(via)
Recent Comments
- bogga: I’ve got just lately began a blog, the info you offer here has helped me personally... on Here We Go Again
- Rich: Well, if you limit reality to what can be seen, you might have a point. on Case For a Creator?
- Rich: @ Theory_of_I, dmantis, Kodie, Ursa Minor, Custador, Jabster. All I am attempting to do... on Case For a Creator?
- Jus: But you are not able to understand that these things are wrong… No, I do... on John Piper and Divine Command
- TrickQuestion: I will propose this to you then, Rich. Things are designed by someone(thing)... on Case For a Creator?
- Jabster: @Custy Why are you posts appearing out of order … that’s more... on John Piper and Divine Command
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
Ugh. The children would be better off with Dad. “Mom” is obviously indoctrinating the kids into the death-cult.
I hope the ACLU get on this and rip the judge a new one…
This is the kind of crap that really pisses me off. :~(
So being a sane man can get your kids taken away? That is crazy.
This is very sad, is flat-out wrong. My heart goes out to this father who obviously loves and misses his children very much.
We only have his side to go on but it sounds like the mother has a grudge over something and her or her lawyer was sneaky enough to use the agnosticism as a crowbar to push the judge over to their side. The idea that him no longer being a Christian stopped them communicating effectively says at the very least as much about the mother as it does about him, and given what I know of Christianity and agnosticism, I’d wager if there actually is a communication issue and it’s not just an excuse to stick the knife in, she’s the one who is vastly more likely to have the problem.
I’d like to hear more. When something this outrageous surfaces we’re usually not getting the whole story.
While I agree, it’s really not uncommon for parents to use religion as a weapon in custody cases, especially when the parents are of different religions, and there is a dispute over which religion to raise the children in.
At this point, all we can do is wait and see.
Example: http://www.denverfamilylawyerblog.com/2010/05/growing-number-of-child-custody-disputes-involve-religious-issues.shtml
We’re not getting the whole story – but from this video, they had shared equal custody up to 4 years, and had gotten along while he professed to also be a Christian. If it is relevant to the new custody arrangement that his agnosticism has something to do with it, it is listed in the transcript. This is being reported by a news station – which to me is the most unbelievable thing I think I have ever seen on this site – who might have dug into it a little deeper, being journalists, and saw that he was some sort of drug addict or something that would impede his ability to parent equally with his ex-wife. I tend not to trust the local news to report thoroughly, but in a case where a parent’s custody was reduced drastically due to agnosticism (on the agnostic/father’s rights side) is an amazing thing for a news affiliate to report all by itself without looking for the catch.
Or it could be that the mother is a hyper-religious control freak, and making a mountain out of a molehill.
That’s my intuition. It’s not that it’s impossible for there to be a greater reason this man no longer shares equal custody of his children, it’s just that I feel a news organization, even if they are lax in the investigative portion of their assignment, tend to go like the rest of the country. I can’t believe they would report on the air an agnostic man has lost equal custody of his children due to his agnosticism. I mean, I guess I could see how they would do it with more of an angle to how evil he must be, but this report does not do that. It supports the man’s struggles, which is surprising to me. It would seem to me if they had any dirt on him, they would have reported it, they wouldn’t have rested until they found some evidence how his lack of Christian belief affected other areas of effective parenting negatively. It’s not just the ex-wife who has demonized him; I think the station would have felt obligated to demonize him if they could, and, barring any other information on why he might be a bad father, I’m assuming they can’t.
Where is this from? What state/city?
My wingnut-sense is tingling. I’m willing to bet the ex-wife (who is an EX for a REASON) belongs to a weird cult of some kind, and is trying to isolate the kids in order to brainwash them.
I live close to Anderson, IN and I cannot say I am surprised. The white-conservative-bible belt is a scary place to be a non-christian.
Unfortunately, being a Judge doesn’t mean you are sane or that you understand the law. It just means you can run a campaign and get elected.
Judges are elected in your state?
Yes, in Indiana our judges are supposedly answerable to the voting public. Unfortunately, it has been my personal experience here in Indiana that if you are a man in any divorce or custody hearing, you are assumed guilty until proven innocent. The exact opposite is true for women it seems, based upon my own experience. If she is not a slut, a working whore, or a drug dealer a woman can get away with about anything in the Indiana Court System regarding child custody.
That is universal. Judges always go with the mom. Always. It’s really, really sexist in the courts. The same is true with rape cases. Women are considered to be pure and Victorian, so they would never dream of lying. Also, a woman’s job is to raise kids, so clearly they should have custody.
I really hate most judges because of this very reason.
That’s not true in rape cases at all. Conviction rates are appallingly low and many women have their sexual history dragged into public as the defence try to prove they are just sluts who were asking for it.
Yeah, the rape comment was very erroneous. As JohnMWhite said, not only are the conviction rates very low, but studies have found that more often than not, the juries not only come into courts with a presumption the woman is lying, but some don’t even consider certain acts rape.
So, in reality, it’s your view of “oh my God! Won’t someone please think of the man!” that gets the upper hand in the courts.
Wouldn’t want to ruin the rest of his life or anything.
Actually, the rape comment wasn’t entirely false. On the one hand, you are right that conviction rates are very low (though this is in part because it is often very hard or impossible to prove anything). However, they are even lower for cases of men being raped (though I imagine underreporting is a bigger problem here). Furthermore, in the case of statutory rape, the law itself is often quite sexist.
Judge Pancol will be up for re-election is 2012, since i live in Madison County, ill be voting against him. Also Thegoodman, I live in Pendleton which is the next town over from Anderson, certainly not a place you would call liberal but i have never felt scared to be an atheist here. Most people just dont care, most. Some do though. My high school was full of atheists and agnostics. Even a few teachers. We were certainly a minority though.
I’ve not followed this story closely but you’re almost surely getting only one side. See the following:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/11/losing_custody_due_to_agnostic.php
…Another article suggests that there’s a bit more to it than that:
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).”
The order does not say that Scarberry was abusive or negligent toward the children….
Oh no! Not profanity!
*clutches pearls*
Obviously the profanity happened because he’s agnostic now – no Christian would ever swear. And given the other bullshit in this case, I wouldn’t be surprised if “failed to control or manage his anger” boils down to saying “dammit!” when stubbing his toe.
Outside of this particular case, I’m always surprised that things which would not cause the state to take away your children if a couple is still married will cause a judge to deem one parent more fit than the other. Parents have to be extremely unacceptable to have their children taken away, but are measured differently for custody… is this thinking more of an agenda for a stable residence for a child and weighing which parent can provide, between the two, better attitudes and conditions for the child? They usually don’t seem to deny contact with the other parent, which seems to me they value that relationship and trust enough that 4 hours a week and every other weekend, he is not terrible enough to deny visitation altogether. I guess I am getting back into the particulars of this case, but 4 hours a week and every other weekend demonstrates to me they think he is fit enough to be alone with them long enough there is no really good reason it can’t be longer, like full half. I don’t really see the basis of deciding his fitness is about 5 out of every 30 days, ~18% good enough to parent, based on his anger management and religious apathy. I don’t figure, it’s either zero or 50 unless either parent really doesn’t have the schedule, e.g., one is a trucker away for weeks at a time, etc., and voluntarily cuts their ability to devote to the raising of the children, or feels like worse parent. If the “better” parent had died, they wouldn’t have that child with strangers 82% of the year and limit the worse to stand at 18. The state is rather lenient on how you raise your kids.
I don’t have a lot of up in my face experience with this, but my sister is going through a separation and her ex has asserted to have 50% custody arranged so that he doesn’t have to pay child support, and she agreed. Within a few years, his parents will retire to their location, and he doesn’t really want to raise him, he just doesn’t think paying child support is worth it. In this case, as far as I know, they both suck, ok, and I can’t believe my sister rolled over on this, but I do not see her as a more fit parent – comparatively, her ex sounds like a douche who is going to get all the free help he can from his mom and not have to put in the labor and attention his son needs from his father anyway. Their son just turned 18 months, and is living one week here, one week there for now.
Wait, so now you are telling me the man is a strident profane agnostic? OH GOD NO.
At least he’s not an atheist, though.
Give him time .. he will see the light (and no NOT on the road to Damascus you strange fantasy worshiping people…)
Even if this isn’t the whole story, his beliefs should not even enter into the equation. This is exactly why I am very careful to not let my ex know I am an atheist; you never know how that information will influence a judge.
I am pleased that though I am a long-time resident of the USA I hail from a country where religion is not considered the be all and end all of everything – indeed England / Britain are now recognised as the least religious places in the West – of course this has resulted in mass murder, street corner rapes by the dozen, Mexican organised drug cartels, Satanism and.. oh.. hang on.. it has a lower murder total as a COUNTRY than most large American cities, it does not have pan handlers on every freeway on ramp, it has universal healthcare and high academic success without school metal detectors! It also regularly elects openly gay and openly lesbian and openly atheist people to parliament and has a very vocal attitude to religion – keep it to yourself!
Goes to show what a healthy dose of atheism and critical thinking can accomplish?
I am so sorry that in this country we cannot openly be what we are, we must instead keep OUR truths quiet to allow the weirdoes with their mysogynistic God all the air time!
Pingback: Father Loses Custody Of Child Because He’s Agnostic | Miscellanea Agnostica