Faith

Mom Could Face 20 Days In Jail for Baptizing Her Kids Without Her Ex-Husband’s Permission

A jail sentence for christening your children? That’s what one Nashville, Tennessee, mother could be facing after baptizing her children without her ex-husband’s knowledge or permission. The baptisms allegedly took place at Independent Presbyterian Church.

Prior to the alleged illegal baptisms, Lauren and Emmett Blake Jarrell apparently had some severe disagreements over when it was appropriate for their children to undergo the spiritual ritual. Lauren, a Presbyterian, and Emmett, a Methodist, both belong to denominations that encourage infant baptism.

However, the two disagreed about the appropriate age for doing so, with Emmett claiming it would be better to wait for a time when the children would be older and more understanding of what they were committing to. The issue was of such contention for the couple that they apparently sought counseling with a minister after getting married.

At the end of March, a Tennessee Court of Appeals said that Lauren must face a criminal contempt hearing over her violation of a court order that claims all major religious decisions surrounding the children must be made jointly. If convicted, Lauren could face a $100 fine and go to jail for up to 20 days. The Associated Press reports:

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.

Legal experts disagree on whether the appellate court decision is treading into the forbidden territory of deciding spiritual doctrine or is just upholding the law when a parent is accused of flagrantly violating a court order.

According to court documents, the children turn five-years-old and seven-years-old in the coming weeks. A court date has not yet been set.

Comments (151)

1 2 3 4
  • Tri-ox
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:46am

    Those who would argue that this woman should be allowed to independently choose to murder her unborn children will claim that this same woman should not be allowed to independently make other important decisions for her children. Satan tests our faith every day – we must never let our guard down.

    Report Post » Tri-ox  
    • skiz
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 11:16am

      You nailed it!!! As far as the courts deciding this kind of case (religious) it should not be any of their concern! As far as the children go, I did not notice their age, children should not be saved until they reach the age of consent. The parents should not decide this very personal choice to ask Jesus to come into your heart and then be baptised. IF she did this to GET the husband back, that is not a Christian thing to do and she needs to ask for guidance from Christ.

      Report Post » skiz  
    • rangerp
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 11:17am

      show one example in the Bible where babies get baptized

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • P8riot
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 11:21am

      It seems almost everyone here is MISSING THE POINT.

      YOU JUST READ ABOUT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING WHAT RELIGION A PERSON CAN BECOME A PART OF (OR NOT BECOME A PART OF)…

      Are these OUR kids or the GOVERNMENTS kids??? Yes, it is obviously better for the parents to agree on religious choices for their kids, BUT THAT IS BETWEEN THE PARENTS – the government cannot tell one parent or both parents what religion their kids can be!!!!

      THIS IS CALLED A FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION! The parents are the decision makers for their kids until they are no longer minors.

      PS – I’m not a libertarian either. Simply a true conservative.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • P8riot
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 11:25am

      @SKIZ – I am so glad someone else saw the true issue here (I guess I was writing my post when you posted)…

      I also agree that children should be old enough to consent to such a serious commitment. To baptize a baby is to not understand the purpose of baptism. We are baptized for two reasons – to follow Christ and for the remission of sins. How can a baby follow Christ when it didn’t make the decision? Why does a baby need to repent for sins when they have committed none? Just silly.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • omgfolks
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 11:50am

      She should go to jail, she violated the order of the court to include her ex husband and chose to ignore the order. This is not a case of religion it is a case of two people who fell in love got married had a child , then could not honor their commitments to each other got divorced and now the courts have to protect each others rights. The dad has a right and she took the right away, she should be punished for her actions. Plain and simple. If they ever had a real marriage based on love, respect and trust this would not be happening. They would have worked through the problems and still be married today. But one of those decided it was easier to cut and run rather than work through the problems, hence the divorce. She should go to jail, if not, she should forfiet her right to complain later on any other issues that may come up.

      Report Post »  
    • Doctor Nordo
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 1:15pm

      P8TRIOT

      Are these OUR kids or the GOVERNMENTS kids??? Yes, it is obviously better for the parents to agree on religious choices for their kids, BUT THAT IS BETWEEN THE PARENTS – the government cannot tell one parent or both parents what religion their kids can be!!!!

      Hey, moron, the government did nothing of the sort. All they did was enforce a parenting plan that both parents agreed to. They signed a legally binding contract that stated that all religious decisions on the part of the children were to be decided jointly. How is that saying that the gov’t is telling the parents what religion their kids can be? It’s not.

      And since she flagrantly disobeyed the court and unilaterally made the baptism decision without the consent of the father, who has just as much legal right in making religious decisions on behalf of his children as she, she is now in contempt of court and faces consequences, as she should.

      If she is held liable then I count that as a victory for men. Women, particularly in matters of divorce and family, have far too much sway with the courts. So it’s refreshing to see one of these greedy women put in her place.

      Report Post » Doctor Nordo  
    • sirocco78
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 1:28pm

      Rangerp…

      Show me one example in the bible where it says they should be excluded.

      But if you are serious about wanting an answer to your challenge, please read this:
      http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

      Report Post » sirocco78  
    • Ray2447
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 1:30pm

      “show one example in the Bible where babies get baptized”

      Show one example where they are clearly denied baptism.

      John Calvin, in his “Institutes” wrote extensively on his interpretation that children/babies should be baptized, using scripture as the source for his opinion. Martin Luther had already come to that same conclusion.

      Report Post »  
    • mtcountrygrl
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 3:14pm

      I love all the arguments here, but the point everyone is missing is…If they are so “religious” they would not be divorced. Sorry.

      Report Post »  
    • Krodzone
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 3:39pm

      Not only should they not be divorced, but this shouldn’t have even been tried in a secular court. It’s because of people like them, and those who don’t say anything, that the courts overstep their rightful bounds. Paul warned the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 6:1-10) not to allow things like this to be heard in a secular court. He also said that it’s better to just be offended than to continue on, and give over the power God has given those in Christ Jesus. It’s not like their children were baptized into the name of one of the BA`AL’s of this world (Allah, Budha, etc) (1 Corinthians 3:1-8).

      Report Post »  
    • PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 3:46pm

      I feel sorry for these children. Marriage should remain a sacrament and no one should enter into marriage and have children without a united purpose for the children. Lawyers are the only winners in these battles and everyone loses when judgements come from courts run by wills of men. This society seems past doomed. Too many lawyers; too many laws; too many regulations; no moral individual code. Everything has become corrupted to the core. There are some really screwed up kids…from screwed-up parents and immoral society.

      Report Post » PIGSWILLNEVERFLY  
    • Thors Hammer
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 3:57pm

      Who do these people think they are – the government? Only ‘Big Brother’ or ‘Big Sister’ can tell use how to raise our kids, including sex education, free contraception control, free abortion (without parental notification) but the parents can’t even send them to school with a proper meal without heavy-handed Nanny-state interference! Sorry for the rant, but I really get ticked!

      Report Post »  
    • Greenwood
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 4:39pm

      @SIROCCO78……………

      Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

      Make disciples first then baptizing them…………..it’s pretty clear.

      Report Post » Greenwood  
    • rangerp
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 5:18pm

      SIROCC and Ray2447

      Read the verses below, and see the pre-req to baptism is salvation. Phillip would not just batpize him, he had to believe first. Infant babies do not believe in much other than food and sleep.

      ACTS 8 36 And as they wenton their way, they cameunto a certain water: and the eunuch said , See , here is water; what doth hinderme to be baptized ? 37And Philip said , If thou believestwith all thine heart, thou mayest . And he answered and said , I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.38And he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they went downboth into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptizedhim.39

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • pavepaws
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 6:28pm

      The mother can’t undo the baptisims? I’m not sure of that. Weren’t atheists in Florida successful in washing blessing off of highways?

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 7:35pm

      sirocco78

      I read your tract, and here is where you go wrong. Peter was preaching to the Jews that saw Jesus crucified. He was speaking to a select group, and not “all”. He still did not say anything of infant baptism, nor did he say” get baptised, and it will save you”

      getting dunked in city water is not magic power. You go down a dry sinner, and come up a wet one.

      You are saved by “grace”, not by water.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • MCDAVE
      Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:02am

      baptizing these children has done no harm..the courts had no right to rule on this issue to begin with…separation of church and state..its a issue for the parents and the courts need waste no more taxpayers dollars on this..

      Report Post »  
    • edmundburk
      Posted on April 7, 2012 at 2:53am

      this is about married couples making a “joint” dicision. once you get married, all dicisions are joint. which by the way, is why people should not marry outside of their domonations. and yes, going to a pastor for marriage advice is a good idea.

      Report Post » edmundburk  
    • Deborah
      Posted on April 7, 2012 at 6:42am

      @RANGERP, in the Acts of the Apostles, one of Christ’s disciples baptized the entire house of Cornelius. Did you ever think that there were children in that house? No, I didn’t think so. If things aren’t spelled out EXPLICTLY for Fundamentalists, they don’t grasp the Scriptures.

      Report Post » Deborah  
    • StonyBurk
      Posted on April 7, 2012 at 8:13am

      I agree with the sentiments about those who would insist the woman has every right to have an abortion
      without any former husbands agreement. But I am not convinced that infant baptism is Biblical. I would agree that baptism ought not be –or is of no value to the individual unless they can understand Baptism.
      Having said that I do think it odd and highly suggestive that there are things the father is NOT saying for he took his former wife to court–for What? An act that the secular Court ought not be entangled in?–Has No power over.Dangerous ground it seems to me.

      Report Post »  
    • mycomet123
      Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:36am

      1 Corinthians 6:1-7 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgement instead of before the believers?. The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.

      Report Post »  
    • RamonPreston
      Posted on April 8, 2012 at 1:58pm

      RANGERP: They don’t. Christ blessed small children, not baptized them. Another tradition of men.

      Report Post » RamonPreston  
  • eramthgin
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:38am

    This is stupid.

    Report Post » eramthgin  
    • Female
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 1:23pm

      I agree and totally unChrist like. If you don’t believe in infant baptism, then it was just some water being gently dropped on your babies head. Go ahead, when the child is of the age you want and baptize them again in your faith. Making a big federal case out of it with courts that probably don’t want any religion is foolish and stupid. Once again parents power tripping, willing to keep fighting and causing trouble which tears everybody apart. Lock them both up until they are willing to work together on child issues and charge the whiney one (she baptized w/o my permission) hefty fines for court time/costs.

      Report Post »  
    • woemcat
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 2:27pm

      well said, female!

      Report Post » woemcat  
    • WhiteFang
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 2:39pm

      Infant baptism does not count with God. So it does not matter what the mother did.

      When the child grows to understand his or her dedication to God, then and only then does the baptism count.

      Report Post » WhiteFang  
    • lukerw
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 8:08pm

      UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Government is interfering a Religious Rite/Ritual decision!

      Report Post » lukerw  
  • Apple Bite
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:13am

    Problem is, women think they can get away with anything they want to, because they’re female. Roe v Wade…

    This nation already marginalizes the man’s involvement in a relationship. there should be no wonder why men like Mr. Jarell protests anything a woman does on a whim, when it comes to THEIR children.

    Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • cassandra
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:23am

      It seems to me this man will do anything to cause trouble for his ex-wife , I can see why she divorced him , it’s all about HIM not the children Do you really think they were harmed because of this?

      Report Post »  
    • Apple Bite
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:35am

      It wasn’t about him, it was about the right of the children to understand what was going on with them. They obviously had arguments over this issue before, so I’m sure she was fully aware how offended he was going to be once he found out. Baptizing those kids was like the proverbial knife in the back, or “I got the last word in” for him, she had no concerns about how he felt.

      Roe v Wade….

      Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 1:28pm

      DOES SOMEONE have information for a defense fund for this MOTHER? SHE did the right thing…pray that her ex-husband grows up and figures it out…but GO MOM!!! Congratulations. GOD is with you. PS DID YOU KNOW that ROE has had a complete reversal and regrets her participation ..that she became totally PRO LIFE.
      This is not a problem for the courts. Since both parents agree that Baptism is important, this is not a crime. The court should never have become involved. THEY both need to get on their knees, thank God for their kids and grow up.

      Report Post » PATTY HENRY  
    • 1956
      Posted on April 8, 2012 at 5:07pm

      It’s my understanding that to be saved – it has nothing to do with the water/baptism, but more to do with willingly believing in and wanting to follow Jesus. The baptism is symbolic of being born a new person – yes, we’re still sinners, but we are saved by grace, not by getting wet. If the children didn’t do this willingly and with full knowledge of what it meant – I can hardly believe that it made much, if any, difference in their salvation. However, if at some point down the line they would want to rededicate themselves to Jesus…. that would be the final word.

      I have issues with any mother who ignores the man’s wishes – he was the childrens’ father and the decisions should have been joint. If she deserves to go to jail for this decision, then I would love for the nation to insist that mothers who abort their children even though the fathers are protesting and trying to prevent it – those mothers should be arrested and go to jail as well.

      Having been married almost 20 years, I can tell you that when one spouse says no, that should be the end of the conversation. (That happened in my case. However, I prayed to God to change my husband’s heart – not his mind. A change of heart means he would be committed to a new decision. And God granted that prayer.)

      Report Post » 1956  
  • Frodo RinosBane
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:11am

    Really classy. I’m speechless.

    Report Post » Frodo RinosBane  
  • PATRIOTMAMA
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:11am

    Regardless of the spiritual beliefs of either parent when they divorced they both agreed to make the religious decisions jointly and with expressed permission of both parents. If she knowingly violated the court order it has nothing to do with religion it is about violating a court order. However, I don’t think it matters when you “baptize” an infant because baptism is a public acknowledgment of your profession of faith in Christ and can’t be decided on as an infant. These kids aren’t bound to Christ as children, the decision is made on their own in their own spirit as they grow in knowledge of Christ. They are free to accept or reject Christ as all people are. Do I think the dad is making a mountain out a mole-hill, yes. But as a supporter of the law being applied equally to all, the court order did expressly state that religious decisions needed to be agreed upon by both parents. It is a shame but this is the kind of thing that divorce can bring into the family. People get so far into the evilness of their pain, resentment and bitterness over the divorce they fall into using the kids to get back at one-another and this kind of thing can happen. It’s a shame really just a shame.

    Report Post »  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 12:00pm

      apparently the spiritual beliefs did not extend to the vows of marriage they took…..

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
  • kaydeebeau
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:10am

    Perhaps if they had put as much effort into saving their marriage as they have in trying to take each other down the whole situation would have been avoided

    Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • Elena2010
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:23am

      Well said!

      Where was the pastor of the church they attended, if at all? Why did the pastor doing the baptism not do a better job of pre-baptismal counseling?

      Personally, I believe that believer baptism is the better way to go; however, priest friends of mine always worked w/the parents in multiple pre-baptismal sessions prior to baptizing their child.

      In a way, this mess is just as much the fault of the pastor who did the baptism. He’s the shepherd, no small actor in this.

      Report Post » Elena2010  
    • circleDwagons
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 12:11pm

      Should have spent more time and energy on marrige. If Baptism was so important why did she not naptize them at home and as infants?

      Report Post » circleDwagons  
  • Polarized America
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:05am

    Winter …. his women is not going to jail, The courts always tell people the maximum penalty of the law, and in this case it sounds like contempt, ..since we don’t know the history of these parents everyone has to assume what is going on, and it may be for a good reason… it took me 7 years of GAMES by my EX .. (the mother of my child ) for me to finally get custody……Family court whats parents to WORK TOGETHER………………………………………………

    Report Post »  
  • SquidVetOhio
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:02am

    I can’t believe the number of people on here denigrating the dad. In a world of so many “baby daddies” we should applaud a man who cares about the most important aspect of his children’s life. That is, if his motive is that and not reprisal or bitterness against his ex-wife. Saying “look at what his doing to their mother” is ridiculous. If there was a court order, “look at what the mother is doing in flagrant underminding of the father out of spite and bitterness.” I don‘t know what’s in this man’s heart and neither do any of you. Judge him if you like, but careful of that beam in your own eye!

    Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • cassandra
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:35pm

      SQUID so the dad is such a good father he is willing to put his ex-wife in jail for this ? taking their mother away from the children would be cruel and if he allows the courts to do this it shows what kind of father he really is

      Report Post »  
  • amerbur
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:59am

    This kind of thing gives Chistians a bad name.

    Report Post »  
  • BlackCrow
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:55am

    This is not about a little water and a prayer, this is about power and control.

    Report Post » BlackCrow  
  • tzion
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:51am

    And meanwhile men have zero say in whether a child gets to be born.

    Report Post »  
    • old white guy
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:59am

      what bloody law would put someone in jail for baptizing children? %//$”$%?%/ insanity. the courts and anyone who would entertain this needs a kick in the ass.

      Report Post »  
  • JustPeachy
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:49am

    BOTH these parents need to GROW UP. I’m sure a compromise could have been reached had we been dealing with two ADULTS.

    And this isn’t anything for the government to decide, but the couple (or maybe just the dad) actually brought them into it.

    What a way to show/demonstrate what God’s love and grace is to your children, PARENTS. BOTH of you. Both of you appear to be determined to be RIGHT and BOTH of you seem determined to HAVE YOUR OWN WAYS. No show of love, respect, submission–from EITHER of you.

    Shame on you both and shame on whatever spiritual minister, whatever you had for not helping you find what really matters.

    No wonder they’re no longer married. Neither of them are mature enough to be in an adult relationship. What are they– twelve?!?

    Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • Misty Williams
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:12am

      I apologize to seem contentious, but I believe you’re mistaken.

      Dad, who has does not have custody of the children, who is legally been cut out of most decisions regarding his children’s every day life, can only be a parent in the places and ways the court order allows him to be. The court order was clear. Mom broke the law. Dad, if he is to avoid being forever walked on and marginalized, must not allow even something like this seemingly small affront to go unanswered. If he does, she will cut him out of every minor and major decision regarding the children, reducing him to the role of weekend nanny, and holiday flunky. This man must stand up for his parental rights; backing down now, over even the issue of child christening, is opening the door to his being forever marginalized as a father. The court puts those orders in place specifically to do protect both their parental rights. The mother has now demonstrated that she has no respect for either the court, or his parental rights. If it is a matter of her convictions that the children had to be immediately baptized, then going to jail for 20 days for standing by her convictions should be a matter of small inconvenience. If she’s willing to cut him out of this decision, how many others will she be more than happy to squeeze him out of? Good for him, for standing for his beliefs AND his children!

      Report Post » Misty Williams  
    • commonsensefreethinker1
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:31am

      @OLDWHITEGUY,
      Until the children are 18 they are the parents responsibility not only legaly but both parents have a legal right to weigh in on what the child does,goes,spends the night,people they hang around with, down to what toothpaste they use, including religous acts or events. In this case the mother entered the children into a religous belief that the children I’m sure do not completely understand. Just because the mother chooses to beleive in baptism dos’nt mean the children do.That is huge step for an 18 year old who may even have a better understanding of what it means let alone a small child that dos’nt have a choice to think for themselves. This is where churches are wrong with the usual “get em while they are young” slogan so they grow up thinking this is all there is and this is how everyone should be or believe.It is wrong, dangerous and it is called brainwashing.

      Report Post » commonsensefreethinker1  
  • jcizarter
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:47am

    It is just water.

    Report Post » jcizarter  
  • patriot4ever
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:46am

    It’s done. Good for her! Can’t un-ring the bell!

    Report Post » patriot4ever  
    • Leslie Anne
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:26am

      Exactly :) I’m glad she went ahead and had the kids baptized. The salvation of their precious little souls is more important than what a controlling ex-husband wants.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:50am

      Leslie Anne, I appreciate your sentiment however, for my concern over your soul and Biblical decision, I must counter that a parent having a child baptized has no impact on that child’s salvation. We do not have all of the facts in this case so rendering a decision is inappropriate. However, the two had post-marital counseling regarding this issue and the father wanted the children to be older to be baptized to understand what they were actually doing. Given that limited information, as eternal salvation goes, the calling is directly from Jesus to the child with baptism subsequently occurring as a profession of that faith. Please understand there is no Biblical precedent or requirement for children to be baptized as infants or toddlers to secure their salvation. In all kindness and sincerity, I urge you to study this matter further.

      Report Post »  
    • Leslie Anne
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:56am

      Fine. There‘s no rule saying they can’t be baptized twice. The father can baptize them again at an older age. Problem solved.
      I’m still glad she had them baptized–when in doubt, baptize :)

      Report Post »  
  • Exrepublisheep
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:39am

    She was wrong and violated a court order. Punishment should ensue. The children were going to be baptized either way so why not do it on a mutually agreed time? Still I wonder how deep their religion is if they were divorced, though I don’t know the reason.

    Report Post » Exrepublisheep  
  • momrules
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:36am

    I wonder how Dad is going to explain to the kids why he had Mom put in jail. Poor kids.

    Report Post »  
  • mrsL
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:33am

    That’s the way to earn the love and respect of your children – throw their mom into jail! Way to go bone head.

    Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:30am

    I’m sure Jesus is very proud of you Emmett Blake Jarrell.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
  • mapgirl10
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:28am

    Dad needs to take a chill pill and relax. One baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Doesn’t matter when or where or by whom. The person’s soul is all that matters. Give me a break here this is so far from what Jesus would want for a child to hear or experience from their parents.

    Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:36am

      “accused of flagrantly violating a court order” While the religious undertone contributes to the attempt to have and edgy story here it is irrelevant. She ignored a court order …. let’s move on.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:56am

      First of all, baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is publicly identifying yourself as a follower of Christ. Christ was baptised, what sins did He commit? This is a very serious issue to alot of people. Baptists would persecuted in killed for not believing in infant baptism HERE in America by mainly the Episcopol church in the late 1600′s. It’s not a trivial thing. Lastly, if there was a court order, then she vioated the law. Not sure why they were divorced though. If the dad is trying hold to the Bible, it had better been adultery or the wife divorced him against his will. Nothing else is permitted from Jesus’ own mouth!

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • momprayn
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:45am

      “Each one of you must turn from sin (repent), return to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the forgiveness of your sins; then you also shall receive this gift, the Holy Spirit”
      Acts 2:38

      Report Post »  
  • krod2516
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:26am

    Wow! What a disgusting example to set for his children. Can we say “Control Freek”!

    Report Post »  
    • Misty Williams
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:36am

      Beg your pardon, not control freak.
      This father’s only recourse to defend his role as father–who should be involved in making important decisions for his children–is to fall back on the court orders. The mother disregarded both the court order, and any respect for the father’s role as FATHER, to be involved in making decisions for the children. For disregarding a court order–criminal contempt–she must answer to civil law. For being blatantly disrespectful of the children’s father, she should at least feel shame, and personally I believe her pastor, and any other person made aware of this within her circle of family and friends should rebuke her.

      How many male parents in this day and age have become nothing more than “sperm donor” and do not, or will not take any kind of interest in being a FATHER to their children? Kudos to this real MAN for being interested and diligent where his children are concerned, and for standing by his faith convictions!

      Report Post » Misty Williams  
    • Wigidy
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:01am

      Well said and thank you Misty. Couldn’t have said it better. To those who try to say “good for the mother”, you are part of the crowd that pushes the worth of a father from society.

      Report Post »  
  • JamesA
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:26am

    Off with her head! How stupid we have become trying to best another. This fella needs an educational experience in the form of a size 12d in his most posterior end.

    Report Post »  
  • NHwinter
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:24am

    How could an ex husband want his wife to have a police record and be put in jail? Yes, Kickagrandma, I agree, he is an “ex” for an obvious reason. Seems strange the court should even be involved in matter such as this one. Won’t he look good in the eyes of his children????

    Report Post » NHwinter  
  • SquidVetOhio
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:23am

    Baptism is after conversion. It is a public confession of a believer’s new birth. It is meant to mimic Christ’s burial and resurrection. It should not be performed on children too young to understand the Gospel and believe it. That’s what the Bible clearly teaches. As far as arresting the mom, I’m not sure I want the government involved in church affairs.

    Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • copatriots
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:58am

      Agreed, SQUID. Although, these children are not infants, the baptism decision is an individual decision and not one a parent can make on behalf of the child. Some children receive Christ and seek baptism at the tender age of 5 or 7 but it is not typical for most children of those ages to fully understand the meaning or commitment.

      A dedication ceremony is much more appropriate where the parents commit before God to raise their child in His ways. When Jesus calls the child and the child responds to Him and makes their very own faith decision, then baptism rightly and Biblically follows.

      A blessed Good Friday to All!

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:05am

      @COPATRIOTS

      Roger that.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • copatriots
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:13am

      With that said, however, if the children did accept Christ and chose to be baptized (which would be rare for it to happen at exact same time and I doubt occurred in this situation), then no law of man should govern their decision to be baptized and nothing in heaven or on earth would stop me from having them baptized. If that were the case for these kids, I would happily accept a 20 day jail term versus the happy eternal decision my child had made.

      Report Post »  
    • circleDwagons
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 2:09pm

      @sqidvet. Baptism is an act of Faith. In the Bible there are reports of whole families being Baptized. To be converted the Holy Spirit has to be involved. It‘s God’s Gift.

      Report Post » circleDwagons  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:18am

    Once again we see an activist justice making sure to further destroy the rights of freedom of religion.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • troymac20
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:02am

      How so? Looks like someone broke the law and now has to answer for it.

      Report Post » troymac20  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 11:30am

      @Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}

      Oh, you mean like the Republican judge who had a “hissy fit” and demanded that the JD write a three page, single-spaced note? Or the conservative judges on the Supreme Court who appear to think that their job is supposed to be taking away power from individuals in favor of Big Business (Citizen’s United, anyone?)? Is that the “activist justice” you’re sick of?

      Report Post »  
  • kickagrandma
    Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:14am

    Could he be an “ex” for a reason????

    Report Post »  
    • Trance
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:25am

      Because he was married to a woman who didn’t care about his input on their children?

      Report Post » Trance  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 9:32am

      Trance – we have no idea if that is true or not. Perhaps he isn’t even involved with his children that much. Maybe he is, that is not for us to judge. We can only look at what he is doing to the mother of his children and conclude that he just might be a royal jerk for giving her a police record and jail time. Horrible example for his children.

      Report Post » NHwinter  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love