What's new
By:
Filters

Woman gets jail time for baptizing child

S

sahlensguy

Well-Known Member
"A North Carolina woman was jailed Friday after baptizing her daughter, violating a court order stemming from acustody battle.

The custody battle included a disagreement over the terms of their daughter’s baptism, according to local news station WSOC-TV. The court order stated that the father of the child, Paul Schaaf, who is Catholic, would have the final decision on matters, including religious ones.

They were reportedly told that violating the court order could lead to jail time, fines or both. However, the mother Kendra Stocks, baptized her daughter the day after the court order was put in place, according to the network. Stocks was found in contempt of court and sentenced to seven days in jail.

“Her father and I both agreed on baptizing her. I regret that he wasn’t part of it, but I don’t regret we’re raising her in the Catholic faith, which is what we both wanted,”

http://time.com/5164558/woman-arrested-for-baptizing-daughter/

I'm assuming the father has hate in his heart after the mother of their child baptized the child in the SAME religion.

Sure hope hope Jesus has a sense of humor.
 
Religion is weird
 
sahlensguy said:
"A North Carolina woman was jailed Friday after baptizing her daughter, violating a court order stemming from acustody battle.

The custody battle included a disagreement over the terms of their daughter’s baptism, according to local news station WSOC-TV. The court order stated that the father of the child, Paul Schaaf, who is Catholic, would have the final decision on matters, including religious ones.

They were reportedly told that violating the court order could lead to jail time, fines or both. However, the mother Kendra Stocks, baptized her daughter the day after the court order was put in place, according to the network. Stocks was found in contempt of court and sentenced to seven days in jail.

“Her father and I both agreed on baptizing her. I regret that he wasn’t part of it, but I don’t regret we’re raising her in the Catholic faith, which is what we both wanted,”

http://time.com/5164558/woman-arrested-for-baptizing-daughter/

I'm assuming the father has hate in his heart after the mother of their child baptized the child in the SAME religion.

Sure hope hope Jesus has a sense of humor.
Click to expand...

One, Jesus isn't real.

Two, she was held in contempt of court. That was her crime. She violated the terms of custody.
 
sahlensguy said:
Three, the father is pissed.
Click to expand...
Probably. I mean he missed out of the ceremony when he was the custodial guardian in charge of making decisions regarding faith. The mother seemed to do it out of spite, the day after the court order was issued. You don't want to talk about her or what he intentions were. I mean the kid was going to get baptized, she decided to do it in a way the excluded the father and violated the court order, for which I think it's safe to say she had contempt for.
 
Bulletproof said:
Probably. I mean he missed out of the ceremony when he was the custodial guardian in charge of making decisions regarding faith. The mother seemed to do it out of spite, the day after the court order was issued. You don't want to talk about her or what he intentions were. I mean the kid was going to get baptized, she decided to do it in a way the excluded the father and violated the court order, for which I think it's safe to say she had contempt for.
Click to expand...
The father could just as easily rebaptize the daughter before his own friends and family. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't mind.

The baptism itself is what's important here, to most Christians at least. The horror if the girl should have passed away in between when the mother baptized her and when the father was GOING to baptize her.
 
Rubashov said:
The Romans knew how to deal with these people.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, the Romans (my favorite people ever), were extremely tolerant. All they wanted is for the Christians to participate in the social events of the empire (the Christians would refuse because they saw those celebrations as idolatry). There was only very brief periods of Christian persecution, and they paled in comparison to the pagans persecution by the Christians after they took over.
 
Yes, religion is weird and as an ex-believer in religion, I also get why people act and believe what they do. It's also weird, to me, what people choose to be acceptable social constructs (from what I understand and personally believe, religion is a social construct.) Some people will go out of their way to be tolerant of certain social constructs that make no sense, but will be the first to damn another one. Human psychology is both interesting and ****ed up.
 
Siro said:
You're Jewish?
Click to expand...

No, but I do blame them for the introduction of the practice as well as the other abrahamic religions for their masturbation/orgasm shaming. The whole point was to reduce our urge to do sinful things. In my view the AMA has been making excuses for the barbaric practice ever since.
 
♪alt13 said:
No, but I do blame them for the introduction of the practice as well as the other abrahamic religions for their masturbation/orgasm shaming. The whole point was to reduce our urge to do sinful things. In my view the AMA has been making excuses for the barbaric practice ever since.
Click to expand...

Circumcision predates the Abrahamic religions by who knows how long. I assume it was, at least in part, to prevent infections in a region that lacks water and is quite sandy. It never really took off among Christians, and almost all of Europe and South America do not circumcise (Christian cultures). It is a practice that often arises in dry places, like with the Australian aborigines.
 
^we didn't start doing it here because of all the sand

In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.

1871: 1% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"I refer to masturbation as one of the effects of a long prepuce; not that this vice is entirely absent in those who have undergone circumcision, though I never saw an instance in a Jewish child of very tender years, except as the result of association with children whose covered glans have naturally impelled them to the habit." M. J. Moses, The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Therapeutic Measure, NY Medical Journal, vol. 14 (1871): pp. 368-374.

1887: 10% of the U.S. male population circumcised
 
"In all cases of masturbation circumcision is undoubtedly the physicians' closest friend and ally ... To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained ... The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch." E. J. Spratling, Masturbation in the Adult, Medical Record, vol. 24 (1895): pp. 442-443
 
♪alt13 said:
^we didn't start doing it here because of all the sand

In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.

1871: 1% of the U.S. male population circumcised
"I refer to masturbation as one of the effects of a long prepuce; not that this vice is entirely absent in those who have undergone circumcision, though I never saw an instance in a Jewish child of very tender years, except as the result of association with children whose covered glans have naturally impelled them to the habit." M. J. Moses, The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Therapeutic Measure, NY Medical Journal, vol. 14 (1871): pp. 368-374.

1887: 10% of the U.S. male population circumcised
Click to expand...

I was talking about its origin and association with the Abrahamic religions. I am aware of the push by the medical community in the Victorian era, and its relationship to masturbation. Nonetheless, in the vast majority of the Christian world, it never took off.

So ya, I see your point about "Christian values" in the US and their relationship to circumcision (and how it applied to you). I was simply referring to the fact that it is not a practice introduced by Judaism. And it isn't a practice that Christians picked up en masse.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Four, divorce sucks and people do some seriously stupid **** in order to hurt their former lover. They usually hurt their kids instead.
Click to expand...
True but this power struggle between the parents doesn't hurt the child directly. Funny how this baptism is more about the parents than it is about their kid.
 
sahlensguy said:
The father could just as easily rebaptize the daughter before his own friends and family. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't mind.

The baptism itself is what's important here, to most Christians at least. The horror if the girl should have passed away in between when the mother baptized her and when the father was GOING to baptize her.
Click to expand...

They are Catholic, so the baptism is as real and significant to them as a wedding is to most Christians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top