Joseph Reyes may be unique in the annals of criminal law: he is facing potential jail time for baptizing his daughter. His ex-wife Rebecca Reyes is Jewish and was awarded custody of the girl. The mother is raising her in the Jewish faith. Hon. Edward R. Jordan has issued an order barring Reyes from “exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion. …” Now Reyes faces the ultimate baptism under fire.
Jordan imposed a 30-day restraining order forbidding any non-Jewish exposure of the daughter. While Reyes was out of line to unilaterally baptize the child without her mother’s consent, the order raises some interesting constitutional questions. Reyes may not have custody but he continues to have parental rights. As a Catholic, he would be barred from exposing his child to his faith.
When the couple was married in 2004, the mother insisted that Reyes convert to Judaism. He now says the decision was not voluntary — a difficult concept since he was not drugged and put through an involuntary conversion ceremony.
Reyes says that he never stopped practicing his Catholic faith and he sent his wife pictures of the baptism. Rebecca Reyes promptly sought a temporary restraining order.
Reyes appears intent on a showdown — he called the media to watch him take the girl to church in violation of the order.
He seems to be working on a curious defense. On Good Morning America, he insisted “in terms of Judaism, based on the information I was given, Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism.” I doubt many judges, let alone theologians, would support that defense.
For the full story, click here.
I can see his argument is well founded in the fact that Catholicism is rooted in Jewish History and no where did the supposed founder ever renounce Judaism. It was supplemented in the esoteric beliefs of many mystic religions.
The child will always be Jewish and raised as a Jew without further distinction. For a Judge to BAR someone from the faith that they practice endorses a religion. Therefore, I believe that this is an issue that is ripe for the Federal Court rather than appeal the order to a higher state court.
I would take this out as quick as possible to prevent any more excessive government entanglement. ie endorsing a particular branch of faith over another. However, if you look at this in the big picture once a divorce is granted or a temporary order, involving children then the Government takes control of your family and for what its worth you no longer have control.
I can see where the man is coming from. I dated a J.A.P. many years ago and life has been so much more peaceful since we did not get married…..
I never understood these sort of parental objections.
If you don’t believe in the religion or their practices like baptism then why would you care if the person was baptized?
If you don’t think it actually represents any reality then why would it bother someone? It seems like getting upset over your kid pretending to be a Prince or Princess. If its not real, why does it matter?
This reminds me of the case several years ago where a woman was stripped of custody of her children because she belonged to the church of the Subgenius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius#2006:_Rev._Magdalen.27s_child_custody_troubles
AY and JT have the right of it, this raises some serious constitutional questions.
Gyges,
Just because this devout religion seeks to celebrate 365 days a year does not make them any less religious than the rest. Texas also has TBN and its lesser known victims. I will assure you Dallas is not the mecca for Southern Religion. It must be WACO closer to W’s real place where UFO’s are known to be……
Mike Spindell:
what say you?
There is a historical analogy for this.
Take a look the Papal States under Pius IX where he ruled central Italy until 1870. The Pope was the absolute temporal ruler, claiming direct political descent from the Caesars, on the basis of the Donation of Constantine, a proven forgery. He ruled alone, hindered by no council, legislature, or judiciary. He was also the absolute civil, military and spiritual leader, and had himself proclaimed infallible in faith and morals by the first Vatican Council. He issued the Syllabus of Errors denouncing, among many other things, religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
He called the Jews of Rome “dogs,” saying there were too many in Rome, heard howling in the streets.
One Jewish couple had their six-year old son kidnapped by the Pope’s agents in 1858, after a servant claimed to have baptized him secretly. Despite years of anguished protests, the Pope never relented in denying their basic human rights as parents, and had the child raised as a Catholic. He refused calls of Catholic heads of state like Emperor Franz Josef and Napoleon III to return the child to his parents.
When American Jewish parents used to hire Catholic babysitters, they ran the hazard of having their infant secretly baptized by the sitter in the kitchen while they were out dining. The priests explained that it was wrong for them to do so, since it was a violation of the parents’ rights to raise their children in their own faith –BUT THAT IT WAS A VALID BAPTISM.
That was superstition, not religion.
Vince,
Added knowledge is always appreciated. Thank you.
From the story:
“Her father decided to baptize his daughter without consulting his wife.
“Joseph Reyes sent his wife pictures and an e-mail documenting the occasion. Rebecca Reyes responded by filing for the temporary restraining order, which the judge granted.
“Stephen Lake, Rebecca Reyes’ attorney, said his client was shocked at her estranged husband’s actions.
“’Number one, it wasn’t just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion … have the girl baptized,’ Lake said. She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl.
“Furthermore, Joseph Reyes had never been a particularly devout Christian, Lake added.
“When the girl’s father took her to church again in violation of the order, he called the media to witness the event.”
So.
The guy only became religious when it became a weapon in the divorce war. Then HE CALLED THE MEDIA. He went on TV. He is a publicity seeking hypocrite.
No one is infringing his constitutional freedom of religion. There is just a bona fide effort to enforce his own promise, taken voluntarily, to honor the freedom of religion of his wife and daughter.
AY, the acronym “J.A.P” is highly offensive to many, including me.
Vince,
I intended to offend no one. As a matter of fact, I first learned the word J.A.P. from her. So, if you are offended, I am sorry.
I learned a lot of things as well as words from her as well. However, no offense was meant.
Because I intended to offend no one I just called the lady up, we are still friends. This is what she had to say, She said it means a Jewish women in terms of cultural identity, especially in areas with a lot of Jews. She does not consider it offensive and that she is comfortable in her heritage.
Ah yes, the religious struggles of yesteryear. It is so yesterday. Oh ma gaa we are so beyond that as a modern society. Ok, maybe not.
I’ll have to go with Vince Treacy on this one. My gut instinct tells me that this case is about machismo rather than religion. First, were Catholicism of critical importance to Mr. Reyes, he would not have converted to Judaism, even if it meant terminating his relationship with his now ex-wife prior to their marriage. Second, he would have arranged for the baptism of his daughter to take place without the knowledge of his ex-wife. The fact that he chose the publicize the entire event means that he was attempting to exercise control rather than freedom of religion. Finally, as Prof. Turley noted, Mr. Reyes’ knowledge of Catholicism, let alone Judaism, is laughable. Were he to bring a First Amendment claim, I would toss it out of court.
I agree with Mike. If Catholicism was so important to the guy, then do not convert and marry. If you do, respect your promises to your spouse.
There is no need to take this case to federal court. Everyone here should know that, under Article VI, Clause 2, “the Judges of every State shall be bound” by the Constitution as “the supreme Law of the Land.” Under clause 3, all state judges are bound by oath to support the Constitution. State courts can resolve constitutional issues, and they do so every day. The Supreme Court takes appeals from the final decisions of the state courts under Article III.
If you go to the linked story, you will find that the wife’s lawyer compared the baptism to an assault. I would call it a battery, a physical contact without the knowledge or consent of the lawful custodial parent.
He had no business doing this. It is just a self-serving, malicious publicity stunt to grab headlines. It is bad enough for parents to wage custodial divorce wars, but to put the beliefs of a child in play is despicable.
Finally, Catholicism and Christianity did grow out of Judiasm, but the child has not been very nice to the parent down through the pages of history. Take a look at 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism. When I was in Rome last year, friends took us to the old Jewish ghetto. They pointed out a church where the Popes had forced the Jewish residents to attend compulsory Christian sermons every Sunday for hundreds of years. The practice lasted until 1848.
“Hon. Edward R. Jordan has issued an order barring Reyes from “exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion”.
Can he DO that?
I concur with those who noted the publicity aspect. That quite taints Mr. Reyes’ pious religious assertions. Perhaps I’m naive, but can one simply show up at any random church rectory and request an immediate baptism? Or would prior arrangements be required? If so, were members of clergy aiding and abetting Mr. Reyes’ violation of the court order?
“The slur is usually considered offensive both for its sexist and ethnic implications, however, some people self-identify themselves as Jewish American Princesses.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jewish+american+princess
As I said, it is offensive to some as a derisive stereotype, and I knew one Jewish woman who was a lawyer and a judge who would have found it very offensive.
I intend no offense. I am just trying to impart some information.
Vince,
You have your views and I have mine. We can agree to disagree on this issue. I found this on Wiki and it tends to be nonbias (if there can be such a thing).
Jewish-American Princess or JAP is a pejorative characterization of a subtype of Jewish-American women. The term implies materialistic and selfish tendencies, attributed to a pampered or wealthy background.
The stereotype is often (though not always) the basis for anti-Semitic jokes both inside and outside the Jewish community.[1] In recent years the term “JAP” has been re-appropriated by some Jewish women as a term of cultural identity, especially in areas with high-density Jewish populations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_princess
I have many friends and a few family members that are Jewish. I can go either way on this. I dated a female that was Jewish that became a Judge. I can’t say we are still friends though. lol. There was only one word and that was hers.
Rcampbell asked “can one simply show up at any random church rectory and request an immediate baptism? Or would prior arrangements be required? If so, were members of clergy aiding and abetting Mr. Reyes’ violation of the court order?”
No responsible Catholic priest would ever baptize a baby at random under any circumstances. The priest in the church would never baptize an infant without a thorough interview and interrogation of the parents, determining their authority and desire to baptize the infant, and their mutual promise to raise the child as a catholic.
No members of the clergy aided or abetted Reyes.
He performed the baptism himself.
If you watch a baptism, you will see a formal contractual agreement. The church agrees to wash away the infant’s original sin, and the parents make a solemn covenant to raise the child in the catholic religion. This is how the church perpetuates itself. It requires parents to imprint their children with their religion. It is how all religions maintain their membership.
Baptism, as JT and Mike Appleton will confirm from their seminary days, does not require a priest. Any Catholic can do it. The just pour the water and say the formal words, and the deed is done. Reyes used this loophole to baptize the child himself.
I have read that William F. Buckley Jr. discovered this doctrine and began baptizing all his friends by discretely sprinkling some water on them “accidentally” and murmuring the words barely audibly. A lot of old National Reviewers wound up as catholic converts.
There is a conflict here, but in our society the wishes of the lawful custodial parent govern. The judge CAN order the legal enforcement of those wishes.
Everyone has freedom of religion, but this guy wants the freedom to ram his religion down the throat of a defenseless child. Give me a break.
As a visitation parent, he might have had the right to expose the child to his religion, if he had not agreed otherwise. When he voluntarily became Jewish, he voluntarily adhered to their doctrine that all children born to a Jewish mother are Jewish. It is up to the courts to determine the facts and resolve the issue legally.
No one put a gun to the husband’s head. He voluntarily undertook an obligation for consideration, and the law is holding him to that commitment. He now claims that it was not voluntary. He was not married by a shotgun, for crying out loud!
This all works both ways. Mike and JT will also confirm that back in the days before Vatican II, the priests ABSOLUTELY refused to marry any Catholic to a non-Catholic unless the parties entered a solemn agreement to raise the children as Catholics. There are plenty of grown-up Catholics with a non-Catholic parent out there.
If this guy had wanted Catholic children, he should gotten himself married by a priest in a church, and should have secured an agreement that the children be raised as Catholics.
He took his Jewish baby
And against his ex’s wishes
Put her in a fountain
And started doing dishes
A ritual from ancient times
Practiced by John the Baptist
To cleanse the soul for Heaven
A spiritual crapfest
No angels have arrived on scene
To set the matter straight
But who is it that the father tempts
With his daughter as the bait?
++++
Would the same sentiment be expressed if his wife was a Scientologist, and he became a Scientologist in order to marry her, but after getting divorced he decided to return to his Catholic roots?
A young man in his thirty’s believed that he had never been baptized because that is what his parents told him. He decided when his infant child was baptized to receive the sacrament and the Protestant minister baptized them both. His parents attended the ceremony and enjoyed the party. As the minister was sprinkling water on his head, his paternal aunt leaned over and whispered in my ear, “We didn’t agree with the parents decision all those years ago and baptized him in secret when he was a baby … we never told anyone.”
People are nuts!
Anyone who doesnt think you could find a priest to baptist a child whos parent wants that child baptisted Catholic doesnt know much about Opus Die or the priests and religious orders that hang out around Mother Angelicas EWTN….while maybe not in the majority of priests there are many who are as medieval in there beliefs as the Muslims we so often hear about today…….And would consider it Gods work to do.
The kid’s life is going to be tough enough already, and his parent (s) is making a a public spectacle out of their legal battle out of it?! how disheartening..
if only the kid could pick which religion he would like to be apart of…
indoctrination of children is the problem.
~Teach kids all religions. Let the kid decide OR better yet, wait until the kid is old enough to legally consent.
let them have their choice without brainwashing from any guardians, elders, holy books, camps…
No indoctrination of children into any theism (christianity/islam/judaism/hinduism…ect), or deism, not even atheism* (<–* my personal definition of atheism: teaching that there are certainly No gods)
I seem to remember watching an interview with Marilu Henner where she stated that she did proxy baptisms for the Three Stooges. Weren’t they Jews?
The reason that the Mormons do such extensive genealogical research is that they perform proxy baptisms as well. You too could be a Mormon someday-but I don’t see the Celestial kingdom in your future.
I don’t get infant baptism anyway-I see no justification in scripture. I’ve seen a lot of infant dedications-which at least seems to be cut out of the Jewish model.
I wonder, would a judge get involved if a dad cut all his daughter’s hair off? Would he be charged with battery? What harm has been caused?
I predict her Jewishness will grow back.
My Jewish ex-mother-in-law threatened to be a no-show at my wedding if her son and I married in the Catholic church, and asked why I don’t just convert to Judaism. So, we married outside with a priest and a rabbi. She further had a fit when we decided to raise our child in both the Catholic and Jewish religions.
When we divorced, I decided to raise her in a secular home. Needless to say, the ex-mother-in-law as horrified, feeling my daughter would grow up to be a hot mess. Well, the kid is alright – probably one of the most well adjusted, thoughtful, and self-respecting teenagers I’ve ever come across.
Stories like this confirm that my decision was the right one.
so she can brainwash her child to be Jewish but he can’t do the same?
MJS, welcome. I’m a long time fan of your poetry and love your ‘Opinuary’ column too. ElaineM, a frequent contributor, is a writer of children’s books and biting, humorous political poetry so you’re in great company here.
At least for the local TV interviews, Reyes has the same attorney as accused-wife-killer, former cop Drew Peterson: Joel Brodsky.
I’m not a lawyer, but Brodsky appears to be a PR-crazed doofus. He and Peterson did a ton of media, which appears to have led to the Illinois Legislature passing a law to broaden what hearsay evidence can be admitted in cases like Peterson’s. (The law was unambiguously a response to the Peterson case(es).) It may turn out that the added hearsay evidence leads to the case being re-tried long in the future, but for now, it seems that Brodsky’s decision to go media-crazy has created a very bad situation for Peterson.
(This law broadening the admissibility of hearsay evidence seems like it will turn out to be a huge mess. It may well be overturned, which will screw up this and probably other cases. Plus, it seems that it would allow even more things like “jailhouse snitch” testimony, which is going in exactly the wrong direction in cleaning up capital cases.)
It may turn out that a judge doesn’t have the power to limit a parent exposing a child to a religion, but for the time being, Reyes looks like a real jerk for not only disregarding the order/agreement and baptizing the kid, but also sending the mother photos of the event. We’ll see of Joel Brodsky gets Reyes deeper into the poop with all this media attention.
MJS,
What lottakatz said.
Vince,
The Buckley story is simply hilarious. He’s comedy gold even from beyond the grave.
There are 50 comments on this story at the ABA website:
http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/article/law_student_charged_with_violating_tro_by_exposing_daughter_to_christianity
Garry Wills is the source of the story about the Buckleybaptisms:
“After he learned as a child that any Christian can baptize a person in need of salvation, he [Buckley] and Trish would unobtrusively rub water on visitors to their home while whispering the baptism formula. In the National Review circle, those who were not Catholics to begin with tended to enter the fold as converts—Bozell, Russell Kirk, Willmoore Kendall, Frank Meyer, William Rusher, Jeffrey Hart, M. Joseph Sobran, Marvin Liebman, Robert Novak, Richard John Neuhaus. The major holdouts were James Burnham, a born Catholic who left the faith and never went back, and Whittaker Chambers, who was drawn to Richard Nixon’s Quakerism. It was always easiest to be a Catholic around Bill. I believe Bill was so nice to me because I am what the Lutheran scholar Martin Marty called me, “incurably Catholic.” There were different concentrations of people at National Review—Yale alumni, ex-communists (Burnham, Meyer, Chambers), ex-CIA members (Bill, Burnham, Kendall, and Priscilla Buckley, another of Bill’s sisters)—but the Catholic contingent outnumbered all others.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/william-buckley
Sprinkling as a baptism method is NOT even in the new testament and if I were the baby’s mother I wouldn’t think anything of this “Baptism.” John the baptist actually baptized ADULTS by totally immersing them in water. Babies do not have original sin. The baby will not go to pergatory if she dies. Pergatory isn’t biblical.
“…Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” ~ Acts 2:38
Can a baby repent? No! Since the baby cannot speak, she cannot repent. Especially because the baby has nothing to repent for.
Now, if the father demanded my child go through Catholic school, then I’d be offended.
Most of us object to prisoners of war being water-boarded and other torture; certainly we should seek to prevent babies from being subjected to this. Regarding the religious education of a child: everyone should be entitled to a religious education. That is an education in the nature of all religions to the point where the child would be able to choose their preference at some time as they mature.
this is awful……
What a horrible thing to do to a baby/child/offspring.
Shame on the father. If he read his bible he should have known he wasn’t supposed to marry outside his faith.
Richard:
We have the right to teach our children our faith as much as they have the right that we feed, clothe, and house them for perhaps decades.
The court decides what is in the best interest of the child, and is not interested in promoting one religion over the other. The father’s use of the child as a pawn in a power struggle is not in the child’s interest.
This is not a unique situation. It is happens all the time in divorce over many issues that once seemed settled when the couple had been together. Family court judges are very familiar with this kind of behavior.