 14 to 5 out of 14 and he doesn't get weekends for extended activities.
 
I think some judges do feel, and don't mind suggesting, that church is better for a child than no church, but I think most of them try to be cagey about coming right out and saying that atheists are (insert pejorative such as evil, amoral, etc.), because they know that could be challenged. But I think that some of them do feel exactly that. Atheists are evil, and shouldn't be allowed to rear children.

In the US, we can expect that some few, some certain number, of judges are the "rabid" kind of theist, and enjoy the power they have to enforce their own dogma. Odds simply say some of them must.
 
bokonon said:
How is the case I cited even legitimately considered discrimination? He went from two days to five days every two weeks. "Help, I'm being forced to spend more time with my kid, because they discriminate against atheists."

You guys and your "back of the bus" persecution complex are really a hoot.
Click to expand...

Less time. You deliberately chose a mild example. And it's not a "persecution complex" when you are, in fact, being persecuted.

As to your "back of the bus" sneer, I grew up in Montgomery. I still hear people like you saying the EXACT same things about Jim Crow, take of that what you will.
 
slingblade, thank you for doing the homework, I found the study out of U Minn interesting reading: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist as the other.pdf

I don't think it really shows a cut and dried bigotry against atheists, at least the authors say, in footnote #1:

Mistreatment of atheists and atheists’ own perceptions of their place in American society are beyond the scope of this article.
Click to expand...

I especially liked the question about "Would you vote for a candidate for President from your party who was otherwise qualified and who was an X? (where X was varied). Atheists came in last, at about 50%. Homosexuals placed 60%. The cool thing was the trend -- atheists up from 20% in '58 and 40% in '78 to 50% in '99. That's encouraging.
 
marplots said:
I don't think it really shows a cut and dried bigotry against atheists. . .
Click to expand...

Try this one. You can see the relevent parts of the court order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ww1AilSJ3U

ETA:

And another:

http://theinfinityprogram.com/showthread.php?t=1343

Bevilacqua said her son's father filed for full custody during his visit and a judge granted it without contacting her. She flew to New York to fight the ruling, thinking it would be an easy fight since she's always had custody. However, Bevilacqua walked out of the Orleans County Court stripped of just about all of her parental rights. This after County Judge James Punch learned of her involvement in a satire performance group that pokes fun at religion, called the Church of the Sub-Genius. Court transcripts back up her claims.

"I've read through the transcripts a million times and he just said it's obvious that I shouldn't have my son. Obvious."
Click to expand...

ETA 2: And try this report.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf
 
Last edited:
qayak said:
Another case:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/12/09/dad-loses-custody-of-kids-because-hes-agnostic.htm
Click to expand...
If the facts are as stated, I'm confident this will be overturned on appeal. Judges don't like it when their rulings are overturned.

The father stated that the judge cited "other factors" in his order, but he was able to refute them in court.

qayak said:
In the case you cited the father and mother shared custody 50/50. the judge changed that so that the mother could take the child to church and be indoctrinated.

He didn't get an improved custody order. He went from 7 out of 14 to 5 out of 14 and he doesn't get weekends for extended activities.
Click to expand...
Can you document this? I'm not saying your interpretation isn't consistent with the words I quoted; you may be right. Another possible interpretation is that he went from 7 to 6 days out of 14.

Irony said:
Less time. You deliberately chose a mild example. And it's not a "persecution complex" when you are, in fact, being persecuted.

As to your "back of the bus" sneer, I grew up in Montgomery. I still hear people like you saying the EXACT same things about Jim Crow, take of that what you will.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't deliberately choose a mild example. I took the first example that came up in my Google search, saw that most of the next few lacked details, and asked for the people claiming discrimination to furnish the examples that bolstered their case.

Jim Crow was a set of discriminatory laws. You may hear people in Montgomery saying they'd like to see Jim Crow return, but I assure you they aren't "people like me."

The fact is, the laws regarding religion forbid discrimination, so the situation is nothing like Jim Crow. The fact that bigots try to find ways around the law is nothing new, but the law is on our side, unlike the situation in Montgomery in 1955.
 
bokonon said:
If the facts are as stated, I'm confident this will be overturned on appeal. Judges don't like it when their rulings are overturned.

The father stated that the judge cited "other factors" in his order, but he was able to refute them in court.
Click to expand...

As usual, the case isn't as cut and dried, see: http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody for a little more info.

It appears that in the agnostic case, it was mentioned only as leading to "a breakdown in communication" rather than the basis for the judgment. We'll have to await the appeal, which I see was filed Dec 1st.

I don't want to make the same mistake the right wingers made when a website was mentioned in a custody issue and then cited as the main (or sole) cause for the action. I can believe a judge would let atheism or agnosticism influence a decision, I find it harder to believe they would document that instead of just keeping it to themselves.
 
bokonon said:
The fact that bigots try to find ways around the law is nothing new, but the law is on our side, unlike the situation in Montgomery in 1955.
Click to expand...
You desperately try to downplay this issue. Nothing new there. I saw the same thing in the '50s, in the '60, in the '70, and so on. And every time it took a fight to correct the situation, not sitting around with a thumb up it. But you be a good atheist.
 
Be thankful there are good little atheists. We will be around to bail you out when you are being a bad, militant atheist for the cause.

"He too fights who remains at home."
 
marplots said:
Be thankful there are good little atheists. We will be around to bail you out when you are being a bad, militant atheist for the cause.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't count on the back of the bus crowd for bail money or anything else. If you don't show up for the fight, why would you show up for the aftermath.
"He too fights who remains at home."
Click to expand...
Yeah? You planning on shoveling **** in Louisiana?
 
bokonon said:
Can you document this? I'm not saying your interpretation isn't consistent with the words I quoted; you may be right. Another possible interpretation is that he went from 7 to 6 days out of 14.
Click to expand...

I had the original bookmarked but the link is broken. I can only find one reference now but the father also says:

. . . given that the original lawsuit aimed to reduce my visitation to every other weekend, I could have fared much worse, and the judge rightly guessed I would not wish to appeal and risk losing more ground when the case is sent back for reconsideration.
Click to expand...

If the original lawsuit was to reduce visitation to every other weekend, then he obviously had more than that prior to the case being heard. Also, if he came out with exactly what he went in with, he wouldn't be complaining about a loss of time with his child.

The original I had said he shared 50/50 custody with his ex. One week at his house, one week at hers.
 
bokonon said:
So pointing out that the law is on our side is trying to downplay the issue?

Okay, then.
Click to expand...
I'm immune, so don't bother. And it's your efforts to denigrate the people who are willing to do something about this that makes you look puerile.
I'm one of the best. Thanks for noticing.
Click to expand...

Best Uncle Tom in Class. Pick up your ribbon at the judge's stand.
 
qayak said:
If the original lawsuit was to reduce visitation to every other weekend, then he obviously had more than that prior to the case being heard. Also, if he came out with exactly what he went in with, he wouldn't be complaining about a loss of time with his child.

The original I had said he shared 50/50 custody with his ex. One week at his house, one week at hers.
Click to expand...
Okay, then the most reasonable interpretation I can think of is that he was on "every other week" before, and the judge took away his Sundays, leaving him 6 rather than 7 days out of 14.

I think he could probably get this reversed on appeal, but if the judge put the "fear of God" into him, and he's not willing to risk appealing it, then I guess he's stuck.
 
Ahh.. the "good atheist" is usually an ex-theist who still believes the religion he/she used to believe in is actually good for the world. Sacred cows and all that.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom