If the judge really took custody away just because the father is agnostic, then the father will appeal and it will be overturned by another judge.
If what Emoneaone says is correct (custody was taken because the father has anger issues), then the mother will keep custody. It's very common. Father's who blow their tops in front of their kids during divorces tend to get shafted on custody.
So the point was lol US legal system?
Basically, yes.
Family court cases are highly emotional and full of mudslinging. Generally it's best to keep one's distance. That is, if you desire to see things objectively.
Family law attorney's jump on board with their clients' emotional drivel because it can win them their case. Women tend to draw more sympathy from judges; thus, the system often favors them.
You're talking to a kid who spent the years from 3-18(21 now so no more bs) constantly going to court because my biological father is a dumbshit. I know how poor the court system is especially with these matters.
If the judge really took custody away just because the father is agnostic, then the father will appeal and it will be overturned by another judge.
If what Emoneaone says is correct (custody was taken because the father has anger issues), then the mother will keep custody. It's very common. Father's who blow their tops in front of their kids during divorces tend to get shafted on custody.
The article also states that the mother's boyfriend started a fight and assaulted the father. There are problems on both sides.
However, the judge should never have blamed lack of communication on the fact that the father does not practice the same religion as the mother. Implying that the father has issues because he doesn't share the same religion as the mother.
If you think religious differences don't affect people's ability to communicate with each other, then you must live in a different world than I do.
Ideally, you'd be right. Being agnostic doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the father. The judge probably cited religious differences because the way the mother, and her attorney, expressed this "communication problem" to him.
Religion shackles people, it limits what we are allowed to do. preventing parents from treating there children or saying things are wrong, no reason as to why other then god says so. To me god says so isn't an answer, its an excuse.
But....god wills it.
I'll see your "God Wills It" and raise you a holy hand grenade!
Religion shackles people, it limits what we are allowed to do. preventing parents from treating there children or saying things are wrong, no reason as to why other then god says so. To me god says so isn't an answer, its an excuse.
But....god wills it.
I'll see your "God Wills It" and raise you a holy hand grenade!
If the judge really took custody away just because the father is agnostic, then the father will appeal and it will be overturned by another judge.
If what Emoneaone says is correct (custody was taken because the father has anger issues), then the mother will keep custody. It's very common. Father's who blow their tops in front of their kids during divorces tend to get shafted on custody.
The article also states that the mother's boyfriend started a fight and assaulted the father. There are problems on both sides.
However, the judge should never have blamed lack of communication on the fact that the father does not practice the same religion as the mother. Implying that the father has issues because he doesn't share the same religion as the mother.
If you think religious differences don't affect people's ability to communicate with each other, then you must live in a different world than I do.
Ideally, you'd be right. Being agnostic doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the father. The judge probably cited religious differences because the way the mother, and her attorney, expressed this "communication problem" to him.
As the court record has not been released we only have this statement from this article.
"Judge George Pancol wrote, "the father did not participate in the same religious training as the mother, and noted that the father was agnostic. It goes on to say that when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively. Pancol’s order says Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling, which has reduced his custody to visitation with his children four hours per week and on alternating weekends."
Of course different religions have issues communicating however I was under the impression the US was supposedly upholding religious freedom. The judge rescinded Scarberry's joint custody (at least it seems from the time-line in the article) when of lack of communication occurred because Scarberry had changed his religion (or chosen to not have one).
"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.”"
So, yes I'm interested in understanding why the judge rescinded join-custody on this date with this statement entered in the court record. The judge has refused to comment on an on-going case (which is the usual response).
GEezz... only in the Southern US Bible Belt...where saying "Damn it" will get you dirty looks and a lecture about cussing in the presence of christian people.
I lived there for 9 years..now I live in the mid-west. Just got fed up with the BS that goes on down there. The fact that the judge decided based on his religion beliefs is unconstitutional and hope this guy appeals the decision.
On the other hand if he is violent and out of control or a danger to his kids they do not belong there. He's probably married to some prissy southern bell fundamentalist christian who wouldn't know true christ-like behavior if her life depended on it.
Definitions for those who are not sure what agnostic is......
1) agnostic is one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2) Athiestic= one who believes that there is no deity
GEezz... only in the Southern US Bible Belt...where saying "Damn it" will get you dirty looks and a lecture about cussing in the presence of christian people.
I live in the middle of the Bible Belt (have my whole life) known as God's land by some.. I can cuss up a storm and no one bats an eye.. Saying God damn it, however will get you some looks and quite possibly a lecture about taking the Lord's name in vein.
Do you really expect anything less, the current condition of the United States' judicial system wouldn't have it any different. Its unfortunate but extremely true.
I'm athiest but, a lot of people can be religious without killing their own kids. When these big news stories happen people focus on the religious part instead of the fact these people seem to be nuts with or without religion.
That guy in the vid seemed pretty genuine and it sucks that people would take his kids away from him. Maybe they should go on Jerry Springer <.> (does that still exist?)
I just hope some day you unharden your hearts and accept God's love.
Due to the nature of God's (or whatever name(s) you prefer) existence, there is currently no way to prove or disprove his/her/their/it's existence. So until there is, believe whatever makes you happy and allow others to do the same.
I have no problem with people practising their faith or worshiping deities. I have no problem with religions encouraging people to treat their fellow men and women with respect or inspiring them to live by a positive moral code.
What I do have a problem with is people who use religion as an excuse to treat people unfairly (as seems to be the case with this story), or insist that their beliefs are the only ones that matter and try to cram them down others' throats. If God really is all he is made out to be, he certainly doesn't need an army of lowly mortals marching around trying to convert people, does he? Surely his own divine grace would take care of that when the time comes.
Whether its by picketting US soldier funerals or by making little comments like the one I quoted, this kind of behaviour really gets on my nerves and only serves to worsen the problems between religious and non-religious communities.
EDIT: Scratch the "as seems to be the case with this story" part. I stupidly wrote that without trying to get the whole story first.
Do not let them believe what they want! Only our way of believing is right! How can they be so stupid as to not realize that humans are the greatest beings in all of existence? If they believe in God, then they must be killed. That is the only way for society to progress. Force then to see that Atheism is the only way to get your IQ above 40.
GEezz... only in the Southern US Bible Belt...where saying "Damn it" will get you dirty looks and a lecture about cussing in the presence of christian people.
I lived there for 9 years..now I live in the mid-west. Just got fed up with the BS that goes on down there. The fact that the judge decided based on his religion beliefs is unconstitutional and hope this guy appeals the decision.
On the other hand if he is violent and out of control or a danger to his kids they do not belong there. He's probably married to some prissy southern bell fundamentalist christian who wouldn't know true christ-like behavior if her life depended on it.
Definitions for those who are not sure what agnostic is......
1) agnostic is one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2) Athiestic= one who believes that there is no deity
considering atheism is a lack of belief, if you have a lack of belief in a god you're an atheist, regardless of any other principles you may or may not have, also in regards to this case, the judge needs removed and the *** of a mother of these children needs to be bitched slapped to reality.
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).”
This seems to be a case of those who hate religion picking up on part of the story that supports their personal prejudice. Thank God in this country we are free to practice our religion. Including your hate of it. I just hope some day you unharden your hearts and accept God's love.
Don't bother flaming at me, I shan't be looking at this thread again, because it is filled with those who have an unreasoning hatred of religion. I pity you.
Oh and to you you dumb backwards *** *** you and your god. One day your religion will die, just like many others have.
If the judge really took custody away just because the father is agnostic, then the father will appeal and it will be overturned by another judge.
If what Emoneaone says is correct (custody was taken because the father has anger issues), then the mother will keep custody. It's very common. Father's who blow their tops in front of their kids during divorces tend to get shafted on custody.
The article also states that the mother's boyfriend started a fight and assaulted the father. There are problems on both sides.
However, the judge should never have blamed lack of communication on the fact that the father does not practice the same religion as the mother. Implying that the father has issues because he doesn't share the same religion as the mother.
If you think religious differences don't affect people's ability to communicate with each other, then you must live in a different world than I do.
Ideally, you'd be right. Being agnostic doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the father. The judge probably cited religious differences because the way the mother, and her attorney, expressed this "communication problem" to him.
As the court record has not been released we only have this statement from this article.
"Judge George Pancol wrote, "the father did not participate in the same religious training as the mother, and noted that the father was agnostic. It goes on to say that when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively. Pancol’s order says Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling, which has reduced his custody to visitation with his children four hours per week and on alternating weekends."
Of course different religions have issues communicating however I was under the impression the US was supposedly upholding religious freedom. The judge rescinded Scarberry's joint custody (at least it seems from the time-line in the article) when of lack of communication occurred because Scarberry had changed his religion (or chosen to not have one).
"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.”"
So, yes I'm interested in understanding why the judge rescinded join-custody on this date with this statement entered in the court record. The judge has refused to comment on an on-going case (which is the usual response).
adding to this, ALOT of states are women states, basically a woman can have a kid and go to court and take the guy for everything including the kitchen sink, WITHOUT QUESTION, and sometimes with or without a lawyer, or the father even being present, and with this action she pulled <she's a *** but she's gangsta> the time reduced with his kids just made the child support (aspect of it), go up, now she can up the amount of child support that she is recieving; its absolutely amazing how women use this just to get back at fathers who just want to be with their kids and not with them, so this is perfect for women with hateful hearts.
I ounce wrote a paper and in researching it I found some interesting things out. I don't have the exact figures on me at the moment but the quick version is. Children with just a female parent tend to turn out worse then with just a father parent. majority of single father parents require less aid from there governments and there former spouses. Children who grow up with out a father have a much higher chance of becoming, criminals hookers, vagrants, and other less then reproductive members of society.
If the judge really took custody away just because the father is agnostic, then the father will appeal and it will be overturned by another judge.
If what Emoneaone says is correct (custody was taken because the father has anger issues), then the mother will keep custody. It's very common. Father's who blow their tops in front of their kids during divorces tend to get shafted on custody.
The article also states that the mother's boyfriend started a fight and assaulted the father. There are problems on both sides.
However, the judge should never have blamed lack of communication on the fact that the father does not practice the same religion as the mother. Implying that the father has issues because he doesn't share the same religion as the mother.
If you think religious differences don't affect people's ability to communicate with each other, then you must live in a different world than I do.
Ideally, you'd be right. Being agnostic doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the father. The judge probably cited religious differences because the way the mother, and her attorney, expressed this "communication problem" to him.
As the court record has not been released we only have this statement from this article.
"Judge George Pancol wrote, "the father did not participate in the same religious training as the mother, and noted that the father was agnostic. It goes on to say that when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively. Pancol’s order says Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling, which has reduced his custody to visitation with his children four hours per week and on alternating weekends."
Of course different religions have issues communicating however I was under the impression the US was supposedly upholding religious freedom. The judge rescinded Scarberry's joint custody (at least it seems from the time-line in the article) when of lack of communication occurred because Scarberry had changed his religion (or chosen to not have one).
"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.”"
So, yes I'm interested in understanding why the judge rescinded join-custody on this date with this statement entered in the court record. The judge has refused to comment on an on-going case (which is the usual response).
adding to this, A LOT of states are women states, basically a woman can have a kid and go to court and take the guy for everything including the kitchen sink, WITHOUT QUESTION, and sometimes with or without a lawyer, or the father even being present, and with this action she pulled <she's a *** but she's gangsta> the time reduced with his kids just made the child support (aspect of it), go up, now she can up the amount of child support that she is recieving; its absolutely amazing how women use this just to get back at fathers who just want to be with their kids and not with them, so this is perfect for women with hateful hearts.
I ounce wrote a paper and in researching it I found some interesting things out. I don't have the exact figures on me at the moment but the quick version is. Children with just a female parent tend to turn out worse then with just a father parent. majority of single father parents require less aid from there governments and there former spouses. Children who grow up with out a father have a much higher chance of becoming, criminals hookers, vagrants, and other less then reproductive members of society.
You may not have the exact numbers, but its okay because you are absolutely right. Single moms cannot sit a home and just raise the kids, they have to work and work long hours just to get by, let alone parent/teacher conferences and pta meetings and bake sales, finding the time to read and tuck the kids in the bed...You know you stats missing the demographics, what group of women does this affect? Im curious to see answers...
I'm Atheist and i like it no one to answer to and if there is a heaven i get to go "look "god" i'm sorry i was wrong but buddy you didn't really make it believeable for us that story book was full of bs~"
i have no problem with people believe in gods witches and magical wardrobes but if one person believes Religion doesn't start war's mate you just started one the world would be better believing in an afterlife but no god to "control" our actions, now i'm a pretty decent guy i don't take drugs smoke (ok i do drink on a friday or saturday) never once hit a woman and never killed anyone but not because of "god" but because i know whats right and wrong through good NONE religious parenting bet it *** up peoples minds who think only Christians are good people~
I'm Atheist and i like it no one to answer to and if there is a heaven i get to go "look "god" i'm sorry i was wrong but buddy you didn't really make it believeable for us that story book was full of bs~" i have no problem with people believe in gods witches and magical wardrobes but if one person believes Religion doesn't start war's mate you just started one the world would be better believing in an afterlife but no god to "control" our actions, now i'm a pretty decent guy i don't take drugs smoke (ok i do drink on a friday or saturday) never once hit a woman and never killed anyone but not because of "god" but because i know whats right and wrong through good NONE religious parenting bet it *** up peoples minds who think only Christians are good people~
